Another 'Gem' from Greg - just released. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

drgondog

Major
9,527
6,125
Jun 28, 2006
Scurry, Texas
Greg apparently had his feelings hurt by me regarding 'contrarian' views on his P-47 series regarding range, and now his recent 'breathless' breaking news about Fokker being the real engineering and production cadre that built P-51.

I am banned

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWr50TP0CWc&t=4169s

For those that can wade into 58 minute region I am referred to as 'butt hurt' author trying to prop up sales.

The posts that lurched me into the evildooer image was a point by point fact citation for reasons the P-47 was Not held back from true place of glory on the first Schweinfurt mission.

But the posts that apparently put me into the evildooer/must be banned penalty box was a point by point rebuttal of his conclusions that NAA could ONLY have built the Mustang with heritage Fokker team acquired by General Motors team, then named General Aviation Manufacturing Corp.

His conclusion; Edgar Schmued was Fokker Design, someone I don't know (and not on NAA org chart) was the production genius and Van Breese was responsible for NAA test group - all Fokker in his words - and were the catalysts for North American ascension as a builder of airplanes. He did note that a couple of executives came from Douglas in a passing swipe.

Those (unmentioned) execs were Kindelberger (former VP of Engineering at Douglas - and daddy of DC-1 and DC-2), Atwood (Asst Chief of Engineering at Douglas and Chief of Structures), Smithson (Chief of Production) along with Ray Rice.
Atwood became Chief, Engineering at NAA, Rice joined later as Asst Chief of Engineering and Smithson became VP Production. This is mid 1934 Mangement team first at GAMC, then NAA on Jan 1 1935.

Sadly Greg has no clue regarding actual operations at Fokker when GAMC was formed, nor understanding what was important when the F.10 crash killed Knute Rockne in early 1931.

Apparently he believes that Fokker was leading Fokker Atlantic engineering that designed the F.10 to compete with Ford Tri-motor - not so. Robert Noorduyn who came to US with Fokker in 1921, left Fokker in 1929. Apparently Greg believes that Edgard Schmued developed his talent as an engineer under the tutelage of Fokker Engineers. Not so, Schmued was hired just as Fokker resigned after Rockne crash. The new Chief's of engineering replacements were first Thaden from Pittsburgh Aircaft, renamed Metalaire in 1931 and acquired by GAMC in 1931.

The Department of Commerce - Aeronautical Division as a result of Rockne crash investigation issued edict concerning comercial passenger aircraft. No more wooded structural members for flight safety (F-10 deemed to have failed due to rotted wood wing spar).

At this moment in time there were several F.10 and F-8 Universal still on the line that were sold offshore. The Fokker XO-27 was flying with several orders for YO-27 nad one request for bomber version XB-7 - which Schmued worked on as first assignment. ALL Fokker designs and production airframes were of wood spar with plywood covered wings, steel tube and linen fuselages.

The Thaden T-2 and T-4 were welded tube metal covered fuselage with steel truss spar/linen covered wing now being built by Pittsburgh Aircraft when acquired by GAMC. The Pilgrim 150 was a low cantilever, steel tube, alclad covered wing plus steel tube structure, Alclad fuselage.

The second new boss was Virginius Clark (Clark Y airfoil) and former Chief, Engineering that designed the Fairchild-American Pilgrim 150. The boss and the Pilgrim 150 came in December 1931 - to replace Thaden. The 150 was assigned GA-43. It first flew May 1932. There wil be more on this later if you can stay awake.

By end of 1931, all metal single and twin engine aircraft are flying or on the Drawing Board. Included are B-9, Boeing Model 200, Douglas DC-1 and Boeing 247. GAMC ses the handwriting on the wall - which is why Fokker is not only effectively DOA for future design in commercial aircraft due to lack of inhouse expertise in either sheet metal fabrication or aerodynamics, or airframe structure analytic for these new technologies.

Compare Fokker F.10 to the soon to be introduced Douglas DC-1. The DC-1 could take off an fly on one engine. ALL Alclad stressed skin construction, twin engines, 10 passenger, flaps, and retractable landing gear.

But a little bit about NAA. It was a Holding company specializing in commercial air transport companies and airframe manufacturers. It acquired Eastern Airlines, Curtis Aircraft, SperyGyroscope. 40% Douglas Aircraft, then Berliner Joyce Aircraft, then GAMC. When NAA acquired GAMC, it consolidated three plants to one at Dundalk MD with approximately 150-200 employees remaining - then in turn was acquired by GM and divested of all commercial airlines save Eastern Airlines.

Summary, end of 1934.
All Teteboro Fokker/GAMC/Pittsburgh Aircraft aircraft had been completed, delivered, shut down.
American Pilgram 150/GAMC GA-43 completed at Dundalk as first actual NAA aircraft produced.
Berliner Joyce new development complete, only new orders for SOC-1 & -2 steel, welded floats are in production.

Senior management team execs Kindelberger (CEO), Atwood (Chief Engineering), Smithson (VP Production), Bowen (Production Engineer and future X73 project manager, then Asst Plant Manager at new Dallas Plant), Hansen (Chief Project Enginering) - ALL from Douglas Aircraft

Key Managers and future key employees Rice (Asst Chief, Engineering) - Douglas Aircraft, Schlecher (Chief, Airframe structures) and Baldwin (Project Engineer) and Rudd (tool & die maker who rose to VP&Gen Mgr NAA Columbus Div) came from Berliner Joyce. Schmued (Preliminary Design engineer at acquisition by NAA (GAMC)

Summary-
Every design produced by NAA from XO-47 (GA-15) and BT-9 (NA-16) through XB-21, BC-1, Export Fighter NA-44, AT-6, NA-40, B-25, P-51 were led by Atwood through 1939, Rice thereafter. Douglas origins.

Schmued became Chief, Preliminary Design in 1939 wth first effort the P-509/X73. The project team was matrixed but still in Rice's Engineering department.

The Production quality was driven by Kindelberger with focus on speed, quality and ever decreasing Cost. Smithson and imbedded project engineers worked closely with Design with an eye towards actual process, and process flow.

Schmued's genius were two fold. A superb intuitive feel for aerodynamic shape and ability to pick/lead and manage a preliminary design team to a schedule the preliminary designs.
Schmued also the driver for the development and implementation of Projective Geometry of applied conical sections. He pushed, Roy Liming constructed the application to the Lofting developments.

Additional Oddities
Nothing from Fokker related to manufacturing excellence, specifically not 'butt joint quality production that Greg cites as reason speed advantage over Spitfire. Curiously he didn't mention wing or Meredith effect as 'other reasons' for performance but all those lay at feet of Smithson, and Rudd including flush rivet passion and development of 7075 skin deelopment and techniques later. Nothing from Fokker instituted filling, sealing, priming and painting wing to achieve surface quality independent of butt joint construction.

Nothing from Fokker instructed Ed horkey, Ashkenas, Beerer (all Cal Tech grads) in the fine art of airfoil development, aerodynamics, performance analyss or Meredith effect cooling system design - the latter a far larger difference maker than butt joint construction.

Nothing from Fokker introduced alclad sheet stress panel analysis and design that was cornerstone of NAA quality and strength.

Greg cites Van Breese as one of the Fokker trained giants that vaulted the Mustang into glory?

Well, interesting that Van Breesehad his own aircraft company 1927-1934. Breese Aircraft Company. last operating at Mines Field. He co-designed the Vultee V-1. Was bought out during the Vultee consilidation. He DID consult with Fokker Netherlands as a Demonstrator test pilot for Various Fokker designs attempting to gain a foothold in 1937. From that approximate time he was basically a full time test pilot and consultant including a stint with NAA in 1939/40 for the NA-44 and then 73X

Now for the other side of the ledger.

The rapidity and excellence of the first big success of NAA Design - the NA-16 BT-9 - had a large contingent of Dutch speaking shop team that worked 18x7 to get the prototpe done in time to win against Seversky. While the GA-43 was largely GAMC (Pilgrim) workers, the BT-9 was welded steel tube fuselage and fabric covering for fuselage and wing - right in the strike zone for the surviving Fokker (and Berliner Joyce) cadre that made the trip to Dundalk.

If anyone feels like stirring up some stuff in Greg's new video, you have my permssion to cut and paste. Warning - you may get banned.

Sincerely,

Butthurt
 
Last edited:
I sat through most of it not too long ago and found the nonmention of Kindelberger very surprising. It's funny how he uncovers all these "secrets" 80 years later that have eluded all the experts -- including those who were there ...
Thumpa - I had the same reaction upon first listening to the "P-51 Mustang video" about a month ago. My comments and 'corrections' were certainly the reason for banning me. Kindelberger and the team he brought from Douglas (Atwood, Rice, - Engineering, Smihson - Production and Hansen - Project Engineering/Production Liaison) were at the core of every project sales, design and product that went out th door from 1936 forward.

I loved Edgar Schmued and consider him a great design leader - but his 'gift' was shape/form conceptually and abilty to draw a preliminary design team from the engineering group - then manage it. He hadnothing to do with either the design of the wing or the design of the meredith based cooling system. Those kudos belong to Horkey and the Tech team that he selected. In terms of broad and deep technical knowledge he wasn't near as deep as Johnson, Kartveli, or Tank/Messerschmitt (or Atwood).

I noticed that the 'likes' are at the same level as four weeks ago and perhaps he felt the need to establish some form of superiority over a 'butt hurt' author claiming he (Greg) was wrong on so many levels. Bad for business, I suppose. Best to quiet down constructive criticism of presented 'claims'.

If you listen to the new one, beginning near 56+ minutes, he doubles down on the Fokker narrative and then doubles down on the P-47 range issue being entirely the fault of the AAF. What amused me the most on that one is that he dismissed my issue with the 205 gal tank being limited by altitude to carrying only 100 useful gallons based on limits above 18000 feet - again. This time he pointed out that all they (P-47 escort groups) had to do was cruise at 10,000 feet to use all 200 gallons and get even better cruise performance.

Never once thought what he was saying. Cruise at 15K UNDER the bombers they have to escort????

Why didn't I think about that?
 
Last edited:
I have a fundamental problem with this. Logging on to this guys videos and arguing the toss with him provides him with revenue. Nothing will get changed because controversy creates views and more revenue. Same for hi side kick "Caliban rising". BTW drgondog drgondog , has he ever cited your book as a source, I believe one of those two has, but I cant be certain which?
 
I have a fundamental problem with this. Logging on to this guys videos and arguing the toss with him provides him with revenue. Nothing will get changed because controversy creates views and more revenue. Same for hi side kick "Caliban rising". BTW drgondog drgondog , has he ever cited your book as a source, I believe one of those two has, but I cant be certain which?
Caliban has cited my (our) book favorably. Greg has nominted me as a butt hurt author trying to boost sales.
 
you may get banned.
Ha haa!!! i got you there. I cant be banned twice!!!

Fokker in the 1930-40 as in metal skin.. or high power engines even in design on the back of a table cloth. Anthony is having a big laugh.
 
Ha haa!!! i got you there. I cant be banned twice!!!

Fokker in the 1930-40 as in metal skin.. or high power engines even in design on the back of a table cloth. Anthony is having a big laugh.
The saddest part of the debate is that mostly Fokker Netherlands designed and built the Fokker Atlantic single and first tri engine passenger plane. Fokker was clearly a designer and innovator pre- and during WWI but selling primarily for Fokker Netherlands in US. That said Noorduyn was seemingly credited with the variation of Fokker F.VII to Fokker Universal and with Fokker Atlantic F-10 three engine airliner -and he left Fokker in 1929. In those later years before Rockne crash, Anthony Fokker was building - not designing.

I may be a little fuzzy on the exact details but believe that only a few Universals and F.10 were still being built in 1930-31 and only the XO-27, YO-27 had a short run 1930-1931. After that only the twin engine PJ-1 Arcturus was delivered in 1933? Does anyone know if the steel hull on that was built atTeteboro - or Netherlands?
 
I sat through most of it not too long ago and found the nonmention of Kindelberger very surprising. It's funny how he uncovers all these "secrets" 80 years later that have eluded all the experts -- including those who were there ...
I stopped watching his channel pretty much after reading the comments on his P-47 conspiracy video here. He sounds factual to someone as ignorant as myself. If I'm gonna' sit through techno babble, it had better be correct.
I do like his video on "yes, the Wright Brothers did indeed invent HTL flight".
 
Thumpa - I had the same reaction upon first listening to the "P-51 Mustang video" about a month ago. My comments and 'corrections' were certainly the reason for banning me. Kindelberger and the team he brought from Douglas (Atwood, Rice, - Engineering, Smihson - Production and Hansen - Project Engineering/Production Liaison) were at the core of every project sales, design and product that went out th door from 1936 forward.

I loved Edgar Schmued and consider him a great design leader - but his 'gift' was shape/form conceptually and abilty to draw a preliminary design team from the engineering group - then manage it. He hadnothing to do with either the design of the wing or the design of the meredith based cooling system. Those kudos belong to Horkey and the Tech team that he selected. In terms of broad and deep technical knowledge he wasn't near as deep as Johnson, Kartveli, or Tank/Messerschmitt (or Atwood).

I noticed that the 'likes' are at the same level as four weeks ago and perhaps he felt the need to establish some form of superiority over a 'butt hurt' author claiming he (Greg) was wrong on so many levels. Bad for business, I suppose. Best to quiet down constructive criticism of presented 'claims'.

If you listen to the new one, beginning near 56+ minutes, he doubles down on the Fokker narrative and then doubles down on the P-47 range issue being entirely the fault of the AAF. What amused me the most on that one is that he dismissed my issue with the 205 gal tank being limited by altitude to carrying only 100 useful gallons based on limits above 18000 feet - again. This time he pointed out that all they (P-47 escort groups) had to do was cruise at 10,000 feet to use all 200 gallons and get even better cruise performance.

Never once thought what he was saying. Cruise at 15K UNDER the bombers they have to escort????

Why didn't I think about that?

In listening to his channel -- and I've listened to a bit of it -- the warning sign for me is his devotion to agenda. I don't have the tech knowledge to shoot him down on this or that point, but I know when I hear it how someone has a point to prove first and then picks facts to support that. That's why I didn't bother to watch his jeremiad about P-47 range; even the title of that vid gave away his bias.

I lack the knowledge to refute this or that point he makes, I really do. But I am pretty able to smell when someone is selling me a line. And I've heard him make enough mistakes that I see him like Wiki -- perhaps useful, but definitely check references, for my money. Especially when he bans folk who don't agree, that's a sure sign of a brittle mind.
 
Caliban has cited my (our) book favorably. Greg has nominted me as a butt hurt author trying to boost sales.

I was able to have a direct conversation with Caliban on his P-51 video where he explicitly tells people to watch Greg's legendary range video. I give him credit for being willing to listen but it hasn't been enough for him to fix it or release a correction (that I've seen).
 
Greg - 'butthurt' here. Your fetish for finding clues to Fokker being source of North American is - almost - sad.

First Schmued never worked for Fokker, he came to GAMC at the same time that A.Fokker resigned. Maximum time A. Fokker was Chief, Engineering was at most a matter of weeks before Fokker resigned after Rockne crash. He only worked for Thaden, who replaced Fokker via GAMC acquisition of Pittsburg Aircraft, also very briefly until end of1931. Then Schmued worked for Virginius Clark via GAMC acquisition of the Fairchild Pilgrim, and was the Chief, Design of the Pilgrim 150, renamed GA-43. Then Schmued worked for Lee Atwood (Via Douglas).

Pause - what did Schmued learn from Anthony Fokker? BTW -source Design of the P-51 Mustang by Edgar Schmued.

You mention Douglas Aircraft in very low key as WWII era Executives- why did you not mention that when Keys formed North American, one of his purchases was 25% of Douglas stock - which you never mentioned. You think that it was an accident that the CEO (former VP Engineering, the Chief of Engineering (Atwood), the VP of Production all came to GAMC from Douglas when all manufacturing were consolidated at Dundalk (not a 'Fokker' related plant - but was Berliner Joyce). I may be incorrect in this, but IIRC 'old' Fokker/GAMC produced Nothing but PJ-1 Arcturus (5?) after 1932. Even Berliner Joyce produced more.

To refresh your understanding - the management and organization of the approximate 200 old and new North Ameican Team started mid 1934 - Not WWII.What were the vast ex- Fokker plant specialists doing in 1932/1934? What was your alleged sheet metal shop foreman doing at Fokker to refine his skills. When A.Fokker left GAMC it was all wood,steel tube, linen and dope. Only 75 (of all former subs) made the move to Inglewood.

In this video you briefly mention the 'WWII executives coming from all over the industry' - the point I made was that the leadership, the technical team critical to All design ventures such as Chief of Design, Airframe Structures, Chief of Production, Chief of Project Management - and individual contributors recruited by them - Came dominantly from Douglas Aircraft, then Berliner Joyce, then Edgar Schmued - who learned nada from A.Fokker.

For contrast in design and manufacturing skills, care to compare Fokker F.10 to either Douglas DC-1 or DC-2 or even the GA-43 from Pilgim acquisition.I don't recall the name you cited as the production foreman of Fokker note. Could you please detail his achievements at Fokker (or even GAMC) in designing process plans for all alclad stressed, riveted panels, monocoque fuselage, steel truss and aluminum main spar, construct fuselage and wing sheet metal skins carefully flush riveted and butt joints? Kinda like DC-1 and DC-2?

Where again do you propose your gentleman gained his knowledge? If GA-43, that prototype was acquired through Fairchild Pilgim Aircraft along with Virginius Clark in December 1931 (after Fokker gone for 8 months). The Pilgrim 150 prototype was built and flown at Farmingdale May 1932, not Teteboro,

Ah, Van Breese. If you do fundamental research, you will note that he formed and ran his own aircraft company 1927 through 1934. Tell us again about the Anthony Fokker connection?Prove me wrong.

Now to the great P-47 debate about combat radius. You do know that REPUBLIC produced the 205 gal Ferry tank. Not US industry. You obviusly don't know that the issue with slow arrival with combat tanks was Not Bomber Mafia or industrial capacity but the timeline to issue RFP for combat tanks, receive prototyes, test, redsign, re-test and receive production contracts. Materiel Command was not well led, but to ascribe indifference to the deaths of bomber crews is just slanderous.

You do know that the 75 gallon combat tank arrived, along with P--39 60 gallon tanks in late July - but not enough for Schweinfurt-Regenburgh on August 17th. You don't know that Eakers plea for long range P-38 and P-51 in June was met by Arnold re-directing 20th and 55th FG from MTO to ETO - which arrived in August BEFORE Schweinfurt mission.The two P-38FGs were not ready for combat but nevertheless re-directed because of KNOWN limitations to P-47 range.

You know that the 110 gal combat tank arrived in September - in time for the second Schweinfurt mission? And used - to just barely get to Aachen on France/German border? Just barely farther than the 205 gal (half filled), but functioning for full 100% drain at 25,000 feet? You say Bomber Mafia at fault? Why couldn't the P-47C/D proceed farther?

The answer my fine fellow is that they DIDN'T have ENOUGH INTERNAL FUEL !! You have been corrected often on this subject by very knowledgable Pilot Chris Fahey (F-16, Planes of Fame, Delta Captain) with BA History UCLA. That the P-47B, C and all D's up to D-15 were not designed and produced, belongs in Kartveli's court. AAF didn't design the P-47 or build them.

Additionally 'Somebody' at Republic refused to devote design time to increase internal fuel (until P-47D-25 May 1944 w/56thFG). The P-47D didn't even have ability for wing drop tanks until P-47D-15 in Feb 1944. Both the P-38 and Mustang had fuel feed and external tank/bomb racks in PRODUCTION in 1942. Both had major fuselage tankage via kits in November 1943. You suppose that is why the P-47 was marked for fire sale in early 1944 to 9th AF as P-51B/C production replaced Group after Group P-47s - beginning February 1944.

Prove me wrong.

What I said was - it wasn't about AAF-Hq desire to obtain the extra range. The failure belonged to Material Command to issue priority 1 to issue RFP, accept prototype, test them (retest for 150gal self sealed) and place into production. George Kenney was furious with REPUBLIC for failure to deliver range of P-47 in mid 1943. Pause.

Bomber mafia did exist in context that strategic bombing capablity remained #1 priority due critical budget crunch in1931 through 1938, when AAC fighting for future USAF independent of Army, but not the cause of long range escort issues via external tankage - lay that first on Oliver Echols at Material Command then second on Kartveli who was not as far seeing as Atwood/Schmued and Johnson at Lockheed. What you don't seem to comprehend is that if daylight bombing FAILED, there was no more real reason for AAF to not be under control of Army. The Bomber Mafia drum beat as Schweinfurt misson escort failure cause is just ignorance.

SummaryThe AAF-Hq directive to all US producers to increase fuel (internal/external) came from February 1942 Arnold Fighter Conference.

One Month after Pearl Harbor. Before 8th AF was formed.

The directive to prioritize 1500 mi Pursuit #1 (by Arnold) came nearly two years before Pearl Harbor. North American listened, Lockheed listened. Republic missed the memo.Republic, North American, Lockheed, Curtiss and Bell all got the memo in Feb 1942. Who responded? Who didn't. Which two fighters hit the ground running with Long Range escort? Answer - wasn't Republic.

The issues with Bowater paper tanks produced in England were that they fell apart after 4-6 hours - and deemed a safety hazard (By Materiel Command). That said, the range extension delivered by US produced 110 gal tank was still grossly inadequate for a Schwinfurt raid - as duly noted when 60 B-17s were carved out when P-47 were 'no-show' - again.

A 500 gallon tank, independent of ability to hang, would not have made enough difference simply because the required use of internal fuel to start, warm up, take off, form flight into squadrons, into the battle group - then switch to external until dry, then switch to internal to continue cruise as they Ess back and forth ove the slow moving bomber stream, then fight, then fly back in a straight line.

Your high school level understanding of how combat radius tables are developed, lacks understanding that 1.) Calculated Radius assumes single ship mission profile of climb, cruise, fight, cruise, loiter and land - on a straight line, but 2.) does not attempt to integrate the necessity of escorting at the pace of the bomber boxes usually by S manuever at a higher cruise speed than optimum., and 3.) does not take into account adverse conditions affecting mission planning such as head winds, weather, etc. which leads to another rather clueless comment regarding the 205 gal ferry tank.

Your crowning declaration about the altitude limitation for the 205gal tank - 'Why that's simple. Cruise at 10,000 feet where better cruise performance is possible until ALL 205 gals are used up'. Thats nice - who is 56th/78th and 353rd escorting at 10,000 feet? at 6okts below clean cruise configuration? I suppose they could stalk the bomber stream from 15000 feet below. I suppose that the relay system is also well executed - at 10-15K below the bomber stream? You mentioned in your video that being bounced from above in a low energy state is a 'bad thing. You are finally issuing learned truth.

You used this forum as an ad hominum attack on me, that's OK. Mis-quoting me entirely is a sad manuever when you know you don't have to face a blizzrard of facts. Have the grace to really research the practice of developing Combat Radius vs how it was applied in ETO combat operations and weather conditions. For you - just pick up and read USAF Study 136 "Development of Long Range Escort" by Boylon - about 600 pages incl citations.

After you finish reading that, have the grace to admit that you don't know as much about these subjects as you think?

Regards,'ButtHurt Author" James William (Bill) MarshallPS - I'm flattered that you read my book. Where are those mistakes you refer to? We're looking at a 2nd printing.








Reply









z8mLGgMyUuLQ12Lnnns8EZ9Q=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj.jpg

@allanroser1070

 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back