Best Procurement Efforts of the War - F6F and P-51?

[NevadaK]

Greetings All,

Over the years I have become interested in how the procurement efforts of each nation affected the outcome of the war and would like two propose that the procurement of the F6F Hellcat and the P-51, while different, represent the most outstanding examples for aircraft.

This is not an observation about design and engineering, but how the procuring agency's involvement led to an outstanding aircraft in relatively little time and needless design revision.

Your thoughts? Are there better examples?

Regards,

Kk

 

[pbehn]

The procurement of the P-51 was heaven sent serendipity. It happened almost by accident.

 

[NevadaK]

The procurement of the P-51 was heaven sent serendipity. It happened almost by accident.

Agreed

I do think that there are couple things that standout about the P-51. First, a "give us your best" solicitation and then leaving that to the manufacturer rather than providing a ton of oversight during initial design and second, the procurement of the re-engineering to the merlin/packard. The second was really an opportunity where a poorly managed procurement process could have turned the P-51 into a dog through additional performance/mission criteria.

 

[SaparotRob]

Would the Lockheed P-80 qualify?
It was delivered in less than the 180 day promise date. It sort of, kind of made it to the front before the end of hostilities. It did evolve into an outstanding trainer.

 

[pbehn]

Agreed

I do think that there are couple things that standout about the P-51. First, a "give us your best" solicitation and then leaving that to the manufacturer rather than providing a ton of oversight during initial design and second, the procurement of the re-engineering to the merlin/packard. The second was really an opportunity where a poorly managed procurement process could have turned the P-51 into a dog through additional performance/mission criteria.

There were a lot of things had to have happened in very narrow time windows to allow it to happen on both sides of the Atlantic, all sorts could have made it a "what if" of history. It needed the NACA profiles it used to exist, for NA to not be building P-40s already, for the British to take a risk on NA designing better than the P-40 and then NA doing just that. It needed the British to be short of fighters in the first place, and the neutral USA government to consent to supply. It needed many engine programmes to fail in UK and the Merlin to be adopted for most fighters and bombers. Then it needed the British to order Merlins built by Packard and that Merlin to fit in the P-51 without huge modification. I am not at all religious but get a feeling of destiny in the story, so many unlikely things were needed for it to happen it probably shouldn't have but did. On the other side of the pond the Mosquito is a similarly unlikely tale.

 

[NevadaK]

Would the Lockheed P-80 qualify?
It was delivered in less than the 180 day promise date. It sort of, kind of made it to the front before the end of hostilities. It did evolve into an outstanding trainer.

Greetings SaparotRob,

I had to do some reading up on the P-80. It sounds like the procurement side was a bit of a mixed bag. Initially, the XP-80 looks like a pretty good affair with the exception of engine availability and the plane was really well liked by the test pilots, the transition from the XP-80 to the P-80a seems like more of a mess and didn't get sorted out for a bit. It certainly was a successful airframe for some time, but I think it took a while to get there. I'm sure others have more knowledge than me.

Kk

 

[NevadaK]

There were a lot of things had to have happened in very narrow time windows to allow it to happen on both sides of the Atlantic, all sorts could have made it a "what if" of history. It needed the NACA profiles it used to exist, for NA to not be building P-40s already, for the British to take a risk on NA designing better than the P-40 and then NA doing just that. It needed the British to be short of fighters in the first place, and the neutral USA government to consent to supply. It needed many engine programmes to fail in UK and the Merlin to be adopted for most fighters and bombers. Then it needed the British to order Merlins built by Packard and that Merlin to fit in the P-51 without huge modification. I am not at all religious but get a feeling of destiny in the story, so many unlikely things were needed for it to happen it probably shouldn't have but did. On the other side of the pond the Mosquito is a similarly unlikely tale.

There were a lot of factors that had to go just right, but maybe this happens fairly regularly if we look for those kind of occurrences. To me, the request for design, was a significant factor in how the plane evolved. It was pretty simple and wasn't written to try and advance technology, but was really a "give us your best design" solicitation. In modern terms, its similar to the competitions that led to the F-16 and F-22. Both were structured around well defined missions and left to the engineering teams to outcompete each other. The F-35 on the other hand, had many overlays of multiple mission performance and technology advancement that continue to impact the development of the aircraft.

I would need to go back and reread the development of the mosquito, but as I recall the RAF wasn't overly interested/supportive for some time. The plane was very much a DeHavilland initiated project.

 

[pbehn]

There were a lot of factors that had to go just right, but maybe this happens fairly regularly if we look for those kind of occurrences. To me, the request for design, was a significant factor in how the plane evolved. It was pretty simple and wasn't written to try and advance technology, but was really a "give us your best design" solicitation. In modern terms, its similar to the competitions that led to the F-16 and F-22. Both were structured around well defined missions and left to the engineering teams to outcompete each other. The F-35 on the other hand, had many overlays of multiple mission performance and technology advancement that continue to impact the development of the aircraft.

I would need to go back and reread the development of the mosquito, but as I recall the RAF wasn't overly interested/supportive for some time. The plane was very much a DeHavilland initiated project.

Yes, but the F-16 and F-22 were designed for a role. The P-51 was just designed to be a better fighter than a P40. It was not designed to be a daylight escort fighter, the RAF had already switched to night time strategic bombing. They were not ordered by a foreign power and didn't had their performance transformed by another engine put into production by another country after they were ordered. The role of long range daylight escort fighter didn't exit in 1940 military thinking. Similarly the role of unarmed bomber didn't exist although the idea of a "fast bomber" was common. Obviously they are different planes but they are similar in having low cooling drag, extremely clean lines and advanced Aerofoils. The "RAF"(what does that mean?) profile used by the Mosquito were not as advanced as the NACA ones used by N/A but better than many others.

 

[buffnut453]

The "RAF"(what does that mean?) profile used by the Mosquito were not as advanced as the NACA ones used by N/A but better than many others.

RAF was Royal Aircraft Factory. It was the main design, testing and production organization during the First World War. Part of their research effort was to design and trial differing aerofoil sections.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The "RAF"(what does that mean?) profile used by the Mosquito were not as advanced as the NACA ones used by N/A but better than many others.

RAF airfoils were conceived at National Physical Laboratories in the UK.
Some RAF airfoils were better than the others, however one airfoil name, say RAF 34, does not describe the actual thickness-to-chord ratio. Just like name 'NACA 230 5-digit series' airfoil does not say t-t-c ratio, while the name 'NACA 23018' does.

 

[NevadaK]

RAF was Royal Aircraft Factory. It was the main design, testing and production organization during the First World War. Part of their research effort was to design and trial differing aerofoil sections.

Nice, please allow me to clarify my ill informed American knowledge. For RAF I should have typed the Air Ministry as in "the Air Ministry was skeptical of the Mosquito design at first".

 

[pbehn]

Nice, please allow me to clarify my ill informed American knowledge. For RAF I should have typed the Air Ministry as in "the Air Ministry was skeptical of the Mosquito design at first".

Well I think everyone was because so many bombers had been said to be so fast they would get through and weren't. Of all the letters there are they chose RAF for two institutions that were involved with the Mosquito. The profiles for the Mosquito were RAF (Royal Aircraft Factory)profiles and it was bought for use by the RAF (Royal Air Force) Perfectly simple, no cause for confusion any where.

 

[Simon Thomas]

RAF was Royal Aircraft Factory. It was the main design, testing and production organization during the First World War. Part of their research effort was to design and trial differing aerofoil sections.

By the 20's, the RAF had moved away from trial and error design, and were more into mathematically designing and verifying aerofoils - and often they were very close to the theory.
For some light reading, these papers are interesting:
Theory of thin aerofoils: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/910.pdf
Generalised type of Joukowski http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/911.pdf
Theory & Experimental Results (incl RAF 34) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/946.pdf

I have been looking into this topic for a while and have two things that stand out to me. (1) Glauert was brilliant and (2) the interchange of information between the countries was impressive. Just looking at the references for both the R&M and the NACA reports show that they regularly used information from the US and UK, as well as Gottingen. The laminar flow aerofoils were triggered by Jacobs observing Jones and Taylor's findings, and understanding the importance.

 

[pbehn]

By the 20's, the RAF had moved away from trial and error design, and were more into mathematically designing and verifying aerofoils - and often they were very close to the theory.
For some light reading, these papers are interesting:
Theory of thin aerofoils: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/910.pdf
Generalised type of Joukowski http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/911.pdf
Theory & Experimental Results (incl RAF 34) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/946.pdf

I have been looking into this topic for a while and have two things that stand out to me. (1) Glauert was brilliant and (2) the interchange of information between the countries was impressive. Just looking at the references for both the R&M and the NACA reports show that they regularly used information from the US and UK, as well as Gottingen. The laminar flow aerofoils were triggered by Jacobs observing Jones and Taylor's findings, and understanding the importance.

Great post and enjoy the bacon but what is "RAF" the air force or the factory? Of all the letters in all the alphabets they had to choose those three.

 

[Simon Thomas]

RAF up to April 1918 is the Factory, and is then RAE.
After April 1918, RAF only refers to the Royal Air Force.
The aerofoils are R.A.F. - however the full stops (periods) are often omitted. The R.A.F. aerofoil naming convention continued beyond April 1918.
The engines are also R.A.F., but all work on engines seemed to have stopped around 1917/1918 - about when Heron went to Armstrong Siddeley.

 

[pinehilljoe]

What are the metrics you are thinking of to categorize a plane?
Time from Concept to prototype
Time from Prototype to Production
Qty of Production
Performance

The P-51 and F6F are high on the list. The P-75 is low on the list, and I would also rate the P-61 low on the list.

 

[SaparotRob]

Perhaps off topic but the Fisher P-75 has a reputation of being a scam. General Motors didn't want to build B-29's and came up with the P-75 to get out of it. This came from "The Worlds Worst Aircraft". I don't remember the author's name. There might be different books of the same title.
Is there any truth to this?

 

[fubar57]

It has different covers

 

[SaparotRob]

Did this tome have the line about the Brewster Buffalo as "thundering out of Bucks county"?

 

[NevadaK]

What are the metrics you are thinking of to categorize a plane?
Time from Concept to prototype
Time from Prototype to Production
Qty of Production
Performance

The P-51 and F6F are high on the list. The P-75 is low on the list, and I would also rate the P-61 low on the list.

Great Question Pinehilljoe. I hadn't thought that through, but I would lean towards time from solicitation to go for production. I think a second option would be considering improvements, but that starts to get harder to define unless its something so clearly understood as putting in a new power plant.

There is another thread about putting a griffon in a P-40 that made me think about this. From some of the posts, the P-60, which never made it to production, seems like a pretty bad effort on the procurement side of things and contributed to the inability to develop an effective aircraft.