Senior Master Sergeant
- Sep 9, 2016
That was my bad as the kids say, I 'forgot' to mention the beer... won't happen (often) again!
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If a B-17 only took 75lbs of paint to cover the performance gain for single engine fighter doing without paint would be minuscule.
Some large transport planes went without paint but put the difference in weight toward higher payload or fuel, but again the surface area of large transports is much larger than the surface area of a fighter.
Good answer, Tomo.
Glad to hear it, because I probably muddle the facts more often than you do, but that happens in discussions. It wasn't intended as a specific criticism, more of an observation on ONE tiny subject. And I could have been wrong then, too. As I stated above, your posts are usually quite good and to the point.
As a general rule, I think ALL the production fighters were pretty good. If they weren't, they wouldn't have made production. There is certainly room for a dissenting opinion, and it might be correct.
One-on-one, I'd call the Fw 190 D-9 versus the P-51 a dead even heat. Both good, solid aircraft. Nobody (or few) ever accused the Germans of making inferior equipment! My own thoughts would be that the Fw 190 D-9 would out-roll the P-51D (based on wartime observations of Fw rolling ability), but the P-51D would out-turn the Fw 190 D-9 (based on 20% lower wing loading and decent airfoils for both).
P.S. It is off-subject, but from your signature it appears you live in Poland. What is the Polish Air Force experience with the F-16? Do they like it or not? Maybe a dedicated answer in the modern forum?
It is the canopy that makes the P51. The P51A would never have been named "Cadillac of the skies". The back of the LW was broken by the B/C version but it is the P51D that gets the credit and wins the hearts because of that canopy.BTW who gets credit for the canopy?
I actually have no idea, but my money is on the innovative British.
The P51 was pure serendipity. Its design brief was set by its manufacturer simply to be better than the P 40. Being a USA manufacturer it had a long range on internal fuel simply because the USA is a huge country. It was specified with an Allison engine which meant it was not too difficult to put in a Rolls Royce Merlin. From its original design with low drag wings and cooling system it was found that it could take more guns and ammunition in the wings, more internal fuel, oil and oxygen and then two massive external tanks on the wings.
In my view the "edge" that the P51 had on others was its aerodynamics and its "contingency" in engineering, its condition on take off with external and internal load of fuel was borderline on safety but put it in another league in terms of range. Then as this is being discovered and put together the USA finds its bombers cannot defend themselves as expected. Cometh the hour cometh the P 51. Looking at a P51D and its performance figures it is hard to believe that by and large it happened by accident, the air frame and engine being designed on different continents in different decades.
BTW who gets credit for the canopy?
As aircraft the Fw 190 of any type will suffer in comparison, with 1000 four engined bombers available, the USA decided the terms of the conflict, that is what happens in a war, not a demerit for the Fw 190 D.
You know Pete, Erik Hartmann made the statement, " We didn't worry about
20 mph. difference." or he said something very close to that many years ago.
While I prefer the look of the P-51B/C, it's no stretch to see (no pun intended) why the D model would be desirable, granted my knowledge is only from research but the better visibility of the bubble would be the way to go.
So, I assume the D with a bubble would offer better visibility than a B/C with a Malcolm Hood on it? I seem to remember reading some accounts that pilots preferred the Malcolm Hood because they were able to sort of lean out of the cockpit and look under the tail. Sounds anecdotal so I'll ask, is that possible and wouldn't the D's bubble not only allow that but also just offer better all around vision?
Also, interesting that NAA found the Malcolm Hood "too noisy and cold", so does that mean modifications were in order? Or did North American just say pfft, that's cute but here's the bubble top D instead? Which looking at the timeline drgondog posted seems that NAA already had a bubble top answer before the Malcolm Hood (or the XP-47K for that matter) showed up at Inglewood.