Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Obtain Reel A2069 from USAFHRC. I would send but it is a massive pdf file to upload. G.Sinclair was kind enough to download a copy for me but it took two tries and 8 hrs on Wetransfer (IIRC).Hey drgondog,
I have read in anecdotal & 2nd hand references that Arnold ordered some such, but I have never run across any actual hard copy record of any such order. I am not saying it did not happen, but Eslinger's paper is the only semi-authoritative source I have ever run across that claimed this.
Have you run across a written order from Arnold ordering the adoption of DTs issued in or around Feb'42?
My understanding re Lockheed is that they initiated the development of the original 150(165) USgal aluminum DTs for the P-38E all on their ownsome, though they were originally primarily intended for ferry purposes. They were looking at the streamlining of the tanks in mid-1941.
You can compress and split the file to have more multiple but easier to sent volumes.Obtain Reel A2069 from USAFHRC. I would send but it is a massive pdf file to upload. G.Sinclair was kind enough to download a copy for me but it took two tries and 8 hrs on Wetransfer (IIRC).
pages 1-281 all of Boylon's sources for Droppable Fuel tanks. Look to February 24 1942 Arnold C/AS to Tech.Div. Wright Field ---->Technical Order to Increase Range and March 2 1942 Chidlaw to Tech.Div Wright Field "Develop Self Sealing Drop Tanks". Feb 28 was date of order to develop self sealing non-droppable tanks to extend range.
The first memo I saw concerning Deveopment orders by AAF were K.B. Wolfe to Chief, Exp. Eng. Wright Field 12-9-41 "Initiate Composition Belly Tank, metal is very expensive".
pages 1551-2038 are details/correspondence for FAREP, also major source for Boylon's USAF Study 136 Development of Long Range Escort Fighter.
Thank youAs it turns out reel A2069 is still uploaded and so available until such time as the space is needed for something else.
or
No for NA-73/83/91. Yes, for the single A-36, the 50 P-51A and ALL Merlin Mustangs. That said, the racks were easily removable.Bill, were the British Mustang Is fitted with provisions for drop tanks, and if so, was that a requirement by the RAF?
The a/c compared was the P-51-NA (NA-91) w/4 20mm cannon - The Basic weight was 200 pounds more than the P-51A. The next question is that of the report source. The Eglin Operational Suitability Test on the P-51-NA stated (Nov 42 Report) that it was clearly superior to P39D and P-40F and (P-38F save ROC) P-47B in speed, ROC, dive - below 18000 feet. Same as P-40 and P-39 in turn, better than P-38 and P-47.That is interesting but without digging into the details it looks like somebody was tilting things a little.
How much do you have to "strip" a P-40 to get to equal a P-51?
From the date and Altitudes given I am guessing they meant an Allison powered P-51.
Unfortunately the figures from other tests of the P-40L "Gypsy Rose Lee" model with Merlin engine and the early P-40N-1s don't seem to show quite the same results leaving one to wonder what they took out of the P-40E used in the test?
It is often noted that some of the "stuff" that was pulled out of the P-40N-1s went back in under field conditions. Like the electric starter and bigger battery so they didn't need a couple of men on each plane cranking the inertia starters during a scramble. Also cutting internal fuel to 87 US gallons (72.5imp) to get more speed at just about the time the US was giving the OK to use WEP (about 3 gal a minute for the Allison in the P-40) May give you good speed................over your own airfield.
The Report does give an idea as to the thinking of the time.
The Ballistics of the guns reported on seems a little off. Maybe the higher ups were making decisions based on bad info?