Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I always thought the Navion was one of the best looking light planes ever built. North American sure could and did build some beautiful airplanes, makes you think they had artists designing some of them.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I always thought the Navion was one of the best looking light planes ever built. North American sure could and did build some beautiful airplanes, makes you think they had artists designing some of them.
Dave - define similarities? AFAIK, no common parts.Bill, didn't NAA have similarities between the Navion's and the Mustang's main gear?
I've never paid close attention, mostly because I haven't been around them much, but I recall a conversation ages ago where it was said that the design features were based on the Mustang's.Dave - define similarities? AFAIK, no common parts.
A decent sample is on Spitfireperformance but mine were largely found in the microfilm of squadron histories obtained from USAFHRC over the course of 45 years. I think Dr. Frank Olynyk may have included the site of each victory credit in his many volumes on the subject. I have his data by VC by type AC by Theatre by date by Squadron/unit - but not specific location/time.
Numbers don't mean much. Case in point - many more B-24s were built than B-17s (almost twice as many) and nobody can tell me that the B-24 was better bomber than the B-17! And I think that they built more P-40s than Spitfires. So? The Brits had one good design that they stuck to - the Spitfire. Difficult to manufacture and maintain but aerodynamically great. All their other designs during the war had a lot of issues that took forever to rectify. I submit that had they been quicker in solving the structural issues with the Typhoon and its engine, a lot of things would have looked differently.Building 23,000 of anything is quite the vote of confidence, from them who had to both build and fly it. Few airplanes from that era were built in that numbers.
Sarcastic question: I wonder what the Germans thought about it? Did they think it was overrated?
Numbers don't mean much. Case in point - many more B-24s were built than B-17s (almost twice as many) and nobody can tell me that the B-24 was better bomber than the B-17!
And I think that they built more P-40s than Spitfires. So? The Brits had one good design that they stuck to - the Spitfire.
There were a lot more Spitfires than P-40s produced, but they were in production longer and the Spitfire was also made as a PR and a carrier aircraft. Between the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest Hawkers sold about the same number of planes as Supermarine did but they were rarely doing the same job in the same place at the same timeNumbers don't mean much. Case in point - many more B-24s were built than B-17s (almost twice as many) and nobody can tell me that the B-24 was better bomber than the B-17! And I think that they built more P-40s than Spitfires. So? The Brits had one good design that they stuck to - the Spitfire. Difficult to manufacture and maintain but aerodynamically great. All their other designs during the war had a lot of issues that took forever to rectify. I submit that had they been quicker in solving the structural issues with the Typhoon and its engine, a lot of things would have looked differently.
There was more global demand for B-24s because overall it was a better combat performer. Longer range, larger bomb load for same range, 15% faster cruise speed at altitude, more flexible mission profile, lower loss rate per sortie - Usually one of those will work for you. And yes, B-17 my favorite bomber all-time.Numbers don't mean much. Case in point - many more B-24s were built than B-17s (almost twice as many) and nobody can tell me that the B-24 was better bomber than the B-17! And I think that they built more P-40s than Spitfires. So? The Brits had one good design that they stuck to - the Spitfire. Difficult to manufacture and maintain but aerodynamically great. All their other designs during the war had a lot of issues that took forever to rectify. I submit that had they been quicker in solving the structural issues with the Typhoon and its engine, a lot of things would have looked differently.
Twice as many Bell P-39s were produced during the war compared to the figure for the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest put together. Make of it what you will...Numbers don't mean much. Case in point - many more B-24s were built than B-17s (almost twice as many) and nobody can tell me that the B-24 was better bomber than the B-17! And I think that they built more P-40s than Spitfires. So? The Brits had one good design that they stuck to - the Spitfire. Difficult to manufacture and maintain but aerodynamically great. All their other designs during the war had a lot of issues that took forever to rectify. I submit that had they been quicker in solving the structural issues with the Typhoon and its engine, a lot of things would have looked differently.
Can't have been too difficult to manufacture, when the Supermarine factory was flattened by the Luftwaffe production was dispersed to smaller units across Southampton and Hampshire. Maintenance well they kept them flying in N Africa and Malta and those conditions don't come much worse.Difficult to manufacture and maintain
I disagree with the logic that production numbers are directly related to whether an aircraft is overrated or not, at least once they are in mass production, as this merely shows that the customer thought they were worth enough to continue in production, even in preference to aircraft that may be somewhat better. Whether or not an aircraft is overrated is dependent on how it's viewed by posterity, not by its users at the time of its service.
Twice as many Bell P-39s were produced during the war compared to the figure for the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest put together. Make of it what you will...