Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nor its training, most likely. Defending yourself against the occasional attacker is quite different from going out looking for kills.The A-36 was not a fighter, it was a dive-bomber.
It was most certainly capable of defending itself it challenged, but that was not it's mission profile.
The A-36 was not a fighter, it was a dive-bomber.
It was most certainly capable of defending itself it challenged, but that was not it's mission profile.
XBe02Drvr said:Or maybe a different mission? The A-36 was primarily an attack plane with its performance optimized for the lower levels, and training probably emphasized that role, with the plane's performance dedicated to escape rather than ACM. The other planes you're comparing it to are dedicated fighters with the training and attitudes to match. How many kills did Marine bomber-configured F-4s make in 'Nam compared to Navy and Air Force Phantoms flying in the fighter role? And any commander who sends non turbo Allison fighters to escort bombers over the hump deserves to be relieved.
Cheers,
Wes
Good find Schweik, I'll have to snag one off Amazon or Ospreys site, the A model always interested me but also confused me for the exact same reasons listed, never understood why it didn't have a better air to air record. Although as Wes says, training for a different type of mission has a lot to do with it I'm sure.
So impatient. I told y'all I was posting from work. I'm at home now with the book in my hand.
Why did the USAAF decide to make the NA-73 into a dive bomber?
If you were as studious as you have claimed, you would have known the A-36 and the P-51A were not the same a/c. Noobs make that mistake all the time.
This has already been commented on.
There also seems to be a little confusion to the Mustang types.
The NA-73 (and NA-83) were RAF Mustang Mk.I and only two were retained by the USAAF for evaluation (XP-51)
The NA-91 was the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA and was the type first accepted into service with the USAAF.
The NA-99 was the P-51A/Mustang Mk.II and saw improvements to the Allison and armament, etc.
The NA-97 was the A-36, intended to be a dive-bomber from the onset (for reasons explained many times in this thread).
Lt. Russo was the only Ace who made all his victories while flying the A-36 (NA-97). The A-36 only saw service with the USAAF, the RAF only had one NA-97 aircraft for evaluation (s/n EW998).
Hey, it was still peacetime (in the US), and under the rules of peacetime capitalist economics you don't hold a production line open if you have nothing for it to do, no matter how promising its potential future product. The costs and timeloss of retooling, rehiring and retraining are just too great. And in a country still recovering from the depression, breaking the penny pinching rules by playing fast and loose with budget categories wasn't an option.The notion that it was just due to funding seems a bit thin to me.
Here:Hmmmm. Can you point out where I claimed that A-36 and P-51A were the same a/c?
The USAAF didn't make the NA-73 into a dive bomber. North American decided to make it and it was based on the NA-91 (developed in parallel with the NA-99).Why did the USAAF decide to make the NA-73 into a dive bomber?
The main performance difference between the P-51A and the P-51B/C, is the Merlin engine in the B/C...there's more, obviously...What are the performance differences, if any, other than altitude and top speed, that set P-51A and B/C apart?
Hey, it was still peacetime (in the US), and under the rules of peacetime capitalist economics you don't hold a production line open if you have nothing for it to do, no matter how promising its potential future product. The costs and timeloss of retooling, rehiring and retraining are just too great. And in a country still recovering from the depression, breaking the penny pinching rules by playing fast and loose with budget categories wasn't an option.
Cheers,
Wes
My understanding is that the A-36 was built to hold the production line open until: 1) the USAAF could get more fighter funding and 2) the Merlin Mustang was sorted out.Ok fair enough, but I think they were still making some A-36 after Dec 1941 right?
Here:
The USAAF didn't make the NA-73 into a dive bomber. North American decided to make it and it was based on the NA-91 (developed in parallel with the NA-99).
And I thought I'd also touch on this while we're at it: The main performance difference between the P-51A and the P-51B/C, is the Merlin engine in the B/C...there's more, obviously...
My understanding is that the A-36 was built to hold the production line open until: 1) the USAAF could get more fighter funding and 2) the Merlin Mustang was sorted out.
Production momentum would carry A-36 production on for awhile after December 7.
Cheers,
Wes
The last 310 A-36 were apparently ordered by USAAF without dive brakes per the Wiki.
69 were wrecked in training accidentsSince you like on Wiki so much,
"No funds were available for new fighter contracts in fiscal year 1942, but General Oliver P. Echols and Fighter Project Officer Benjamin S. Kelsey[4] wanted to ensure that the P-51 remained in production.[5]
Since appropriations were available for an attack aircraft, Echols specified modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber."
So there was 810 A-36s ordered not 500?
I haven't read this, but it seems it may answer some of your questions.
E-GEH-16
Since you like on Wiki so much,
"No funds were available for new fighter contracts in fiscal year 1942, but General Oliver P. Echols and Fighter Project Officer Benjamin S. Kelsey[4] wanted to ensure that the P-51 remained in production.[5]
Since appropriations were available for an attack aircraft, Echols specified modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber."
So there was 810 A-36s ordered not 500?