Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

Glider said:

Zero It had a reputation of being unbeatable but it never was and in the early days when it gained the reputation, it often fought second string fighters, not the latest. Hurricanes and P39's in particular.

Click to expand...

RAF pilot Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown evaluated a Zero at the A&AEE and said later of the aircraft "the Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943". It is a compelling irony that this invader from the land of the Rising Sun led to the twilight of the British Empire.

The illustration depicts the Mitsubishi A6M Model 22 (Although unlikely, most probably mistaken identity, as the A6M2 type 0 to 11 is more likely) 'White 13' of Feldwebel Heinz Bar 1./JG 51, September 1940. By this time Bar had scored 12 victories. His final total was 220 confirmed kills in over 1000 combat sorties.

Must be a time machine in use as the Model 22 afaik wasn't in service til Dec '42.

Milosh said:

Must be a time machine in use as the Model 22 afaik wasn't in service til Dec '42.

Click to expand...

Agreed, i didnt notice that. But you are right. I think it should be the A6M2 type 0-11. But don't quote me on that. Japanese aircraft and model types aren't my speciality....

drgondog said:

NAA designed a sliding hood that was tested on a Mustang IA and deemed noisy but acceptable. The report was written December 1942.

BPC/RAF requested that future deliveries of Mustangs (III) be delivered with a NAA equivalent to Malcolm Hood - which was at same time that both the XP-51F contract was in progress as well as the bubble canopy MCR was issued for the NA-102 Spec for P-51B-1-NA (March 1943). During this same time the NA-106 was in progress, which originally began as a six gun wing/bird cage canopy version of the P-51B-5 for mid block release.

NAA also dabbled with a sliding hood which was tested in wind tunnel July/August 1942 - similar to Japanese A6M. Windshield and aft enclosed section fixed, with center section sliding to the rear.

Summary, there were no Malcolm Hoods on any RAF Mustang until late November 1943 when the first of the P-51B-5-NA's were delivered to RAF and two were sent to R.Malcolm. Those two were re-assigned along with several more to 9th AF in December 1943 as 357 FG was ramping up with new Mustangs from States,

Click to expand...

Resp:
The RAF refused the 'sliding hoods' on all Mustangs slated for Photo-Recon duties. And yes, most Mustang MkIIIs were retro-fitted with the 'Malcolm's hood. However, several units flying the MkIII based outside of England retained the 'lattice' canopies. It appears that the units closest to England received the sliding hoods. The USAAF outfitted its England based F-6B with these hoods, while units in/from the MTO retained the lattice framed canopies. The Tuskegee unit came up through the Italian campaign, so their P-51Cs were not retro fitted with Malcolm hoods. I have seen no documentation of A-36As so fitted.

Some RAF Mustangs were also fitted with x4 20mm hispano cannon in replace of the x6 .50 cals. The same gun configuration was also used on the RAF F4U corsairs. Mustang la/lla i believe were the only marks fitted with the twin canon arrangement, as it became impractical to change guns so later marks were excepted with the standard x6 ..50 cals. Although i have seen contradictions to this information. So im open to be corrected.

British ordered 150 aircraft, NA-91/P-51, 41-37320-37469, FD418-FD567.

93 aircraft where shipped to England as Mustang IA
FD438/41-37340 - FD449/41-37351
FD465/41-37367
FD470/41-37372-FD509/41-37411
FD528/41-37430-FD567/41-37469

55 retained by USAAC for photo recon variant P-51-1NA, later F-6A.

2 aircraft retained for Merlin modification (NA-101, XP-51B).
FD450/41-37352 & FD519/41-37421
Data source: My own research/+ RAF gound mechanic operators manual for Mustang l/ll/lll/lV

Smokey Stover said:

Some RAF Mustangs were also fitted with x4 20mm hispano cannon in replace of the x6 .50 cals. The same gun configuration was also used on the RAF F4U corsairs. Mustang la/lla i believe were the only marks fitted with the twin canon arrangement, as it became impractical to change guns so later marks were excepted with the standard x6 ..50 cals. Although i have seen contradictions to this information. So im open to be corrected.

British ordered 150 aircraft, NA-91/P-51, 41-37320-37469, FD418-FD567.

93 aircraft where shipped to England as Mustang IA
FD438/41-37340 - FD449/41-37351
FD465/41-37367
FD470/41-37372-FD509/41-37411
FD528/41-37430-FD567/41-37469

55 retained by USAAC for photo recon variant P-51-1NA, later F-6A.

2 aircraft retained for Merlin modification (NA-101, XP-51B).
FD450/41-37352 & FD519/41-37421
Data source: My own research/+ RAF gound mechanic operators manual for Mustang l/ll/lll/lV

Click to expand...

Resp:
The combination of 303 and a single 50 cal in each wing of the Mustang MkI was deemed too light for attacking vehicles, etc. When the US Govt submitted/paid for a second order for the British, the RAF requested one change; 20mm cannons, two in each wing (4 cannons). These RAF Mustangs became MkIA. When the US held back the undelivered MkIAs after the attack on Pearl Harbor, these Mustangs became P-51-1 (and -2) which kept the 20mm guns. Almost all of these P-51-1 and -2 were redisginated F-6A, as cameras were fitted for their new role as Photo-Recon aircraft.

When the USAAF placed orders for the A-36A dive bomber, the 4 20mm guns were exchanged for 6 50 cal MG. The two nose guns (50 cal MG) were deleted on the USAAF's first fighter Allison Mustang, which were designated as P-51A. So only wing 50 cal MG, two in each wing, remained. The US govt gave 50 P-51As to the British to replace the MkIAs held back after Pearl Harbor. These 50 were designated Mustang MII, which retained the 4 50 cal MG (no cannons). Sorry. Cannons were not considered better, as they fired much slower than 50 cal MG (from post WWII analysis).
Navalwarrior

A Trivia Question: Inre to Allison engine Mustangs
I have seen photos of P-51As and F-6Bs showing a 'small window panel' on the L side of the forward window plate of the forward windscreen. This panel looks like it could be opened from the inside, without opening the main lattice canopy.

Did other variants of the Allison engine Mustang ever use these/outfitted?

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
The RAF refused the 'sliding hoods' on all Mustangs slated for Photo-Recon duties. And yes, most Mustang MkIIIs were retro-fitted with the 'Malcolm's hood. However, several units flying the MkIII based outside of England retained the 'lattice' canopies. It appears that the units closest to England received the sliding hoods. The USAAF outfitted its England based F-6B with these hoods, while units in/from the MTO retained the lattice framed canopies. The Tuskegee unit came up through the Italian campaign, so their P-51Cs were not retro fitted with Malcolm hoods. I have seen no documentation of A-36As so fitted.

Click to expand...

The only sliding hood the RAF were offered by NAA were the bubble canopy P-51D/Mark IV derivatives. 1944. The RAF preferred the Malcolm Hoods but R.Malcolm could not meet the combined demand for P-51B/C & F-6C for 8th/9th AF so they were never an option for 15th. That said, some P-51B/C remained behind in Italy during the Shuttle missions and soldiered on in the MTO. As a result many Mk I/IA and some Mark III retained birdcage canopy for the above reasons.

I haven't seen either a P-51-1/-2 NA (F-6A) or a F-6B (P-51-3 NA) w/ Malcolm but it was not different significantly to fit a R.Malcolm Hood on ay Mustang if the squadron could acquire one.

As an example the 67th Recon Group in ETO were equipped with mixed bag of P-51-3 NA (F-6B) and P-51B/C converted to Photo version. I have seen pics of Malcolm Hood on the B/C but not the A, but there is no reason other than shortage of supply that the P-51A-3 could not have been so modified.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
The combination of 303 and a single 50 cal in each wing of the Mustang MkI was deemed too light for attacking vehicles, etc. When the US Govt submitted/paid for a second order for the British, the RAF requested one change; 20mm cannons, two in each wing (4 cannons). These RAF Mustangs became MkIA. When the US held back the undelivered MkIAs after the attack on Pearl Harbor, these Mustangs became P-51-1 (and -2) which kept the 20mm guns. Almost all of these P-51-1 and -2 were redisginated F-6A, as cameras were fitted for their new role as Photo-Recon aircraft.

Not quite right. The Mark I also had two cheek 50 caliber in addition to the wing armament and was more heavily armed than the A-36, P-51A, P-51B and P-51C. The Mark IA reverted to one of NAA early proposals on the P-509 (the -2) which was forerunner of NA73, which replaced the 4x30 2x 50 wing and 2x 50 cowl guns with 4x20mm Hispano II. That same armament was proposed by NAA for the "Ground Attack Airplane" but AAF changed to 4x50 caliber for the NA-97 A-36. NAA was also requested by RAAF to provide 2x50 cal 2x20mm for the NA-107 which later became NA 110 for Australia but replaced the combined 50 cal/20mm wing battery with six 50's.

When the USAAF placed orders for the A-36A dive bomber, the 4 20mm guns were exchanged for 6 50 cal MG. The two nose guns (50 cal MG) were deleted on the USAAF's first fighter Allison Mustang, which were designated as P-51A. So only wing 50 cal MG, two in each wing, remained. The US govt gave 50 P-51As to the British to replace the MkIAs held back after Pearl Harbor. These 50 were designated Mustang MII, which retained the 4 50 cal MG (no cannons). Sorry. Cannons were not considered better, as they fired much slower than 50 cal MG (from post WWII analysis).
Navalwarrior

Click to expand...

The prototype A-36 was not the NA-91 (P-51-1/-2 Mark IA. It was a NA 83 Mark I and carried that armament, including cowl guns during the production cycle for the first P-51-1 NA irst delivered in June 1942 timeframe. AM 118 first flew a month before the first P-51-1 NA was delivered. The first production Allison engined Mustang fighter accepted by AAF (other than XP-51 from Mustang I delivery) was the P-51-1, not the A-36, not the P-51A.

Late 1941 through fall 1942 is a very complex and muddled history.

Drgondog and all.

As suspected, Malcolm hoods were used on Allison powered P-51's.

From Jeff Ethell's book Mustang A Documentary History ,page 41

Picture credited to T.R. Bennett

Eagledad

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
The combination of 303 and a single 50 cal in each wing of the Mustang MkI was deemed too light for attacking vehicles, etc. When the US Govt submitted/paid for a second order for the British, the RAF requested one change; 20mm cannons, two in each wing (4 cannons). These RAF Mustangs became MkIA. When the US held back the undelivered MkIAs after the attack on Pearl Harbor, these Mustangs became P-51-1 (and -2) which kept the 20mm guns. Almost all of these P-51-1 and -2 were redisginated F-6A, as cameras were fitted for their new role as Photo-Recon aircraft.

When the USAAF placed orders for the A-36A dive bomber, the 4 20mm guns were exchanged for 6 50 cal MG. The two nose guns (50 cal MG) were deleted on the USAAF's first fighter Allison Mustang, which were designated as P-51A. So only wing 50 cal MG, two in each wing, remained. The US govt gave 50 P-51As to the British to replace the MkIAs held back after Pearl Harbor. These 50 were designated Mustang MII, which retained the 4 50 cal MG (no cannons). Sorry. Cannons were not considered better, as they fired much slower than 50 cal MG (from post WWII analysis).
Navalwarrior

Click to expand...

With respect i disagree with the post war analyst on the effectiveness of the 50 cal compared to canons. If their findings only argument is that the 50 was more effective than canon because it had a faster rate of fire is well, quite frankly no argument at all. Thats like saying building a new roof on your house using a hammer is not as effective as using a nail gun just because its faster. My first question is how does one account for the fact most pilot aces axis and allied flew aircraft equipped with a wide variety of canon, with some ie: the Bf 109 & Me 262 were fitted with 30mm canon. The Fw 190, A6M zero and Hawker Typhoon/Tempest and Spitfire to name just a few. The only all MG aircraft using the 50 cal were mostly American machines. And if analysts found the 50/MG's to be better, why has every aircraft post ww2 been fitted with canon and not MG's. I dont buy it. It just doesnt make sense. If there are stats that prove me wrong i'd like to see them.

A US AN/M2 .50 MG had a RoF of 750 to 850 rpm. It produced between 10,000 and 15,000 ft/lb of energy and the bullet typically weight about 700gr (ranged from 647gr to 800gr depending on type).

A battery of four to six .50 MGs firing short bursts was enough to shred aircraft skin, damage engine components, penerate moderate armor and tear a pilot apart.

The Luftwaffe went to a caliber close a fifty: the MG131 which was 13mm. It had a RoF of 900 rpm.
So did the Imperial Japanese Navy with their Type 3 13.2x96mm which had a RoF of 800 rpm.

The .303/7mm caliber may have been good for an infantry round, but the .50 carries considerable energy and does a great deal of damage. Cannons are effective, both in 20mm and 30mm but they are not light weapons. Also, the larger the caliber, the heavier the ammo and less space to store it.

The AN/M2 weighed 64 pounds, the Hispano Mk.V weighed 92 pounds.
The German's MG151/20 (20mm) weighed 92 pounds, their Mk108 (30mm) weighed 128 pounds and the Mk103 (30mm) weighed 311 pounds.

So while cannons may offer a better punch, the .50 offered longer firing duration and a reduced weight penalty (or equivelant weight but more ammunition stores) while delivering serious hurt to anything downrange.

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables

Gun Tables

Gents,

Just an observation regards the 50 vs cannon discussion.

I understand that the Brits upped the ante to cannons due to shooting down bombers. Same for the Germans and Japanese.

Could it be that the US built fighters were protecting bombers and everyone else was trying to shoot them down? Please don't interpret this as a US arrogance thing but as a reality of the situation.

Fifties were more than good enough for a fighter vs fighter combat, while the cannon really helped with the heavies problem.

On a different note I would think a larger amount of .50 ammo (more trigger time) would have an advantage over cannons and their lower round count / less trigger time for the average WW2 fighter pilot and the training they had / available aiming tools.

Food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff

Why were some F6Fs and F4Us equipped with 20 mm cannon?

And the P38...

The P-38 had a 20mm from the beginning as was to be an interceptor.

BiffF15 said:

Gents,

Just an observation regards the 50 vs cannon discussion.

I understand that the Brits upped the ante to cannons due to shooting down bombers. Same for the Germans and Japanese.

Could it be that the US built fighters were protecting bombers and everyone else was trying to shoot them down? Please don't interpret this as a US arrogance thing but as a reality of the situation.

Fifties were more than good enough for a fighter vs fighter combat, while the cannon really helped with the heavies problem.

On a different note I would think a larger amount of .50 ammo (more trigger time) would have an advantage over cannons and their lower round count / less trigger time for the average WW2 fighter pilot and the training they had / available aiming tools.

Food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

The USAAC/F's preferred cannon for shooting down bombers was the 37mm M4.

It was used in the P-39. It was supposed to be used in the P-38.

The XP-54 was to have 2 of them (plus 2 or 4 0.50" mgs). The YFM-1 had 2 of them.

The XP-67 design was a long range bomber destroyer, sort of an insurance in case the UK fell. It was to have 6 of the 37mm M4 cannon!

Aircraft such as the P-40 and the P-51 were more general role type fighters, compared to the P-38 (and P-39) which was designed as an interceptor (to destroy bombers).

Milosh said:

Why were some F6Fs and F4Us equipped with 20 mm cannon?

Click to expand...

The Navy had different ideas to the USAAF.

The U.S. was exlporing with the idea of 20, 23 and 37mm cannons at the time that they were still entrenched in the .30/.50 MG outfitting, too.

Even the P-36 was trialed with a pair of 23mm Madsen cannon.

It does seem that the early thought process was cannon for bomber interceptors and MGs for fighters.

A lot of it was timing.

The US .50 cal was better than poke in the eye with a sharp stick in the 1930s (sarcasm) but a lot happened very quickly in 1940-41.
I had previously thought that the improvement in ammunition came in the mid to late 30s but it seems it was very, very late 30s or 1940/41 when the big change came from 2500fps to 2880fps. There may not have been any incendiary ammunition in the 1930s either. It was late 1940 or early 1941 when the cycle rate was changed from 600rpm (at best and unsynchronized ) to the 800rpm of the mid to late war guns (only few thousand of the even higher rate guns showed up in very late 1944/45).

This makes the British decision to pass on the .50 cal Browning much more understandable during the 30s. The gun was almost 3 times heavier than a .303, fired at 1/2 the rate of fire, the ammo was 5 times heavier per round. And it didn't explode or set things on fire.

By Dec of 1941 the Americans were in much better shape. Each round had picked up around 25% in striking energy, the gun fired 33% faster and there were some sort of incendiary bullets (copied from the British?). Even if wing mounted guns tended to jam at an alarming rate if the plane was pulling much in the way of "G"s.
This got better as the war went along but still presented problems in some aircraft even it 1943. US also switched to the M8 API round instead of mixed belts with only portion of the ammo being incendiary. However each M8 API round only carried a small amount of incendiary material but since over 90% of the ammo in the belt was The M8 there was a fair (but not large) amount of incendiary material being fired every second.
Most of us know the sad (near criminal) story of the American 20mm guns. What the Navy wanted and what they (and a few Army fighters) got was not it.
I would note that a fair number of the P-70 night fighters, the P-61, and a number of the Navy single engine night fighters got the 20mm guns so there is certainly something to the idea of 20mm being intended for anti-bomber duty. There is also the idea that night fighters only get ONE firing pass at a target (they often had trouble finding the same aircraft again in the early part of the war) and they had to inflict the most amount of damage in a short period of time.

As far as firing time goes. The Rifle Caliber Machine Gun ammo went around 24 grams per cartridge (give or take) while the German 13mm went 72-76 and the American .50 went about 112 grams depending on bullet. The 20mm Hispano (the heaviest common 20mm used during the war in aircraft)went about 257 grams per round. The Hispano fired at about 600rpm so 120 rounds was good for 12 seconds. US Navy fighters with 20mm guns carried 200round or more per gun for 20 seconds or more of firing time.

The US battery of 4-6 .50s worked but it was heavy. Especially if the ammo load was near or above 400 rounds per gun(120lbs of ammo per gun) .

Please note the 20mm Hispano had over 3 times the striking energy and often carried 9-10 times the explosive or incendiary material. It did weigh roughly double what the.50 cal gun weighed (weights for the Hispano often do not include either the drum or the belt feed mechanism).

A few US fighters, in an attempt to lighten them up, gave up a lot of trigger time. Some P-40s only carried 200-201 rounds per gun and just four guns(for four guns that is still 240lbs of ammo).

For the US .50 cal a lot depended on what year, and what plane (with what engine)was carrying it. Those P & W R-2800s could lug around a lot of guns and a LOT of ammo.