Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp:Typically, when the USAAC/USAAF accepted a type on a limited basis, it was delivered as a "YP-XX", like a YP-61", etc. Then when the type's full production version was approved, it was designated as such with an "A" suffix (P-61A).
In the case of the P-51, it was a foreign ordered type that was adopted without a trial purchase. So there was no "Y" prefix applied.
The "Y" stands for "Service test pending production orders" and the Mustang was an unusual exception to the standard process.
You 'n me both.Well....that settles it....I'm done here....Peace, out!
I dont think anyone is suggesting the 50 cal was a piece of crap as you put it. Yes it suffered now and then from stoppages (but what gun didnt) and it was not as effective in range as cannons, but it was still a very cheap, easy to mass produce and generally reliable bullet. But to say it was better than cannon for aerial combat is a bit like blowing smoke to me. Or as someone correctly suggested, "flag waving" The fact is for an experienced pilot, cannon could take out an enemy a/c in just one or two shots. And i dont care what anyone says. Cannon is head and shoulders above MG calibre armament all day long....I don't get all hate for the .50 cal. If it was such a piece of crap it still wouldn't be in use by the US military today. Just sayin'...
Think about this. You're a British interceptor trying to shoot down either a diesel powered Ju-86R or maritime patrol BV-138, bullets aren't going to be very effective, you need the destructive power of cannon shells. Sure, 0.5 inch bullets are going to wreck large German transports, although I'm sure the British 0.303 was just as effective. Axis bombers with armour, I'm the 0.5 in was much more effective than our 0.303, but us Brits needed cannon for our air war.I dont think anyone is suggesting the 50 cal was a piece of crap as you put it. Yes it suffered now and then from stoppages (but what gun didnt) and it was not as effective in range as canons, but it was still a very cheap, easy to mass produce and generally reliable bullet. But to say it was better than canon for aerial combat is a bit like blowing smoke to me. Or as you correctly suggested, "flag waving" The fact is for an experienced pilot, canon could take out an enemy a/c in just one or two shots. And i dont care what anyone says. Canon is head and shoulders above MG calibre armament all day long....
Oh i absolutely agree. The major complaint british pilots had during the b.o.b, was the clear disparity between the spitfire and hurricane .303's and the Bf-109 with it's two 20mm cannons. At least one hurricane was retro-fitted with two cannon during mid 1940, but because the early merlin engines had not yet reached full potential it was rather slow and sluggish in its flight controls because of the added weight. But as soon as the Mk ll hurri & Mk V spit began in full production both machines were outfitted with cannons and would continue this configuration to the end of the war.Think about this. You're a British interceptor trying to shoot down either a diesel powered Ju-86R or maritime patrol BV-138, bullets aren't going to be very effective, you need the destructive power of cannon shells. Sure, 0.5 inch bullets are going to wreck large German transports, although I'm sure the British 0.303 was just as effective. Axis bombers with armour, I'm the 0.5 in was much more effective than our 0.303, but us Brits needed cannon for our air war.
One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.Oh i absolutely agree. The major complaint british pilots had during the b.o.b, was the clear disparity between the spitfire and hurricane .303's and the Bf-109 with it's two 20mm cannons. At least one hurricane was retro-fitted with two cannon during mid 1940, but because the early merlin engines had not yet reached full potential it was rather slow and sluggish in its flight controls because of the added weight. But as soon as the Mk ll hurri & Mk V spit began in full production both machines were outfitted with cannons and would continue this configuration to the end of the war.
Yes, there were also problems with freezing at altitude. They had problems perfecting a reliable heating system to stop the guns from icing up. One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.
The Hurricane was already approx. 30MPH down on the opposition, adding cannon in pods was not any type of solution.Yes, there were also problems with freezing at altitude. They had problems perfecting a reliable heating system to stop the guns from icing up. One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.
Although, by this time, production of the Spitfire had started to increase, a Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk I was built and first flew on 11 June 1940. The initial Mark II, later known as the Mark IIA Series 1, went into squadron service in September 1940 at the peak of the Battle of Britain.
Hawker had long experimented with improving the armament of the fighter by fitting cannons. Their first experiments used two 20 mm (.79 in) Oerlikon cannons in pods, one under each wing, (one aircraft was tested during 1940 with 151 Squadron[8]) but the extra weight and drag seriously compromised the aircraft's performance and manoeuvreability, and the limited amount of ammunition carried coupled with the frequent stoppages suffered by the drum-fed guns, meant the arrangement was unsatisfactory at that time.
I think the only thing that perhaps that we could have done better would have been to rearm our Kittyhawks with two cannon and two 0.5's, likewise our Hurricanes and Spitfires. IIRC, you could fit a pair of 20 mm cannons in the Kittyhawk, but it was never done. The 1944 E wing Spitfires had that combination and the Soviet Hurricanes in 1942 also. Some Canadian Hurricanes and Fulmars were fitted with four 0.5 in guns so it obviously could have been done. Think how much more effective our Kittyhawk air superiority fighter (bombers) in the Middle East and Hurricane interceptors / fighter bombers in the Far East would have been if we had done this from 1942 onward for these two planes. Not so sure about the Spitfire Vc/IXc/VIII though as I don't think there would have been enough spare 0.5 in guns from the re-armed Kittyhawks available.Oh i absolutely agree. The major complaint british pilots had during the b.o.b, was the clear disparity between the spitfire and hurricane .303's and the Bf-109 with it's two 20mm cannons. At least one hurricane was retro-fitted with two cannon during mid 1940, but because the early merlin engines had not yet reached full potential it was rather slow and sluggish in its flight controls because of the added weight. But as soon as the Mk ll hurri & Mk V spit began in full production both machines were outfitted with cannons and would continue this configuration to the end of the war.
The Spitfire II was 30 mph down on what it should have been in 1940. I remember reading one of my uncles aircraft books from 1940 as a child, the Spitfire II was supposed to have done 387 mph but once you add all the mods to make it combat worthy, it only did 354 mph, not much more than the Hurricane IIa at 342 mph. Also don't forget a late 1942 Sea Hurricane IIc did 342 mph and a Seafire IIc depending on its armament did 342/345 mph. The Spitfire had the four cannon wing added to it so the effect was that it reduced its speed to that of a comparable Hurricane, cleaned up versions came later. The big advantage of a Spitfire was that it could dive and climb faster. Another example would be the Hurricane V with the Merlin 32 which did 327 mph at 500 feet, or a Seafire LIIc with the same engine that did 316 mph at sea level.The Hurricane was already approx. 30MPH down on the opposition, adding cannon in pods was not any type of solution.
While i agree in general im not sure if the spitfire would have comfortably housed that kind of configuration. Even though the wings were elliptical and had quite a large surface area they were incredibly thin and the extra weight of the 50 cal + ammunition might have had some negative effect on performance. The Hurricane on the other hand had a much thicker wing andd was a much better gun platform than the Spitfire. Some mk's were after all fitted with 8 .303 MG's in each wing for a total of 16 machine guns. The Spitfire could never have coped with such a heavy amount of wing loading. Oh and the only ww2 Spitfire to carry x4 cannon was a few limited Mk Vc's sent to Malta. The Spitfire would not make that configuration of armament standard until the Mk 22/24 post war.Which with the use of the Rolls Royce Griffin engine over the slower Merlin could easily offset the weight.I think the only thing that perhaps that we could have done better would have been to rearm our Kittyhawks with two cannon and two 0.5's, likewise our Hurricanes and Spitfires. IIRC, you could fit a pair of 20 mm cannons in the Kittyhawk, but it was never done. The 1944 E wing Spitfires had that combination and the Soviet Hurricanes in 1942 also. Some Canadian Hurricanes and Fulmars were fitted with four 0.5 in guns so it obviously could have been done. Think how much more effective our Kittyhawk air superiority fighter (bombers) in the Middle East and Hurricane interceptors / fighter bombers in the Far East would have been if we had done this from 1942 onward for these two planes. Not so sure about the Spitfire Vc/IXc/VIII though as I don't think there would have been enough spare 0.5 in guns from the re-armed Kittyhawks available.
Resp:About the only thing that was consistent about the USAAC use of the letter A in the designations of aircraft was it's inconsistency.
The first 77 P-35s were just that P-35, The A was used on the P-35s the US got after embargoing the Swedish aircraft.
The first 210 P-36s were called P-36A's. No plann P-36.
The P-39 jumped from YP-39 to P-39C, no plain P-39 or P-39A or P-39B (unless on paper?)
The first 534 P-40s were (at the signing of the contract) P-40's with no letter, The letters came later as the contract was amended to cover changes in equipment.
The P-43 went from the YP-43 (13 built) to the P-43 (54 built) to the P-43A (80 built) to the P-43A-1 ( 125 ordered for China) and finally the P-43B which were modified P-43s, P-43As and P-43A-1s with cameras added. Apparently there was no difference in designation regardless of the original model of the aircraft.
given that history it is not surprising (or out of character) for the first squadron use of the P-51 first production model to carry no letter.
I think the only thing that perhaps that we could have done better would have been to rearm our Kittyhawks with two cannon and two 0.5's, likewise our Hurricanes and Spitfires. IIRC, you could fit a pair of 20 mm cannons in the Kittyhawk, but it was never done. The 1944 E wing Spitfires had that combination and the Soviet Hurricanes in 1942 also. Some Canadian Hurricanes and Fulmars were fitted with four 0.5 in guns so it obviously could have been done. Think how much more effective our Kittyhawk air superiority fighter (bombers) in the Middle East and Hurricane interceptors / fighter bombers in the Far East would have been if we had done this from 1942 onward for these two planes. Not so sure about the Spitfire Vc/IXc/VIII though as I don't think there would have been enough spare 0.5 in guns from the re-armed Kittyhawks available.
All combat aircraft are slower in service, there is no way at all that a Spitfire and Hurricane were separated by 12 MPH in service with the same engine.The Spitfire II was 30 mph down on what it should have been in 1940. I remember reading one of my uncles aircraft books from 1940 as a child, the Spitfire II was supposed to have done 387 mph but once you add all the mods to make it combat worthy, it only did 354 mph, not much more than the Hurricane IIa at 342 mph. Also don't forget a late 1942 Sea Hurricane IIc did 342 mph and a Seafire IIc depending on its armament did 342/345 mph. The Spitfire had the four cannon wing added to it so the effect was that it reduced its speed to that of a comparable Hurricane, cleaned up versions came later. The big advantage of a Spitfire was that it could dive and climb faster. Another example would be the Hurricane V with the Merlin 32 which did 327 mph at 500 feet, or a Seafire LIIc with the same engine that did 316 mph at sea level.
Not only that, but the gap in speed only increased time after time as the Spitfire was able to be constantly improved and updated, while the Hurricane was very limited to how far it could be advanced. Ergo, the design and manufacture of the Typhoon & Tempest. But even the Spitfire Mk l was 35-40mph faster than a HurricaneAll combat aircraft are slower in service, there is no way at all that a Spitfire and Hurricane were separated by 12 MPH in service with the same engine.
The Spitfire and Hurricane were not competitors, Camm and Hawkers knew that the Hurricane was behind the times in technology, but that was an advantage in some respects...it was easy to make, repair and keep in service. The Typhoon and eventually the Tempest were supposed to replace the Spitfire but only did at low level.Not only that, but the gap in speed only increased time after time as the Spitfire was able to be constantly improved and updated, while the Hurricane was very limited to how far it could be advanced. Ergo, the design and manufacture of the Typhoon & Tempest. But even the Spitfire Mk l was 35-40mph faster than a Hurricane
Yes, there were also problems with freezing at altitude. They had problems perfecting a reliable heating system to stop the guns from icing up. One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.
Although, by this time, production of the Spitfire had started to increase, a Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk I was built and first flew on 11 June 1940. The initial Mark II, later known as the Mark IIA Series 1, went into squadron service in September 1940 at the peak of the Battle of Britain.
The Hurricane on the other hand had a much thicker wing and was a much better gun platform than the Spitfire. Some mk's were after all fitted with 8 .303 MG's in each wing for a total of 16 machine guns.