Only because they survived the training.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Reading a lot of accident statistics it seems that the trainers were the most dangerous, why didn't they just put pilots in P-51s straight away because they were statistically much safer?
Dang, I knew there was something I hadn't taken into account.Only because they survived the training.
Straits of Denmark? Irish Sea? North Sea? Certainly not the broad Atlantic!Help me out here:
What's the body of water along that route called again?
No one can deny that the Germans had a heckuva lot of rather fantastic ideas, and the technological know-how to do most of them. They didn't have the resources to fulfill their obviously talented brains, nor the time to do it. The US DID have the time, resources and brains to do it, which is why, in part, the Allies won. The Soviets had massive manpower, and the will to let them die to win. There's just no way the Germans could have won, regardless of their technological expertise. It always seemed to me that if there two ways of doing things, the Germans would take the "busy" road, making things a lot more complicated than necessary to get things done.
The Allied side more or less took the Stalin way of thinking, "Quantity has a quality of it's own".
You can also add to that the technological advance in B ull Sh it, which was used against the V1 and V2 attacks on London and "stuff" like proximity fused artillery which brought down a lot of V1s and changed the battlefield after D Day.To put some of these myths in perspective:
The snorkel was first used on Dutch submarines; the Germans adopted it after they invaded that country.
Messerschmidt used NACA airfoils on many, if not most, of its aircraft.
The jet engine was developed roughly simultaneously in the UK and Germany.
Centrimetric radar was developed by the Allies
Germany used Italian aerial torpedoes, as they were significantly better than the domestic ones.
In reality, the technological levels of the more highly industrialized of the belligerent countries were, overall, quite similar.
You stated that it was conceived to fly back and forth across the Atlantic which isn't the same.as iceland to Europe
You stated that it was conceived to fly back and forth across the Atlantic which isn't the same.as iceland to Europe
It seemed to me that saying "flying across the Atlantic" was a simplified statement - I didn't realize that a 1,000 word dissertation on the logistics, routing and specific route detailing was necessary.How so? That is still across the Atlantic. It's just not non-stop.
Due by next Wednesday or suffer letter grade reduction for every day late.*SNIP*
I didn't realize that a 1,000 word dissertation on the logistics, routing and specific route detailing was necessary.
*SNIP*
Due by next Wednesday or suffer letter grade reduction for every day late.
And you sit home alone and don't get infected.Aww damn - there goes the trip to the beach with the gang
*facepalm*
I didn't diss the plane, I dissed the HYPE. That's what this thread is about, yes? The folks who said the P-51 was over-hyped didn't say it wasn't a marvelous plane. Neither have I said that the B-29 wasn't the best of it's time.
I said it killed more of it's crew than the enemy did. I'm waiting on more knowledgeable folk to educate me.
I said it (and it's A-bombs) didn't convince Japan to surrender, the Soviets who'd destroyed the Japanese army in Machuria in very short order and stood poised to invade and absorb Japan convinced the Japanese government to surrender while they still had a nation. Evidences to the contrary are welcome.
It all hinges on the term greatness I suppose. The Yak-3 appeared in 1944 same as the Tempest, whatever their performance was they didn't influence the direction of the war. In that respect, in my view the Hurricane was a far more significant and "great" aircraft that the plane two generations later from Hawkers the Tempest. There were many aircraft and some were for a time the best in one or two niches and from that changed the course of the whole conflict, it is to these few aircraft the term "greatness" applies.
The recent P-39 discussions kept reminding me of this extensive "P-40" thread...I'm about halfway through this slog
The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.
The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.
Well, now that this thread has been resurrected . . .
Curiously though, if one calculates the air miles per gallon in the most economical cruise condition, the P-40N has a very similar AMPG figure as the P-51D. At least, that's according to the cruise tables in the Pilot's Flight Operating Instruction manuals. Figures for the P-38L and P47D-25 provided for comparison.
P-40N, 8,400 to 6,660 lbs, no external load, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 232 TAS, 39 GPH = 5.95 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 249 TAS, 42 GPH = 5.93 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 256 TAS, 43 GPH = 5.95 air miles per gallon
P-51D-5, 9,600 to 8,000 lbs, wing bomb racks only, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 260 TAS, 44 GPH = 5.91 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 280 TAS, 48 GPH = 5.83 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 305 TAS, 52 GPH = 5.87 air miles per gallon
P-38L, 17,400 to 13,500 lbs, tank supports only, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 229 TAS, 61 GPH = 3.75 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 248 TAS, 66 GPH = 3.76 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 267 TAS, 71 GPH = 3.76 air miles per gallon
P-47D-25, 14,200 to 12,000 lbs, no external load, maximum range cruise condition (preliminary data)
At 15000 feet: 266 TAS, 88 GPH = 3.02 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 288 TAS, 95 GPH = 3.03 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: — no figures given —
Note that the P-51D is going 12-19% faster, depending on height, than the P-40N, which would be vital in enemy air space.
Oh, no doubt there are other factors which are important and which push the P-40 down in any comparative ranking. But in terms of straight fuel efficiency, the P-40N performed very well. Much better than I expected, in fact. I had assumed the P-51 was likely the best in terms of air miles per gallon, given its demonstrated record of long-range flight, so I was quite surprised to see the P-40's figures.