Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Britain never adopted the Euro or metric system so you have a valid point. Britain is it's own rather small continent located 21 miles from the much larger European continent. 8)
The usage of the metric system varies around the world. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook, the International System of Units has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures by all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States.
That would be wrong.
The US adopted the metric system officially in 1866.
- Uprate the A-20
- Uprate the Martin Baltimore
- Uprate the Martin Maryland
- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26
- Build the Mosquito under license
- Hell, maybe they could have cloned the Ju-88 easier than all the money and time it took to develop the P-61.
I'm intrigued by the A-26 option.
It seems both aircraft were developed around the same time.
Perhaps duplication of effort could have been avoided with less money resources expended, to put all P-61 development into a NF version of the A-26.
After viewing a demonstration in the UK, General Henry "Hap" Arnold took plans of the Mosquito back to 5 manufacturers in the US to get interest in licence production. None ended up taking the chance, Beech scathing in its comments about the Mosquito's construction.
What did Beech say about the Mossie, had a quick google but nothing comes up. Talking about Beech was its XA-38 Grizzly ever considered as a night fighter.
It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use a construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes.
Talking about Beech was its XA-38 Grizzly ever considered as a night fighter.
Beech said:
It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use a construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes.
Well that told DeHavilland and the RAF didnt it
I suppose you could argue all the above points and some on the internet try there best. However flying characteristics Huh!? were they sniffing the thinners in the paint shop. I know the Mossie wasnt perfect in the air (what aircraft ever is) but this is an aircraft that performed with the best. I presume that if they got to test a Mossie it must have been a worn out old dog one flight away from the scrapyard.
They would only have seen the plans at that stage. Only W4050 was flying at the time.
Aah right, then in that case I detect a strong whiff of Bull Manure. Beech trying to get contracts for its own designs wouldnt want to build another design especially a British one.
It seems it could have been more cost-effective, and more production-effective, to either...
- Uprate the A-20
- Uprate the Martin Baltimore
- Uprate the Martin Maryland
- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26
- Build the Mosquito under license
- Hell, maybe they could have cloned the Ju-88 easier than all the money and time it took to develop the P-61.
I'm intrigued by the A-26 option.
It seems both aircraft were developed around the same time.
Perhaps duplication of effort could have been avoided with less money resources expended, to put all P-61 development into a NF version of the A-26.
- Uprate the A-20
They did. It was called the P-70. Several squadrons trained up on P-70s, which they took with them to Europe only to swap them for Beaufighters or P-61s.
- Uprate the Martin Baltimore
Too low a performance base
- Uprate the Martin Maryland
Also too low a performance base
.- Produce a night fighter varient of the A-26
That could have worked, but you would still end up with lower performance than the P-61, which had lower performance than the Mosquito
After viewing a demonstration in the UK, General Henry "Hap" Arnold took plans of the Mosquito back to 5 manufacturers in the US to get interest in licence production. None ended up taking the chance, Beech scathing in its comments about the Mosquito's construction.
The P-70 was not the 'uprated A-20', the engines were the same 1600 HP R-2600s. So why not an A-20 with R-2800 (reinforce the wings, and/or delete the outer fuel tanks, install the bombe bay tanks in oreder to arrive at 550+ gals in case the outer tanks are deleted)?
They did it, it is called an A-26.
The A-26 saga is not a happy one. Arguments over price delayed initial production orders by a number of months in the spring/summer/fall of 1941. Later on the goverment and Douglas spent a lot time pointing fingers at each other with late delays of materials (including engine and propellers) slowing things down. Engines and propellers (and other things) are government furnished equipment and not the responsibility of the airframe maker to procure.
...
the P-61 squadrons kill rate in the ETO is quite questionable. you can find each squadrons bio in breif in "Queen of the Midnight skies". I have the micro-fische of the P-61 squads in the ETO and there was much confusion/still is in deciphering just really went on during night ops some of the op reports are almost impossible to read copied or not. Sadly at least 2-4 Allied A/C were shot down byt ETO Widow squadrons by mistake, something of course that was never recorded down in the unit histories.
the 414th nfs also provided a half dozen Widows to the US 422nd nfs for ops during the bulge and also scored some kills .....maybe.
remember that the two major US ETO squads were given sanctioned areas in 1945 to cover every evening and were not given the go ahead like advancing Mossie intruder units which roamed freely over the Reich in search for LW NF's landing or attacking BC heavies.