- Thread starter
-
- #181
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well aware of most of this - my question was the comment about the P-51D being easier to produce.About the P-51H - In 1946, Merlin production had stopped, so no new V1650-9s, and the big push was for jets - Allison wasn't doing much with the V1710 - just enough to get the G series engines for the P-82 into acceptable shape, and that took years. So, by the end of 1945, more or less, those were all the H models you were going to get.
The H models were kept in the States, and assigned as Air Defense Interceptors from 1946-basically 1949, although some stuck in until 1950 in Regular Service. They were basically the only piston-engined fighters that could intercept an incoming B-29 or Tu-4 with the radar warning available at the time. Meanwhile, there were a lot of D models, and spares for them, in the boneyards, so they stayed around as well, both in the U.S. and overseas, and made up about half of the Fighter Squadrons of the newly forming Air National Guard.
no 24 hour missions. IIRC, no mid air refueling before advent of B-50Asking again: Maybe it was overlooked:
How were the Liberators equipped to perform 24 hour missions? And what were the ranges that were flown?
I was surprised by the numbers for the A-20. Perhaps because it was one of the first fairly high-speed attack profile aircraft, tricycle gear and single pilot with multiple engines to control? Did the train on low level stuff state side? If so, that would certainly increase the accident numbers.
I have once read from a crewmember telling about 24 hour missions elsewhere. In a book about the B-24 iirc.no 24 hour missions. IIRC, no mid air refueling before advent of B-50
Same as for the French Navy 54 examples. By the way, they were coded WU (for Western Union, the defense treaty between UK, France, the USA and Benelux countries, not the financial service Co...).And Anti-Sub.Anti-Shipping Patrol and Air-Sea Rescue.
Yes, but it wasn't used as a front line bomber, that's my point. I think Argentina had their's around for a while as well
It proofed a machine which doesn't fall apart in mid-air even if one might assume that and seemed more robust than most would give her credit for.It illustrates quite clearly how the Liberator was stretched to greater and greater feats as the war went on.
"Old design"? In what way? What model B-17s and B-24s are we comparing?B-17 was already an old design at the start of WWII, the B-24 was a new design.
Ok....B-17 was designed in peacetime by engineers with time on their side to 'do it right' - the B-24 was designed fast as a mass producible warplane.
WRONG! The B-24 WAS NEVER being fielded to replace the B-17 - If you're talking about the ETO, there was talk of the B-32 replacing BOTH aircraftBy 1944 the B-17 was well past its sell by date and being replaced rapidly by the B-24
Reference? But basically irrelevant...Orders for a further 5,000 B-24's were cancelled on VJ Day
B-17 production had ended in July 1945
The B-24 design started in 1938 Consolidated were invited to submit the design for its model 32 in Jan 1939. Work by Boeing on the B-29 started in 1938 with design submitted in May 1940 the Consolidated design which became the B32 was submitted at the same time. Very few designs made it into the war that werent started in peacetime, especially as far as the US is concerned. The Me 262 was flying before the USA entered the war, it got jet engines in July 1942 but it was already designed. If you start with a clean piece of paper in Dec 1941 you dont have time to do everything needed to get it functioning and in production by Aug 1945.B-17 was already an old design at the start of WWII, the B-24 was a new design.
B-17 was designed in peacetime by engineers with time on their side to 'do it right' - the B-24 was designed fast as a mass producible warplane.
By 1944 the B-17 was well past its sell by date and being replaced rapidly by the B-24
Orders for a further 5,000 B-24's were cancelled on VJ Day
B-17 production had ended in July 1945
While generally true there is always the odd exception. I give you the Grumman F8F Bearcat.If you start with a clean piece of paper in Dec 1941 you dont have time to do everything needed to get it functioning and in production by Aug 1945.
It just made it into service but not to any real effect and by the time Grumman started on the Bearcat it was their 3rd generation fighter, they really knew what they were doing. You could also include the Hawker Tempest, which went fairly well, because all the screw ups had been on the Typhoon.While generally true there is always the odd exception. I give you the Grumman F8F Bearcat.
Depending on what you read its gestation goes back to June 1942 post Midway at the earliest, or to early 1943 after one of the Grumman test pilots had flown a captured Fw 190. Formal design began around late July 1943, the instruction being to wrap the smallest possible airframe around the R-2800 engine. The USN awarded a contract for 2 prototypes on 29 Nov 1943. Prototype first flight 21 August 1944. Production started at the Bethpage factory in Jan 1945. It passed the Carrier Suitability Trials in Feb. The first squadron, VF-19, began to receive its aircraft on 21 May 1945. It was ready for service by 1 Aug. As the war ended it had been ferried along with the rest of CVG-19 to Hawaii, and was awaiting the arrival of its planned parent carrier, USS Hornet. Due to the end of WW2 Hornet, after completing her repairs in mid-Sept, was diverted to Magic Carpet duties.
The second squadron, VF-18, began to swap its F6F for F8F during Aug 1945.
But I grant you that it an extraordinary achievement and a testimony to "The Ironworks".
According to Wiki the B-24 was requested based on lessons learned from the B-17 "In January 1939, the USAAC, under Specification C-212, formally invited Consolidated[7] to submit a design study for a bomber with longer range, higher speed and greater ceiling than the B-17." So without the B-17 the B-24 would possibly be a B-17 in performance.The B-17 may have been a design that just hit the "sweet spot". Like the DC-2/3. Every time someone tries to come up with something better, they just come up with the same thing.