The point, again, is that the P47 did not fly with drop tanks until after the first 171 were built, which ended up being in September 1942 as per the video.
"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There was another directive wasnt there in Feb 1942? In any case Republic could have developed drop tanks themselves, as other companies that don't have 80 year delayed overweaning butt hurt did.
Based on the dates that I have provided i.e. prohibition 5/39, reversal 2/42, and finally first flight 9/42, it appears that the directive was followed by Republic.
No you haven't, you have just fed your bomber mafia conspiracy monster. The directive did not prohibit any company developing drop tanks. Do you normally take this long to absorb a very simple fact? What about all the other issues involved in getting a drop tank in service and actually increasing range by more internal fuel. How come other manufacturers managed it?
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
There are certainly worse youtube channels on ww2 aviation out there, like the drivel Dark skies is sprouting.
I have watched a lot of Gregs videos, and found a much of interest. But I don't know shit about engines, and can't judge most of that critically. But being critical where you can is nessessary, and does not mean that you entirely disregard what you are being critical of, just that you realize everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is biased in some way or another.
As a historian and librarian what i am trained to be critical about in particular is sources. One thing i like about Greg is that he is good at referensing his, I can mention that he has on occasion referensed Callum, making clear where he disagreed. Anyhow referensing sourses is not supposed to buff your position with names dropping, but to present an opportunity for your audience to make up their own mind if they read the sources differently. Us all being experts in different fields, but none of us in all, makes that nessessary. Sometimes it hurts to be critizised, but to move forward one still have to acknowledge it.
Now in this instanse I was genuinely puzzled about what Arnold meant with tactical aircraft. To be sure a lot of people today use tactical and strategic as they were synonyms, though I'm sure Arnold wasn't confused on that point. But when somebody says tactical aircraft, I think about A-20's and Il-2's and, in its fighter bomber role, indeed P-47's. Now that may not apply to Arnold, and not just because these were not operational in 1939. But I do not know about your ideas about tactical and strategic. When it comes to Greg, him being an engineer, he may or may not operate with a clear distinction. Anyway i did not get an answear to my question, except when I pressed the point that Greg said it was fighters. Maybe that was what in the parlance of Arnold was meant, but questions like that crop up all the time when you are confronted with primary sources continets and generatiomns removed from their context. I'd really would like to know.
But while you certainly manage to be critical of the whole forum you seem not to be able to question Greg on any point. Personally I find a lot of his stuff informative, but questions him when he moves out of his area of expertize. He is rightly impressed with the P-47, but people tend to get their judgement clouded when their favourite planes are brought up. and let me remind you that others in this busy day on the forum has expressed that Greg does know a lot about engines and performance, just that the number of followers on youtube does not make the content gospel.
Implying that some here may be jelous is just ludicrous, it's yoytube for gods sake.
I apologize in advanse for the errors in spelling, grammar and syntax.
I'll also apologize if you of course knew all this, but merely chose to disregard it.
I am unable to help with your comprehension.
Gen. Arnold specified his official position, which was prohibition, unless paid for privately.
It would seem that Republic followed his directive.
According to youtube Greg apparently has 113,000 subscribers.
I have no reason to doubt that.
Most of the comments posted are positive.
He is employed in the aviation industry, and is very knowledgeable about automobiles.
He is "my kind o' guy".
I am unable to help with yours. From the Wiki page on the Republic P-43 Lancer "
The Seversky Aircraft Company, which in 1939 changed its name to Republic, constructed a range of private venture, one-off variants of its P-35 design, featuring different powerplants and enhancements, designated AP-2, AP-7, AP-4 (which flew after the AP-7), AP-9, and XP-41. The series included a carrier-based version designated the NF-1 (Naval Fighter 1) that was also built. The most significant of these was the AP-4, which served as the basis for future Seversky/Republic aircraft. It featured fully retractable landing gear, flush riveting, and most significantly a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC2G engine with a belly-mounted turbo-supercharger, producing 1,200 hp (890 kW) and good high-altitude performance. The turbo-supercharger had been refined by Boeing as part of the development program for the B-17 Flying Fortress, and the improved performance it offered was of great interest to other aircraft manufacturers.[1]
Republic developed 6 aircraft as PRIVATE VENTURES yet you think a directive about building drop tanks as private venture is a game winning argument. The P-43 Lancer was developed into the P-47, that is how the business worked and still works. Virgin Galactic just filed for bankruptcy when its private venture satellite launcher couldnt get more backing.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
What Arnold did was set out the official position for funding. The government would not fund development. Aircraft manufacturers were welcome to pursue it on their own dime. In spring 1939 the world was at peace, still dealing with the effects of the depression, and military budgets were constrained.
113,000 fan boys blathering about "bomber mafia" there must be more than that.
Thanks for quoting the Wiki page.
However, I have seen it before.
There is nothing new there for me.
P.S. In earlier years, like 1986, I graduated with an Accounting degree.
I have a reasonable idea as to how the business world operates.
Well why do you equate being told to develop at own cost with prohibition, then blather about my comprehension skills? They are not the same, no matter how much the bomber mafia conspiracy theorists would like them to be. If a company develops six aircraft at their own cost how is developing a drop tank so onerous?
It is not that it is too difficult, or "onerous" as you put it.
It would seem that Republic seemed to be happy to comply as directed by the CinC of the AAC.
I believe it is a method of securing ongoing funding without upsetting the apple cart, whilst in the meantime developing the "fixed" ferry(non-combat) tank, which was not in contravention of the directive.
It's all in the video.
Last edited:
It doesnt matter, it was in 1939, peacetime. A year later they were getting funding for the XP47 which became the P-47. Lots of time to discuss lots of things, like range and tanks and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings.
I'm not sure what Lewis Carroll has to do with anything here.
Possibly, you are fatigued, and need a good rest.
Possibly because the whole discussion is nonsense, you wont let it go because it is the pile of sand that the bomber mafia conspiracy is built upon. In my opinion the problem was a variation on survivorship and confirmation bias leading to incorrect conclusions and actions not some evil conspiracy.
Needed rest confirmed.
buffnut453
Captain
What I'm saying is that the F-6 (P-51B/D...call it what you like) could not achieve the mission results that the Spitfire PR airframes could. You glibly state "less quality images" but what that really means is that the required intelligence could not be collected. If you can't collect the required fidelity of imagery, then there's no point even sending the asset.
Saying that a P-51 with a shorter focal length lens can fly the same mission profile as a Spitfire with a 36in lens but with poorer-quality imagery is basically the equivalent of me saying that a Spitfire PRXI could reach Berlin therefore it could have escorted B-17s to their targets. Yes, the aircraft can fly the profile but it can't actually do the job it was sent to perform. Period.
I never said any of that. I used a specific mission profile that gathered strategic intelligence because it was a known target with known collection requirements. Just because the F-6 could collect some imagery that was of use some of the time does not mean it could meet all the collection requirements all of the time. If it could, the USAAF wouldn't have used Spitfires and Mosquitos for PR work.
The quality of the camera and lens combination is driven by the collection requirement. Some requirements could be fulfilled by F24 cameras and 24in lenses. For example, you may not need really good-quality imagery to evaluate status of a rail yard. Conversely, you do want REALLY good imagery if you're doing technical intelligence analysis to work out what weapons the enemy is developing. If you can get to those tech int images at low level, then all power to you....but the simple fact is that we (the Allies) couldn't for Germany's most secret weapons systems. There was a need for highly-detailed imagery of selected German facilities that were far distant from the UK and within a high threat environment.
Nope. The first PR Spitfire with F52 camera and 36in lens was the PR MkID which flew its first operations in October 1940. One of the targets flown that month was Stettin.
The key point is that the PR Spitfire could perform ALL of the required roles, with multiple camera fits that could be best aligned to mission need and collection requirements. It could fly every mission profile that the F-6 could fly, and could also fly missions that the F-6 couldn't accomplish. And it was doing it before the F-6 even existed.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Again, you're assuming Castle Bromwich was not impacted by dispersed job shops. In reality, some 36 support sites were in place for the Castle Bromwich production line (that's in addition to the already-cited 27 sites operating on the south coast). It had 3 other subordinate assembly lines at separate facilities that were part of the organization. The support sites produced everything from components up to major sub-assemblies (I go back to my comment about a garage making Spitfire fuselages).
All of that dispersion costs resources. It adds man-hours to production efforts. It massively increases retooling costs because you're not retooling just one or two production lines, you're re-tooling over 50.
Under those constraints, trying to make any kind of sensible comparison between NAA and Supermarine production is laughable. It just can't be done. At Inglewood and Dallas, the shift crews could go home safe in the knowledge they could get a solid, nutritious meal and a peaceful night's sleep. That wasn't the case in the UK where many day-shift workers spent their nights in bomb shelters (at least in 1940) and food was severely rationed. And that's before we consider the impact of U-boats on supply of key materials for UK factories.
Distribution across 2 sites is vastly different from distribution across well over 50 sites. The high degree of distribution in the UK wasn't done just for kicks. It was done to preserve production under threat (and actual) attack. Multiple factories in the distribution network were hit and yet production continued to ramp up without impact at the front line. As someone who's so interested effective production approaches, I'd have thought you'd be fascinated by how the UK managed to pull it off. As I've said before, I'm in awe of NAA's ability to get the Mustang into service and the amazingly efficient production lines they established. The UK was operating under vastly different constraints....and you simply can't wave those off as irrelevant, IMHO.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Hence, bovine fecal matter. As Republic emerged from the failure of Sikorsky. The R-2800 engine was deemed an excellent opportunity for Republic to found its new future upon - and they gleefuly accepted the challenge to build a high performance airframe around it - ditto Vought for XF4U.
As to Ferry Tank - virtually every airframe mfr rolled their own version, not under AAC/AAF decree. Lockheed designed their own 165 and 330, which designs formed the basis of the standard tear drop shape combat 150/300 gallon tanks in mid 1943, under the oversight of Materiel Command.
No 'directive' from Arnold or Emmons. Wright Field was still controlling R&D, under the lagging leadership of then Col Oliver Echols Chief, Materiel Command.
The 'apple carts' that were upset came when Echols pressured NAA to build the P-40 for AFPC - which NAA quietly but firmly said 'No, we can build a better Pursuit in less time than it woud take to tool up to produce the P-40. Echols was trying to offload the P-40 production from Bell Buffallo to make room for his (Echols) prize turkey - the P-46.
If any command influence was draped over Echols, it occurred when Arnold and Spaatz visited NAA in January 1942 and were shown the preliminary designe for the Low Level Pursuit (A-36) and shortly afterwards, Gen Muir Fairchild, Chief - Planning and Requirements proceeded to jam first the A-36, then the P-51A and XP-51B, up Echols rear end. Those were destined for CAS Directorate, however as the P-51B was deemed the future replacement for battlefield superiority. That is how the P-51B ended up destined for 9th AF in mid 1943.
You have been given a battery of facts by folks far smarter and more knowledgeable than me, but you keep snatching the victory of comprehension with a determination to remain blissfully ignorant - and pouting for 'more'.
