I am sure the Americans could have built Mosquitos if they had decided to, my Grandad was a coach body builder at Derby railway works and he was involved in the building of Mosquitos during the war, America must of had enough skilled joiners etc to build Mosquitos if required. If the RAF had Mosquitos in enough numbers to do all the missions that required Mosquitos then there was not so much need for the Americans to have Mosquitos also, the RAF did one job and the USAAF another.
USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
"...Makes you wonder though, if WW2 hadn't happened would it have become so dominant?"
That doesn't stand up either, my Friend.
From the moment the 13 Colonies won their independence from the Crown, the USA was headed for dominance ..... not God-Given dominance ... but nonetheless Manifest Destiny dominance.
All WW2 confirmed was what WW1 had already demonstrated ..... that Europe - aka the rest of the world - was in flux .... leaving an open-wide opportunity for America (industry, finance, military, science, etc) to show what it could do. The world needed an america.And for the most part, the world is a better place for what America has done.
MM
Proud Canadian
You have to remember that America was after all a British invention, Washington and friends were not native Americans.
- Thread starter
-
- #103
As for aerodynamics, superchargers etc:
Many renown, non-US airplanes used NACA airfoils; Spitfire, Fw-190, Lavotchinks, you name it. NACA cowl is/was also US invention. The 100 oct fuel was a great thing, crucial for the BoB, and USA was in the forefront of the development production of that and better fuels.
P&W was 1st to design produce a two stage supercharged engine (bar prototypes and one-offs). US was producing many semi- and full-automatic weapons, even in prior ww2 begun; their artillery was second to none. OTOH, many countries used Oerlikon and Bofors automatic cannons, UK was one of them; Hispano II-V was a development of a French design.
Many renown, non-US airplanes used NACA airfoils; Spitfire, Fw-190, Lavotchinks, you name it. NACA cowl is/was also US invention. The 100 oct fuel was a great thing, crucial for the BoB, and USA was in the forefront of the development production of that and better fuels.
P&W was 1st to design produce a two stage supercharged engine (bar prototypes and one-offs). US was producing many semi- and full-automatic weapons, even in prior ww2 begun; their artillery was second to none. OTOH, many countries used Oerlikon and Bofors automatic cannons, UK was one of them; Hispano II-V was a development of a French design.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"...all a British invention".
I'd question your choice of words.
I'd question your choice of words.
America led the world in civil aviation with the likes of the Boeing 274, DC 1-3, Lockheed Model 9 Orion series:
It also invented kosher Coca Cola and the soda fountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#20th_century_landmarks
and..................TWINKIES!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie
I mean how advanced do you want a civilisation to be?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Thanks. Proud to have you as a neighbor. Our relationship should always be as brothers.
I just wrote that comment down for a bit of banter to be honest. I read quite a lot on the American revolution some years ago and the actual facts behind it differ considerably from what has now become popular folklore.
Glider
Captain
P51 B-D powered by a copy of which engine? first installed in which country. P51 H significantly improved performance due to an engine powered in which country and used the design stress rules used in which country?
.
True but who had the better in line engines? I look on that as a draw particually if you think about the first jet engines .
Fair to say we did pretty well with what we had.
Some? Navigation, Radar, Huff Duff, you name it .
The Lee Enfield which was close to but not as good as the Garrand, The Bren modified to UK requirements but a lot better than the BAR. The 6pd AT gun copied by which country?
The US and UK 20mm aircraft guns were both based on the French design but which was far more reliable in combat? the Bofors guns used by all sides were designed in which country? (clue not UK or USA). While we are at it the 20mm AA guns were also designed in which country (again not UK or USA).
.
British MTB's at the start of the war used Italian engines and the Packards were copies of which engine?
AEC 7.6 litre on Matador
Bedford on Bedford QLD
Morris EH on Artillery Tractors
Gardner engines on Scammell pioneer Trucks
Canadian Built trucks used US engines for practical reasons
.
But they missed the war which is when they would have been needed and were not an improvement on UK Designs whithout which the USA would have been further behind .
By 1939 most UK farms did have electricity as those outside the national grid were given access to Generators and yes the majority did have indoor plumbing to a limited degree. War preperations were very detailed such as farms were given Linoleum for floors to ease cleaning freeing up time for farming. The latest techniques were taught to all farmers, tractors were being ordered to improve production and so on
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it has been addressed and I missed it but can there be anything to
#1 When the USA recognized how good the Mosquito is the USA was already well on the way with metal Heavy, Medium, and Light bombers and it would be 1943 before the USA could have enough to make a difference and the USA was staring to hit it's stride on output.
#2 The Germans are under a lot of pressure and there is a need to keep that pressure going and the metal bomber tooling investment as well as planes is a sunk cost.
#3. The USA thinks because it already has all of these bombers and is tooled up for it Mustang escort might be the faster route to viable bombers and they would not want to divert too many engines to other projects. It may have been better for the USA at this point in the war to crank out Mustangs rather than the Mosquito because it was already so heavily invested in metal bombers even if the Mosquito is the better plane.
#4. The British and Canadians are doing a fantastic job with the Mosquito allowing the USA to go a slightly different direction. The USA and it's allies do not need to be doing the exact same things everywhere to help with the war effort.
#5. Perhaps the A-26 and Mosquito are both good for the allies to have even though the A-26 came late. There are things the Mosquito can do better, there are things maybe that the A-26 can do better. There are things both can successfully do.
#6. In early 1944 Big Week may have reduced the need for the USA to consider the Mosquito in 1944 as the Luftwaffe has been reduced. In 1943 it was very invested in other projects.
#1 When the USA recognized how good the Mosquito is the USA was already well on the way with metal Heavy, Medium, and Light bombers and it would be 1943 before the USA could have enough to make a difference and the USA was staring to hit it's stride on output.
#2 The Germans are under a lot of pressure and there is a need to keep that pressure going and the metal bomber tooling investment as well as planes is a sunk cost.
#3. The USA thinks because it already has all of these bombers and is tooled up for it Mustang escort might be the faster route to viable bombers and they would not want to divert too many engines to other projects. It may have been better for the USA at this point in the war to crank out Mustangs rather than the Mosquito because it was already so heavily invested in metal bombers even if the Mosquito is the better plane.
#4. The British and Canadians are doing a fantastic job with the Mosquito allowing the USA to go a slightly different direction. The USA and it's allies do not need to be doing the exact same things everywhere to help with the war effort.
#5. Perhaps the A-26 and Mosquito are both good for the allies to have even though the A-26 came late. There are things the Mosquito can do better, there are things maybe that the A-26 can do better. There are things both can successfully do.
#6. In early 1944 Big Week may have reduced the need for the USA to consider the Mosquito in 1944 as the Luftwaffe has been reduced. In 1943 it was very invested in other projects.
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]
In the 60's and 70's there were still farm houses in the center states of the USA that did not have indoor pluming. I remember bathing in a metal tub that was filled with water from buckets from an outdoor pump with water heated in pots on the stove.
wuzak
Captain
Glider
Captain
A small point but officially I believe the USAAF considered the Mosquito to be unsuitable for night operations, hard to believe I know, but true.
Shortround6
Major General
What does the engine have to do with aerodynamics?
Early Allison and Early Merlin weren't that far apart. Merlin got better superchargers sooner. You are claiming the US was behind in piston engines, it wasn't.
Homing torpedoes?
I like the Lee Enfield but you either have a semi-automatic rifle or you don't. The BAR was not a LMG, it was an automatic rifle. Saying the British were ahead of the Americans because they converted a Czech machine gun to fire the .303 round is pushing things. The 6pdr was revolutionary how? The Americans and British agreed to use some of the same weapons/calibers to make supply easier. The other main artillery collaboration was a mistake. Less said about the 4.5in gun the better.
And this shows the US was behind the rest of the world and Britain in particular how? The US 20mm aircraft gun problem was a stupid mistake in chamber dimension. The US did have it's own 1.1in Navel AA gun and it's own 37mm Army AA gun. While not as good as the Swedish 40mm Bofors they were as good or better than most of the Light AA that the rest of the world started WW II with ( French and German 37mm Naval AA weren't even automatic weapons).
Packard marine engines weren't a copy of anything, they were a modified version of the late 1920s Packard aircraft engine.
Thank you for proving my point. while you list two diesels the middle two engines are 3.5 liter gasoline engines of 70-72hp which don't seem to offer any real advantage over American gasoline engines of about the same size and power as used in Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge and other cars and trucks. In 1940 the British came to Diamond Reo for a tank transporter that used a Hercules diesel of 14.7 liters and 185hp. Just about the same power per liter as the AEC Matadoe engine. Where is the British superiority?
Changing the argument now?
You original statement "Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs."
Nothing about missing the war in the first statement. and I would note that the US ONLY used a handful (2-4) of British built engines during the war on a few prototype aircraft so the parts of the statement that they had to use Rolls Royce engines because they couldn't make any itself post war is rather dubious.
GE got the Whittle bench engine 1st of Oct 1941, by 18th April 1942 the General Electric I was running and on the 2nd Oct 1942 two GE 1-A engines powered the XP-59A on it's first flight. Only 5 months ahead of the Gloster Meteor. At this time the GE I-16 was already running on the bench at 1600bs thrust. When did the Welland reach 1600lbs thrust?
The Army wanted more power and GE responded by designing the I-40 engine which first ran on 9th Jan 1944. Allis-Chamlers had been given a contract to build de Havilland Goblins under licence as the J-36 engine but failed to deliver and P-80s were powered by the GE J-33 ( renamed I-40) instead.
GE had been working on a turbo prop and after the gas generator ran on the 15th May 1943 they decided to use it as a plain turbo jet. It ran on the test bed 21st April 1944 with a 11 stage Axial compressor and a pressure ratio of 5:1.
Both the J33 and J35 were good for 4000lbs in their early versions. While the J-33 and the Rolls Royce engines had the same starting point they evolved in parallel. Wiki "claims" the GE I-40 is an "improved" Derwent. Well if being 9in bigger in diameter, almost double the weight and giving double the thrust of a Derwent I is only an "improvment" I guess they are right.
by 1939 many of those things could be said about the majority of American farms. One can always pick and choose examples of poor conditions or poor areas but it is very bad practice to extend those examples to making generalities about a nation as a whole. The US was very much larger than Britain and while there were large areas and large numbers of poor farmers on average American farmers had more tractors/motor vehicles than any other nation. This is not saying the British were backwards, just saying the Americans were NOT as far behind as you seem to think.
Shortround6
Major General
or the sophistication of the plumbing miles from a sizable town?
Both countries had areas that had modern conveniences and areas that did not. Given the size of the US the US had areas that were rather large that did not but based on percentage or per capita I don't think they were that different.
IIRC Don Bennett was told the same thing by The Men From The Ministry when he was trying to get Mossies for Pathfinder Force, specifically because they could carry Oboe higher (= more range) and faster (= safer, main force less likely to fail through bad marking.)
I think he waited for them to play that card, then quietly told them he was surprised to hear the Mossie was unsuited to night flight, as he'd been doing so all the past week...
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"....So a civilization is to be judged by the sophistication of it's plumbing ??"
Yes. May seem humorous ... may seem simplistic ... but without a planned, disciplined means of human waste removal .... it ain't much of a civilization. It leaves itself open to epidemic and disease. BUT ... flush toilets are not synonymous with civilization. Spoiling 2+ gallons of water to dispose of a cup of urine is self-indulgence.
Yes. May seem humorous ... may seem simplistic ... but without a planned, disciplined means of human waste removal .... it ain't much of a civilization. It leaves itself open to epidemic and disease. BUT ... flush toilets are not synonymous with civilization. Spoiling 2+ gallons of water to dispose of a cup of urine is self-indulgence.
Yes indeed, though that said the best source for the timeline of on-squadron technical changes is actually Sharp Bowyer. The original ORBs tend to be full of who's joined the squadron, who's left the squadron, what the weather is and what exercises were undertaken. The post-war histories tend to have a lot of info on who dropped how many bombs where and when, though Barry Blunt's squadron histories tend to have much more info.
Anyway, in terms of what Sharp Bowyer have to say about speeds and tech development, I've gone through it again with a view to quotes about early speed tests, early engine management and early exhaust developments. It all goes to explaining why I believe the early bombers and PRs did 380 mph (my Inner Crumpp just won't let it go...)
In February '41, de Havilland's tests on W4050, the prototype were in line with expectations, which had been 386 mph. When the A&AEE tested the aircraft at Boscombe Down in March '41, they found the speed to be 388 at 22,000 ft. After it went back to de Havilland's, the latter were getting a top of 392 out of it, at 22,000 feet and 16,000 lbs. weight. (I'm assuming that was on +9 boost, as that seems to have been the FTH for that boost level.)
That's the prototype of course. The company delivered a total of 20 aircraft before the end of 1941, and "As performance was measured on more and more aircraft it appeared that production B.Mk.IVs at the end of 1941 were doing 382 m.p.h. at 22,000 feet, 5 m.p.h. less than had been measured on the prototype with faired nacelles. Fighters were doing 378 m.p.h. (352 m.p.h. with matt finish), the greater drag of their flat windscreen, plus A.I. and larger tailplane, being offset by their better nacelle fairings at that time - until the final nacelles became standard."
That speed appears to have been borne out once the aircraft got onto squadrons - the PRU was the first user, followed by 105 Squadron on bombers:
"105's first Mk.IV did not arrive until mid-May (mhuxt - 1942). With the longer nacelles and flame dampers these were reckoned to be faster than the P.R.U./Bomber Conversion Type Mosquito I, but on tests the first showed a top speed of 2 m.p.h. less, 380 m.p.h. at 22,000 feet in F.S. gear, and 105 Squadron maintained this was general."
There was also the issue of how much boost could be used, and when, but the evidence suggests that the emergency boost cut-out was useable from March '42 onwards at the latest, a couple months before the bombers went into action over Germany. The PR birds eventually encountered Luftwaffe fighters, as below:
One "of the earliest encounters with fighters (was) described by Flt. Lt. Merifield after a flight from Scotland:- 'We were flying in W4061 (mhuxt - 12th aircraft produced overall, seventh PR machine, 2nd of the Long-Range variants, would have been delivered with ducted exhausts, not the saxophones or the stubs) on 30 March, 1942, over Trondheim at 18,000 feet in F.S. gear at 2,400 revs. at the time. I noticed an Me 109 in my mirror about half a mile behind and 500 feet above. It was making a trail of black smoke, presumably because it was at full throttle. I increased revs. to 3,000, switched over to M.S., pulled the cut-out and dived gently. My observer reported another 109 on our starboard quarter about the same distance behind. We levelled off at 14,000 feet but did not seem to draw ahead. Observation of the enemy aircaft was difficult because they were dead astern and we were making a lot of black smoke ourselves. After a quarter of an hour they were no longer to be seen, so boost was reduced to 6 lb. and revs. to 2,700. ... I could not say what speed was reached during the dive but at 14,000 feet the I.A.S. was 320, which afterwards computed to be 395.'"
The important thing about the above is really that the boost cut-out was available, allowing higher boost below 22,000, and that pilots were ready willing and able to use it. This wasn't just the case at the PRU - the bomber pilots of 105 also used it in mid-42, about a month after their first raid:
"During his sortie (mhuxt - to Flensburg on 2 July 1942) Sqn. Ldr. Houlston was chased by three Fw 190s, intercepting Mosquitoes for the first time. He comfortably drew away from them, using plus 12 1/2 lb. boost at sea level."
Furthermore, the available boost levels were increased shortly thereafter; as noted earlier: "By the end of September (mhuxt - 1942) 105 Squadron had nineteen Mosquitoes, all with +14 lbs. boost."
As far as the stub exhausts are concerned, the prototype was first fitted with stubs in July 1941. The initial tests were done at Hatfield, but were adopted after trials in the operational units themselves. "Trials at Marham (mhuxt - 105 Squadron's base) with DK336 fitted with open stubs indicated that these gave too much glare at night, revealing the position of the aircraft and making night landings difficult. Closing the stub ends to oval section of slightly less area reduced the glare in tests on 25 November (mhuxt - 1942) and increased the jet propulsion effect without reducing engine efficiency, giving a worthwhile net gain of from 10 to 13 m.p.h. depending on altitude. ... The shrouded exhausts - never popular with ground crews - were retained for dusk and dawn attacks, and others were fitted with oval stubs for day raids, as on reconnaissance aircraft."
It seems the work at 105 was in fact applied on the recce aircraft either before the bombers got theirs, or at exactly the same time: "Two Mosquito IVs fitted with multiple ejector exhausts reached the squadron (mhuxt - by this time the PRU had been split into various squadrons, in this case 540 Squadron) in November (MH - 1942). It was decided that the extra 10 m.p.h. or so obtained from propulsion effect was worth more than flame suppression, and future aircraft were similarly equipped."
So anyway, that's where I'm coming from on early Mossie bomber speed. If the U.K. had gone to the U.S. with a plan for the Americans to produce Mosquitos, it would have been for a 380 mph machine.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
Nothing but we could do aerodynamics Mossie, Spit but what made the P51 was the Merlin. What made the P51H were UK design standards not US
If it wasn't the P51 wouldn't have needed the Merlin to make it the plane it became.
True but these came late after that Battle of the Atlantic was won, by Radar, Huff duff and other UK devices and weapons such as Hedghog, Squid, Leigh Light.
The British were ahead of the USA as they recognised they needed an LMG and got the best they could without worrying about their ego and NIH issues. The 6pd wasn't a collaberation it was the best weapon of its time and the USA copied it.
Be fair I did point out that the 20mm and the 40mm were neither US or UK designs and neither country was ahead of the rest.
Nope the US 20mm was handled in an dreadful manner. The same basic design was taken by both the UK and USA. the UK got it to work and the USA didn't. It was in US hand a huge waste of resources and to put it down to a single error is way off the mark.
The 1.1 was replaced as soon as possible and was a very poor weapon, plus its noticable that the US Army preferred the M16 to the M15 weapon.
Correct that I grant but the interesting thing is that we preferred the Italian engines so as to which was best I cannot comment on
It wan't a case of superiority. You asked for examples of advanced british engines and I gave some concentrating on specialist trucks, simple as that.
If you are going to quote me, at least get the quote right. I said Designs whithout which the USA would have been further behind
Basis of this was simple point. The GE1 was based on the Gloster Whittle engine. Without that the USA would have been further behind. The J 33 was based on the J31 which was a production version of the British Whittle 1 which supports my point. You yourself pointed out that UK and US engines started from the same position and developed alongside each other which is the point of my statement. Without the British start the USA would ahve been behind.
No idea as to when 1,600 thrust was developed on the bench but the first Derwent was in production in 1943 with 2,000ib
I am not saying anything, I was just putting some flesh onto the statement. Without the war war preparation UK farming would have been much further behind. Had the USA seen a war on the way I have no doubt at all that similar and maybe more would ahve been done.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
My apologies, I confused your post with another members who posed the US was backwards and need to catch up with the rest of the world, however;
Engines still have nothing to do with aerodynamics, The original statement was that the US was behind in aerodynamics. While not every US plane was better than every British plane the US transports of the 30s (DC-2 in October 1934 MacRobertson Air Race) show that the US was behind nobody for most of this period. See also DC-4 and Constellation. See earlier Lockheeds.
Squid had little to do with winning the Battle of the Atlantic, first production unit wasn't fitted until Sept 1943. First kill was in July 1944. The airborne homing Torpedoes were first dropped in action in the summer of 1943.
Aside from tolerance issues which were straightened out that chamber dimension was the major problem. Unless you can show different?
The 1.1 may have been poor but many other nations had worse, it also survived until 1945 in small ships (DEs). The 1.1 may have been OK as a gun but the mount was complex and the power drive systems gave lots of trouble. The US built over 7,000 of the 37mm AA guns.
It may have been what was available. The US having little or no Program for PT boats until 1940. SO few, if any engine production before then.
Again the original poster was claiming that the US was behind Britain and/or the rest of the world in engines.
But they are not advanced engines, simple as that, the original position was that the US was behind, not equal.
There was a list published in the Automotive IND vol 82, No.5 March 1, 1940 of American stock, marine and commercial engines ( truck bus, stationary powerplant, etc) there are 483 engines on the list from 40 companies. The List may not be completely accurate. Most of these engines, if not all, are simply work engines, not high performance, with low power per unit of volume and high weights, they range from single cylinder engines to massive V-12 marine engines. Unless someone can show how another countries engines were superior or more advanced than the American ones and not simply that they had engines equal to the American engines the idea that America was behind in engine design and needed to copy the British or other nations must be discarded.
I have apologized for confusing your post with the earlier one. You are correct the US would have been further behind but the original posters statement " Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs." is pure hogwash.
Time line for the Derwent seems to be.
first run 29 June 1943, reached 1800lbs
passed type test at 2000lb in Nov 1943
Dec 20th 1943 first flight test in a Wellington
18th April 1944 sees first flight in Meteor with 1800lb service rating.
Information from "Turbojet History and Development 1930-1960 Volume I by Antony L. Kay.
The original question was when did the Welland reach 1600lbs on the Bench. I can't find that but a Welland was giving 1600lbs in the tail of a Wellington in May of 1943 which is 6-7 months after the I-16 makes the same power on the bench.
Engines still have nothing to do with aerodynamics, The original statement was that the US was behind in aerodynamics. While not every US plane was better than every British plane the US transports of the 30s (DC-2 in October 1934 MacRobertson Air Race) show that the US was behind nobody for most of this period. See also DC-4 and Constellation. See earlier Lockheeds.
Squid had little to do with winning the Battle of the Atlantic, first production unit wasn't fitted until Sept 1943. First kill was in July 1944. The airborne homing Torpedoes were first dropped in action in the summer of 1943.
The Americans had a different infantry tactical doctrine, it may have been wrong but that doesn't mean they were behind in weapons. Of all the weapons in an infantry battalion ONLY the Bren gun could be considered superior to it's American equivalent. A few other things might be equal. The US didn't collaborate in the design of the 6pdr but since the US was going to make 6pdr ammo why not use the British gun? BTW, the US had a design for their own 57mm AT gun and 4 pilot models were built. US decided on the British gun and approved the American version ( tolerances and thread sizes and such) 6 months before the British got the 6pdr into production in Britain.
Aside from tolerance issues which were straightened out that chamber dimension was the major problem. Unless you can show different?
The 1.1 may have been poor but many other nations had worse, it also survived until 1945 in small ships (DEs). The 1.1 may have been OK as a gun but the mount was complex and the power drive systems gave lots of trouble. The US built over 7,000 of the 37mm AA guns.
It may have been what was available. The US having little or no Program for PT boats until 1940. SO few, if any engine production before then.
Again the original poster was claiming that the US was behind Britain and/or the rest of the world in engines.
But they are not advanced engines, simple as that, the original position was that the US was behind, not equal.
There was a list published in the Automotive IND vol 82, No.5 March 1, 1940 of American stock, marine and commercial engines ( truck bus, stationary powerplant, etc) there are 483 engines on the list from 40 companies. The List may not be completely accurate. Most of these engines, if not all, are simply work engines, not high performance, with low power per unit of volume and high weights, they range from single cylinder engines to massive V-12 marine engines. Unless someone can show how another countries engines were superior or more advanced than the American ones and not simply that they had engines equal to the American engines the idea that America was behind in engine design and needed to copy the British or other nations must be discarded.
I have apologized for confusing your post with the earlier one. You are correct the US would have been further behind but the original posters statement " Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs." is pure hogwash.
Time line for the Derwent seems to be.
first run 29 June 1943, reached 1800lbs
passed type test at 2000lb in Nov 1943
Dec 20th 1943 first flight test in a Wellington
18th April 1944 sees first flight in Meteor with 1800lb service rating.
Information from "Turbojet History and Development 1930-1960 Volume I by Antony L. Kay.
The original question was when did the Welland reach 1600lbs on the Bench. I can't find that but a Welland was giving 1600lbs in the tail of a Wellington in May of 1943 which is 6-7 months after the I-16 makes the same power on the bench.
- Status
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)