Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, but few Mustang MkI, IA and II flew few escort missions, and operated at lower altitudes where the Allison performed well.1500 hrs equates to 9 months of 6 hr escort missions doing one every day.
Resp:
There are several sources that state that the RAF got @1500 hrs on the Allison engined Mustang, while only 400 hrs on the Merlin Mustangs, before the engine required a major overhaul. So the above statement seems to fit.
Good info, but as I said planes had a built in obsolescence. Once MkII Spitfires were introduced what was the urgency to overhaul MkIs, then came Mk Vs and all the others. Same could be said for P-51s how many B/C variants were overhauled and how many were just replaced by D variants. They were progressively worn out in training squadrons and OTUs.RR gave suggested overhaul life times at the beginning of the war and at the end of the war For use in bombers it was higher than in fighters and at the end of the war it was higher in transports than in bombers.
The suggested life for fighters went from 240 hours in 1939 to 300 hours in 1944 to 360 hours in 1945.
This despite the later engines making much more power.
This was not a guarantee. It was a limit at which R R thought that an engine should be pulled from service , even if exhibiting no problems in running, as a preventative measure to prevent problems in flight (engine failure/crash).
from 1942 on only about 35% of the engines that passed through the repair organizations (overhaul shops) had reached their max time.
In addition to normal engine problems (excessive oil consumption, poor power, metal bits in the oil) engines with combat damage, crash damage and prop strikes went though the repair organizations so that figure of 35% is obviously skewed compared to normal wear.
Correct if and only if your aircraft can dive faster than the opposition. We are comparing that dive of the P40 against the Typhoon and there is only one winner there, the Typhoon.
A number of the people you quote fought the Japanese, whose planes were known for their poor dive speed. The Russian said in his quote up to 1943 the P40 could hold their own against the Germans. No one you quote say that the P40 was better than the 109 or 190 or that the P40 was excellent. The best that can be said for the pilots you quote was that if flown correctly the P40 was good but the initiative was with the Luftwaffe.
An aside but I think valid, is that the Russians were continually asking the allies for two types of aircraft the P39 and the Spitfire. They never asked for more P40's, they got them but didn't ask for them, in a similar manner they never asked for Valentine tanks, but got them by the thousand. Which incidentally knocks a hole in another of your postings where you mention that the P51 and Spitfire wouldn't be suitable for Russia, as they certainly asked for more Spitfires.
"The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. " The Hurricane could only compete over its own island in 1940 with the help of RADAR. With the same engine the Spitfire was faster at all altitudes, and the Spitfire was fairly evenly matched against the Bf 109. You may like to concentrate on roll rate and instantaneous turn rate, speed and rate of climb and firepower were always decisive.
Now you have changed the theatre AGAIN, this is becoming ridiculous, in air combat speed, rate of climb and firepower were decisive, after that sustained rate of turn and roll rate had some importance. There is one factor, it is so obvious I don't know how you can say any other it was speed, in level flight, in climb or dive, speed ruled and no one cared if an Me 262 was deficient in a turn or roll, no allied aircraft could make it turn or roll without mobbing it. Judging a plane on its kills makes no sense, in any such comparison a Sopwith Camel will prove better than an F-22 or F-35.No, actually they were not always decisive. Almost every Allied aircraft in 1941 and 1942 was faster than the A6M and the Ki-43 and many could out climb them yet they got slaughtered by them.
There is no one factor, or even two or three, that always makes a fighter superior.... unless it's so far beyond the ballpark of the competition as to be of another generation (i.e. monoplanes vs. biplanes or jets vs prop fighters.)
It's an over simplistic way of looking at the war.
Compared to a Sopwith Camel it is a no brainer. Just look at the kills and rate of turn, game over!F35 is crap lol
The first US kills against the A6M was by the P-36 at Pearl Harbor - by inexperienced pilots, wearing pajamas...No, actually they were not always decisive. Almost every Allied aircraft in 1941 and 1942 was faster than the A6M and the Ki-43 and many could out climb them yet they got slaughtered by them.
There is no one factor, or even two or three, that always makes a fighter superior.... unless it's so far beyond the ballpark of the competition as to be of another generation (i.e. monoplanes vs. biplanes or jets vs prop fighters.)
It's an over simplistic way of looking at the war.
...
But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.
..
If we built fabric covered biplanes with a wood structure, would the F35's radar detect them. IIRC, the Mosquito had a low radar signature because it was made of wood.Compared to a Sopwith Camel it is a no brainer. Just look at the kills and rate of turn, game over!
Funny thing, The P-40 got into the war well before the Typhoon did and while the Typhoon must have been phased out very quickly after the end of the war, the P-40 continued to serve, the Dutch using them against insurgents in the East Indies until 1947.
Apart from the engine wings and rear fuselage the Typhoon was a great plane.Probably a case where the Tempest took over from the Typhoon. I've read the Tempest was still being utilised in 1955.
If we built fabric covered biplanes with a wood structure, would the F35's radar detect them. IIRC, the Mosquito had a low radar signature because it was made of wood.
Or it could be the long range, which would be useless over the vast Russian plains.Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?
Resp:Good info, but as I said planes had a built in obsolescence. Once MkII Spitfires were introduced what was the urgency to overhaul MkIs, then came Mk Vs and all the others. Same could be said for P-51s how many B/C variants were overhauled and how many were just replaced by D variants. They were progressively worn out in training squadrons and OTUs.