- Thread starter
- #21
Thorlifter
Captain
Yeah, that's a good one. The 410 was a very nice improvement over the 210 and was well liked by it's crews. Unfortunately it was still instantly overmatched by allied fighters.
Worst to first
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yeah, that's a good one. The 410 was a very nice improvement over the 210 and was well liked by it's crews. Unfortunately it was still instantly overmatched by allied fighters.
drgondog
Major
Once again - when RAF received Mustang I, it was deemed 'best US fighter'. When AAF finally began Flight Testing and acceptance, the Mustang was deemed 'best AAF fighter under 15000 feet' - that comparison extended to P-47C, P-38G, P-40K and P-39N, so at least five started out in lower esteem for low to medium fighter role. The P-51A remained faster than the P-51D below 15,000 feet until the introduction of 150 Octane fuel in mid 1944. The airframe was the Best from day 1 and never relinquished for aerodynamics, ease of maintenance,
The war took a different direction for the Mustang and production went mainly for USA escorts. The British would have taken as many Mustangs as they could get and if they had the Mustang may have the reputation the Typhoon earned after D Day.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Which begs the question (for me anyway), had the production capability been there, would an Allison powered Mustang still have been produced through 1945 for the RAF for CAS? I know the RAF loved the A model and eeked out as much life as they could out of them. Or would they just have bought more Packard/Merlin versions (again, if NA had had the production capacity to do so)?
Which to me begs the question why wasn't money pushed to Allison to incorporate a supercharger setup similar to the Merlin?
Cheers,
Biff
Shortround6
Major General
If memory serves the British got around 1800 of the Merlin engined Mustangs.
Now they may not have got them in numbers until after the US had equipped multiple groups with them but they got 308 P-51Bs, 636 P-51Cs, 282 P-51Ds ( 40 passed to the Dutch?) and 595 P-51Ks (84 to Australia and 10 to the Dutch).
Now they may not have got them in numbers until after the US had equipped multiple groups with them but they got 308 P-51Bs, 636 P-51Cs, 282 P-51Ds ( 40 passed to the Dutch?) and 595 P-51Ks (84 to Australia and 10 to the Dutch).
Shortround6
Major General
It wasn't so much a question of money but of engineering staff. Allison had been working on a two stage system since 1940 or before, it just wasn't a high priority compared t0 increasing production of the standard models or improving the single stage versions) You also have the fact/s that there just weren't very many good supercharger experts in the US prior to the war (or in the early years) at least anywhere near as good as Hooker, so there was no pool of supercharger engineers to draw from.
The P-63 did get two stage superchargers but production didn't start until late fall of 1943 and teh first series of engines only offered about 1150hp at 25,000ft. they had no intercoolers. The outside vendor tasked with supplying them failed.
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Although wasn't Allison working on a two stage infinite speed supercharger by 1944?
- Thread starter
- #30
Thorlifter
Captain
I didn't mean it as literally the absolute worst to the unarguable best. I simply meant a poor performer and after modifications it became a very useful and successful platform.
Crimea_River
Marshal
Would be a very small list indeed if the subject was taken literally.
Whoops, my bad.
Some aircraft indeed became much better after the 'heart transplantation', like the LaGG-3 -> La-5, or Yak-D -> Yak 9U. But probably the Mustang was the most extreme example.
How about the SBD Dauntless?
Started off as the Northrop BT - which had lethal slow speed handling
and ended up as the Douglas SBD - the most successful dive bomber of WWII
Northrop BT - Wikipedia
Douglas SBD Dauntless - Wikipedia
Full Kudos to Ed Heinemann, who turned a sows ear into a silk purse
This, I suspect, is from Winkle Brown's "Wings of the Navy"
"The genesis of the Dauntless had been complex; its gestation had been protracted. My introduction to it came at a time when its service career had long passed its apex and its obsolescence, already tacitly admitted by the US Navy when first committing this warplane to combat, had degenerated to the obsolete. Its progenitors had been the Alpha, Beta and Gamma mailplane's of the late 'twenties and early 'thirties, and its true sire had been the Northrop XBT-1, which, embodying many of the structural techniques of the commercial models, had been created by Edward A Heinemann under John K Northrop. First flown on 19 August 1935, the XBT-1 evinced sufficient promise to warrant a contract a year later, on 18 September 1936, for 54 production BT-1s, and these were to serve primarily with VS-S aboard USS Yorktown and VB-6 aboard USS Enterprise.
The BT-1 revealed few endearing characteristics; some aspects of its handling were reputedly little short of vicious, particularly at low airspeeds when lateral stability was exceptionally poor and the rudder ineffective, a torque roll as likely as not accompanying any application of power during a deck approach and several fatal crashes ensuing. On the surface, the BT-1 provided a poor basis for further development. Indeed, it is likely that evolution of the basic design would have ended with delivery of the last of the production aeroplanes but for an early amendment to the original contract authorizing completion of one BT-1 as the XBT-2 with an inward-folding fully-retractable undercarriage in place of the aft-folding semi-retractable and faired arrangement. This change, in itself hardly likely to translate sow's ear into silk purse, was fortuitously, to set in train an incremental modification program destined to recast the XBT-2 as the true forerunner of the Dauntless.
Flight testing of the XBT-2 was initiated on 22 April 1938, revealing no significant advance over the BT-1, and had barely got under way when this prototype suffered quite extensive damage as a result of a wheels-up landing. Ed Heinemann seized the opportunity presented by the return of the aircraft to the factory for repair to eradicate one of the more serious shortcomings of the XST-2, its inadequate power, seeking and obtaining authority, on 21 June 1938, to replace the Twin Wasp Junior engine and two-blade controllable-pitch propeller with a more powerful. Cyclone and a three-blade constant-speed propeller. This change produced a noteworthy improvement in speed performance but exacerbated some of the least desirable handling characteristics of the aircraft.
Fixed slots were introduced on the wing to maintain aileron control at low speeds; a dozen different sets of ailerons were tested and no fewer than 21 different tail surface combinations were evaluated. The end product was an aeroplane possessing eminently more satisfactory handling characteristics; a high standard of maneuverability throughout the speed range, light control responses and a docile attitude towards carrier operation. In short, the prototype of the Dauntless.
If you havn't got the book the rest is here
Dauntless | Aircraft |
Started off as the Northrop BT - which had lethal slow speed handling
and ended up as the Douglas SBD - the most successful dive bomber of WWII
Northrop BT - Wikipedia
Douglas SBD Dauntless - Wikipedia
Full Kudos to Ed Heinemann, who turned a sows ear into a silk purse
This, I suspect, is from Winkle Brown's "Wings of the Navy"
"The genesis of the Dauntless had been complex; its gestation had been protracted. My introduction to it came at a time when its service career had long passed its apex and its obsolescence, already tacitly admitted by the US Navy when first committing this warplane to combat, had degenerated to the obsolete. Its progenitors had been the Alpha, Beta and Gamma mailplane's of the late 'twenties and early 'thirties, and its true sire had been the Northrop XBT-1, which, embodying many of the structural techniques of the commercial models, had been created by Edward A Heinemann under John K Northrop. First flown on 19 August 1935, the XBT-1 evinced sufficient promise to warrant a contract a year later, on 18 September 1936, for 54 production BT-1s, and these were to serve primarily with VS-S aboard USS Yorktown and VB-6 aboard USS Enterprise.
Flight testing of the XBT-2 was initiated on 22 April 1938, revealing no significant advance over the BT-1, and had barely got under way when this prototype suffered quite extensive damage as a result of a wheels-up landing. Ed Heinemann seized the opportunity presented by the return of the aircraft to the factory for repair to eradicate one of the more serious shortcomings of the XST-2, its inadequate power, seeking and obtaining authority, on 21 June 1938, to replace the Twin Wasp Junior engine and two-blade controllable-pitch propeller with a more powerful. Cyclone and a three-blade constant-speed propeller. This change produced a noteworthy improvement in speed performance but exacerbated some of the least desirable handling characteristics of the aircraft.
Fixed slots were introduced on the wing to maintain aileron control at low speeds; a dozen different sets of ailerons were tested and no fewer than 21 different tail surface combinations were evaluated. The end product was an aeroplane possessing eminently more satisfactory handling characteristics; a high standard of maneuverability throughout the speed range, light control responses and a docile attitude towards carrier operation. In short, the prototype of the Dauntless.
If you havn't got the book the rest is here
Dauntless | Aircraft |
Much earlier. It worked fine but it changed the shape of the engine slightly and its length in such a way that aircraft needed to be re-engineered around the firewall area. It was used on the P-40Q. As there were sufficient Packard V-1650 ie Merlin's by then no one bothered.
Attachments
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
As pointed out, I confused the Typhoon and Tempest. Why can't the RAF use numerical designations?
Because it results in a discussion about F4s, F4Fs, F2Ms, F4Us and F2Gs.
Easy to confuse a Tempest and a Typhoon if they are Napier engined planes, they look almost identical. As weather systems they are completely different.
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Nah as weather systems they are similar, you get wet and the wind blows a lot. Other than scale same result.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Well, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure you can only get one of them in a teapot...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
The Air Force and Navy had to make sure their designation systems were incompatible. A bit of confusion was only a beneficial side effect for the Navy.
Only the cockpit area was similar if a bubble top.
