History misconceptions

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Pongo
Star of Africa..
I guess we agree.
"Here's a list of the more common errors of fact.

1) Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed.
"

Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed. No question, indisputable. Previos work by Curtis and genius by North American (influenced by Messerschmidt) led to the Pony. But Britian was responsible for the P51 being designed. Clearly.

Anything else is wishfull revisionism.

Buzzzzz.. Incorrect!

Dutch Kindelburger authorized initial design work on the NA-73 to begin in the spring of 1939, based upon his tour of European aviation companies in the winter of 1938-39. Much of the design was already on paper when the British Purchasing Commision came calling in 1940. Do you honestly believe that the P-51 went from contract to roll-out in 120 days without a great deal of engineering done well in advance? Both Horkey and Schmued were working on the NA-73 long before the Brits showed up. Had the Brits not come to NAA, this aircraft would have been built anyway.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Guppy35

Now for the next question.  Have you ever come across anything documenting E model 38s being retrofitted with drop tanks to bring them to F standards?

I have the 54th FS history on microfilm and they had Es.  They also talk about doing some range testing in September 42 on their own with drop tanks and having a range in excess of 1100 miles with those birds.  It surprised me when I came across it, considering the weather they operated in etc.

It seemed to counter all that ETO bad 38 stuff and made me wonder even more why they sent the 38s to North Africa when they could have been escorting the bombers from the time they got to England in 42.

Dan/CorkyJr

On page 105 of Warren Bodie's P-38 book there is a photo of two 54th P-38s in flight with 160 gallon drop tanks. The tail numbers are 41-1998 and 41-2026. These two aircraft were part of the first delivery of P-38Es (115 aircraft) delivered between September of '41, thru April of '42. The serial numbers of this lot were 41-1983 thru 41-2097.

So, inasmuch as the P-38E was not built with stores pylons or the required plumbing, one must assume that they were upgraded to P-38F standards at some point and place. Probably at Lockheed.


From Carter & Meuller:

THURSDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1942


AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS


ALASKA

(11th Air Force): In the Aleutian Islands, of 6 bombers and 5 P-38s off to bomb Kiska Island and flying air cover over Kuluk Bay, Adak Island, 5 bombers and 3 fighters abort due to weather; the others strafe seaplanes and boats in Kiska Harbor and nearby installations; between 1 and 4 seaplanes are claimed destroyed on the water; this is the longest over-water attack flight thus far in World War II; the 2 fighters which reach the target area return from the 1,260 mile (2,028 km) round trip with only 40 US gallons (151 l) of fuel; and the 21st Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 30th Bombardment Group (under control of the 28th Composite Group), arrives at Umnak Island from the US with B-24s.

My regards,

Widewing

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Widewing
On page 105 of Warren Bodie's P-38 book there is a photo of two 54th P-38s in flight with 160 gallon drop tanks. The tail numbers are 41-1998 and 41-2026. These two aircraft were part of the first delivery of P-38Es (115 aircraft) delivered between September of '41, thru April of '42. The serial numbers of this lot were 41-1983 thru 41-2097.

So, inasmuch as the P-38E was not built with stores pylons or the required plumbing, one must assume that they were upgraded to P-38F standards at some point and place. Probably at Lockheed.


From Carter & Meuller:

THURSDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1942


AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS


ALASKA

(11th Air Force): In the Aleutian Islands, of 6 bombers and 5 P-38s off to bomb Kiska Island and flying air cover over Kuluk Bay, Adak Island, 5 bombers and 3 fighters abort due to weather; the others strafe seaplanes and boats in Kiska Harbor and nearby installations; between 1 and 4 seaplanes are claimed destroyed on the water; this is the longest over-water attack flight thus far in World War II; the 2 fighters which reach the target area return from the 1,260 mile (2,028 km) round trip with only 40 US gallons (151 l) of fuel; and the 21st Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 30th Bombardment Group (under control of the 28th Composite Group), arrives at Umnak Island from the US with B-24s.

My regards,

Widewing

Yep, I really like that image too.  Something about a pair of 38s on the prowl that looks really nice.  My assumption is like you said, that they were upgraded.  It's another one of those, makes sense deals, that doesn't show up anywhere as the 38 books say the E wasn't so equipped, yet the photo evidence says different.

John Mullin's book on the 1st FG "An Escort of P38s" has a photo of what is ID'd as a P38E in North Africa too. serial 41-2053, which fits the serial ranges for E models, yet the general consensus seems to be that no Es went overseas or saw combat outside of the 54th FS birds in the Aleutians.

Funny how that works

Dan/CorkyJr

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Pongo
Star of Africa..
I guess we agree.
"Here's a list of the more common errors of fact.

1) Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed.
"

Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed. No question, indisputable. Previos work by Curtis and genius by North American (influenced by Messerschmidt) led to the Pony. But Britian was responsible for the P51 being designed. Clearly.

Anything else is wishfull revisionism.

Responsibility is a rather broad term in this case.   I dont think you can really give the kudos for the building of the plane to the Brits when they were shopping for someone to build them P-40s.  I rather tend to agree with Widewing that it would have been built anyway, but theres room for argument there as well.  Kelsey was head of Pursuit Projects at Wright Field, and was really anxious to see the XP-46 start on the production line.  Hap Arnold decided to keep producing P-40s, because if we were going to be drawn into a war he wanted a large enough quantity of aircraft to respond.  Kelsey and Echols recognized the shortcomings of the P-40, but knew there was no money for the Army for experiments in the pre-war US economy.  They pushed Curtiss to sell the XP-46 data to NAA because they saw the Brit's procurement project as a good way to get their experimental aircraft built, and already have an assebly line building the planes they wanted if we got into the war.  NAA was already committed to building its own plane, but lacked a customer.  I seriously doubt that at that time they had a completed design, and were willing to look at the XP-46.  I do believe they used some elements of that design.  However, I'm also convinced they had alot of ideas already for the plane they wanted to build, and combined their ideas with the elements they still lacked from the XP-46 to create the basis for the P-51.  The addition of the laminar-flow wing changed the design even more, and the end result is probably a mix of at least 3 different sources (design wise).  The XP-46 designed by Donovan Berlin; the wing design by Larry Waite and Edward Horkey; and the ideas the NAA's Chief Engineer Raymond Rice must have already had on paper.  It takes some reading between the lines, and I could be way off.  But that's my gut feeling.  NAA actually GETTING the contract though, is totally a result of the back-hall scheming of the USAAF Procurement Office.  

You take any one of those elements out of the equation, and I dont think we would have had the P-51 we know today.  I'm sure NAA would have built SOMETHING, and it probably would have been similar to what we know of as the P-51 Mustang, but I don't think it would have been the same thing.  Again, its just an opinion.

[slaker]

Originally posted by Grits
Sooo....how fast is our F6F? What alt is the 409-412 speed at? I've always wondered why the F6F was so much slower than the F4U, I thought since the Aces of the Pacific days when looking at the data that it shouldnt be that much slower.

The Corsair (-1D) and Hellcat had virtually the same power plant and propeller.  How can the Hellcat be slower?

The Hellcat was heavier.
The Hellcat had a greater drag coefficient due to:
     greater fuselage cross section
     greater wing area than Corsair
     rougher skin (Corsair used new flush spot welding techniques)
     wing fairings (Corsair had none due to wing crank)

Also comparisons need to be in the same configuration.  Both the Hellcat and the Corsair were faster when "clean", i.e. all the bomb pylons and shackles removed.  (e.g. F4U-1D 8mph faster on the deck just by removing bomb pylons)

All that being said, the 400+ speed would have to be at critical altitude, about 23,400 feet.  My data shows F6F doing about 380 at this alt, but this is with fuselage bomb shackles and wing bomb racks, and an engine making slightly less than full rated power.  I could see a clean, well tuned Hellcat doing 400+ at altitude under the right conditions.  Of course, the F4U-1D would do 417mph at 20K in a clean configuration.

[ALF]

Originally posted by slaker

     greater wing area than Corsair
     

Largest wing of any WW][ fighter:D

[Grits]

I understand the differences in the F6F and F4U drag wise, but can that account for the 30+ mph (388 vs 420) speed difference with the same engine?

I had always thought that something else was at work there, and Widewing's info about the incorrect readings from the pitot static port make sense to me. I can see, in the same configuration, the F6F being 10-15mph slower than the F4U, but 30+ is too much.

[Angus]

Uhhh, this one:
"7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor. "

Now if you skip the word "severly" the statement is right,
Put it like this:
Allied bombing reduced Germany's factory output possibilities

[ALF]

Originally posted by Angus
Uhhh, this one:
"7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor. "

Now if you skip the word "severly" the statement is right,
Put it like this:
Allied bombing reduced Germany's factory output possibilities

Germany actually increased production as the end of the war drew near.......the problem was fuel and pilots, not hardware.

[Furball]

P-51 Mustang is probably the finest Anglo-American product ever.

With this a close second



You provide the airframe, we provide the engine, you provide the engine, we provide the car

[indy007]

Originally posted by Angus
Uhhh, this one:
"7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor. "

Now if you skip the word "severly" the statement is right,
Put it like this:
Allied bombing reduced Germany's factory output possibilities

That's "industrial" or "grand strategic" bombing. It's been argued by people much more well versed in strategy than myself (like Lidell Hart) that it was a waste of resources.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Widewing
Flight Journal and Air Power International have published by work.

My regards,

Widewing

Cool!  I think I might even have one of your books if I'm Matlocking this right.

[2stony]

Originally posted by Widewing:

Flight Journal and Air Power International have published by work.

     That's cool. I've had a couple of articles published by Flight Past. Unfortunately, they didn't give me a byline.

[2stony]

Another misconception concerning aviation history is that Bud Anderson was Chuck Yeager's wingman. That never happened, and if they were flying together, Yeager would have been Anderson's wingman as he was the senior pilot with more experience.

[Pongo]

I aggree Star. And that is my point. Widewing has some good things that that I think are fact. And one that is just opinion in my view.
You can really see that the Brits couldnt have built the pony when you see the ugly cowls that they came up with for the merlin pony.