LOL Thanks for the laugh, just like the B-25c gun package wasn't a field mod either. HTC has a VERY loose rule about field mods and bend it when it whenever they want.
You seem to not really know the story behind the Malcolm Hood. It was NAA engineers that designed it. It wasn't just a spitfire canopy bolted on. It was a custom built part that NAA issued to replace canopies at the depot level. It actually took a lot of effort to install.
From:
http://www.mustangsmustangs.us/thehangar/index.php?PHPSESSID=sfvdf5rtbq58jkso2shkdfcq30&topic=846.msg3649#msg3649The history of the Malcolm hood on the P-51 is full of misconceptions. First, it is not an adaption of a (much smaller) Spitfire hood. They are totally different airplanes, with different dimensions and cross sections. The blown hood was merely inspired by that produced for the Spitfire. RAF test records indicate that the engineering work for the blown Mustang hood was done in the UK by North American Aviation engineers (i.e., it was an NAA engineered design, not a British one, thus factory approved and "official" as opposed to some cobbled up field mod.) Once a prototype was tested (on a Mustang I), production was turned over to Malcolm Ltd. to refine it for production, and produce the kits. The engineering required a lot of internal airframe modifications, and the stresses and aerodynamics were all considered. The Malcolm hood kit took about 135 manhours to install. It wasn't simply an unbolt the old one and bolt on the new one affair. Kits were issued at both depot and squadron levels. New canopy side rails had to built up, the runners for the canopy installed, the internal structure for supporting the hood rails had to be added, the hand cranking mechanism had to be installed and a new jettison mechanism fitted.
And your commentary from the B-25 corner....
Per Joe Baugher:
The idea of modifying the B-25 as a "strafer" seems to have originated with NAA field service representative Jack Fox and Major Paul I. "Pappy" Gunn of the 3rd Bombardment Group. Fox and Gunn satisfied General Kenney that this was an idea worth trying, and the General gave them authorization to proceed.
B-25C serial number 41-12437 was chosen for the initial tests. Since in a low-level, high-speed attack the bombs would be released by the pilot, there was no need for a bombardier. Consequently, the bombardier position was removed and replaced with a package of four fixed 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and aimed directly forward. The guns protruded from a metal plate that replaced the flat bomb-aiming panel. In addition, four more fixed 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in individual external blisters, two on each side of the fuselage. Blast protection from the fuselage blister guns was achieved by using blast tubes on the gun barrels and by mounting large sheet metal plates on the fuselage sides that covered the entire blast area. The plane was appropriately named "Pappy's Folly". In the first tests, the fuselage guns were found to be too far forward for the center of gravity, and were later moved further aft.
Trials were sufficiently impressive for General Kenney to order more strafer conversions. By the end of February 1943, twelve strafers were completed by the Eagle Farms operation in Australia and assigned to the 90th Squadron.
(... snip out a combat encounter ...)
The strafer concept was so successful that by September 1943, 175 B-25Cs and Ds had been converted for low-level strafing by the depot at Townsville, Australia. By that time, five squadrons had been so equipped.
These were ordered from a high ranking General, assembled at factories and then shipped to squadrons for use.
So, you're implying something inaccurate on both accounts.
