Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Always did wonder why 20mm cannon wasn't more popular with the USAAF/USN, so it's good to finally get an answer. On a more related note, anybody know what block P-51D where getting? I've heard there's some noticable peformance differences between the blocks, so it would be good to know what exactly we are getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ShadowStalker887 said:

Always did wonder why 20mm cannon wasn't more popular with the USAAF/USN, so it's good to finally get an answer. On a more related note, anybody know what block P-51D where getting? I've heard there's some noticable peformance differences between the blocks, so it would be good to know what exactly we are getting.

According to the information from the DD´s we get the P-51 D-15. I also tried to find information about that specific version, but couldn´t find anything. Maybe you have mor luck : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The P-51D-15 has been mentioned several times here as a incoming P-51D block.

 

I read that USN/MARINES pilots in case of Corsairs weapons preferred the greater ammunition capacity of the machine guns. Finaly nearly 50 F4U-1C were upgraded to F4U-1D with 0.5cal MGs... They admitted cannons bigger effectiveness especially against ground targets, but still more ammo was more ammo.

Do not forget that US pilots did not fight against 4-engines bomber armada or against extremely armoured Il-2s. 0.5 cal MGs were enough against fighters and 2-engines bombers and as a bonus allowed longer time of fire than cannons equiped planes.

 

About "noticable peformance differences between the blocks", i do not think so.

The certain difference was between D-5 and rest of D models because of missing dorsal fin fillet.

And may be between Mustangs operating from IwoJima and rest beacause of battery movement forward. At least one pilot from 7th AF commented that Mustang after this was slightly manoeuvrable.

 

The biggest impact on plane performance was due to fuel, not plane block.

Edited by Saburo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rjel said:

Different designs though. The guns on the F-86 were right by the engine intake. Not so for the Navy's Grumman F9F. 

 

That's just a matter of managing gun blast, as in venting it away from the intake, so the intake doesn't swallow up the hot gun-gasses, burping-out the engine.

 

RAAF Sabres had 30mm ADEN guns and didn't have issues with those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not really a mustang guy, so I actually was thinking about the D-30's performance compared to the earlier blocks and didn't realize it's post war. And your right that most of the differences from what I could find where little factory improvements like landing lights and switches.

Edited by ShadowStalker887

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the choice of ,50 ,30 was a logistical one. 

Fuel and ammo was to be standardized for all branches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rjel said:

Different designs though. The guns on the F-86 were right by the engine intake. Not so for the Navy's Grumman F9F. 

 

That's what I meant, different designs; the F-80 and F-84 though had a similar layout to the USN planes yet kept on the .50cals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's just a matter of managing gun blast, as in venting it away from the intake, so the intake doesn't swallow up the hot gun-gasses, burping-out the engine.

 

RAAF Sabres had 30mm ADEN guns and didn't have issues with those.

As did the USAF when experimenting with mounting cannon in the Sabres.

31 minutes ago, Alexmarine28 said:

 

That's what I meant, different designs; the F-80 and F-84 though had a similar layout to the USN planes yet kept on the .50cals

F/P-80 was similar but the straight wing F-84 had the nose mounted intake like the Sabre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rjel said:

F/P-80 was similar but the straight wing F-84 had the nose mounted intake like the Sabre.

 

You are right, got confused with the F-94 for some reason 😶

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's just a matter of managing gun blast, as in venting it away from the intake, so the intake doesn't swallow up the hot gun-gasses, burping-out the engine.

 

RAAF Sabres had 30mm ADEN guns and didn't have issues with those.


Fully normal there was no issues with those cannons, those were GERMAN Guns (Mauser mk-213 ); just like the sabre's wings.
Thank you "captured" german engineers...🤣

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:


Fully normal there was no issues with those cannons, those were GERMAN Guns (Mauser mk-213 ); just like the sabre's wings.
Thank you "captured" german engineers...🤣

 

How many german engineers did Australia capture then?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

How many german engineers did Australia capture then?


And how many Aden's were build in australia?
British Gun on an american plane, both build by germans...Mondialization started actually sooner than i thought :biggrin:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

British Gun on an american plane, both build by germans

 

Neither built, nor designed by the Germans.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Neither built, nor designed by the Germans.


Right, just like an american put some hot-heads into a capsule and send them into space, his fisrtname was like "Herr'y" and the lastname like " VanBrown" :biggrin:

Otherwise:
On the left :Sabre before the arrival of german engineering refugees and on the right a few years after their arrival, pure coincidence nothing more, just like the arrival on american soil of the world's 2 only supersonic RLM wind tunnels put in pieces in 45 somewhere in france and germany...
Nothing to see, pure coincidence....move along...
FJ-1_FJ-2_NAN5-52.jpg

German MK-213 1945:
full?d=1533599306


AdenGun GB 1952
1280px-30mm_ADEN_Mk_4_cannon-IMG_6280-wh

Nothing to see, it's not from German origin, move along....




 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that neither the Sabre, nor the ADEN were built or designed by Germans remains.

The number of german engineers involved in the Sabre project was 0. That's about the same number of german engineers that were involved in the ADEN or DEFA projects.

 

Supersonic wind-tunnels have been in existance before WW2 and outside Germany.

 

So, is there anything substantial to come from you on that topic, or are you just going to continue spitting white noise?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like white noise, it's relaxing just like a mix of Sulfur,Argon, Calcium and Samarium, you should try, it's live-saving.

'bout the rest, I'm sure you're right, you must be, the after-war propaganda machine is always right, right?!:blink:

Ps: I don't know what NaCa was testing in it's supersonic 1inch wind tunnel but i can't see them working on aero profiles at this size, mayby some flea-aerodynamics 'cause even a bee was too big for it.
Case closed, Back to the magical meredith turbo NoS Rocket effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the fabled German engineering and supposed impotence of anyone else...

P-59.jpg.1476e68fcc9253c88fff45430c765076.jpg

Flying in the US in 1942, too.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

On the left :Sabre before the arrival of german engineering refugees and on the right a few years after their arrival

 

Neither of these aircraft is a Sabre, on the left is a North American FJ-1 Fury and on the right is a North American FJ-2 or -3 Fury

 

Not so sure about their German design origins, but the FJ-1 Fury was largely developed from the P-51, which in turn during it's development had the benefit of the access to data taken from a Bf-109E-3 captured by the French during the Battle of France and acquired by the British...

 

so yeah you must be right, they have RLM written all over them :rolleyes: You'll have fun trying to get anyone to swallow it though :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Ps: I don't know what NaCa was testing in it's supersonic 1inch wind tunnel but i can't see them working on aero profiles at this size, mayby some flea-aerodynamics 'cause even a bee was too big for it.

 

You might want to google for gentlemen Dunning and Kruger :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ehret said:

About the fabled German engineering and supposed impotence of anyone else...

[pic]

Flying in the US in 1942, too.

 

I don't disagree with the point your making, but that plane was impotent. There are far better examples of allied tec prowess.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ehret said:

About the fabled German engineering and supposed impotence of anyone else...

 

Wasn't that the thing that barely got off the ground? Wasnt it made obsolete in 1942 by conventional prop aircraft? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Neither of these aircraft is a Sabre, on the left is a North American FJ-1 Fury and on the right is a North American FJ-2 or -3 Fury

 

Not so sure about their German design origins, but the FJ-1 Fury was largely developed from the P-51, which in turn during it's development had the benefit of the access to data taken from a Bf-109E-3 captured by the French during the Battle of France and acquired by the British...

 

so yeah you must be right, they have RLM written all over them :rolleyes: You'll have fun trying to get anyone to swallow it though :) 


No seriously? on the picture those are not Sabre's?... Thank you so much, i didn't know...just like the fact that the SABRE has nothing to do with the Fury, nothing really, Nada, Schnoll...There is no link in the development between those 2....they are complete different airplanes, just like the B-29 and the Tu-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

Wasn't that the thing that barely got off the ground? Wasnt it made obsolete in 1942 by conventional prop aircraft? 

 

Had weak engines but those could be improved. The air-frame had modern features like the engines in fuselage and intakes. The plane was flying in the 1942 and it was a jet.

The 262 would be made obsolete by the P-75 or XP-72 probably, too.

The point is other countries also had ongoing research. The major difference was that the Allies weren't nearly as much desperate as the Third Reich hence no need to rush things.

Edited by Ehret
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always entertaining when Wehraboo's pop in claiming German technology was the inspiration for everything. 

The latest one where it was German technology that was tied to the P-51 is very entertaining. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

The 262 would be made obsolete by the P-75 or XP-72 probably, too.

 

The 262 would not be made obsolete by a prop-fighter. And certainly not by a contraption like the P-75.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

It's always entertaining when Wehraboo's pop in claiming German technology was the inspiration for everything. 

The latest one where it was German technology that was tied to the P-51 is very entertaining. 

 

It could be argued that once Russia was in Berlin, any scientists that fled capture ran to the allies instead of being isolated and basically forced to work for the rest of their lives.  Instead, despite what their participation in the Nazi party was, whether the set war crimes into motion, participated in war crimes or did neither, they were still given prosecution-free carte blanche on the condition they work for the US. 

 

There may have not been much more than tech taken from spied documents and captured examples that were added to the Allies R&D, during the war, but after the war, the U.S. (and to some extent, Russia) had quite a few major changes to Aerospace and Medical Research (Big Pharma).  Some of those changes have turned out to be very good and some have turned out to be very bad.  Some changes, including bad ones are still very much with us today.

 

 

Sorry for the topic jump.  I just wanted to point that out. 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

 

The 262 would be made obsolete by the P-75 or XP-72 probably, too.

 


You mean the experimental fighter that wasn't even as fast as a F4U or P-51? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


You mean the experimental fighter that wasn't even as fast as a F4U or P-51? 

 

Most of those counterrotating experiments of the 40s were hideous.  The p75 specially must be one of the most awful-looking birds of all time. The p-72, though, was a beauty. Too bad it never really appeared on time to see action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:


No seriously? on the picture those are not Sabre's?... Thank you so much, i didn't know...just like the fact that the SABRE has nothing to do with the Fury, nothing really, Nada, Schnoll...There is no link in the development between those 2....they are complete different airplanes, just like the B-29 and the Tu-4.

 

I hope you are being sarcastic with the comment about the Sabre and Fury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


You mean the experimental fighter that wasn't even as fast as a F4U or P-51? 

XP-72 was very fast, too bad in never went into production.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

XP-72 was very fast, too bad in never went into production.


I was more so referring to the P-75, but while the XP-72 was indeed very fast...it still wasn't going to make anything obsolete.  The US already had the XP-80 doing combat tests in Italy before the end of the war...nothing was going to change that trajectory

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bremspropeller said:

The 262 would not be made obsolete by a prop-fighter. And certainly not by a contraption like the P-75.

 

An advantage without context may be not be helpful. In a sense the long range Mustangs made the 262 obsolete from the start because one could plane mission routes to avoid jets altogether. Even better just bait 262s at the edge of jets' range and what they could do?

 

The in-service P-47M had almost an altitude sanctuary against the 262 because performance difference wasn't that big at +30K ft anymore. It's possible that once developed (perhaps not the P-75 but there were others) a prop fighter would made early jets' sole advantage (speed) marginal in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others could be the P-51H. Just to mention a realistic potential top performer, which happens to be on topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The me262 is in game, surely it would have similar boundary layer separation to the the so called "laminar wing" the mustang has. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the 262 have a laminar flow/near laminar flow wing like the Mustang has?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

It's always entertaining when Wehraboo's pop in claiming German technology was the inspiration for everything. 

The latest one where it was German technology that was tied to the P-51 is very entertaining. 

 

"Edgar Schmued was born in Hornbach, Germany, 30 December 1899. At the age of eight, he first saw an airplane in flight and decided that aviation was to be his life's work. Edgar embarked early on a rigorous program of self-study to become an engineer, and later served an apprenticeship in a small engine factory. He also designed several innovative engine components for which he received patents. In his spare time, he continued the self-study of aviation. Schmued left his native Bavaria for Brazil in 1925, seven years after World War I had shattered the German economy. His experience in Germany led to employment with the General Aviation, the air branch of General Motors Corporation in Brazil. In 1931, he was sponsored to move to the United States through his excellent work for General Motors in Brazil (immigration rules were extremely strict at that time - he was one of 794 people admitted in the quota) and went straight to work for Fokker Aircraft Corporation of America, which was an aircraft company that was owned by General Motors and based in New Jersey. There he began his career as an aircraft design engineer. General Motors later sold its air arm and it became the forerunner of North American Aviation.

 

"Fueled by a striking similarity of the early Mustang and the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 - pilots and ground crews of both sides confused the two aircraft - and Schmued's German origin, an urban legend has grown up, claiming he had once worked for Willy Messerschmitt and that the Mustang was heavily influenced by the Bf 109. Neither claim is true but the urban legend persists.[4] Schmued's team at NAA did receive, disassemble and inspect the first captured Bf 109 from the Spanish Civil War in 1939, and he regularly received copies of German Aeronautical Engineering Journals through 1941 supplied by Jim McGowan, ALCOA's consulting sales engineer.[5] Just as familiar is the notion that the abortive Curtiss XP-46 was the basis of the P-51 design."

 

NA-73X-NX19998-.jpg

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/XP-51_Mustang

 

The wing design was a great improvement over previous models but not necessarily because of laminar airflow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That I don't doubt, hence why I said near laminar.

 

12 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

"Edgar Schmued was born in Hornbach, Germany, 30 December 1899. At the age of eight, he first saw an airplane in flight and decided that aviation was to be his life's work. Edgar embarked early on a rigorous program of self-study to become an engineer, and later served an apprenticeship in a small engine factory. He also designed several innovative engine components for which he received patents. In his spare time, he continued the self-study of aviation. Schmued left his native Bavaria for Brazil in 1925, seven years after World War I had shattered the German economy. His experience in Germany led to employment with the General Aviation, the air branch of General Motors Corporation in Brazil. In 1931, he was sponsored to move to the United States through his excellent work for General Motors in Brazil (immigration rules were extremely strict at that time - he was one of 794 people admitted in the quota) and went straight to work for Fokker Aircraft Corporation of America, which was an aircraft company that was owned by General Motors and based in New Jersey. There he began his career as an aircraft design engineer. General Motors later sold its air arm and it became the forerunner of North American Aviation.

 

"Fueled by a striking similarity of the early Mustang and the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 - pilots and ground crews of both sides confused the two aircraft - and Schmued's German origin, an urban legend has grown up, claiming he had once worked for Willy Messerschmitt and that the Mustang was heavily influenced by the Bf 109. Neither claim is true but the urban legend persists.[4] Schmued's team at NAA did receive, disassemble and inspect the first captured Bf 109 from the Spanish Civil War in 1939, and he regularly received copies of German Aeronautical Engineering Journals through 1941 supplied by Jim McGowan, ALCOA's consulting sales engineer.[5] Just as familiar is the notion that the abortive Curtiss XP-46 was the basis of the P-51 design."

 

 

A German designer working for an American company a German design does not make. If Werhner Von Braun had been an American working in Germany would that make the V2 an American weapon, seeing as he had access to Dr. Robert Goddard's publications?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...