perce Posted July 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Could lift as bigger payload as most of the four engined heavies. Did you about the American / British night fighter trials. Americans thought it was a competition & put their best man in the P61 Black Widow, Brits saw it slightly different, they allowed the mossie to be outflown so they didn't have to pass over any of the limited supplys over to the Americans. What about British innovation on American aircraft? The Mustang was transformed from a very average aircraft into the best single seat fighter in Europe, fit a Merlin. The Corsair, Americans had given up on it as a Carrier based fighter, to dangerous to land, the Brits showed them how, best fighter in the Pacific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham2 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) What about British innovation on American aircraft? The Mustang was transformed from a very average aircraft into the best single seat fighter in Europe, fit a Merlin. Fit a thrust-enhancing radiator cowl using the principles of the British aerodynamicist F.W.Meredith.(Still wasn't widely understood until after the war). Fit a British 'Malcom hood' or a Miles 'bubble canopy' and you can spot the enemy on your 'six o'clock'. Fit a British designed K-14 gyro gunsight so those rookies could hit a moving target. But...I would rather have a Packard built Merlin over a Rolls Royce Merlin.. The Spam Can's introduction was a huge turning point in the war.. The North American P-51 Mustang, when the Brits and the US get it right... boy do we get it right. The Corsair, Americans had given up on it as a Carrier based fighter, to dangerous to land, the Brits showed them how, best fighter in the Pacific. Yup, I believe you have to bank it in a slow turn to line up then at the very last second a level the wings (blind) to touch down. Truly frightening We gave the Yanks our designs for countering Mach tuck i.e the all flying tailplane, as we thought we were going to receive info on the US nuclear program in return...we never did ... I guess they didn't think we were secure enough. I remember that the US Marines were going through a tough time trying to get to grips with the Harrier until we gave them a few lessons but to be fair, the Harrier does need a lot of training to fly. A timely reminder---Harrier- US pilots Edited July 28, 2009 by HAM2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perce Posted July 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 But...I would rather have a Packard built Merlin over a Rolls Royce Merlin.. The original Mustang had an Allison engine, good low level performance poor high altitude. The Packard Merlin is an RR one under licence, so a Packard Lancaster is a mark 3 put RR's on it & it's a mark 1. Fiver some ran mix n match. Can we talk Shermans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham2 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Yup, the Allison (Apache?) was only any good at low level/ground attack but any water/glycol cooled engine in a low level fighter is going to come a cropper,sometimes even small arms fire could bring one down, hence the need for a radial air-cooled engine as fitted to the Corsair and the 'P47 Jug '. The RR Merlins were effectively hand-built, batch, engines that were so uniquely assembled that when donor parts were transfered to 'identical?' engines they frequently failed to fit. This was the dis-advantage of our (much disrupted) war-time, output. The Packards had many changes to incorporate mass production on a much larger scale (about a third of all Merlins ever made?),they also sourced superior ancillaries like carbs,pumps,magnetos etc. They had superior crank bearings too. This all adds up to less TBO (Time Between Overhauls). Bloody typical, I can't find my Merlin reference book when I need it to add some more details so it's just down to my flaky memory for this post Look at what Henry Ford did for the manufacture of cars..........which I guess this is where you come in with the Shermans and their 4:1 expendability ratio against Nazi Tanks? Actually,talking of Henry Ford (Nazi wannabe),he declined the opportunity to make the Merlin under license in the US saying that he didn't think that Britain stood any chance of winning the war.....so.....Guess which car company in Britain made 20,000(?) Merlins for RR (without a single reject)?.....The Ford factory in Manchester!?! ''Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics'' as the saying goes. Ok let's talk ' Tommy cookers'...poor ba*****s. Edited July 28, 2009 by HAM2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 The original Mustang had an Allison engine, good low level performance poor high altitude. The Packard Merlin is an RR one under licence, so a Packard Lancaster is a mark 3 put RR's on it & it's a mark 1. Fiver some ran mix n match. Can we talk Shermans? These boys do know their stuff on the aircraft of the day! And it was indeed an immaculate combination of things that both Brits and America did that changed things, talk about logistics, well once again, that just rattles the mind! There was a lot of coordination and coopreation! It is obvious! Taking things to the heights of development in a few short years that will never be challenged! Bar none! Ever! As far as Sherman's go, what was their nickname, candlestick or summat? Safety in numbers prevailed, opposite to now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham2 Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 These boys do know their stuff on the aircraft of the day! And it was indeed an immaculate combination of things that both Brits and America did that changed things, talk about logistics, well once again, that just rattles the mind! There was a lot of coordination and coopreation! It is obvious! Taking things to the heights of development in a few short years that will never be challenged! Bar none! Ever! As far as Sherman's go, what was their nickname, candlestick or summat? Safety in numbers prevailed, opposite to now! ''Tommy cookers'' from the nickname for a British soldier ''Tommy''or ''ronsons'' from the popular cigarette lighter of that period . 'Cos they ran on petrol instead of less combustible diesel. I think this phrase was apt for the American industrial war machine--- ''Quantity?..has it's own quality''. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perce Posted July 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 The main Sherman used by the British was the M4A2, Sherman III British designation, it was a diesel. The other main used one was the M4A4, Sherman V British designation, it had 5 six cylinder car engines round a common crank, they sound awesome running. Yanks gave us all the **** they didn't want! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham2 Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) So was it the M4a4 that had the Chrysler petrol engine? The engine that Chrysler said '..'even if half of it's cylinders were knocked out,the Sherman should still operate..''?..That's a bold claim ! Wasn't it a bit of a pea-shooter compared to the German tanks? Didn't we have to fit our own gun to make it more effective (Firefly?)? Edited July 29, 2009 by HAM2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 So was it the M4a4 that had the Chrysler petrol engine?The engine that Chrysler said '..'even if half of it's cylinders were knocked out,the Sherman should still operate..''?..That's a bold claim ! Wasn't it a bit of a pea-shooter compared to the German tanks? Didn't we have to fit our own gun to make it more effective (Firefly?)? As this comes up, seems to me one was lucky to have a tank with a motor at the time, as both were in short supply! The bit I pulled up on that Chrysler motor seemed quite innovative to produce on short notice! Quite a piece of work! Although I may have settled for a round air cooled aircraft motor myself. The list of variences I seen was long, yet did not really say how many of each, you got what you got! Yet some 48-50 thousand of them seemed to last quite a while! Same with the Russians T-34 I think it was! Used for decades! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 ''Tommy cookers'' from the nickname for a British soldier ''Tommy''or ''ronsons'' from the popular cigarette lighter of that period .'Cos they ran on petrol instead of less combustible diesel. I think this phrase was apt for the American industrial war machine--- ''Quantity?..has it's own quality''. Was the "Ronsons" I was thinking of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony283 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) For those that enjoy the Lancaster saga I was lucky enough to spend 8 years on the Battle of Britain Flight at RAF Coningsby. A story to touch the heart is on my "blog" called "A TALE OF TWO CITIES". To fly on the last Lancaster (PA 474) for 8 years was a very rare honor and has many happy memories. Squadron Leader Tony Down RAF (Rtd) BBMF 1983-1990 Edited July 30, 2009 by tony283 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cota kid Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I think the German Trials Central users have logged off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wetfeet Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 i have tried to watch the program but i only get about 1.08 min in and it just stops??????? can anyone help please as i would love to watch it thanks guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 At least Tony had a chance to get time in one of the heavy bombers! I would think that unimaginable myself, although there have been some recent tours around here that allow folks to take a ride in a B17 or a B24!!!! I can never afford those tour rides. Although I have been through them. I have spent a bit of quality time in the Beech D-18 twin cockpit!. Might call it the closest thing to a "personal bomber" , sweet plane, and although those round motors can sound like ****, there is nothing like them! Smooth as a baby's butt! And that little thing can tote anything one can throw in it if needed. I just have never liked VTO stuff, scarey! Yes I have flown helos, and a nice turbine powered ride is not bad in a pinch, yet ? How any of that stuff stays in the air like Harrier or Osprey, just boggles the mind! Hope you don't take a hit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 German Stealth Plane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.