American Industrial charity

[Rising_Sun]

@Wizard

However, I will say that being harassed for imaginary transgressions and misdemeanors does not sit well with me. Therefore, I believe I will take leave of this forum for an indefinite period. There are always several other forums which will welcome my presence and my posts.

You have not been harassed. (If you want to be harassed, just let me know and I’ll show you what harassment looks like although, unlike the temporary and disruptive members to whom I must occasionally apply it, you don’t deserve it.)

TG merely expressed views, which other members of this board share, about the attitude implicit in many of your posts, which is a one-eyed American determination to win a point important to you rather than to engage in a balanced discussion where the primary purpose is to exchange knowledge.

You are welcome to stay on this board, and your deep knowledge is valued, but if you choose to persist with your combative approach to discussions as a contest you must win at all costs then you must accept the combative response you generate. That is not harassment. It is, at worst, reaping as ye sow.

[Deaf_Smith]

@Nickdfresh

The Merlin powered P-51 could have been ready by the first half of 1943, easily. It was successfully tested and vetted by the end of 1942, and it took a virtual riot act to get the USAAF to accept the plane into service as a frontline fighter…

Nick, we rolled them out of the factories in May, 43. P-51B’s began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943. The first of 1,750 P-51C’s produced at Dallas flew in August, '43.

But it takes time to get them to the ‘end users’. This is true with any piece of combat material.

@Nickdfresh

In this case, there was significant bias against the P-51 vastly compounding that “lag”…

Is there any documentation on this bias? I’ve never read of any such bias. Read about the guns jaming in the B and C series cause they laid the guns flat in the wings and any G forces would jam the guns (and alot of pilots were VERY unhappy they didn’t even fire a shot when they got behind enemy fighters.) It was recetified by enlarging the wing enough to mount them upright, but that did’t come into play until the D version.

Deaf

[tankgeezer]

@safira218

Thanks for sharing. It’s great

You’re very welcome, how nice of you to say so. Oh, by the way, you’re banned Mr spammer.

[Nickdfresh]

@Deaf_Smith

Nick, we rolled them out of the factories in May, 43. P-51B’s began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943. The first of 1,750 P-51C’s produced at Dallas flew in August, '43.

They could have been produced sooner had it not been for the typical foot-dragging by senior officers who had to be forced to accept projects they had nothing to do with initially…

But it takes time to get them to the ‘end users’. This is true with any piece of combat material.

Three years?

Is there any documentation on this bias? I’ve never read of any such bias. Read about the guns jaming in the B and C series cause they laid the guns flat in the wings and any G forces would jam the guns (and alot of pilots were VERY unhappy they didn’t even fire a shot when they got behind enemy fighters.) It was recetified by enlarging the wing enough to mount them upright, but that did’t come into play until the D version.

Deaf

Yes, according to The Story of the Boeing Company, the P-51 was initially ignored and marginalized by senior officers as it was not developed through the official pipeline and was therefore ‘suspect’. I think there are numerous sources stating that the Merlin P-51 could have been developed earlier:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mi0K7kUyQFgC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=p-51+initially+rejected&source=bl&ots=RVXUDFTO7D&sig=dCj2Z0o92p5cwKGN2ikXBd5H0-Q&hl=en&ei=4wV4TYeIHq6L0QHY-InGBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=p-51%20initially%20rejected&f=false

http://aviationworld.informe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=40