Ooooooh, can I pick at nits too? The P-51 started its life as the lend-lease Mustang MkI. It was the Brits who initially discovered that the plane sucked at altitude but was real sweet down low. This is what led to the decision by the USAAF to convert it to an attack role (which wasn’t the most brilliant idea, given how vulnerable that belly rad was to ground fire). Sure is a good thing the folks at Rolls Royce modified a few of the Mk1’s with their little engine. 
And here’s why I love these forums: I am never too old to learn!
I think, maybe, the NA A-36 was designed a ground attack aircraft. That’s why NA didn’t put any turbocharging or supercharging on it. It wasn’t expected to operate at high altitude. It was not a big surprise to the designers for it to suck (lierally) big time at altitude.
The Brits realized it might do OK with a better powerplant. That’s when it was nominally palmed off across the pond. Our British cousins realized that with some duct tape and spit (cite to follow) they could transplant the mother of all engines, the Merlin, onto the angry end of the Mustang. Over the following months duct tape and spit gave way to thrust bolts and serious metal fittings. But that’s another story.
The Mustang was a pretty good fighter, for its time.
For aesthetics I think the Spitfire beats it. There’s something about that elliptical wing. Especially if it has the Malcolm canopy on it.
OK, Mustang mavens. Can you tell an A-36 from a P-51A? I’m not asking it rhetorically I’d like to know. I saw one when I was an extra on the grade-B Iron Eagle III. The movie opens with an air show and a P-51 is painted up as a phony ME109. I had to educate my compadre that it wasn’t a P-51B/C because it had a top mounted carburetor scoop, three bladed propellor and flared exhaust stacks on its Allison engine. Unfortunately I didn’t have a camera with me at the time as we were just riding bikes and saw what looked like a fly-in at the Avra Valley airport.
I don’t know about prop blade numbers but that top mounted scoop is diagnostic of an A-36. I like Apaches too. I’m a sicko…
I found a pretty good website for the development history of the Mustang here.
I once owned a (printed in WW II) book by Earnie Pyle called “Here is Your War”. In one part, during the Italian campaign, he visited a dive-bombing outfit equipped with “A-36 Apaches”, which he went on to explain were dive-bomber versions of the P-51. Cool!
–SSgtBaloo
Nope. The Mustang was born of lend-lease. The RAF asked North American to build them some P-40s under license from Curtis. NA said how’s about we build you a better plane with the same engine, we can have it in production in the same amount of time it’ll take to tool up for the P-40. The RAF said sure, whatever, and NA turned out the first Mustang prototype in something like 100 days. It was always meant as a fighter. The Allison did have some turbocharging, I believe, but it was just no match in that department for the supercharged Rolls.
I certainly couldn’t tell an A-36 from a P-51A. The only difference I’m aware of is dive flaps on the A-36, but there’s probably a few other things. I wouldn’t think the carb scoop, though, since the 51A had that Allison too.
Actually it had dive brakes, not dive flapes, four of them mounted more or less in the center of each wing.
“Flapes”? 
I´ll have some crêpes with that. 
Three quick remarks:
-
Thank you, sergeant, for that terrific link. The MonkeyBoy will hereby desist in spreading, however well-meaning, his ignorance on this subject.
-
Thank you, Gorsnak. Nice info.
-
Where the fuck is Toontown?
Heh. It’s 52 degrees 10 minutes North, 101 degrees 32 minutes West. I was gonna just link to yahoo maps, but it does a horrible job of Saskatchewan. I mean, really, Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg all get placenames when viewing at the province level, but Regina and Saskatoon don’t? Sheesh.
I stand edified.
All right, exactly what the HELL is that second aircraft?
By the by, this thread has inspired me. So, on my flight sim, I took the liberty of retrofitting a Sopwith Camel with a small jet engine—a Williams WR-19 (You might have seen it used here.).
I report that I was easily able to exceed 210 knots in cruise, and upwards of 245 knots in a dive (right before the wings ripped off). I also managed to burn off about 1/4 of my fuel in 2-3 minutes of flight.
But…she didn’t just rip herself apart on the runway. In fact, while in the air, the overall performance actually seemed to improve quite a bit.
The research shall continue.
That looks suspiciously like the Martin Marine Jet.
Maybe we should just make ornithopters.
PZL M15 Belfegor - for when it absolutely positively has to be crop dusted overnight.
Actually didn’t Hitler insist that the plane be used for bomber/attack and largely on the Russian front? It was this insistance on that use that made it virtually no factor as far as the air bombardment part of the war was concerned.
I’m looking for information, but I don’t have any reliable reference at hand. There do seem to be some agreed upon facts upon googling, though. The 262 was ordered into mass production in late '43. Some 1400 were built, but only 300 ever saw combat (lack of parts, fuel, pilots). Hitler most assuredly did have a hand in seeing it initially deployed as a bomber, but on the Western Front - he hoped to push the Allies back into the Channel with it. According to here, the first delivery was in May '44, and was first utilized by a regular combat unit in September.
The most relevant information I’ve been able to find is here, where it is related that Hitler had received assurances in '43, when production was ordered, that the aircraft would be a fighter/bomber. In May '44, Hitler enquired as to the bombing capabilities of the new jet, and was informed that it had none (one suspects that Goering, Galland, and Messerschmidt thought they knew better than Hitler) and was predictably apoplectic. He demanded a bomber variant be produced immediately:
This pretty much confirms how hopeless the situation was. First, they can only scrape together a unit of 9 planes. I know I don’t need to tell you of all people what kind of impact a whole 9 planes would have had in late July of 44. And that they are dispatched to prevent the phony invasion of the Pas de Calais, well, the mind boggles. Allied troops were breaking out of hedgerow country, and the Falaise Pocket was only a few weeks away.
It’s hard to tell from this just how many more 262s could have been deployed as fighters before the formation of Kommando Nowotny the first week of October, but given that the Germans only ever got 300 of 1400 produced planes into combat, it would seem that the number would be too small to be significant.
Of course, I’m sure their small numbers were cold comfort to some poor schmo watching from the top turret of a B-17 as they screamed past the escort, but in the end, WWII was simply a straight war of attrition, and one that Germany couldn’t hope to win after the initial failure to win a blitzkrieg victory over the Soviets. The technology is mostly footnote material.
Fascinating footnotes, though.
Well I’ll be damned…look what I found in a book on Luftwaffe secret projects: A photo of a Gotha Go 145 biplane, fitted with an Argus VSR 9a Pulsejet for flight tests in 1941.
An honest. To. God. Jet. Biplane of the Third Reich.
It’s what I always say…No matter what bizarre, crazy technology you can think of, the Nazis either tried it, or had a design for it.
It’s amazing that with all the technology they had at their disposal, they still managed to lose the war…(althought I’m glad that they did) :eek:
So… what do I win? 