PDA

View Full Version : Pony with four cannon (?)



Korolov
12-28-2003, 01:28 PM
A while back, in ORR, there was a thread about the Ponies that were equipped with four 20mm cannons. As far as anyone could tell, the P-51A wasn't equipped with them; but the P-51B and C were. While browsing today, I found a interesting pic here:

http://www.ww2guide.com/p51_5.jpg

Its either a A-36 with cannon or a P-51A with cannon. Anyone tell if its the P-51 or the A-36? Don't see any dive flaps on it so I think its a P-51A.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

Korolov
12-28-2003, 01:28 PM
A while back, in ORR, there was a thread about the Ponies that were equipped with four 20mm cannons. As far as anyone could tell, the P-51A wasn't equipped with them; but the P-51B and C were. While browsing today, I found a interesting pic here:

http://www.ww2guide.com/p51_5.jpg

Its either a A-36 with cannon or a P-51A with cannon. Anyone tell if its the P-51 or the A-36? Don't see any dive flaps on it so I think its a P-51A.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

olaleier
12-28-2003, 01:38 PM
With all due respect Mr Browning, I'd take those 20's in a heartbeat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 50s will eat a -109 just fine, but try somthing smaller, like a P-11 and it's hard to do any decent damage outside of the exact convergence distance.

necrobaron
12-28-2003, 01:42 PM
Yes, I believe it's a P-51A. With any luck we'll get one someday. Meshsmoother was working on one(or was it an A-36?) but haven't heard much from him lately....

Korolov
12-28-2003, 01:43 PM
Meshsmoother was working on a A-36, not quite the same thing as a P-51 (but close).

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

VW-IceFire
12-28-2003, 02:21 PM
Korolov, that was me who suggested that a P-51C was equipped with cannons however it was later proven to me that only A model's were equipped with cannons. What I probably saw a picture of was a rare P-51A with 20mm cannons and a malcom hood.

So only P-51A's were ever equipped with cannons...sorry to say becaus I think a 4 cannon armament is quite a bit better. Looking forward to the Tempest/Typhoon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

p1ngu666
12-28-2003, 02:33 PM
the reason those .50cals arent effective at non convergance range is cos u not hitting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
having 20mm cannons in same place wont really help

Korolov
12-28-2003, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Korolov, that was me who suggested that a P-51C was equipped with cannons however it was later proven to me that only A model's were equipped with cannons. What I probably saw a picture of was a rare P-51A with 20mm cannons and a malcom hood.

So only P-51A's were ever equipped with cannons...sorry to say becaus I think a 4 cannon armament is quite a bit better. Looking forward to the Tempest/Typhoon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so thats what it was. Makes sense then - low altitude P-51As have cannons for strafing duties while the later models have the 50 cal for AtA.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

olaleier
12-28-2003, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the reason those .50cals arent effective at non convergance range is cos u not hitting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
having 20mm cannons in same place wont really help<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least the odd hit (against the small P.11) will do more damage!

Vipez-
12-28-2003, 03:17 PM
4x 20 mm should bring plenty of more destructive power over 4x .50s.. I wonder what this would do for the P-51's agility.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

-- Vipez

roachclip
12-28-2003, 04:10 PM
Korolov, the only Mustangs fitted with 20mm Hispano cannons were the P-51(USAAF)/Mustang IA(RAF) {NA 91, serial #s FD418/FD567} that used Allison V-1710-39 engines which can be IDed because of the intake on top of the nose. The Packard Merlin Mustangs had the intake under the nose (P-51B/C/D/K).

They were used for low-altitude interdiction and reconnaissance.

The USAAF repossesed FD418/FD437, FD450/FD464, FD466/FD469, and FD510/FD527 which had the 20mm cannons replaced by 4 .50" mgs and had two K-24 cameras added.

For more info see http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51.html

From the above on the P-51 I/IA with the RAF,

In 18 months of operation 200 locomotives and 200 barges were destroyed or severely damaged, and an undetermined number of enemy aircraft were destroyed on the ground. This was accomplished at the expense of only one Mustang being shot down by enemy fighters, five lost to flak, and two vanishing with no record of their fate.

The first Mustang I operational sortie was on July 27, 1942. Mustang Is participated in the disastrous Dieppe landings by British commandos (???. what about the Canadians?) on August 19, 1942, where it saw the first air-to-air action. During this operation, pilots of No 414 Squadron of the RCAF were attacked by Fw 190s. An American RCAF volunteer, F/O Hollis H. Hills, shot down one of the enemy, which was first blood for the Mustang.

Copperhead310th
12-28-2003, 04:10 PM
Yeah withthe absence of dive flaps...& the 2)mm Canons i'd have to agree that it's a P-51A. I was hoping Meshsmoother would convert his A-36 Appache into a p-51A & P-51A-1. I would ten to think that the picture is a P-51A-1. Altho i'd have to check the p-51 3 view drawings i have to make sure.

Just a note on the A-36 armements...it was armed with 6 .50 Cal. MG's. 2 in each wing & 2 which were chin mounted. ie under the nose of the aircraft. But 4 20mm's would be quite nice to kill early 109's in. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

HellToupee
12-28-2003, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the reason those .50cals arent effective at non convergance range is cos u not hitting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
having 20mm cannons in same place wont really help<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are hitting but with fewer guns, with 4 20mms u have 2 less guns vs 6 .50s to worrie about and the rounds that do hit hit hard.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 05:05 PM
That Mustang is actually a Mustang IA, not a P-51A or P-51A-1. The USAAF used some of them in the MTO.

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/images/drawings/p-51_mustang_Ia.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

roachclip
12-28-2003, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Yeah with the absence of dive flaps...& the 2)mm Canons i'd have to agree that it's a P-51A.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51A/Mustang II only had 4 .50" wing mounted hmgs and no nose guns. The photo is a P-51/Mustang IA.

BM357_Raven
12-28-2003, 10:05 PM
Off topic, but the rear windows in the pic above made me think about this.. I think it was Bud Anderson who said it, I could be wrong.. But at anyrate, I did read somewhere that the B model, for some reason, had better visibilty that the D.. Does anyone remember the reading this comment, who made it and why this comment might be made?

The only thing I can come up with is that the B was more nimble allowing a pilot to move the plane around a little easier... Unless the windows cut in lower...hmm, did I just answer my own question... I'll go look.. :S

http://www.bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)
Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Videos (http://www.bm357.com/movies.htm)

faustnik
12-28-2003, 10:30 PM
This first one is listed as an A-36
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A36.jpg

This Mustang version has four wing mounted .50s and two in the nose.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51A.jpg

The four Hispano Mustang I would be a real asskicker down low. Pretty scary for us 190 drivers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Menthol_moose
12-29-2003, 12:27 AM
Its definately Mustang IA

can we have the corsair -C with cannons one day ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

roachclip
12-29-2003, 12:50 AM
faustnik, your first pic is of Betty Jean taken on the Anzio beachead in April 1944. It is not an A-36. The serial number, which can be seen on the tail, in a better pic (see P-51 InAction #45 by S/S), is 37367 which is in the range of numbers 41-37320/37469 given to P-51s (no letter suffix).

Copperhead310th
12-29-2003, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That Mustang is actually a _Mustang IA_, not a P-51A or P-51A-1. The USAAF used some of them in the MTO.

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/images/drawings/p-51_mustang_Ia.gif

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for corrcting me Chimp & Roach...
I meant IA not A1. was a small mistake. But that's what i meant. P-51 IA

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-29-2003, 02:13 AM
The designations of the very first mustangs always confuses me. I know the 20mm mustang version came even BEFORE the P-51A.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As stated earlier, Kelsey saw to it that two aircraft from the original British order were supplied to Wright Field for testing, but his efforts did not stop there. Kelsey was able to place an order for 150 P-51s on July 7, 1941, and this was before the first XP-51 even arrived in Ohio. It was a small order for the first U.S. version, but it was all that funding would allow at that time.

The P-51 was very similar to the Mustang I, with the main difference being the replacement of the mixed machine gun armament of the British version with four 20mm cannon. Clearly, the USAAC had a genuine interest in the NA-73, even before it had a chance to obtain one. The situation in Europe would cause 93 of the P51s to be sent to the Royal Air Force where they were called Mustang IAs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This quote was taken from: http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/p-51_mustang_history.asp

So, the Brits got a few cannon armed ponies too?

Click around a little, it is a great site.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

MiloMorai
12-29-2003, 02:20 AM
Some might find this link informative

http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51Production.shtml

horseback
12-30-2003, 04:23 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BM357_Raven:
Off topic, but the rear windows in the pic above made me think about this.. I think it was Bud Anderson who said it, I could be wrong.. But at anyrate, I _did_ read somewhere that the B model, for some reason, had better visibilty that the D.. Does anyone remember the reading this comment, who made it and why this comment might be made?

The only thing I can come up with is that the B was more nimble allowing a pilot to move the plane around a little easier... Unless the windows cut in lower...hmm, did I just answer my own question... I'll go look.. :S

Anderson's quote was about the Malcolm "blown" canopy ordered for RAF Mustang MK III, which featured a sliding bulged canopy similar in concept to the bulged canopies seen on most Spitfires. USAAF pilots in theater admired them greatly, and acquired the modification kits or the occasional "issue" with the RAF mod whenever possible. As an early ace in his group, Anderson was near the head of the line for one. As Anderson stated, the razorback versions were considered hotter, and the Malcolm hood minimized the major fault the early Pony had-restricted pilot view. Thus these were the last razorbacks still operational even after the bubbletop versions were long established.

Now, to clarify for those who insist on calling the first USAAF model of the Mustang a P-51A, STOP IT! The first US version was a P-51, no dash numbers, no letter suffixes, just plain vanilla P-51. The P-51A was the first (along with the A-36 dive bomber) to feature that gawdawful slanted .50 caliber (due to the lack of cannon supplies) installation, coupled with the Allison engine. The Merlin powered B/C models arrived shortly thereafter.

Got it? Mustang MK I, P-51/Mustang MK IA, P-51A/A-36, then P-51B/C. We're all clear on that now, and it's not going to happen again. Okay? Okay.

Cheers,

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

JG27_BLACKHART
12-30-2003, 05:29 PM
I don't know if any one knew this but the P-51 was actually designed by Germans and in the first actual designs the pony had four twenties.

I know your going to say I'm insain but it's documented some how look it up in discovery wings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

Zyzbot
12-30-2003, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_BLACKHART:
I don't know if any one knew this but the P-51 was actually designed by Germans and in the first actual designs the pony had four twenties.

I know your going to say I'm insain but it's documented some how look it up in discovery wings.bh.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

____________________________________--

One of the men who designed it was a German but that hardly makes it designed by the "Germans".

Look up the full story on North American;s web site.

horseback
12-31-2003, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_BLACKHART:
I don't know if any one knew this but the P-51 was actually designed by Germans and in the first actual designs the pony had four twenties.

I know your going to say I'm insain but it's documented some how look it up in discovery wings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edgar Schmued, one of the lead engineers on the NA-73 project, was indeed a German born US citizen, and had worked for Willy Messerschmidt in the late twenties-early thirties. However, while a lot of the design was based on a personal project he had already done at the time the British Aircraft Purchasing Commission made their famous request of North American, he didn't come up with the wing design, which was a design developed from NACA research, and he wasn't the head of the project by any means. Remember that design efforts in those days literally meant hours on the drawing board (as in "...back to the old drawing board")for several degreed engineers.

I've worked with a few old-time engineers from that generation, and their greatest office expense was always pencils and paper. I remember one guy who wore out his slide rule on a project, and compained bitterly that the company would pay for a new graphing calculator, but not a new slipstick!

The point is that aeronautical design in the thirties and forties was much more labor intensive than it is today, when we have computers and CAD/CAM to do most of the grunt work. While the lead designers, like Kelly Johnson, Reginald Mitchell, or Ed Heinemann, got the lion's share of the credit, the fact is that a dozen or more engineers and draftsmen put in just as much time and sweat on the final product. There's a lot of differences that have to be added between the preliminary drawings and the final product (somewhere around Revision M).

Look up some pictures of Rolls Royce's first attempts at installing a Merlin in a Mustang(the Mustang X), and compare it to the P-51B. For every change and modification, dozens of drawings and calculations had to be made. Too much work for any ten men, no matter how gifted. It was a group effort, just like any other aircraft designed and built for WWII.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-31-2003, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG27_BLACKHART:


The point is that aeronautical design in the thirties and forties was much more labor intensive than it is today, when we have computers and CAD/CAM to do most of the grunt work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ow come on... DO you really think that? Aircraft are getting harder to develop just because ALL of the new technology. The F-15 took alot longer to develop and it took far more people then the P-51. There are several experts on ervery technology involved. Like engine's, Fuel system, Hydraulical system, electrical, flight instruments, navigation instruments, armament, aerodynamics.

Alot of those factors where greatly simplified or totally non existent in the 30's and 40's. What about GPS? it didn't exist... VOR...

And if they develloped another gadget, they want to include it in the new design or an existing airplane. SO, space must either be found or, made. Electrical wiring (nowadays, everything needs electricity) maybe a read-out in the cockpit. Basically, you have to turn the whole aircraft over.

No really, with all this technology nowadays, it didn't get things easier, it just got harder.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

horseback
12-31-2003, 01:13 PM
[
The point is that aeronautical design in the thirties and forties was much more labor intensive than it is today, when we have computers and CAD/CAM to do most of the grunt work. [/QUOTE]

Ow come on... DO you really think that? Aircraft are getting harder to develop just because ALL of the new technology. The F-15 took alot longer to develop and it took far more people then the P-51. There are several experts on ervery technology involved. Like engine's, Fuel system, Hydraulical system, electrical, flight instruments, navigation instruments, armament, aerodynamics.

Alot of those factors where greatly simplified or totally non existent in the 30's and 40's. What about GPS? it didn't exist... VOR...

And if they develloped another gadget, they want to include it in the new design or an existing airplane. SO, space must either be found or, made. Electrical wiring (nowadays, everything needs electricity) maybe a read-out in the cockpit. Basically, you have to turn the whole aircraft over.

No really, with all this technology nowadays, it didn't get things easier, it just got harder.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php[/QUOTE]

I don't think you're talking about the same thing... the F-15 was originally developed during the late sixties with the same design technology as the Mustang-slipsticks, pencil drawings, hordes of draftsmen... the product was vastly more sophisticated, but the F-15A was designed without CAD/CAM or even computer aid more sophisticated than the calculator you keep in your desk. It was designed to accomodate the anticipated addition of all kinds of avionics, but when the first F-15A rolled out in 1970(?), they had no idea that it would still be operational in 2004, or how much avionics would be crammed into it.

I've worked in the defense industry for the past 20+ years, and as recently as 1991, I had to ride herd on a group of draftspersons to make sure that updates to Navy ASW electronics suites were accurately portrayed in the schematics we supplied to the Fleet.

An original drawing had to be done by hand by a skilled drafter, and checked for accuracy by engineering personell, and it was extremely labor-intensive, at least partially because drafters with no electronics knowledge had to be repeatedly reminded that every line had to be right. For improvements to the F-15, which was, by the way, a government contract requiring all kinds of monitoring and checks on modifications, most of the mods were internal, and the result of improvements in electronics. They were not designed specifically for the Eagle, but added as technology became available.

The Mustang was originally a private company venture, judged strictly on its results. As for new gadgets being added, my experience working on naval electronics since my Navy enlistment in 1975 has been that the actual components have become more sophisticated, allowing the system to become smaller and simpler.

Compare the computer you're using now to the ones we had ten years ago. Smaller, cheaper, and vastly more capable. The same principle applies to most technologies. You start with a brute force approach, and build on the lessons learned. Radar repeaters designed in the 40s/50s were vastly more complicated than the ones I worked on in the 70s, and the computer controlled systems in place today are simpler still.

The F-15E Strike Eagles contain a huge amount of avionics capability not available to the original F-15As, and they've added a WSO in the back seat. BUT the basic airframe and power plant is the same (the big external difference is the fin on the original airbrake is gone). Most of that avionics is applicable to every other fighter in the inventory, and designed with that interchangeability in mind.

The basic airframe, engines, and hydraulics have essentially not changed greatly in the last thirty years, while the Mustang went through major airframe, powerplant, and armament modifications from 1941 to 1945. There's a heck of a difference between the Mustang MK I and the P-51H, and it all took place in four years. That meant a heck of a lot of man-hours without, admittedly, the constant interference of government representatives. If we made the same level of changes to the F-22 (a product of CAD/CAM age technology), the engineering redesign time even including metal bending would be substantially less, but the documentation/red tape time would be several orders of magnitude greater.

Computer aided engineering allows the design staff to anticipate a lot of the problems that didn't show up until the actual building process before, and doesn't require a skilled labor force dedicated to making (and remaking) the required drawings. With the Mustang (and the P-38 & P-47), all those problems had to be dealt with on the fly, and documented. It was much more complicated then.

Sorry for the wordiness, but the subject is something I do for a living.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-31-2003, 01:52 PM
Okay, that was clear. I really didn't meant the F-15 specific. But, it always amazes me how people think that more technology makes life easier.

Well, I don't think that. More technology makes things easier for one group but, harder for another group of people. Like we didn't have VOR, GPS, Satcom available in the 40's so, life for a mechanic was relatively simple. When I entered school, (I wanted to service avionics on aircraft) i had to learn alot of tech stuff that really didn't matter back then.

Certainly, all those technology makes life easier for the pilots and the passengers but, if you wanna make a living out of it, you'll have to learn alot more then 50 years ago. I don't complain about my job being complicated but, it always amazes me that people really don't see the other side of the medal when they look to new technology. If it works, it is okay, if it doesn't, we get the blame.

You had a good point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php