Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
marat,jean       6/27/2013 5:22:28 AM
I can make that sweeping statement because it is true. A tautology is established.
 
The previous statement I made is an instant proof check, but then you are too ignorant to understand THAT, airplane 'expert.'  
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/27/2013 7:18:49 AM

Browning AN/M2 "light-barrel" dorsal nose-mount synchronized machine guns and two .303 Browning machine guns in each wing to be inadequate.[22] 
 

I said that. Perhaps you misunderstood? Besides the Ford Motor company did have an engine in development,as did Continental that could have accepted the Hispano if the Americans had not botched their copy up. 
  So did Ranger!
 
5. Their synchronizers were no good for the 12.7 mm Brownings. (Ditto the HS 404s when the British gave them the drawings.)
this is completely wrong, firstly the synchronizers work fine and I have never read of any issues with them, however the .5 browning suffered really badly in loss of ROF which made them of marginal effectiveness and was the reason for them being deleted, the HS404 however was incapable of being synchronized due to its design

So much for expert opinions!
so much for yours, the Ranger was never developed for motor cannon but in the XP77 it was intended to be mounted ABOVE the engine and could fire through the spinner due to the large reduction gear used, however this was pure theory as the XP77 was such a diaster 
 
Both Continental and Ford may have similar fits but neither was designed for a motor cannon 
 
no US engine I have heard of used a hollow crank setup needed for a motor cannon
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/27/2013 7:33:27 AM





Browning AN/M2 "light-barrel" dorsal nose-mount synchronized machine guns and two .303 Browning machine guns in each wing to be inadequate.[22] 
 

I said that. Perhaps you misunderstood? Besides the Ford Motor company did have an engine in development,as did Continental that could have accepted the Hispano if the Americans had not botched their copy up. 
  So did Ranger!
 
5. Their synchronizers were no good for the 12.7 mm Brownings. (Ditto the HS 404s when the British gave them the drawings.)
this is completely wrong, firstly the synchronizers work fine and I have never read of any issues with them, however the .5 browning suffered really badly in loss of ROF which made them of marginal effectiveness and was the reason for them being deleted, the HS404 however was incapable of being synchronized due to its design

So much for expert opinions!


so much for yours, the Ranger was never developed for motor cannon but in the XP77 it was intended to be mounted ABOVE the engine and could fire through the spinner due to the large reduction gear used, however this was pure theory as the XP77 was such a diaster 

 


Both Continental and Ford may have similar fits but neither was designed for a motor cannon 

 


no US engine I have heard of used a hollow crank setup needed for a motor cannon

 
The Ford G-series tank engines remind you of something? Those were the Ford Vee 12 cut in half. Patterned on the Hispano Suiza aero engines to saddle a motor cannon originally. The war caught Ford in mid development, so the American army took the Ford engine and had it cut down to use in its medium tanks.   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/27/2013 8:01:29 AM
The Ford G-series tank engines remind you of something? Those were the Ford Vee 12 cut in half. Patterned on the Hispano Suiza aero engines to saddle a motor cannon originally. The war caught Ford in mid development, so the American army took the Ford engine and had it cut down to use in its medium tanks. 
 
yes they look like the aero engine with 4 cylinders missing (being a V8 not a V6) however it was a clean paper design and whilst may have been influenced by the HS was a completely different design owing far more to the Liberty
 
the HS used masterslave rods whilst the ford had individual rods, the HS was single cam and the ford twin to name a few major points
 
the American army didnt do anything, Ford realising that they couldn't sell any of the aircraft engines decided to produce a V8 based on it for sale as a Tank/truck engine
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/27/2013 9:05:34 AM
You are wrong OBNW. The American War Production Board told Ford to make it a tank engine. They did. Otherwise they would have competed with Allison. That was about 1939.  
 
Internals to the crank, cams,  and piston rod assembly had nothing to do  with the saddle geometry of the block.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/27/2013 9:56:17 AM
you are wrong, ford proposed a new tank engine and the design was accepted, the US govenment didnt initiate it (the M3 and M4 were designed with a radial engine)
 
the engine is different in vitually every aspect, it used seperate heads the HS used one piece barrel and heads, the bore asnd stroke are different as are the cam drives the crank design and spacing, in fact the only things i can find that are the same is that it was a 60 degree v12  as was the merlin and alison
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/27/2013 10:12:00 AM
you are wrong, ford proposed a new tank engine and the design was accepted, the US govenment didnt initiate it (the M3 and M4 were designed with a radial engine)
 
the engine is different in vitually every aspect, it used seperate heads the HS used one piece barrel and heads, the bore asnd stroke are different as are the cam drives the crank design and spacing, in fact the only things i can find that are the same is that it was a 60 degree v12  as was the merlin and alison
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/27/2013 5:00:45 PM
 
It demonstrates itself, OBNW. That is from  1939.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/27/2013 5:11:09 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       6/27/2013 11:28:19 PM
You could both be right, as there are multiple stories about how/why the GAA was built, and multiple versions of each story. General gist is that it started as an experimental aero engine then shennanigans happen all around and its turned into a tank engine between 1940 and 1942.
 
One version is that Ford, being snubbed/and or pulling out of the Merlin production contract, decided to build its own, brand-new V12 to compete with the Merlin. So confident was the company of success that it tooled up for production, only to find itself locked out due to the AAF's contracts with Allison and Packard and the Navy's preference for round, air cooled thingies. The US Army then came to the party seeking an alternative to the air cooled radials in the Sherman, Ford lops four cylinders off and the GAA is born.
 
Another is that Ford already had the V12 design ready before the war and was looking to compete with Allison and Rolls-Royce for Army production contracts. However, Henry (or Edsel), being isolationist, decided that they didn't want the engines powering any fighter than would go to Great Britain, so they canned any agreement, including the Merlin production agreement. The US Army rescuses the engine programme because it was in sore need of a tank engine.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics