![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: I would give a lot of credit to British efforts in the preliminary design of the aircraft and its ultimate engine. You miss the fact that the British were instrumental in keeping Mustang production going and were instrumental in pushing continued production alongside the introduction of the Merlin engine. Neither of these initiatives came from the USAAF. The USAAF examined the alternatives, and decided to build the P-51. They wern't "pushed" to do anything that they didn't intentionally decide to do. When I said that the P-51 was a "predominently U.S. aircraft", that is because its final design and production was in the U.S., that over 15,000 P-51 airframes were built by North American Aviation in the U.S., powered by engines built by Packard in the U.S., with the raw materials and labor provided from the U.S., and that the project was paid for by the U.S. government. I completely agree. And yet it wouldn't have existed, in either Allison or Merlin-engined variants, without the British. I'm not sure what is your point. It wouldn't have existed, without the U.S., either, at least not in quantities that would have had any measurable impact on the war. As I said, the British efforts were in the preliminary design. It was NAA and Packard that built over 15,000 of the main models of the P-51, in the U.S.; the British did not do that. Look, I'm not trying to make this a competetion of U.S. and British; I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51 was listed under USA aircraft. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:10:50 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: You miss the fact that the British were instrumental in keeping Mustang production going and were instrumental in pushing continued production alongside the introduction of the Merlin engine. Neither of these initiatives came from the USAAF. The USAAF examined the alternatives, and decided to build the P-51. The USAAF examined the alternatives, were presented with a British-sponsored alternative pushed by senior British officers, Winston Churchill to Harry Hopkins and FDR, and at the May-June discussions over the second Arnold-Towers-Portal agreement over aircraft allocations. The USAAF alternatives available at this point (mid-'42) were the P-38 which was only just entering substantive production after critical aerodynamic problems and with engine output limitations, the P-39 which was being discredited by combat reports from the south-west Pacific, and the P-40 which was suffering from the same altitude performance limitations as the P-39 was currently being produced with a Packard Merlin 20 series engine to address that shortcoming, while the P-47 remained the great white hope of USAAF fighter procurement. The decision to continue Mustang production with a Merlin-engined variant originated with the British. They wern't "pushed" to do anything that they didn't intentionally decide to do. They were; the Merlin-engined P-51 would not have existed if it had not been for the British initiative of April-June 1942. The test reports Arnold used in his memoirs to defend his fighter procurement policy against media critics were British ones submitted to him by the Slessor mission of early June 1942 which convinced him to continue Mustang production at British behest. I'm not sure what is your point. It wouldn't have existed, without the U.S., either, at least not in quantities that would have had any measurable impact on the war. The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed to start with as a result of British agency. As I said, the British efforts were in the preliminary design. And as I've pointed out, the USAAF had no interest in the Mustang, nor had any idea about a Merlin-engined Mustang until the British presented them with it, and in addition swapped Spitfires for an undertaking to produce them with an allocation of 200 to the RAF. It was NAA and Packard that built over 15,000 of the main models of the P-51, in the U.S.; the British did not do that. Who said they did? Look, I'm not trying to make this a competetion of U.S. and British Neither am I. I am pointing out the historical facts involved in Merlin-Mustang procurement. I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51 was listed under USA aircraft. It was an American aircraft; nevertheless it would not have existed without British agency in terms of sponsoring the initial design (although the technological and development work was almost entirely done by North American) and furthermore it wouldn't have existed in a Merlin-engined variant without the British pushing it upon the USAAF at a time in mid-1942 when Arnold's fighter procurement policy was subject to significant public misgivings. Gavin Bailey -- Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1 instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass. - Bart Kwan En |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed to start with as a result of British agency. You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51 was listed under USA aircraft. It was an American aircraft; nevertheless it would not have existed without British agency in terms of sponsoring the initial design (although the technological and development work was almost entirely done by North American) and furthermore it wouldn't have existed in a Merlin-engined variant without the British pushing it upon the USAAF at a time in mid-1942 when Arnold's fighter procurement policy was subject to significant public misgivings. Nevertheless it would not have existed in quantities that could have a measurable impact on the war without U.S. final design and manufacturing. If there was no P-51 then some other design could have been developed, such as the advanced P-47 being completed much sooner. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 7:20 am, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed to start with as a result of British agency. You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51 was listed under USA aircraft. It was an American aircraft; nevertheless it would not have existed without British agency in terms of sponsoring the initial design (although the technological and development work was almost entirely done by North American) and furthermore it wouldn't have existed in a Merlin-engined variant without the British pushing it upon the USAAF at a time in mid-1942 when Arnold's fighter procurement policy was subject to significant public misgivings. Nevertheless it would not have existed in quantities that could have a measurable impact on the war without U.S. final design and manufacturing. If there was no P-51 then some other design could have been developed, such as the advanced P-47 being completed much sooner. You're assuming the resources put into the Mustang would've been used on the T-Bolt....they might've just as easily gone into more P-40s or at least derivatives like the P-60. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:20:20 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" Because it used a Merlin engine. QED. while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3 and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard. If there was no P-51 then some other design could have been developed, such as the advanced P-47 being completed much sooner. If there was no P-51 then North American would have been producing more B-25's at their Dallas plant and probably at Inglewood as well. Which leaves the US with what they had at the time; the P-38, the P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. Now which of these are you going to stop production of in order to develop a better long-range fighter design? The longer-ranged P-47D doesn't come along until April 1944 (and requires that British Typhoon tear-drop canopy in any case), the dive-brake-equipped and longer-range P-38L doesn't appear until May 1944, and neither the P-39 nor the P-40 are ever going to become high-performance, high-altitude long-range fighters. And on the horizon? Yes, the mighty P-75.... Gavin Bailey -- Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1 instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass. - Bart Kwan En |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" Because it used a Merlin engine. QED. No, it used --- while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3 and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard. That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand- built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes. If there was no P-51 then North American would have been producing more B-25's at their Dallas plant and probably at Inglewood as well. Which leaves the US with what they had at the time; the P-38, the P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. Now which of these are you going to stop production of in order to develop a better long-range fighter design? The longer-ranged P-47D doesn't come along until April 1944 (and requires that British Typhoon tear-drop canopy in any case), the dive-brake-equipped and longer-range P-38L doesn't appear until May 1944, and neither the P-39 nor the P-40 are ever going to become high-performance, high-altitude long-range fighters. If there was no P-51 then some U.S. company would have greatly accelerated the production of something of similar performance. Most likely an advanced P-38 and/or P-47. Both the U.S. and the British each produced a number of excellent advanced warplanes in WWII. In a universe without the P-51, certainly something else of similar performance would have been produced. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 11:26 am, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" Because it used a Merlin engine. QED. No, it used --- while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3 and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard. That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand- built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes. If there was no P-51 then North American would have been producing more B-25's at their Dallas plant and probably at Inglewood as well. Which leaves the US with what they had at the time; the P-38, the P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. Now which of these are you going to stop production of in order to develop a better long-range fighter design? The longer-ranged P-47D doesn't come along until April 1944 (and requires that British Typhoon tear-drop canopy in any case), the dive-brake-equipped and longer-range P-38L doesn't appear until May 1944, and neither the P-39 nor the P-40 are ever going to become high-performance, high-altitude long-range fighters. If there was no P-51 then some U.S. company would have greatly accelerated the production of something of similar performance. Most likely an advanced P-38 and/or P-47. Both the U.S. and the British each produced a number of excellent advanced warplanes in WWII. In a universe without the P-51, certainly something else of similar performance would have been produced. Corsairs and Hellcats over Europe? I agree with your statement, but couldn't the same be said for any other plane on the list? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:26:27 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3 and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard. That is partially true. No, it's completely true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce more high-altitude power, 1. The V-1650-3 and -7 used two-stage, two-speed supercharging driven from the engine crank, not turbo-charging. 2. The gearing ratios on the supercharger and the compression ratios were generally no different to that on the Merlin 60 series. The only commentary I have ever seen in relevant British contemporary records recorded a 1,000 feet lower full-throttle height for the Merlin 266 in the Spitfire XVI. Other than that, the only comment by end-users I've seen was criticism by pilots in 145 Wing in Belgium who converted to the Spitfire XVI and complained that they produced less power at low altitude than the Merlin 66-engined Spitfire LF.IXB's that they had used previously. For a while their wing leader continued to fly his LF.IXB for that reason. However, I think it's pretty clear that the RAF didn't consider this a major problem and I would agree with them. and modified the alloys of some of the major engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand- built. No, they were mass-produced at several factories in Britain, notably Trafford Park in Manchester and Hillingdon outside Glasgow as well as the original Rolls-Royce production lines at Derby and Crewe. The Derby works spent considerable time on R&D which involved disturbing volume production, but this was not true of the other sites. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and reliable manner. You should check out British production of the Merlin before making this kind of inaccurate comparative assertion. Packard added considerably to the design of the engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes. Packard certainly made modifications to the engine to account for the use of US anciliary equipment such as coolant pipe clips and pump drives - well, at least after delivery of the first batch of them to Britain without that equipment. If there was no P-51 then some U.S. company would have greatly accelerated the production of something of similar performance. So demonstrate this, based upon the historical evidence... I'm not being antagonistic (although it might sound like it), just pointing out that assertions which don't take into account the historical reality aren't that valuable. Both the U.S. and the British each produced a number of excellent advanced warplanes in WWII. In a universe without the P-51, certainly something else of similar performance would have been produced. There certainly would have been more urgency to get something going; however the options were limited. I suspect a second production facility for the P-38 and a major engineering drive to sort out the engine and aerodynamic problems were the most likely, alongside stuffing more tankage in the P-47 and something more than a token gesture at doing the same with the Spitfire. However, none of these would have produced an answer in the same time-frame as the P-51 did. Gavin Bailey -- Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1 instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass. - Bart Kwan En |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote in message ... No, they were mass-produced at several factories in Britain, notably Trafford Park in Manchester and Hillingdon outside Glasgow as well as the original Rolls-Royce production lines at Derby and Crewe. The Derby works spent considerable time on R&D which involved disturbing volume production, but this was not true of the other sites. And Ford of England. Packard certainly made modifications to the engine to account for the use of US anciliary equipment such as coolant pipe clips and pump drives - well, at least after delivery of the first batch of them to Britain without that equipment. Also carberetors and IIRC magnetos, and US standard nuts and bolts. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The XP51 was a pure NAA design. British Purchasing Commission
approached NAA in 1939 about building P40s. NAA replied they could build a better fighter. NAA had been designing opne for some time. The design was firmed up in April 1940; the contract with the Bitish was signed in May, 1940. Delivery was set for January 1941. The aircraft minus engine was ready 18 days early. The engine was 20 days late because of priorities and because Allison didn't think NAA would be ready. First fight of the NA-73 wa in October 1940. NAA started mass production for the British. December, 1940, NAA received a letter from the British Purchasing Commission informing NAA that the airplane was named "Mustang". Some Mustang 1s were armed with 4x20mm. RAF used them for low-altitude missions. Wright Field had 2 XP51s (named 'Apache') that were ignored for a time until NAA finished their production run for the RAF and Arnold realized here was a fighter production line - now idle. Thus NAA got a contract for 500 A36s - P51As with dive brakes. They were for the USAAC in the Med where something better than the P40 was needed for CAS/interdiction. Meanwhile the USAAC military attache in London had flown a Mustang 1 and he, with some high-ranking RAF types, lobbied for the Merlin installation. First flight with a Merlin was in October 1942 - the rest is history. Also, FWIW, the first American-made Merlin ran in May 1941 Note: one can build a Mustang from the original data - every necessary data point can be established in space using direction cosines. I do not know of any other airplane for which this data/capability exists. This info from "Pursue and Destroy", by Major L.K. Carson, who after his war service became part of the test staff at Wright-Patterson AFB. Excellent book. ISBN 0-913194-05-0 Walt BJ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two essential items... | john smith | Piloting | 19 | December 26th 06 02:48 AM |
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft | ChrisEllis | Piloting | 6 | January 17th 06 03:47 AM |
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? | Marc J. Zeitlin | Piloting | 22 | November 24th 05 04:11 AM |
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home | orange tree | Home Built | 4 | November 20th 05 04:37 PM |
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? | Jack Allison | Owning | 12 | June 14th 04 08:01 PM |