Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

"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.

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