Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

"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.

But it was still essentially a MERLIN.

If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

"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.

But it was still essentially a MERLIN.

If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Eeyore wrote
"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.

But it was still essentially a MERLIN.

If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.

It wasn't a question of 'making the effort'. Britain didn't have the manufacturing
CAPACITY. That was recognised very early on and was why NA was asked to design the
Mustang in the first place.

Do you seriously think that Britain was in any position to win the war alone ?

Graham

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:33:25 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.

Only after the British pursuaded them to. Meanwhile the British did
consider assembling Mustangs in Britain and prioritising the supply of
Rolls-Royce Merlin 60-engines for them if two-stage Packard Merlins
were unavailable. This willigness to disrupt production and
procurement plans of their premier engine and aircraft type (the
Spitfire IX) demonstrated a considerably higher interest in the Merlin
Mustang than the USAAF originally had.

Gavin Bailey

--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En

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,

When you say "turbocharger," are you referring to an exhaust gas driven
compressor? Or mechanically driven?

==bob

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.

Bob Matthews wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
more high-altitude power,

The main improvement that Packard incorporated into the Merlin was
adopting the Wright supercharger drive quill. This modification was
designated the V-1650-3 and became known as the "high altitude" Merlin
destined for the P-51. The ability of the supercharger to maintain a
sea level atmosphere in the induction system to the cylinders allowed
the Packard Merlin to develop 1,200 horsepower at 26,000 feet.

When you say "turbocharger," are you referring to an exhaust gas driven
compressor? Or mechanically driven?

Sorry, I miswrote. It was mechanically driven by the engine, a two-
speed two-stage supercharger.

And on the horizon? Yes, the mighty P-75....

Well, perhaps the Bell P-63 Kingcobra, which didn't have the P-51's
performance, but did have the two stage supercharger that was originally
intended for the P-39, and might have performed well under combat
conditions. It was capagle of carrying two large external fuel tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra

Brian

wrote in message
g.com...
And on the horizon? Yes, the mighty P-75....

Well, perhaps the Bell P-63 Kingcobra, which didn't have the P-51's
performance, but did have the two stage supercharger that was originally
intended for the P-39, and might have performed well under combat
conditions. It was capagle of carrying two large external fuel tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra

Brian

The 63 was in bad need of the Packard but it was denied it and it goes on to
be an also ran used primarily by the Soviet Union on the Lend Lease Program.

Just what the devil were those people thinking when they didn't produce more
Packard/merlins.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
s.com...
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.

Could you list the modifications that Packard did to make it a *non-Merlin*?