Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

"Daryl Hunt" wrote:

Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent
Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the
P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had
equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near
identical performance and speed.

Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior
performance to the P-51.

The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B
was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362.

Even the last iteration of the P-40, the XP-40Q, finally made 422 at
20,500. By then, the P-51H would make 487 at 25,000; cruise 380.

the P-60 series fared no better. Curtiss simply produced inferior
products. Just look at their version of first-generation jets. It is no
wonder that they got out of the plane-building business.

So, would it be true to say that that theP-40 would have been 'eaten alive' had
they been used in Europe ?

Graham

In article . com,
Seven wrote:

On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ wrote:

Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.

Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2535

Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote?

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.

Daryl Hunt wrote:
"The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:31:19 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

The critical improvement to the Mustang was the fitting of the RR
Merlin engine
which was an RAF idea.
Given that over 15,000 P-51s were built by North American Aviation in
the U.S. and paid for by the U.S. government, it was predominently a
U.S. aircraft. Like you said, the later models did use the Merlin
engine.
The critical point is that the P-51 would not have been sustained in
production without the RAF championing the type on the basis of the
Merlin installation in mid-1942. It was never a part of USAAF
procurement until October 1942, and it took substantive British
efforts to get the USAAF to accept it as a major production type.

So it's certainly a US aircraft, but it wouldn't have existed without
substantial British input both in technological terms, and production
advocacy from the initial Allison-engined British purchase contracts
to the Merlin conversion.

Gavin Bailey

Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent
Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the
P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had
equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near
identical performance and speed.

Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less
efficient therefore slower with the same power.

==bob

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

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.

On Oct 5, 6:31 pm, Steve Hix wrote:
In article . com,

Seven wrote:
On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ wrote:

Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.

Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2535

Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote?

The B-32 is a little larger, but the ratio sounds about the same. I
haven't had any luck finding records online records of PB4Ys (-1 or
-2) at Pyote, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, as
they say. I found a few records for PB4Y-1s being retired to
Litchfield in the early 50s, but the year wasn't specified. The same
source said that the PB4Y-2s remained in inventory until the 60s, when
they were relegated to desert storage and presumably scrapped.

It's possible, though.

-Steven

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

"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