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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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, 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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |