# Mid-engined P-51



## Colin1 (Mar 29, 2010)

Found this the other day whilst trawling
clearly based on the P-51B/C. Love that view over the nose but not sure he's considered the fuel arrangements; seems to hit the same wall as the P-39. Nice try though


----------



## red admiral (Mar 29, 2010)

There were a couple of real designs for the P-51 that looked somewhat like this. Proposals for mounting the Griffon in the P-51 lead to the mid engine arrangement. I can't remember any with Malcolm hoods though.


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 29, 2010)

I think this must be a drawing of what is unkindly called Dorey's Delusion, a redesigned Mustang to take on a Roll Royce Griffon 65 p39 style. As I understand they did put in a lot of effort but it was eventually abandoned. Don't know why. I should think it might have worked but I suspect it would have taken a lot of engineering and probably a very distinctive diffrent flying Mustang. My source is North American P 51 Mustang by Bill Gunston. As I understand Dorey was a rolls Royce engineer. The designing was done in the UK so it is possible that there was a Malcolm hood available for the mockup. Don't think that it is very likely though.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 29, 2010)

rank amateur said:


> I think this must be a drawing of what is unkindly called Dorey's Delusion, a redesigned Mustang to take on a Rolls Royce Griffon 65, P-39 style. As I understand they did put in a lot of trouble but it was eventually abandoned. Don't know why


I vaguely remember
posting something on that; the rationale for abandoning it was that as the powerplant developed, it may increase in length, which would necessitate a redesign of the length of the engine bay.

Quite why or how that would come as a surprise to anyone, esp aeronautics engineers, is beyond me.

I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## johnbr (Mar 29, 2010)

Here are some pictures.


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 30, 2010)

just doesn't look right....


----------



## imalko (Mar 30, 2010)

Looking at these drawings that was my first thought too Wayne.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 30, 2010)

Yeah it doesn't look right but an interesting idea nonetheless.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 30, 2010)

johnbr said:


> Here are some pictures.



These pictures depict correctly how far forward the engine must be to get the cg where it needs to be.

At the end of the day only the 85 gallon (or 50 for 51H) is absent.

Less range, better speed and climb - probably not as good in turn.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 30, 2010)

drgondog said:


> At the end of the day only the 85 gallon (or 50 for 51H) is absent


Any room behind the powerplant for it?
There seems to be an awful lot of spare fuselage or would the inclusion of the (full) tank aft send the CoG awry?


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 30, 2010)

Reminds me a bit of the XP-75 Eagle


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 31, 2010)

It's not that it doesn't look right. It just doesn't look like a Mustang anymore. Still wonder what it would have been capable of though.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Any room behind the powerplant for it?
> There seems to be an awful lot of spare fuselage or would the inclusion of the (full) tank aft send the CoG awry?



yes - for a tank aft of the engine.


----------



## ppopsie (Apr 2, 2010)

If you put a contra-prop the fin has to be enlarged will compromise the total balance.


----------



## rank amateur (Apr 3, 2010)

Is it just me or is the cockpit on the 3 view too small in comparessent with the other drawings.


----------



## verner (Apr 3, 2010)

Does look a little y.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2010)

Why bother with mid-ship engine mounting? 
Spitfires, even with lower base weight, managed to work just fine with new ( heavier) engine in front.


----------



## rank amateur (Apr 4, 2010)

At the time it seemed like a good idea, I guess. Nothing wrong in trying something new anyway. I've read that Rolls Roys expected the plane to top 500 mph. That would have been a big improvement.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 4, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Spitfires, even with lower base weight, managed to work just fine with new ( heavier) engine in front.


There's working fine
and there's working differently - a Spitfire 24 handled nothing like a Spitfire I


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2010)

Indeed - 1000 lbs extra do feel


----------



## vinnye (Apr 9, 2010)

Didn't the Griffon engined Spitfires props rotate in the opposite direction to the Merlin engined versions?
I seem to remember that pilots were having difficultties making the necessary adjustments - especially on take off.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 9, 2010)

vinnye said:


> Didn't the Griffon engined Spitfires props rotate in the opposite direction to the Merlin engined versions?
> I seem to remember that pilots were having difficultties making the necessary adjustments - especially on take off.


Yes they did
there is anecdotal evidence of at least one Merlin jock trimming his unfamiliar new Griffon for a Merlin take-off plus a boot-full of the wrong rudder and practically doing a lap of the aerodrome - on the ground


----------

