A what if about the P-51...

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Thanks for post #6 Colin1. Great info and shot of the P-51 on the flight deck. I just have one correction to make respectfully. Norfolk Naval Yard is in Virginia not Pennsylvania.

 

[HellToupee]

problem with these what if is its like saying what if they had the p80/meteor in 1938

P51 in 1938 tho would not have an engine to power it, its design would need to massively lightened to achieve adequate performance with the engine powers of the time.

 

[Catch22]

I think a few mock dogfights would change their minds. I know they liked radials, but the if the Fleet Air Arm could adopt Seacanes and Seafires, the USN could have adopted a Seastang and it would have been better than the Zero rather than inferior.

Perhaps the Wildcat was inferior to the Zero, but once they got the Hellcat, they had a plane that was equal if not better than the Zero, and once the Navy got the F4U they were set. Logistically, on a carrier, the radial engines were much easier to maintain. The carriers did not have to store the flammable coolant that the inline engines required. That alone justifies having radial engined aircraft in a naval situation.

 

[Colin1]

...Norfolk Naval Yard is in Virginia not Pennsylvania...

Corrected, my apologies for the error

 

[Colin1]

It still has a liquid cooled engine - not a radial which the USN wanted to have...

...They only conducted the trials in '44 because the P-51 was so good...

Hi Merlin
well, OK but doesn't that in itself tell you that they were prepared to look past the inline engine arrangment?
I got the impression it failed on stall boundary characteristics, not the fact that it was inline-engined.

 

[MikeGazdik]

The Mustang would gain alot of weight by the time you added necessary structure to the Mustang to fold the wings, arresting gear, and I'm sure some landing gear or airframe upgrades would have to be made for hard carrier landing.

And if they had to change the wing, it would affect it even more. I think you still end up with a carrier plane far less capable than a Corsair or Hellcat not even taking into consideration to the liquid cooled engine.

 

[merlin]

Hi Merlin
well, OK but doesn't that in itself tell you that they were prepared to look past the inline engine arrangment?
I got the impression it failed on stall boundary characteristics, not the fact that it was inline-engined.

I have no problem with that. The point I was trying to make - was that this 'trial' happened in '44 rather than say '40/41 when the Mustang first made its appearance. Then the USN was happy with their radial policy, if the Mustang wasn't 'so good' would they have given it a trial? As has been said they had the Hellcat and Corsair by then - so where's the benefit?

 

[TheMustangRider]

The P-51 was designed as early as 1940 but it was't until early '44 and '45 that it appeared in growing numbers, by this time the USN had already two excellent fighters, the Corsair and the Hellcat and we cannot forget that by the end of WWII both the USAAF and the USN knew that jet technology was the future so in my opinion the Mustang was not needed for naval use.

 

[ozona39]

ARMY AIR CORPS MISTAKES WW2:

LOSING P-38 PROTOTYPE DURING PUBLICITY STUNT;

THE LOSS OF THE PROTOTYPE SET THE PROGRAM BACK NEARLY 2 YEARS. DURING APRIL 6 1939 ARMY TRIALS IT ACHIEVED 414 MPH COULD REACH 20K FT. IN 6MIN. THIS AT A TIME 109'S SPITS WERE PERFORMING IN THE 350 MPH RANGE. WITHOUT THE LOSS OF THE PROTOTYPE IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE PLANE ESPECIALLY COMPRESSABILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY LATE 39 PRODUCTION STARTED IN EARLY 1940. WITH IT'S PROBLEMS SOLVED IT'S LONG RANGE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ESCOURT BOMBERS ALL THE WAY IN 42 REDUCING BOMBER LOSSES GREATLY. IN ALL PROBABILITY THE P-51 WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT.

NOT REPLACING THE B-17 WITH THE MOSQUITO;

THE MOSQUITO COULD CARRY THE SAME LOAD OVER THE SAME RANGE AS THE 17, BUT 100MPH FASTER AND WHEN RELIEVED OF IT'S BOMB LOAD COULD DO 420 MPH. THIS WOULD HAVE GREATLY REDUCED EXPOSURE TIME OVER ENEMY TERRITORY. COUPLED WITH ESCOURT FROM P-38'S THE LUFTWAFFE WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD PRESSED. YOU ALSO HAVE THE ADDED ADVANTAGE OF RISKING ONLY TWO CREW INSTEAD OF TEN. EXCEPTING THE ENGINES THE MOSSY ONLY USED 158 LBS. OF STRATEGIC METALS DUE TO IT'S DURAMOLD CONSTRUCTION. DURAMOLD WOODEN COMPOSITE PARTS WERE AS STRONG AS THE SAME METAL ALLOYS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And what do these two things have to do with the topic of this thread????????????????

 

[davparlr]

Early in 1944, comparative trials were flown between the Corsair in F4U-1 and F4U-1A versions and the P-51B. The Corsairs were flown at a weight of 12,162lbs against 9,423lbs for the Mustang. The Corsair had an equal range to the Mustang and twice the firepower, the Corsair also proved to be faster than the Mustang at all heights up to about 24,200ft, above which the Mustang had the edge. The Corsairs climbed better to 20,000ft and once again, the Mustang had the edge in climb above this height.
The Corsair proved better than the Mustang in level-flight acceleration, manoeuvrability and response as well as a lower stalling speed while the Mustang had a better dive acceleration.

There are some items that should be clarified on the Navy 1944 test comparison. The P-51B tested had the -3 engine, not the available and more powerful (at low altitude) -7 engine. Also, the F4U-1 that was tested was highly modified and was apparently an F4U-4 testbed. Another note is that the F4U-1A was a water injected version (the P-51B-3 actually outperfomed this version in airspeed except at around 15k). Had the P-51B-7 been tested, it would have easily out performed both aircraft in airspeed, except around 15k, from SL up and would have most likely outperformed both in climb. The P-51B would have had a range advantage over the newer F4U-1D and -4, which removed wing tanks. In any event, the Navy knew it already had a plane that would meet its needs without buying an AF aircraft. I am surprised this test was even run. Probably at the demands of some senator.....from California!

 

[renrich]

I believe that a substantial drag penalty would have resulted if a P51 had been fitted with a turbo supercharger. That additional drag would probably have more than offset any increase in performance at high altitudes.

 

[Condora]

The only thing wrong with it was we never had enough of them and they cost twice as much as a single-engined plane. It was amazing though because it was a legitimate twin-engined dogfighter, not a big lazy battleship like the Mosquito, Black Widow, and Beaufighter.

Hey, don't trash the Mosquito!
It was good enough to be the basis for a fighter (the Hornet).

 

[davparlr]

I believe that a substantial drag penalty would have resulted if a P51 had been fitted with a turbo supercharger. That additional drag would probably have more than offset any increase in performance at high altitudes.

I definitely think that the bulkiness of a P-47 type turbo supercharger would have significantly affected the cleanliness of the P-51 airframe.

 

[Daviducus2]

 

[Clay_Allison]

Hey, don't trash the Mosquito!
It was good enough to be the basis for a fighter (the Hornet).

It was an incredible plane. I base part of my belief that the US should have tried to make a small single-engine export fighter on the success of the Mozzie.

 

[Condora]

It was an incredible plane. I base part of my belief that the US should have tried to make a small single-engine export fighter on the success of the Mozzie.

Single-engine? Why, the Hornet was a dream!
One of the most beautiful airplanes I've seen. I just wish there was ONE still intact...

 

[Colin1]

I base part of my belief that the US should have tried to make a small single-engine export fighter on the success of the Mozzie.

I'm not sure I understand you

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'm not sure I understand you

Sorry, should have been more specific. I mean to say that the Mozzie proves that wood can work in combat aircraft. I made the mistake of thinking everyone had heard my "plywood powerhouse" theory. I've said in other threads that the US should have made a light plywood fighter to lend lease to allies who had a hard tome getting planes.

 

[Shortround6]

Light weight fighters were losers.

The idea is atractive on the surface and has been pursued by a number of nations and/or companies but the only times it has been successful is when a breakthrough in engine technology has allowed the "light weight fighter" to use an engine with a much higher power to weight ratio than the conventional "heavy fighter".

If you are using planes of the same technolagy level, say piston engine planes of 1940 then the light fighter has several strikes against it.
1. the higher power engines ussually had better power to weight ratios than medium powered engines, they also had better power to frontal area ratios.
2. the was a certain amount of 'fixed' weight in a fighter. pilots couldn't be scaled down by much, instraments, radios, oxogen equipment etc. this weight is a smaller fraction of the larger fighters weight which means that on a percentage basis it should be able to carry more armament, or more fuel than the light fighter.
3. light fighters have limited growth potential. They are less adaptable to other roles.

Now Mr. Allison may have a different idea of a light fighter than I do but the Bell XP-77 was a first class turkey. The French Caudron series seem to be total failures as combat planes. Lots was promised but little delivered. The Italian Ambrosini series may have had serious issues also.