Aviation myths that will not die

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Macchi said:
Sorry, I had the two stage supercharged Merlin in mind when I said that. I'd like to know how it would have performed with an XX or later. I'd slap a kitten to know how it would have performed with a RR Griffon 101 in it.
Click to expand...

The P-40 had the Merlin XX which was a two speed supercharger if not a two stage one. As for sticking a Griffon of any sort in a P-40, WHY?

There are a number of threads from the S.E.I.S.P.S. (Sows Ear Into Silk Purse Society) No need to really go into here. Since the P-40 was 30-40mph slower than the P-51 at the same altitude using the same engine further development of the P-40 was a waste of time.
 
'Disappointment' was my word, I think perhaps my interpretation considering the excellence of the airframe. A 100 mph difference at high altitude makes second place look like 10th place.
Click to expand...

What was disappointing about it apart from its lack of altitude performance in a European context, Macchi? Like I said earlier, the Mustang I could outperform any fighter it met in combat in Europe and had superior performance in some aspects, notably range and speed at low altitude to every USAAC and RAF fighter then in service. By comparing the two, you are projecting hindsight onto historical events. Just because it doesn't perform as well as a Merlin engined Mustang, why does it "cease to be an historic All-star"?

Also, in your quote you are forgetting that the Rolls-Royce modified Merlin engined Mustang flew first. Mustang X AL975 powered by a Merlin 65 first flew on 13 October 1942.
 
I believe the P-40F/L had a Merlin 28, not an XX.

It is still a 20-series with a 2-speed supercharger, so the "XX" isn't really that far off the mark.

Just as a point of interest, the Merlin we will install in our Hispano Ha.1112 is a Merlin 228 (Merlin 28 built by Packard). Definitely a signle stage and I'm not familiar with the gear shift, so I don't know where it changes speeds, but I will after Saturday. I'm sure Steve Hinton knows.
 
Last edited:

-----

"The RAF wasn't too excited either when, shortly before Pearl Harbor, it started receiving its (delayed) Mustangs. The plane had a top speed of 380 mph, and without a supercharger wasn't much good above 12,000 feet. It was a low-altitude fighter. The British sent it to the Western Desert where, in July 1942, it made its combat debut, as a ground attack airplane, employing its eight thirty-caliber machine guns for strafing Italian and German vehicles.

The British use of the Mustang in an attack role was mirrored by the AAF. In early 1942, as Mustang production hit its stride, almost the only person at Wright Field who believed in the plane was Ben Kelsey. To get it into mass production for the AAF he sold it not as a fighter but as a dive-bomber. Under pressure from the Army to organize eighteen dive-bomber groups, the Matériel Command ordered five hundred with dive brakes and bomb racks; it was designated the A-36A."

~ Winged Victory: The Army Air Forces in World War II by Geoffrey Perret

-----

Firstly, I defer to GregP's comment on page 13 that the Allison engine did have a single stage supercharger. Maybe the author Perret was wrong on that, or maybe his was a reference to a gear driven two stage supercharger or an exhaust driven turbo charger. The use of certain terminology can make us all fussy if we're not on the same page definition wise.

I don't think I'm projecting in hindsight. Outside of NAA, few people knew at the time what they had in the Mustang airframe. I'm sure the pilots knew, but those making the decisions didn't. Maybe Rolls Royce dropped a Merlin into one because they wanted to sell more engines to the British government. Maybe they dropped in a Merlin because the RR test pilot knew what the airframe could do with a different set of cylinders. I could argue the projected hindsight is that the Merlin/Packard Mustang was such a great plane that it seems obvious to everyone now the Mustang was always a great plane.

The Allison Mustang was a nice plane that wasn't going to put anything else out of a job. It was a fine low level performer, but the English already had that with the Spitfire. The Spitfire V itself was outclassed by the introduction of the FW 190, and the Allison Mustang was no answer to the 190. Maybe that's why the English sent it to Africa for strafing duty. The Allison Mustang was a decent plane, as was the P40 in its time. In my personal opinion, the P40 remains a popular plane today for the simple reason it looks completely bad-ass. Having the tiger teeth paint job just adds to that (thank you Australians). The Wildcat was another decent plane that did its job during its time, but I've yet to see anyone "ooh" or "aah" over one in an airshow or museum (if you can even find one). We talk about the Mustang today… "ooh" and "aah" over the Mustang because of what it became. It truly was the Cadillac of the skies…. drop dead gorgeous, dangerous at all altitudes and extremely long range. If it had stayed the Allison Mustang throughout the war it would be remembered for being the sleeker girlfriend of the tattooed P40.
 
Last edited:
Sent to the Western Desert? Combat debut July 1942 ??
The first Mustangs entered RAF service, as TAC R aircraft with Army Cooperation Command, with No.2 Sqn, at Sawbridgeworth, in April 1942, and their first operational sortie was July 1942.
Apart from the fact that, in the trials at the A&AEE, Boscombe Down, the Mustang was superior to the Spitfire V below 20,000 feet, although it took longer to reach that altitude, I'm not aware of any Mustang squadrons being 'sent to the Western Desert' in 1942.
 
Hey Macchi.

I think a Merlin 60-series and a 4-bladed prop would have done wonders for the P-40. But, that's just my opinion and it never happened as far as I know.

Still, it COULD have been done and the weight penalty would surely be made up with the altitude performance. Again, just my thoughts. I believe there was room or room could have been found for the grafting. The XP-40Q showed it had potential in spades, just never got the combination into production that would wake up the P-40 at high altitudes. Too bad. Might have been a very nice combination.

The politics of the time would probably prevent it, but I can wonder about it.

I have heard that Don Berlin actually got to make a turbocharged P-40, but have never been able to verify it as true. Heard that one from his son at a talk on the P-40. I didn't get to ask him about it personally as the talk went on and he left early, before the other speakers were finished. It is classic heresay that cannot to date be verified with actual source data. So, it is grouped in there with the "might have happened but we don't know for sure" bunch of stories that are claimed to be true.

Maybe George Welch's supersonic dive before Yeager will never be proven either, but it makes for a great story, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:

Hi, nuuumannn - Mustang I was not able to outperform LW opposition in the ETO, at least not above 20000 ft, speed-wise. When considering RoC, LW have had better performers, probably at all altitudes.

An excerpt from tables about US-produced engines, please note the 'supercharger' (SUPCH) column, that lists supercharger drive type, diameter and drive ratio. 'F-51A' means 'P-51A' (table is post-war); the 'F-40' means P-40. 'F-6A' is the recce plane, based on P-51 (not on P-51A!).The P-39 is listed as such. Also please note that supercharger on V-1710-81 has a different drive ratio, giving better power higher up.
The Mustang I was using V-1710-39 engine.

 
While we're on the subject of RAF Mustangs - anyone know when they were first over German (as opposed to French, Belgian, Dutch, Danish or Norwegian) territory?
 
Mark, I doubt that Mustang l ever ventured in Germany proper - it's fuel was limited to the internal 150 imp gals. The drop tank capability was added from Mustang ll (P-51A), and those were deployed only in MTO and CBI, from second half of 1943 on.
 
Mustang Mk1's were the first RAF, single-engine fighters to fly over Germany, in October 1942, during a raid on the Dortmund-Ems canal. Operational radius, without drop tanks, was 300 miles.
 
I'll have to look it up, but the stated range (as opposed to operational radius) was 1,050 miles.
RAF TAC R Mustangs served right up until the end of the war in Europe, and regularly strafed airfields, railways and other targets of opportunity, in Germany, Holland, Belgium and France, when returning from a sortie. They also engaged in combat, and scored kills, against Bf109 and FW 190.
They might not have been as 'glamourous' as the later, Merlin-engined Mustang III and IV, but they certainly were not 'also rans' !!
 
Actually there were supposed to have done a fighter sweep over the Ruhr (16 fighters) on July 27 1942. Which is supposed to be the first allied fighters over Germany during the war (although what happened during the "phony war" I don't know.
 
I don't have any specific information regarding a RAF sweep on that day, but the 'history making' sortie previously mentioned, involved RAF Mustang Mk1's escorting 22 Wellingtons on 22nd October, 1942.
On 5th May 1942, 26 Squadron launched it's first cross-Channel operation, a low-level recce flight, when F/O Dawson returned, at low level, across France, strafing Berck airfield and, later a locomotive.
 
Shortround6 said:
Actually there were supposed to have done a fighter sweep over the Ruhr (16 fighters) on July 27 1942. Which is supposed to be the first allied fighters over Germany during the war (although what happened during the "phony war" I don't know.
Click to expand...

This baffles me. This occurred a year and a half before P-51Bs appeared over deep Germany. They had to know that this new plane was fast! They had to know it had good range! They may have had downed P-51 (one was lost in Dieppe raid August, 1942) and I am sure others were lost over German held territory. Did they not recognize that an improved supercharger (or change to a better supercharged engine) and the simple addition of an additional tank make this plane into a very good long range escort fighter? Yet they were obviously unprepared and spent much effort to field a too late answer in the Fall of 1944. My question, why did the German not anticipate escort fighters over Germany in 1944 and field a capable defense against them? Maybe a different thread.
 
Hi Dave,

Let's say that you are looking at it from hindsight and they were looking at it from the position of being in a relatively comfortable position through about 1942, and were increasingly in a panic after that. Getting Herr Hitler to approve planes to REPLACE the Bf 109 and Fw 190 might have been problematic since he was being fed reports that said they were winning with these exact assets.

It might be a case of nobody wanted to be the messenger that got shot and it might be that the guys writing the reports wanted to not be shot together with the messenger. I'd bet the reports Hitler got were rther carefuully scrutinized before he read them, but I wasn't there.

I'm reading between the lines here, and well might be wrong. I am also recalling the number if German General who were executed as being a rather large number. So, if you made General, you didn't exactly have any job security. Seems like they tried to fix it with incremental updates to the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Almost nothing else made it into fighter production except the jets / rockets, which could safely be recommended as new technology superseding both the pistons in terms of performance (if not range).
 
Last edited:

I would have liked to have seen that too, just out of curiosity, but I understand why they didn't spend too much energy reworking older craft.

I have all kinds of "what if" thoughts about hardware... I'd love to see a Beaufighter or Me-410 wearing R-2800 engines... would love to see a Black Widow wearing two Wright R-3350s. For purely imagination's sake, if you could mix and match any pieces of hardware from any country during the war, what could you come up with? With the Mustang, that's sort of what happened... a Curtiss beginning, North American execution and Rolls power plant. In this case, the best possible outcome for the Mustang happened, no imagination necessary.


That would be wonderful if true, and I wonder sometimes what else is out there that doesn't get mentioned.
 
GregP said:
Getting Herr Hitler to approve planes to REPLACE the Bf 109 and Fw 190 might have been problematic since he was being fed reports that said they were winning with these exact assets.
Click to expand...

This.

I think the German leadership was acutely aware that they had neither the resources nor manpower for a long war of attrition they thought they could win with what they had.
Of course they had plans for what came next (and were forced by events to try leapfrog equipment generations when it went against them) but basically I think the German leadership mind-set was that the war was all but won in '42 that what they had at that stage was more than just adequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
6
Views
596
pb43
P
N
OS2U-3 Kingfisher that rescued Rickenbacker - need the Bureau Number
Replies
2
Views
662
NNAM
N
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
9K
RCAFson
R
A query I sent to my Midwest aviation gang - WWII bomber growth
Replies
0
Views
605
fannum
the invention of the turbojet. A letter that changed history
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register