Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
AgreedThe procurement of the P-51 was heaven sent serendipity. It happened almost by accident.
There were a lot of things had to have happened in very narrow time windows to allow it to happen on both sides of the Atlantic, all sorts could have made it a "what if" of history. It needed the NACA profiles it used to exist, for NA to not be building P-40s already, for the British to take a risk on NA designing better than the P-40 and then NA doing just that. It needed the British to be short of fighters in the first place, and the neutral USA government to consent to supply. It needed many engine programmes to fail in UK and the Merlin to be adopted for most fighters and bombers. Then it needed the British to order Merlins built by Packard and that Merlin to fit in the P-51 without huge modification. I am not at all religious but get a feeling of destiny in the story, so many unlikely things were needed for it to happen it probably shouldn't have but did. On the other side of the pond the Mosquito is a similarly unlikely tale.Agreed
I do think that there are couple things that standout about the P-51. First, a "give us your best" solicitation and then leaving that to the manufacturer rather than providing a ton of oversight during initial design and second, the procurement of the re-engineering to the merlin/packard. The second was really an opportunity where a poorly managed procurement process could have turned the P-51 into a dog through additional performance/mission criteria.
Greetings SaparotRob,Would the Lockheed P-80 qualify?
It was delivered in less than the 180 day promise date. It sort of, kind of made it to the front before the end of hostilities. It did evolve into an outstanding trainer.
There were a lot of factors that had to go just right, but maybe this happens fairly regularly if we look for those kind of occurrences. To me, the request for design, was a significant factor in how the plane evolved. It was pretty simple and wasn't written to try and advance technology, but was really a "give us your best design" solicitation. In modern terms, its similar to the competitions that led to the F-16 and F-22. Both were structured around well defined missions and left to the engineering teams to outcompete each other. The F-35 on the other hand, had many overlays of multiple mission performance and technology advancement that continue to impact the development of the aircraft.There were a lot of things had to have happened in very narrow time windows to allow it to happen on both sides of the Atlantic, all sorts could have made it a "what if" of history. It needed the NACA profiles it used to exist, for NA to not be building P-40s already, for the British to take a risk on NA designing better than the P-40 and then NA doing just that. It needed the British to be short of fighters in the first place, and the neutral USA government to consent to supply. It needed many engine programmes to fail in UK and the Merlin to be adopted for most fighters and bombers. Then it needed the British to order Merlins built by Packard and that Merlin to fit in the P-51 without huge modification. I am not at all religious but get a feeling of destiny in the story, so many unlikely things were needed for it to happen it probably shouldn't have but did. On the other side of the pond the Mosquito is a similarly unlikely tale.
Yes, but the F-16 and F-22 were designed for a role. The P-51 was just designed to be a better fighter than a P40. It was not designed to be a daylight escort fighter, the RAF had already switched to night time strategic bombing. They were not ordered by a foreign power and didn't had their performance transformed by another engine put into production by another country after they were ordered. The role of long range daylight escort fighter didn't exit in 1940 military thinking. Similarly the role of unarmed bomber didn't exist although the idea of a "fast bomber" was common. Obviously they are different planes but they are similar in having low cooling drag, extremely clean lines and advanced Aerofoils. The "RAF"(what does that mean?) profile used by the Mosquito were not as advanced as the NACA ones used by N/A but better than many others.There were a lot of factors that had to go just right, but maybe this happens fairly regularly if we look for those kind of occurrences. To me, the request for design, was a significant factor in how the plane evolved. It was pretty simple and wasn't written to try and advance technology, but was really a "give us your best design" solicitation. In modern terms, its similar to the competitions that led to the F-16 and F-22. Both were structured around well defined missions and left to the engineering teams to outcompete each other. The F-35 on the other hand, had many overlays of multiple mission performance and technology advancement that continue to impact the development of the aircraft.
I would need to go back and reread the development of the mosquito, but as I recall the RAF wasn't overly interested/supportive for some time. The plane was very much a DeHavilland initiated project.
The "RAF"(what does that mean?) profile used by the Mosquito were not as advanced as the NACA ones used by N/A but better than many others.
...
The "RAF"(what does that mean?) profile used by the Mosquito were not as advanced as the NACA ones used by N/A but better than many others.
Nice, please allow me to clarify my ill informed American knowledge. For RAF I should have typed the Air Ministry as in "the Air Ministry was skeptical of the Mosquito design at first".RAF was Royal Aircraft Factory. It was the main design, testing and production organization during the First World War. Part of their research effort was to design and trial differing aerofoil sections.
Well I think everyone was because so many bombers had been said to be so fast they would get through and weren't. Of all the letters there are they chose RAF for two institutions that were involved with the Mosquito. The profiles for the Mosquito were RAF (Royal Aircraft Factory)profiles and it was bought for use by the RAF (Royal Air Force) Perfectly simple, no cause for confusion any where.Nice, please allow me to clarify my ill informed American knowledge. For RAF I should have typed the Air Ministry as in "the Air Ministry was skeptical of the Mosquito design at first".
By the 20's, the RAF had moved away from trial and error design, and were more into mathematically designing and verifying aerofoils - and often they were very close to the theory.RAF was Royal Aircraft Factory. It was the main design, testing and production organization during the First World War. Part of their research effort was to design and trial differing aerofoil sections.
Great post and enjoy the bacon but what is "RAF" the air force or the factory? Of all the letters in all the alphabets they had to choose those three.By the 20's, the RAF had moved away from trial and error design, and were more into mathematically designing and verifying aerofoils - and often they were very close to the theory.
For some light reading, these papers are interesting:
Theory of thin aerofoils: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/910.pdf
Generalised type of Joukowski http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/911.pdf
Theory & Experimental Results (incl RAF 34) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/946.pdf
I have been looking into this topic for a while and have two things that stand out to me. (1) Glauert was brilliant and (2) the interchange of information between the countries was impressive. Just looking at the references for both the R&M and the NACA reports show that they regularly used information from the US and UK, as well as Gottingen. The laminar flow aerofoils were triggered by Jacobs observing Jones and Taylor's findings, and understanding the importance.
Great Question Pinehilljoe. I hadn't thought that through, but I would lean towards time from solicitation to go for production. I think a second option would be considering improvements, but that starts to get harder to define unless its something so clearly understood as putting in a new power plant.What are the metrics you are thinking of to categorize a plane?
Time from Concept to prototype
Time from Prototype to Production
Qty of Production
Performance
The P-51 and F6F are high on the list. The P-75 is low on the list, and I would also rate the P-61 low on the list.