KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
"Packard allocation". But that would imply a shortage of resources. And we have been assured that the US had plenty of everything.
It would seem the rules of economics do apply, even to the US.
Could the later model P38 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"Packard allocation". But that would imply a shortage of resources. And we have been assured that the US had plenty of everything.
It would seem the rules of economics do apply, even to the US.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That indicted the engines allocated to a manufacturer by the government. Things like engines, radios, avionics and in some cases oxygen equipment was known as "Government Furnished Equipment" (GFE) which meant the prime contractor did not order these items direct from the manufacturer on contracts let by the US government, the government allocated these items based on contract. If an airframe manufacturer was working on a private or non-lend lease contract it was then they purchased the engine. The US DID have plenty of everything but it was obvious there were some limitations but those limitations did not hamper the allied supply line, the proof of this was the excess aircraft left in country after the war.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
The installation of a merlin in the P-63 probably means extending the fuselage and/or pulling the wings back to offset aft cg.
The 15th AF, prior to May/June 1944, wasn't able to fly continuous escort with the P-38 and didn't quite have enough combined P-47/P-38 groups to fly Penetration, Target and Withdrawal escorts to Munich, Regensburg, etc. The P-38 could sweep to those targets but not linger, the P-47s couldn't get close.
wuzak
Captain
Not all of Packard's engines were destined for US aircraft.
Packard Merlins went into Lancasters, Mosquitos and Spitfires (the Mk XVI) as well.
What I meant by "allocation" are those ordered for US aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
The P-63 was designed to fit a two stage Allison V-1710, which is longer than a two stage Merlin.
Wiki has the V-1710 at a length of 85.8", which is less than 3" shorter than a 2 stage Merlin and considerably longer than a single stage Merlin.
A single stage Merlin should fit comfortably inside the P-39's engine bay, but it would need a scoop underneath for the intake, or a down draft carby. A two stage may fit, though I thought earlier that they would be much longer than a V-1710 single speed engine. The weight may be the problem, though the engine woul dtheoretically be on the CoG anyway.
Just remembered, the two stage Griffon is shorter than the two stage Merlin, and shorter than the V-1710!. It is wider and deeper, however, and 300lbs heavier than a 2 stage Merlin.
drgondog
Major
Wuzak - wasn't referring to length but added weight which might move cg further back after nose ammo depleted..
wuzak
Captain
The two stage Allison was very close to the two stage Merlin in weight - depending on versions and accesories.
Fuel:
Spitfire Mk. VIII: 123 Imp gal = 148 US gal.
"Quill mod": 75 Imp gal tank in rear fuselage =90 US gal. (manageable with slight instability)
Slipper tank 170 Imp gal = 204 US gal.
Total: 238 gal of internal fuel
204 gal of external fuel.
More than a Mustang with full internal fuel and two 75 gal drop tanks.
170 slipper tank was not available only for PR?
and can not fly combat mission with fuel in the rear tank, you can not drop it
drgondog
Major
The VIII would have been a very effective long range escort with the Quill Mod - more (range) than the P-47D up to -23 without the modification and nearly same as P-38. Would probably have to burn down at least 1/2 of the 90 gallons internally to be combat ready which (if true) would compromise range a little bit when forced to drop external tank (IF AVAILABLE).
Last edited:
I think not. The effect of not having the P-51 B/C/D available would've been the loss of much much more B-17/B-24 bombers and their crews. German fighters would've had the luxury of being able to queue up and take their shots with their heavy calibre cannon, even the twin-engined fighters would be up - out of the range of the P-38s P-47s.
Please note too it's not just the fuel carried but the fuel consumption that makes a difference. The Mustang was such a 'clean' aircraft - 'its normal internal fuel tanks held 183 (269 with a full rear tank) compared with 99 for the Spitfire, and it consumed an average of 64 gallons per hour compared with 144 for the P-38 and 140 for te P-47'.
'Colonel H Zemke, who operated with all three, considered the P-51 by far the best air to air fighter below 25,000 ft: above that thugh he thought the P-47 slightly better, despite its high fuel consumption. The P-38's combat effectiveness was severely restricted by its maximum diving spedde of 375 mph IAS.
Despite their range the Mustangs were much faster and more nimble at all heights than the Me109s and FW 190s that opposed them, and had the endurance to chase them all over Germany'.
Please note too it's not just the fuel carried but the fuel consumption that makes a difference. The Mustang was such a 'clean' aircraft - 'its normal internal fuel tanks held 183 (269 with a full rear tank) compared with 99 for the Spitfire, and it consumed an average of 64 gallons per hour compared with 144 for the P-38 and 140 for te P-47'.
'Colonel H Zemke, who operated with all three, considered the P-51 by far the best air to air fighter below 25,000 ft: above that thugh he thought the P-47 slightly better, despite its high fuel consumption. The P-38's combat effectiveness was severely restricted by its maximum diving spedde of 375 mph IAS.
Despite their range the Mustangs were much faster and more nimble at all heights than the Me109s and FW 190s that opposed them, and had the endurance to chase them all over Germany'.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The Lancaster Bomber probably did more to cripple the Luftwaffe from Spring 1944 onward then all other factors combined by destroying German hydrogenation plants. So how can anyone claim the P-51 was crucial to the Allied war effort?
Pilot Notes iirc.
i have not the notes for VIII but in notes for the others variant is indicated if there is any fuel in the rear tanks aerobatics are prohibited
Spit IX Notes
Part II, 45, (i)
Aerobatics are not permitted when the rear tank contains more than 30 gal of fuel..... not recommended when containing any fuel.
wuzak
Captain
Just had a thought...
The heavier, more powerful engine may need a heavier, stronger nose mounted gearbox. This may redress some of the weight balance lost when using a heaier engine.
Spit XIV part II, 55, (II) and Spit XIV&XIX
Aerobatics are not permitted when carryng any external stores (except the 30-gallon "blister" type drop tank) or when there is any fuel in the rear fuselage tank
Spit XVIII part II, 51 (III)
Aerobatics are not permitted when carryng any external stores (except the 30 gallon blister type drop tank) or when there is any fuel in the rear fuselage tanks
drgondog
Major
Vincenzo - as the question was whether the Spit VIII could be an effective escort aircraft - absent the P-51B, there is no real difference between them with regard to aerobatics with fuselage tanks or external tanks. I do not know if there was a 'level' of internal fuselage fuel that was deemed 'safe', but the P-51B recommendation was 25 (of 85) gallons.
