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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which would it be?
The two stage engines would likely be too long, so perhaps a 45/50 or maybe a 20-series?
A Merlin 60-series was under consideration for a version of the P-63, but since the USAAF needed all its Packard allocation for P-51s the project was shelved.
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."Packard allocation".
Wuzak, A Merlin engined P-39 sounds wonderful!! And thanks for saving my thought!!
After reading this more, others have touched on a concern I had and that is the need of the Lightning in the Pacific theatre. The 15th AF could have utilized other aircraft easier, but the long legs of the P-38 were a must in the Pacific. What aircraft would have been on the Yamamoto mission if the P-38's weren't available? That mission was long before the longer ranging P-47's, and I believe before the F4U was engaged in battle and likely outside its range.
"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.
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 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.
Wuzak - wasn't referring to length but added weight which might move cg further back after nose ammo depleted..
I have little doubt that a Spitfire VIII, IX or XIV, in sufficient quantities, with the range to escort to Berlin and beyond would establish complete control of teh skies over Europe. The question is could teh Spitfire be provided the range?
The PR.XIX had a range of around 2000 miles, but no guns. The XIX is basically the same airframe and engine as the XIV, so on the surface it would appear possible.
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.
.
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.
where are references that Spit can combat with half empty rear tank?
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
Wuzak - wasn't referring to length but added weight which might move cg further back after nose ammo depleted..
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.