Could you have designed a better Warbird?

[Shortround6]

Would the Brits rather build and deploy P-51B/Mustang III in 1941 or Hurricanes? ........ BUT mechanics and logistics for the most crucial component was the engine and Hurricane crews would be maintaining the same engine.

Would it really be a "P-51B/Mustang III in 1941" or would it be a P-51A with a Merlin XX and not a Merlin 61 in 1941?

Still better (much better) than a Hurricane but not quite a P-51B either?

 

[drgondog]

Would it really be a "P-51B/Mustang III in 1941" or would it be a P-51A with a Merlin XX and not a Merlin 61 in 1941?

Still better (much better) than a Hurricane but not quite a P-51B either?

It would have to be the P-51 'Merlin XX' whatever that is but the engine mount, carb relocation, new cowl, new wing drop to enable faired cowl and new radiator would have to accompany it. I can't think of a reason why the Merlin 61 couldn't be accomodated as soon as it became prioritized for the Mustang.

One interesting question is whether the fudelage would be extended during this design cycle instead of waiting for the P-51H?

 

[tomo pauk]

Continuation follows :

During the April '43 offensive, some things were made more clear to the Allies, too. From technical side, P-43 was lacking range (when equipped with same drop tanks as other planes - so no 'beyond Ruhr' for him yet), and the performance needed some boost in order for plane to be competitive under 20K. The ability to take punishment was the best plus.
Engineers at Republic redesigned the inner part of wing, making it more simple, with each wing receiving 40 gal tank, plus provision was made for 3 drop tanks to be carried. Until more power becomes available, a pair of HMGs was removed, to cancel out the increase of weight of the new tanks. The -D version entered combat in March '44, and mostly featuring water injection for 2300 HP in WER, and paddle blade props.
The more substantial version to become produced was one with fan-cooled R-2800, with 2800 HP and all 8 HMGs. The -M enters combat in June '44, just in time for invasion.

 

[davebender]

whether the fudelage would be extended during this design cycle instead of waiting for the P-51H?

What triggered the historical design change?

 

[drgondog]

What triggered the historical design change?

Major reasons were the fuselage fuel tank cg issue and the issues associated with roll and yaw that cropped up with added horsepower going from A to B without making any changes to the tail.

They reduced the capacity to 50 gallons, increased the length to restore 'original' yaw handling of the P-51A as well as improve take off characteristics and effectiveness of the rudder without adding stress to fuselage. The reduced the weight back to the B but still retained the 6x50 and larger ammo capacity of the D.

 

[davebender]

Major reasons were the fuselage fuel tank cg issue and the issues associated with roll and yaw that cropped up with added horsepower going from A to B without making any changes to the tail.

I expect Britain would have the same learning curve if they produced the Mustang.

 

[Milosh]

I'll buy that. UK production of the Mustang starts during 1942 (with Merlin engine) and achieves large scale production during 1943.

Of course you also need to massively increase Merlin engine production. Historically Britain didn't produce enough for the Lancaster Bomber program. Building P51s in Britain makes the engine shortage even worse.

Great Britain produced half again as many Merlins as what the USA did.

 

[drgondog]

I expect Britain would have the same learning curve if they produced the Mustang.

But this is a 'better design' so of course the US/UK collaborate perfectly.

Having said this only a 'future seeing' design team could predict the merlin would increase Hp by nearly 2x from 1940 to 1945 and THAT knowledge would have to be anticipated to further strengthen the aft fuselage but the added fuel tank would suggest extending the fuselage.

 

[gjs238]

Perhaps higher output engines were anticipated, such as Continental I-1430, Pratt Whitney X-1800, etc.
We know these didn't work out, but at the time there was "optimism."

 

[gjs238]

Not much point to using that large / heavy / expensive P-38 twin boom airframe unless you need the space for turbochargers. With mechanical superchargers you could employ a lighter and more compact airframe similiar to the Westland Whirlwind.

Fokker G.I used twin boom design.

 

[tomo pauk]

The introduction of Anglo-American high performance fighters served as incentive for Soviets, too. The two types they evaluated in mid 1942 - Mustang and Spitfire VIII - were found to have almost 100 km/h speed advantage vs. current Soviet types, with double the range firepower (Spit only). So they too decided to try out the laminar-flow wing for next generation of their fighters.

The 1st type going to production was from Yakovlyev OKB. Their latest Yak-7D was offering good range, but performance was lacking vs. German opposition. The new wing was almost the same as Mustang's, but cropped, with wing area of mere 200 ft^2. The resulting Yak-7DI (later named Yak-9) have had the same range as the predecessor, while being only slightly slower than German fighters. 1st combats occurred in late 1943.
Yakovlyev engineers took the advantage of designing 'new' wing and have made also the undercarriage legs slightly longer, so Ash-82 engine with regular prop could've been mounted. The Ash-82F on a Yak provided finally a level of performance Soviet needed, starting in 1944.

 

[davebender]

Great Britain produced half again as many Merlins as what the USA did.

Still not nearly enough to meet British requirements due to the high priority Lancaster Bomber program.

 

[drgondog]

Still not nearly enough to meet British requirements due to the high priority Lancaster Bomber program.

Given the long range and high performance of the P-51B type, the RAF may well ahve re-allocated 500+ engines to get them into the MTO and ETO.

 

[Milosh]

Still not nearly enough to meet British requirements due to the high priority Lancaster Bomber program.

There was 7377 Lancasters produced requiring 29508 engines. Double that for spares.

Be sure, there was enough for the high priority Lancaster Bomber program.

Britain - 112000
USA - 37000