Ending the Argument

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

Thankyou, I pick up "stuff" from many sources but cant quote them. One of the "tricks" of the original Spitfire design came to haunt it later was the undercarriage set up it limited the prop diameter and made the later versions tricky on take off and landing, just like its only adversary the Bf109 which was also designed around a circa 1000BHP engine.
 
Maybe. Because a.) the drag co-efficient is higher on a Spit XIV than a B Mustang, and the Griffon, as geared, dropped Hp delivered rapidly above 22K+ feet at equivalent RPM/Boost it would be hard to extract SFC at 25K+ where the Mustang was king for 8th AF escort. The RAF flew very few mission types above 15,000 feet, so the gearing was designed for a lower altitude peak performance.

If Flight tests for range, clean, existed for the Griffon/Spit accompanied by Hp as function of altitude and boost a CROT could be extracted
 
Wuzak, I don't believe that a Griffon could have been adapted for first flight on or around the February 1944 timeframe without a major disruption of P-51D airframes. The XP-51F was first flying with 1650-3 in mid Feb and the first series production D also first flew in February. The modified Merlin 145 (SM 14) type was installed in the same airframe for the XP51G (with cooling and engine mount mods flew August 1944 - Just six months before production P-51H
 

The original discussions relating to putting a Griffon in the Mustang were taking place in late 1942.

Any effort on that project would likely have detracted from the P-51B program.

The main issue for production would be the supply of Griffons. There wasn't enough production historically to supply NAA as well as Supermarine and Fairey. So it would need a licence version built in the US. Maybe at the Continental plant which was originally to build the IV-1430, but ended up building Merlins (in small numbers?) instead.

Changing over to a Griffon variant would also have cost time and reduced the numbers of P-51Bs built.

I think in reality the only way a Griffon P-51 would have emerged is if they committed to it from the start, instead of the Merlin P-51. But it would have required Packard Griffons, or similar.
 
I pretty much agree Wuzak. That said, the gating factor that delayed delivery of P-51B-1-NA to ETO was the gestation period at Packard to tool up for the 1650-3 changes from 1650-1, then pass bench tests at Wright Pat, and subsequent production. I suspect that a.) concluding negotiations to build Griffon in US, particularly with political forces arrayed (MC/GM/Allison) against yet another Brit engine - then convert drawings, and tool up for production for Griffon, then direct NAA to redesign the P-51B/D for Griffon - would heve never made it past the sniff test when 8th AF was getting Hammered.
 

Users who are viewing this thread