When we designed the mustang was there a better choice than a V-1710 ? I'm talking P-51A and A-36 time period what were the options was Naiper still making their 24 cylinder H-patteren engine ? I'm not an allison guy so thats why im asking did we have better options ?
Engine choices for P-51 mustang ?
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe, but the Allison was a part of the original requirement. The Mustang was built to a British requirement, NAA was asked to build P-40s under licence for the British, but the company said it could do better and built the Mustang. Allisons were already in P-40s being supplied to the RAF, so the new fighter had to have an Allison to achieve commonality with what the British wanted.
The P-51A and A-36 were a diversion from British production contracts. The only real option for re-engining the Mustang was the Merlin.
- Thread starter
- #3
Would the big british sabre have worked in the mustang ? 2200hp compared to a V-1710 making 1250hp and a packard bulit merlin making 13-15 hunderd ?
Not without considerable redesign. Obviously the Merlin Mustangs required this, too, but the Sabre was a physically larger engine than the Merlin and Allison. Much of the benfits of performance the Mustang offered were in airframe design, that's why the P-51D offered greater range and slightly higher performance to the Spitfire Mk.IX despite the P-51 being bigger and heavier than the Spitfire when fitted with similar engine (Packard vs RR Merlin)
The problem with the Mustang was a lack of altitude performance, switching the Allison for the Merlin cured this. The same would not have happened if the Sabre was substituted.
- Thread starter
- #5
Could we have lightened it enough the plane i mean to make the 2200hp H-24 vaible ? I mean she worked in the typhoon and tempest so ?
Different aeroplanes, different airframes. The Typhoon and Tempest were designed with the Sabre in mind, the Mustang was not. The problem with the Mustang was not one of performance, the Mustang II (Mustang I slower at 370 mph) matched the Typhoon in performance with a smaller capacity engine during official trials (Mustang II 409 mph @ 34,000 ft, Typhoon I 410 mph @ 32,300 ft), but adding the Merlin to the Mustang III meant it was faster than the Typhoon at a higher altitude (450 mph @42,400 ft). Figures from A&AEE test data.
Admiral Beez
Major
Not a better option, but the Hispano-Suiza 12Y would have fit and offered weight savings. If we're looking for good options to the Merlin I have to choose the Griffin.
What about Soviet engines based on the H-S, namely the VK-106 and VK-107? The inefficiently fuel hungry Soviet motors will need all of the Mustang's fuel capacity to achieve moderate endurance.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #8
Problem with the aillson though is lack of high attiude performence which why im looking for an alteritive and why i thought sabre first .
No, definitely not a better option. It had lower power output than the Allison and it was not produced by either the USA or Britain, so, bad idea. The Mustang would have been slower and had poorer performance with an engine that no one wanted.
- Thread starter
- #10
I'm still saying put a sabre in it
In another thread running right now are reasons why the Griffon wasn't fitted to wartime Mustangs. Rolls-Royce did consider it and built a mock-up, but the Griffon was earmarked for other aircraft, not only that but the performance that fitting the Merlin offered the Mustang was a big step compared to the Allison.
- Thread starter
- #12
VK-107s? a russian v-12 it still would be better than the 1710
Why? I demonstrated that putting a Merlin in it improved its performance to be better than the Typhoon with a Sabre. The Mustang with a Merlin had greater performance than the Typhoon and Tempest (432 mph at 18,400 ft). The Merlin engined Mustang had better altitude performance than the Sabre engined fighters, which is why the Allison was ditched.
Ummm... built in Russia? Nope, not gonna happen.
- Thread starter
- #15
Why becuase theres a big difference between 1250hp and over 2000hp Ive said it before and I'll say it again the Aillson was the worse engine we made during the war .
- Thread starter
- #17
No horsepower for one thing (everyone was making more than us ) for another very bad high attiude performence critcal was only 17k feet i would much rather have had these specs
Care to justify that?
- Powerplant: 1 × Napier Sabre IIB H-24 liquid-cooled sleeve-valve piston engine, 2,420 hp (1,800 kW) at + 11 lb boost for 5 minutes at sea level[nb 15] ; 2,010 hp (1,500 kW) for take-off ; 2,045 hp (1,525 kW) at 13,750 ft (4,190 m)[v 5]
- Propellers: 4-bladed de Havilland Hydromatic, 14 ft (4.3 m) diameter constant-speed propeller[v 6]
- Maximum speed: 435 mph (700 km/h, 378 kn) at 17,000 ft (5,200 m) ; 390 mph (340 kn; 630 km/h) at sea level[v 7]
- Combat range: 420 mi (680 km, 360 nmi) [v 8]
- Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,100 m)
- Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (24 m/s)
- Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in 6 minutes at combat power[v 9]
- Thread starter
- #18
Those numbers are from the mk5 tempest
Yup, but what part of replacing the Allison with the Merlin in the Mustang are you not seeing?
The Mustang III and IV or P-51 C and D had better altitude and speed performance than the Tempest V. The Mustang II with the Allison had same speed at a higher altitude than the Typhoon.
- Thread starter
- #20
The way i would have done it there would be NO aillson or merlin versions just sabres .
