Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With the Typhoon, armour was increased, bomb rocket load was increased, eventually the limit reached in some cases was what the tyres could withstand on take off and landing with your average post D-Day metal mat runway. That isnt the first thing that springs to mind.You cannot make that determination unless you do a load analysis to see if the airframe can handle the extra torque (HP) and load, let alone other structural considerations from the heaver armament. I don't think you realize that when you fire guns (or cannons) you're putting stresses on the airframe structure. Additionally you may have to strengthen structure and increase fuel capacity which means an increase in weight. You have a very simplistic approach to this - more HP doesn't always mean faster or more bombs - an old saying, you can't put 10 pounds of "poop" in a 2 pound bag!
Or remove 2,000 pounds from the P-39!But hey, we can increase the weight of the Mustang by 2000lbs (a ton) and not have to make any changes?
You guys are milking the P39 discussion for everything it's worth haha.Or remove 2,000 pounds from the P-39!
Well if you use the Typhoon fuselage behind the engine to cope with the loads that would help? And to counter the weight at the front you could use the rear fuselage of the Typhoon (may need beefing up a bit). I am still working on the details but I have a name, how about "P-51 Tiffie"The Typhoon was an 11,000lb airplane with four 20mm guns and clean wings.
Thinking you can take the engine out of it and drop the engine, propeller and cooling system into a 8500-9000lb plane in place of the existing engine, prop and cooling system is really going to require some structural reinforcement.
the Sabre engine makes the Griffon look small.
Our enthusiastic friend has not even figured out how to drop the 2500lb Sabre into the engine bay that used to hold an under 1400lb Allison engine, or how much lead he needs to balance the big propeller, or where he is going to put the radiator that has two weigh almost twice what the old radiator weighed (including coolant).
Here is a hint at what the problem involved. A P-51 at 8,000lbs was rated at a "G" limit of 8 G. If you increase the weight of clean plane to 9,850lbs you lower the G limit to 6.5 G's
Which means you can start bending the plane at 6.5 Gs and break the plane several Gs lower than what it took to break the plane when it weighed 8,000lbs.
Heck, the Typhoon needed different wheels, tires an brakes to taxi with a pair of 1000lb bombs than it did with a pair of 500lb bombs. But hey, we can increase the weight of the Mustang by 2000lbs (a ton) and not have to make any changes?
Well I was thinking, Typhoon wings and landing gear would help too?You are going to wind up with a lot more dihedral on wings after you land than when you took off
Well I was thinking, Typhoon wings and landing gear would help too?
I was actually being sort of serious. If you start with a Sabre engine and decide you want a ground attack plane that carried the max bombs and guns, you end up with something that looks like a Typhoon. Slapping a Sabre engine in a P-51 so you can carry a bigger bomb load is sacrilege anyway.Get thee to the naughty corner...FORTHWITH!!!
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.
Hi Nuuumannn. I think the OP was saying that the Mustang was rapidly designed for the Allison. Supposing they had chosen a different engine, could a Mustang-like aircraft have resulted?
Might be a winner ...
that mid-engined Mustang sure looks alot like the Me509 or R2Y1.
Greg, in your post (#51), that mid-engined Mustang sure looks alot like the Me509 or R2Y1.
The alternative engine has to do what the Merlin actually did, have good power from take off to 25,000+ feet, be very efficient to get the range needed, be as light and with smallest cross section possible with still room for growth and above all else doing all that with the reliability to fly thousands of miles on escort missions, what other engine meets that criteria?.It's hard to imagine what else to power the Mustang with, given its history and the outcome of re-engining it.
When the BPC approached North American about manufacturing P-40's under license, it was a whole different world in Europe.The alternative engine has to do what the Merlin actually did, have good power from take off to 25,000+ feet, be very efficient to get the range needed, be as light and with smallest cross section possible with still room for growth and above all else doing all that with the reliability to fly thousands of miles on escort missions, what other engine meets that criteria?.