Engine choices for P-51 mustang ? (1 Viewer)

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

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!
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.
 
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?
 
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 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"
 
Get thee to the naughty corner...FORTHWITH!!! :)
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.
 
1657752955469.png
 
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? I' m not too sure he was saying design it for the Allison and then change it, but rather, pick an alternate engine and design a different "Mustang" that may or may notr resemble the real P-51.

Myself, I think like you ... if we stay with the Mustang design, the only real alternate is the merlin.

But, if was start with an alternate engine, then there are a LOT of possibilities. The questions is, what were the alternate engines than were sufficiently developed to be used in the new airplane during the time the actual P-51 was developed, around April 1940?

The Sabre was first run in 1938, but wasn't really mature until 1944 or so. I say it isn't really a contender in 1940. English Electric bought Napier in 1942 and quickly solved the issues, but it WAS 1944 before things were peachy with the Sabre.

The Centaurus was first run in 1938 but production didn't start until 1942.

The Girffon was first run in 1939, and the Girffon II first ran in 1940, so it is a possibility.

The R-2800 was first run in 1937, and was introduced at 2,000 hp in 1939, so it has to be a contender, too. The Mustang used a U.S.-built Allison engine to start with, so no objecting to a U.S. engine.

I'm guessing the engine had to be one these two if we skip the Allison. The design might be very similar if they used the Griffon, but would look completely different if they were with a radial.

Here is a picture of the Reno racer Shockwave.
img?regionKey=1MvE62x6Gc9eX0EMnnZClA%3D%3D.jpg


or

2rch1pgoldw41.jpg


On SHockwave, there is a unique fuselage, Hawker Sea Fury outer wings, and F-86 tail surfaces and uses an R-4360, but COULD have been designed around an R-2800 instead. Suppose they moved the pilot position forward to emulate a Sea Fury and had straighter tail surfaces. Then, we have a smaller Sea Fury around the late 1941 timeframe or a Mustang-like Griffon fighter around the same time.

Interesting to contemplate but, in a "what if," there are NO incorrect answers. We can always use the Startgate and imagine that benevolent aliens magically came down and solved the technical difficulties for us.
 
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?

Yup, Greg, but my post you quoted was in direct response to his suggestion that because the Sabre worked in the Tempest and Typhoon it would work in the Mustang, hence my reply. If you go back to the beginning of the thread you'll see my reply to his original query is not so specific.
 
that mid-engined Mustang sure looks alot like the Me509 or R2Y1.

Yeah, it does. It's the Rolls-Royce Flying Test Bed, powered by a mid-ships mounted Griffon engine. A mock-up was built at Hucknall using bits from surplus Mustang I airframes, but the project was cancelled in February 1945.
 
Greg, in your post (#51), that mid-engined Mustang sure looks alot like the Me509 or R2Y1.

I confess ... it is straight off an internet group of fantasy conversions. I have no authorship on it.

Personally, I'd love to see an La-7 with an R-2800 and with another designer having a look at it. How about a Yak-3 with a Merlin 66 in it?
 
It's hard to imagine what else to power the Mustang with, given its history and the outcome of re-engining it.
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?.
 
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?.
When the BPC approached North American about manufacturing P-40's under license, it was a whole different world in Europe.
The Merlins were being manufactured in England and at the time, there was a real concern wether England might be next to fall under Germany's onslaught.

North American drew up a design using what was available, tried and proven. The V-1710 was a solid performing engine and was, in my opinion, the right choice.

We can look back and ponder what-ifs, but at the time, no one knew that there would be a need for long-range escorts battling at 35,000 feet and the early Allison powered Mustangs were also excellent performers at lower altitudes (including the A-36).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back