Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Who proclaimed Merlin as dead-end?All of this sounds good, but I do wonder why the Merlin would be called a dead end when even the most advanced versions of the Mustangs used them, the DH Hornet used them (though the two-stage Griffon was being worked on by then),
I'm not sure I can agree with any of this.OK, show me the Merlin powered fighter that...
I've always been intrigued by the idea of a "half Hornet," not least because I imagine it would be pretty gorgeous. Considering the Hornet itself was already in the early stages of development (privately) by the time F.6/42 was issued, and the necessary production equipment was already basically there for the Mosquito, I suspect they could have gotten a damn good fighter into service pretty quickly, albeit likely at the expense of at least some Mosquito production, which may not have been worth it given that designs utility and quality. A "half-mosquito" (i.e. no "slimline" Merlin, and reusing the RAF 34 profile wing rather than developing a new laminar flow airfoil) perhaps makes more sense in production terms, at the cost of a bit more drag, but that still leaves you with a plane about as light as a Spitfire, but with a drag profile closer to a Mustang, and you can make in vast numbers without using too much aluminum.The Mustang had no problems carrying large bomb or rocket loads when used as a ground attack aircraft. Only issue is that used in the ETO it wasn't an insanely good interceptor (even then it could outclimb most Me-109 variants and most Fw-190 variants) and wasn't as agile as the Spitfire (which was lighter, in part due to different build standards, and also carried a lot less fuel), which that didn't matter much provided that it was a better dogfighter than most 109s and 190s by the time it entered service, also helped by Luftwaffe pilot skills and ability deteriorating rapidly as the Mustang pilots inflicted attrition from Big Week onwards.
Of course, this could've been remedied by the lightweight Mustangs entering production, the P-51B/C/D/K getting more powerful engines (as the P-51B used by Rolls-Royce as an engine test bed) and maybe improved control surfaces used on the lightweight Mustangs, or the P-51H (built to British design standards, improved controls, and more power).
Or a fresh fighter based on the concept of "half a DH Hornet" that weighed half as much (Hornet F1 weighed 14,180 lbs clean, Hornet F3/Sea Hornet F20 a bit more; figures from the books Hornet & Sea Hornet: de Havilland's Ultimate Piston Engine Fighter and Airframe Album #8: The de Havilland Hornet and Sea Hornet), which IMO shows that a fresh design incorporating all of that could be possible, and that even an improved Mustang based on the LW designs or even the P-51H would at least come close to fulfilling that.
Though it should be noted that I did list design priorities different tiers. Top tier being most important, bottom tier being least important.
The Fury I with a Sabre VII would have been comparable, if they could get it to work reliably, but sleeve valve engines tend to have problems above about ~15 lbs boost, so I'm sceptical they'd have managed to get it into service — at least not before it was overtaken by Merlin development, which was by that point a much safer bet (someone mentioned RM.17SM, which by the time the Fury I was cancelled was producing 2200 hp reliably, and as much as 2600 hp with ADI, comparable to the Centaurus). All in all it seems apparent that a properly developed (and geared) Merlin, in a well designed air frame is in fact at least as well suited to high altitude combat as the design that actually resulted from F.6/42, to whatever degree that was actually relevant to the specification (which I'm not sure it was).
To be honest, I think a cannon armed, Merlin 100 engined "Mustang VI" would have been considerably superior to the Sea Fury in most respects, and probably pretty comparable to a hypothetical production Fury I, depending on each aircraft's degree of development. The advantage of the Mustang is that it would have been much cheaper, and available sooner. The advantage of the (Sea) Fury is that it keeps Hawker's production lines humming, which has strategic and political value.
Go back and look at the original posters "requirements".I'm not sure I can agree with any of this.
What is the math behind the 700 mile range for e the 'half Hornet' on internal fuel?Now, if you take the "half-Hornet" approach, you can have a plane that weights a bit over 7000 lbs, can be just as fast, with a 700+ mile range on internal fuel,
I would imagine simply by cutting the Hornet F.1's range in half. You could arrive at an (at least marginally) more thorough, and possibly more conservative number by comparing the internal fuel of a similarly sized aircraft (say a later Merlin Spit or perhaps a Yak-9) with the fuel consumption of a Hornet.What is the math behind the 700 mile range for e the 'half Hornet' on internal fuel?
I would imagine simply by cutting the Hornet F.1's range in half. You could arrive at an (at least marginally) more thorough, and possibly more conservative number by comparing the internal fuel of a similarly sized aircraft (say a later Merlin Spit or perhaps a Yak-9) with the fuel consumption of a Hornet.