GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The issues of the landing gear and prop were addressed by the gull wing.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The issues of the landing gear and prop were addressed by the gull wing.I could be wrong, but I have been under the impression they were designed to allow for clearance for the large prop, and that the reduced drag was an ancillary benefit noticed later. I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Getting good dope is why I read here.
That is your opinion, not a fact.In WWII, the Americans had more engineering resources than anyone else. The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.
The Germans had their share of good aircraft and engine designers, but they missed the laminar flow wings and two-stage superchargers.
I was hoping Drgondog would have commented on this but here goes.In WWII, the Americans had more engineering resources than anyone else. The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.
The Germans had their share of good aircraft and engine designers, but they missed the laminar flow wings and two-stage superchargers.
The Mustang existed before the BPC approached North American.The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.
We got lucky in that adding the Merlin to the Mustang proved not so troublesome, and gave us a LR fighter capable of tangling with almost anything.
With the Corsair, we got lucky in finding that the inverted-gull wing reduced drag at the wing roots, allowing the plane a higher turn of speed.
I think it is also fair to say that the Americans got the benefit of what was happening in Europe, with regard to what the RAF and Luftwaffe were putting up in the skies in 1940. A Bf 109 and Bf 110 were shipped to the States in 1941, and I expect we also provided info on our own two fighters. What was discovered (and I know Vultee produced a comprehensive report and 20 minute film re the Bf 110) probably helped future thinking and development in some way. Which was no bad thing, given the ultimate performance of the US fighters in the last 12 months of the war over Germany, which was superb! And I say that as a Brit...
Perhaps the hard work and experience often result with a good luck?
Of course that's often the case. What hard work did the North American design team put in on the Merlin that made it so easy to adapt for the Mustang, though? I'm really at a loss why this point is being argued. It seems self-evident that someone asking "what if?" with something so complicated as an aero engine installation mod and having it work so smoothly is quite the lucky break.
This is not to say us Americans didn't do many things right; we did. It's just acknowledging that serendipity does sometimes happen.
There was a great deal of serendipity with the "birth" of the Mustang/P-51. Late enough to be able to incorporate the latest known technology in the final design but early enough to play a part in the war, but that isnt "luck". NAAs involvement with the British as a respected client and the British involvement with NAA as a responsible manufacturer played a huge part. It may be true that NAA had no "track record" with actual fighters, but they did have the T-6 Texan which the British bought and liked and was an education in mass producing such aircraft. I would also question the worth of "experience". The two companies with the most experience of making aircraft in UK made some of the biggest screw ups. Hawkers took an age to get the Typhoon sorted and Handley Page never got the Halifax to perform anything like a Lancaster.I was hoping Drgondog would have commented on this but here goes.
The Mustang started out as an in-house design, P.509. The P.509 was NAA Spec 1592, circa March 1940. This lead to the Mustang after the BPC went NAA to build P-40s for them.
"We got something better ".
My source on the P.509 information is THE SOURCE:
DrgonDog
In that light, I don't think the Mustang was that much of a rush job. Based on anecdotal evidence, I don't think "luck" had anything to do with it.
The reverse gullwing also moved the wing away from the pilot, improving his view downward a bit.I could be wrong, but I have been under the impression they were designed to allow for clearance for the large prop, and that the reduced drag was an ancillary benefit noticed later. I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Getting good dope is why I read here.
The reverse gullwing also moved the wing away from the pilot, improving his view downward a bit.
I've sat in many warbirds to include a Corsair, to be honest I don't think this made a differenceThe reverse gullwing also moved the wing away from the pilot, improving his view downward a bit.
The Corsair's wing (width and area) were comparable to the F6F's, but the Corsair's cockpit was set back far enough, there was nothing that was going to help a pilot's view, short of putting windows in the wing.I've sat in many warbirds to include a Corsair, to be honest I don't think this made a difference
Go read the Vultee report...Perhaps the hard work and experience often result with a good luck?
P-38 flew well before 1941. XP-47B was materializing in the winter of 1940/41, with engine and turbocharger system unavailable anywhere else bar USA. NA-73X (Mustang prototype) 1st flew in October 1940.
Probably neither Hurricane, nor Bf 109 nor 110 were offering anything to the Americans. With Spitfire it was another story, prompting NAA to see where the weight could be shed in quest that eventually produced the 'lightweight Mustangs'.
P-47 enjoyed the performance advantage vs. German fighters above 20000 ft for perhaps the last 20 months, and Merlin Mustang some 17 months.
What Americans failed to learn from the air battles of 1940-42 over Europe was that drop tank is a critical asset on an offensive fighter.
I've read it already before.Go read the Vultee report...