Mid-engined P-51

Discussion in 'Aircraft Pictures' started by Colin1, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Found this the other day whilst trawling
    clearly based on the P-51B/C. Love that view over the nose but not sure he's considered the fuel arrangements; seems to hit the same wall as the P-39. Nice try though
     

    Attached Files:

  2. red admiral

    red admiral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There were a couple of real designs for the P-51 that looked somewhat like this. Proposals for mounting the Griffon in the P-51 lead to the mid engine arrangement. I can't remember any with Malcolm hoods though.
     
  3. rank amateur

    rank amateur Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Credit Manager
    Location:
    Uithoorn, Holland
    #3 rank amateur, Mar 29, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2010
    I think this must be a drawing of what is unkindly called Dorey's Delusion, a redesigned Mustang to take on a Roll Royce Griffon 65 p39 style. As I understand they did put in a lot of effort but it was eventually abandoned. Don't know why. I should think it might have worked but I suspect it would have taken a lot of engineering and probably a very distinctive diffrent flying Mustang. My source is North American P 51 Mustang by Bill Gunston. As I understand Dorey was a rolls Royce engineer. The designing was done in the UK so it is possible that there was a Malcolm hood available for the mockup. Don't think that it is very likely though.
     
  4. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I vaguely remember
    posting something on that; the rationale for abandoning it was that as the powerplant developed, it may increase in length, which would necessitate a redesign of the length of the engine bay.

    Quite why or how that would come as a surprise to anyone, esp aeronautics engineers, is beyond me.

    I'll see if I can find it.
     
  5. johnbr

    johnbr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    390
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    London Ontario Canada
    Here are some pictures.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Wayne Little

    Wayne Little Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    51,182
    Likes Received:
    848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Adelaide Sth. Aust.
    just doesn't look right....
     
  7. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    Looking at these drawings that was my first thought too Wayne.
     
  8. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,780
    Likes Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    Yeah it doesn't look right but an interesting idea nonetheless.
     
  9. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    These pictures depict correctly how far forward the engine must be to get the cg where it needs to be.

    At the end of the day only the 85 gallon (or 50 for 51H) is absent.

    Less range, better speed and climb - probably not as good in turn.
     
  10. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Any room behind the powerplant for it?
    There seems to be an awful lot of spare fuselage or would the inclusion of the (full) tank aft send the CoG awry?
     
  11. Flyboy2

    Flyboy2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Reminds me a bit of the XP-75 Eagle
     
  12. rank amateur

    rank amateur Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Credit Manager
    Location:
    Uithoorn, Holland
    It's not that it doesn't look right. It just doesn't look like a Mustang anymore. Still wonder what it would have been capable of though.
     
  13. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    yes - for a tank aft of the engine.
     
  14. ppopsie

    ppopsie Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    to read and receive
    Location:
    East end
    If you put a contra-prop the fin has to be enlarged will compromise the total balance.
     
  15. rank amateur

    rank amateur Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Credit Manager
    Location:
    Uithoorn, Holland
    Is it just me or is the cockpit on the 3 view too small in comparessent with the other drawings.
     
  16. verner

    verner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Third Stone
    Does look a little dinky.
     
  17. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why bother with mid-ship engine mounting?
    Spitfires, even with lower base weight, managed to work just fine with new ( heavier) engine in front.
     
  18. rank amateur

    rank amateur Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Credit Manager
    Location:
    Uithoorn, Holland
    At the time it seemed like a good idea, I guess. Nothing wrong in trying something new anyway. I've read that Rolls Roys expected the plane to top 500 mph. That would have been a big improvement.
     
  19. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    There's working fine
    and there's working differently - a Spitfire 24 handled nothing like a Spitfire I
     
  20. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Indeed - 1000 lbs extra do feel :)
     
Loading...

Share This Page