Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hmm ... shifting the topic a bit, but still somewhat relvant: in terms of similar manufacturing cost/resources, would ordering more early model P-38s (or modified turbo-less ones) have been more useful than similar resources going into P-39 and/or P-40 production? (this includes potential use as a medium altitude escort fighter)
Hmm, perhaps 4x .50 guns or a single pair of 20 mm cannons? (the latter would be lighter depending on the ammunition load, granted 2x .50s and 2x 20 mm would work too, or allowing all 3 configurations ... which I suppose they already did -4 .50s was possible, just not really used)The LE tanks were offering 2 x 13 imp gals per aircraft, used on Mk.VII/VIII (also for MTO) and Mk.XIV. Installing any armament inboard of the main wheel wells will be next to impossible due to radiators taking a lot of volume there.
FWIW, here is my take. Two guns next to the wheel well; possibilities for the extra fuel tankage are in front of the main spar (outboard of the guns); behind the main spar; area marked with '?'.
You might need to land and take off without undercarriage, too, since the oleo legs go across that area.To me it look like a 0.5 inch Browning with ammunition could be fitted between ribs 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 to be synchronised hydraulically. There might be plumbing there to the radiators that would have to be moved.]
In January 1944, the Air Ministry finally settled on the armament of 1 x 20mm + 2 x .303", but only on the V IX. For those two Marks (only) there was a modification "To introduce the single blister door called for under mod 683 as a retrospective item." Mod 683 was to standardise the armament as above.This is new to me \I admit, can you supply something to support this idea
You might need to land and take off without undercarriage, too, since the oleo legs go across that area.
In January 1944, the Air Ministry finally settled on the armament of 1 x 20mm + 2 x .303", but only on the V IX. For those two Marks (only) there was a modification "To introduce the single blister door called for under mod 683 as a retrospective item." Mod 683 was to standardise the armament as above.
However, on 15-12-43, another mod (769) was "To introduce a cannon gun door having two small blisters in place of the existing single large blister," and that was solely for the Mk.VIII; two small blisters would only be needed for two cannon. There had been talk of fitting the short-barrelled Mk.V Hispano in the VIII, but that came to nothing (maybe the Tempest had priority.)
I'm sure it's been suggested before too, but in the previous discussion on Merlin 20 series (V-1650-1) powered Mustangs, particularly on the issue of actually proposing/testing such a prototype, the suggestion of acquiring a British manufactured Merlin for said testing didn't arise. Given the fact that it was being designed and manufactured to a British order (and the fact that both the XP-40L and the later experimental Merlin 60 powered Mustang used British manufactured engines for testing) it would have made plenty of sense for this to have been done. More so if the British themselves had requested such a configuration and supplied a test engine.
Such a request might have been the most likely way for an V-1650-1 powered Mustang to actually make it into production. (granted, with the timing of V-1650 production, the initial run of mustangs would still have to start with Allison powered models ... or have British Engines allocated to them -rather unlikely)
Hell, if they'd proposed that back during the NA-73 prototype design and construction phase, a Merlin engine might have been allocated to the project before the American V-1710 was even available. (due to US production allocation priority delays for the V-1710) Granted, that would be earlier than than the P-40 flew with a Merlin ... but rather less crazy than the likes of what the British later did reguarding jet developments. (admittedly different context, but as far as radical decisions, sacrificing the two flight worthy Goblin engines -and a third ground-test only one- was a much greater risk than providing a Merlin XX for testing in 1940, a couple months after the initial Hurricane Mk.II prototypes had received theirs)
Testing that early would still mean having to wait until late 1941 before V-1650s were available, or allocating british-built merlins to Mustangs ... which would also complicate logistics. (either shipping British engines to be installed in the US or shipping engineless airframes to the UK -removing the possibility of ferry flights)
For the Merlin XX example to be worthwhile, procurment and testing of such would really have needed to take place much earlier than the Mustank X (or parallel developments with the Merlin 60 powered P-51 prototypes in the US) to be worthwhile. Namely before the first production Mustang examples were even being shipped to the UK.Rolls-Royce suggested fitting either the Merlin XX or Merlin 61 in the Mustang. The former wasn't done, though it was discussed, while the latter was built as the Mustang X.
There was also some discussion that the Mustang X would be put in production - airframes would be shipped from the US to Britain where a Merlin 61 would be fitted and any airframe modifications performed.
Perhaps you might like to elaborate on that?It seems to me there were control and stability issues that still needed to be solved.
Using stainless steel stringers for strength) didn't carry this armament.
Huhh? Where do you get this from?
Neil
The RAF bombers did not have turbo superchargers, limiting bomb ceilings below 20,000 feet which introduces another threat at a more dangerous threshold than their US counterparts - Flak. AAA is increasingly effective from the large caliber guns as the altitudes lower, and the additional 'small' flak such as 20/37/40mm flak becomes lethal below 10,000 feet.
Is there any reason why people have such a hang up about bombing Berlin, when the industrial areas such as the Rhur would be at least as important
Is that 23,000ft for a bomb laden Lancaster or a Lancaster with no bombs?