Shortround6
Major General
Why?
The Merlin 50 is a Merlin 45 with a different carburetor. Single speed
If that is all you want stick the V-1650-1 two speed single stage engine in the P-51s, of course that means that there are fewer P-40Fs and Ls.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why?By mid/late 1942, Mustang can get the Merlin 50. Yes, not the 2-stage version, but better engine than the best 1-stage V-1710 the Mustang ever got.
Why?
The Merlin 50 is a Merlin 45 with a different carburetor. Single speed
I believe that the British converted a P-51 to have a Merlin as a proof-of-concept, so they could probably do a conversion. Are you asking if it would have made sense for North American to ship the RAF engine-less P-51s for completion in the UK? I'm not sure the UK had the industrial capacity needed for that without adversely affecting another program.
If that is all you want stick the V-1650-1 two speed single stage engine in the P-51s, of course that means that there are fewer P-40Fs and Ls.
Maybe, P-51A with V-1650-1 instead of P-40L. There were still some issues with the P-51 as a fighter.Member asked (my bold):
So, the Merlin 50 (or 45, or 46, I'm not that picky) goes into Mustang airframe.
I've always wanted V-1650-1 in Mustang airframe, ASAP (1942-43). Despite having less P-40Fs and Ls produced.
All I am comparing is two aircraft of similar design both at the same altitude and generating similar horsepower/thrust. Ideally power, equalized at SL is a much better demonstration of drag difference, but I don't have that so this will have to do. With identical thrust, identical wing, and identical altitude, the only effect on velocity is A and Cd. A is affected by engine size and Cd? I don't know but am sure is affected. However, for this example, at this altitude, at this power, with identical wing, there is about 10% difference in drag. Now, as altitude goes up, the percentage difference of drag decreases, and conversely, as altitude goes down, percent difference increases.you are comparing a loss of speed with the change in drag. They are not quite the same thing.
Drag goes up with the square of the speed, but drag isn't really powered required either, that goes up with the cube of the speed.
he "old tech" bombers had turbos that allowed for a pretty good amount of power at 25,000ft, more than the R-2600 could supply without a turbo. The few attempts at putting a turbo on the R-2600 didn't work out well. The engine seemed to have cooling problems.
formation speed being based on the worst performing plane being on the outside of the formation as it makes a turn.
I think people often forget how fast paced the Mustang program was and how much overlap was going on.
...
Now please note the first P-40E is not delivered until the middle of 1941 and the first P-40F production plane is not delivered until Jan/Feb of 1942.
By the time you have any real number of even V-1650-1s they were already planning to fit (and cutting metal) on the prototype 2 stage engine planes and ordering Merlin powered P51s by the hundreds.
A bit optimistic here, aren't we? I doubt you'd get that much gain unless you emulated the slender tube/low drag remote turret B29 airframe profile. Drag reduction is generally much more effective than adding power for speed gain. That means the remote control turret technology has to get perfected much earlier than it was for the B29, and the resources to build a fleet of these things have to be diverted from other desperately needed programs. Good luck!I certainly would have used the R-2800 (with a P-47 turbo?) for an upgrade bomber for '43. I would expect a 40-50 mph cruise speed improvement at 25k ft.
I submit that getting down off our high horse and admitting that our airmen could possibly someday encounter an enemy plane that outperforms theirs, and teaching them what to do about it would have been more effective and less of a strain on the resources than chasing the last 2% of performance.
But given the depression era pace of aeronautical development, the P51's bolt out of the blue quantum leap in airframe design, going from napkin sketch to flying machine in record time, was hardly foreseeable in 1938. Certainly not something plans could be based on. And don't you go messing with the Brits and their beloved Spits.Also, less Spit IXs or P-40s (or A-36s) for more P-51s seems like a pretty good bargain in hindsight
But given the depression era pace of aeronautical development, the P51's bolt out of the blue quantum leap in airframe design, going from napkin sketch to flying machine in record time, was hardly foreseeable in 1938. Certainly not something plans could be based on. And don't you go messing with the Brits and their beloved Spits.
The Merlin powered version was due to the work at Rolls-Royce on fitting it to the Mustang airframe with the details then sent to North American
But given the depression era pace of aeronautical development, the P51's bolt out of the blue quantum leap in airframe design, going from napkin sketch to flying machine in record time, was hardly foreseeable in 1938.
Of course progress was to be expected, in its normal evolutionary way, but it was the happy coincidence of several ground breaking innovations in drag reduction with the optimum powerplant in an airframe that could lug the fuel for a strategic combat radius, that appeared at the right time to fulfill an unforseen need that couldn't have been predicted back in 1938.I think you could foresee in 1938 that an airframe designed in 1940 (P-51) would be better than an airframe designed in 1934 (P-36).
Of course progress was to be expected, in its normal evolutionary way, but it was the happy coincidence of several ground breaking innovations in drag reduction with the optimum powerplant in an airframe that could lug the fuel for a strategic combat radius, that appeared at the right time to fulfill an unforseen need that couldn't have been predicted back in 1938.
Turbo and compressibility. Two of the issues that just were "not quite ready for prime time" in 1938. And fighters were thought of then as single engine, single seat, but it's been pretty well established on this forum that the engine technology just didn't exist then for single engine fighters to be competitive and carry the fuel for long range escort. Hence the P38, which was arguably just about as maneuverable as a twin could hope to be.After all the Lightning (first flight 1938) could on paper have done the same job as the Mustang, it was just the turbo and compressability problems that stopped it
Interesting argument that the Spit could have taken enough fuel to be a useful escort fighter: Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society.
Two of the issues that just were "not quite ready for prime time" in 1938.
Turbo and compressibility. Two of the issues that just were "not quite ready for prime time" in 1938. And fighters were thought of then as single engine, single seat, but it's been pretty well established on this forum that the engine technology just didn't exist then for single engine fighters to be competitive and carry the fuel for long range escort. Hence the P38, which was arguably just about as maneuverable as a twin could hope to be.
not quite ready for prime time in 1941-42 either:0
Equip a Zero with all the things Americans thought a fighter needed to have (armor, heavier armament, fuel tank protection, turtledeck rollover protection, all around airframe ruggedness), and where's your long range escort fighter?Those funky Japanese probably didn't get our memo on unsuitability of long range fighters on 1 engine in 1938-42.