What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

[drgondog]

Why? The F-5 (P-38) fulfilled the role quite well and was the mainstay in the PTO until the F-6 came along. The F-5 was faster than the P-51A and had twice the range.

Joe - The P-51A/Mustang II was a much better performer than the Mustang I, IA, P-51, A-36. Without WI the P-51A-10 would climb (3800-4100fpm max ROC) with both a light P-38G/H and stay with P-38J with higher rated engines in climb - but tapered as critical altitude was attained.

It (P-51A) at MP out ran all P-38s under 10K by a significant margin. The P-38G/H/J was slightly faster at 22K, then the 38 was always faster than P-51A..

Don't know about Combat radius but would give nod to -38J/F-5E with LE tanks by considerable margin. But P-51A on 184 gal internal and 75gal combat tanks was probably slightly better than all P-38s with 150gal combat tanks, preceding the J-15 with LE tanks, as the P-51A never got the fuselage fuel tank. Recall that the Allison V-1710-81 (P-51A) had much more power than V-1710F-10 (-51/-55) of F-5A in the G/GF line. The late H through P-38J and Subsequent, were F-5E/F/G with largely V-1710F-17 (=-89/-91) were finally slightly more HP than P-51A with 1710-81 with WI,

Spitfireperformance (thanks Mike) has enough flight test data to make the same observations. Note that neither the F4 or F20 comparisons of Mustang II are tested with WI.

A point of comparison - the P-51A with W/I was running 1500+Hp on the deck at WEP (1300 at MP) and would outrun and outclimb the P-51B at low altitudes until the Merlin 1650-7 was fed 150 octane at 75" Hg. The P-51A never got the improved aileron throw so the Merlin Mustang always outrolled the A. The Allison Mustangs out turned both the Merlin Mustang and the P-38. Only with boosted ailerons did theP-38J/L out roll the Mustang - once it got going.

Except for high altitude recon the Allison Mustangs were very well suited for all tactical recon. The F-4/F-5 were always better for high altitude recon over P-51 and P-51A - but that accounted for much less tasking in Pacific than ETO. Even in MTO/ETO, the primary balance of recon was tactical in nature with the Recon groups. Both 67 and 68 TRG moved to mustang airframes in 1943, Ditto 10 TRG. 363rd FG equipped early with P-51B converted to F-6 post D-Day. Only the 7th PRG at Mount Farm, maintained some P-38 for recon throughout. Note - didn't check MTO or 9th AFvery closely

 

[Schweik]

Joe - The P-51A/Mustang II was a much better performer than the Mustang I, IA, P-51, A-36. Without WI the P-51A-10 would climb (3800-4100fpm max ROC) with both a light P-38G/H and stay with P-38J with higher rated engines in climb - but tapered as critical altitude was attained.

It (P-51A) at MP out ran all P-38s under 10K by a significant margin. The P-38G/H/J was slightly faster at 22K, then the 38 was always faster than P-51A..

Don't know about Combat radius but would give nod to -38J/F-5E with LE tanks by considerable margin. But P-51A on 184 gal internal and 75gal combat tanks was probably slightly better than all P-38s with 150gal combat tanks, preceding the J-15 with LE tanks, as the P-51A never got the fuselage fuel tank. Recall that the Allison V-1710-81 (P-51A) had much more power than V-1710F-10 (-51/-55) of F-5A in the G/GF line. The late H through P-38J and Subsequent, were F-5E/F/G with largely V-1710F-17 (=-89/-91) were finally slightly more HP than P-51A with 1710-81 with WI,

Spitfireperformance (thanks Mike) has enough flight test data to make the same observations. Note that neither the F4 or F20 comparisons of Mustang II are tested with WI.

A point of comparison - the P-51A with W/I was running 1500+Hp on the deck at WEP (1300 at MP) and would outrun and outclimb the P-51B at low altitudes until the Merlin 1650-7 was fed 150 octane at 75" Hg. The P-51A never got the improved aileron throw so the Merlin Mustang always outrolled the A. The Allison Mustangs out turned both the Merlin Mustang and the P-38. Only with boosted ailerons did theP-38J/L out roll the Mustang - once it got going.

Except for high altitude recon the Allison Mustangs were very well suited for all tactical recon. The F-4/F-5 were always better for high altitude recon over P-51 and P-51A - but that accounted for much less tasking in Pacific than ETO. Even in MTO/ETO, the primary balance of recon was tactical in nature with the Recon groups. Both 67 and 68 TRG moved to mustang airframes in 1943, Ditto 10 TRG. 363rd FG equipped early with P-51B converted to F-6 post D-Day. Only the 7th PRG at Mount Farm, maintained some P-38 for recon throughout. Note - didn't check MTO or 9th AFvery closely

Great post. There is also a memo from a US Officer observing the British use of Allison-engined Mustangs where he mentioned their routine use of very high overboosting as much as 70" Hg IIRC so I think they could go very fast indeed down low.

Regardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.

Different roles (tac vs strat recce), different airframes.

 

[Schweik]

You may be right; I'm not well-educated on the industrial requirements involved, but even that retraining is going to impose delays. Laminating and attaching wood to aeronautical standards is probably a bit more complex than building boats, given the higher-stress regimes the aircraft will be experiencing.

Without a doubt making wooden airplanes is trickier and more difficult than making landing craft or say, furniture. But the British were able to make thousands of Mosquitos and the US had a much bigger population and a larger industrial capacity, and a huge amount of all different types of wood, plus access to South American sources. They also had large industry such as manufacture of furniture, boats etc. which did have skilled woodworkers and presumably could train the rest just like with any other factory process.

We disagree here.

Well I don't think there was a direct competition for resources or labor here necessarily, but if there was then I agree there would be a problem.

You're right regarding the Hurris -- if you're going to discontinue something, that plane would be the obvious choice to my mind. But retraining and retooling American factories/labor from R-1820s to Merlins will still take time and resources. And fewer Mustangs to fight these higher-performance LW fighters would probably delay the achievement of the air supremacy which allowed DDE to tell his troops "If you see a plane overhead, it will be ours", no matter how useful the Mosquitoes prove to be.

Maybe they need to make the Merlins in England. So far as I know the only firm in the US which made Merlins was Packard, and I think that applies for Canada too. Due to the deal they made some of the Packard Merlins were going to the UK, the rest (once they got to the 60 series) mostly went into P-51s. Could Allison make Merlins? I don't know maybe. Probably. But somebody made all those Merlins going into a few thousand Hurricanes (and a bunch of other unneeded or unnecessary or failed aircraft designs, Defiants, Barracudas, Fulmars Hawker Henleys), and yes also Lancasters, Whitleys, Hallifaxes and other bombers. Either some of those engines or some of the capacity to make them could have been used to make Mosquitos instead.

You also had aircraft like Beaufighters and Wellingtons which were sometimes made with Merlins, those could be fitted with American or British radials presumably.

However I grant you if they couldn't figure this out then there is a conflict for engines between producing Mosquitos and producing P-51s and we don't want that at all.

So I adhere to my point that having two separate engine requirements and logistical chains, one for bombers, one for fighters, allowed for (in a counterintuitive sense) more efficient exploitation of American industrial capacity. You're spending more energy building the engines you've been building all along, rather than taking months to shift machinery and training.

Be it said that though I don't agree with everything you've written, I do appreciate your pushing in this discussion. It's given me a lot to think about and that is always a good thing.

I appreciate your post. My main goal is just to open enough space to actually have the discussion instead of just shutting it down like we sometimes do here.

 

[Schweik]

Different roles (tac vs strat recce), different airframes.

Right but they were using them to find enemy carriers such as at Midway

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My main goal is just to open enough space to actually have the discussion instead of just shutting it down like we sometimes do here.

Take heart in the fact that you've done that, even if it seems the tide of opinion ain't flowing your way. You raise good points and do so in a courteous manner, which matters.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right but they were using them to find enemy carriers such as at Midway

Right -- an operational use (in the German sense of the term). Moral of the story: don't try to hammer nails with a fish-taco.

 

[drgondog]

Great post. There is also a memo from a US Officer observing the British use of Allison-engined Mustangs where he mentioned their routine use of very high overboosting as much as 70" Hg IIRC so I think they could go very fast indeed down low.

Regardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.

The very first F-4 (modified P-38E with pylons and fuel feed for unpressurized tanks made first recon flght out of Australia in April 1943. IIRC the Mustang I made first operationa sortie outof Britain in May 1942. Took awhile to get enough P-38E modified to F-4 to solve demand for high speed recon in every theatre. at that time the XP-51/Mustang I at Wright Field had been sitting idle for nearly five months - ignored by Materiel Command.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wow. The things one learns here.

 

[Schweik]

The very first F-4 (modified P-38E with pylons and fuel feed for unpressurized tanks made first recon flght out of Australia in April 1943. IIRC the Mustang I made first operationa sortie outof Britain in May 1942. Took awhile to get enough P-38E modified to F-4 to solve demand for high speed recon in every theatre. at that time the XP-51/Mustang I at Wright Field had been sitting idle for nearly five months - ignored by Materiel Command.

Right. I thought I remembered they got some into Burma fairly early, and it took a while to get anything into Burma.

So if some of those Mustangs meant for Britain ended up in say, New Guinea, the Solomons, or Midway, that might have been helpful. Even just a couple dozen.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe - The P-51A/Mustang II was a much better performer than the Mustang I, IA, P-51, A-36. Without WI the P-51A-10 would climb (3800-4100fpm max ROC) with both a light P-38G/H and stay with P-38J with higher rated engines in climb - but tapered as critical altitude was attained.

It (P-51A) at MP out ran all P-38s under 10K by a significant margin. The P-38G/H/J was slightly faster at 22K, then the 38 was always faster than P-51A..

Don't know about Combat radius but would give nod to -38J/F-5E with LE tanks by considerable margin. But P-51A on 184 gal internal and 75gal combat tanks was probably slightly better than all P-38s with 150gal combat tanks, preceding the J-15 with LE tanks, as the P-51A never got the fuselage fuel tank. Recall that the Allison V-1710-81 (P-51A) had much more power than V-1710F-10 (-51/-55) of F-5A in the G/GF line. The late H through P-38J and Subsequent, were F-5E/F/G with largely V-1710F-17 (=-89/-91) were finally slightly more HP than P-51A with 1710-81 with WI,

Spitfireperformance (thanks Mike) has enough flight test data to make the same observations. Note that neither the F4 or F20 comparisons of Mustang II are tested with WI.

A point of comparison - the P-51A with W/I was running 1500+Hp on the deck at WEP (1300 at MP) and would outrun and outclimb the P-51B at low altitudes until the Merlin 1650-7 was fed 150 octane at 75" Hg. The P-51A never got the improved aileron throw so the Merlin Mustang always outrolled the A. The Allison Mustangs out turned both the Merlin Mustang and the P-38. Only with boosted ailerons did theP-38J/L out roll the Mustang - once it got going.

Except for high altitude recon the Allison Mustangs were very well suited for all tactical recon. The F-4/F-5 were always better for high altitude recon over P-51 and P-51A - but that accounted for much less tasking in Pacific than ETO. Even in MTO/ETO, the primary balance of recon was tactical in nature with the Recon groups. Both 67 and 68 TRG moved to mustang airframes in 1943, Ditto 10 TRG. 363rd FG equipped early with P-51B converted to F-6 post D-Day. Only the 7th PRG at Mount Farm, maintained some P-38 for recon throughout. Note - didn't check MTO or 9th AFvery closely

Great post Bill as always, thanks!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Regardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.

The F-5 showed up when the P-51 did in the PTO

 

[pbehn]

Right. I thought I remembered they got some into Burma fairly early, and it took a while to get anything into Burma.

So if some of those Mustangs meant for Britain ended up in say, New Guinea, the Solomons, or Midway, that might have been helpful. Even just a couple dozen.

Well they can be in all places at once North American P-51A
310 P-51As were built. Of that number, 50 went to the RAF, where they were known as Mustang IIs, and 35 were fitted with cameras as F-6Bs. The remaining P-51As were used by the 311th FBG, based at Dinjan, India, from mid 1943. It was also used by the 23rd FG, based in China, where it did act as an escort fighter.

​

 

[Schweik]

Well they can be in all places at once North American P-51A
310 P-51As were built. Of that number, 50 went to the RAF, where they were known as Mustang IIs, and 35 were fitted with cameras as F-6Bs. The remaining P-51As were used by the 311th FBG, based at Dinjan, India, from mid 1943. It was also used by the 23rd FG, based in China, where it did act as an escort fighter.

​

Right. Send a few of those to Port Morseby.

 

[pbehn]

Right. Send a few of those to Port Morseby.

A few? 225 already is a few. How many logistics chains do you want for an aircraft that has ceased production?

 

[Schweik]

Well, the number of aircraft in action in places like Port Moresby was quite small. The Battle of Milne Bay was basically won thanks to about twenty P-40s and a two squadrons of Lockheed Hudsons and a few other aircraft*. Henderson field in the early days had sometimes less than a dozen fighters, dive bombers and other types on hand at any given moment. I'm not sure how many P-51s would be needed to make a difference, but if you had say, 50, that might be enough to keep two small recon units going for a few months.

The challenge is in getting aircraft to these remote battlefields, which was no easy task.

*US B-25s and B-26s and B-17s also helped at a few points in the battle.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The challenge is in getting aircraft to these remote battlefields, which was no easy task.

I think replacement parts could also be an issue, as P pbehn points out, though. It's doable, but with more headache.

 

[Schweik]

Agreed, though the P-51A (or A-36) has the advantage of using the Allison V-1710 which is already being used with P-40s.

 

[drgondog]

A couple of points in Mosquito 'what if'. Britain had capacity to increase Merlin production locally but not without consequences to Griffon production. R-R laid grondwork with Ford for manufacture and quickly signed up Packard to license first 1650-1 for both US use (P-40F) and Canada (Merlin XX and derivatives) for Hurricane, Mosquito, Lancaster in 1941. The development of the Merlin 60 series at Packard began with Merlin 61 as the Packard V-1650-3 which did not start Bench testing in June/July 1942. It failed twice at least) The very first Production Packard V-1650-3 was sent to NAA in early September, failed, replacement sent in November. The NEXT production 1650-3 was sent to NAA in Late April for the first production flight of P-51B-1-NA #1 on May 5, 1943.

Pause. There was never a chance that any Mosquito utilizing Merlin 60 series for US fabrication would even receive one until on or about Blitz Week in ETO last week of July 1943.

Step back. If the Canada commited Mosquitos, using Packard manufactured Merlin 31, 33, or 69 were deemed suitable for future AAF switch, then the Canadian commited Mosquitos must be backfilled from alternate source (what/where) beginning in mid 1942. Politically, given the wildest claims, however valid, there would not be funding for ngineering, plants and procurement until the high command admitted failure of Daylight bombing as primary tool to achieve US directed Casablanca/Pointblank objectives in Spring 1943.

Consider the process of importing British tutors across all, engineering, procurement, inspection, fabrication, assembly, inspection, to delivery which must be known to a.) build a suitable plant connected to supply and labor, b.) training program for all labor required to fabricate and assemble the Mosquito, c.) rigorous flight testing for performance qualifictions to spec, d.) aircrew assembly and training, d.) inventory build up to minimal strike force plus spares for first deployment.

Consider the politics of trying to tell (and convince) Spaatz, Eaker, Anderson, Arnold that the dream of deploying the B-17 with Norden bombsight was inadequate relative to 'super Mosquito'.

There would/could be zero 'aha' that the Mosquito, and crafted and proven strategy to use them would be the answer to AAF strategic plans for long range attacks -until the hard reality of summer/fall 1943. Begin the above process even as the B-29 is rolling off production lines.

So, you are now annointed as the big brain to a.) propose an attack strategy that is more effective at both target destruction and also relativey cost effective in conservation of aircrew. Do it in 1941.

 

[pbehn]

Well, the number of aircraft in action in places like Port Moresby was quite small. The Battle of Milne Bay was basically won thanks to about twenty P-40s and a two squadrons of Lockheed Hudsons and a few other aircraft*. Henderson field in the early days had sometimes less than a dozen fighters, dive bombers and other types on hand at any given moment. I'm not sure how many P-51s would be needed to make a difference, but if you had say, 50, that might be enough to keep two small recon units going for a few months.

The challenge is in getting aircraft to these remote battlefields, which was no easy task.

*US B-25s and B-26s and B-17s also helped at a few points in the battle.

Milne Bay was in August 1942, which was when the very first Mustang Mk Is were first operational in UK (at Dieppe).