Who would you want to design your fighter - 1943

[wuzak]

It was more like two birds in the hand being worth more than one in the bush. Would the Chrysler engine increase the power of an R-2800? A Packard or Ford Griffon would have been installable in a Mustang.

There is a reason why the Griffon Mustang never proceeded.

There were quite a number of changes to the airframe in order to fit the 2 stage Merlin, including moving the position of the wing. Installing the Griffon would have required even more changes.

 

[Howard Gibson]

There is a reason why the Griffon Mustang never proceeded.

There were quite a number of changes to the airframe in order to fit the 2 stage Merlin, including moving the position of the wing. Installing the Griffon would have required even more changes.

How bad was it really? The two-speed supercharger Merlin_XX was allegedly uninstallable in a Spitfire, but somehow, they got the two-stage Griffon into it. In the absence of jet fighters, how do you take the Mustang to the next level of performance?

 

[Shortround6]

First flight was made on July 26, 1945 for the Chrysler engine.

Forget one in the hand, you had scores in crates and/or already cooked, seasoned and sliced ready to serve vs one staggering around in the bush, barely able to fly.

By the beginning of July 1945 there were four complete fighter groups using P-47Ns against the Japanese.

 

[wuzak]

How bad was it really? The two-speed supercharger Merlin_XX was allegedly uninstallable in a Spitfire, but somehow, they got the two-stage Griffon into it. In the absence of jet fighters, how do you take the Mustang to the next level of performance?

It was not that the Merlin XX could not be installed in the Spitfire, but that the alterations required would reduce production in the short term.

It was worse as the Spitfire III, the model which was to receive the Merlin XX, had other refinements not related to the engine change. Some of which never made it into production.

The Griffon was redesigned early on specifically to be able to fit in the Spitfire.

The Spitfire IV/XX Griffon prototype first flew at the end of 1941, a couple of years after the project was started. It was 3/4 of a year before the first production XIIs came off the production line. Only 100 XIIs were made.

And the XIV appeared in production a year after the XII. And only ~1,000 of these were made, with the XVIII and 21 just getting into production late in 1944/early 1945.

In other words, it took some time.

One of the changes made to fit the Griffon in the Spitfire was to use steel longerons on the fuselage instead of aluminium in order to support the heavier engine.

 

[GrauGeist]

We ought to learn from RMS Titanic and the World Trade Center, that there is no such thing as indestructible.

Then they've never seen a 1973 Dodge pickup...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From the pilots point of view THE most important characteristic of a fighter plane is simple. Can it get it's ass shot off and still bring the pilot home. M Vote Eepublic Aviation and the partically indesctructable P -47 Especially the later models. I always wanted to see the inverted Chrysler hemi head developed to its zenith. They never went beyond the one time test which clocked 504 mph i believe at sea level. If the Dornier 335 could clock 540 mph A Hemi Chrysler should have blown that out of the water. I realize you get to a point of dimishing returns with props - but as a die hard Chrsler guy -- this would have been really great.

Actually the most important characteristic of a fighter plane is to kill the enemy and AVOID getting it's ass shot off and still bring the pilot home. There is no doubt the P-47 was a great aircraft but it certainly wasn't "practically indestructible," as there are still many P-47 crash sites scattered across the European continent. As far as the "Experimental" Chrysler engine? A novel approach but in the bigger picture it was a dismal failure. Behind schedule, and a very long engine, it was only applied to 2 aircraft, and one of them dropped the IV-2220 and went with another engine (XP-60C) because of schedule delays. No designer would ever apply such a monstrosity to a civilian aircraft and it's days were obviously numbered in the post war years due to the turbine engine.

"Would have, could have, should have," but not to diminish you're enthusiasm, I've been a Chrysler enthusiast for years, in the early 1980s I owned a 69' GTX, 440 Commando and later a very clean 70' 340 Cuda.

 

[wuzak]

Behind schedule, and a very long engine, it was only applied to 2 aircraft, and one of them dropped the IV-2220 and went with another engine (XP-60C) because of schedule delays.

The XP-60 series was a whole saga engine wise.

XP-53 - Continental IV-1430. None completed - second was fitted with Merlin to become XP-60, first became static test frame after XP-53 cancellation due to slow development of engine (which never did go into production)
XP-60 - Merlin 28/V-1650-1
XP-60A - V-1710 with GE turbo. Later dismantled and bits used for XP-60C and XP-60E
XP-60B - V-1710 with Wright turbo, completed as XP-60E
XP-60C - IV-2220 then changed to R-2800 with contra-props
XP-60D - XP-60 prototype re-engined with V-1650-3 2 stage Merlin
XP-60E - XP-60B completed with R-2800 with single rotation propeller

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The XP-60 series was a whole saga engine wise.

XP-53 - Continental IV-1430. None completed - second was fitted with Merlin to become XP-60, first became static test frame after XP-53 cancellation due to slow development of engine (which never did go into production)
XP-60 - Merlin 28/V-1650-1
XP-60A - V-1710 with GE turbo. Later dismantled and bits used for XP-60C and XP-60E
XP-60B - V-1710 with Wright turbo, completed as XP-60E
XP-60C - IV-2220 then changed to R-2800 with contra-props
XP-60D - XP-60 prototype re-engined with V-1650-3 2 stage Merlin
XP-60E - XP-60B completed with R-2800 with single rotation propeller

This whole lot from Curtiss was a mess, waste of resources IMO

 

[wuzak]

This whole lot from Curtiss was a mess, waste of resources IMO

They also messed around with the XP-46 at the same time, while trying to produce and improve the P-40.

 

[tomo pauk]

This whole lot from Curtiss was a mess, waste of resources IMO

They also messed around with the XP-46 at the same time, while trying to produce and improve the P-40.

Real problem was that Curtiss botched-up their production of P-47.

 

[SaparotRob]

Real problem was that Curtiss botched-up their production of P-47.

I didn't know that Curtiss was involved with the Thunderbolt. Was it akin to Brewster's attempt at the Corsair?

 

[tomo pauk]

I didn't know that Curtiss was involved with the Thunderbolt. Was it akin to Brewster's attempt at the Corsair?

Seems like Brewster produced 735 Corsairs.
Curtiss produced 350-360 of P-47Gs in 18 months. They have had a contract for another 4220.
(all data per AHT)

 

[SaparotRob]

What were the issues Curtiss had? Slow or substandard?

 

[wuzak]

What were the issues Curtiss had? Slow or substandard?

Yes.

 

[SaparotRob]

Thought so.

 

[GrauGeist]

What were the issues Curtiss had? Slow or substandard?

Curtiss was also manufacturing the C-46, P,-40, SNC, SB2C, AT-9 and the SC, while developing a handful of types like the XP-55, XB15C and XBTC.

Add to that, the half-dozen spin-offs of the P-36/P-40 and few limited production types like trainers, cargo, etc. and it becomes clear that Curtiss had way too many irons in the fire.

The closest equivellent I can think of, would be Messerschmitt...

 

[NevadaK]

Actually the most important characteristic of a fighter plane is to kill the enemy and AVOID getting it's ass shot off and still bring the pilot home. There is no doubt the P-47 was a great aircraft but it certainly wasn't "practically indestructible," as there are still many P-47 crash sites scattered across the European continent. As far as the "Experimental" Chrysler engine? A novel approach but in the bigger picture it was a dismal failure. Behind schedule, and a very long engine, it was only applied to 2 aircraft, and one of them dropped the IV-2220 and went with another engine (XP-60C) because of schedule delays. No designer would ever apply such a monstrosity to a civilian aircraft and it's days were obviously numbered in the post war years due to the turbine engine.

"Would have, could have, should have," but not to diminish you're enthusiasm, I've been a Chrysler enthusiast for years, in the early 1980s I owned a 69' GTX, 440 Commando and later a very clean 70' 340 Cuda.

View attachment 655969

My grandparents lived about ten miles north of the Chrysler Proving Grounds near Chelsea, Michigan. We had some familial connections to the test site (my father had been a test driver for Ford and Chrysler before transferring to the Chrysler missile plant) and during the summers when I lived with my grandparents I got to see some very cool cars including developmental Plymouth Superbirds.

 

[GrauGeist]

My Grandfather was an executive for Chrysler and always had the newest models - his favorite was the 300.
He passed away beforw I was born, but between the photos and stories my Dad and Uncles mentioned, he had some real nice stuff.
My Grandmother also had new Chrysler's for life, but she was more conservative, however, in the 60's, she did have a fire-engine red Dart GT with a black vinyl roof, black interior and a 273 "Commando" V-8.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
If I had to pick anyone to design a plane for me back then it would probably be Walt Disney. I know he wasn't a plane designer, and so I wouldn't be expecting much, but it would be cool to tell everyone that you flew a plane designed by Disney.

 

[NevadaK]

My Grandfather was an executive for Chrysler and always had the newest models - his favorite was the 300.
He passed away beforw I was born, but between the photos and stories my Dad and Uncles mentioned, he had some real nice stuff.
My Grandmother also had new Chrysler's for life, but she was more conservative, however, in the 60's, she did have a fire-engine red Dart GT with a black vinyl roof, black interior and a 273 "Commando" V-8.

Nice! We had some pretty tricked out Ford products when I was a kid, often with test parts that improved performance. The one thing we always had was seatbelts and safety harnesses. When I was four or five I had a five point harness. My Father had seen what a lack of seatbelts did and was adamant about us wearing them. When he switched over to Chrysler he was a specialist on the skid pad and spent a lot of time testing tires, etc. He was very small statured and one day he was approached about going to work in the Sterling Heights missile plant where they built Redstones. Because he was so small he could get inside the rocket bodies and install and test the wiring harnesses and electronics. That was how he ended up working with computers, but it's also how he helped put the wiring in the two rockets that lifted Alan Shepherd and Gus Grissom on the first suborbital flights.