Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The Mustang and the Merlin
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
When the R R Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, the aircraft became one of the best ever. But when the likes of the Spitfire and indeed the Lancaster moved up to the Griffon, was any attempt to re engine the Mustang to the same?
-
Message 2
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Don't know about a 'Griffonised' Mustang but a glance at the Republic XP72 (try wiki) makes it look very much like a Mustang might appear if fitted with a Wright 2160 radial.
-
Message 3
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Different beasts.
The Mustang was an escort fighter designed to fly with bombers all the way to the target and back. The Spitfire was a home-baes interceptor with a short range (around one-third of a P-51.)
The need for even greater range saw the development of the truly bizzare F-82 Twin Mustang, which was two P-51 fuselages bolted together with a twin tail and centre wing section. -
Message 4
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Yes the Mustang was fitted with the Griffon but only after the war and in America for the purpose of racing.
-
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Thanks Spruggles. Any idea what the increase in performance was? I know that the U S went big on one of the late model British aircraft for racing.
-
Message 6
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
The Mustang was originally designed in the US to British specifications as a ground attack aircraft however the US engine it was fitted with was underpowered. When it was refitted with the Merlin engine it was found that not only was it a very good ground attack aircraft it was a excellent fighter.
As a ground attack aircraft it had hard points on the wings to take the weight of bombs and rockets and the forces this would put on the wings during attack dives. When wing mounted drop tanks were invented to give aircraft greater range, the Mustang was the only fighter with wings strong enough to carry the weight of fuel filled tanks and given this it became the allies long range escort fighter. -
Message 7
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Dear Grumpyfred,
If you look at the statistics of the Merlin/Griffon you will see that the GRIFF scored a little better at certain altitudes and on fuel consumption but there wasn't a lot of difference to be honest except at low altitude where it looks as if the Griff was more efficient. And of course it's adaption for contra-rotation which was an advantage for certain uses. Reference 'Spitfire' by Morgan/Shacklady. However, I didn't think that the Lanc had ever been fitted with Griffs. Merlins as you say or Packard/Merlins or Hercules. As far as I know the only Avro to go into production with Griffs was the Shackleton. -
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
You are right, I've just checked my Definitive record of the Lanc, and as you say no Griffons were fitted to the Lanc.
-
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
Oh, it was the Hawker Fury/Sea Fury that became a favourite with the racing people.
-
Message 10
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
Re: tucuxii
Yes, the aircraft was designed to a British specification. The BPC wanted NA to license build the P-40, but NA said that they we could do better than that.
The resultant aircraft fitted with the Allison engine, was found not up 'fighter' operations in North West Europe - and was therefore allocated to Army Co-operation for tactical recon.
Meanwhile, the USAAF already had their fighter plans sorted - didn't need another one, so ordered the aircraft as a dive bomber A-36.
So don't agree with your comment - about it being designed as a 'ground attack' aircraft! -
Message 11
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
no1catman,
The Alison engined P51 was a fine aircraft at lower levels, hence it was confined to low level attack duties/photo-recce roles in RAF service. We had the idea that a Merlin engine would improve it's performance, as it proved. It was used in various roles with cannon or the standard .50 inch calibre guns and as previously mentioned, underslung bombs; but also as previously stated in was designed as a fighter.
And re' the racing, I don't think that many Hawker Furies were ever used in America, let alone as racers. -
Message 12
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
I understood the P51 was a 1943 British design but being British aircraft production facilities were limited it was left on the shelf, the Spitfire and Hurricane being sufficient to the RAF's requirements. Later owing to the short range of American fighter aircraft to protect the American bombers on long bombing flights a suitable aircraft was searched, the British design looked promising but fitted with the American engine proved no better to these already employed. Being the air cooled engines were used in all American aircraft it was at a disadvantage owing to its frontal area so a water cooled engine was tried. The RR proved so much superior in speed it was fitted, then it 'Took off as the Proverbial P 51' so added to the American vocabulary. Its claimed the air cooled engines would stand far more punishment from fighter fire owing to the number of cylinders plus air cooled, no cooling water leak from gunfire a serious problem for water cooled aircraft their weakness. Believe it was also faster than the German propellor engined German fighters at the time.
-
Message 13
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
petulma,
No, the P-51 certainly was no British design, although it would probably never have flow if the RAF had to ordered it. It was also greatly influenced by the British combat experience, of which reports where forwarded to American government and manufacturers. But the P-51 was in many ways a very American design, with a high level of engineering for mass production as opposed, and a laminar flow wing design strongly influenced by NACA research. It was no 1943 design either, as it made its first flight in 1940!
The Allison V-1710 was a good engine, but limited by its simple, single-stage supercharger: Power fell of rapidly with increasing altitude. Thanks to their excellent aerodynamics, the Allison-engined P-51 and P-51A were very fast at low altitude, but with the V-1710 they were incapable of taking on German fighters at medium and high altitude.
The installation of a Packard-produced 61-series Merlin with a two-stage supercharger and intercooler greatly improved the type's high-altitude performance, making it competitive as an all-round fighter. A suitable two-stage supercharger was not available for the V-1710 because American engineers were more interested in using a turbosupercharger as second stage, as on the P-38. However, while the USA succeeded (uniquely so) in mass-producing turbosuperchargers during WWII, they were hard to fit in a compact fighter.
As for the type's range, the keys to this were the relatively thick wing made possible by using a laminar flow profile, the USAAF's willingness to accept the deterioration in flight characteristics caused by a large fuel tank in the aft fuselage (when full, of course), and the use of external fuel tanks. The latter benefitted much from British production of drop tanks from reinforced paper.
American fighters used both air-cooled and liquid-cooled engines. Actually, in the period before the war the USAAC was concerned that too many fighters designs used the liquid-cooled V-1710, and it ordered the massive P-47B Thunderbolt from Republic with a turbosupercharged, air-cooled R-2800. Only the Navy limited itself to air-cooled radial engines, which were much more convenient for use on aircraft carriers.
As for installing the Griffon, this would only have been practical if the engine had been produced in the USA. Ironically, at the start of the war the Americans were irritated at being asked to mass-produce Merlins, believing that the engine was obsolescent and it would be much better to build Sabres or Vultures... These engines would not have worked for the P-51 at all. (On the other hand, the story of liquid-cooled American engines in that class is even worse.)
Another point is that the Griffon, as initially produced, was a low-altitude engine with a single-stage supercharger. The Griffon did not appear with a two-stage supercharger until 1943. And the Griffon, having a larger swept volume than the Merlin, was a thirstier engine. By trading speed for time, this might not have affected range much, but P-51s spent a lot of their time hooked to slow bomber formations. -
Message 14
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Spruggles
Yes, we are in agreement - re: your main comment.
Petulama
Taken aback in puzzlement over your comment about the Mustang being a 1943 aircraft!?
In April 1940 the British Air Purchasing Commission asked North American Avaition to build the Curtis Hawk 87A-1 for the RAF.Their alternative design first flew 26 October 1940 (it would have been earlier but for the delay with having an engine). The RAF ordered 320 (though two went to the USAAC for evaluation). It entered service with No 2 Squadron in April 1942.
Re: Merlin Mustang
"In terms of US gallons, its normal internal fuel tanks held 183 (269 with a full rear tank) compared with 99 for the Spitfire, and it consumed an average of 64 gallons per hour compared with 144 for the P-38, and 140 for the P-47. With full internal tanks, including and 86 gallon rear fuselage tank, and two 108 gallon drop tanks, its combat radius was 750 miles"
And
"By February '44 more than 100 9th Air Force Merlin Mustangs were escorting 8th Air Force bombers, destroying three to five times as many German fighters per sortie as the more numerous P-47s between January and March. Before the end of March Dolittle asked for all his P-47s and P-38s to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible."
Source A Furse -
Message 15
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
No1catman/Petulama
Could I suggest an interesting read on the subject of procurement of the P51 for RAF service can be found in 'Wilfred Freeman' by Anthony Furse,(if you haven't already scrutinized same) Freeman was the man responsible for the procurement of the Spitfire,(it nearly lost out to the Hawker Tornado) the P51 and the continued development of the Mosquito among others. He also suggested that the Alison engined P51 would be a better choice for the Soviet Union than the Hurricane and Spitfire. -
Message 16
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
The view that the P-51 was a "1943 aircraft" is not as strange as it sounds. The Allison-engined prototype of course flew years earlier, but the Merlin-engined P-51B only entered combat in December 1943. They became effective in early 1944, and the P-51D which was the definitive wartime model appeared in numbers from March 1944 onwards.
It has been forgotten how important much-maligned fighters such as the P-39 Airacobra and P-40 Warhawk were to the USAAF in the first years of WWII. It was early 1943 before even the P-38 and P-47 started to appear in significant numbers. Until then, the airforce had to make do with the P-39, the P-40, and as many Spitfires as they could get... -
Message 17
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
Yes Spruggles Re: Freeman biography - agree again. If you look again at my last message, you'll see I have credited 'A. Furse' as the source of the quotes - the quotes came from that biography - excellent book.
-
Message 18
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
Mutatis, I remember where I got the date 1943 from. Years ago, (remembering WW2 has been revised at least 7 times Semi-Officially since I experienced it, gas mask and all), Start off again, years ago watching a USA documentary regarding the P51 if I remember correctly, and I am sure as that is the only American documentary I watched of the P51 it was a de Haviland design but shelved owing to Britain not needing it. The date 1943 came from the Americans needing a fast long range fighter to support their bombers on long flights into Germany. (unsure if the American fighter aircraft were equal to German fighters at that time aside from the distance added) It claimed that the aircraft was built but when fitted with an American engine they were disappointed as the speed was no better than their other aircraft, some bright spark told them to try a RR engine and speed was greatly increased. Undoubtedly there was probably much trial and error before production started, and probably many versions before a final if ever was reached. It was disgusting how they treated the American Black pilots who never lost a bomber from enemy fighters on all the flights they protected as its claimed.
-
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
Re the Hawker Sea Fury, according to my big book, (Fighter Aircraft by Francis Crosby from the I W M Duxford) The Sea Furys were snapped up for air racing in the U S, where they set world speed records.
-
Message 20
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
Petulama:
Well either your memory is playing tricks on you, or the documentary makers were incompetent - if they put forward the idea that the P-51 was a de Haviland design!
As we have all said here - it was a North American Avaition design - it wasn't 'shelved' the RAF ordered it, they recognised it was better than the P-40 they originally requested NAA to build.
Later, because of its poor altitude performance - it was fitted with the Merlin. The combination - Merlin & Mustang gave superior performance with speed and range with which to confront the Luftwaffe over Germany. -
Message 21
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 13th April 2009
Bearing in mind the problems Napiers had getting the Sabre to work at all, I wonder if Packard would have had similar problems? I've seen reports that Bristol had to be forced to teach Napiers how to machine sleeve valves so that they actually worked - incidentally, wasn't the Centaurus actually the most powerful British aero engine of WWII?
-
Message 22
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 13th April 2009
Greetings. First an apology to no1catman. Sorry I must confess I overlooked your ref' at the bottom; I plead old age. Please note re the P51; as no1catman has already indicated this was DESIGNED (in 100 days in America) to a British SPECFICATION. The first delivery to the RAF was in November 1941 and over 600 were initially sent to Britain, where they served with distinction and were well liked by their pilots. With the introduction of Lend-lease the US took over the procurement from North American,the company that was contracted by the Air Ministry. The viewing of documentary should always be viewed with some scepticism because the country of origin will always naturally have a bias. The Americans perhaps were reluctant to admit that their best long range fighter only reached prominence due to British influence and a British engine. As for the P51D being the best mark, that too is subject to conjecture. The marks without the blown canopy as featured in the later variants, called 'Ridge-backs' in America, served not only in Europe and the Western desert but also in the Far East. One problem with the 'D' was the loss of lateral control caused by the loss of the fuselage which was later party cured by the introduction of a ventral addition to the fin and rudder. The adoption of the bubble (blown) canopy greatly assisted in visibility (quite an asset to a fighter pilot!)but they were not quite as easy to fly. Incidentally the fastest variant was the 'H'. As the last aside, it was discovered towards the end of the war that if at high altitude the rear radiator cover was opened, the hot exhaust from the engine acted almost like a jet engine, pushing the aircraft forward by another twenty miles plus per hour.
-
Message 23
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 13th April 2009
Urnungal,
Quite correct, Napiers did have problems with the Sabre, but it did turn out well in the end. (it's one of my favourites) Bristols were the pioneers of the sleeve valve engines but they too had many difficulties in the gestation and yes the Centaurus was the most powerful of the British engines of that period but as I sure you are aware it was a radial engine. As the Americans were already advanced in production of their more powerful Packard/Merlin engine and the strengthening of the P51 airframe to take it, I suppose that the difficulties involved in modifying the airframe for the Sabre was too daunting. Although I must confess I would like to have seen the result!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.