AHC: P-51 Mustang even more prominent

Can you get more of them, &/or earlier, by buggering the P-40 program somehow? Like, frex, the V1710 conversion of the P-36 is bungled, or rejected by the AAF? Thus, when the Brits come looking for aircraft, NAA says they can easily beat the P-36... (Unless the failure somehow accelerates the P-38...)
 
Can you get more of them, &/or earlier, by buggering the P-40 program somehow? Like, frex, the V1710 conversion of the P-36 is bungled, or rejected by the AAF? Thus, when the Brits come looking for aircraft, NAA says they can easily beat the P-36... (Unless the failure somehow accelerates the P-38...)

Hard to see that occurring. It was a dead simple conversion.

What you can do, is let Curtiss proceed with their XP-46, that they wanted to build in place of the P-40D.

It would have been even worse.

NAA comes to the rescue, and Curtiss finishes the war makes P-51s under license, P-40C being only marginally improved for Lend Lease to the USSR, production ending in 1943
 
What you can do, is let Curtiss proceed with their XP-46, that they wanted to build in place of the P-40D.
That's close to what I had in mind, only doing it on the P-36. Kind of like the XP-37:
P37.jpg
 
Perhaps at "confrontation" short of war between Italy and the UK takes place just before WW2. After action reports highlights the difficulties of getting additional fighters to the region. Someone at the Air Ministry gets out a map, and writes a spec for a long range, single seat fighter, around the time the BPC is formed. North American make their historic promise a lot earlier, and the British accept with one proviso- aircraft are to be designed to take the Merlin, and they will be supplied as empty airframes for the UK to add engines to.
Later on, a cross license is made, with Packard building additional engines and some UK shadow factories making additional airframes.
 
Have the US Navy adopt the P-51H Seahorse, or better yet have the Royal Navy decide to go that route first (proving the viability of the concept). I suggest the Royal Navy route because they obviously did not have a problem with carrier aircraft having liquid cooled engines whereas the USN seemed to prefer radials.

In fact, along with Paulo's suggestion, part of the British request is desire for the plane to be carrier capable because not only does somebody from the Air Ministry play with a map, someone from the Fifth Sealord's office does as well.
 
Wasn't the only one
Cotty%27s%2BP47%2Bcopy.jpg

ground-crewman-rides-the-wing-of-a-p47-thunderbolt.jpg

Ounce of prevention...
That's one way of carrying passengers.:openedeyewink:

And I don't recall the Spitfire, which needed it more, using this approach.;)

That said, notice the P-47's cockpit actually allows the pilot to see the leading edge. The XP-37 barely allows him to see the trailing edge.:openedeyewink: (I also wonder about stability & the Cg location... That cockpit location reminds me of a Gee Bee.:eek:)
one proviso- aircraft are to be designed to take the Merlin, and they will be supplied as empty airframes for the UK to add engines to
Why would you design for the Merlin, if it's a U.S. a/c? We know the Merlin Mustang was a winner, but there's no way the Air Ministry (not notorious for insight at the best of times) could. In fact, that seems to run contrary to AM purblindness... I'd suggest you need to wait until Munich, if not actual war.

That said, if you want additional production, what about licence in Canada? Far from the threat of invasion, close to the NAA "parent" factory, close to the source of licenced Merlins... (Possibly even a place to locate a licenced Merlin factory?)
 
Several options come to mind
1) Allison puts more effort into supercharger design earlier than they did historically.
2) Ford Motor Co procedes with their V-1650. It probably had as much potential as the Merlin
3) Pratt & Whitney has more problems solving the vibration issues with the R-2800. This means a later P-47 in service.
4) The later R-2800 also affects the F-6-F and the F4-U which could lead to the USN putting the P-51 into service.
5) Packard starts on Merlin production earlier.

But a good as the P-51 was I wonder how much of its reputation was due to the drop in quality of the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot in 1944 compared to say 1940. Plus the P-51 was not good at everything. Low level operations brought out its vulnerability to ground fire. But then every liquid cooled fighter had the same issue.
 
That said, notice the P-47's cockpit actually allows the pilot to see the leading edge. The XP-37 barely allows him to see the trailing edge.:openedeyewink: (I also wonder about stability & the Cg location... That cockpit location reminds me of a Gee Bee.:eek:)

CoG wise, far better than the Mustang, since the fuel tanks are right ontop the CoG, so little balance change as fuel is burned. Personally, as a tricycle gear setup would have taken care the ground issues. But not ideal for ground attack missions. It would have needed the floor windows like most early USN fighters possessed

Why would you design for the Merlin, if it's a U.S. a/c? We know the Merlin Mustang was a winner, but there's no way the Air Ministry (not notorious for insight at the best of times) could. In fact, that seems to run contrary to AM purblindness...

The P-40F, with a Merlin, wasn't exactly a worldbeater.
 
Several options come to mind
1) Allison puts more effort into supercharger design earlier than they did historically.
2) Ford Motor Co procedes with their V-1650. It probably had as much potential as the Merlin
3) Pratt & Whitney has more problems solving the vibration issues with the R-2800. This means a later P-47 in service.
4) The later R-2800 also affects the F-6-F and the F4-U which could lead to the USN putting the P-51 into service.
5) Packard starts on Merlin production earlier.

But a good as the P-51 was I wonder how much of its reputation was due to the drop in quality of the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot in 1944 compared to say 1940. Plus the P-51 was not good at everything. Low level operations brought out its vulnerability to ground fire. But then every liquid cooled fighter had the same issue.

I read an article about F-51s doing ground attack in Korea and a guy who flew them who had flown Thunderbolts in WWII said that every time he climbed into his Mustang he wished it would turn into a Thunderbolt because of the engine vulnerabilities.
 
Several options come to mind
1) Allison puts more effort into supercharger design earlier than they did historically.
I think this is the easiest route to earlier more successful P-51. If the AAC allows Allison to properly develop a fully integrated two-speed, multi-stage supercharger set on the V-1710 I think it could be as good as the Merlin. Develop Fuel Injection earlier and it could have been a real class-leader all around.
 
The P-40F, with a Merlin, wasn't exactly a worldbeater.
Notice I didn't say it was...nor that it would have been predicted to be (tho by appearances, that was the expectation, or the Merlin wouldn't have been fitted to begin with).
 

hipper

Banned
Several options come to mind
1) Allison puts more effort into supercharger design earlier than they did historically.
2) Ford Motor Co procedes with their V-1650. It probably had as much potential as the Merlin
3) Pratt & Whitney has more problems solving the vibration issues with the R-2800. This means a later P-47 in service.
4) The later R-2800 also affects the F-6-F and the F4-U which could lead to the USN putting the P-51 into service.
5) Packard starts on Merlin production earlier.

But a good as the P-51 was I wonder how much of its reputation was due to the drop in quality of the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot in 1944 compared to say 1940. Plus the P-51 was not good at everything. Low level operations brought out its vulnerability to ground fire. But then every liquid cooled fighter had the same issue.

nope you put armour round the engine (which is impossible in a radial ) and the liquid engined fighters are less vulnerable to ground fire, look at the loss rates per sortie of Thunderbolts and Typhoons in France 1944.
 
nope you put armour round the engine (which is impossible in a radial ) and the liquid engined fighters are less vulnerable to ground fire, look at the loss rates per sortie of Thunderbolts and Typhoons in France 1944.

I just spent 20 minutes trying to find such numbers, and only found your statement repeated from AH 2 1/2 years ago. Usertron asked what the numbers were, and I guess we're still waiting. It sure is a common forum topic with a lot of opinions and not much argument-specific data. There's also a lot of debate about Thunderbolt/Mustang in Korea, but there are only numbers for Mustangs, and they aren't good at all. They forgot to armor the rad, and the plumbing, as well as the engine.
 

hipper

Banned
I just spent 20 minutes trying to find such numbers, and only found your statement repeated from AH 2 1/2 years ago. Usertron asked what the numbers were, and I guess we're still waiting. It sure is a common forum topic with a lot of opinions and not much argument-specific data. There's also a lot of debate about Thunderbolt/Mustang in Korea, but there are only numbers for Mustangs, and they aren't good at all. They forgot to armor the rad, and the plumbing, as well as the engine.

It was a mild flame war in the war birds forum its 56 pages of back and forth degenerating into flaming in parts but there are links to sources.

https://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/4921-air-vs-liquid-cooled-engines/

This is the main source for loss rates though you have to dig a bit

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/index.html


here are two critical posts

but enjoy the whole thread


Flo
Between July 25 and August 7, 1944 the 9th AF lost 80 aircraft, the majority Thunderbolts. Over the whole of those two months the 2nd TAF lost 151 Typhoons. The majority of losses to both were to ground fire. Typhoons and Thunderbolts were operating under very similar conditions, the Hawkers in direct support, the P-47s in close support, with considerable cross over in roles. During the Normandy operations the 9th AF flew 2891 sorties, the 2nd TAF 9896. The 9th AF claimed 2654 vehicles destroyed, the 2nd TAF 3597. The 2nd TAF claimed 257 of the 391 tanks destroyed by Allied aircraft, reflecting the slight difference in tasking between the two forces.
It's the closest example of air vs liquid cooled propulsion I can think of. Typhoon losses ran at about twice those of Thunderbolt equipped units, but they mounted three times the sorties. Just as well, since they made one third of the claims per sortie. It's possible to cut the figures to demonstrate various points- I fully expect Duncan and Lightning to do just that!
biggrin.png
- but I think they're close enough to refute claims of any superiority of either power plant.

Ricky
Let me be the first to play with the numbers...

25th July - 5th August is 11 days
The whole of July and August is 61 days

Therefore:
7.3 P-47s were lost per day
2.5 Typhoons were lost per day

Given that the Typhoons were flying 3 times as many sorties, that further increases the gap - the ratio of loss rates per sortie is 7.3:0.8 in favour of the Typhoon! That makes for a ratio of more than 9:1

Now, obviously, the statisics are not directly comparable, making a mockery of my analysis. Anybody know the P-47 losses for the whole of July/August 1944?

EDIT and update if you go to the source you will see that they are comparing all fighter bomber sorties by the 2nd TAF to P47 sorties, however most of the fighters in the 2 TAF were spitfires who did a fair amount of bombing

all you can really do is compare P-47 squadrons in the 9th AF 39 with Typhoon squadrons in 2 TAF 16

and suggest that the losses should reflect this 16:39 ratio or 41:100

actual losses using the numbers above 34:100

but there are lots of assumptions in that figure : too many to really stand behind ...

anyone got numbers for P-47 losses in Normandy?
 
Last edited:
CoG wise, far better than the Mustang, since the fuel tanks are right ontop the CoG, so little balance change as fuel is burned. Personally, as a tricycle gear setup would have taken care the ground issues. But not ideal for ground attack missions. It would have needed the floor windows like most early USN fighters possessed



The P-40F, with a Merlin, wasn't exactly a worldbeater.

No but logistics are important and engine commonality across airframes is a good thing. The USAAF deployed the 57th Fighter Group to Egypt in the summer of 1942 and they flew P-40Fs. Since the DAF was flying a lot of Hurricanes and even some Spitfires at that point along with some number of Merlin equipped P-40s of their own (I don't know the exact mix of P-40s the DAF was flying at that point) so not a bad idea for the USAAF to send a group of Merlin equipped fighters to a theater where there are already a lot of Merlin equipped fighters.
 
Top