Yak3 horde, manifestation of newest noob ride

[Ack-Ack]

And if the British hadn't showed up, it would have been a later entry into the war.

I don't think so.  If NAA hadn't taken the huge risk in proposing a new plane or if the British rejected NAA's proposal, NAA would have continued being a minor aviation manufacturer building trainers and Curtiss-Wright planes under license.

ack-ack

[muzik]

I don't think so.  If NAA hadn't taken the huge risk in proposing a new plane or if the British rejected NAA's proposal, NAA would have continued being a minor aviation manufacturer building trainers and Curtiss-Wright planes under license.

ack-ack

I don't think the talent that came up with one of the best piston engine fighters ever designed was an accident or a fluke. If they had the talent and the confidence to as you put it, take the huge risk, then it was only a matter of time.

But I don't think there was any risk at all for them to pitch the idea to the Brits because worse case scenario would have been making lots of P40s, increasing their net worth and providing funds to focus on their own ideas which as you already know, they made happen in less than 120 days with the money they already had on hand.

And IF... as others have suggested, the idea for the Mustang was a complete epiphany that resulted from the Brits proposal (which I will never believe) and the Brits refused, there is still no logical reason to believe that they wouldn't have gone ahead with the idea once it came to them. NAA already believed they could do it in 120 days. With that kind of expedience the financial risk was comparatively minimal.

Either way, there are no indications that suggest NAA was going to lie down and let history roll over them.

[Karnak]

muzik,

None of that would have happened if they hadn't gotten the go ahead from a customer.  You cannot say for sure if the USAAF would have gone for it or not and if they didn't, which government procurements often didn't for many different reasons, the P-51 never would have existed.  The demonstrated skill of the North American engineers don't change that.

As to the P-38, I have heard from more than one P-38 pilot that the turbochargers on it were temperamental and prone to failure.

Without the P-51 I suspect we'd have ended up with the other option the RAF and USAAF were also both investigating at the time, long range Spitfires.

[icepac]

People didn't understand how turbochargers work or what kind of throttle actuation is hardest on them.

This still goes on when I see cars with OEM turbochargers that last 30,000 miles while the turbos on my cars last 200,000 miles.

How you "drive" them is important.

[muzik]

None of that would have happened if they hadn't gotten the go ahead from a customer. 

That's a theory not a fact, and it doesn't agree with norm in the aviation business. Aviation companies lose billions experimenting because they believe in their ideas and the government can't or wont fund them without some proof of the concept.

What is fact is that when any company gets an idea for a better mouse trap, they have two choices, find a customer that wants to buy into the idea or build it and prove it on their own. In aviation and lots of military hardware, proving it first is common.

Fact, even with the neutered engine the P 51 was impressive enough to have raised some interest. Theory, if NAA had to go it alone with no customer, they may have put a neutered Allison in it or they may have opted to make sure that a top notch engine was used in the prototypes from the get go.

[Karnak]

That's a theory not a fact, and it doesn't agree with norm in the aviation business. Aviation companies lose billions experimenting because they believe in their ideas and the government can't or wont fund them without some proof of the concept.

Different time, buddy.  Boeing bet the company on the B-17, when the Army crashed the prototype, causing it to lose the contract by default, it would have been the end of Boeing had the Army not been so happy with it in the tests it did complete that they bought some anyways.  With purse strings as tight as they were at the time do you really think North American was going to build a new fighter without even a bid to compete for?

What is fact is that when any company gets an idea for a better mouse trap, they have two choices, find a customer that wants to buy into the idea or build it and prove it on their own. In aviation and lots of military hardware, proving it first is common.

Great.  Why didn't North American do that?  They didn't approach anybody about this great idea, they were completely passive about it until the British Purchasing Commission came knocking and looking for somebody to build P-40s for them.

Fact, even with the neutered engine the P 51 was impressive enough to have raised some interest. Theory, if NAA had to go it alone with no customer, they may have put a neutered Allison in it or they may have opted to make sure that a top notch engine was used in the prototypes from the get go.

Or, most likely given how tight things were at the time, and occupied with the production of P-40s, they wouldn't have done so at all.


You seem to be bending over backwards to eliminate British involvement with the creation of the P-51.  Why?  It doesn't make it less of a fighter, nor does impinge on its greatness or its service to the USA.

[Brooke]

They did not commission a new product they commissioned retooling and manufacture of an existing design. NO R&D!!! They weren't looking for a new design for various reasons, not the least of which was they were broke.
.
.
.
[etc.]

The main point seems to be this:

Your theory is it might not have been made, mine is they were already toying with the design, the British provided a customer and an opportunity to look like engineering gods in under 120 days. And if the British hadn't showed up, it would have been a later entry into the war.

I agree that, if the British hadn't bought it, the Mustang might still have been made and introduced later.  However, yes, it is my opinion that, if the British had stuck to wanting the P-40 instead of buying the Mustang, the Mustang more likely wouldn't have been built.

A separate discussion:

The P-38 used a high alt Allison with no problems at all other than fuel related. When properly boosted the Allison out powered the Merlin, significantly at some altitudes.

It was neutered! The best boost was reserved for bomber engines.

The P-38 used a turbosupercharger (running on exhaust gas), as did the P-47, B-17, and B-24, although not all the same designs of turbos.  Turbos are typically very good at high alt, but they aren't the only choice.  The large majority of other fighters (P-51, Spit, Bf 109, FW 190, F4U, F6F, Ta 152, for example) used superchargers (running via mechanical, or in the case of some Daimler engines hydraulic it seems, drive from the engine, and which weren't used on or reserved for B-17's or B-24's).  Those planes were not neutered -- it was a design decision to use a supercharger.  Some superchargers are good at alt (such as the one on the Merlin, Bf 109, and Ta 152, of course) and some are not -- it depends on design of the supercharger, number of stages, how many speeds, gearing, etc.  The Allison for the early Mustang was not neutered as far as I know -- I think it was just a supercharged engine that, because of its particular design choices, was not as good at alt as the Merlin.  I have never heard that the Mustang was intended to use turbosupercharging but couldn't because of a shortage.

[Brooke]

And IF... as others have suggested, the idea for the Mustang was a complete epiphany that resulted from the Brits proposal

I don't think anyone is saying that.  I certainly am not.

The Mustang design was the idea primarily of Edgar Schmued (as an interesting aside, a German immigrant who began work in the US at Fokker Aircraft Corporation of America, which was owned by General Motors, who later sold it off, whereupon it became North American Aviation).  None of us knows when he started thinking about the design that would become the Mustang.

What folks are saying is that they think (and it's all speculative, of course) that the Mustang design would never have been completed nor the Mustang ever built if it weren't for the British agreeing to buy them instead of P-40's.

[Brooke]

Muzik, you seem, like me, to enjoy the history of WWII aircraft, including how they came to be.  If you haven't read it already, you might very much enjoy "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning," by Bodie.  It is a marvelous book that goes into the whole history of the plane, including all of the early aspects of how it came to be, thoughts on design, the government process, the development process, etc.

[Squire]

Late to the topic currently at hand. I think it likely the Mustang may have seen the light of day without the British buying it but it would probably have been later in the war by a year or more. Likely picked up as the USAAF was looking for a long range escort fighter for Europe after @ mid 1943. Perhaps the Merlin P-51 would have been introduced in the Fall of 1944 instead by the USAAF? or perhaps it only would have seen action in the Pacific as an Allison powered model, again, later in the war.

Certainly the British agreeing to buy it put it on the "fast track" to production and service...to the good fortune of the USA who would end up being the most prolific user of it. No question the British buying it enabled it to see combat by 1942...early enough that improvements would be likely done by 1943 and 1944 with still enough time to make a difference and early enough that other interested parties (like the USAAF) could contemplate using it.

In the end though...nobody knows. Its a lot of what-if's and maybes. We will never know how the timeline of that a/c would have changed had the history of it been different. My own beleif is that it's contribution to WW2 would have been much more limited had the RAF not wanted it in 1941.

Hindsight is 20/20.

[muzik]

Different time, buddy. 

Yes it is, but you seem to imply that there was less "do it yourself" and more government supported development. I am pretty sure it was the opposite. These days military hardware is more complicated and expensive, private companies are less likely to gamble so big.

With purse strings as tight as they were at the time do you really think North American was going to build a new fighter without even a bid to compete for?

Yes I do. It was a sellers market. They were confident they had a "better" aircraft and they proved it.

Great.  Why didn't North American do that?  They didn't approach anybody about this great idea,

I don't know, but the most obvious and likely choice given the evidence, the Brits just so happened to show up while they were still churning out the details.

Don't you think it a bit odd that a company so confidently declared they would make a new, better aircraft in less time than it would take to put an existing design into production? AND succeeded? That's a huge promise. Especially considering it was a desperately needed war machine. They gambled with the outcome of the war to some extent here.

I don't believe they were THAT talented. I am absolutely certain they already had part of this design hammered out even if it was only in their heads and the Brits coincidentally showed up looking for fighters.

most likely given how tight things were at the time, and occupied with the production of P-40s, they wouldn't have done so at all.

You and Brooke seem to ignore two realities. EVERYONE in the defense business was scrambling to design better weapons because it was a sellers market. No company with any common sense would wait to clear the bureaucratic red tape if they have a good product. They would make it and then go on a marketing campaign until they proved it's worth or someone proved them wrong. If you could build a better weapon, there would be a buyer.

Second, aviation companies don't stop designing or selling aircraft just because they are producing another.

You seem to be bending over backwards to eliminate British involvement with the creation of the P-51. 

Not really, I don't deny they had a role in it. I'm just saying, the Mustang didn't depend on them and I don't believe that NAA would have let the idea/design die if the Brits had said no.

Muzik, you seem, like me, to enjoy the history of WWII aircraft, including how they came to be.  If you haven't read it already, you might very much enjoy "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning," by Bodie.  It is a marvelous book that goes into the whole history of the plane, including all of the early aspects of how it came to be, thoughts on design, the government process, the development process, etc.

Thank you, love the 38 so I will look into it.

[Golden Dragon]

. . . . . . . .

[uptown]

so ya brought up at thread that's been dead for 2 months just to type 8 dots? 

[scott66]

. . . . . . . .

alcohol induced?

[shoresroad]

Maybe he got shot down by a Yak 3 horde yesterday