Yak3 horde, manifestation of newest noob ride

[Krusty]

In the era of lend-lease, I rather wonder if it was ever actually paid for, or of the US paid for it and the UK paid them back many years later well after the war was over.

[Brooke]

That was before lend-lease (which was enacted in March, 1941).

Good information on the lend-lease program is on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

[ntrudr]

I thought this was a thread about the Yak 3?  How does who designed, paid for, or modified the P51 apply?

[muzik]

From "America's Hundred Thousand," by Dean (an awesome book), p. 330, under "P-51 Chronology":

....

No where in there does it say that the Brits paid for research and development, it says they bought 300 Mustangs. I am well aware the Brits bought the first production run, that is not the same as paying for R&D! They bought a product, they didn't give birth to it. Funding for R&D based on an idea or suggestion is kind of rare to my knowledge unless it's a doozy.

My point was that the Brits have every right to be proud of the Merlin and the role it had with the Mustang, but shouldn't get carried away with the credit taking even when it comes to the engine. I'm completely certain the designers at NA knew the Mustang was neutered as it was first sold and had no choice but to sell it that way.

[Karnak]

The P-51 was, of course, the creation of North American, a United States company.

[Brooke]

No where in there does it say that the Brits paid for research and development, it says they bought 300 Mustangs. I am well aware the Brits bought the first production run, that is not the same as paying for R&D! They bought a product, they didn't give birth to it. Funding for R&D based on an idea or suggestion is kind of rare to my knowledge unless it's a doozy.

My point was that the Brits have every right to be proud of the Merlin and the role it had with the Mustang, but shouldn't get carried away with the credit taking even when it comes to the engine. I'm completely certain the designers at NA knew the Mustang was neutered as it was first sold and had no choice but to sell it that way.

As a guy who works in businesses that do product development, I can tell you that a customer who commissions a product (which is what the British did) can be thought of as about the same whether or not they front the development money.  You expect the sales to more than pay for the R&D, or you wouldn't do the R&D.  If the arrangement with the customer included him fronting the R&D money, it would just typically be subtracted (or more than subtracted) from the sale price.

A customer who commissions a product isn't the creator of that product.  That's not what I'm saying.  But the Mustang might not have been made if the Brits didn't commission it.  There was no one else asking for it.

The Merlin is a British engine.  Given the amount of engineering and technology that goes into designing and making an engine vs. an airframe, if a plane has a British engine and an American airframe, it is roughly speaking half British and half American.

The designers of the Mustang designed it to use the best American in-line engine -- the Allison.  It wasn't neutered.  It just turns out that the Merlin was a better high-alt engine than the Allison.

[Krusty]

I wouldn't say half Brit half Yank. Not just because of an engine. Spits with Packards in them were all Brit, no? P-40s with Merlins in them were all Yank, no? Nobody would argue the P-40 was anything but American.

Engine origin may be a nice side-note, but IMO it's more important who made the overall design, and who implemented the mating of said engine to said airframe.

Brooke, interesting thought. I wager North American were chomping at the bit, and mired down in the beurocratic red tape of the US design/development system. I wager they'd have made this design after pounding the US Army to let them, but it might have taken another year or two. Imagine P-51s not showing up til late 1945, after Jugs/38s had already won the war.

[Ack-Ack]

As a guy who works in businesses that do product development, I can tell you that a customer who commissions a product (which is what the British did) can be thought of as about the same whether or not they front the development money.  You expect the sales to more than pay for the R&D, or you wouldn't do the R&D.  If the arrangement with the customer included him fronting the R&D money, it would just typically be subtracted (or more than subtracted) from the sale price.

A customer who commissions a product isn't the creator of that product.  That's not what I'm saying.  But the Mustang might not have been made if the Brits didn't commission it.  There was no one else asking for it.

The Merlin is a British engine.  Given the amount of engineering and technology that goes into designing and making an engine vs. an airframe, if a plane has a British engine and an American airframe, it is roughly speaking half British and half American.

The designers of the Mustang designed it to use the best American in-line engine -- the Allison.  It wasn't neutered.  It just turns out that the Merlin was a better high-alt engine than the Allison.

I honestly don't think the Mustang would have been built if the British purchasing commission didn't accept NAA's proposal to build an entirely new aircraft instead of a licensed P-40.  If the British had turned down NAA's proposal, NAA would have remained under Curtiss-Wrights shadow and continue building trainers.  It was a real risk NAA took, a risk that paid off in spades as it propelled them from a small aviation company into the country's main aviation company during the war.

ack-ack

[Brooke]

I wouldn't say half Brit half Yank. Not just because of an engine. Spits with Packards in them were all Brit, no?

Yes, all Brit.  Packard was building British engines.  I attribute the place of design and engineering as the nationality of the item, not where it is manufactured to specification.

P-40s with Merlins in them were all Yank, no?  Nobody would argue the P-40 was anything but American.

I would.  I'd count them as half Brit and half American.

Engine origin may be a nice side-note, but IMO it's more important who made the overall design, and who implemented the mating of said engine to said airframe.

If everything on an airplane was designed by Americans except for the tires, I would say (to a couple decimal places) it is 100% American (even if it is built in a factory in Malaysia).  If half the design work was done by Americans and half by British, I would say it is half American and half British.  An engine is of course a vital part of an airplane and of the characteristics that make it a good or bad aircraft overall.  For WWII tech, the engineering for an engine is about as complicated and involved as the engineering of an entire airplane except the engine.  So, if you take a whole airplane, if the engine is designed by Brits and the airframe by Americans, it's half Brit and half American.

Brooke, interesting thought. I wager North American were chomping at the bit, and mired down in the beurocratic red tape of the US design/development system.

The US government didn't care a bit about the Mustang.  All they needed from the US government was the OK to sell it to the Brits.  They weren't mired in any US government design criteria -- it went from order to 1st prototype in 102 days.

I wager they'd have made this design after pounding the US Army to let them, but it might have taken another year or two. Imagine P-51s not showing up til late 1945, after Jugs/38s had already won the war.

If the Brits hadn't commissioned it, if they thought that they could sell the US government on it, maybe they would have taken a gamble and done it anyway -- but they very well might not have.  If they did, I agree that it would have added at least a year to the deployment date, and by then, there probably would have been lots of long-range P-47's and/or P-38's doing the long-range escort, so who knows if the P-51 would even have been used in large numbers by then.

[Brooke]

I honestly don't think the Mustang would have been built if the British purchasing commission didn't accept NAA's proposal to build an entirely new aircraft instead of a licensed P-40.

I totally agree.

[Krusty]

It was a boom time for airplane design. If the rotten Brewster corporation could get an official contract, then a "good" company could, too. There were many folks that wanted to design, and to innovate, and they found a way to. North American had that kind of motivated design force behind it.

If the Brits hadn't done it, NA would have done it (or something similar) on their own. Actually pitching it was a problem. The US only wanted existing models. More and more of the known, rather than possibly more of the unknown. You're right the US didn't care about the Mustang... Until it was already built and started showing promise. All they wanted were crap-loads of P-40s. P-40s, P-40s, P-40s. There was even an investigation after the war into WHY so many friggin' P-40s were made. Was it some kind of bribery for contracts? The answer: They needed planes.

That need for planes would have eventually forced them to realize what they were building was obsolete. They'd have to move on to new designs, better designs. Then they'd have issued an order for new designs and NA would have jumped at the chance.

...but, those are just my thoughts on the matter.

[Babalonian]

Ahhhhh, the 190s then 

I thought, per this thread's creation/title, that was the Yak3.   

[Ardy123]

It was a boom time for airplane design. If the rotten Brewster corporation could get an official contract, then a "good" company could, too. There were many folks that wanted to design, and to innovate, and they found a way to. North American had that kind of motivated design force behind it.

The Brewster corp was so poorly mismanaged that the US gov had to take it over during the war, complete with executives that were convicted of fraud, etc....

[Ack-Ack]

oops, wrong thread.

[muzik]

As a guy who works in businesses that do product development, I can tell you that a customer who commissions a product (which is what the British did)

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.

Yet the Brits were willing to give this alleged "better" design a chance even considering the grave situation they were facing. I'm assuming you already know what a huge risk they were taking in doing so. What would the difference have been between having 150 new planes by such and such date or having a broken promise and a scrap airplane?

I would say that first words out of the purchasing commissions office was "we already planned on the P40 and how much would it cost?"

NAA was in NO position to demand or even ask for any significant reimbursement for R&D so the price they paid for the Mustang was probably in the ball park of the out dated and 2nd class P40. Because that's what the purchasing commission planned on paying and they certainly wouldn't have agreed to pay what the Mustang turned out to be worth considering the success yet to be seen.

The Brits MIGHT have paid for the retooling had it been necessary, but I don't know what standard practice is for something like that. And I also don't know your business experience, but I highly doubt that comparing companies that make mp3 players to major defense procurement in ww2 is a good comparison. Even with those high dollar defense products, who pays for R&D depends on who wants what and who wants it more.

You expect the sales to more than pay for the R&D, or you wouldn't do the R&D.

Exactly, so you agree that NAA didn't get anything for R&D and like most companies struggling to build a business, did the R&D on their own because they believed in their own talent.

A customer who commissions a product isn't the creator of that product. 

Exactly my point and considering they didn't commission the Mustang, they asked for a P40, even more so.

But the Mustang might not have been made if the Brits didn't commission it.  There was no one else asking for it.

Everyone was asking for it. The whole world was in a race to build the best fighter that could be made. Do you think NAA had an epiphany just because England asked for a p40?

Why do you think they were so confident that they could design AND BUILD a brand new aircraft in less time than it would take to retool? Why do you think they included a brand new wing design that no one else was using?

They say the Mustang was 117 days from board to prototype. 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.

Given the amount of engineering and technology that goes into designing and making an engine vs. an airframe, if a plane has a British engine and an American airframe, it is roughly speaking half British and half American.

I don't buy this at all. Airframes aren't only a matter of putting wings on a barrel but it's irrelevant regardless. NAA didn't set out to design an engine. They used what was available to them. In the US, that was a neutered Allison and the Brits didn't offer the Merlin.

It wasn't neutered.  It just turns out that the Merlin was a better high-alt engine than the Allison.

Perhaps you didn't read the link I posted earlier. I'll paraphrase. 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.