P-51 Mustang & F-82 Twin Mustang Proposals and Variants

[BarnOwlLover2]

I'm not really able to travel, certainly that far. And I do already have books with the photos I've described (and may be buying more in the next month or two). And I do believe that Air Corps Aviation is trying to digitize various P-51 and P-82 documents that were saved from NAA's old Columbus factory before Rockwell would try and get rid of them.

But the photos being digital and on my laptop is a bit of a matter of convenience, since I don't really right now have a good place to read them right now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My understanding is that the weight difference between the Merlin and Griffon is such that it would be more involved than a straight swap. A lot of rebalancing of the airframe would be required to make the aircraft fit for combat.

Note the larger airframe of the later Spitfire marks.

Would have been a monster though.

I understand that a Mustang with a full fuselage tank was a bit of a handful to fly, the CG was a bit too far aft (relaxed stability). Empty the fuselage tank first and the CG gets forward where it should be.

Weight difference between a Merlin 61 and Griffon 65 is 340lbs. Since the Griffon needs a bigger tail like the F82 anyways, I suspect that the stretch needed there would address most of the changes necessary.

========

Had an airshow Sunday, got to listen to a Merlin fly around with an F35. Gotta love the Mustang whistle caused by the gun ports.

 

[drgondog]

Does anyone have any information on a possible P-51E Mustang?

I just ran across a reference to it in FLYING Magazine; September 1945; with the terse text:

"Between the D and the H, the E died on the design boards..."

The P-51D (NA-106) and P-51E (NA-107) began life in Jan 1943 as the six gun/Birdcage canopy P-51B/C modification. Original planning projected NA-106 for Inglewood/NA-107 at Dallas. NAA negotiated the MCR for the six gun wing just before MCR 258 for the Cockpit Enclosure, Sliding was executed.

The production breaks for NA-106/107 are well documented in the Preliminary Design General Assembly 106-900002 P-51D Major Assembly Breakdown. Between Jan 1 and March 15, when 9000002 was released, the actutal work on both canopy and new wing design had started and all production drawings were completed by mid-July, 1943. P51B-1-NA 43-12102 was delivered to the xperimental department for the cockpit mod. Two spare P-51B-1 fuselages were pulled to perform the exact cockpit mods as P-51D and P-51D-1. The wings were installed in the Experimental Department. P-51D-1 remained to begin installation of 55 gal fuse tank.

In September AAF decreed 'only 85 gal tanks will be accepted post Jan 1" and the P-51D and D-1 were assigned the first two numbers of the planned production break, namely 42-106539/540 but the project of planned B-1 fuselage basis for production was killed, NA-107 was killed, All funding and pooled parts were folded from NA-106 into P-51D-5 NA-109 and P-51B-10 NA-104; NA -107 funding was moved into NA-103 and NA-111.

In October a Change E.O. was approved to move the wing back 4" to accomodate the aft cg issues introduced by NA-106 85 gal requirement as well as 2x50 cal/600 round increase to aft cg issue - but by that time flight tests as Eglin stated that while deliterious at full combat weight, the P-51 was flyable until fuel reduced to 60 gal - and NAA/AAF agred to proceed 'as is',

The continuation of P-51B-5 moved to P-51B-10 and the P-51B-10 production skipped 42-106539/540 to 42-106541.

Summary - didn't die on the design boards. Somebody woke up and remembered that while NA-102 and 103 were the same airframe, NA and NT clearly differentiated between Inglewood and Dallas, so why not P-51D-5-NA and P-51D-5-NT?

The modified P-51B-1-NA and P-51D-NA were flight tested by AAF and Chilton in November/December 1943, but P-51D-1-NT was not delivered until December 31, 1943 and Chilton never flew it (at least not recorded in his logbook).

Take what you want and leave the rest.

Bill Marshall

 

[Basil]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGFsAOUdX7A

 

[drgondog]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGFsAOUdX7A

Greg has gone off the reservationon several points. Overall a pretty good presentation.

 

[Hood]

Both of these videos are showing (for me at least) as disabled by the video owner.

A few Youtube links lately have either come up like this or are blocked (at least in the UK). Folks should really be aware of this problem - no point posting videos if nobody can see them....

 

[Firefinder]

Both of these videos are showing (for me at least) as disabled by the video owner.

A few Youtube links lately have either come up like this or are blocked (at least in the UK). Folks should really be aware of this problem - no point posting videos if nobody can see them....

Have been seeing similar issues with tweeter links being deader then some of the projects listed on this site.

Tweeter or X or what ever its called today, is far too unstable to rely on just the links for information posted

 

[drgondog]

I understand that a Mustang with a full fuselage tank was a bit of a handful to fly, the CG was a bit too far aft (relaxed stability). Empty the fuselage tank first and the CG gets forward where it should be.

Weight difference between a Merlin 61 and Griffon 65 is 340lbs. Since the Griffon needs a bigger tail like the F82 anyways, I suspect that the stretch needed there would address most of the changes necessary.

========

Had an airshow Sunday, got to listen to a Merlin fly around with an F35. Gotta love the Mustang whistle caused by the gun ports.

It was a handful with respect to combat manuevers with full 85 gal fuselage tank. The resultant CG was a couple of inches aft of the designated static aft cg point. Very light conrol forces in turn, with tendency to reverse control of elevator and spin out. Bob weights were retrofitted to alleviate (but not eliminate) the very sensitve pitch condition.

The flight testing of the three P-51B-1s at Eglin Field recommended burning down to 45gal (IIRC) before being in safe cg limit for combat manuevering.

SOP in ETO was to a.) load 65 gal, or b.) burn 20+ gal during climb to cruise altitude. There were exceptions depending on the projected mission profile. A very long range mission to say, Posnan or Stettin, with 75gal tanks dictated 20+ gal burned and be aware that the projected 20min Combat Rating fuel consumption margin was no longer a safe consideration for fuel reserve to return home.

Anecotally, my father who led the 355th FG escort for FRANTIC VII maintained full tank untll near Berlin, when the Bomber Task Force leader radio'ed that he was 10 min early to R/V and the group switched to fuse tank and spun up to Military Power to forge an intercept point NNW of Warsaw. The 355th had a fight with JG 51 shortly thereafter. He didn't land with the 355th at Piryatin but flew on to Poltava for a briefing for the next leg to Foggia. He told me that he 'couldn't have had more than 5-10gal remaining when he landed. His longest mission at 7:30 or &7:50 hrs

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was a handful with respect to combat manuevers with full 85 gal fuselage tank. The resultant CG was a couple of inches aft of the designated static aft cg point. Very light conrol forces in turn, with tendency to reverse control of elevator and spin out. Bob weights were retrofitted to alleviate (but not eliminate) the very sensitve pitch condition.

The flight testing of the three P-51B-1s at Eglin Field recommended burning down to 45gal (IIRC) before being in safe cg limit for combat manuevering.

SOP in ETO was to a.) load 65 gal, or b.) burn 20+ gal during climb to cruise altitude. There were exceptions depending on the projected mission profile. A very long range mission to say, Posnan or Stettin, with 75gal tanks dictated 20+ gal burned and be aware that the projected 20min Combat Rating fuel consumption margin was no longer a safe consideration for fuel reserve to return home.

Anecotally, my father who led the 355th FG escort for FRANTIC VII maintained full tank untll near Berlin, when the Bomber Task Force leader radio'ed that he was 10 min early to R/V and the group switched to fuse tank and spun up to Military Power to forge an intercept point NNW of Warsaw. The 355th had a fight with JG 51 shortly thereafter. He didn't land with the 355th at Piryatin but flew on to Poltava for a briefing for the next leg to Foggia. He told me that he 'couldn't have had more than 5-10gal remaining when he landed. His longest mission at 7:30 or &7:50 hrs

Always good to hear from the people who used the tools!

If your Dad's still with us, have a drink with him for me, please.

 

[BarnOwlLover2]

I'm sure we all (or most of us) know of the variant that had the 8 .50 MGs in it, but I did read both on Wikipedia and Twin Mustang: The North American F-82 At War that there were other projects being looked at for the gun pod, including a 40mm cannon. Is there any truth to this?

And also on ww2aircraft, I did learn some of the possible differences between the NA-117 (preproduction P-51H design) and the NA-126 (production P-51H). This is from forum correspondence between me and drgondog there, and research is still ongoing for the successor to the P-51B book.

But if you want to imagine was a production NA-117 would look like, imagine a P-51H with the same length as a P-51D or XP-51F/G, with the wing the same place as on the XP-51F/G instead of being moved about 6 inches back as on the actual P-51H.

 

[GTX]

Any info or such on the "RF-82" that had a camera pod? San Diego Air and Space Museum has HQ photos of it (they have low res versions of them on their Flickr page, you can buy the HQ versions in print or digital form). I asked about it at WW2Aircraft.com, and got some info, but aside from that and the photos, not much else. Or anything additional on the P-82C/D (P-82Bs used as R&D aircraft for F-82 night/AW fighters)?

I thought this had been previously posted:

a single F-82B was converted into a photo-recon RF-82B in the late '40s:

In flight trials:

Pod in construction:

With an without pics:

 

[Stargazer]

Nice pics, thanks.

Several preliminary pursuit designs were studied under USAAF project MX-176. Among them was a little-known proposal that Hughes Aircraft should build a P-51 look-alike from duramold, and fit it with an Allison V-1710 engine. Apparently, P-51 design data was sent from North American to Hughes, but it is unknown how much work was actually done. Does anyone know more about this project?

 

[hesham]

Nice pics, thanks.

Several preliminary pursuit designs were studied under USAAF project MX-176. Among them was a little-known proposal that Hughes Aircraft should build a P-51 look-alike from duramold, and fit it with an Allison V-1710 engine. Apparently, P-51 design data was sent from North American to Hughes, but it is unknown how much work was actually done. Does anyone know more about this project?

Actually Hughes company designed a two single engined fighter projects,the
first was a single seat aircraft of 1937,developed from H-1 racer,and I think it
was called D-1,the second was a lightweight fighter in class of Bell XP-77,1941
up to 1942,surley called D-4.

 

[Stargazer]

Actually Hughes company designed a two single engines fighter projects,the
first was a single seat aircraft of 1937,developed from H-1 racer,and I think it
was called D-1,the second was a lightweight fighter in class of Bell XP-77,1941
up to 1942,surley called D-4.

Yep, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

 

[BarnOwlLover2]

For those of you who have drgondog's and Lowell Ford's book on the P-51B Mustang (covered NAA's origins, and development of the Allison and Merlin Mustangs prior to the Normandy Landings), there are photos of 20mm and 37mm cannon armed mock ups for the P-51 and A-36. The 37mm and 20mm were ground strafing weapons for the A-36 and 20mm were for air to air for the P-51. Four of each guns were intended to be carried (though the A-36 could have 2 20mm and 2 37mm as well).

Also, there was the never built paper project known as the "Packard Pursuit", which was a precursor to the P-51B and D Mustangs. For 1942, it looked like some serious stuff based on the illustrations, and pointed the direction that the Merlin Mustangs would go.

 

[BarnOwlLover2]

Another good excuse to buy that book is not only does it tell the first half of the Mustang story in detail (part 2 is being worked on), but there's also illustrations that also include design studies also for Rolls Royce Griffon and Allison V-1710-45 variants. Problem was that the Griffon was too larger overall and the two-stage Allison was too long to fit without major redesign. And they had to cope with that a fair bit with the two stage Merlin (even if the tooling from the firewall on back was used to make the pre-lightweight Merlin Mustangs). P-51Bs and Ds had to carry about 60 lbs of ballast on account of the four bladed prop messing with trim and CG.

 

[sienar]

"Lowell Ford, the plans wizard from California, sent us the attached original drawings done by Edgar Schmued, the head designer at North American who designed the P-51 and the XP-82.

Back in 1941, he came up with the concept of a twin-fuselaged Mustang and when the president of NAA saw these drawings on his table, he said in no uncertain terms, " his job was to design on the P-51 and get rid of those drawings." Edgar put them in his top left drawer of his desk and, three years later, when Gen. Hap Arnold, the head of the USAAF, came to NAA inquiring about building a two-fuselaged, multi-engine fighter that could fly with the B-29s’ high-cruise speed, he pulled the drawings out, showed them to Gen. Arnold and was told to build two prototypes ASAP. And, the rest is history."

September Newsletter

What a pleasant month it has been. I know the progress report is late ... but I still got it out in September. Now almost everyone knows w...

xp-82twinmustangproject.blogspot.com

 

[drgondog]

"Lowell Ford, the plans wizard from California, sent us the attached original drawings done by Edgar Schmued, the head designer at North American who designed the P-51 and the XP-82.

Back in 1941, he came up with the concept of a twin-fuselaged Mustang and when the president of NAA saw these drawings on his table, he said in no uncertain terms, " his job was to design on the P-51 and get rid of those drawings." Edgar put them in his top left drawer of his desk and, three years later, when Gen. Hap Arnold, the head of the USAAF, came to NAA inquiring about building a two-fuselaged, multi-engine fighter that could fly with the B-29s’ high-cruise speed, he pulled the drawings out, showed them to Gen. Arnold and was told to build two prototypes ASAP. And, the rest is history."
View attachment 726313

September Newsletter

What a pleasant month it has been. I know the progress report is late ... but I still got it out in September. Now almost everyone knows w...

xp-82twinmustangproject.blogspot.com

These were probably circa 1939 with distinct similarity to P-500 w/Ranger engines. I'll ask Lowell about this.

 

[drgondog]

I talked to Lowell and sent him a screen shot.. he's scratching is head trying to remember the time period but agrees it looks like a P-500 derivative.