Radial Mustang Whif?

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

Got to thinking about this lately while pondering the successful inline-to-radial engined conversion of the LaGG-3 to the La-5 and -7 series, as well as the unsuccessful similar attempts by Yak and MiG. So, for some reason I started wondering what a radial-powered P-51 would look like. Yeah, I know some purists will find this a heresy, but it's okay to wonder, right? I'm also betting I'm definitely not the first to think of this (for all I know, maybe NA even investigated it themselves during the war).

Would make a heckuva WhatIf project for someone (got a baby here; not a lot of building going on, so I pass the idea to you all). Maybe an earlier version, like a -B version with a slightly widened forward fuselage to accept the PW R-2800 from a Thunderbolt/Corsair/Hellcat/Black Widow.... Any thoughts?

[Lock n' Load]

It would look disgusting :D

Not saying i would not like to see it in model form though!

But if the 109 was once fitted with a radial engine and it could often be confused with a mustang.... ooooo what the hell...

But the BF-109X didn't look like your friendly neighbor 109, it was so heavily modified it looks like a cross breed between a Japanese and a Russian aircraft.

http://img244.echo.cx/img244/9337/bf109v21001swfoto9ge.jpg

http://img254.echo.cx/img254/2200/bf109v21002swfoto2wh.jpg

[Wege]

Isn't that what the P47 is? Similar RoC, similar speeds... etc

?

Edited September 5, 2010 by Wege

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

Well, similar in terms of manufacturer, some performance, etc, but certainly not in appearance.... :D

[SBARC]

This isn't a direct answer to your question Andrew, but.......

One P-51 Mustang hybrid that might look prety cool is a P-51 in Japanese markings with a Ki-61 nose. The Germans fitted 109 noses/engines to Spitfires so this would be a carry over on that real life example and probably a closer example of what would have been done in real life. I think it would look pretty sharp.....the Ki-61 has a great looking nose.

[Slartibartfast]

...(for all I know, maybe NA even investigated it themselves during the war)....

That's a big negatory, good buddy. I've never seen mention of such a concept in any of the 65 Mustang books in my library.

[Mark M.]

P-51s looked a bit like Curtiss Hawks to some pilots early on (in in-flight visual IDing). I'd take a look at the differences between the Hawks (inline and radial) for inspiration on how to blend the engine to the body, maybe.

On the other hand, the P-51 was all about streamlining and speed.... So you might have something ducted/streamlined more like a J2M3 or a Fw190 prototype...

Food for thought.

[Spruemeister]

With the liquid cooled inline gone, you'd have to address the streamlined radiator installation which you no longer need. Gut that out of a Mustang and you've killed the looks of the design. Further, any radial is going to be grossly wider than the trim, svelt slab sided fuselage and blending that mess is going to leave you with something that just isn't morally right. Dutch Kindelberger would have the right to return in your dreams and eat your brains, with the claim you weren't using them anyway. :lol:

Rick L.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Spruemeister

[Flankerman]

I'm sure I remember reading that, by the time you removed the radiators, ducting etc, the drag from a radial wasn't that much more than an in-line anyway....

It just looks it because the radial has a bigger frontal area, but the in-line is longer and has the radiators.

Just saying......

Ken

[MikeC]

A radial-engined Mustang? How could a civilized person suggest such a thing? I feel quite unwell!

[Slartibartfast]

If one can call a turbine a "radial engine". then I'll retract my statement and point to the Piper Enforcer.

If the Granville Brothers had doubled the length of the Gee Bee racers, they'd probably have been significantly faster AND more stable. Fineness ratio is your friend, even with big fat radial engines, Witness the success of the P-47.

[tourist]

I'd be curious to see what modelers can come up with for a "radial Mustang" design.

As mentioned above NAA didn't test radial engines on Mustangs but they did test a Griffon the result being the ugliest plane design I've ever seen (too vile to post here).

Red Baron it was NOT!

[SBARC]

I'd be curious to see what modelers can come up with for a "radial Mustang" design.

As mentioned above NAA didn't test radial engines on Mustangs but they did test a Griffon the result being the ugliest plane design I've ever seen (too vile to post here).Red Baron it was NOT!

Now that is funny......well said. :lol:

[ross blackford]

:D, My 2c worth. The CAC Ca-15 was originally designed to have a turbocharged P&W R2800 engine and one iteration of this design had the intercooler in in a bath duct similar to that of the Mustang's radiator and oil cooler duct. Although I don't mind the appearance of the Ca-15 in this guise with it's elliptical wings I much prefer the final Griffon engined version. This bird had a wingspan smaller than the Mustang and was a little longer so it looked really mean. It would more than likely have been the world's fastest piston engine fighter had the wartime delays and other events not gotten in its way. Even in radial engined form it would have been a quick, manouvrable high altitude interceptor and escort fighter.

:lol:,

Ross.

Edited September 7, 2010 by ross blackford

[Steve N]

I'm sure I remember reading that, by the time you removed the radiators, ducting etc, the drag from a radial wasn't that much more than an in-line anyway

I thought the drag of the Mustang's radiator was supposedly canceled out by the thrust from the hot air vent behind it.

SN

[ross blackford]

:D, Steve N I believe you're right there. I discussed this subject at Festival of Flight 2 years ago with the Caboolture Aviation Museum's chief engineer and also he's one of their Mustang's pilots and he told me that there is no net drag from the radiator because of the design of the bath and duct and in fact there's a net additional thrust due to those same design features and the radiator airflow control flap, which when closed as it is in flight helps to produce the thrust increase. Hence the Ca-15 had a similar set up with the RR Griffon engine and would have had with one of the radial designs (of which there were several proposals) as well.

,

Ross.

Edited September 7, 2010 by ross blackford

[Flying Pancake]

In the same vein of the topic, how about an F4U Corsair with an inline engine? Be it a Merlin or DB-601 (just to make it more perverse!).

Edit: I forgot to add you could look at the Kawasaki Ki-61 to Ki-100 conversion for a inline to radial conversion reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-61

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-100

Edited September 7, 2010 by Flying Pancake

[Mark M.]

Radials are definitely more draggy, and often heavier, but the tradeoff is reliablity and the fact that many of them have more horsepower than contemporary in-lines....

P-47 may be one example, but consider the R-2800 that powered it produced 2000 hp in 1939, when comparable in-line engines barely made 1000. Late in the war the R-2800 was pushing past 2800 horsepower on 115-octane fuel, where the mainstream in-line engines were 1300-1500 hp or so.

Overall, you need all that extra horsepower to compensate for the extra drag and weight (dry weight often 2x as much as inline engines).

[Slartibartfast]

As mentioned above NAA didn't test radial engines on Mustangs but they did test a Griffon the result being the ugliest plane design I've ever seen (too vile to post here).

I just want to point out to later readers that NAA did not do this, it was Commonwealth Aircraft as Ross mentioned. Yes, it was surprisingly ugly!

[EZhotshot511]

:D, My 2c worth. The CAC Ca-15 was originally designed to have a turbocharged P&W R2800 engine and one iteration of this design had the intercooler in in a bath duct similar to that of the Mustang's radiator and oil cooler duct. Although I don't mind the appearance of the Ca-15 in this guise with it's elliptical wings I much prefer the final Griffon engined version. This bird had a wingspan smaller than the Mustang and was a little longer so it looked really mean. It would more than likely have been the world's fastest piston engine fighter had the wartime delays and other events not gotten in its way. Even in radial engined form it would have been a quick, manouvrable high altitude interceptor and escort fighter.

,

Ross.

By looking at the prototype Ca-15 drawing and then the production version I thought it funny that the design kind of went from p-47 to p-51. Also if the griffon powered p-51 looked anything like the Ca-15 I know what you mean Toursit (dont mean to offend your opinions there Ross), How the aussies took arguably the most beautiful fighter of WWII (not in my opinion but its up there) and got the Ca-15 I will never know... On more of an on topic note to the original suggestion, I'm working on a 1/48 p-51d right now and just the other day I picked up the fuselage along with one of the Quickboost r-2800's for my A-26B and just kinda put them together...then, almost scared with what I had done, I put everything down and steped away from the bench for the day!

Edited September 7, 2010 by EZhotshot511

[tourist]

I just want to point out to later readers that NAA did not do this, it was Commonwealth Aircraft as Ross mentioned. Yes, it was surprisingly ugly!

My mistake, you are correct.

Thanks for pointing it out, I would hate to be the origin of a mistake that gets repeated.

:wacko:

[ross blackford]

By looking at the prototype Ca-15 drawing and then the production version I thought it funny that the design kind of went from p-47 to p-51. Also if the griffon powered p-51 looked anything like the Ca-15 I know what you mean Toursit (dont mean to offend your opinions there Ross), How the aussies took arguably the most beautiful fighter of WWII (not in my opinion but its up there) and got the Ca-15 I will never know... On more of an on topic note to the original suggestion, I'm working on a 1/48 p-51d right now and just the other day I picked up the fuselage along with one of the Quickboost r-2800's for my A-26B and just kinda put them together...then, almost scared with what I had done, I put everything down and steped away from the bench for the day!

EZhotshot511,

CAC didn't take anything from anything. The CA-15 was a completely home grown design which gradually morphed from one intitial design into another as events dictated and in the end only one was built. If you have a close look at the Ca-15 in all its different phases it (to my eyes at least) doesn't look like a P-47 or a P-51. It is its own self, just like the P-47 and P-51 are. I guess you could liken the similarities and differences to those of the late model Seafires and the Seafang. Having said that I'm chuffed that you think we imitated either of those great aircraft but unfortunately it isn't so. As slartibartfast pointed out NAA never attached a Griffon to any Mustang, nor for that matter did CAC in any of the Mustangs they licence built here in Australia. That's where we have to agree to differ though slartibartfast, I happen to think the Ca-15 in its final form was a good looking beast and its recorded performance backs that up. It had its faults like any other aircraft but it did have great performance for what it was.

Edited September 8, 2010 by ross blackford

[SBARC]

CA-15 "Kangaroo" photos

Definately not as pretty as the Spitfire and I prefer the smaller nose of the Mustang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CA-15.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CA-15_from_Lincoln.jpg

[Flankerman]

For a P-51 look-alike, check out the Martin Baker MB 5

It only looks a bit like the Mustang layout, there was no connection whatsoever.

Mark M.... Late in the war the R-2800 was pushing past 2800 horsepower on 115-octane fuel, where the mainstream in-line engines were 1300-1500 hp or so.

It was powered by a production Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 liquid-cooled V-12 engine, producing 2,340 hp (1,745 kW)

Late war Merlins were producing 2,000hp, Griffons 2,400hp.

Ken

[ross blackford]

:D, Hi SteveB,

Yes, the Mustang did have a finer smaller nose than the Ca-15 but then the Ca-15's nose had to accomodate a larger engine and did so without the late Griffon powered Spitfire and Seafangs raised cam cover bulges on the cowling. The Ca-15's fuselage was also somewhat deeper than either the Mustang's or Spitfire's. Even the MB5 has small cam cover bulges on its cowling. I agree that the Ca-15 has a larger nose than the Mustang but is it as large even as some of the closely cowled WW2 radials like the Fw-190 and La-5-7-9-11 series? The larger nose of the Ca-15 tranlates more smoothly IMHO into the fuselage than that of the Griffon powered Spits or the MB5. I guess this is pretty subjective stuff and opinions are going to differ. We'll probably never know what a radial engined Mustang would look like for real but we could see if someone builds a model of it. Imagine how ugly the Ca-15 would look with say a Bristol Centaurus or R-2800, even with its original elliptical wings.

,

Ross