Mustang: F-51, A-36, F-82, Cavalier, and Piper PA-48 Enforcer

[Joe C-P]

Did it retain at least some of the wing mgs? I wouldn't want to have only two shots, even 105mm shells.

That makes me think - how would it look with Sidewinders instead of RRs? 

In any case, a great modeling idea!

JoeP

[SSgt Baloo]

I suppose it's for ground attack then? Didn't they try mounting a bunch of missiles on mustangs at some point?



ISTR during the Vietnam War that a proposal to rebuild retired F-51 mustangs with racks of air-to-air missiles and a turboprop engine to provide point defence of stationary assets. It was not acted upon but I've just spent 20 minutes looking for any hint of that project so I could find a link. Has anyone done a WhIf like that?

ETA: No luck with that search, in case you're still looking for the link. Sorry! 

[Just call me Ray]

You're looking for the Piper PA-48 Enforcer, which was picked up by Piper from Cavalier, I believe, and in the end would've used new-build airframes instead of conversions.

[dy031101]

Has anyone asked how it might have looked to have anti-armour cannons used by Ju-87G and Hurricane Mk IID or Mk IV employed by other single-engine fighters (of course including P-51)?

[elmayerle]

Wasn't the Vickers "S" gun installation, as on the Hurricane IID, trialed on a Mustang I?  I seem to remember seeing pictures of same in the old "Camoflage and Markings" booklet on the Mustang in British service.  I know I've seen pictures of a trial of a Mustang I with four RP's on rails under each wing.

[sequoiaranger]

You may have seen it on other threads (or my Gallery), but here's my Super-Mustang whif made from a 1/65 Snap-Tite (slightly oversize wings for a 1/72), opposite fuselage pairs from a Twin Mustang (with the elongated fuselage), and some other parts (most notably Scorpion rocket pods on the wingtips). Supposedly a Packard- Merlin-ized 16 cylinder engine.

[MAD]

I think the USN's preference for air-cooled engines is simply that lack of a liquid-cooling systems means one fewer system to develop problems while doing long over-water flights.  Though the other factors mentioned likely have some influence, too.

I also read somewhere (I think it was something to do with the Bell XFL-1 Airabonita - Thankfully for all, the Vought F4U Corsair won the comp!!) that the U.S Navy did not like the idea of volatility and high fire risk that the glycol coolant, used for the liquid-cooled engine-powered aircraft designs – especially in the quantity that it would have had to have been stored on its aircraft carrier!
Hence the reason that almost all U.S carrier-based aircraft had radial engines.

M.A.D

[sequoiaranger]

>I also read somewhere that the U.S Navy did not like the idea of volatility and high fire risk that the glycol coolant, used for the liquid-cooled engine-powered aircraft designs – especially in the quantity that it would have had to have been stored on its aircraft carrier! Hence the reason that almost all U.S carrier-based aircraft had radial engines.<

Glycol storage was probably the LEAST reason not to have inline engines on board carriers. Glycol is certainly less flammable than avgas or other POL's, I can assure you, and carriers had a LOT of those.  The British and Japanese had in-lines aboard their carriers, so it couldn't be so massively dangerous as to preclude use.

Radial (EDIT: oops--said "inline" earlier) engines were simpler to maintain and could sustain battle damage more easily and still function. The American Allison inline engines at the time were inferior to the radial Pratt-and-Whitneys and Wright engines available, and weighed more. Simple choice, really.

[Mossie]

Glycol isn't particularly flammable, definately much less so than aircraft fuel.  The main problem with Glycol was that if the coolant system took a hit & it leaked onto hot the engine it would fume heavilly, drastically reducing visibility, especially in a single engined aircraft.  This could create a bail-out condition even if the engine was still functioning.

On board a Carrier, you'd be much more worried about fuel & ordanance, although ship crews are naturally nervous of taking on board any more combustible materials than necessary.  Although unlikely to be the cause of a fire, it will burn if the conditions are hot enough so you don't want it around highly flammamble materials, epsecially on board ship.

[sequoiaranger]

Here's a real-world whif--a ramjet-boosted P-51.

[PanzerWulff]

Now what if the Mustang wasn't powered by the Merlin or Allison but rather by a radial engine instead - we might have seen these:







Regards,

Greg

The first 2 sort of have a Cosairish look to them dont they???

[dy031101]

I was under the impression that the FJ-1 Fury was like the US counterpart to Supermarine Attacker in that it used inherited the design of P-51's wings, tail portion, and canopy (like the Attack used the wings of the Spiteful)?

Therefore wasn't FJ-1 a Jet Mustang in a sense?

[famvburg]

     I don't think so, it just bears a family resemblance. To me, it looks as similar to a T-28.

I was under the impression that the FJ-1 Fury was like the US counterpart to Supermarine Attacker in that it used inherited the design of P-51's wings, tail portion, and canopy (like the Attack used the wings of the Spiteful)?

Therefore wasn't FJ-1 a Jet Mustang in a sense?

[famvburg]

    I don't remember where I got this, but it's supposed to be a real proposal for a Reno air racer by John Crocker, IIRC.

[GTX]

    I don't remember where I got this, but it's supposed to be a real proposal for a Reno air racer by John Crocker, IIRC.

Looks very similar to the real world radial P-51 derivatives I posted a few pages back.

Regards,

Greg