P 51 with a jet engine

[Johnbr]

Does anybody have more info on it.

 

[circle-5]

Here's a display model from the North American factory model shop in Los Angeles, ca. mid-1940s. Flush NACA intakes were used for both the jet engine and the heat exchanger (instead of the bottom scoop).

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's a display model from the North American factory model shop in Los Angeles, ca. mid-1940s. Flush NACA intakes were used for both the jet engine and the heat exchanger (instead of the bottom scoop).

Do you have a larger image? -SP

 

[circle-5]

Here's a display model from the North American factory model shop in Los Angeles, ca. mid-1940s. Flush NACA intakes were used for both the jet engine and the heat exchanger (instead of the bottom scoop).

Do you have a larger image? -SP

Steve, I will gladly send this to you via PM.

 

[GTX]

See here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2397.0

Regards,

Greg

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's a display model from the North American factory model shop in Los Angeles, ca. mid-1940s. Flush NACA intakes were used for both the jet engine and the heat exchanger (instead of the bottom scoop).

Do you have a larger image? -SP

Steve, I will gladly send this to you via PM.

Please do at stevepace43@gmail.com. Thanks so much!

 

[Stargazer]

Another pic:

 

[Steve Pace]

From what I can surmise from NAA's C&P documents, the FSW jet-powered Mustang might have been proposed as NA-129, NA-131 or NA-136. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

Another pic:

With serial number 44-73623 it falls into the NA-122 P-51D category. In fact, that serial number was assigned to a NA-122 P-51D airplane. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

Anyone have a high res of this image? -SP

 

[Stargazer]

This is the best I have:

 

[Steve Pace]

This is the best I have:

Thanks but it's not the same image in question. -SP

 

[Johnbr]

To bad there is not a cutaway of it.

 

[taildragger]

I suspect that this belongs in the "what-if" forum. A few things make me suspicious:
- it doesn't look like a 60-year-old model or a 60-year-old photo.
- The forward-swept wing of this design suggests the influence of late-1945 German data, yet in 1944 the FJ-1/P-86 was in the works with a new fuselage mated to a P-51-derived wing and tail. When swept wings came into style, why would NAA even think about stepping backwards to a P-51-inspired fuselage rather than pasting them onto a fuselage derived from the FJ-1/P-86, the eventual route to the F-86? I could imagine NAA doodling around with this approach, but the pretty model and stand suggest a serious proposal to the AAF, which seems unlikely.
- The fuselage looks sort of P-51ish, but couldn't have had significant commonality with the Mustang, either aerodynamically or in manufacture. The cosmetic similarity to the P-51 suggests artistry rather than engineering.
- The fuselage seems too slender to accommodate any jet engine available to American engineers in 1945/46. Yakovlev fit Jumo-derived jets into (or under) a Yak-9 fuselage, but those were axial flow engines with a slimmer cross-section than the centrifugal flow engines used in the West during that period. This objection would be withdrawn if the jet turned out to be a turbocharger - the exhaust nozzle visible on the model seems atypical of jet engine installations of the period and more suited to the Variable Discharge Turbine as planned for the B-54.
- The wing trailing edge surfaces, on the drawing and model, are normal to the trailing edge, not aligned with the wing chord. This doesn't seem like a good arrangement and I question whether NAA's Drafting Dept. or model shop would depict it.

 

[Zizi6785]

- The fuselage seems too slender to accommodate any jet engine available to American engineers in 1945/46. Yakovlev fit Jumo-derived jets into (or under) a Yak-9 fuselage, but those were axial flow engines with a slimmer cross-section than the centrifugal flow engines used in the West during that period. This objection would be withdrawn if the jet turned out to be a turbocharger - the nozzle visible on the model seems atypical of jet engine installations of the period.

I think this was not problem with the early Westinghouse jet engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_FH_Phantom

 

[gral_rj]

- The fuselage seems too slender to accommodate any jet engine available to American engineers in 1945/46. Yakovlev fit Jumo-derived jets into (or under) a Yak-9 fuselage, but those were axial flow engines with a slimmer cross-section than the centrifugal flow engines used in the West during that period. This objection would be withdrawn if the jet turned out to be a turbocharger - the nozzle visible on the model seems atypical of jet engine installations of the period.

I think this was not problem with the early Westinghouse jet engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_FH_Phantom

It wasn't. Westinghouse jet engines(J-30, -34, and the ill-fated J-40 & -46) had axial compressors. So did the GE J-35(actually, I can't remember right now a non-British or non-British engine-derived jet that had a centrifugal compressor). I think a P-51 with a jet engine would have the same J-30 engine the Ryan FR-1 Fireball and the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom had.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

The P-51 with a jet engine was called the FJ-1 Fury.

 

[Steve Pace]

The P-51 with a jet engine was called the FJ-1 Fury.

I disagree. NA-140, the XP-86, was a swept-wing version of the USN XFJ-1 (NA-134) for the USAF. It was in no way similar to a Mustang. -SP

 

[Antonio]

According to the books I've read NA-140 was originally straight-wing but later evolved to swept-wing configuration.

 

[Steve Pace]

According to the books I've read NA-140 was originally straight-wing but later evolved to swept-wing configuration.

That's correct. The USN chose to keep straight wings while the USAF elected to change to swept wings. This document might help. -SP

 

[taildragger]

- The fuselage seems too slender to accommodate any jet engine available to American engineers in 1945/46. Yakovlev fit Jumo-derived jets into (or under) a Yak-9 fuselage, but those were axial flow engines with a slimmer cross-section than the centrifugal flow engines used in the West during that period. This objection would be withdrawn if the jet turned out to be a turbocharger - the nozzle visible on the model seems atypical of jet engine installations of the period.

I think this was not problem with the early Westinghouse jet engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_FH_Phantom

Okay, I hadn't considered the early American axial flow jets, but the fuselage of the model and drawings is very slender in the area where an engine bay would have to be located - the FH-1 wingroot and FR-1 fuselages appear to offer much more volume. Maybe a smaller engine (or a turbocharger) was planned, but I still question whether an engine in the class of those powering the FH-1 would fit.

 

[SA315B]

Here's a display model from the North American factory model shop in Los Angeles, ca. mid-1940s. Flush NACA intakes were used for both the jet engine and the heat exchanger (instead of the bottom scoop).

If this is a jet engine why does it have exhaust stacks?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Because it has *two* engines...a piston engine in the nose, a jet in the fuselage.

 

[kitnut617]

This photo of what is a wind tunnel model of the straight winged XP-86 (top pic) would suggest it was not related to the XFJ-1 but more like what is in the bottom photo.

The wing of this is from a P-51H as it is built all in one like a P-51 wing and carries through under the fuselage. The FJ-1 wings were separate and attached to the fuselage much like British manufacturing practice of the time. Also to access the engine the whole rear fuselage is pulled away, access/removal to the FJ-1 engine was through a hatch in the top of the fuselage.

 

[sienar]

There is a whole series of photos on the sdas archives of the same model, but listed as the FJ-1 although the photo says 140 in the corner. A shame none of them are high enough resolution to read the left block of text.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4561362345/in/photostream/

There is also this naca document that I've posted before elsewhere which may very well be for this early fury. The 3-view looks similar and NAA later tried out the submerged duct in pretty much the same location on the YF-93.

hdl.handle.net/2060/20050061115

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

There is a whole series of photos on the sdas archives of the same model, but listed as the FJ-1 although the photo says 140 in the corner. A shame none of them are high enough resolution to read the left block of text.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4561362345/in/photostream/

There is also this naca document that I've posted before elsewhere which may very well be for this early fury. The 3-view looks similar and NAA later tried out the submerged duct in pretty much the same location on the YF-93.

hdl.handle.net/2060/20050061115

That looks more like the XP-86 than the "tubby" FJ-1 proposed.

 

[sienar]

Yes it does, but note the wing folding indicated on the NACA 3-view

Although its far from certain that it represents a real design, let alone something related to the fury/86, but it looks very close to the model.

 

[Justo Miranda]

This photo of what is a wind tunnel model of the straight winged XP-86 (top pic) would suggest it was not related to the XFJ-1 but more like what is in the bottom photo.

The wing of this is from a P-51H as it is built all in one like a P-51 wing and carries through under the fuselage. The FJ-1 wings were separate and attached to the fuselage much like British manufacturing practice of the time. Also to access the engine the whole rear fuselage is pulled away, access/removal to the FJ-1 engine was through a hatch in the top of the fuselage.

Hi