Shooter measurements are famous for being optimistic, IIRC a P51D was 8'8" from firewall to prop and as they actually moved the cockpit forward on the H, I doubt it is 10 feet

Actually it is 7' 3.5" in the D, but the firewall down low can be opened up to the leading edge of the wing box to well over 10'! Secondly, the H was much longer than the D and the cowl line was raised to give the pilot a better view over the nose. Again leaving well over 10 feet from the back face of the prop disk to the rear most position of a possible breach mount. Pictures if you like.

yes do provide evidence as all other sources are a good 3-4 foot shorter than you claim

 

as the US didnt have electrical priming or for that matter a working 30mm (or 20mm unless they adopted the RAF changes) the rest is a trip to la la land

Given the general nature of the first post to which my reply was made, it made sense to include German guns and ammo to.

but thats la la land and completely pointless to discuss history with such conditions - you are in the realms of fiction and this is not a fiction forum (other than your posts)
 

the fact they dropped the 2x.5 from the P51 might give an indication of the space available

Not at all. It was done for maintenance reasons!

rubbish, it was done for space and usefullness problems, look at the P40 that lost its .5s when they fitted merlins but then when they returned to ailisons what do you know they didnt replace the .5s why was that?  answer that

 

AND to make more room for the inlet to the down draught carb in the Merlin

The merlin was an updraft fed engine - note themovement of the intake on the P40 and P51 with each engine

 

and the built in sand filters that did not bugger up the nose like those on the Spitfire!

oh up to your usual standard I see, compair a P51 with an earlier Spit not the later sand filter that used the same filter as the P51 (the RAE passed this to NA with a lot of the data it had on the Spit) - again either dishonest or you cannot follow timeline

The carburettor nose air intake, piping and attachments; Remains in place, unaltered.

The carburettor itself; See above.

The engine intercooler; See above.

Engine coolant piping (at least 14 ft of it); Part of this is true, but not nearly as much as you think and it is a flexible hose and the valve at the nose end can be moved to another location as it is also connected to a "L" shaped ridged pipe which could be rotated about the end attached to the block 75 degrees or so, so that the length of the hose on the left side of the engine between the bearers and the crankcase/block that runs most of the length of the block/crank case can be straightened from diagonal to horizontal and raised several inches to allow plenty of room for a pair of Hissos, or a whopping big 30 MM revolver gun like the Oerilikon KCA! ( IIRC!) Note that there is no hose on the other side of the engine to preclude mounting a pair of 20s, or a big 30 on the right side at all. ( As a thought, a pair of DEFFA 791s would also fit in that space!)

Engine magneto; Unaltered.

Hand start crank point I am ignorant of it's location, but know for a fact that there is much more clearance than required along the side of the lower crank case. Since the typical location of such devices IF present is at the rear of the engine, I do not see this as a problem. ( Also, if you would be so kind as to show me the location of same, I would like it very much.)

Four engine mount points. Unaltered!

The coolant header tank may need moving/reshaping, as would the main oil tank. You'd also have to shift some of the anti-vibration mounts. ALL unaltered! Except possibly below the engine to allow the ammo feeds to go back into the fuse/wing. but there is an awful lot of room in that space too.

Its not exactly empty space down there. Well, yes it is mostly empty space down there along the sides of the engine between the bock/crank case and cowl!This is like when Shooter claimed that you could fit MG151/15s into the nose of the Bf-109G. 

Shooter, I'm not debating you (its pointless, as you are incable of listening or learning), just providing the occassional rebuttal to some of your easier to disprove howlers.

The way you measure is about the way you understand engines, which is not at all.

 

You can't move calculated cooling paths or pipe-ways, willy nilly, you incompetent. There is a reason those runs were plumbed the specific way they were in the P-51. Even a genius such as Kelly Johnson, when he miscalculated the inter-cooler run on the P-38 turbocharger circuit had to accept PHYSICS.   

 

Actually, the us had copied the Mauser MG-151, working from captured examples. These eventually became the defensive guns in the B-36 and most other post war American AC. But they were made during the war and it is not a fantasy.
  That is a valid question. The answer is that wing guns are very much easier and lest costly to do.
   

It's not "willy-nilly" it is carefully thought out. The original installation was made the way it was to ease maintenance, thus the hose is both longer than it needs to be and not as straight as it could be. My modification helps both conditions at the expense of easy repairs should the hose break or leak and the plane still be able to RTB!

This is so stupid that it defies belief. The man is insane.

 

This FOOL thinks that he is Edgar Schmued?

 

You would destroy a cooling circuit and disrupt Meredith effect?

 

OBNW, if you will refer to the book, "The First Team"? 

 

American naval fighters' guns WERE electrically primed. They were pneumatically charged, but the firing circuits to the Brownings were electrical.  

 

as the US didnt have electrical priming or for that matter a working 30mm (or 20mm unless they adopted the RAF changes) the rest is a trip to la la land
Actually, the us had copied the Mauser MG-151, working from captured examples. These eventually became the defensive guns in the B-36 and most other post war American AC. But they were made during the war and it is not a fantasy.
 

Given the general nature of the first post to which my reply was made, it made sense to include German guns and ammo to.


but thats la la land and completely pointless to discuss history with such conditions - you are in the realms of fiction and this is not a fiction forum (other than your posts)

See above.    yes do see above if you can see from the planet you are on
  

rubbish, it was done for space Not at all! 
wow what a comeback of course it was space related
and usefullness problems, look at the P40 that lost its .5s when they fitted merlins but then when they returned to ailisons what do you know they didnt replace the .5s why was that?  answer that

That is a valid question. The answer is that wing guns are very much easier and lest costly to do.
   

AND to make more room for the inlet to the down draught carb in the Merlin No change is required, regardless of which of you made this statement.

The merlin was an updraft fed engine - note themovement of the intake on the P40 and P51 with each engine

The space under the crank case is not under consideration for this project! It is the space between the side of the crank case and the cowling, mostly below the engine bearers.

 

you mean where the nose slopes upwards you mean to block that area to shroud your guns? so not only increasing frontal area but making a right mess on airflow around a critical area (look what happens when they fitted the voulkes airfilter to the Spit, yet you want to do the same but worse! madness 

 

American naval fighters' guns WERE electrically primed. They were pneumatically charged, but the firing circuits to the Brownings were electrical.  

 

no .5cal browning used electrical priming(ignition), it may have used electrical circuit to activate the trigger but it was a percussion cartridge not an electrical one that fired the round IIRC only the Germans had electrical primers

 

Electric ignition is achieved by passing an electric current from the gun through a special  primer which is heated to ignition point virtually instantaneously.  It was  first used in automatic weapons in Germany to facilitate the synchronisation of  aircraft guns designed to fire through the propeller disc of a single-engined  fighter.  Previously, this had involved a complex mechanical or  electromechanical linkage between the propeller and the gun firing mechanism to  ensure that the gun fired only between the propeller blades.  It was obviously  simpler to design a direct electrical link between the propeller and the  cartridge.  Ironically, it came into service in World War 2 just before the need  for it disappeared because of the advent of jet engines.

 

 

is an excellent source (but if you go to the forums don't mention Shooter who has been banned multiple times)

The triggers were solenoids, but as the Browning is a RECOIL operated percussion fired machine gun, then the British must have used THAT principle in the Browning .303 (as they did.)

 

Observe HOW it worked. 

 

No different from the American 12.7mm

 

The Hispano, being gas-operated did require electric priming.