"The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:34:25 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:

Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent
Turbos and Supers on the Allisons.

The turbo required a large amount of plumbing that was accomodated in
the tail booms of the P-38 and the enormous fuselage of the P-47.
There wasn't room for it in the P-39 or P-40.

Improving the supercharger efficiency of the Allison would have been
the feasable alternative, as the better supercharger largely explained
the contemporary single-stage Merlin's advantage over the Allison.
Having said that, Allison didn't manage to do what Hooker did with the
Merlin 20/45 series Merlins despite the need to do so; the closest
they seem to have come was adapting the supercharger gearing on the
V-1710-E4 used in the P-39 to raise the full-throttle height by a
couple of thousand feet, which was too little too late.

The Military wouldn't pay for them to do it. Like the P-38 getting
re-engined with the Packard motor. They would have had to shut down for 2
weeks to a month on production. The Military wouldn't hear of it. They
felt the need for the existing version more than the slight delay of
production for a much better AC. The US could have had a Fighter with 2000
mile range and speeds aproaching 500 mph as early as late 1941 since Packard
got the nod to begin production on the Merlin in 1940. And that may have
hurt the go ahead on building the P-51. One of the big reasons for building
the P-51 was the cost of even the bone stock P-38 and P-47 were much higher.
Smaller means cheaper, not necessarily better. Those two did most of the
heavy lifting until the P-51D was introduced as fighters. And they did most
of the heavy lifting when you needed to send in a Fighter/Bomber. The 51
was extremely fragile near the ground with ground fire but a very good
Bomber escort. Just remember, in the North African and Italian Front, it
was the P-38 that completely dominated the skies. JU-88s were not something
anything with short range ordinance wanted to tangle with as a fighter but
you dance with the one that brung ya.



What would that have done for even the
P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have
had
equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had
near
identical performance and speed.

The P-40 was marginally slower than the Spitfire with a similar
engine, and relative aerodynamic efficiency (largely down to wing
thickness) and weight meant that the Spitfire outperformed it above
full-throttle height.

Except, the P-40 manufacturing line was unimcombered the the Spit had some
real problems when it came to air attacks, shortage of material, etc. This
is why the Mesquito was even considered being made of wood. The P-40, even
with it's enimic engine and old style design still made a very good showing
against the Zero and the ME109 over and over again. From 1940 to sometime
in 1942, the P-40 was the most plentiful Fighter outside of Germany. I
believe it was being used by 19 Countries including the Soviet Union.



The P-39 and P-40 were the most obsolete
airframes in the US single-engined fighter inventory by 1942, when
two-stage Merlin production was being mooted for Packard and the P-38
was in production with the P-47 to follow shortly. It made more sense
to put the engine with the best potential in the fighter with the best
potential. Out of the three options of the P-39, P-40 and P-51 the
Mustang was clearly the best airframe.

Cost was the factor. And why the 51 was still in production for a short
time after WWII. It cost less to build than the P-38 or the P-47, not that
it was a better overall AC.



Improving the altitude performance of the Allison in 1941 - in time to
be relevant for 1942 - would have been more useful if you wanted a
better P-39 or P-40. But even then the available engines (the Packard
Merlin 20 series in the P-40F and L) still couldn't overcome the
constraints upon high altitude performance which made the P-40
inferior to the Spitfire at altitude, so unless Allison could out-do
the Merlin 20 series without turbocharging there wasn't much prospect
of them achieving anything better.

The spit didn't have and couldn't have the production numbers needed.


Now imagine instead if the US had agreed to begin production of the
Spitfire in 1940 when the British originally raised the issue....

Gavin Bailey

In 1940, the Spit was "Equal" to the ME109 while the P-38 was superior.
Then the P-47 entered as well as the P-51D later. Remember, the P-51A was
largely used as a camera ship and flew unarmed. The P-51A was largely equal
to the spit and the ME109. Something better had to be developed. And the
P-38E and the P-47 were both superior for the time to both the Spit and the
ME109. The Spit had a severe problem with range as did the 109. The reason
the Spit is considered the winner in the Battle Britain had nothing to do
with the Aircraft. It was the fact it was fought over Britain and if an
English Pilot were to suvive being shot down, he might be flying another
mission in a different Spit or Hurricane later that afternoon. Meanwhile,
the German Pilot is captured and his war is over. Funny thing, there were
more German AC shot down during the Battle of Britain by the Hurricanes than
the Spits.

The Spit grew into a class Fighter but still had such a short range, they
had problems operating much further than just the Coastal Regions much like
the German 109 and 190. After D-Day, the Spits had Air Fields in France to
operate from. The P-47, P-40, P-38 and P-51 gained total fighter
superiority outside the coastal regions in France, Germany, North Africa and
Italy.