Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

In article ,
"Daryl Hunt" wrote:


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

Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior
performance to the P-51.

The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B
was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362.

Even the last iteration of the P-40, the XP-40Q, finally made 422 at
20,500. By then, the P-51H would make 487 at 25,000; cruise 380.

the P-60 series fared no better. Curtiss simply produced inferior
products. Just look at their version of first-generation jets. It is no
wonder that they got out of the plane-building business.

Daryl Hunt wrote:

-snip-

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


Dunno. The Merlin equipped P-40F was only about 10 mph faster than the
earlier Allison-fitted P-40E - although obviously better at altitute.

But it still was more than 50 mph short of the P-51B/C's top speed.

I doubt a "super-Allison" would have produced markedly superior results
or placed the P-40 in the P-51's performance class.

The P-40 was, after all, basically an up-engined Hawk 75 (P-36), a 1934
design and a full generation earlier than the P-51 airframe design.


Cheers

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
"Daryl Hunt" wrote:

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

Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior
performance to the P-51.

The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B
was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362.

The P-40Ns were equipped with an Allison V-1710. The "F" and "L" models
were the Merlin equipped aircraft.

Cheers,

On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ wrote:

Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.

Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2535


Budd RB-1 Conestoga - twin engine ramp loading stainless steel
aircraft. A hulk exists at Pima. I saw one at Mines Field (LAX) as a
kid.

With a face only a mother could love, and even then it'd be a
challenge. Never knew about this bird before, so thanks for mentioning
it.

Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion.

Now this little monstrosity I *have* seen. What a mess. They have a
version mostly restored in the R&D hangars down in Dayton. Not worth a
trip in itself, but it does share hangar space with the XB-70, so it
is worth a glance in passing. A fine example of how sometimes the
whole is less than the sum of its parts.

-Steven

On Oct 5, 12:30 am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article , "rob"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote ...

The RAF didn't really have confidence in it with the Allison. In
particular its
high level performance was poor so it wasn't a good fighter choice. IIRC
the RAF
used the Allsion engined version for ground attack a bit where the
failings
weren't so obvious.

Used as a dive bomber no less, A-36 Invader I believe was its name

Nope -- it was "Apache."

It was indeed the Apache. The NMUSAF says on the first line of their
write-up that it was informally known as the "Invader" though. You say
Viper, I say Fighting Falcon, I guess.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=493

And on my prior post about the P-75, it is *not* in fact in the R&D
hangars right now. It's actually in the restoration hangars, which can
be viewed on their behind-the-scenes tour that Ann and I did back in
March. My mistake.

-Steven

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
s.com...
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement
policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed
to start with as a result of British agency.

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

Could you list the modifications that Packard did to make it a *non-Merlin*?

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang"

Because it used a Merlin engine. QED.

No, it used ---

while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger

*turbo-charger*?


to produce
more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major
engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production
engineering and processes.

For example..........??



The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand-
built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater
quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and
reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the
engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes.

Well that is sufficiently vague.......!

"The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote in
message ...


No, they were mass-produced at several factories in Britain, notably
Trafford Park in Manchester and Hillingdon outside Glasgow as well as
the original Rolls-Royce production lines at Derby and Crewe. The
Derby works spent considerable time on R&D which involved disturbing
volume production, but this was not true of the other sites.

And Ford of England.



Packard certainly made modifications to the engine to account for the
use of US anciliary equipment such as coolant pipe clips and pump
drives - well, at least after delivery of the first batch of them to
Britain without that equipment.

Also carberetors and IIRC magnetos, and US standard nuts and bolts.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"rob" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote
Essential
Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
aircraft.

For a short while, they probably wouldn't have missed it had it not been
designed.


I have to disagree. The Wellington was the best bomber available until
the Lancaster and Halifax came along, the fact that over 11,000 were
produced speaks for itself.

Not to mention its long service life.



Keith

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang"

Because it used a Merlin engine. QED.

No, it used ---

while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major
engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production
engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand-
built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater
quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and
reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the
engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes.

But it was still essentially a MERLIN.

If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Graham