Recent content by mad_max

Off the top of my head it was around 150 lbs., but give me some time to find that data in my stash on GD and HD's.

It wasn't an exact copy of the DB601 that was developed, but a lightened version that the Japanese had serious problems with crankshaft issues. But to answer your question, you already answered it. As GregP posted.

Yes I've seen those pilot reports and just like pilot stories told; they were what the pilot "remembers" at the time he was engaged in catching, shooting or getting shot down. Those stories even include using 75" of boost in the merlin and British pilot reports state they were using 80" of...

I'm relatively sure HP is PS in the figures your showing. 1750PS = 1726HP 1900PS = 1874HP. Yes I know not much difference and just wanting to be talking apples to apples, plus some on the forum might be new folks who wouldn't know the difference. As for all motors a boost increase will raise...

I've personally in the past 40 years had chats with many (over 30) fighter pilots in the armed forces and most never used WEP in combat. The few that did use it said it was in desperation of usually trying to catch a fleeing enemy or in a non-combat situation to see what that extra power was...

One instance that has been put in writing about what using Special Emergency Power might cause. "Czypionka admired both the Mosquito and its crews. "That airplane, it was so beautiful, it flew so well, I almost hated to have to try and shoot at it." In truth, the Nachtjagdgeschwader pilots had...

Not a dirty word, but a realistic word that means you are pushing the motor past the maximum power that it would normally operate and stay a functional engine. It's not a question of if, but when it will cause major problems that you won't like. So if you're in a life or death situation, then...

But that was still over-boosting the motor over the normal 100% power. At 100% power that mill would still produce the 1726 hp as it would before the kit to increase the boost pressure and even that was not used 100% of the time. That's like saying the Merlin using 100-150 octane which could...

Plus throwing everything not needing a wrench to seperate from the aircraft out the aircraft also. Guns, ammo, brass and anything else not needed to survive; if you need to bail out or float in the water.

Without MW-50 the 190D was around a 380 top speed fighter. To get close to that 426 mph top speed you'd have to push the teat as they say. Doing that most likely would be done only to evade, maybe catch up to a foe and not for dog fighting as your motor could go poof quicker than you think...

Is this enough proof for you? You can start thanking me for wasting my time to prove a point to someone; when if they were was so inclined to look for it they'd find such information. A search engine or just searching this forum would've supplied this for you mister not so hard headed...

Just do a search for photos using for search terms. "p-47 thunderbolt battle damage" and you'll see more than a "grain of truth". The one that shows the engine cowl all smashed in and the prop in basically one piece is awe inspiring. Others are just as impressive.

Which is basically what my post stated. Lockheed stayed with the turbo Allison in the P-38 as it could be fitted in that airframe, P-40 as the 2 stage Merlin couldn't be fitted to it and then the Allison came back in use with the P-82 when Packard quit building the Merlins.

Bottom line. When the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster and such needed them; the British did a marvelous job in production numbers. When the US needed a better performing motor than Packard could provide; the US did a marvelous job. End of story.

Nice find. Now to get my Belarusian wife to translate it for me. ;)