1943: USAAF's ideal fighter?

tomo pauk said:

Okay, since the 1st fighters would be produced in January 1943, what type of engine is the best bet?

Click to expand...

For the US?

the Same 3 choices (actually 2) that were used historically. The R-2800, either 2 stage or turboed, The two stage Packard Merlin (sort of, 5 made in the fall of 1942 but Jan and Feb saw no deliveries, deliveries for March through Aug were 3,1,16,54,184 and 371. The Turbo Allison.

Help wanted ad in the Detroit Free Press?

Chrysler had zero experience building medium tanks yet they managed to construct what was arguably the finest tank plant in the world. Ford Motor Company (or GM, Hudson Motor Company, Nash Motors, etc.) will manage also using good old fashioned American ingenuity.

Ford was approached first in 1940 to build the Merlin, but Henry Ford would produce them only for defense of the USA, not for a Britain at war. So RR went to Packard.

Henry would have the same rules for building Griffons in 1940.

Spare me the patriotic flag waving.

Ford could advertise all they wanted, the expertise didn't exist.

Chrysler, Ford, Studebaker and other american companies were experts in MASS production, which is a different area of expertise. Give them the planes for what you want to make and tell them how many units a month you want to make and they could design and construct a factory to meet those goals and do it very well.

But that is not research and development of the product itself and high powered aircraft engines were about as cutting edge as you were going to get at the time.

Remember the Discussion about Stanley Hooker? He realized the formulas in the test books on supercharger design were wrong. Anybody using the text books up until 1939-40 (or later) was using the wrong formulas.

Remember GE of turbo charger fame? they had been supplying Wright, P&W, Packard and a few car makers with supercharger designs and parts up until about 1937-38. NO US engine maker had a supercharger design staff until then. And GE superchargers weren't very good. Hiring ex GE engineers might actually set you back.
Both Wright and P&W started designing their own superchargers in that 1937-39 period. Depending on source the R-2600 used either the first or second Wright designed supercharger. Maybe you could hire the Wright supercharger team? Except their superchargers were maxing out at 12,000-14,000ft in 1940. Allison had also given up on GE and designed their own superchargers. Given the results they got in 1940-41-42 hiring that team isn't going to get you much of anything special. Rather leaves you with the P&W team. It took them until well into 1942 to get their 2 stage system working right so hiring them might get your Forffon up to snuff but leave the F4U and F6F and P-61 a bit short.
The only other supercharger design people are working on diesels, mine machinery, tunnel ventilation, bast furnaces and such. Not much high pressure stuff.

The problem is designing a supercharger that can compress the intake air 3-6 times it's original pressure/density, do it without taking too much power from the engine and also without heating the intake charge too much or designing an intercooler to lower the intake temperature. A race car that uses 15lbs of boost at sea level isn't even a good starting point because that is only a 2 to 1 pressure ratio and the aircraft guys had passed that milestone in the mid 30s.

American ingenuity was no more likely to create supercharger experts out of thin air than American ingenuity could create 10,000 tons of steel alloy out of thin air or a few thousand machine tools out of thin air. In fact less likely because American ingenuity could search scrap yards or surplus dealers for out of spec steel or old but usable machine tools. With no real demand for superchargers in the 20 years before the war (aside from what was already listed) there are no out of work supercharger engineers and it was a really poor choice of career for a collage graduate.

tyrodtom said:

Ford was approached first in 1940 to build the Merlin, but Henry Ford would produce them only for defense of the USA, not for a Britain at war. So RR went to Packard.

Henry would have the same rules for building Griffons in 1940.

Click to expand...

That rule kinda defeated the purpose of Rolls-Royce going to the US for engine supply - namely to provide extra engines for UK production requirements.

davebender said:

Point of Departure. 1940.
Ford Motor Company receives U.S.A.A.C. contract to pursue development of the RR Griffon prototype.

1943.
The Griffon engine has two years of Rolls-Royce development plus three years of Ford Motor Company development. Since Ford did most of the R&D the resulting engine is a Ford Griffon Mk I and very different from any of the historical British versions. Might even have a turbocharger ILO a supercharger since the USAAC preferred turbochargers.

Click to expand...

Why would Rolls-Royce release designs of the Griffon to Ford in 1940?

In 1940 the only aircraft that had any plan to use the Griffon were Fleet Air Arm aircraft (can't recall which, but it was at their behest that the Griffon design was started) and the Supermarine Spitfire (for which Rolls-Royce redesigned the Griffon through 1940 - when development wasn't suspended during the BoB).

Why would Rolls-Royce surrender a design that was for future British aircraft to a company that had no intention of supplying the British with engines?

FWIW, if Rolls-Royce handed the Griffon design over to Ford USA I doubt you would have seen a Spitfire XII in late 1942/early 1943, nor prototype XIVs (coonverted VIIIs) in early 1943 or production XIVs in late 1943. I would suggest that the P-51 would still be using the V-1710 or Merlin (I assume the Packard deal still goes through).

wuzak said:

FWIW, if Rolls-Royce handed the Griffon design over to Ford USA I doubt you would have seen a Spitfire XII in late 1942/early 1943, nor prototype XIVs (coonverted VIIIs) in early 1943 or production XIVs in late 1943. I would suggest that the P-51 would still be using the V-1710 or Merlin (I assume the Packard deal still goes through).

Click to expand...

I would agree with you, Ford had exhibited little in the way of developing any kind of engine although their ability to manufacture simple designs was second to none. Lycoming and Continental got development contracts from the US Army during the 30s becaseu they were engine makers, not just aircraft engines but a wide variety of engines for smaller car makers, small truck makers, industrial use, buses and maybe even Marine. Lycoming had made engines for Auburn and Cord cars and perhaps even parts for Duesenberg. Continental had about 21 different 4 and 6 cylinder water cooled engines on offer in the late 1930s in addition to the aircraft engines. Biggest was a 501 cu in (8.2 liter) straight six. They had the foundries and the machinery to make prototype engines. Most of these engines were low output and rather heavy but the "design staff" had a fair amount of experience. Fords "newest" engine was the flat head V-8 that dated to 1932 with some updates unless you count the Lincoln V-12s but the newest of them was from 1936.

The Lincoln V-12 was a disaster, Ford wasn't noted for advance designs in the late 30's. Held on to the flatheads longer than any major American builder, last to go to hydraulic brakes, etc.

I like the P38/Griffon idea. On a similar note, though not US, how about a pair of Merlins on a Whirlwind? Probably need a major redesign, though, too much weight forward.

R Pope said:

I like the P38/Griffon idea. On a similar note, though not US, how about a pair of Merlins on a Whirlwind? Probably need a major redesign, though, too much weight forward.

Click to expand...

Me too

Shortround6 said:

Lycoming had made engines for Auburn and Cord cars and perhaps even parts for Duesenberg.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia states that the Duesenberg model J engine was designed by Duesenberg but was built by Lycoming.

Hold the phone. I had a friend in high school who had a 1940 ( I think) Lincoln coupe with a V12 and it was my impression it was a sweet running engine. Did not seem like a disaster to me.

renrich said:

Hold the phone. I had a friend in high school who had a 1940 ( I think) Lincoln coupe with a V12 and it was my impression it was a sweet running engine. Did not seem like a disaster to me.

Click to expand...

The first 4 years the engine was built,36-40, a lot of problems with warped head ( aluminum), and bottom end failures. 40 on corrected some of the faults with cast iron heads, improved cooling, stronger bottom end. But it was a hard sell overcoming that initial bad reputation, not what you'd expect of a luxury brand.

davparlr said:

Wikipedia states that the Duesenberg model J engine was designed by Duesenberg but was built by Lycoming.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Shortround6 said:

For the US?

the Same 3 choices (actually 2) that were used historically. The R-2800, either 2 stage or turboed, The two stage Packard Merlin (sort of, 5 made in the fall of 1942 but Jan and Feb saw no deliveries, deliveries for March through Aug were 3,1,16,54,184 and 371. The Turbo Allison.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the numbers

With only 9 (nine) engines delivered prior May 1943, the 2 stage Merlin is maybe a wrong choice, since the production starts in January of 1943?
The turbo Allison in single engined form is something like the XP-60A, claimed to be capable of 420 mph at 29000 ft (with 1425 HP). Wonder if the design of a turbo R-2800 could be shrunk, still using the 300-350 sq ft wing, (but with 6 HMGs, 400 rpg), but of layout of the P-51's wing, so some 230-250 gals can be carried in the wing, and only some 120-130 in the fuselage. Should make the fuselage shorter much lighter, while the pilot gains some visibility?