A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45

[PAT303]

The problem is with any external tank, because there is a reason why miliatary airplanes in particular are made aerodynamic. The slipper tank, particularly the big one, decidedly isn't.

The rear fuselage tank would be Ok except that it causes severe stability issues in the Spitfire (and in a P-51)

What they really needed was a wing tank, a real one not that tiny one they used, but that would have required a new wing.

Which is where we started.

Again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, who cares where the fuel is, there is plenty of room in the rear fuselage and by the time you are at 25,000ft and set up for cruise it's down around 30G so instability is a mute point. You seem determined to make a non issue a major one.

 

[PAT303]

I'm not hung up on STs but they were a very inexpensive way to give the Spitfire a lot more fuel with only minimal performance loss during combat. Again, over Schweinfurst there were no Allied fighters so any fighter would be huge advantage for the 8th AF.

I agree with you but why stuff around, just put a rear tank in, even if it's just 40G plus add a slipper as required.

 

[Kevin J]

I agree with you but why stuff around, just put a rear tank in, even if it's just 40G plus add a slipper as required.

40 IG and a slipper isn't going to get you there and back over hostile territory. If we could flood out the entire North German plain first than that would help. The La Palice raid was 370 miles radius, the East Timor raid was 445, both were over water with little chance of interception.

 

[Dan Fahey]

By people who did not understand how it was made.




Not true.

Ford UK was one of the contractors to build the Merlin, and it is true they tightened the tolerances for manufacture.

The only engines that were hand made were in Rolls-Royce's own experimental department.




The story is that Rolls-Royce thought Ford UK could not make the Merlin because the tolerances were too tight, but Ford said they were too loose.

This was before Packard was involved (or Ford US, who the BPC first approached).




Packard redrew the drawings to US standards so their fitters could make the parts.

Rolls-Royce drawings were in 1st angle, US standard was 3rd angle.




Huh?

As they were contracted to manufacture the engine and not design them, they would not have been allowed to redesign the engine without permission.

As it was, Packard was the first to introduce the two piece block, Rolls-Royce having to delay their changeover due to production and, you know, trying to win the fucking war.

Packard introduced their own system for connecting the block cooling passages to the cooling passages in the head. But they changed back to the definitive Rolls-Royce solution later.




The improvements they made weren't that many.

The materials were, mostly, the same. Except where they couldn't get the same as what Rolls-Royce used.

They used some US parts, because it was convenient - such as the carburettor.

The two stage engines used a different supercharger drive system - but Packard did not design it. From what I understand, it was done by Wright. (Rolls-Royce Merlins and the single stage V-1650-1 used a Farman type gear drive, for which a royalty had to be paid to Farman. Maybe this is why it was ditched in US production.)

That the bearing material that Packard used was better than the one Rolls-Royce used, does not make the original bearings "horrible".




No, they really didn't.




The parts count may be not as big an advantage for the Allison as you think. Many of the extra parts in a Merlin were fasteners, used to secure covers, such as the cam covers.

The Allison never did get on the same performance terms as the Merlin, mainly because the supercharger wasn't as good.

Called the Watchmakers engine by those who built and rebuilt the Merlin

 

[michael rauls]

Side note here...!
The combatants all designed Combat planes suitable for their combat terrains.
US and Japanese aircraft built with long range considerations.
Japan because of China, Korea and Pacific Ocean.
USA with a large continent and two oceans.

Europe thought in terms of the next country, including Russia..!
Planes tended short ranged though lighter and slightly more maneuverable.
Heck they fought each other for centuries.
Few considered another far away country could support a war from long distances.

Had the British relied on the Spitfire as a prime fighter they would have lost the war quickly.
It was a tough plane to build using fitment technology vs mass manufacturing.
Much like the Watch Maker Rolls Royce Merlin's...and a lousy engine as far as durability.

It was an outstanding aircraft but every plane builder could turn out 3 combat planes for every Spitfire.
Except for maybe the P-38 Lighting but it was a bomber sized fighter.

Three Hurricanes will shoot down one Spitfire in combat.
The Spitfire was never that much better than any other combat fighter aircraft.

I stressed this before...range and ability to hit at your opponent effectively from a distance was the winning formula.
All the combat planes had useful performance even if they were a generation younger than their opponent.
Late war Zero with seasoned pilots proved that fighting against British and US carrier group fighters off the coast of Japan.

Cost effectively and Performance wise the Mustang was the best most effective & versatile fighter in WW2.
IMHO should have developed the A and B/C/D Mustangs at the same time.
Would have filled a huge performance envelop.

The Mustang was used in every role including Bomber.
Lighten up became an interceptor !
You (Shoulda Coulda Woulda ) put the H-Tail on it and made a fine Carrier plane too.

WW2 was a short war that required everything built to be fault free quickly.
The unsung players of the war were the Engineers, Designers and Testers, some to their demise !

For all the wind about the Spitfire..
IMHO it was a bit player compared to other Combat Aircraft.

D

While its true 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire something to consider is can you pruduce 3 competent pilots to fly them and 3 times the fuel, parts etc. I don't know the answer to that something to think about.

 

[BiffF15]

Called the Watchmakers engine by those who built and rebuilt the Merlin

Dan,

Do you have any sources used to get to your opinion?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Schweik]

Again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, who cares where the fuel is, there is plenty of room in the rear fuselage and by the time you are at 25,000ft and set up for cruise it's down around 30G so instability is a mute point. You seem determined to make a non issue a major one.

It only seems that way PAT because you aren't paying attention. Go back and read the past few pages. The Spit couldn't get there and back on internal fuel alone, if it could there would be no argument. The scenario under discussion (escorting a Schweinfurt raid) is regular (in front of the cockpit) tanks, + rear tanks + slipper tank + probably wing-mounted external tanks too.

"Who cares where the fuel is" is relevant only to the issue of how much can you fit, and how much can you fit inside the airframe vs. outside. Any fuel you can fit inside the airframe has no effect on drag. Outside means it's going to cause drag plus extra problems in dogfighting.

 

[Schweik]

Actually, I was being half serious, if you look at that power egg on the M20, it doesn't provide much extra boost from the engine exhaust. So, replace it with a Merlin 61 with individual exhausts and put a Mustang style radiator underneath to take advantage of the Meridith effect. Now would we then have a fighter with twice the internal fuel of a Hurricane and the speed of a Spitfire? Any takers on this idea?

The M.20 seems like a really neat and promising design, but was the extra fuel capacity related to the fixed undercarriage? Wheels and wheel struts seem to take up a lot of that wing space...

 

[Dan Fahey]

Dan,

Do you have any sources used to get to your opinion?

Cheers,
Biff

Here you go !

The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain's Hand-Built Powerhouse - Tested.com

Few engines throughout history have achieved a near mythical status among its admirers. Fewer still can share credit for the rescue of an entire nation. Perhaps only the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine can claim both distinctions. During the Battle of Britain, it was the Merlin that powered the Royal Air Force Hurricanes and Spitfires that were England's only effective defense against German air attacks. With the battle won, and the engine's reputation thus established, the Merlin would become the stuff of legend and the powerplant of choice for numerous other aircraft.

Even before the 1940 air battles over England, it was apparent that demand for the Merlin was far outpacing Rolls-Royce's ability to produce them. The Ford Motor Company was asked to build 9,000 Merlins for both England and the US. Ford initially accepted the deal, but later reneged. Henry Ford explained that he would only produce military items for US defense. Interestingly, Ford of Britain in Manchester, England ultimately produced 36,000 Merlin engines, beginning at the same time period. Of course, Ford's American factories would indeed become vital to the war effort. They manufactured unfathomable quantities of airplanes, jeeps and other war materiel--but not Merlins.

Two Countries Divided By A Common Language

There are many obvious challenges posed by producing a British-designed engine in America. Just the task of converting all of the measurements from metric imperial to US Standard units was daunting enough. This job was made even more difficult by the unprecedented complexity of the Merlin. The 1,649 cubic inch V-12 engine is comprised of more than 14,000 individual parts (knoll that!). It was, and still is, often called "a watchmaker's nightmare.

Engineers at Packard soon discovered that Rolls-Royce did not design the Merlin for mass-production. The manufacturing tolerances were much looser than Packard's standards. This was because Rolls-Royce had never implemented mass-production techniques to their assembly lines. Rather, they employed highly-trained "fitters" to assemble the engines. The fitters filed or otherwise massaged individual parts to achieve a precise fit. They even tightened critical bolts by trained feel, rather than with calibrated torque wrenches. In effect, each Rolls-Royce-manufactured Merlin was a hand-built engine that reflected the company's traditions of premium quality and craftsmanship.

 

[Dan Fahey]

While its true 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire something to consider is can you pruduce 3 competent pilots to fly them and 3 times the fuel, parts etc. I don't know the answer to that something to think about.

YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..

 

[michael rauls]

YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..

No I meant did they have the capacity to train that many more pilots to the same degree in the same amount of time.

 

[Schweik]

Six Hurricanes wasn't necessarily useful against two Bf 109F

 

[Kevin J]

The M.20 seems like a really neat and promising design, but was the extra fuel capacity related to the fixed undercarriage? Wheels and wheel struts seem to take up a lot of that wing space...

Yes, something like that.

 

[Schweik]

I wasn't trying to be flip, I like the M.20 as a design, I really do think it was quite promising. What I mean is, as a quick fixed undercarriage design it had extra space in the wings because the wheels didn't retract. Could they put in retractable wheels and still have space for fuel in the wings? If so ... it seems like it could have been a great fighter and a good alternative to or replacement for the Hurricane...

 

[Dan Fahey]

No I meant did they have the capacity to train that many more pilots to the same degree in the same amount of time.

YES !! or you went to the Army unless trained as an Engineer, Mechanic or other educational qualities.

 

[Schweik]

YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..

The reality is that in the early days of WW2 quite a few Allied pilots were pretty hastily trained in terms of actual fighter combat. They usually had pretty good basic flight training but quite often little or no marksmanship, formation flying, or air combat maneuvering training. Many went into combat unaware of the specific flight envelope of the aircraft they were fighting in, some went into action within days of their first flight in a real fighter.

 

[Kevin J]

I wasn't trying to be flip, I like the M.20 as a design, I really do think it was quite promising. What I mean is, as a quick fixed undercarriage design it had extra space in the wings because the wheels didn't retract. Could they put in retractable wheels and still have space for fuel in the wings? If so ... it seems like it could have been a great fighter and a good alternative to or replacement for the Hurricane...

IIRC there was a paper project with a retraction system like the P-35.

 

[michael rauls]

I think my comment in reply to Dans" 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire "are being universally misunderstood.
I meant 3 Hurricanes may by better but without the capacity to build 3 times the planes, train 3 times the pilots, produce 3 times the fuel etc. the point is mute.
My bad for not making that clear.

 

[Kevin J]

IIRC there was a paper project with a retraction system like the P-35.

Compared to a Mustang, internal fuel tankage was higher ( without rear fuselage tanks ), dive speed was 450 not 525 mph, speed with Merlin XX was 345 ( actual ) not 393 ( projected ) mph. With Mustang style radiator perhaps 20 - 30 mph faster, and of course it's made of wood, so can you safely operate it in the tropics?

 

[rednev]

YES !! or you went to the Army unless trained as an Engineer, Mechanic or other educational qualities .

The Germans and Japanese must have missed that memo