33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,283
- Jan 31, 2021
There's plenty of evidence, simply look at the non combat related losses compared to combat loses.
So you won't post data supporting your position? All right, then.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There's plenty of evidence, simply look at the non combat related losses compared to combat loses.
We have been here before, it took a lot of development work to get it right but it injured and killed a lot of it's pilots before it did, if you don't want to accept that fair enough. I was originally responding to the claims the P51 was a dangerous aircraft to fly, it was when loaded to it's limit for escort missions which was true for any aircraft whether it be fuel or ordinance.So you won't post data supporting your position? All right, then.
We have been here before, it took a lot of development work to get it right but it injured and killed a lot of it's pilots before it did, if you don't want to accept that fair enough. I was originally responding to the claims the P51 was a dangerous aircraft to fly, it was when loaded to it's limit for escort missions which was true for any aircraft whether it be fuel or ordinance.
Whirlwind with Kestrels would absolutely lack performance, but it would be flying months (6?) earlier. There were 250 changes to Whirlwind between prototype and production (From changing exhaust - not running over aileron controls to extending rudder height/counter balance, to infamous acorn to leading edge slat failures) most of which show up with a short run of Whirlwinds with Kestrels. Some, like propeller root issue with need increased power at altitude of the Peregrine.Whirlwind with Kestrels would lack performance.
I am not sure why unsupercharged engines would make converting to reverse rotation easier?
Whirlwind with Kestrels would absolutely lack performance, but it would be flying months (6?) earlier. There were 250 changes to Whirlwind between prototype and production (From changing exhaust - not running over aileron controls to extending rudder height/counter balance, to infamous acorn to leading edge slat failures) most of which show up with a short run of Whirlwinds with Kestrels. Some, like propeller root issue with need increased power at altitude of the Peregrine.
An un-supercharged engine is simpler: You don't need to worry about either making a. a reverse rotation impeller/housing or b. additional gear train to run supercharge reversed to standard rotation engine. Changing oil and water pumps only requires flipping 1 gear.
Advantage Allison - they reduced swapping to reverse rotation a field modification with aforementioned 1 extra gear.
Aside: Reverse rotation SBC in our boat - so 2 motors turned opposite directions and torque was counteracted - was down on power despite everything else being as identical as we could make them. Not really a problem, you just needed extra power and/or rudder input to go perfectly straight.
Prototype sat for significant time awaiting the reverse rotation Peregrine. If you have engines, you can push the other suppliers.Fitting Kestrels would not have changed those timelines.
I am not sure you could have got a prototype out any quicker with the Kestrels.
You just have to reverse most major rotating components in the engine.
Some pumps can be run either way, so may just require changing input and output lines.
Above it was too much of a chore to put an extra gear in to reverse rotation of the supercharger, now it it is a great feature of the V-1710?
Reversing the V-1710 required more than adding the extra idler gear for the accessories section. It also required taking the cams out and flipping them, and maybe the crankshaft too.
An easier method would be what Merlins eventually used - add an idler gear in the propeller reduction gearbox. For the Merlin, this required a redesign of the front of the crankcase. The Allison's modular design meant that it may have just required changing teh gearbox, if this was the route they chose.
The Merlin method would have been beneficial. The engine remains the same, just the output gear ratio is changed slightly (from 0.42:1 to 0.422:1 in the Merlin, IIRC)..
The issue with 2 speed pre-war is Farman owns the patent
I know that there'll be some variables here, namely time period and such, but what if the British had their own long range escort fighter? Naturally, it can't really be a Spitfire or a Hurricane since they're too short legged early war (and Spitfire for most of the war). But, from say 39-42, 42-45, what would a single seat, long range high performance escort fighter be like? The biggest thing as far as spec is enough fuel internally to have a 700-800 mile range, and the ability to use drop tanks. It also has to be heavily armed for the period (which from 42-45 basically means 4x20mm cannons), and be a great dogfighter per tactics of the period. This will address one of the few shortcomings of the P-51, given that it was a bit heavy due to being built to outdated USAAF load requirements (largely resolved with the H variant, but that doesn't really count here).
So I'll open the floor to the forum members to discuss.
But the requirements document for the Whirlwind (and Reaper) specifies Peregrine or Taurus engine.British have the money and technology to produce and use a good 2-engined fighter, even for 1939-42. A compact twin (~300 sq ft), sorta British Fw 187 with Merlins, or a big Whirlwind. Don't go over 15% t-t-c, can carry a lots of fuel + DTs and convincing firepower.
Also much cheaper than the Beaufighter, and of much better performance.
But the requirements document for the Whirlwind (and Reaper) specifies Peregrine or Taurus engine.
As above - it is about the 'British escort fighter', not about BoB and shooting down German aircraft over Kent.I don't see need for bigger Whirlwind. It needs to be available for BoB so it gets credentials like Hurricane - making it harder to cease production on. It needs fuel and throttle systems corrected, but given development they are not insurmountable issues. With DT, range similar to P-38/P-47 is definitely possible.
It does have same issues as Fw.187 - there's no room in fuselage for long range radios/radar & operator, so I'm not convinced it is Beaufighter replacement.
*We will note:
1. Peregrine makes 885hp @ 9 psi boost on 87 octane, but it was cleared for 12 psi on 100 octane (at lower altitude). No one seems to have recorded that power.
2. Merlin was supposed to only be interim engine; Vulture/Sabre were seen as future. If war hadn't intervened, they might have been.
There were losses when converting for use as a dive bomber, and also when starting to fit extra fuel inside and out it was prone to doing a snap roll from what I read. However I don't know if the losses were "a lot" compared to what happened with other types.Claim made, no data shown. That's your prerogative, of course.
In my experience, people who are passionate on a particular point usually have the data to hand to support their arguments so as to make their point forcefully and fully. As it regards the current claim, I am not sufficiently motivated to care deeply one way or the other to continue beyond the observation made above.
But the requirements document for the Whirlwind (and Reaper) specifies Peregrine or Taurus engine.
Fixed it.The 324, 325 and 327 were about the size of the Typhoon, so smaller than the Fw 187or Whirlwind.
In part due to tactics.You all need to remember the time frame, MkV's were being mauled when they crossed the channel in the idiotic ''lean on the enemy'' debacle, if MkV's can't survive against the higher dash number 109's and the FW190A a two engined fighter like the Whirlwind won't either.
HiIn part due to tactics.
When did the British give up on the 3 plane Vic and shift to the finger-four formation?
When did the Air Ministry issue guidance for high speed cruise in enemy territory?
One set of instructions was from Aug 1942 which is about a year late.
Granted if the Whirlwinds had been flown in the same way they would have been mauled in the same way.
They survived by doing small fast tip and run raids.