Curtiss-Wright: Loss of Don Berlin and downfall

[Shortround6]

I have not heard anyone praising the superior performance of the P-40F over the E, so maybe it was not enough to matter, even though we had P-40F on Guadalcanal.

We didn't have many (Just the 44th Squadron of the 18th fighter group ?) and the performance difference was altitude dependent. At around 13-15,000ft (?) there was no/little difference. There was around a 20-30mph difference at 20,000ft and above. Please note took a while for the US Army to adopt WEP settings. Also note that the P-40F aircraft were the only Merlin powered aircraft for hundreds of miles.

They got their P-40Fs on Oahu about Oct 1942 and went to Guadalcanal in Jan 1943. (some sources say Dec 22th) However it appears that the P-40E had only showed up just a few weeks or month before (1 squadron) and a squadron of P-38s had showed up in Oct-Nov.
Please note that some deployments to Henderson field took several weeks to get up to full squadron strength.

Also note that the F4U-1 Corsairs started showing up in Feb 1943. 7-8 weeks was not a lot of time for the P-40Fs to establish much of a reputation.

What is also interesting was an evaluation the Navy did in June 1942 with a P-40F against a Grumman F4F-4.
The Navy found that the P-40F was superior in climb and speed below 20,000ft while the F4F-4 was superior above that altitude (numbers are not given and something seems a bit off) and above 24,000ft the difference is speed and climb was marked. Again numbers are not given.
Difference in climb is more understandable, difference in speed is less so. The F4F-4 was about about 700lbs lighter with full ammo and full internal fuel.
I have no idea if the Navy was testing the P-40F with drop tank installed or not although they did mention the 52 gal belly tank as the F4F-4 had underwing fuel tanks in development but not issued yet.

The P-40F showed up on Guadalcanal just after El Alamein and the Torch Landings were P-40Fs made up the biggest number of the US fighters involved even though the P-39s and P-38s combined had a higher total at Torch.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Interesting question. Kindelberger wanted the 1650-1 for the Mustang IA. He obtained 18 pages of data and specs for the 'merlined' P-40F and Beaufighter II (IIRC) from R-R US in April, 1941. The GM board at Allison request, shut him down. Allison tried again in November 1942 when the orders for NA-102/103 and NA-99 contract AC-30749 converted from P-51A to NA-104 P-51B-5.

Allison also appealed to Materiel Command for more orders to fill the Production Plan for 1944. I sometimes have speculated that is one of the reasons to keep both the P-40 and P-63 going - not the only reason, but one important reason.

Question - as I am old and getting senile - my foggy memory recalled 50/50 split for 1650-1? Where can I find the correct answer?

I posted the data awhile back. It was 1/3 2/3 and in fact that ratio was pretty much maintained for the entire production run. The data is from an article on the AEHS website.

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/PackardMerlin.pdf

 

[BobB]

Straight out of Wiki. Perhaps Google the subject?

From 1941 to 1943, the Curtiss Aeronautical plant in Lockland, Ohio produced aircraft engines under wartime contract destined for installation in U.S. Army Air Forces aircraft. Wright officials at Lockland insisted on high engine production levels, resulting in a significant percentage of engines that did not meet Army Air Forces (AAF) inspection standards. These defective engines were nevertheless approved by inspectors for shipment and installation in U.S. military aircraft. After investigation, it was later revealed that Wright company officials at Lockland had conspired with civilian technical advisers and Army inspection officers to approve substandard or defective aircraft engines for military use.Army Air Forces technical adviser Charles W. Bond was dismissed by the Army in 1943 for "gross irregularities in inspection procedure."Bond would later testify that he had been "wined and dined" by Wright company officials; one of those occasions was the night before Bond fired four AAF engine inspectors another AAF inspector had described as "troublemakers."In 1944, three Army officers, Lt. Col. Frank Constantine Greulich of Detroit, former chief inspection officer for the material command, Major Walter A. Ryan of Detroit, former central states inspection officer, and Major William Bruckmann, a former Cincinnati brewer and resident Army inspections officer at the Wright plant in Lockland were charged with neglect of duty, conspiracy, and giving false testimony in a general court martial. All three men were later convicted of neglect of duty.[12] The story of defective engines had reached investigators working for Sen. Harry Truman's congressional investigative board, the Truman Commission, after several Wright aircraft assembly workers informed on the company; they would later testify under oath before Congress. Arthur Miller's play All My Sons is based on this incident.

Also, not direct from Wiki, the last Curtiss designs were not very good. The end of the line was XF-87 Blackhawk. It performed acceptably except for being a bit slower than desired. Orders were placed for 57 but were cancelled in favor of the Northrop F-89 Scorpion.

After that, Curtiss-Wright stayed in business, and still IS in business, but opted out of the aircraft industry in favor of control systems, among other things. Today Curtiss-Wright is diversified and is in a lot of markets including commerical aerospace, oil gas, defense, nuclear power generation, and industrial control and supplies. They make a LOT of products.

As a former electrical engineer, I can say I used a lot of Curtiss-Wright products in my designs, mostly sensors. Some held up to measuring the pressure inside closed-bomb explosions, among other tasks, and gave good results and long service life relative to other sensors I tried.

GE took over the CW Lockland(Evendale) engine plant. The Wright Stuff: Part of GE Aviation's Past Unveiled - The GE Aerospace Blog | Aviation & Flight News

 

[MIflyer]

The Navy found that the P-40F was superior in climb and speed below 20,000ft while the F4F-4 was superior above that altitude

Which is just about what you would expect when comparing a fighter with a single stage two speed supercharged engine to one with a two stage two speed supercharged engine. Also, note that neither the Wildcat nor the Hellcat had flush rivets, so they were at a disadvantage where the air was thick.

On the other hand, I've read of F4F on the 'canal trailing long plumes of fiery smoke when the pilots forgot to switch the supercharger from high to low speed when they dove down to low altitude.

 

[MIflyer]

As for why the Merlin was built by Packard, the book Vees for Victory says:

Before ww2 broke out, the Advisory Commission of the Council for National Defense and the British Purchasing Division had determined that the demand for 1000 hp liquid cooled engines could not be met by Allison alone. The British needed 6000 Merlin engines for the forthcoming Battle of Britain and were seeking help from the US. Initially Ford was going to build the Merlin but then changed their mind, kept the RR drawings, and produced a tank engine based on them, just as RR produced a tank engine based on Merlin technology. The USAAC agreed that the US would build Merlins but that 3000 of them would be made available for US use.

Later, when the USAAF was pushing for Allison to develop high altitude versions of the V-1710, the US representative from RR offered to have the company aid Allison in that regard. Obviously, that did not happen, or at least not in terms of producing a Merlin 61 style two stage two speed superchargerwith the all important liquid cooled aftercooler that could bolt on the back of a V-1710, despite the fact that the modular design of the Allison would have made it easier to do so compared to the Merlin.

 

[Bretoal2]

GE took over the CW Lockland(Evendale) engine plant.

The problems at Lockland mainly affected the production of R-2600.

See a very detailed article on the waste, fraud and incompetence that caused this situation:

R-2600 Lockland Investigation

www.enginehistory.org

And, beyond Lockland's problems, the R-2600 was not a model of reliability (specially compared to the competing R-2800) if this article is to be believed:

R-2600 Case History

www.enginehistory.org

In this second paper, see specially footnote n°6 : "A 1943 report criticized the company for having poor management policies and inferior products. This set the stage for a lasting lack of confidence between the company and the government that may well have affected the company's decline in aircraft after the war. ("The Curtiss-Wright Corporation." U. S. Centennial of Flight Commission)"

 

[MIflyer]

the R-2600 was not a model of reliability (specially compared to the competing R-2800)

NAA decided to replace the R-2600 on the B-25 with the R-2800, and the prototype B-25H was equipped with the R-2800. On a test flight the crew performed a power dive over Mines Field and the wings came off; everyone on board was killed. The B-25 stuck with the R-2600.

 

[drgondog]

NAA decided to replace the R-2600 on the B-25 with the R-2800, and the prototype B-25H was equipped with the R-2800. On a test flight the crew performed a power dive over Mines Field and the wings came off; everyone on board was killed. The B-25 stuck with the R-2600.

That B-25 smply was not stressed for the combined Q and AoA loads exerted in the fatal stunt. The pilots were warned. Gravity was the problem - not R-2800.

 

[BiffF15]

That B-25 smply was not stressed for the combined Q and AoA loads exerted in the fatal stunt. The pilots were warned. Gravity was the problem - not R-2800.

Gravity, and a large dose of dumbassery.

 

[MIflyer]

That B-25 smply was not stressed for the combined Q and AoA loads exerted in the fatal stunt.

A lot more power and heavier engines certainly did not help.

By the way, I found in the P-40 At War book the quote from Don Berlin about the misdesigned cooling radiator intake. He specifically was referring to the the P-40F. The intake was enlarged to provide more cooling for the V-1650-1 and that is when they extended the rudder to correct for it. The XP-40F first flew on 25 Nov 1941 and Berlin left Curtiss about a month later.

 

[Shortround6]

I just received a copy of that book used.
I have a number of doubts/questions about it. It was published in 1980 and while it has quotes from people who are no longer alive there are other, none attributed statements that don't line up with current accepted history (like one of the P-40Q prototypes flying with a two stage Merlin 61, on page 19).

There are also a lot of quotes that might be true, but they don't seem to take into account the realities of actual production and tooling up.
Like asking why Packard had been given the Merlin 28 (actually the XX) instead of the Merlin 61. Kind of insinuates that Packard got a 2nd best version.
Kind of forgets that the Merlin 61 didn't exist in the summer of 1940 when Packard was given the Merlin. Packard got the most modern version of the Merlin that was cleared for production at the time. In Fact Packard started build Merlins with 2 piece cylinder blocks before any of the English factories did because Packard was in a better position to tool up and introduce that feature before the plants in England.
If Packard had waited for the Merlin 61 to be available before gearing up for production there would have been at least several thousand fewer Merlins built by Packard in 1942.
The first MK IX Spit flew in March/April of 1942. Two prototypes had flown in 1941, the first in Sept 1941 with a Merlin 60 engine. The Merlin 60 used different supercharger gears and used the one piece cylinder blocks.

Claims of super P-40s with Merlin 61s tend to overlook the increase of about 200lbs for the 2 stage engines, the need for a bigger propeller, and the need for about 360lbs worth of larger radiators, intercoolers and cooling fluid.
Not saying it could not be done, I am saying you were going to need months of testing and some major changes in the airframe and tooling to do it.

 

[MIflyer]

Somewhere I had a chart comparing the P-51B with the Spitfire IX. The exact same engine, but the Mustang was superior in speed, range, and just about every other parameter, and I suspect they could build the Mustangs faster, too. And of course a Mustang with a V-1710 could run away from the P-40 as well. It was not just the engine. The P-40 no doubt had better low speed turning ability, but that is a defensive maneuver. Ironically, the P-40 probably was better at ground attack than the Mustang because the rear mounted radiator was more vulnerable to ground fire than the front mounted one, but the P-40 could not fly as far as the Mustang nor meet enemy fighters on equal or better terms. One F-51 pilot in Korea said he would much rather have had a P-40, flying from airfields not that far from the front lines and in fact was shot down because of the radiator.

 

[Bretoal2]

Claims of super P-40s with Merlin 61s tend to overlook the increase of about 200lbs for the 2 stage engines, the need for a bigger propeller, and the need for about 360lbs worth of larger radiators, intercoolers and cooling fluid.

Yes, OK ! These 360 lbs (mini) had certainly negative effects on balance and C.G. position. And what about the extra volume for the intercooler radiator ? Where could they put it ?

 

[GregP]

Somewhere I had a chart comparing the P-51B with the Spitfire IX. The exact same engine, but the Mustang was superior in speed, range, and just about every other parameter, and I suspect they could build the Mustangs faster, too. And of course a Mustang with a V-1710 could run away from the P-40 as well. It was not just the engine. The P-40 no doubt had better low speed turning ability, but that is a defensive maneuver. Ironically, the P-40 probably was better at ground attack than the Mustang because the rear mounted radiator was more vulnerable to ground fire than the front mounted one, but the P-40 could not fly as far as the Mustang nor meet enemy fighters on equal or better terms. One F-51 pilot in Korea said he would much rather have had a P-40, flying from airfields not that far from the front lines and in fact was shot down because of the radiator.

Doesn't make sense that a rear-mounted radiator would be more vulnerable to ground fire than a front one.

The front one is right where you are shooting if the airplane is diving at you. If the airplane is strafing an airfield, the AAA would be on the airfield and they SHOULD have a better shot at the front-mounted radiator. But, if the AAA is off to the side, the reverse might be true since the rear-mounted unit is close to the center of mass, where most hits would tend to be.

Anyway ...

 

[SaparotRob]

Doesn't make sense that a rear-mounted radiator would be more vulnerable to ground fire then a front one.

The front one is right where you are shooting if the airplane is diving at you. If the airplane is strafing an airfield, the AAA would be on the airfield and they SHOULD have a better shat at the front-mounted radiator. But, if the AAA is off to the side, the reverse might be true since the rear-mounted unit is close to the center of mass, where most hits would tend to be.

Anyway ...

Nose armor.

 

[MIflyer]

Doesn't make sense that a rear-mounted radiator would be more vulnerable to ground fire then a front one.

They aim at the front of the airplane but do not lead it enough. In Vietnam our helicopters had a white stripe around the aft section of the tail boom to encourage the enemy to shoot at the stripe and thus miss the copter by not leading it enough. And I think that head on hits are very rare, aimed at much more narrow target, with the range changing very, very fast.

The first models of the P-39 featured an armor plated gearbox behind the propeller. Combat experience showed there was not a single instance of the gearbox being hit and thus the gearbox armor plate was deleted from later model P-39's and is not shown in the P-63 flight manual as being part of the armor protection for the pilot.

 

[pbehn]

Could be survivor bias. A rear mounted radiator adds another kill area. A chin mounted radiator gets hit when the engine or prop gets hit, Combat experience could only show how many 3-39s got hit in the armoured gearbox and then returned, which could alsso mean the armour wasnt good enough or that Any plane hit in the gear box was also taken down by hits elsewhere like the prop or pilot?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The problems at Lockland mainly affected the production of R-2600.

See a very detailed article on the waste, fraud and incompetence that caused this situation:

R-2600 Lockland Investigation

www.enginehistory.org

And, beyond Lockland's problems, the R-2600 was not a model of reliability (specially compared to the competing R-2800) if this article is to be believed:

R-2600 Case History

www.enginehistory.org

In this second paper, see specially footnote n°6 : "A 1943 report criticized the company for having poor management policies and inferior products. This set the stage for a lasting lack of confidence between the company and the government that may well have affected the company's decline in aircraft after the war. ("The Curtiss-Wright Corporation." U. S. Centennial of Flight Commission)"

Here is the Truman Committee report. lots of interesting reading on other aircraft as well.

 

[MIflyer]

I am sure that I have read of many instances in which US fighter pilots shot down their opponent in a head-on pass. I can't recall any in which the US pilot was shot down during a head on pass. There was a case in which Capt "Winkle" Brown flew a Martlet on a head on pass against an FW-200, and while they did not hit him, he did have a mid-air with the bomber in which the Grumman survived but the FW-200 did not (admittedly he had just blown out the windshield of the FW-200 with .50 cal, so the mid-air might have been inconsequential). Don Lopez did a head on pass in his P-40 against an Oscar and took his opponent's wing off, losing the outer 4 ft of his wing. Perhaps the pilots who actually got hit on a head on pass did not survive it and were not around to tell the tale.

 

[drgondog]

I am sure that I have read of many instances in which US fighter pilots shot down their opponent in a head-on pass. I can't recall any in which the US pilot was shot down during a head on pass. There was a case in which Capt "Winkle" Brown flew a Martlet on a head on pass against an FW-200, and while they did not hit him, he did have a mid-air with the bomber in which the Grumman survived but the FW-200 did not (admittedly he had just blown out the windshield of the FW-200 with .50 cal, so the mid-air might have been inconsequential). Don Lopez did a head on pass in his P-40 against an Oscar and took his opponent's wing off, losing the outer 4 ft of his wing. Perhaps the pilots who actually got hit on a head on pass did not survive it and were not around to tell the tale.

Chuck Yeager was shot down ina head on pass w/FW 190 in March 1944.

Egon Meyer and JG 2 made a career shooting down B-17s and B-24s in head on passes.