Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,472
- Dec 6, 2006
Neat! I wasn't aware there were any Tomahawks left in flying condition. (or airworthy C series engines for that matter)
Sounds like something better to do with an engine that's already due for a tear-down and rebuild. (kill two birds with one stone)
And Shortround, in regards to V-1710 logistics in the field, wouldn't it make sense to supply spare components to depots in Britian servicing Merlins? (the idea of full licensed production in the UK also came to mind, but that seems to make little sense given the engine production rationalization established in 1939, but dedicating enough resources to allow servicing/repair/rebuild of V-1710s seems more sensible) Unless, of course, that's what already happened historically.
The PTO would still be more problematic, though perhaps licensed production of the V-1710 would be attractive in Australia? They seemed to favor licensing American designs over British ones (mostly radial engines) and having that resource in the South Pacific might be useful even if still a great distance from most of the front lines. (much closer than the Continental US, though, let alone Allison/GM facilities) V-1710 powered aircraft were more critical for the PTO than ETO in general and having access to that engine might also make for more useful options in Australia's indigenous fighter project compared to their attempts using the single-stage R-1830. (a straight up license for the Allison engined P-51 might have made the most sense given the timing involved too, and given the existing relationship between NA and CAC and the Mustang Mk.I was in production before development of the Boomerang had even started)
The claim that Boeing had more engineers working on hydraulics came from Bill Gunston in Bombers of the West.One would hope it took some time. While management is a skill many engineers don't ever get (one of the senior managers at my last aerospace employer had his secretary rate his direct reports, who were all engineering managers, because he couldn't be bothered), engineering managers are rarely hired in as such right out of school.
Alas, true. An article I read about the V-bomber development stated that the UK had fewer engineers working on all the V-bombers than Boeing had working on B-47 hydraulics. I'm not sure I believe that; I suspect that there is a problem with job titles, which don't necessarily correspond between two US companies, let alone US and UK companies.
As a recovering aeronautical engineer, I'm actually pretty cognizant of how few engineers may be working in a given specialty at even a large company: we had one engineer, who dealt with all the anti-ice systems when I was at HSD; she worked about half-time on anti-ice systems and about half-time on gearing. While she would get other engineers (frequently me) assigned to anti-ice or gears (anti-ice was fun; I like heat transfer), she was basically the only engineer on either. Different countries had (it's much less today) significant differences in engineering education. Continental Europe, starting with France, had formal, university-level education for engineers before the US, and I think the US did before the UK; one of the benefits of this is that university-trained engineers are likely to be more capable of moving to different specialties (my engineering career included gas turbine engine testing, structural fatigue analysis, aerodynamics, thermodynamic modeling of gas turbine engines and aircraft environmental control systems, low-observables analysis, and writing data reduction software).
