It's May 1939 and Canadian Car and Foundry, instead of the Hurricane, what's your pick?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Because I like the Gloster and would have liked to see where the design went as the war progressed I ask this:

Was there no room left to get more HP out of the Mercury? I imagine adding staged superchargers would be a CG/weight issue but still inquiring minds would like to know.
 


From the website given above

"Of the 800,000 military vehicles of all types built in Canada, 168,000 were issued to Canadian Forces. Thirty-eight percent of the total Canadian production went to the British. The remainder of the vehicles went to the other Allies."

How much of the decisions to produce what where were political I don't know but it seems that the Canadians certainly produced an awful lot of equipment/material.

Building aircraft engines in Canada just to say they did it might have been a waste of effort.

For a little context, When Ford built the factory to make R-2800s from the ground up with a planned capacity of 800 engines a month they built a 889,717 sq ft factory. 77 % larger than the total square footage of the entire Canadian aircraft industry at the start of the war.
 
On a poppet valve radial engines where each piston sits in an individual pot can't you just increase the stroke with a new cylinder block? To a point of course, as you don't want to destroy bearings, or require too much internal redesign?

Some good images of the Mercury here, Free CAD Designs, Files & 3D Models | The GrabCAD Community Library
 
Last edited:

You might have been able to squeeze a bit more power out of it but it is pretty much a waste of effort. It was pretty much cast aside by Bristol as they worked on Sleeve valve engines.

However it is about 83.5% of the displacement of a Wright R-1820 Cyclone. They did get it up to just about the same power per cu in of the 1200hp Cyclone with 100 octane fuel and suitable supercharger gears.
I have pointed out many times that the Cyclone was not really developed as engine in the way many people normally think, It actually was a succession of different engines that used the same bore and stroke. To get a similar increase in power from the Mercury you pretty much have to do the same thing. Throw out just about everything and design a new engine of similar size/shape.
and it is not just power but engine life and serviceability. The Mercury still used 4-5 grease fittings per cylinder head to lubricate the valve gear. The American engines (and others?) had shifted to enclosed valve gear (harder to cool?) that was lubricated by the engine oil, yes some seeped out but in general the enclosed valve gear eliminated several maintenance issues.

The Cyclone ( I use it as an example because of the many changes and it's extraordinary long life) went from 12 bolts/studs holding down each cylinder to 20 per cylinder to handle the increasing pressures/stresses on the engine.

For the Mercury there was no magic wand to wave and add a super deluxe supercharger and get another several hundred horsepower for only a few hundred pounds more weight.

Please remember that the Merlin had already been run at 1800 hp on special fuel in the development of the Speed Spitfire. RR knew the basic engine was strong enough to stand up to that kind of power. It is also easier to cool a liquid cooled engine when running at higher powers, use larger radiator, add to cooling system capacity in general, install higher flow pump.
Air cooled engines almost always required increases in cylinder fin area on the barrel and head.

The Hercules (same bore and stroke as the Mercury) had 540 sq in of fin area per cylinder head while in development, the first production model had 581 sq in, during the war this went first to 728 sq in and with a change in casting technique to 777 sq in. Post war engines got different alloys and even more fin area.

Even if you could get a Mercury to deleiver the same power as a Hercules XX engine per cubic inch that means you have an 1100hp engine for take-off.
 
Admiral Beez said:
On a poppet valve radial engines where each piston sits in an individual pot can't you just increase the stroke with a new cylinder block? To a point of course, as you don't want to destroy bearings, or require too much internal redesign?
Click to expand...

Mercury engine with an increase stroke was called a Pegasus

You do get a larger diameter engine though (Mercury was a short stoke Jupiter)

The Pegasus was not allowed to run at the RPM of the Mercury with the coming of 100 octane fuel it was not allowed to run the same boost settings.
 

The Swedes managed to squeeze 970hp out of their license built Mercuries. Impressive for such a small and relatively old engine but that's about as far as you could push it. Even that needed very expensive labour intensive hand building probably not available to Britain in WW2 despite the myths.
 
Back to the original premise of this thread, haha

".... If not the Hurricane, what would you have Britain order from CC&F in May 1939?"

The plant should build exactly what it built but should start tooling, in 1939, to build North American Harvards for the Commonwealth Training Program, and thus exporting PILOTS to Britain. CanCar did build Harvards for the RCAF, but not in 1939/40. AFAIK
 
michaelmaltby said:
".... If not the Hurricane, what would you have Britain order from CC&F in May 1939?"
Click to expand...
My top pick is that CC&F is ordered to design a wing fold and from the onset of production in May 1939 makes only folding wing Sea Hurricanes. Elsie MacGill will have that wing fold sorted in short order. Yes, we know that the folding wing mechanism adds weight to the Hurricane, but the FAA is making due with Sea Gladiators and Skuas for fighters, the Hurricane bests both of these, and soon more powerful Merlins will be available.

In ice-free weather RN carriers could sail into James Bay and the Hurricanes could be flown 500 nmi directly to the carriers. Even better if your pilot training scheme includes FAA qualifying.
 
Last edited:
You could get a bit power out of the Mercury, however there were definite limits,

The Mercury VIII as used in the Gladiator and many Blenheims was good for 840hp at 14,000ft on 87 octane fuel, but just like the 1030hp Merlin III was rated at 880hp for take off the Mercury VIII was rated at 725hp for take-off.

By changing the supercharger gears you could get 890hp at 6,000ft and raise the take-off power to 830hp.

The Mercury only came with a single speed supercharger.

With 100 octane fuel and 9lbs of boost you could get up to 995hp out of a Mercury at 9250ft. those engines were rated for 905hp for take-off. But you are back down to 840hp at 14,0000ft because of supercharger capacity. Perhaps the two speed supercharger from the Pegasus could have been used, perhaps not. But the use of 100 octane fuel removed much of the need for a two speed supercharger to improve take-off performance.
 

a bit redundant. Canada built large numbers of trainers for the commonwealth training plan.

Fleet in 1938 had the Canadian rights to the North American BT-9
De Havilland was cranking out Tiger Moths.
Fleet was building the Finch trainer
and working on the Fort trainer.
Fairchild built the Cornell later but over 400 of the Bolingbrokes were built as trainers, again after 1940.

Several Hundred Fairey Battles were supplied as trainers.

The Commonwealth training program did not come into being until the fall of 1939 with final agreement being signed Dec 17th 1939 which is a bit to late to decide what to build at teh CCF factory in Dec 1938/Jan 1939 when talks started.
 

That's right, the Bolis were built by Fairchild Aircraft Ltd at Longueil Quebec, the Canadian subsidiary of the US firm, but the Boli still maintained the British turrets, undercarriage and engines. Interesting to note that the Canadians put US engines on some of its Ansons.

Shortround6 said:
As for the Hercules, just what was it's actual availability in 1939/40?
There was a reason for the Merlin powered Beaufighter and the Merlin powered Wellington.
Click to expand...

This is true, but the same at the Canadian end could be said for any type, with the possible exception of a Merlin powered aircraft if a British aeroplane is to be built. The time line would be affected, but it depends on to what extent a deal can be made with Bristol to enable Hercules production at a shadow factory or such like in Britain. To avoid this issue, the Beaufighters could be Mk.IIs with Merlins, although these were death traps - accident rates were high; combine their dicey handling with flying at night, inexperienced pilots and a dab of high ground and you have lots of dead Beaufighters and crewmen scattered about the countryside, as was the case around night fighter OTUs equipped with the Beau Mk.II.
 
nuuumannn said:
but it depends on to what extent a deal can be made with Bristol to enable Hercules production at a shadow factory or such like in Britain.
Click to expand...


The issue is timing, Bristol themselves got into a bind when they they could not mass produce sleeves in anywhere near the quantity needed. Until Bristol figures out how to do that any shadow factory, no matter where located, is so much wasted effort. Once Bristol gets sleeve production sorted out then extra factories can be brought in.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Australian-made Beauforts used P&W engines. Canadian-made Beaufighters could also be P&W powered.
Click to expand...
Using what engine? The R-1830 is too small/low powered for the Beaufighter.
The R-2800 (two speed) is about 400lbs heavier than the Hercules. Plus needing a larger propeller. and is in rather short supply in 1939-40-41.
I Believe the Australians did try a Wright R-2600 in a Beaufighter.
Australians had started with P & W R-1340s to power the Wirraway. This project started in 1936-7 (project involving the North American aircraft and the Wasp engine) after building quite a number of 9 cylinder Wasps the company "graduated" to the 14 cylinder twin wasp to power the Beauforts.
Please note that while the first reassembled NA made airframe first flew in Australia on Sept 3rd 1937 CAC had only delivered the 6th production Wirraway by the time the war started 2 years later.
Once again, a commonwealth nation did a fantastic job considering what they had to work with and where they started but assuming factories could appear out of thin air and produce whatever is wanted in 1939-40 is simply not related to what was going on at the time.
 
Shortround6 said:
Once Bristol gets sleeve production sorted out then extra factories can be brought in.
Click to expand...

Yup, in hindsight, but in May to July 1939 when the Beaufighter is going into production, such things weren't readily known and if you foresee that you might need a type in larger numbers than you know you have available at any given time, would you really just say "no, we won't pursue this avenue because we don't have enough engines", or would you build another factory and do your darndest to sort the issues out, particularly when there is a war on?

All that does is push available production back and for the Beaufighter, but other than timing, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Beaufighter was still in use in large numbers right until the end of the war. Coastal Command squadrons equipped with them were most active through 1944 and 1945 against targets in Norway. It's a readily adaptable type and establishing another engine factory would obviously do no harm.
 
Admiral Beez said:
That's essentially a postwar engine. We're looking for something for CC&F to begin producing in 1938. .
Click to expand...

Hmm, has anyone thought about the Hawker Hurricane?

The problem with many of these "what if" is that it involves "crystal ball planning".
In May 1939 Canada doesn't really need that many aircraft, as obviously there won't be any war ("Peace in our Time!")
Only some patrol aircraft (Bolingbroke's) and some fighters. Britiain of course could provide whatever else was needed (So they thought). In any hypothetical war the French would be providing a large chunk of the needed aircraft...

Regarding American aircraft (Wildcats, P-36's etc) we should remember that in May 1939 there was NO American weaponry available, as Cash & Carry hadn't even been passed yet.
 
Last edited:
Freebird said:
Hmm, has anyone thought about the Hawker Hurricane?
Click to expand...

RTFQ "It's May 1939 and Canadian Car and Foundry, instead of the Hurricane, what's your pick?"


I'm pretty certain Canada was not completely oblivious to what was going on in Europe in the late 1930s, especially since despite "Peace in our time" the British Air Ministry placed orders for 600 Hurricanes and 600 Blenheims, orders that were unprecedented in their number for a single type all at once in British aviation history as a result of military expansion. The premise is that if Canada DIDN'T build the Hurricane, what would it build - yes, all these threads in this section involve crystal ball gazing, this is why this is the "What-if" threads section.

But let's not forget that in 1936 when the Blenheim, Battle and Defiant were being planned into Britain's defences for the future, they had no idea that in four years they'd be largely regarded as obsolescent, so some crystal ball gazing is needed when planning for war in peacetime anyway, wouldn't you agree?
 
Freebird said:
Regarding American aircraft (Wildcats, P-36's etc) we should remember that in May 1939 there was NO American weaponry available
Click to expand...
We're not discussing buying American weaponry, but instead potentially building it in Canada under license.

Canada has already recently license-produced the Grumman FF (G-23 Goblin) so they have the connections with Grumman for technical drawings and Wright for engines. Plus P&W Canada, founded in 1928 exists to grow and support the company's business in Canada.



Harold A. Skaarup Web page
 
Last edited:


Canada no more "produced" the Grumman FF than a car dealer that built a car out of parts supplied by factories elsewhere "produced" the car.
Same pretty much goes for P & W Canada. They were a service and repair center until WW II. During WW II they assembled Wasp engines (R-1340s) from parts supplied by P & W in America. It may not have been until the 1950s (1952?) that P&W Canada actually manufactured a complete engine. Granted they have done a marvelous job since then.
 
Admiral Beez said:
We didn't make any engines. Merlin's were shipped in from either RR or Packard. Radials from Bristol, Curtiss or P&W. If you're suggesting Centaurus for a 1939 Canadian-made aircraft you'll need to propose a plan to develop, produce and ship it.
Click to expand...

I am certainly suggesting that a factory producing engines was possible. (Look at the Dodge and Studebaker engine plants in Chicago.) The talent was already resident to assemble the engines via Pratt Whitney Canada. However, I agree that Bristol would have had to have been involved and enthusiastic because the Lord running the Shadow factories program for the first few years was so bad he got booted by Neville Chamberlain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
Replies
17
Views
332
tomo pauk
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
"Jumo 222" and "DB 606/610" made in H16 form instead of being 24 cyl types - what gives?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
6K
peceed
P
Tandems (and push pulls, maybe?)
Replies
12
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register