Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Another time line: for the sake of discussion, and no matter how unlikely, lets say that P&W manages to drop the ball while developing their R-2800. Say, engine reaches production in second half of 1944. What would be the plausible developments in the field of airplane production/deployment/performance, for all the historical users of the planes powered by that engine. Instead of R-2800, USA builds more Allisons, R-2600s, R-1830s, maybe Packard Merlins.
[snip]
I don't want to replace the R-2800 with R-1830, nor with V-1710. I'm after the assesments about the planes that would be produced (or produced in larger numbers), with R-2800 being as good as unavailable until second half of 1944. Eg, the P-47B is out of the question, so the USA bulids more P-38s, while adopting the P-51 earlier. Martin builds the B-26 around aome other engine (or licence builds B-25s?).The USN has to procure something instead of historical F4U and F6F. Etc.
There are too many "what if's".
There were proposed or experimental 2 stage and turbo R-2600s. Numbers actually flown were in the single digits.We don't know how successful the R-2600 would have been with either a 2 stage or turbo, or how unsuccessful.
Those rare R-2600 versions deserve a topic on their own, even with the historical success of the R-2800 made them superfluous. Any good info about those (new topic?)?
Wright spent millions of dollars and teens of thousands of hours on the R-2160 Tornado. Wright also essentially redesigned the entireR-3350 from what it had been in 1938-40 to what it was in 1942-44.
We know the R-2160 Tornado was a flop but would more time and money have been spent on this rat hole? Even with the redesign the R-3350 was far, far from being trouble free until almost the end of the war. Perhaps a non-turbo derated version would have done better? But how much derated?
Many questions that are far less heavier to answer, than the questions from the opening post. That's why I've primarily concentrated into historical engines and their real or proposed/feasible applications.
Part of the impact of the R-2800 was that it allowed some of the more exotic engines to be dropped from consideration/production.
Yep, great power on 'classic' technology.
Please note too that very few licence engine builders built more than one type of engine. Buick built over 60,000 engines but they were ALL Single stage R-1830s. Ford Built ALL single stage R-2800s and Nash built ALL two stage R-2800s. Studebaker Built over 57,000 R-1820s by the end of 1944 ot just under 62% of the R-1820s built between 1939 and 1944. Studebaker doesn't role out the first engine until Feb of 1942. Studebaker had been brought into the aircraft engine production system in Nov of 1940 but ti's intitial contracts to make R-2600s were changed to the R-1820 in June of 1941 before a single R-2600 was built. Studebaker was considered to be able to change engine types better than Wright itself.
Thanks for the data. I'm not expecting the engine builders to swap engine models every year, but to build one line of the engines through more years.
Sorry to stay on the engines but without sorting the engines the airframe questions takes off in too many directions. The Curtiss P-60 is behind the P-47 in timing. The first prototypes of the XP-53 are not ordered until a number of weeks after the first 773 P-47s are ordered. Performance numbers for the XP-53 are looking a bit dubious. The Air Corp was also specifying some rather unrealistic armament set ups. First P-60 (out of a 1300 plane order) with a Merlin Single stage engine was expected to be delivered in July of 1942. However prototypes failed to make guaranteed speed and revised estimates of performance with version with the turbo Allison showed a need for at least 1500hp.
The V-1650-1 was a fine engine, but it was not that a stellar performer for jobs above 20000 ft. The 1425 HP from turbo V-1710 were available also at 25000 ft, where the single stage Merlin was delivering some half of that; even the exhaust thrust won't help against that kind of deficit in power. The XP-60A was said to be capable to make 420 mph at 29000 ft, climbing to 25000 ft in 12,4 min.
The timing indeed need to be looked upon: while the P-47B was really being produced in 1942, it took the P-47C to enter the combat in Spring of 1943.
Also, engine of 1500 HP: is that TO power, or power at 25000 ft?
They were even planning versions using the Chrysler IV-2200 16 cylinder at one point.
Thanks for the tid bit.
The Airabonita was a lost cause. Sower than expected with a higher landing speed, bad handling/stability.
Yep, a bad choice indeed.
The P-51 isn't going offer much help early in the war. Even if a second factory is planed for starting at the end of 1940 it won't start producing until the middle of 1942 if not later and that is with Allison engines.
The R-2800 engined fighters were of no help early in the war, either. Maybe because US air forces went for the complicated versions of those?In 1942, the Mustangs were the best performing US-built planes*, bar P-38, despite (because?) of their engines.
Changing wings isn't as easy as it looks. A few sq ft is one thing, 40-60 sq ft is another on a fighter. New spars and so on are needed, a complete re-engineering of the wing.
Supermarine can do it, so can Messerschmitt. NAA?
edit: out of the planes in service
"Supermarine can do it, so can Messerschmitt. NAA?"
Look again at the Spitfire, they changed the wing tips. All changes were from the rib at the end of the ailerons outward. Standard wing was 242 sq ft, "clipped" (wingtips left off and opening covered with a fairing) was 231 sq ft, the "extended" wing was a longer, pointier wing tip. and added 3 1/4 sq ft (0.3 sq meter) to each wing. Try adding 2-3 sq meters to each wing.
"The V-1650-1 was a fine engine, but it was not that a stellar performer for jobs above 20000 ft. The 1425 HP from turbo V-1710 were available also at 25000 ft, where the single stage Merlin was delivering some half of that; even the exhaust thrust won't help against that kind of deficit in power."
While the Merlin III might have been that bad the Merlin XX (V-1650-1) wasn't. Tests of a Hurricane II (with less level speed ram than a Spitfire) give a brake HP of 1073 at 20,000ft with 48.24 in boost. 1126hp at 20,000ft with 50.67 in boost, 960hp at 25,000ft at 42.12 in boost, 778hp at 30,000ft with 34.30 in boost. to which can be added 113 ejector HP, 126.8 ejector HP 107.2 and 89.0 ejector HP at the boost and altitudes given. More like the Merlin is giving 75% of the turbo Allison at 25,000ft counting the exhaust thrust. A faster plane than the Hurricane II could get a bit more Ram effect and a bit more ejector HP.
A lot of Curtiss performance projections turned out to be rather wide of the mark when the planes were actually tested.
The rare R-2600s are really rare. One A-20 (or more?) is supposed to have flown with Turbo R-2600s. A two stage mechanical version was planed for the Navy. The question is how far they got or if they ever flew. Please note that P&W had one B-23 bomber (normal had R-2600s) that they fitted several different versions of R-2800s to for testing, one test even included contra rotating propellers. R-2600 with two stage supercharger IF it ever flew might have been in a test bed bed aircraft and not a service type. P&W lists a lot of models for the R-2800 that were never "manufactured" or built.
Seafire III and Bf-109T. The wings received, in these examples, significant changes.
I was referring to the navalisation of the ground fighters, that became Seafire III and Bf-109T. The wings received, in these examples, significant changes.
The Merlin XX would have far less of the power deficit while climbing, where both ram effect and exhaust thrust are almost of no use.
Hellcat's prototype - flying with a prototype of the two stage R-2600?