Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Kestrel operated at a lower level of boost and often on lower octane fuel, that is why the Merlin was de-rated, not only no supercharger but running on 80 octane fuel or less.I like the idea of Britain finding a better tank engine that give the technical opportunity, even if designers and specifiers aren't ready, to abandon the infantry and cruiser tank categories and instead go with a medium tank for all roles.
The RR Meteor launched in 1941 generated about 550 hp @ 2400 rpm with a Merlin-like 27 L displacement. This is about half the hp of the Merlin then in service.
The RR Kestrel generated about 670 hp on 21 L displacement in the 1930s. It's not going to be exactly scalable to the Merlin-Meteor, but a Kestrel-based tank engine should generate at least 350 hp. We'd need to do a lot better than the Crusader's Nuffield Liberty 27 L V-12's 340 hp to make it worthwhile.
what kestrel?Maybe the Napier Lion. Un-supercharged the Lion and the Kestrel put out about the same power, but the Lion did so at a lower rpm. In terms of dimensions it was wider and taller but not as long. Weight was about the same. The Lion was also considered exceptionally reliable for the time (early- to mid-1930s).
And one of our members thinks I hate the BritishHow about Napier Dagger VIII??
A US army book on Military Vehicles (TM 9-2800-1.....Feb 1953)motor pool gasoline at maybe 85 octane,
and bumped back up post war for commercial petrol, and with fuel injection it topped out at 810bhp.IIRC the Meteor had its Compression Ratio reduced to 5.5:1 to allow the use of motor pool gasoline.