Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This may be fact or it just might be a good story. I don't know.
The British took a while to approve higher than 9lbs boost for the Merlin XX although they did eventually get to to the 14lb and 16lb limits mentioned earlier. They were keeping the Merlin XX at 9lbs even though they were using 12lbs in the Melrn III.
The Americans stayed at 9lbs boost for quite some time although using 12lbs boost for take-off. It took until late 1942 and into early 1943 for the US to rate it's engines for WEP so many early manuals make no mention of it. I don't when or if the US "officially" raised the boost limits on the Merlin V-1650-1.
There are also sometimes differences between what the factory says is OK and what the Government says is OK, P & W for instance rarely lists WEP power levels in company charts or tables even though we know both the navy and army used them.
The official boost rating for P-40 F and L was 60" Hg in October of 1942. I'd be very surprised if the Spitfires or Hurricanes were staying below that. It seems likely that they boosted beyond that especially since we have pilot anecdotes of them outrunning Bf 109s at low altitude on more than one occasion.
well they were definitely different, whether that means better or not I can't say for certain but it sounds better - namely silver vs. copper based bearings and with some kind of special patented anti-corrosion coating made of indium.
There were lots of Packard Merlins available which could have been put into the Warhawk, instead they went to Britain and were put into the Avro Lancaster bomber.Once the decision was made to put Merlins in P-51s, Merlin engine P-40s were stripped and converted back to Allisons (P-40R).
There were lots of Packard Merlins available which could have been put into the Warhawk, instead they went to Britain and were put into the Avro Lancaster bomber.
Presumably these various factors would affect both sides equally? So it really boiled down to their having to figure out how far they could push the engines in general and specifically in their particular area (and perhaps, during a particular season, as I believe it does get cooler in Winter in Tunisia, and conversely I think it does get hot in Russia in the Summer). Maybe we'll never know how fast they were going but what really mattered was relative speed.
Since neither the militaries nor the manufacturers were really doing this kind of testing, it was up to the pilots and their mechanics to figure it out, and ultimately rewire the throttles and so on.
The 1/3 of production was just for the initial contract of 9000 engines. And it is doubtful the US took the full the 3000 engines. Packard would wind up building over 26,000 single stage Merlins of 11 (?) different models.The contract for Packard was to supply Merlin engines to the British.
In allowing the contract, the US government stipulated that 1/3 of production was to be reserved for US use. That's why there were P-40Fs and Ls - no other suitable airframe at the time.
The 1/3 of production was just for the initial contract of 9000 engines.
No worries.Sorry that I didn't make that clear.
And here lies a big problem. And the reason for famous Allison letter. and by the way, the factories were doing this sort of testing. It is called R&D. Factories ran engines at higher than normal boost and/or higher than normal rpm on test stands so they could find out what broke quicker than running at normal levels and beef up the parts so they could A, offer an engine with longer life and B, offer a new model engine with more power to their customers. Factories were sometimes constrained because their goal of higher power was limited by meeting the same service life as the lower powered engine. A more powerful engine that broke in service and/or required more frequent overhaul wasn't likely to find many customers
I should have equivocated on that a bit - yes obviously the aircraft engine companies did their R&D but not always at - or even remotely near a pace that was in sync with the needs of the pilots using these aircraft. Allison in particular was (I wold say) literally criminally negligent in this regard, in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal.
A bit melodramatic. I would certainly like to hear more about Allisons sale of defective engines.
Allison was in a strange situation, a lot of people nowadays bitch and moan about how Allison should have done this or that or some other thing to
improve the Allison engine (meaning make it more com[ative with the Merlin). They ignore that Allison was a very small engine company for most of the 1930s. They ended 1938 with 530 employees and orders for 43 engines on the books, they had completed 13 engines that year (one was
I know it goes against American mythology to believe that men in the field didn't know more than the men you designed and built the aircraft and engines to begin with but let's be realistic.
I should have equivocated on that a bit - yes obviously the aircraft engine companies did their R&D but not always at - or even remotely near a pace that was in sync with the needs of the pilots using these aircraft. Allison in particular was (I wold say) literally criminally negligent in this regard, in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal.
It's hardly a big secret, and google is your friend.
Curtiss-Wright - Wikipedia
They were installing defective engines and then bribing Army inspectors to slip them through to the combat units. I would call this criminal negligence. It was a plague for the US, every country had it's own particular kind of cultural problems in meeting the challenges of aircraft production in WW2, but for the US it was corporate corruption.
from the wiki:
"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.[8][9] 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.
...."
The P-40 was a good fighter, and the Allison was a good engine, there were many good people and obviously some excellent engineers involved in their production, but there were also clearly issues with the management of both Curtiss and Allison or it's parent company or both which prevented it from becoming a great engine - and that cost many lives. The rest is just excuses.
I'm not sure what mythological context you are coming from, but don't be confused, I never said that mechanics in the field knew more about engine design than Allison or Rolls Royce did, I'm saying they successfully rose to the challenge of getting the problems solved before the manufacturer did, certainly in the case of Allison. That again is an historical fact.
Allison in particular was (I wold say) literally criminally negligent in this regard, in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal.
I don't think there were many aircraft or engine manufacturers that didn't have to suddenly ramp up production from the tiny level of aircraft needed for civilian use in the 30's to the massive numbers demanded by the military forces in the 1940's.
but there were also clearly issues with the management of both Curtiss and Allison or it's parent company or both which prevented it from becoming a great engine - and that cost many lives. The rest is just excuses.
Do you actually know that Allison was one company, owned by GM, while Lockland factory was owned by Curtiss Wright? One making V-1710s, other making R-2600s?
Or it is the USAAC, that squandered time an money on hi-per engines, that were pushed down the throat of Continental and Lycoming, while opting not to materially support the V-1710 project? How guilty is the USAAC for wanting turbochargers by all cost, not wanting to hear about 2-stage engines until shooting started? Not supporting the XP-40H project - yes, the P-40 with turbo? Specifying too heavy armament suite on just one V12 engine?
Pray tell, how did the field mechanics solved the problem of V-1710 being not that good at altitude?