Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That assumes France is friendly during that periodDeployment on the Continent once the political decision is made?
Well, historically the British weren't buying much of anything from abroad until about 1938.What to buy abroad, from components to whole aircraft?
The British were exporting an awful lot of aircraft during the early and mid 30s.Cooperation between the friendly countries?
With 21st century hindsight Britain only needed two aero engines. The Merlin plus Cheetah. Those two will cover all needs. OT but they could also cover tank and armoured cars too; not to mention MGBs and MTBs.Engine situation:
Merlin family is a given. RR should not waste the time and resources for the Exe, Peregrine is also a distraction at the end. Without these two, Merlin can be perfected/improved even faster. Not sure whether the almost-Griffon can be made for service for 1940, if yes it would be a nice addition.
Bristol - not making the Taurus might improve the Hercules' timetable a few months? Bristol's engines would've benefited if improved superchargers are designed and produced in a timely manner.
Not sure what to do with Napier - Dagger is a meh engine, Sabre is way too late. Have them make Bristol or RR engines under licence?
Armstrong-Siddeley: Tiger is a bad choice for anything, bigger engines never materialized, small engines were good. What to do here, perhaps licence production of the R-1830s instead for the G&R radials?
Sunderland with Merlin's?With 21st century hindsight Britain only needed two aero engines. The Merlin plus Cheetah. Those two will cover all needs. OT but they could also cover tank and armoured cars too; not to mention MGBs and MTBs.
The concept is all about production simplicity. Sunderland with Merlins? Well why not if they are available. The Cheetahs are for trainers and light transport etc. Ditto for boats and tanks. Pile them high and sell them cheap. What else do you need. Not want but need? But this is all hindsight. At the time everyone had different ideas of what was going to be needed.Sunderland with Merlin's?
Or Sunderland with 12 Cheetahs? Two rows on six on the upper wing Dornier X style
I am not sold on Merlin's for MGBs and MTBs, The Packards that were used were 41 liter engines, about 50% larger than Merlin. As the boats gained weight the larger engines had more reserve of power. you could make the Merlins work but at what cost in overhaul life or breakdowns?
In some cases you are better off making what you have tooling for rather than build new tooling to build large numbers of the same engine in different factories.Not want but need?
I should reiterate that the two engine scheme is pure hindsight and presumes the armed forces to be clairvoyant soothsayers at the start of the OP period. The actual decision makers were mere humans and have no reason evident to them to make the two engine decision.In some cases you are better off making what you have tooling for rather than build new tooling to build large numbers of the same engine in different factories.
And in some cases you may be better off using specialty engines rather than trying to hammer square pegs into round holes just because they are cheap.
If your are running you factory/s at 2 or 3 shifts you aren't going make things much cheaper.
The British may have gotten a bit too boutique with some of their tank engine selections (two/three of them?) but in the 1930s and early war the tanks were using commercial bus and truck engines, they were cheap. The armored cars used commercial engines too.
Tanks work better with a lot of torque rather than horsepower. Especially if the transmissions use limited gear ratios. A flat torque curve allows for less shifting
The British did make some questionable choices for some of their tanks but trying to use Merlins in 1940-41 was probably not the answer.
The Cheetah was not quite big enough to substitute for the Liberty. The Cheetah being a 13.65 L engine. It was too big for the light tanks and armored cars and not quite big enough for Crusader and bigger tanks. The Liberty may have been a mistake in hindsight. But a 27 liter engine in a 20 ton tank meant the driver didn't have to work hard at keeping the engine in the powerband with the 4 speed transmission. German MK III and MK IVs used an engine of about 12 liters and used more gears to keep the engine on the torque peak.
The Merlin was too much of good thing at times in the Cromwell. It gave a speed of 40mph in the early ones but the crew got beat up driving cross country and even on roads the running gear took a beating. Later versions were re-geared to do 32 mph in the interest of longer life for the running gear.
Shermans with radial engine engines used a 16 liter engine and 5 speed transmission. The Shermans with V-8s had 18 liter engines.
The US could not retool engine factories to make just a few engines and used quite a selection of engines because it was easier than retooling.
for MTB/Motor Launch engines the 2nd most popular engine for British craft after the Packards were Hall-Scott Defenders that were V-12 35.7 liter engines. They were lower in power and heavier but they lasted longer. (they also didn't need aviation fuel)
The Liberty was used because that's what Christie used in his pioneering tanks which the British and the Russians used as the basis for some of their tank designs. Reintroducing the Liberty into production after 20 years has to rank as one of the stranger decisions. The Meteor was a Rolls Royce developed expedient to correct this mistake. Rolls Royce became heavily involved in British tank design not just engines in WWII.In some cases you are better off making what you have tooling for rather than build new tooling to build large numbers of the same engine in different factories.
And in some cases you may be better off using specialty engines rather than trying to hammer square pegs into round holes just because they are cheap.
If your are running you factory/s at 2 or 3 shifts you aren't going make things much cheaper.
The British may have gotten a bit too boutique with some of their tank engine selections (two/three of them?) but in the 1930s and early war the tanks were using commercial bus and truck engines, they were cheap. The armored cars used commercial engines too.
Tanks work better with a lot of torque rather than horsepower. Especially if the transmissions use limited gear ratios. A flat torque curve allows for less shifting
The British did make some questionable choices for some of their tanks but trying to use Merlins in 1940-41 was probably not the answer.
The Cheetah was not quite big enough to substitute for the Liberty. The Cheetah being a 13.65 L engine. It was too big for the light tanks and armored cars and not quite big enough for Crusader and bigger tanks. The Liberty may have been a mistake in hindsight. But a 27 liter engine in a 20 ton tank meant the driver didn't have to work hard at keeping the engine in the powerband with the 4 speed transmission. German MK III and MK IVs used an engine of about 12 liters and used more gears to keep the engine on the torque peak.
The Merlin was too much of good thing at times in the Cromwell. It gave a speed of 40mph in the early ones but the crew got beat up driving cross country and even on roads the running gear took a beating. Later versions were re-geared to do 32 mph in the interest of longer life for the running gear.
Shermans with radial engine engines used a 16 liter engine and 5 speed transmission. The Shermans with V-8s had 18 liter engines.
The US could not retool engine factories to make just a few engines and used quite a selection of engines because it was easier than retooling.
for MTB/Motor Launch engines the 2nd most popular engine for British craft after the Packards were Hall-Scott Defenders that were V-12 35.7 liter engines. They were lower in power and heavier but they lasted longer. (they also didn't need aviation fuel)
The real problem for Rolls Royce was the diversion into the ramp head design for the Merlin. This wasted a huge amount of time and effort. The Merlin would have been built with separate heads from the beginning if not for this. If Royce had lived for a few more years, I'm sure Elliot would not have had the freedom to go off the deep end.Engine situation:
Merlin family is a given. RR should not waste the time and resources for the Exe, Peregrine is also a distraction at the end. Without these two, Merlin can be perfected/improved even faster. Not sure whether the almost-Griffon can be made for service for 1940, if yes it would be a nice addition.
Bristol - not making the Taurus might improve the Hercules' timetable a few months? Bristol's engines would've benefited if improved superchargers are designed and produced in a timely manner.
Not sure what to do with Napier - Dagger is a meh engine, Sabre is way too late. Have them make Bristol or RR engines under licence?
Armstrong-Siddeley: Tiger is a bad choice for anything, bigger engines never materialized, small engines were good. What to do here, perhaps licence production of the R-1830s instead for the G&R radials?
The R-975 Sherman was considered to be underpowered. Note that the US kept the Ford V-8 versions for itself and send only R-975s and Chrysler multibanks to the British. Diesel powered variants went to the Russians and the Marines.
From: The Chieftain's Hatch: ETO Equipment Reviews, Pt 2
"Using personnel preferred this engine to the air cooled radial type engine because of its higher horsepower and torque outputs."
Also note the following from the same reference with regard to the fabled Ford V-8 crankshaft:
"Crankshaft: It was necessary to scrap 35% of the crankshafts of engines returned to the base shop for rebuild because the journals were scored so badly that they could not be reclaimed by regrinding. It is recommended that improvement in engine design to reduce bearing failures be considered."
The two engine solution isn't a good one even in hindsight. You are getting rid of a number of factories that are already tooled up to make truck and bus engines, Tooling is already paid for. Will the two engine solution pay for the retooling ?I should reiterate that the two engine scheme is pure hindsight and presumes the armed forces to be clairvoyant soothsayers at the start of the OP period. The actual decision makers were mere humans and have no reason evident to them to make the two engine decision.
The real problem for Rolls Royce was the diversion into the ramp head design for the Merlin. This wasted a huge amount of time and effort. The Merlin would have been built with separate heads from the beginning if not for this. If Royce had lived for a few more years, I'm sure Elliot would not have had the freedom to go off the deep end.
Without the ramp head fiasco Roll Royce may have had time to develop Snowy Grouch's beloved direct fuel injection.
The British adopted the Browning because they were planning on mounting guns in the wings, trying to mount eight guns around the engine in a single engine fighter was not going to work.On the guns. Browning in .303 was decent. Cannons' armament was too late, while a HMG was not dopted.
Me - I'd stick with the Browning, adopt one of the Vickers HMGs, and make a deal with Oerlikon for 20mm cannons, since those were available early enough.
But I am not convinced the 20mm Oerlikon gun/s were fully sorted out either in the mid 30s. There seems to have been changes to both the rate of fire and the veleocity in some of the guns between 1934 and 1937(?) and actual sales (aside from samples) were small and to a few minor countries (test/trial samples were looked at by a number of countries).
The RN had rejected the 20mm Oerlikon gun in 1934 but had told Oerlikon in 1937 that if they could increase the veleocity and make it simpler to maintain they would be interested.