8 Lancasters = 56 crew lost, major targets destroyed.
60 B-17s lost = 600 crew lost, major targets severely damaged
Losses % is not always a good metrics.
This is the way it should have been from the beginning....
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
8 Lancasters = 56 crew lost, major targets destroyed.
60 B-17s lost = 600 crew lost, major targets severely damaged
Losses % is not always a good metrics.
I agree S/R.
All military organisations seem to have to make their own mistakes and even repeat the mistakes of their enemies. The British had to abandon unescorted daylight raids and so did the Germans. The USA tried it based on more defensive fire but that simply ignores the opposition may have more firepower too. The USA also tried unescorted raids with the B-26, which in some ways is similar to a mosquito. 11 B-26 aircraft attacked a power station in the Netherlands and none returned because of anti aircraft fire and FW190s. I am no expert on this (comments welcome) but the wiki article uses this raid as a justification for using the B-26 in a more conventional role, medium height with escorts, and more defensive armament. The power station is a power station and would be defended and it was situated between S/E England and Netherlands but also the Rhine Ruhr area of Germany, at the time it would certainly be defended. I don't believe a mosquito force would have fared any better, maybe one or two may return but it is still a disaster. As part of the suspension of massed attacks deep in to Germany the time was taken to not only re arm but completely change how operations were planned and performed. This is where the Mosquito really did play a part, weather and target information and recon before and after were part of a mission. Everyone wanted more for everything, there were 7,800 produced, there could easily have been 20,000 produced without anyone considering them being used as a strategic weapon when you get to bigger numbers than that where do the engines and wood come from?
quote wiki
. The second mission, an unescorted attack on a power station at IJmuiden, Netherlands, resulted in the loss of the entire attacking force of 11 B-26s to anti-aircraft fire and Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters.[28] Following this disaster, the UK-based B-26 force was switched to medium altitude operations, and transferred to the Ninth Air Force, set up to support the planned invasion of France.[28]
Only two of the three were damaged, and the people in the RAF were elite pilots and crew. who had spent a long time training.
I "believe" that Packard were paid a royalty of an equal weight in 24ct gold for every Packard Merlin engine installed in a Lancaster. When you provide proof for your assertion I will provide mine.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Going back to an earlier post about using fighter bombers in Europe I remembered an old thread on The US Navy attacking Japan in the closing weeks of the war.
In about 3 days of operations the US had 102 aircrew lost and 133 planes. This was staring on July 28th of 1945. I would venture to say that the Japanese AA was NOT as good as the German AA and Japanese pilot ability, in general/on average, in the summer of 1945 was not equal to the Germans pilot ability in 1942/early 1943, due to training times during the different years. No reflection on nationalities intended.
I am not seeing using fighter bombers as a subsitute for heavy bombers even if you keep them on the edges of German Territory.
In about 3 days of operations the US had 102 aircrew lost and 133 planes. This was staring on July 28th of 1945. I would venture to say that the Japanese AA was NOT as good as the German AA and Japanese pilot ability, in general/on average, in the summer of 1945 was not equal to the Germans pilot ability in 1942/early 1943, due to training times during the different years. No reflection on nationalities intended.
I am not seeing using fighter bombers as a subsitute for heavy bombers even if you keep them on the edges of German Territory.
I guess it is a question of respect for the enemy and the operation, from what I have read Typhoon fighter bombers routinely had an escort of Spitfires on cross channel operations, not only for air defence but also for AA suppression.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The Japanese certainly had lower quality AA guns than the Germans, I have no idea of the scale of issue/deployment in the areas attacked by the Navy in those three days.
The Japanese army had 20mm AA guns and the Navy had 25mm guns that were also used on land/near navy installations. Neither service had 37-40mm guns in any real quantities and jumped to 75mm guns and larger of decent but not outstanding design.
German light AA was both better quality and in larger numbers.
The Japanese army had 20mm AA guns and the Navy had 25mm guns that were also used on land/near navy installations. Neither service had 37-40mm guns in any real quantities and jumped to 75mm guns and larger of decent but not outstanding design.
German light AA was both better quality and in larger numbers.
Shortround6
Major General
As a further note on the timeline the XB-24 first flew on Dec 29th 1939 and the First YB-24 flew on January 17, 1941 with delievers starting in March of 1941. The P-47B was ordered off the drawing board in Sept of 1940 and first flew May 6th 1941 on the other side of the country from the consolidated factory (or from the plants making the B-17). I have no idea how the B-17 and B-24 could possibly have delayed P-47s, F4Us or the F6F (first flight June 26th 1942) to point they could have been operational in large numbers 6 months to year before they were.
Please note the 171 production P-47Bs were not very good airplanes with lots of troubles and none were ever deployed overseas (except perhaps as a training airframe for maintenance personnel?)
Please note the 171 production P-47Bs were not very good airplanes with lots of troubles and none were ever deployed overseas (except perhaps as a training airframe for maintenance personnel?)
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
I believe RR contacted Ford to produce Merlins before Packard was approached; perhaps they were kicking and screaming, but that fight wad lost before Packard.
The reports I've seen were to the effect that the diffuser for the V1710's compressor was poorly designed, significantly reducing efficiency. Mechanically, the Allison was quite sound. Interestingly, the V-1710 started as an airship engine. The USAAC got the "V-12s are way better, dudez" too late to get any other ones in service.
The "Hyper" program was a badly funfed, poorly conceived mess.
The difuser on the V-1710 was probably well designed. What was lacking was impeller's size, diameter of 9.5 in vs. 10.25 in on the Merlin. Size (that diameter is a part of) increases the voulme of air the impeller can compress. The 10.25 in engine-stage S/C was used on some late series of the V-1710s.
Both RR and DB tried to improve the altitude power with installation of a bigger impeller on their most important engines, for example 10.85 in on the Merlin 46 and 47 and 295mm impeller on the DB 605A vs. the old that mesued IIRC 270 mm (on DB 601E it was 260 mm of diameter), thus creating the DB 605AS.
USAAC was the proponent of V12s in late 1920s/early 1930s.
Shortround6
Major General
I believe Edsel Ford was in favor but His father Henry nixed the Deal, Packard had been sniffing around a bit and when Ford fell through Packard got the deal. Ford got the Deal to make R-2800s with in about 2 months, things were moving fast.
I don't know all the problems with the Allison supercharger but basically you only have three areas. Inlet, impeller and diffuser. The Allison supercharger wasn't that bad in 1939. It's just that Hooker took things to a whole new level very quickly. To be fair GE had supplied ALL American companies with superchargers not just turbos during the 30s and the GE superchargers weren't all that good, leading Wright and P &W and Allison to design their own in the late 30s. They were all groping in the dark as Hooker also discovered that some of the formulas in text books used to design superchargers had errors in them.
American military engine policy went through several swings, not helped by extreme economy. V-12s dominated the early and mid 20s with the radial coming on at the end of the 20s. Both Packard and Curtiss dropping out of the engine business due to lack of orders. Wright and P & W take over the market. Wright had merged with Curtiss so it made no sense to compete with themselves. Allison tries to break into the market.
The story that the Allison was designed as an airship engine is false. Preliminary work and a few prototypes of the V-1710 have been built when the army ran out of money. They suggested that Allison approach the Navy as the the Navy did have some money for research/development of airship engines. The Navy and most Congressmen not being happy about using imported German engines. The Navy airships crashed before more than one engine could be installed for testing (if that one even made it), the Army got more funding and the whole airship thing was forgotten.
The hyper program was long on theory, short on funding, results, practical application and other stuff, including keeping up with what the competition was doing and improvements in fuel.
I don't know all the problems with the Allison supercharger but basically you only have three areas. Inlet, impeller and diffuser. The Allison supercharger wasn't that bad in 1939. It's just that Hooker took things to a whole new level very quickly. To be fair GE had supplied ALL American companies with superchargers not just turbos during the 30s and the GE superchargers weren't all that good, leading Wright and P &W and Allison to design their own in the late 30s. They were all groping in the dark as Hooker also discovered that some of the formulas in text books used to design superchargers had errors in them.
American military engine policy went through several swings, not helped by extreme economy. V-12s dominated the early and mid 20s with the radial coming on at the end of the 20s. Both Packard and Curtiss dropping out of the engine business due to lack of orders. Wright and P & W take over the market. Wright had merged with Curtiss so it made no sense to compete with themselves. Allison tries to break into the market.
The story that the Allison was designed as an airship engine is false. Preliminary work and a few prototypes of the V-1710 have been built when the army ran out of money. They suggested that Allison approach the Navy as the the Navy did have some money for research/development of airship engines. The Navy and most Congressmen not being happy about using imported German engines. The Navy airships crashed before more than one engine could be installed for testing (if that one even made it), the Army got more funding and the whole airship thing was forgotten.
The hyper program was long on theory, short on funding, results, practical application and other stuff, including keeping up with what the competition was doing and improvements in fuel.
Shortround6
Major General
The trouble was that with the small funding of the time Curtiss and Packard didn't have enough money between the two of them to fund a really good R&D program. Engine design was changing fast and the Radial makers cut into the market. The Civilian market changed to aircooled radials pretty quick.
With planes like this
It doesn't really matter if you use V-12s or radials and the air cooled engines had one less thing to go wrong. They were also lighter for the same take-off power so you could carry more payload and still get out of the same sized airfield.
Off course in just a few years monoplanes with retracting landing gear became all the rage (British were convinced it was a fad) and while V-12s might have shown their stuff it was too late. Packard had already closed their aircraft engine division ( already in trouble after chief designer died in a crash) and Curtiss made a last gasp with the engines in the P-30.
However the engine dated back to 1926 and weighed as little as 770lb for a 1570 cubic in engine. It had been designed for no supercharging and an max rpm of around 2400-2500rpm and was showing it's limits by 1933-34. The Engines for the P-30 were the end of the line.
The Curtiss-Wright corporation being perfectly happy to sell R-1820 Cyclones.
The Navy had made it clear they weren't going to buy liquid cooled engines except for airships and that was a limited market. The Army wasn't going to use liquid cooled engines in ground attack planes and perhaps low altitude recon planes. The civilian market wasn't interested.
That doesn't leave much of a market without government (army) assistance.
Rolls Royce had its original production facilities at Ormanston, not suitable at all for mass production. First at Derby planning/construction started 1936, then Crewe starting May 1938, Glasgow June 1939. Manchester (Ford UK) May 1940. An agreement was made with Packard in September 1940. There is little time between the summer of 1939 and September 1940 but it covers the outbreak of war through the abandoning or postponing of British engines like the Vulture and Sabre.
Reading articles like these which come up first on searches I am not surprised why people have the views they have, and I am very concerned about the future.
https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2012/04/Packard-Merlin-V-1650/3711471.html
"America's finest redesigns England's finest and creates a legend"
The Merlin was a legend before anyone spoke to Packard
www.tested.com/art/makers/492418-packard-merlin-how-detroit-mass-produced-britains-hand-built-powerhouse/
The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain's Hand-Built Powerhouse
Detroit manufactured engines under license to assist the allied effort. Only the very first Merlins, like all other prototype engines were hand built. The UK was producing 1000 aircraft per month in the summer of 1940 with no assistance at all from Packard.
Both articles completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of Merlins were built in the UK and you can only produce a huge number of engines when the use is identified.
from wiki
Production of the Rolls-Royce Merlin was driven by the forethought and determination of Ernest Hives, who at times was enraged by the apparent complacency and lack of urgency encountered in his frequent correspondence with Air Ministry and local authority officials.[72] Hives was an advocate of shadow factories, and, sensing the imminent outbreak of war, pressed ahead with plans to produce the Merlin in sufficient numbers for the rapidly expanding Royal Air Force.[73] By the end of its production run in 1950, 168,176 Merlin engines had been built; over 112,000 in Britain and more than 55,000 under licence in the U.S.[nb 10][61]
Last edited:
In the inter war years the Italians also had promising V12 designs, if the Schneider trophy is credited with Merlin development then the Italians also had the chance.
Macchi M.39 - Wikipedia
Fiat AS.2 - Wikipedia
Shortround6
Major General
There are reasons that the early Merlin and Allison weighed between 1300 and 1400lbs. The other, older engines might have been able to be souped up to high power and last for a few hour race but longer lasting engines were wanted and engines with more potential were also wanted.
Many of these old engines used separate cylinders, that is each cylinder had it's own water jacket, sometimes a cylinder head was used that was 6 cylinders long, sometimes not. An engine that encased all 6 cylinders in one large casting, even if separate from the parts that held the crankshaft, had more bending resistance (strength ) than the separate cylinder engines. it also had less potential for leaks as there could be a lot less coolant lines/connections.
The Russians were one of the very few companies/nations that redesigned a separate cylinder engine into a cast block engine, just about every body else just started over.
The older engines often used longer strokes compared to bores which limited RPM. The small bores also restricted valve size. The light weight also meant light crankshafts and light connecting rods. Some of the older engines either had no counter weights or minimal counter weights as they ran at a low enough rpm (most of the time) that the vibrations were not a big problem.
Trying to make do with older engines was not a good option, please see Hispano V-12 and the Russian VK-105 series. The French Hispano didn't have good overhaul life and as the Russians dragged more power out of it even adding weight it sure didn't get any better.
Many of these old engines used separate cylinders, that is each cylinder had it's own water jacket, sometimes a cylinder head was used that was 6 cylinders long, sometimes not. An engine that encased all 6 cylinders in one large casting, even if separate from the parts that held the crankshaft, had more bending resistance (strength ) than the separate cylinder engines. it also had less potential for leaks as there could be a lot less coolant lines/connections.
The Russians were one of the very few companies/nations that redesigned a separate cylinder engine into a cast block engine, just about every body else just started over.
The older engines often used longer strokes compared to bores which limited RPM. The small bores also restricted valve size. The light weight also meant light crankshafts and light connecting rods. Some of the older engines either had no counter weights or minimal counter weights as they ran at a low enough rpm (most of the time) that the vibrations were not a big problem.
Trying to make do with older engines was not a good option, please see Hispano V-12 and the Russian VK-105 series. The French Hispano didn't have good overhaul life and as the Russians dragged more power out of it even adding weight it sure didn't get any better.
I wasn't suggesting those engines, like the Fiat AS.2 were viable engines in WW2, just that at one time V 12s were under development in many places and for various reasons were let go.
Shortround6
Major General
They were let go for very similar reasons. The early liquid cooled engine installations suffered from frequent leaks. If it wasn't the engine it wsa the radiator/s and the piping leading to and from. Those engines were NOT sewing machine smooth and the resulting vibration shook a lot of things loose. it also took a while to learn how to route pipes to fight this
Just about all 1920s liquid cooled engines used water and did not use pressurized systems. This meant draining systems overnight in cold weather, it meant the system was heavy and engine and radiator were heavier than an air cooled engine.
In the early 30s they went to Prestone (Glycol) and this allowed for smaller, lighter radiators and higher boiling temperatures. It also solved the freezing overnight problem.
Great post S/R but you are pointing to why things developed and how they developed, there were many engines/organisations at the starting point and for various reasons they gave up. As for radiators, aviation is always ahead of automotive technology. I have had 4 cars in my life that had radiator problems and leaks, none at all in the last 30 years.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of it was markets.
I believe that the Italian Air Force at some point in the 30s announced that it would only buy air cooled engines from that point on. SO unless the Italian engine companies could convince them to change their minds they had no viable market for liquid cooled engines.
The market for Italian commercial planes being too small to to support a specialized engine line.
Perhaps one or more companies kept development going at a trickle just to keep up with other nations but that was a risky business proposition. Engines were getting more and more expensive to develop and nobody could sell enough engines to overseas customers to recover the R & D costs of a high powered engine. Keeping an old engine in the catalog was another story. Many smaller European countries were buying aircraft by the dozen in the 1930s and not by the hundred. Africa was buying nothing and South America, if they were buying much of anything were buying things like military Waco's
China may have been the best military market up until the Spanish civil war started. But neither one offered enough to design and build new engines for.
I believe that the Italian Air Force at some point in the 30s announced that it would only buy air cooled engines from that point on. SO unless the Italian engine companies could convince them to change their minds they had no viable market for liquid cooled engines.
The market for Italian commercial planes being too small to to support a specialized engine line.
Perhaps one or more companies kept development going at a trickle just to keep up with other nations but that was a risky business proposition. Engines were getting more and more expensive to develop and nobody could sell enough engines to overseas customers to recover the R & D costs of a high powered engine. Keeping an old engine in the catalog was another story. Many smaller European countries were buying aircraft by the dozen in the 1930s and not by the hundred. Africa was buying nothing and South America, if they were buying much of anything were buying things like military Waco's
China may have been the best military market up until the Spanish civil war started. But neither one offered enough to design and build new engines for.
This is where my frustration with discussions about the Merlin comes from, the Gloster Gladiator was bought by the Chinese, 36 in total, that was the sort of order people dealt with. Even an order of 600 spitfires in the mid 1930s was, by comparison huge.
