This is the way it should have been from the beginning....

[soaringtractor]

More thinking the way that Rolls-Royce developed engines would have got more out of the design sooner. And, of course, they would probably install a Merlin XX supercharger and, possibly, a 2 speed drive.

Shortround You are correct !!! The Merlin XX (20) was a SINGLE STAGE supercharger with a 2nd speed added !!! Most wartime production was this engine !!!! The 60 series 2 stage 2 speed was available in 1942,V1650-3 and production 1943 !!! This was the fabled high altitude Merlin !!! Not all merlins were created equal !!!

 

[Schweik]

I have said this before. Dive bombers against land targets only made sense when the defending AA was patchy and/or low quality.

Disagree - dive bombers, specifically the Ju-87, had immense value for the German war machine. This was really the key to many of their tank breakthroughs among other things. There is a reason why the Luftwaffe stuck with the Stuka for so long.

The issue is precision. WW2 bombers were very poor in precision.

It's also difficult for AAA to target dive bombers coming in vertically from 10,000 feet rather than say, a medium bomber at 3,000 feet trying to be accurate. you can see this in the casualty rates in the Pacific fighting - Torpedo bombers often didn't survive a single mission, medium bombers while Dive bombers had a comparatively low loss rate and hit a lot more often. And that is not just due to defective torpedoes.

In tactical bombing, dive bombers were an order of magnitude more effective than medium bombers when it came to actually hitting their targets with bombs.

Now it's true that extremely concentrated AAA, like they had at Leningrad for example can stop most bombers. But on the battlefield, a dive bomber is much more effective than any level bomber. And across a wide front, the Germans could have used more effective dive bombers. Their main issue with Stukas was vulnerability to fighters and the difficulty for the fighters in escorting such a slow aircraft which made them vulnerable and cut their range. A faster dive bomber would have been much better all-around.

S

 

[Schweik]

The Mosquito range is too short for the mission. Unless, as I said earlier, you launch from a carrier. Even then I am not sure they could get back to base (not being equipped to land on a carrier either).

Already pointed out - 800 miles from Sicily to Ploesti. Well within Mosquito range, even if you add a few hundred miles for flying around enemy radar or AAA. And they had operational airfields in Sicily in August 1943. At the latest, they may have had to do the mission in September instead of August. But unlike the actual raid, they would not have gotten so badly mauled and could have done it again and a gain, which could have had a much greater impact on the war.

 

[soaringtractor]

More thinking the way that Rolls-Royce developed engines would have got more out of the design sooner. And, of course, they would probably install a Merlin XX supercharger and, possibly, a 2 speed drive.

This is not new knowledge. It is well known here.

Shortround's suggestion is because the Merlin XX supercharger was superior to the one fitted to the V-1710. This enabled the FTH to be several thousand feet higher than for the V-1710.

Shortround The merlin XX (20) V1650-1 was a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added, it was NOT the FABLED 60 series high altitude merlin everybody drools over !!! The V1650-1 when fitted to the 1200 P40 F & L Kittyhawks made little to NO difference in overall performance of the P40 !!! The supercharger compressor wheel was said to be larger than the merlins which negated any advantage of the 2nd speed on the merlin!!! There was little to no improvement to the altitude with the merlin and the Allison was faster ant lower altitudes !!! NOT all merlins were created equal, Merlins used THREE different superchargers during their life !!!

 

[Schweik]

The Merlin XX (20) was NOT the great 2 stage 2 speed merlin!!! That was the 60 series 1942/ production 1943 !!! The Merlin XX (20) and the V1650-1 Has a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added !!! This was NOT the 60 series 2 stage 2 speed High Altitude Merlin everyone gets goofy about !!! The facts !!!

So what? Merlin XX is still much better than the V-1710 available at the time, let alone Klimov M-105

A single stage Merlin added to the P-40F/L greatly improved it's performance and survivability.

 

[Shortround6]

The Mosquito MK IX used Merlin 72 engines which were two stage engines. The Data sheet provided show the range with various combinations of fuel and bombs. To get the 1870 mile range you have to use a fuel tank which fills the bomb bay and are reduced to a single 500lb under each wing. I also gave you the speed and altitude that range was figured at.

If you want to use the Mosquitos that were in use in 1942 be my guest.

range is 2040 miles but with NO bombs. Range with 2000lb bombs 1620 miles at 15,000ft at 265mph.
Flying lower may shorten range due to increase drag. The very early Mosquitos carried no under wing loads.

Mosquitos went through a number of engines and some of those engines went through upgrades or upratings in allowable boost.

The first 10 mosquito bombers built were rated for four 250lbs, the four 500lb bombs became useable when they shortened the tail fins to fit them in the bomb bay, they were going to use telescoping fins but found the short fin bombs gave acceptable accuracy.

So sorry if historical development in engines and fuel plays havoc with your theory.

A lot of people want to replace the heavies with the Mosquito based on the Mosquitos use of the 4000lb cookie. WHich didn't actually take place until Feb 1944. There were only a few squadrons operating Mosquitos during daylight in 1943 and by the fall of 1943 the use of Mosquitos was switching to night use in order to............wait for it...............................reduce losses.

 

[soaringtractor]

Or give the V-1710 to Rolls-Royce to develop?

Why would you give the Allison to RR to "develop???" You do know don't you the 2 stage superchrger was invented in the USA with patents being issued in 1938???? RR did not invent the 2 stage supercharger!! The grumman F4F Wildcat with a PW R1830 was THE first plane to fly with a 2 stage supercharger !!!! Also PW added that 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to the R2800 as used on the F4U -4 Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The P47 added a turbocharger to the R2800 for high altitude performance !!! The better question would have been why was not this info available to Allison ???? Jesse Vincent of Packard had access to the 2 stage superchargers early on, he had an air version A2500 he was working on of the PT Boat engine M2500 that used a 2 stage supercharger. That engine got shelved when Packard agreed to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS !!!! USA had the technology but the USAAF was hung up on turbos that could not be fitted to most fighters, BUT the Navy saw the need !!!

 

[Shortround6]

Shortround The merlin XX (20) V1650-1 was a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added, it was NOT the FABLED 60 series high altitude merlin everybody drools over !!! The V1650-1 when fitted to the 1200 P40 F & L Kittyhawks made little to NO difference in overall performance of the P40 !!! The supercharger compressor wheel was said to be larger than the merlins which negated any advantage of the 2nd speed on the merlin!!! There was little to no improvement to the altitude with the merlin and the Allison was faster ant lower altitudes !!! NOT all merlins were created equal, Merlins used THREE different superchargers during their life !!!

you might want ot look at some graphs or charts rather than just go off of peak speeds.
Yes the P-40F was either the same speed or within a few mph of the Allison P-40 (make sure you are comparing contemporary P-40s and not the later Ns) but at 20,000ft and above the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than the P-40E, it also enjoyed a significantly better climb rate at altitudes in the 20 thousand foot range.

 

[soaringtractor]

So what? Merlin XX is still much better than the V-1710 available at the time, let alone Klimov M-105

A single stage Merlin added to the P-40F/L greatly improved it's performance and survivability.

WRONG !!!! The Allison was still faster at lower altitudes up to 20,000 ft above that speed was about equal and very little if any altitude was gained with the merlin. Why only 1200 were ever built and they went back to the Allison !!! The Allison was 300# LIGHTER, and a simplier engine to maintain and work on !!!

 

[Schweik]

The G.55 was probably the sexiest fighter ever designed when looking the side elevation, however it does not offer anything over what Fw 190 did 15 or 20 months earlier. Have surplus of DB 605 engines? Install them on the Fw 190s.
Re.2001 (and Ki-61) shows that DB 601, good performance long range were possible in a single aircraft, but it was late to 1940, while German priorities of 1943 were not dictating long-range fighters.

I always thought the Fw 190 (until the D which came so late in the war) had some issues with both range and higher altitude combat. The G.55 or Re 2005 was also much more maneuverable - much better turning anyway.

The He 219 with BMW 801 would've probably been a good fighter.

Exactly!

Call me sceptic when it is about floatplane fighters in and around Europe

I'm thinking of the convoy fights involving a lot of (fascinating, but slightly ridiculous) skirmishing between Venturas, Short Sunderlands, Sea-Gladiators, Fulmars, Ju 88's, Ar 196, SM 79's, He 115's, FW 200, and the occasional Sea Hurricane. An A6M2-N could handle a Martlet, or Sea Hurricane on at least equal footing. Can slaughter Fulmars, Gladiators or Fairy Swordfish. And can operate from almost anywhere a Submarine can get to. Think about it a little more.

Every unescorted bomber was highly vulnerable, while percentage of killed He 11s vs. bombs dropped was no worse than of the Ju 88, Do 17 or Wellingtons in 1940. Every bomber was slow in these days, even the Ju 88 was much slower than non-so-fast Hurrucanes.
Germany needed faster bombers, that I will agree, however the B7A does not cut the mustard with 1100 lbs in a bomb bay, while any external bomb load cuts the speed.

Every unescorted bomber except the Mosquito! haha. I think faster bombers are safer. The B7A was faster than a Hurricane. And an 1100 lb bomb load is plenty for a dive bomber, one big bomb that actually hits is much better than 5 that miss.

Rockets will not do against tanks.

I think what rockets do is destroy all the lighter vehicles around tanks, which makes tanks very vulnerable. And in enough numbers they can actually destroy tanks too. The Soviets in particular used a variety of rockets some quite heavy.

Bombing campaign was done with aircraft coming out from production lines. There was no option 'let's wait until there is enough of Mosquitoes so we can bomb Germany'. Escort fighter can kill enemy fighters & their pilots, bomber Mosquitoes cannot.

In my scenario, fighter bombers initially would draw Luftwaffe response and shoot down all those Me 109's and Fw 190s. Meanwhile Mosquitoes can actually hit their production plants, airfields etc. unlike the 4 engined heavys which tend to miss almost all the time. Over time of course the German night fighter response gets heavier and more effective, but at the same time, Allied fighters achieve longer and longer range. I never said cancel the P-51 did I?

S

 

[soaringtractor]

you might want ot look at some graphs or charts rather than just go off of peak speeds.
Yes the P-40F was either the same speed or within a few mph of the Allison P-40 (make sure you are comparing contemporary P-40s and not the later Ns) but at 20,000ft and above the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than the P-40E, it also enjoyed a significantly better climb rate at altitudes in the 20 thousand foot range.

By the same token IF you compare a P40 E that is an EARLIER version. The M/N are a better comparison, why more Merlin powered P40 were NOT built !!!

 

[Schweik]

WRONG !!!! The Allison was still faster at lower altitudes up to 20,000 ft above that speed was about equal and very little if any altitude was gained with the merlin. Why only 1200 were ever built and they went back to the Allison !!! The Allison was 300# LIGHTER, and a simplier engine to maintain and work on !!!

They actually built 1,300 F and 700 very similar L (also Merlin engined) so about 2,000 altogether. The reason they only built that many is because priority for Packard-Merlins went to the P-51 as the P-40. The reason the P-51 used the Merlin rather than the Allison was because it gave much better altitude performance!

Also worth noting, every US Fighter group that fought in the Med - 33rd, 79th, 57th, 325th and 324th, was equipped primarily with P-40F/L.

You might want to read Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War, esp. Volume III which deals with the American P-40's.

The Allison-engined P-40's had an effective performance ceiling of between 12,000 - 16,000 feet depending on the exact subtype and the climate / weather. In the actual real world - in the war, this was very well understood by the British and the Americans. In both cases, the P-40F/L models flew top cover for the other types (P-40K or (Commonwealth only at that point) P-40E up at about 20,000 feet. This was their only real advantage over the P-40K which peaked out at about 15,000 feet. But it was a huge advantage.

The P-40K was quite good with a strengthened Allison routinely capable of 57" mercury manifold pressure which yielded ~1,500 hp at some altitudes. They actually liked it better than the Merlin types down low. But it did not confer the ceiling and the ceiling was the key thing that made a difference. At 20,000 feet, due to the relatively short operational ranges and the fact that most of the bombers in the Med weren't flying much higher than that, they more rarely got jumped from above by the Bf 109's and MC 202's. At 15,000 feet it happened much more frequently.

Both British and American pilots commented on all this in the book. The key issue for P-40's in general was having to "look up" for enemy attacks. But this was much alleviated by the Merlin engined types.

Performance ceilings were not limited to Allison engines by any means, many aircraft suffered from some variation of this problem, from the early Zero's to the Fw 190's, as well as Hurricanes and many other fighters. But for this problem, the Merlin was the best solution in an inline engine. The Allison didn't conquer this until the turbo was worked out completely for the P-38 and that was very late in the game. It's one of the biggest scandals of the war in my opinion.

S

 

[Shortround6]

By the same token IF you compare a P40 E that is an EARLIER version. The M/N are a better comparison, why more Merlin powered P40 were NOT built !!!

Will you PLEASE look up the dates?
The P-40F prototype flew in the summer of 1941 (June 30th), but production had to wait for Packard to get up to speed. Jan 3rd 1942 sees the delivery of the first production P-40F, it doesn't matter if the P-40M can fly at 500mph or climb to the stratosphere in 3 minutes if it doesn't show up until Nov of 1942 and the N doesn't show up until Feb of 1943.
Increased production of P-38s and P-47 also decreased demand for P-40s off all kinds and please remember that when the P-40M goes into production multiple prototypes of P-51s with two stage Merlins are flying and orders for several thousand Merlin P-51s are on the books.
Packard will continue to build thousands of single stage Merlins for British bombers and Canadian Hurricanes.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I think soaringtractor's exclamation mark key is malfunctioning

 

[Schweik]

Will you PLEASE look up the dates?
The P-40F prototype flew in the summer of 1941 (June 30th), but production had to wait for Packard to get up to speed. Jan 3rd 1942 sees the delivery of the first production P-40F, it doesn't matter if the P-40M can fly at 500mph or climb to the stratosphere in 3 minutes if it doesn't show up until Nov of 1942 and the N doesn't show up until Feb of 1943.

Well I do know the dates.

I never said anything about the M or N (which both used Allison engines)
The P-40F was already in combat with US units (57 FG) in August 1942 in North Africa. 66th FS / 57 FG P40F's shot down their first Bf 109 August 9.
The P-40M was mostly for export and the N wasn't used much if at all by the USAAF in the Med, only in the Pacific / CBI

Increased production of P-38s and P-47 also decreased demand for P-40s off all kinds and please remember that when the P-40M goes into production multiple prototypes of P-51s with two stage Merlins are flying and orders for several thousand Merlin P-51s are on the books.
Packard will continue to build thousands of single stage Merlins for British bombers and Canadian Hurricanes.

but the US was phasing out the P-40 for American use, with emphasis shifting to the P-51.

They were trying to phase out P-40's since 1942 but found they still needed them well into 1943 due to the P-39 basically failing in US use and the P-38 having so many teething problems. So at the time of the invasion of North Africa / Operation Torch the P-40 (Merlin engined F, mainly, plus some P-40K) was the main American fighter. The P-38's had trouble and ended up being mostly used for high altitude escorts of the B-24's.

S

 

[Shortround6]

I was replying to soaring tractor with that post. sorry for any confusion.

 

[Schweik]

I was replying to soaring tractor with that post. sorry for any confusion.

Sorry my eyesight isn't so good I confused you for him, apologies.

 

[YF12A]

Going back to making more Mosquito's, it is worlds of difference in making wood vs metal airplanes in the tens of thousands. One, metal, you make in any quantity you want, the other you have to find and import or grow, harvest, etc. Then there is the huge quality control difference between something you make and control, metal, vs wood which you have to individually inspect. Not saying it couldn't be done, but....

 

[tomo pauk]

Why would you give the Allison to RR to "develop???" You do know don't you the 2 stage superchrger was invented in the USA with patents being issued in 1938???? RR did not invent the 2 stage supercharger!! The grumman F4F Wildcat with a PW R1830 was THE first plane to fly with a 2 stage supercharger !!!! Also PW added that 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to the R2800 as used on the F4U -4 Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The P47 added a turbocharger to the R2800 for high altitude performance !!! The better question would have been why was not this info available to Allison ???? Jesse Vincent of Packard had access to the 2 stage superchargers early on, he had an air version A2500 he was working on of the PT Boat engine M2500 that used a 2 stage supercharger. That engine got shelved when Packard agreed to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS !!!! USA had the technology but the USAAF was hung up on turbos that could not be fitted to most fighters, BUT the Navy saw the need !!!

Toning down the questionmarks, exclamation marks and flag-waving would've probably be a good idea.
2 stage superchargers were used in Europe in mid/late-1930s for high altitude flights, French company Farman was freely giving away informations about 2-stage S/Cs already in 1935 (link). You might be surprised that people in the forum devoted to the ww2 A/C already know that P&W and other US companies were making 2-stage and turbo-supercharged engines.
Why is it such a big problem with Packard making Merlins for the British (aside the fact that they also were making Merlins for the good ole USA)?

I always thought the Fw 190 (until the D which came so late in the war) had some issues with both range and higher altitude combat. The G.55 or Re 2005 was also much more maneuverable - much better turning anyway.

In 1943, the G.55 with 380 mph does not offer anything over the Fw 190 of 400-410 mph. Wing was thick, no sign of modern airfoil, and of bigger area than on the Fw 190. Range of the Fw 190 can be improved by a large margin with installation of the DB 601/605 engine instead of BMW 801 due to far smaller consumption of the DB. The 'Daimlerized Fw 190' gets drag and weight reduction vs. ordinary Fw 190A, and will still be rolling as fast.

I'm thinking of the convoy fights involving a lot of (fascinating, but slightly ridiculous) skirmishing between Venturas, Short Sunderlands, Sea-Gladiators, Fulmars, Ju 88's, Ar 196, SM 79's, He 115's, FW 200, and the occasional Sea Hurricane. An A6M2-N could handle a Martlet, or Sea Hurricane on at least equal footing. Can slaughter Fulmars, Gladiators or Fairy Swordfish. And can operate from almost anywhere a Submarine can get to. Think about it a little more.

Rufe, with 270 mph, cannot handle a Sea Hurricane or a better Martlet version on equal footing. Fulmars were not slaughtered historically, hence Rufes will not do it. Sorry, I'm not sold on floatplane fighters in and around Europe.

Every unescorted bomber except the Mosquito! haha. I think faster bombers are safer. The B7A was faster than a Hurricane. And an 1100 lb bomb load is plenty for a dive bomber, one big bomb that actually hits is much better than 5 that miss.

I'm all for Mosquitoes, unfortunately they can't solve all WAllied problems in 1942-43. 1100 lb bomb is not a big bomb, the 8000 or 12000 lb bombs were big bombs.

I think what rockets do is destroy all the lighter vehicles around tanks, which makes tanks very vulnerable. And in enough numbers they can actually destroy tanks too. The Soviets in particular used a variety of rockets some quite heavy.

I will not claim that rockets were not worth it. Just that hey were not good in killing tanks.

In my scenario, fighter bombers initially would draw Luftwaffe response and shoot down all those Me 109's and Fw 190s. Meanwhile Mosquitoes can actually hit their production plants, airfields etc. unlike the 4 engined heavys which tend to miss almost all the time. Over time of course the German night fighter response gets heavier and more effective, but at the same time, Allied fighters achieve longer and longer range. I never said cancel the P-51 did I?

Fighter bombers didn't draw LW response in 1941-42 above W.Europe when RAF was flying Rodeos and Rhubarbs, unless LW controllers asumed that they might gain upper hand and trash the opposition. Results were RAF loosing multiple fighters/fighter-bombers/bombers for each LW fighter downed, with even worse ratio when it is about pilots lost.
Fighter-bombers play into German strength - numerous Flak.
Heavy bombers flying during dayling were the honey trap LW could not ignore, it took a while (many months) for the WAllies to capitalize on this, though.

 

[pbehn]

Going back to making more Mosquito's, it is worlds of difference in making wood vs metal airplanes in the tens of thousands. One, metal, you make in any quantity you want, the other you have to find and import or grow, harvest, etc. Then there is the huge quality control difference between something you make and control, metal, vs wood which you have to individually inspect. Not saying it couldn't be done, but....

The Mosquito was referred to as 'The Wooden Wonder', in that approximately 60% by weight of the aircraft was wood of one species or other. Canadian yellow spruce for the laminated wing spars from British Columbia, balsa from Ecuador (which despite its lack of strength is technically a hardwood), and birch – for the plywood – from Wisconsin and the British Isles; all of these played their part, along with other woods such as Douglas fir. The spruce, vital for the wing spars and other components, had to come from old-growth forests, be perfectly straight and close-ringed, and have an ultimate strength of approximately 60N/mm2 (in today's values); this was equal to some light alloys. The Air Ministry publication DTD36B, which contained the specification for spruce to be used in aircraft construction, was quite a strict one, laying down values for density, moisture content, straightness of grain and other criteria. Only one in ten trees felled passed the necessary tests for wood to be used in Mosquito wing spars. Certain areas of the airframe used ash for its hard-wearing qualities, and the wing-root pick-up structures were made from walnut, chosen for its great strength.