Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What benefits, if any, would be achieved by mating with Peregrine and superchargers from Merlin X, or XX? Something akin what was done for Merlin (from Vulture?) or for DB-605 (from 603)?
Don't put words into my mouth, I said no such thing. For fighter v fighter Dowding was unimpressed, but was quite happy to have it for use against tanks; now, as far as I know, no German tanks were ever encountered at altitude.This is part of what I mean about a smoke screen, in your post #24 you talked about the lack of high altitude performance in the fall winter of 1940/41 and the Whirlwinds inability to combat the 109F at 22,000ft and above, no you are saying it was viewed as an anti-tank aircraft and altitude performance was needed just a few months before that. Which is it? .
Sorry about that, but neither you, nor I, know what R-R were capable of, in 1940, so implying that they were incompetent/lying is going a bit far.Actually, it sounds a lot rude.
Precisely what I said; they didn't have the capacity (and said so,) so something(s) had to go.It does speak to the capacity of Rolls-Royce in manufacturing terms.
I said obsolescent, which is not the same thing.The Whirlwinds airframe was obsolete when? In 1940? In 1941?
In an inter-departmental note, an Air Ministry mandarin states,".....while the Peregrine is being cleared for 12 (not 9) lb boost and 100 octane fuel for emergency use, the development of the engine for full 100 octane rating is quite a different business, and would take a considerable time."Care to give a source for this? In Victor Bingham's book on the Whirlwind he copies what I believe are the pilots notes and part of the take of procedure is to run each engine (one at a time) up to 2950/3000rpm and 9lbs of boost to check the supercharger boost limit. If the engine was damaged in in seconds doing this it seems it would be a very foolish thing to do before each and every flight? perhaps the procedure was changed at a later date?
And your evidence for this is..........?I don't think there was a conspiracy, more like a comedy of errors which some people then tried to sweep under the rug.
AOC-in-C Fighter Command, in fact.The Bombs were not added until 1942 and then, as the story goes, at the instigation of the using squadron/s.
One squadron, actually, since 137 Squadron didn't exist, as a Whirlwind squadron, before 20-9-41, and flew its first operation 20-11-41.In any case keeping 2 squadrons around for over a year before getting around to putting the bombs on them certainly doesn't sound like no use.
Excuses? I didn't realise that a national government needed excuses; as far as I'm aware they made decisions based on the facts given to them by the companies involved.As I said before, stopping the program was the right decision, it is just that too many of the excuses don't hold water
Since this thread concerns the Whirlwind, I rather assumed that the theory would be applied to that airframe.I said nothing about the airframe. Just wondering if the Merlin 61 supercharger could have worked on the Peregrine. .
Which brings us back to the point that R-R had no such plans.If RR were going to adapt the Merlin 61 supercharger to the Peregrine I dare say t is because they had more roles for it than just the Whirlwind.
Don't put words into my mouth, I said no such thing. For fighter v fighter Dowding was unimpressed, but was quite happy to have it for use against tanks; now, as far as I know, no German tanks were ever encountered at altitude.
Sorry about that, but neither you, nor I, know what R-R were capable of, in 1940, so implying that they were incompetent/lying is going a bit far.
I said obsolescent, which is not the same thing.
In an inter-departmental note, an Air Ministry mandarin states,".....while the Peregrine is being cleared for 12 (not 9) lb boost and 100 octane fuel for emergency use, the development of the engine for full 100 octane rating is quite a different business, and would take a considerable time."
Emergency use in a Merlin was always seen as a last resort, and the amount of time had to be carefully registered; I see no reason why the Peregrine should have been treated any differently.
And your evidence for this is..........?
Who was going to admit they canceled the Peregrine to work on the Vulture???
It might have been the right decision (cancel 900-1000hp engine to work on 1800-2400hp engine) but with the notoriety of the Manchester fiasco I would think people weren't in a hurry to line up to take credit for it.
Canceling the Whirlwind in order to build all those trouble free Typhoons probably didn't look like a career boosting note on the resume in 1941-42 either.
The Peregrine wasn't cancelled in favour of the Vulture. Both programs were suspended during 1940 (BoB) and cancelled in 1941.
The take off rating of the Vulture II is given as 1800bhp at 3200rpm and +6 lb boost: for the Mk.IV V, the 'fighter' engines, t/o power is given as 1955bhp at 3200rpm and +9lb boost.
I have not been able to find anything to substantiate that the Vulture attained 3000hp on occasions but the Vulture V is known to have reached 2500hp, and it is possible that, under the right conditions of test, 3000hp was achieved.
A bit more on the "comedy of errors".
One of the less than stellar features of the prototype was that the exhaust pipe was routed through the fuel tank and wing to the trailing edge is an attempt to hold drag to a minimum. This would also hold any thrust due the the exhaust to a minimum in addition to the fire hazard and the hazard of leaking high temperature exhaust gasses into areas of the airframe not able to withstand them. This last nearly caused the loss of the Prototype when an exhaust leak severed an aileron control rod. Another delay while the exhaust and corresponding area of the wing were redesigned and modified.
Peregrine was canceled in 1940 to allow greater effort on the Merlin and Griffon, Fair enough. But the Vulture staggered on until the fall of 1941 or, according to one source the spring of 1942. Misprint? there is also a difference between the date a decision is made and the final delivery.
The Whirlwind order was not cancelled in 1939, the order was simply not confirmed; I realise that this might seem like playing with words, but the first prototype had handed engines, while the 2nd. prototype did not, and the Ministry wanted to know if there was any difference in handling before going ahead. The second prototype did not fly until Spring 1939, and did not go to A. A.E.E., Martlesham for full service trials until September 1939. Adding to the delay was the production programme, for Peregrines, which was only 8 in February 1940, 12 in March, 22 in April, rising to 48 in December.
When Petter visited 263 he noted that the majority of problems were with the engines
Normal squadron complement was 15 (at least) airframes; Dowding couldn't (and wouldn't) shift an incomplete squadron anywhere while they were still working up. 263 did have Hurricanes, and did fly operations with them while they were in Scotland.Dowding's reasons might carry a bit more weight if there had been NO squadrons in the south equipped with either Gladiators, Defiants or Blenheim day fighters. While 263 Squadron shouldn't have been in No 11 group that still leaves an awful lot of the south (like Cornwall)
The idea came from 263's C.O. If Spitfires and Hurricanes were being pressed into service as nightfighters in 1940, I can see why an aircraft, with the armament of the Whirlwind, would be considered, as well, since it would have been able to down German bombers, whatever their armour. Even the Typhoon, at one stage, was tested as a nightfighter, but rejected because it was felt that the work was too much for one man.Not sure were the Night fighter idea was coming from either. Of course they did have a number of night fighter squadrons with no radar at that time.