Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tons! R-1820, R-1830, R-2600, R-2800, R-3350, R-4360.True.
How many viable radial engines did the US develop?
Not so much. I think that only the Allison was successful. Its biggest problem seemed to be a decent supercharger.How many viable inline engines did the US develop?
The only British experience with the P-38 was with a couple of early ones that had the turbos removed and both props turning the same way. Performance was so underwhelming they canceled the rest of the contract.Did the British have issues with the P-38 and P-47 that drove them to Merlinize the P-51?
Probably more then the rest of the world combined. Air cooled radial engines were not a problem for the USA.
Liquid cooled V12s are an entirely different matter. So the U.S. Army Air Corps had better fund development when they order the P-38 during February 1937. Otherwise the new fighter aircraft ordered during 1937 should be powered by an R2800 engine, which was in development during 1937.
Perhaps the British were developing or using Merlin-powered P-51's prior to using decent versions of the P-38 P-47, but the opposite is true of USAAC escort duty.
The earliest P-47s could hold 305 US gallons (254imp) which means it held about 3 times the fuel of an early Spitfire or 109. It was also quite possible to cruise a P-47 for almost 900 miles as long as you stayed under 12,000ft and under 200mph indicated airspeed. Which was better than either of those two fighters could do.
At what altitude?Everything I have read suggests the Corsair was superior to the P-47 for both aerial combat and ground attack. Isn't that reason enough?
Shortround6 you appear to have an excellent understanding of and access to data on the factors involved in aircraft performance and tactics for air battle over WW2 Europe. I have in my library some of the best books ever written about some of the aircraft we all have been talking about. You have really convinced me to get them out and do some research. I'll get back to you and the thread after that. Until then, I still think that a P-47 with more internal fuel and of course adequate drop tanks would have enough performance to successfully defend the bombers. I also think that in doing so many more P-47s would have made it home with pilots able to fight again than in the P-51. Even with all the initial problems the P-47s had they still allowed rookie american fighter pilots to hold there own against the experienced pilots of the Luftwaffe and begin to prevail.At what altitude?
If the 109s and 190s are climbing above the bomber formations and diving down on them and the bomber formations are at 20-25,000ft meaning the Germans are starting at 25,000-30,000ft (or higher) having the best aerial combat fighter in the world at 10-20,000ft doesn't do much good for bomber escort. Sure you can kill the German interceptors AFTER they complete firing passes on the bombers and eventually you can kill enough of them so that future bombing raids suffer low attrition but you use up a lot of bombers and their crews as bait in the meantime.
I may be exaggerating a bit but the P-47s area of strength was from 20,000ft up and the higher you went the more advantage it had. All but the earliest ones had at least 2000hp on tap at 25,000ft. The Corsair had 1650Hp at 22,000ft. Later P-47Ds could carry 2000hp to 30,000ft. Corsairs didn't see a whole lot of high altitude power increase until the F4U-4 which was a little late for European use.
The issue with water-injection for F4U/P-47 was availability - early 1944, IIRC.
Our beloved Jug really needed some wing drop tanks, at least 300 gal total, and such gear was available for P-38 in 1942. So there were no feasibility issues for 1943 (by that time P-38 carried 600 gal max, (for ferry purposes?)). The other possibility is a rear fuselage drop tank, like P-51s received in late 1943. With at least 75 gals under belly, that would've mean 680 gals + what rear tank holds (70-150 gals, depending how the CoG shift is experienced).