What If......

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Did he nearly call Rolls Royce a crap engine company, when it's the BEST in the world, it was then, and it is now. Peregrine would have been good if they gave it more attention, but the government ignored them and told them to stay on the Merlin.
And the Merlin wasn't just 'good' it made the Allied Air Force. Even the last production (Built by Spain) 109s had Merlins in them. And in fact the very first prototype 109 had a Rolls Royce engine in it.

So, I'll say again, I think we could trust Rolls Royce to make BRILLIANT engine, even from scratch.
 
I stated that the Merlin and the Griffon were both fantastic engines (that's a COMPLIMENT you know). But EVERY company had it's bad moments. For Rolls-Royce the Peregrine, and the Vulture (I noticed you negelected to defend it) were too bad moments. Rolls-Royce still makes excellent engines today, but their position is probably being challenged by GE and P&W and even the Russians have started to produce some quality engines.
 
Both the prototype Ju-87 and the prototype 109 flew with a Rolls-Royce Kestrel. And I think some of the post-war 109s ended up using Merlins.
 
Why would I defend the 'Vulture' engine? Even then Rolls Royce is still the top engine builder, Boeing have said they prefer to work with Rolls Royce than P&W. Boeing 747s engines used to be P&W soon replaced by Rolls Royce engines.

The Spanish built Ha-1112 (Hispano 109s) had the Rolls Royce Merlin in it. And the last one rolled off the production line in 1958, 23 years and 33,000 109s later than the first.
 
I was talking about in the military market for engines. I'm not aware of any Rolls-Royce design that can compare with the P&W F-119.
 
ah, sorry, it's just i've never heard it called that before.......................

back to "what if"s, what would have happened if the germans had a succesfull heavy bomber early in the war..............
 
Well, against Britain it was the bomber tactics that hurt the Germans rather than bomber size (ie, attacking London rather than RAF fields). If the Germans had continue to attack the RAF, the Heinkels, Junkers, and Dorniers would have been more than equal to the task. Dropping more bombs on London, however, was unlikely to change anything. A true heavy bomber would have been of more use attack Soviet industry on the other side of the Urals.
 
It's not a P&W that is going in the JSF. That's a Rolls Royce engine as well, it has been from the start. Why do you think it is called a Joint Strike Fighter? It's going to be an American design, based around a British Rolls Royce engine. Of which, they have not yet named.
And most of the P&W designs were either copies of Rolls Royce engines, or later development. Even Boeing (who make military equipment as well) and Lockheed have admitted they would rather have Rolls Royce build them an engine than any other.
 
Well, whatever may be going in the British JSF, the test models are flying with a modified P&W F-119 with the GE F-120 designated as an alternate.
 
Someone has already said that, Lanc.
LG, the JSF is flying with P&W engines because the Rolls Royce aren't yet ready, but the production models will be using RW engines. The idea of the whole engine exhaust pointing down to lift the plane was a RW design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
24K
Lighthunmust
L
K
My first post...and look what I got this weekend!
Replies
11
Views
2K
Frantish
H
Help me out if You can
Replies
5
Views
2K
vanir
V
What would you do?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Njaco
F
What Happened to "Butch" O'Hare?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
14K
MFH
Menu
Log in
Register