A definite 'yes', the V-1650-1 in Mustang would've made for an excellent aircraft for 1942/43.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Allison engined Mustang MkIs must have blown away the similarly powered P-40's.
And V-1650-1 powered Mustang MkIs also would have blown away the similarly powered P-40F's and P-40L's.
Gotta wonder (dream) if Allison engined Mustang MkIs could have/should have replaced P-40's and P-40 production ended sooner.
The V-1710 was in combat before the USA entere the war, so a comparison with Merlin (or other engine in the time frame) is a valid one IMO.
And in that comparison the V-1710 comes out as second best.
The so-called modernized V-1710 C15s were outfitted with stronger crankcase and bearings. Compared with the unauthorized overboosting, and thus risky for both pilots and aircraft, the Merlin III have had authorised boosting to +12 psi (54.3 in Hg) already in 1939 (1938?) and +16 psi (62.5in Hg!) for Sea Hurricane, mid 1941, respective powers of 1300 and 1440 HP. The Allison and USAF were plenty late with WER ratings, took them until mid 1942 to come out with that officially.
TThe -81 is two years too late, it just managed to best the the pre-war Merlin III, it still has 10% less power than the XX or 45.
Merlin III was a single speed supercharged engine, the gear ratio employed is 'high', rather than 'low';
On pg.332, Dan Whitney quoted USAAF statistics which shows that the Packard Merlin finished dead last in reliability, with the shortest engine life and highest maintenance hours between overhauls as compared to the Allison V-1710 and Pratt Whitney R-2800.
Do you have numbers to validate this, or are you just floating the idea?
Comparing peacetime ratings and wartime ratings offers no proof that Rolls Royce Merlins were less troublesome.
Single piece Merlin cylinder blocks cracked and leaked from high boost pressures and so did two piece engine blocks intended to correct that problem. Wartime experience also showed weaknesses in connecting rods, main bearings, pistons, valves, lubrication points, supercharger drives, magneto gears, and of course carburettors.
Failures of the supercharger clutch and friction plates gave ongoing problems that continued into the Griffon series. In 1946, all deck-landings of the Seafire Mk XV were prohibited until Rolls Royce re-designed the supercharger unit.
High dust conditions caused the death of many Rolls Royce engines. Ginger Neil of No. 249 Squadron said that he went through five engines in eight weeks on Malta, even though the Merlins were "almost brand new".
My sources show that at 30,000 feet, the output of all three engines is approximately 700 b.h.p. More importantly, Allison could not build the V-1710-81 until the customer asked for it. Buyers dictate requirements to the engine maker, not the other way round as your reply suggests.
Alec Harvey-Bailey worked at Rolls Royce and his definition (p.14) does not agree with yours …
" The Merlin came to the forefront in the air fighting during the Dunkirk period and subsequently during the Battle of Britain. The engines which carried the brunt of the fighting were basic single stage supercharged types, notably the Mk II and III although some Merlin XIIs in Spitfire IIs with higher geared superchargers."
On pg.332, Dan Whitney quoted USAAF statistics which shows that the Packard Merlin finished dead last in reliability, with the shortest engine life and highest maintenance hours between overhauls as compared to the Allison V-1710 and Pratt Whitney R-2800.
Single piece Merlin cylinder blocks cracked and leaked from high boost pressures and so did two piece engine blocks intended to correct that problem. Wartime experience also showed weaknesses in connecting rods, main bearings, pistons, valves, lubrication points, supercharger drives, magneto gears, and of course carburettors.
Inlet Valves
A number of failures occurred in early operations....The tulip failures were cured by stiffening the rim of the valve....The inlet valve clearence was reduced to .010...Sufficient judgement was not given to this decision....Numerous failures occurred due to incorrect clearances....Valves would also occasionally fail from frettage fatigue at the collet location. Phosphor bronze collets were introduced and proved effective...
Exhaust Valves
The standard valves were made in KE 965 with sodium cooled stems and gave little trouble at military lives but a few casualties were occurring at 420 hrs. Various seating combinations were tried, but in wartime, Brightray on the valve seat and Stellite on the seat in the head gave as good results as any.
Failures of the supercharger clutch and friction plates gave ongoing problems that continued into the Griffon series.
Failures of the supercharger clutch and friction plates gave ongoing problems that continued into the Griffon series.
Evidence for this would be great.
The implication that the Merlin suffered from a large number of ongoing design problems and constant component failure is grossly wrong.
And yet thousands of Packard Merlins were used on P-51B/C/D/K's, Mosquitoes and Lancasters that all flew thousands of long range operations totaling hundreds of thousands of hours. The fact is all three engines were reliable enough for the purpose for which they were built - namely wartime service, often under extremely adverse conditions.
Its a pity the Merlin V1650 was so rubbish. Just think over 150,000 lumps of junk were built over about 12 years and those idiots didnt know they were doing it wrong.
Commander Mike Crosley, DSC:
" The second lethal shortcoming of the Seafire XV was a supercharger fault. The self-change mechanism from one blower speed to the higher speed was similar in action to the automatic clutch and gearbox of a car. When changing blower speeds on the climb, the blower speed of about 15,000 rpm had to be speeded up to 20,000 rpm in a matter of seconds. If the clutch gripped too tightly it would strip the gears. If it gripped too loosely it would burn out. In both failures the engine would lose its supercharger and it would stop, catch fire, misfire or overheat. The only method of avoiding such failures was the engage the gear manually at reduced rpm. This was not always possible, neither did it always work, for there were several fatal engine failures."
R. M. Crosley. They Gave Me a Seafire. Airlife Books, 1986 (See Appendix 11).
Failures of the supercharger clutch and friction plates...that continued into the Griffon series?
I did not write that. If you have statistics regarding component failures (to back up your opinions) then by all meanspost it.
Single piece Merlin cylinder blocks cracked and leaked from high boost pressures and so did two piece engine blocks intended to correct that problem. Wartime experience also showed weaknesses in connecting rods, main bearings, pistons, valves, lubrication points, supercharger drives, magneto gears, and of course carburettors.
Please refer to attached chart for engine life and maintenance hour averages for Packard Merlin (V-1650) and other U.S. engines ...
There was a problem with both the Rolls Royce, and Packard Merlin. One didn't have 'Made in the USA' (or Germany!) stamped on it, and the other one did !!
And how does this prove that the Merlin suffered from So, why did EKB write this:
EKB said:Single piece Merlin cylinder blocks cracked and leaked from high boost pressures and so did two piece engine blocks intended to correct that problem. Wartime experience also showed weaknesses in connecting rods, main bearings, pistons, valves, lubrication points, supercharger drives, magneto gears, and of course carburettors.
if not to imply that the Merlin continually suffered from these problems? Otherwise what was the point of writing it?
Please refer to attached chart for engine life and maintenance hour averages for Packard Merlin (V-1650) and other U.S. engines ...
From your latest reply, it's obvious that you have no idea how many engines suffered "component failures". Despite your lack of knowing the numbers, you continue to raise and argue that point, for reasons that only you can answer.
If you are so sure of your convictions, maybe you can explain why Rolls Royce would switch to two piece engine block if there were no serious problems with the single piece engine block.
If troubles with the supercharger mechanisms were (supposedly) fixed and perfected with the Merlin, maybe you can give us your take on why these issues lingered with the Griffon engine - and this after World War II ended.
I've been reading this with some amusement, but for the record I don't have a dog in this fight but I will say you need to show all the charts indicated in your post
See post 257I have a copy of the original source, but which charts are you talking about?