Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

[Shortround6]

It was my understanding that the French Purchasing commission requested the Wright GR-1820-G205A, which had a single-stage, 2-speed supercharger, that was rated 1250hp.
The British Martlet (G-36B) had the P&W R-1830-S3C4--G (rated at 1,200hp.)

They did.

Except those are the powers (both engines were 1200hp, the wright was not 1250hp) for take-off and/or low gear.
The 1200 hp on the Cycone was good to 4100ft (4 digits) at some point above that the engine was shifted to high gear and that peaked at 1000hp at 14,000 ft (no ram) so there was no power advantage compared to a Hurricane I.

The P & W engine could make 1200hp at 4,900ft in low gear. High gear was 1050hp at 13,100ft according to one source

The two stage engine made 1000 hp at 19,000ft so obviously the single stage planes are going to have rather less performance at altitudes in the high teens and twenties.
They are not a way to get F4F-3 performance early.

Once the Hurricane gets 12lbs of boost the American engines 1200hp at low level advantage disappears. Since the Hurricane could run 12lbs before the BoB even started the Martlets don't bring much of anything to the fight that isn't already there (without the use of the time machine

 

[pbehn]

Why settle for halfway measures?

I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.

 

[Shortround6]

The British didn't need Wildcats......they had James Bigglesworth

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

Even destitute poor folk like the Joads in Grapes of Wrath could find a way to acquire an ancient Model T Ford (converted to a pickup truck) in which to make their exodus to California, stopping along the way to grind the valves and fashion new head gaskets out of scrounged materials.

*SNIP*

Not to be picky (Me picky? Hard to fathom I know) but I believe in the book, it was a Hudson Sedan converted into a truck, in the John Ford 1940 movie, it was a 1926 Hudson Super Six.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.

If it was available a year earlier, would the Gloster E.28/39 be any use in the BoB? It would need to be armed, and available in sufficient quantities for several squadrons.

 

[pbehn]

If it was available a year earlier, would the Gloster E.28/39 be any use in the BoB? It would need to be armed, and available in sufficient quantities for several squadrons.

I would only need one, to whizz around photo recon planes and change the markings every night.

 

[GrauGeist]

Except those are the powers (both engines were 1200hp, the wright was not 1250hp) for take-off and/or low gear.

Ahh...the 1250hp on the Cyclone was a typo.

I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.

The only jet that had flown before the start of the Bob, was the He178 (1939).

The Caproni N.1 (August 1940) and He280 (September 1940) would have barely made it.

The E.28/38 would have been too late to the party, first flying the following May.

(Of course, first flights for prototypes are listed to show the timeline only)

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Not to be picky (Me picky? Hard to fathom I know) but I believe in the book, it was a Hudson Sedan converted into a truck, in the John Ford 1940 movie, it was a 1926 Hudson Super Six.

Don't get old, your memory goes all to hell! I read the book sophomore in high school. Guess it's time to read it again. It was a good read. Thanks for the nudge. Steinbeck was good reading. Cannery Row, Grapes of Wrath, and Travels with Charley in Search of America should get me through the months of hibernation coming up.

 

[GrauGeist]

6

Not to be picky (Me picky? Hard to fathom I know) but I believe in the book, it was a Hudson Sedan converted into a truck, in the John Ford 1940 movie, it was a 1926 Hudson Super Six.

Hudson manufactured pickups based on their Super Six sedan through 1947

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thanks for the rating a la Steinbeck, Biff! While I'm curled up hibernating with a book this winter, you'll be out there slogging through the muck. My condolences! If I never see the (S)EWR again it will be too soon.

 

[Mad Dog]

The P-39 had a considerable amount of issues, there is no way it was going to be on the level of the P-40 (which served on ALL fronts from the start of the war to the finish) or the Mustang/P-51/A-36....

Despite carrying a heavier armament, the P-39D outclimbed, outsped and had a higher ceiling than the P-40E. Below is the Australian tests of the Boomerang, Hurricane IIB, Spitfire VC, P-39D and P-40E. The P-40E came out worse than the P-39 on everything except range.

Eric Brown kept a P-39 as his personal mount whilst a test pilot, flying it all over the UK and Europe, simply because he loved flying it. That is a pretty big endorsement given he had his choice of every frontline US and British fighter. The P-39's biggest problem was that it was designed by a small company (Bell) whilst the P-40 was lucky to be kludged together by America's largest pursuit supplier. As it was, the P-40 was kept on as a bomb-truck. True, the Mustang MkI was better than the P-39, but the P-39 was superior to the P-40, as proven by pilots like Lexander Pokryshkin, who shot down more Nazis in a P-39 than any Soviet pilot managed in the P-40. Pokryshkin even turned down a switch to the Yak-3 because he preferred the P-39N!
George Welch was another pilot that liked flying the P-39 over New Guinea in 1942, despite many tales to the contrary. His complaint about the P-39 was it did not have the range to go hunting for the Japanese, which is why he wanted to transfer to P-38s, not because the P-39 couldn't handle the Japanese fighters. On the one occasion Welch got to fight the elusive Japanese in the P-39 (December 7th 1942), he shot down three.
Sorry, but I'm afraid Eric Brown, Alexander Pokryshkin and George Welch carry a bit more weight than your uncle, though please thank him for his service if he's still alive and kicking.

 

[Mad Dog]

The P-40 was heavier than the other fighters you list.....

No disagreement there, the P-40 was overweight its whole life, even in the stripped down "Gypsy Rose-Lee" versions.

.....That affected the ceiling. Do not confuse cause and effect......

But the P-40F with the Merlin had far superior altitude performance than the lighter P-40E, so the Allison engine is the cause of the resulting effect.

.....Ratings for the V-1710-33 seem to be a bit scattered but include 1090hp at 13,200ft and 1040hp at 14,300ft.
There was some disagreement between Allison and the army over these ratings as the army wanted the Higher HP rating.......

The higher figure seems to relate to a few Flying Tiger P-40Bs which had hand-built engines built from spares. These were closer to the RAF's and Rolls-Royce's practice of "fitting" engines (assembling from carefully matched parts for the best performance), whilst the average Allison that saw USAAC service was assembled to loser, mass-production tolerances. The RAF method was a headache for spares and servicing, but was valued for the extra performance. I'm not saying the Allison was a bad design overall, in fact it was a good and reliable design, but the early variants had a low rated altitude, and the USAAC's fixation with turbocharging meant it never got a good mechanical supercharger until too late.

.....Which Db 601A? The A-0, the A-1 or the Aa?......

Figures are for the DB601A in the Bf109E-3 as tested by the Luftwaffe in May 1940, so representative of E-3s and E-4s at the time in question.

.....we are also discussing what an airplane was 'designed" to do. The D. 520 was on it's 4th version of the Hispano engine when it got to the -49 version. most of the production models were built with the-45 engine which had a critical altitude of 4200 meters (and 920hp at that altitude) earlier prototypes had the -31 engine with a critical altitude of 3250 meters.......

The original argument was that the Allison did not have a rated altitude lower than competitors, whereas my examples show otherwise.

.....Both the P-40 and the P-39 were built with the highest altitude engines the Army could get at the time.....

Not the P-39. The XP-39's mid-engined design gave space for the turbocharged Allison V-1710-17 , it was NACA that dumped the turbo, killing altitude performance, in the quest for level speed at lower altitudes. A turbocharged P-39 would probably have had some of the issues the P-38 had in the ETO, but they could have been sorted with the same amount of effort as was thrown at the mediocre P-40. As it was, the P-39 was developed into the P-63, which was far superior to any frontline P-40.

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting bit about Lt. Welch - he shot down more Japanese in a P-40 (4) than the did in a P-39 (3 - which included two Vals on 7 December 42), and when asked about his favorite aspect of the P-39, his answer was "well...it has 1,200 pounds of Allison armor plate..."
He repeatedly asked to be assigned to a unit that was equipped with P-38s (which eventually happened with which he scored nine more victories).
In short, Welch did not like the P-39.

 

[Mad Dog]

Interesting bit about Lt. Welch - he shot down more Japanese in a P-40 (4) than the did in a P-39 (3 - which included two Vals on 7 December 42), and when asked about his favorite aspect of the P-39, his answer was "well...it has 1,200 pounds of Allison armor plate..."
He repeatedly asked to be assigned to a unit that was equipped with P-38s (which eventually happened with which he scored nine more victories).
In short, Welch did not like the P-39.

The "1200Lbs of Allison armor" quote is a much-repeated myth, Welch said he never said it. Curtis had a lot money, a lot of Army and political support, and seem to have been responsible for some of the P-39-bashing, though I don't know if they were responsible for the "1200Lbs" quote. Bell's biggest problem was they were a tiny company by comparison, with few friends in either House.

 

[Mad Dog]

I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.

Well, Mr. Hitler would have liked to have avoided the whole event seeing as he had a pressing engagement with Mr. Stalin, but a certain Mr. Chruchill rudely insisted on going first.

 

[fastmongrel]

The higher figure seems to relate to a few Flying Tiger P-40Bs which had hand-built engines built from spares. These were closer to the RAF's and Rolls-Royce's practice of "fitting" engines (assembling from carefully matched parts for the best performance), whilst the average Allison that saw USAAC service was assembled to loser, mass-production tolerances. The RAF method was a headache for spares and servicing, but was valued for the extra performance.

Jesus wept will this myth never die.

How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

it was NACA that dumped the turbo, killing altitude performance, in the quest for level speed at lower altitudes.

Who's buying the airplane? NACA's certainly not. They don't have the authority to change the design, only make recommendations. The buyer (USAAC) is the final authority, and NACA's work had to be at their bidding, and to achieve their goals. A high top speed number is good advertising, but a siren song if achieved at the cost of too many other important qualities. I remember reading somewhere that the wing area was reduced to gain the "clipped wing effect" for speed purposes, negatively affecting ceiling and turning ability.
I think it's been established elsewhere on this forum that a neat low drag turbocharger on the P39 was not possible with the turbo technology of the time, due to the small airframe and cluttered internal space. Also, I believe the armament installation on some of the D models badly hurt performance.
That the P39 was applauded by a few capable and experienced pilots who appreciated its sporty handling, doesn't necessarily make it a good choice for the average nugget fighter pilot, given its unorthodox characteristics.
And at the time these decisions were being made, the altitude demands of NW European air combat were relatively recent and kind of an anomaly from a global perspective. They certainly hadn't gained much penetration into USAAC doctrine, which was still largely influenced by ground army thinking.
So while the P39 could sometimes advertise some attractive numbers, it frequently couldn't produce them in actual service and due to it's short range, poor climb (in actual combat trim) and general quirkiness, a less than optimal solution to the problem, except in certain atypical circumstances.

 

[Mad Dog]

Jesus wept will this myth never die.

How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.

Jesus wept will this myth never die.

How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.

I have no definitive figures on hours, but I was told by a wartime 112Sq fitter that the a new Merlin III required twice as much preparation and ongoing servicing time compared to the Allisons in the Tomahawks. By prep time, I assumed he meant getting a new Merlin or Allison unboxed and installed into an airframe ready for an operational sortie, and then keeping it running after daily operational use. His experience was from servicing Hurricanes in the BoB and then being sent out to the Desert to 112Sq in late 1941, so it would be the relevant time period and engine models.

 

[Mad Dog]

.....I think it's been established elsewhere on this forum that a neat low drag turbocharger on the P39 was not possible with the turbo technology of the time, due to the small airframe and cluttered internal space......

I agree the tech was a challenge, but Bell did an excellent job of squeezing the engine and turbo into the XP-39. Here's a shot of the original prototype, apart from the bulky cooler on the left of the fuselage (probably less draggy than the P-40B's radiator), the airframe is very clean and tidy, and smaller than the P-40. Smallness equals lightness. As regards the turbo, things would only have improved for the P-39 if they had stuck with the turbo, as they would have benefited from the resources spent on getting the P-38's turbos to work.

.....Also, I believe the armament installation on some of the D models badly hurt performance......

?? Do you mean the later underwing .50 gunpods on the P-39Qs? Or are you referring to the possibility of the center of gravity moving aft if the if the empty brass from the nose weapons was expelled rather than captured inside the nose? The mix of three weapons (cannon, .30 and .50 MGs) did present aiming issues with their different trajectories, and complicated the supply side.

 

[pbehn]

Jesus wept will this myth never die.

How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.

The myth now produces engines of better or worse performance depending on your needs.