Anti-Detonation-Injection; a system whereby either pure water or a water/methyl alcohol mix is injected into the engine. The German MW 50 (50% water 50% Methanol) was one such system; Pratt Whitney R-2800s with ADI used the suffix W; eg: R-2800-16W.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What's "ADI"?
Not quite, the BMW system was actually a C3 feed before the supercharger. Yes it richened the mixture but also charge cooled the air in the supercharger (ah lah the Merlin).
The combination of the richer mixture and the cooler supercharger outlet meant you could run higher boost without detonation.
Basically, in their complex way they copied the RR system, but only for emergencies. And in their complex way they still maintained all the individual feeds to each piston ????
The correct way was fuel injection into the supercharger inlet, as per the Merlin 100 series (late 44), which the Germans could have done very successfully in 1939.....
Funny design attitude.
Anti-Detonation-Injection; a system whereby either pure water or a water/methyl alcohol mix is injected into the engine. The German MW 50 (50% water 50% Methanol) was one such system; Pratt Whitney R-2800s with ADI used the suffix W; eg: R-2800-16W.
Oh as far as the K model making the '51 and F4U unnecessary...maybe. It could certainly have provided adequate escort for the bombers had it been available in volume. And it was much more versatile than the Mustang, with a far higher bomb load (4000lbs) and it was much more "survivable", with dual engines.
If you suspend all skepticism and postulate the P-38K availability in combat level deployment in early 1942 and further suspend a 'reality check' based on Lockheed's inability to keep up with demand in all theatres in 1943, and then you remove the requirement for 2x cost, 2x operating expense, 1.5 x training expense - then the top AAF leadership might not have ever purchased the Merlin based P-51B.
As to replacing F4U? Zero chance the USN would ever consider the P-38 because a.) too big without folding wing and re-design of naval version further removes availability to AAF, b.) In-line engine demanding storage space for coolant thereby displacing volume for Avgas - and already requires 1 1/2 to 2x per aircraft, c.) impossible to put a 'hook' on the P-38 center fuselage without re-designing the fuselage entirely. As to USMC? They got what USN told them to fly. Name another land based fighter (designed as such without arresting gear) that was ever used by USMC or USN
Don't forget the '51 was not going home with one hit anywhere in the Merlin's cooling system. In addition, the cluster of guns in the nose made it much more effective in ground attack than any fighter dealing with gun convergence of a wing-mounted gun. With regard to the Corsair, yes, it was eventually cleared for carrier ops, but not until late '44. It was primarily a land-based plane operated by the Marines. The '38K could certainly have provided similar capability, with the redundancy of twin engines, a higher weapons load and much longer range. As far as carrier ops, the Hellcat could have been used throughout the war. Though it wouldn't have been nearly as effective chasing down Kamikaze planes due to it's much lower top speed.
I have a question about the '38K I wonder if someone can answer. Most of our top fighters were originally equipped with fairly narrow, 3-bladed props at the start of the war if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure the P-51-A and the F4U at the least did, not so sure about the '47. Anyway, in every plane except the '38, when "high activity" paddle props were installed, they were all 4-bladed (Corsair, '47 and '51). The pictures I've seen of the '38K still show it with a 3-bladed prop, just a wider one. Any reason they didn't use a 4-bladed one? Seems like the one (with spinner) from the '51 might have been adapted.
The other oddity for me was the way the '38 was treated by the War Production Board. By late 40 to early 41 it should have been obvious that the only AAC plane in the work that was both a match for the best enemy fighters and had useful range was the '38. At that time the '51B (Merlin version) wasn't even a pipedream.
It was obvious early on the '47 wasn't going to have the range to provide escorts or any kind of long range fighter sweeps.
BTW - it would be interesting to see a real flight test report on the P-38K to understand a.) what the load out looked like, b.) understand the magic of overcoming the drag rise as the Propeller tips way exceeded M=1 at 29,000 feet at the alleged 450mph, c.)understanding the math of a theoretical 10-15% range improvement due to prop selection. If true, that change would have been as easy as selecting and installing the Aero Products prop/Spinner on the P-51K.
I suspect Bodie was waxing euphoria and sunshine and unicorns - again. Seeing the Flight Tests and write ups would silence my skepticism
The following document was referenced earlier but is interesting and gives performance data of the P-38J and the prototype P-38K obtained from flight tests carried out by Lockheed.
Additional Performance of P-38J Airplanes, 11 March 1944
Not having the second source for P-38 is surely a shame. The 'useful range' was not that a big thing for the USAF of 1940/41, since then current doctrine was that fighters are for defense. Nobody was talking much about escorting the bombers since it was expected the high flying + plenty of HMGs will mean safe bombers, and we know now that id didn't pan out that way.
The loss of the prototype was the biggest single factor because it delayed even the consideration of mass production tooling and training for at least 18 months. Additionally the P-38 was a very complex design with respect to modularity and ease of assembly
Im afraid that here you are wrong - the P-47 have had the ingredients for long range work, as we know the combat range was 300 miles with small external fuel tankage, then 400 (all in 1943), 450 and then 600 (early and mid 1944), while the P-47N was managing 1000+ in mid-1945. Where the USAF made a mistake was not specifying wing pylons from P-47C at least.