Worst US made twin engined aircraft used by Britain in WW2

[FLYBOYJ]

Lockheed considered and studied putting Merlins in the P-38 at least three different times during the course of the war.
Compared to the competing V-1710 with its turbosuperchargers there was little, if any, performance improvement with the heavy Merlins.
However the significant issue was that the Merlins were much less fuel efficient and could not be fitted with a turbo, thereby considerably shortening the range of the P-38, one of the signature advantages of the Allison powered P-38.

I started a thread on this - THE MYSTICAL MERLIN POWERED P-38

I doubt 3 times, it was more like one time but it just festered until 1944. There was a lot more to consider than fuel efficiency. At the end of the day a Merlin powered P-38 would not have been the decision of Lockheed but the AAF.

It seems that Rolls Royce was going to attempt to put Merlins in a P-38 (see my post). Powers to be to a halt to any further development.

 

[wuzak]

Lockheed considered and studied putting Merlins in the P-38 at least three different times during the course of the war.
Compared to the competing V-1710 with its turbosuperchargers there was little, if any, performance improvement with the heavy Merlins.
However the significant issue was that the Merlins were much less fuel efficient and could not be fitted with a turbo, thereby considerably shortening the range of the P-38, one of the signature advantages of the Allison powered P-38.

"heavy Merlins" I suppose the Merlin would appear heavy if you don't include the turbocharger and the ducting required for the V-1710 installation.

Why couldn't Merlins be fitted with turbos? That it wasn't didn't mean it couldn't.

The way that the GE turbos were operated minimised the back pressure on the exhaust, so no real problem there.

If a Merlin was to be fitted with a turbocharger, it would not be a Merlin 60-series. It would likely not be a XX-series either, but rather a derivative of the 45 or 47. These were not much heavier than the V-1710.

The idea that the V-1710 was designed to work with the turbocharger is, to my mind, a myth.

No USAAC/F aircraft was ever fitted with an Allison designed V-1710 and turbocharger installation. The airframe manufacturers (mainly Lockheed, with Curtiss and Bell experiments) received teh engine in one box and the turbo in another box and fitted them together. Allison, for the most part, didn't even supply exhaust components, beyond the flange.

 

[wuzak]

I started a thread on this - THE MYSTICAL MERLIN POWERED P-38

I doubt 3 times, it was more like one time but it just festered until 1944. There was a lot more to consider than fuel efficiency. At the end of the day a Merlin powered P-38 would not have been the decision of Lockheed but the AAF.

It seems that Rolls Royce was going to attempt to put Merlins in a P-38 (see my post). Powers to be to a halt to any further development.

From what I understand, 3 generations of Merlin were considered over the years - XX, 61, 100 series.

 

[ddwhitney]

From what I understand, 3 generations of Merlin were considered over the years - XX, 61, 100 series.

Lockheed Report No. 2036, 10/24/1940, "Performance Calculations, Model P-38 with Merlin XX Engines." This was during the period when Lockheed was producing the 13 YP-38s. Two-speed Merlin XX was not fitted with a Turbo, cruise BSFC was 0.485 lbs/.BHP-hr.
Lockheed Report No. 2726, 6/9/1942, "Study of P-38 with Allison V-1710-F17 and Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 Engines." A comparison of fuel consumption shows the Merlin 61 at 5% higher in Low-Blower and 10% higher in Hi-Blower. Empty weight of the two airplanes was very similar, as was useful load and maximum performance. They concluded that the one outstanding advantage of the Allison is shown in range at high altitude.
Lockheed Report No. 4598, 2/9/1944, "P-38 Performance Comparison, Allison and Rolls-Royce Engines." Here the comparison was a 2,000 BHP Merlin, running on special fuel,, 16,500 lbs gross weight, against either a 1,725 at 3,200 RPM and 16,200 lbs GW, or 2,000 BHP V-1710 at 3,400 RPM with ADI. Including the effects of Exhaust Thrust from the short Merlin stacks resulted in slightly better performance that for either of the Allison powered versions and the same Service Ceilings of 43,500 feet.
The point here is that Lockheed considered use of the Merlin from very early in the life of the P-38, on throughout the development phase of the war effort. That the Merlin was never used is likely due to its unavailability, i.e., lack of adequate production of the two-stage models, and only marginal performance gains, at the cost of range.

 

[fastmongrel]

Used correctly, I'd say the quantity of types of combat aircraft the French has could have held on against France. What the French needed was well led and equipped ground forces. Proper tanks, like the Pzkw III with its three man turret and radio. And France desperately needed a tactical genius like Napoleon. France has the aircraft it needs, but not the leadership.

I don't believe France could have held on no matter what equipment they had. However an airforce that had enough aircraft equipped with useful things like propellers and gunsights could have made it a very bloody campaign for the Luftwaffe.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't believe France could have held on no matter what equipment they had.

Maybe, but most of the country and not even Paris was not yet overrun when France surrendered. It's hard to imagine the Soviets surrendering when the Germans were outside Moscow. It seems that France had the aircraft and equipment to fight on, but not the will.

 

[Milosh]

Maybe, but most of the country and not even Paris was not yet overrun when France surrendered. It's hard to imagine the Soviets surrendering when the Germans were outside Moscow. It seems that France had the aircraft and equipment to fight on, but not the will.

France still remembered the massive casualties of WW1. Averaged 900 per day.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lockheed Report No. 2036, 10/24/1940, "Performance Calculations, Model P-38 with Merlin XX Engines." This was during the period when Lockheed was producing the 13 YP-38s. Two-speed Merlin XX was not fitted with a Turbo, cruise BSFC was 0.485 lbs/.BHP-hr.
Lockheed Report No. 2726, 6/9/1942, "Study of P-38 with Allison V-1710-F17 and Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 Engines." A comparison of fuel consumption shows the Merlin 61 at 5% higher in Low-Blower and 10% higher in Hi-Blower. Empty weight of the two airplanes was very similar, as was useful load and maximum performance. They concluded that the one outstanding advantage of the Allison is shown in range at high altitude.
Lockheed Report No. 4598, 2/9/1944, "P-38 Performance Comparison, Allison and Rolls-Royce Engines." Here the comparison was a 2,000 BHP Merlin, running on special fuel,, 16,500 lbs gross weight, against either a 1,725 at 3,200 RPM and 16,200 lbs GW, or 2,000 BHP V-1710 at 3,400 RPM with ADI. Including the effects of Exhaust Thrust from the short Merlin stacks resulted in slightly better performance that for either of the Allison powered versions and the same Service Ceilings of 43,500 feet.
The point here is that Lockheed considered use of the Merlin from very early in the life of the P-38, on throughout the development phase of the war effort. That the Merlin was never used is likely due to its unavailability, i.e., lack of adequate production of the two-stage models, and only marginal performance gains, at the cost of range.

I stand to be corrected!

Do you have a source of those reports?

As far as the second statement - there was huge pushback from Allison and some within the AAF, I think unavailability was a convenient excuse.

Lastly - the final decision of using a Merlin engine in a P-38 airframe "would have" been made by the AAF unless Lockheed "would have" received authorization to fund development on their nickle.

 

[Admiral Beez]

France still remembered the massive casualties of WW1. Averaged 900 per day.

Usually massive losses makes one more resistant and resilient to future threats.

In 2006 I visited Israel where I sold Canadian agricultural equipment. As we sat at restaurant patio on the border of Gaza with two F-15s circling overhead and IFVs rolling by I mentioned to my customer's father, a grizzled veteran of Israelis wars, that I was impressed with how Israelis live this idyllic Mediterranean life, but are still ready for war. The old man looked me over and said, "never again will anyone f#ck with the Jewish people". He then told me that Israeli's neighboirs do not invade for territory or resources, but to exterminate every Jewish man, woman and child.

Perhaps that's one reason France surrendered, whilst Russia fought on. Look at Russia, invaded by France, lost to Japan in 1905, lost to Germany in 1917, and almost lost to Germany in 1942, but they didn't shy away, because they couldn't. France might have understood that the Germans were basically going to leave them alone, unless you were Jewish of course, and many French might be fine with that. But Russia was another story, like the Israelis, they know that if they loose to the Germans, they're all dead.

IMO, that's why 92% of the British and Imperial garrison of 140,000 men surrendered Malaya, while less than 4% of the Japanese garrison of over 350,000 men surrendered in the Philippines. The Brits assumed they'd be okay, and the Japanese had been drilled that the Wallies were going to murder everyone - they got it backwards.

 

[Ascent]

Although most of France hadn't been conquered the industrial heartland had, unlike the Soviets they couldn't keep producing weapons of war, they didn't have the capacity to replace losses.

 

[buffnut453]

IMO, that's why 92% of the British and Imperial garrison of 140,000 men surrendered Malaya, while less than 4% of the Japanese garrison of over 350,000 men surrendered in the Philippines. The Brits assumed they'd be okay, and the Japanese had been drilled that the Wallies were going to murder everyone - they got it backwards.

The main reason so much of the British force in Malaya/Singapore surrendered was because there was simply no way to get that size of force out of Singapore. Bear in mind that 140,000 is about a third of the size of the force evacuated from Dunkirk. There simply weren't the ships available, the Royal Navy didn't command the sea, nor could the RAF maintain even minimal localized air superiority necessary to evacuate that quantity of personnel.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The main reason so much of the British force in Malaya/Singapore surrendered was because there was simply no way to get that size of force out of Singapore. Bear in mind that 140,000 is about a third of the size of the force evacuated from Dunkirk. There simply weren't the ships available, the Royal Navy didn't command the sea, nor could the RAF maintain even minimal localized air superiority necessary to evacuate that quantity of personnel.

Yes, but my point was not why they surendered, but instead was why they thought they could surrender, why the Brits thought it was an viable option. The Russians knew they couldn't surrender - those Russia troops that were surrounded and overwhelmed weren't captured, they were starved and murdered. The French surrendered because, in my opinion they assumed it was the better option than fighting on. And they were right, the French got to keep much of their way of life for almost four years until the Allies landed.

But the Brits did benefit from France's surrender in as far as twin engined aircraft becoming available.

 

[swampyankee]

Yes, but my point was not why they surendered, but instead was why they thought they could surrender, why the Brits thought it was an viable option. The Russians knew they couldn't surrender - those Russia troops that were surrounded and overwhelmed weren't captured, they were starved and murdered. The French surrendered because, in my opinion they assumed it was the better option than fighting on. And they were right, the French got to keep much of their way of life for almost four years until the Allies landed.

But the Brits did benefit from France's surrender in as far as twin engined aircraft becoming available.

The Commonwealth forces' leadership did not know how brutally the Japanese would treat captured soldiers (their treatment of interned civilians was also pretty appalling). The Soviets would be punished by their leadership for being captured, but they also soon found that the Germans would brutalize Soviet prisoners.

The brutality of PoW treatment by the Japanese in WWII is starkly different from its treatment of prisoners in WWI and the Russo-Japanese War; see Redirect Notice

This does rather destroy the excuse that Japanese culture thought PoWs were of no human value.

 

[buffnut453]

Yes, but my point was not why they surendered, but instead was why they thought they could surrender, why the Brits thought it was an viable option. The Russians knew they couldn't surrender - those Russia troops that were surrounded and overwhelmed weren't captured, they were starved and murdered. The French surrendered because, in my opinion they assumed it was the better option than fighting on. And they were right, the French got to keep much of their way of life for almost four years until the Allies landed.

They had no choice about surrendering. They were surrounded, the reservoirs that supplied water to Singapore had fallen into Japanese hands (which means the water supply to the British forces could be cut off at will), and Singapore itself was still heavily populated. The prospect of continuing to fight would have led to medically debilitating dehydration in very short order, coupled with massed civilian casualties. It's one thing to fight on when you can still get something basic like water. It's another thing entirely to fight, in the tropics no less, without water. It's just not a practical proposition.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey guys - great discussion but let's get this back on track. Feel free to open another thread on this subject matter.

 

[swampyankee]

Yes, but my point was not why they surendered, but instead was why they thought they could surrender, why the Brits thought it was an viable option. The Russians knew they couldn't surrender - those Russia troops that were surrounded and overwhelmed weren't captured, they were starved and murdered. The French surrendered because, in my opinion they assumed it was the better option than fighting on. And they were right, the French got to keep much of their way of life for almost four years until the Allies landed.

But the Brits did benefit from France's surrender in as far as twin engined aircraft becoming available.

The Commonwealth forces' leadership did not know how brutally the Japanese would treat captured soldiers (their treatment of interned civilians was also pretty appalling). The Soviets would be punished by their leadership for being captured, but they also soon found that the Germans would brutalize Soviet prisoners.


Trying, desperately, to get back on track:

I'll stand by my original comment: no mass-produced US aircraft made available to Britain were terrible. They also had such different characteristics as to make picking one as the "worst" is an exercise in hair-splitting. I guess one could accept the P-322 Lightning, but it ended up the F-16/79 of its day.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'll stand by my original comment: no mass-produced US aircraft made available to Britain were terrible.

I think you're right. I was searching for some variant of the DC-3 or other transport or bomber that was otherwise good, but powered by a terrible motor, etc. But it seems every twin engined aircraft the British bought from the USA was top drawer.

Which makes me wonder why the Brits made dogs like the Blackburn Botha, Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle and Saunders-Roe Lerwick. Where's the American Botha?

 

[swampyankee]

I think you're right. I was searching for some variant of the DC-3 or other transport or bomber that was otherwise good, but powered by a terrible motor, etc. But it seems every twin engined aircraft the British bought from the USA was top drawer.

Which makes me wonder why the Brits made dogs like the Blackburn Botha, Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle and Saunders-Roe Lerwick. Where's the American Botha?

It never made it out of the US. One contender would be the C-76, but it wasn't made in significant quantity. Others could be the Budd C-93, the Fairchild AT-21, and the Curtiss-Wright AT-9.

 

[fastmongrel]

Which makes me wonder why the Brits made dogs like the Blackburn Botha, Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle and Saunders-Roe Lerwick. Where's the American Botha?

The Botha was hamstrung by having a pair of Perseus engines. It MIGHT have worked with a pair of Hercules. It was as heavy as the Beaufort with a higher wing loading and 500 hp less.

The Lerwick well someone screwed up in the design office I think. if it had been prewar a solution might have been found but it was needed yesterday so the ones built were put into service. Catalinas meant it was not worth bothering redesigning.

The Albermarle was built of non essential materials like steel and timber and was a back up if a lot of aircraft factories got bombed and aluminium ran short. It was designed to be assembled from lots of prefabricated parts built in small workshops. By the time it got delivered it had no role.

 

[davparlr]

In the early 30's, American aircraft companies were in a stiff competition for develop multi-engine aircraft for commercial purposes. Throw into this mix some advance thinking and exceptional engineers, Donald Douglas, Jack Northrop, Ed Heinemann, Peyton Magruder, e.g., you get exceptional aircraft like the Boeing 247, Douglas DC-1/2, and the Lockheed Electra 10, which, I am sure flowed into advanced bomber designs. I think all served well, no loser here.