Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.From what I understand, 3 generations of Merlin were considered over the years - XX, 61, 100 series.
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.
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.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.
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.
Usually massive losses makes one more resistant and resilient to future threats.France still remembered the massive casualties of WW1. Averaged 900 per day.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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?