WW2 without V-1710: options for the Allies?

swampyankee · Sep 1, 2013

Referring to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ww2-without-v-1710-options-allies-38232-8.html#post1052886
Wright-Hispano was building Hispano-Suiza engines under license, which mildly changes your number of foreign-designed engines, but doesn't really change your conclusion.

GregP · Sep 1, 2013

You are right, swampyankee. My point was that the US would have developed its own engine, not used the Merlin. The history I posted above shows taht is exactly what we did. Foreign engines weren't an option for the USA at the time. Since we had some Merlins avialble, we put them into the P-40F and L. The results didn't shown any significant performance gains and we went back to the Allisons for the balance of production in the real world.

If the V-1710 had failed, we would have developed alrernate engine of our own, just as we did from before 1920. I seriously doubt that, since we had a 25 year history of doing just that, we would somehow fall flat on our faces if the Allison had failed. It isn't reasonable under any circumstances to me.

This is not dislike of foreign engines like the Merlin on my part. It is simply what we DID back then.

If you look it up, we just didn't use foreign engines until the Merlins in the P-51 (successful) and P-40 (no improvement). It was war and we were building them for the British, so we got some and used them. The overhaul life wasn't especially good and the use of the Merlin by the USA didn't progress much father than the P-51 and a couple of models of the P-40. By the time we MIGHT have used more Merlins, the jet engine was in vogue and the pistons died out rather quickly.

GregP · Sep 1, 2013

The Wright-Hispano engine was used in ONE prototype on my list (the first plane on it in fact), and it was later converted to an All-US engine.

Again, I have no problem using engines that have good power and reliability, no matter what the origin, but we didn't do that at the time to any great degree.

wuzak · Sep 1, 2013

GregP said:
If the V-1710 had failed, we would have developed alrernate engine of our own, just as we did from before 1920. I seriously doubt that, since we had a 25 year history of doing just that, we would somehow fall flat on our faces if the Allison had failed. It isn't reasonable under any circumstances to me.

Greg, as has been stated before, it depends on when the failure occurs.

If it is in 1933, there is no Melrin, so no optoion but to develop something else.
If it is 1937, the Merlin isn't too attractive a proposition.
If it is 1939/40, the Merlin is an option for licence production, but it would take a while to get going. But quicker than getting a new project or taking one of the existing hyper projects to production.

wuzak · Sep 1, 2013

GregP said:
1. Lockheed YP-24, Curtiss V-1570.
2. Consolidated Y1P-25, Curtiss V-1570.
3. Boeing Y1P-26, Pratt Whitney R-1340.
4. Boeing P-26A, Pratt Whitney R-1340.
5. Boeing 281, Pratt Whitney R-1340.
6. Curtiss XP-934, Pratt Whitney R-1340.
7. Curtiss XP-31, Curtiss V-1570.
8. Boeing YP-29, Pratt Whitney R-1340.
9. Boeing YP-29A, Pratt Whitney R-1340.
10. Consolidated P-30, Curtiss V-1570.
11. Consolidated PB-2A, Curtiss V-1570.
12. Northrop 3A, Pratt Whitney SR-1535.
13. Vought V-141, Pratt Whitney R-1535.
14. Vought V-143, Pratt Whitney R-1535.
15. Seversky SEV-3M-WW, Wright R-975.
16. Seversky SEV-1, Wright R-1820.
17. Seversky P-35, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
18. Seversky 2PA-A, Wright R-1820.
19. Seversky 2PA-L, Wright R-1820.
20. Republic P-35A, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
21. Republ;ic Guardsman (AT-12), Pratt Whitney R-1830.
22. Curtiss design 75, Pratt Whitney R-1535.
23. Curtiss design 75B, Wright XR-1820.
24. Curtiss YP-36, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
25. Curtiss P-3A, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
26. Curtiss P-36C, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
27. Curtiss P-36F, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
28. Curtiss XP-37, Allison V-1710.
29. Curtiss YP-37, Allison V-1710.
30. Curtiss 75R, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
31. Curtiss XP-42, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
32. Curtiss Hawk 75, Wright GR-1820.
33. Curtiss H-75Q, Wright CR-1820.
34. Curtiss Hawk 75A-4, Wright R-1820.
35. Bell XFM-1, Allison V-1710.
36. Bell YFM-1, Allison V-1710.
37. Bell YFM-1A, Allison V-1710.
38. Bell YFM-1B, Allison V-1710.
39. Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Wright R-1820.
40. Curtiss-Wright CW-21B, Wright R-1820.
41. North American P-64, Wright R-1820.
42. Vultee Vanguard prototype, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
43. Vultee P-66, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
44. Curtiss XP-40, Allison V-1710.
45. Curtiss P-40, Allison V-1710.
46. Curtiss P-40B, Allison V-1710.
47. Curtiss P-40C, Allison V-1710.
48. Curtiss XP-46, Allison V-1710.
49. Curtiss P-40D, Allison V-1710.
50. Curtiss P-40E, Allison V-1710.
51. Curtiss P-40F, Packard Merlin V-1650.
52. Curtiss P-40K, Allison V-1710.
53. Curtiss P-40L, Packard Merlin V-1650.
54. Curtiss P-40M, Allison V-1710.
55. Curtiss P-40N, Allison V-1710.
56. Curtiss XP-40Q. Allison V-1710.
57. Lockheed XP-38, Allison V-1710.
58. Lockheed YP-38, Allison V-1710.
59. Lockheed P-38, Allison V-1710.
60. Lockheed P-38D, Allison V-1710.
61. Lockheed P-38F, Allison V-1710.
62. Lockheed P-38G, Allison V-1710.
63. Lockheed 322, Allison V-1710.
64. Lockheed P-38H, Allison V-1710.
65. Lockheed P-38J, Allison V-1710.
66. Lockheed P-38L, Allison V-1710.
67. Lockheed P-38M, Allison V-1710.
68. Bell XP-39, Allison V-1710.
69. Bell XP-39B, Allison V-1710.
70. Bell YP-39, Allison V-1710.
71. Bell P-39C, Allison V-1710.
72. Bell P-39D, Allison V-1710.
73. Bell P-39F, Allison V-1710.
74. Bell P-39J, Allison V-1710.
75. Bell P-400, Allison V-1710.
76. Bell XP-39E, Allison V-1710.
77. Bell P-39K, Allison V-1710.
78. Bell P-39M, Allison V-1710.
79. Bell P-39N, Allison V-1710.
80. Bell P-39Q, Allison V-1710.
81. Seversky XP-41, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
82. Republic P-43, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
83. Republic P-43A, Pratt Whitney R-1830.
84. Republic P-47B, Pratt Whitney XR-2800.
85. Republic P-47B, Pratt Whitney R-2800.
86. Republic P-47C, Pratt Whitney R-2800.
87. Republic P-47D, Pratt Whitney R-2800.
88. Republic XP-47H, Chrysler XI-2220.
89. Republic XP-47J, Pratt Whitney R-2800.
90. Republic XP-47K, Pratt Whitney R-2800.
91. Republic P-47M, Pratt Whitney R-2800.
92. Republic P-47N, Pratt Whitney R-2800.

So, here is a list of 92 monoplane fighters of which 2 had Merlins, the P-40F and L. So far, we have 187 planes that either were bought by the USA or tried out for service. 3 had foreign engines and one of those was a Bristol demo unit. I haven't added the P-63 series or the Navy monoplane fighters, but they run much the same.

Greg, a quick look at the numbers of the aircraft in AHT (using Wiki, since I don't have access to AHT at the moment), I get:

103,034 fighters
50,125 fighters powered by liquid cooled engines ~49% of fighter production
34,821 fighters powered by V-1710s ~ 34% of production
15,304 fighters powered by Merlins ~ 15% of production, ~44% of liquid cooled fighters

The Merlin contribution was no insignificant to American fighter strength.

Some Merlins were put in P-40s - because that was the best available (USAAC/F) airframe at the time.

Studies were done to put Merlins in P-38s. One was delivered to Rolls-Royce Hucknall for a trial installation. This was blocked through political channels.
There was, IIRC, some consideration in installing the Merlin 2 stage engine in the P-63.

GregP · Sep 1, 2013

If you take away the P-51, which was my premise, the Merlin is insignificant in the extreme.

It DOES NOT MATTER when the Allison would have failed, we would have come up with an engine of our own. If I extend my list, Wayne, it will reach 400 - 500 aircraft, with fewer than 5 with foreign engines. My list above didn't include Navy monoplanes, any attack planes, any torpedo planes, any observation planes, any bombers at all of 1 or more engines, or any trainers, observation, transport, or liaison planes.

You ought to know when you're wrong by sheer weight of numbers. In this case, you are.

The USA would not build an indigenous fighter with a Merlin or any other foreign engine up until the P-51. The P-40F/L was a way to use the Merlins coming off the production line and when they didn't produce better performance or better overhaul times, they were terminated in the P-40 line. ONLY the P-51 series continued with the Merlin. Remove it and you have almost nothing else to go on except an odd prototype or two.

On what would you base your assertion taht we would use the Merlin if the P-51 went away?

Wouldn't happen at the time, and that's the end of my participation in this argument. If you can't be convinced with the real numbers, then you can't be convinced at all. So be it.

We KNOW the P-51 and P-40F/L had the Merlin. Why not list all the other US-made planes with Merlins? I've done enough listing; you do this one, OK?

Your post, should you choose to participate, will be VERY short.

Shortround6 · Sep 1, 2013

Timing is everything. The US used the Hispano in and just after WW I because the US didn't have suitable "fighter" engine at the time. And BTW the Wright H2 was very definitely a Hispano derived engine. Changed from the original a bit to be sure but far from an "all American" engine. The Liberty not be considered a fighter engine at the time.
Curtiss did come up with the K engine and then the D series and the US if not in the lead (and it may have been) was certainly in the top 2-3 liquid cooled engines in the world. However by 1926-27 the Air-cooled engines were coming on strong. Curtiss and Packard were the Major US players in liquid cooled engines and when Curtiss and Wright merged the liquid cooled engines were dropped. Not right away but very limited development was done on them. Packard lost their chief designer in an air crash and in the midst of the great depression dropped out of the aero engine business.
By the Early 30s the US had only the Allison, and the hyper engine programs in the works. Packard was fitting a few engines into Speed boats and Curtiss-Wright was finishing of the last of the V=1570 Conqueror engines as they pushed the "new" R-1820 Cyclone (as opposed to the old R-1750 Cyclone). The air cooled engines took over the commercial market in the US. The US Army was the ONLY real customer for liquid cooled engines and with a rather small budget and an obsession with the hyper concept they managed to muck things up pretty good.

As international tensions got worse in the late 30s funding freed up a bit in some nations but in the US major increases in defense spending didn't happen until late 1938 and early 1939. Which is a bit late if it takes 3-4 years to go from initial design to quantity production.
The US had some of the best radial engine in the world either in production or development in 1937-40. Aside from the Allison we had exactly bubkes for usable liquid cooled engines at that point in time.
What the US might have been able to do either before or after may very well be another story. Trying to update 1920s designs may or may not work very well depending on how far you depart from the originals. In some cases considerable departure may be needed.

I do like the bit about the Merlin NOT improving the performance of the P-40 though, very 'inventive". It may not have improved the performance of the P-40 "enough" to keep it a front line fighter but to say that it didn't improve the performance is pushing things a bit.

Below 15,000ft the P-40E was probably better, above 20,000ft the F was better. In between?? A p-40F was "supposed" to climb to 30,000ft in 19.42 minutes using 2850rpm the whole way while a P-40E took 40.1 minutes, just under twice as long, using 3000rpm for the first 5 minutes and 2600rpm for the rest of the climb. Above 20,000ft the F was about 30-40mph faster.

wuzak · Sep 1, 2013

Greg, while the US preferred to use their own equipment, they didn't always.

When they entered the war they used Spitfires, Beaufighters and Mosquitoes. They did this because they were available and the US didn't have their own equivalents yet, or not enough of them.

I see the situation is the same with the engines. If the V-1710, for what unlikely reason, cannot continue past 1939/40 there are two choices - develop an alternative or adopt the Merlin. Developing an alternative would probably not produce results until 1944, whereas Merlins could be rolling off the production line in 1942. In both scenarios there is a gaping hole in production of aircraft for the Allies, the difference being 2 years worth of production.

Without the V-1710 the race is on to get a replacement for the P-38, P-39 and P-40. The Merlin fits the bill quite easily, the most difficult one would be the P-39.

The fact of the matter is that the US developed and manufactured several good radials and one outstanding one (the R-2800), but only one production liquid cooled engine. That the V-1710 was excellent was important, because the next best could not even be described as "good".

GregP · Sep 1, 2013

You keep thinking that. There were engines in development taht were not proceeded with, as we discusseds above, If teh Allison had failed, they WOULD have been proceeded with. The timing means nothing unless the Allison failed in 1940 and it already passed the type test years before that.

Sorry, I don't get it.

We'd HAVE a good liquid-cooled engine or produce a lot of radial-powered planes. Either way, we're OK with a US engine.

wuzak · Sep 1, 2013

GregP said:
You keep thinking that. There were engines in development taht were not proceeded with, as we discusseds above, If teh Allison had failed, they WOULD have been proceeded with. The timing means nothing unless the Allison failed in 1940 and it already passed the type test years before that.

The ones that were not proceeded with were the IV-1430 and the O-1230. The O-1230 was too small and didn't give enough power. So that went by the wayside (developed into a different class of engine as the H-2470).

The IV-1430 was "proceeded with" until 1943/44. Continental even built a factory to make them. But it was a failure, and was eventually cancelled.

Shortround6 · Sep 1, 2013

GregP said:
You keep thinking that. There were engines in development taht were not proceeded with, as we discusseds above, .

Please name them. If you come up with the O-1230 and the I-1430 please tell us when we can stop laughing.

The timing means nothing unless the Allison failed in 1940 and it already passed the type test years before that.

Yes it did but THAT model engine was NOT the one used in ANY WW II fighter. The engine used in the P-40B/C did NOT PASS it's type test until August 1940.

GregP · Sep 1, 2013

Shortround, we developed 400 - 500 airplanes without foreign engines.

There is no extrapolation of FACT that would lead any reasonable person to believe we couldn't do it again. If you think that, then YOU are the one who is crazy, not me.

In case you miss the logic, the Allison V-1710 DID NOT FAIL. If it had, then the engines in development would have been proceeded with. If not we would have used radials, but we would NOT have used a foreign engines in 1940 for a primary US aircraft. Pick one engine for yourself and laugh all the way to the nuthouse.

THIS IS A WHAT-IF. It did not happen. All of your objections are from some reasoning that the Allison failed. Since it didn't, your reasoning is faulty in the extreme and there are no correct answers.

However, with 400+ planes developed with US engines and not ONE between 1920 and WWII before the P-51/P-40 with a foreign engine except for a protoype , I'd say your reasoning is not only faulty, but rather ludicrous.

I have asked several times and NOBODY has answered.

Name all the US-designed plane with Merlins other than the P-40 / P-51 variants that had them.

C'mon, produce a list with numbers. I can. Real damned short. You have no leg to stand on, but I give you an "A" for stubborn.

Milosh · Sep 1, 2013

What American engine replaces the Allison used in American a/c Greg?

GregP · Sep 1, 2013

You pick one. I pick the Allison in the real world. Haven't I made that clear yet? 9 pages and you don't GET it?

There WERE other engines in development that were not proceeded with. If the Allison had failed, one or two would have been proceeded with and I don't CARE wich ones would be picked. PICK ONE. It doesn't matter which one you pick, and go with the development or switch to radials.

They did absolutely GREAT for the Navy and the P-47. We simply would not have built US planes wioth foreign engines before the P-51/P-40F/L under any circumstances.

C'mon, stop waffling, produce a list of US planes other than the P-51/P-40F/L with Merlins (or any other foreign piston engine, for that matter) installed in production in the USA.

Or give it up. No more bait.

Show me all the US-produced planes for US use with foreign piston engines in them. I think I've been VERY patient. Now put up or give up.

wuzak · Sep 2, 2013

Greg, the fact is that there were a not insignificant number of US planes powered by the Merlin. That they consisted of only a couple of types does not matter.

The fact is that the Merlin powered P-51 was the backbone of the USAAF in the latter part of the war, and for a period after.

Another fact is that the USAAC/F requested that some of US production of the Merlin go to US aircraft. Why would they stipulate that if they didn't intend to use them?

The R-2800 really is a non-factor before 1942.

So that means the US would start the war with P-36s and P-35s. No P-38s, P-39s or P-40s.

GregP · Sep 2, 2013

The fact is the P-51 was built to a British requirement and so was a viable candidiate for a foreign engine. The P-40 was an afterthought that didn't work out well and went back to the Allison.

Other than that, there weren't any and you still haven't come up with a list of Merlin-powered, US built and used airplanes, as I expected. Other Merlin-powered planes were NOT much in the cards. If the P-51 hadn't come along, we would have stayed exclusively with American engines.

If you think not, again, what evidence do you have? No more questions or emotional statements, Wayne, show me the US Merlin planes. Where are they?

The only significant US-designed and US-used Merlin plane was the P-51. If it weren't for that, the Merlin would never have been used in anything except as a wartime expedient (think P-40F), and if it didn't work out (it didn't) it would have gone away (did).

After the experience with the P-40F/L, there were no more Merlin Amerlican fighters other than the P-51. That was allowed since it DID work out. Once the war was over, the P-51 faded out and production stopped. There was no way we were going to pay $6,000 royalty for a Merlin engine, so it stopped VERY quickly.

Then pistons went way to make the matter moot.

wuzak · Sep 2, 2013

GregP said:
The fact is the P-51 was built to a British requirement and so was a viable candidiate for a foreign engine.

The P-51 was built to a British requirement, using the Allison engine.

The P-51B was not built to a British requirement.

GregP said:
The P-40 was an afterthought that didn't work out well and went back to the Allison.

I suppose the whole P-40 program was an afterthought, since it started out as the P-36 with a radial.

Not sure that you can say that it "didn't work out well". I would suggest that the main reason the Merlin P-40 was stopped is so that Melrin production could go to another airframe - ie the P-51.

GregP said:
Other than that, there weren't any and you still haven't come up with a list of Merlin-powered, US built and used airplanes, as I expected.

Well, there weren't any other US production aircraft with Merlins.

GregP said:
Other Merlin-powered planes were NOT much in the cards.

Au contraire.

The USAAF delivered a P-38 to Rolls-Royce Hucknall for trial installation of the Merlin. GM lobbied Congress and the word quickly went to Rolls-Royce to stop the project and return the P-38.
Curtiss, in its never ending search for a replacement for the P-40 built the XP-53. The USAAF ordered 2 prototypes to be powered by the IV-1430. Then they expressed a desire to have a Merlin powered airframe with laminar flow wings, so one was changed to have the V-1650-1 (Merlin 28) and redesignated as the XP-60. Because of problems with the IV-1430 the XP-53 never flew. The XP-60 did, though. The XP-60 did not proceed because of the expectation of shortages in Merlin supply.
The XP-60 was later (1942) re-engined with the V-1650-3 as the XP-60D.
Don Berlin, of Curtiss, was said to have requested a V-1650-3 for installation into a P-40 airframe. But he wasn't allowed, because they were all going to P-51s.

GregP said:
If the P-51 hadn't come along, we would have stayed exclusively with American engines.

Not sure that is true.

GregP said:
If you think not, again, what evidence do you have? No more questions or emotional statements, Wayne, show me the US Merlin planes. Where are they?

I have tried to show you projects for Merlins. They either didn't go ahead because of politics or because of supply issues.

GregP said:
The only significant US-designed and US-used Merlin plane was the P-51.

That s very true Greg.

But it is also true that the USAAC/F intended to have Merlin powered aircraft. Hence Packard's licence agreement terms.

GregP said:
If it weren't for that, the Merlin would never have been used in anything except as a wartime expedient (think P-40F), and if it didn't work out (it didn't) it would have gone away (did).

Firstly, I would like to know why you think the P-40F/L didn't work.

Secondly, if the Allison V-1710 suddenly become unavailable around 1939/40 the USAAC/F would have used the Merlin as an expedient, as soon as they could get it into production. An alternative US designed engine would be some way off, and the British and French wanted P-40s with in-line engines.

If there was no P-51, the XP-60 may have gone ahead.

Shortround6 · Sep 2, 2013

You pick one. I pick the Allison in the real world. Haven't I made that clear yet? 9 pages and you don't GET it?

Title of thread is "WW2 with out the V-1710...."

There WERE other engines in development that were not proceeded with. If the Allison had failed, one or two would have been proceeded with and I don't CARE wich ones would be picked. PICK ONE. It doesn't matter which one you pick, and go with the development or switch to radials.

You demand we come up with lists or follow you logic yet when we ask you to NAME which engine would replace the Allison you either refuse or come up with a waffle like the above. We have tried to explain both the timing and the FACT that the leading Army contenders had fundamental flaws. You ignore that without coming up with any other alternatives.

C'mon, stop waffling, produce a list of US liquid cooled engines from the late 30s that might of been used, no more post war tank engines.

Or give it up. No more bait.

Show me all the US-Liquied cooled engines. Now put up or give up.

Milosh · Sep 2, 2013

GregP said:
You pick one. I pick the Allison in the real world. Haven't I made that clear yet? 9 pages and you don't GET it?

How can you pick the Allison when the Allison is not available?

Thread title: WW2 without V-1710

GregP · Sep 2, 2013

Actually I am not demanding anything. My position is simple.

If the Allison had failed, we would have developed another engine or used US radials. I showed you 20 years of doing just that in the list and it only included fighters minus US Navy monoplane fighters ... no other types were in the list. During that 20 years none had foreign engines until the P-51 and P-40F/L. The P-51 was a prime candidate since it wasn't designed for USAAF use anyway in the beginning, so I discount it. If 20+ years of buying US engines for our aircraft with not one, single foreign engine in there doesn't tell you what we would have done, then nothing I can say going forward will help.

The P-40F/L was tried and found to offer no improvement, so they stopped making it and went back to the Allison for the last models while there were still Merlins easily available.

It doesn't matter which alternate engine would have been picked. This is a "what-if" and there are no correct answers.

If this premise was viable (using a foreign engine in a USAAF or USN fighter), surely there will be an example or examples of it. What I say is simple in the extreme. What Merlin-powered USAAF aircraft other than these two types can you offer as example of this inevitability? We stopped making the Merlin powered P-40 during the war and the P-51 was and always will be a plane adopted by the USAAF but not designed for it from the outset.

So my contention is that we would have gone with a US-designed and manufactured engine regardless of the fate of the Allison, and I don't care what the alternate would have been ... we'd have gone with a US engine. I showed you nearly 200 examples of us doing just that, even so far as to included 2 - 3 Fokkers with US engines in the group that tried out for a contract.

If the Allison had failed, then the Vultee Vanguard (P-66) and perhaps the P-43 might have been given higher priority. They also might have developed the P-36 into a better airplane or developed alternate new models. We already KNOW the Navy had great success with their radial fighters and avoided the inlines altogether in their primary fighters. If we somehow (unvelievable to me) could not come up with an alternate liquid-cooled inline, then the USAAF would have gone radial, too.

I don't have to pick an engine and do not care which would have been the choice, but I think one would have been developed or we would have chosen US radials. This never happened and is a fabricated "what-if."

The title of the thread is "WW2 without the V-1710: Options for the Allies," not "pick an alternate engine if the V-1710 failed."

The option I pick is that we would have developed an alternate US engine or engines or used radials, and would not have used a foreign engine. That is surely a possible option and answers the thread subject.

This crap is why I haven't even read the "what if there was no Merlin" thread. The British were and are quite inventive. If the Merlin had not been developed, they would have developed ANOTHER engine. They would not have simply ceeded the air to the Axis. Anyone who thinks that is not living in the same world of reality as I am.

WW2 without V-1710: options for the Allies?

Chief Master Sergeant

Major

Major

Captain

Captain

Major

Major General

Captain

Major

Captain

Major General

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Captain

Major

Captain

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads