Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Also, failing the type test is not the only way that the Allison goes missing. Allison wasn't very profitable, and GM may have simply decided to shut up shop.
4 years is much closer to the norm but it does require that everything go right. Allison and Continental are both well outside the norm. But getting "tricky" could cost big time, How long did it take for Bristol to get sleeve valves to be a mass production item? And then there are built in delays in getting into service. The Merlin first ran in 1933 ( design started?) but wasn't suitable for production until 1936. By the time of the Munich crisis (1938) 1700 Merlins had been made but only 400 installed in aircraft. It may take 3-4 years to go from design to tested engine and first few examples. It can take another 1-2 years to get to the point of making hundreds of engines a month ( Allison, with the help of General motors AFTER GM shut/re-purposed their car plants was producing over 1200-1400 engines a month and was able to out produce ALL THREE English plants making Merlins 1943. ) In fact Ford was licensed to make R-2800s in Aug of 1940. in Nov 1941 they turn out 99 engines, Buick was licensed in Oct 1940 to Build R-1830s. They produce NONE until March of 1942 when they put out 440 engines. Studebaker was licensed to produce R-2600s in Nov of 1940 but was switched to R-1820s in June of 1941. They trickle out a few engines in Feb/March of 1942, 35 in April and 168 in May and just keep multiplying.Developing new engines - it took 10 years to get the V-1710 to production. It took Continental 7 years to run a V-12 test engine! 4 years would be a tight time-scale.
Allison had to "forgive" the Army's 900,000 dollar dept in return for permission to export Allison engines. There is only so long any company can keep going without income even with a war looming.GM would not shut up the Allison shop with a war looming.
The military DID share isolationist views and was instrumental in removing the turbo from Allison use on all but the P-38 by simple order for it to happen. They didn't see any need for high-altitude equipment to defend the USA ... they were not thinking of the ETO at all.
It isn't a myth at all ... but I won't argue much about it.
The P-38 didn't have turbo problems ... it had intake manifold issues, European fuel different from American fuel issues, and poor pilot training. When these were addressed 9 months later, the P-38 was a solid aircraft with very few troubles other than a really piss-poor cockpit heater. They cured that one with an electric heater. By that time the P-51 was in the theater and there was no poiin t having a supply chain for two fighters for the same job ... so the P-38 got transferred to the MTO / PTO / CBI and did well.
You might remember it was the mount of our top two aces.
Yeah, they had issues with turbos, but the issues weren't necessarily the turbos, It nwas the system, which isn't the same thing.
The Airacuda as a joke and I ignore it as non-typical. There is no set of circumstances that would render it viable.
The X/YP-37 was an experimental plane designed to investigate the use of turbochargers. If it had issues, that is what it was FOR. To investigate them. No surprise.
The XP-39 was well on its way to having any issues resolved when the turbo was removed by the war materiel board. It might have been high-drag and probably was, but WOULD have imbued the P-39 with altitude capability that it didn't otherwise have.
If that is not so, then why was the turbo installation in the P-38 any better? ... But it WAS.
Few issues with the turbo ... So they were on the right track and could have done it if the USAAF had wanted to do so. They didn't.
They COULD have had a high-altitude P-39 and P-40, but didn't.
The XP-60A made its initial ground taxiing tests in late October of 1942. However, during one of these tests, a minor fire occurred in the engine due to the lack of cooling air in the shrouds surrounding the exhaust manifold. The turbosupercharger and long exhaust manifold were therefore removed from the aircraft, and short exhaust stacks were substituted. The XP-60A (42-79423) flew for the first time in this form on November 11, 1942. Empty weight was 7806 pounds, gross weight was 9616 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 10,160 pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 41 feet 3 3/4 inches, length 33 feet 7 1/2 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 275 square feet. Estimated maximum speed (never achieved in tests) was 420 mph at 29,000 feet and 324 mph at sea level. It was estimated that an altitude of 15,000 feet could be attained in 6.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 35,200 feet. The maximum speed (especially at low altitudes) and the initial climb rate were rather disappointing. The XP-60A aircraft was soon dismantled and some of its parts were used in the later XP-60C and XP-60E.
Don Berlin, Chief Designer at Curtiss for the P-36 and P-37 aircraft, was frustrated by the continuing problems with the turbosupercharged XP-37 [models 75I and 80], and the lack of potential for the P-36. Given the urgency of the upcoming 1938 Persuit Competition, he obtained from Allison an estimate of cost and performance of an "altitude" rated V-1710 for use in a P-36 derivative.
Using the information and the promise of 1050 bhp, on March 3 1938 Curtiss submitted to the Materiel Division a proposal for a P-36 airframe mated to this engine. It stated in part, "Wind tunnel tests indicate that (a P-36) with the Allison V-1710 (altitude rated) engine, a high sped of 350mph at 15,000 feet is possible. This is based on a modified V-1710 having a gear-driven supercharger giving 1000 bhp at 2,600 rpm at 15,000 feet. It is estimated that this engine will develop 1050 bhp at 2950 rpm at 15,000 feet with carburettor ram air..." Wright Field immediately approved Allison to proceed with the design change to the engine, and for Curtiss to proceed with the installation of the engine in the number ten P-36A airframe. Thus the P-40 series was born in teh form of Curtiss Design 75P, Air Corps designation XP-40 (AC-38-010).