If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
In article ,
"Daryl Hunt" wrote: Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near identical performance and speed. Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior performance to the P-51. The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362. Even the last iteration of the P-40, the XP-40Q, finally made 422 at 20,500. By then, the P-51H would make 487 at 25,000; cruise 380. the P-60 series fared no better. Curtiss simply produced inferior products. Just look at their version of first-generation jets. It is no wonder that they got out of the plane-building business. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
Daryl Hunt wrote:
-snip- Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near identical performance and speed. Dunno. The Merlin equipped P-40F was only about 10 mph faster than the earlier Allison-fitted P-40E - although obviously better at altitute. But it still was more than 50 mph short of the P-51B/C's top speed. I doubt a "super-Allison" would have produced markedly superior results or placed the P-40 in the P-51's performance class. The P-40 was, after all, basically an up-engined Hawk 75 (P-36), a 1934 design and a full generation earlier than the P-51 airframe design. Cheers |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article , "Daryl Hunt" wrote: Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near identical performance and speed. Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior performance to the P-51. The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362. The P-40Ns were equipped with an Allison V-1710. The "F" and "L" models were the Merlin equipped aircraft. Cheers, |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ wrote:
Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB in 1951 on the way to USAF basic. Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2535 Budd RB-1 Conestoga - twin engine ramp loading stainless steel aircraft. A hulk exists at Pima. I saw one at Mines Field (LAX) as a kid. With a face only a mother could love, and even then it'd be a challenge. Never knew about this bird before, so thanks for mentioning it. Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion. Now this little monstrosity I *have* seen. What a mess. They have a version mostly restored in the R&D hangars down in Dayton. Not worth a trip in itself, but it does share hangar space with the XB-70, so it is worth a glance in passing. A fine example of how sometimes the whole is less than the sum of its parts. -Steven |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 5, 12:30 am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article , "rob" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote ... The RAF didn't really have confidence in it with the Allison. In particular its high level performance was poor so it wasn't a good fighter choice. IIRC the RAF used the Allsion engined version for ground attack a bit where the failings weren't so obvious. Used as a dive bomber no less, A-36 Invader I believe was its name Nope -- it was "Apache." It was indeed the Apache. The NMUSAF says on the first line of their write-up that it was informally known as the "Invader" though. You say Viper, I say Fighting Falcon, I guess. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=493 And on my prior post about the P-75, it is *not* in fact in the R&D hangars right now. It's actually in the restoration hangars, which can be viewed on their behind-the-scenes tour that Ann and I did back in March. My mistake. -Steven |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message s.com... The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed to start with as a result of British agency. You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. Could you list the modifications that Packard did to make it a *non-Merlin*? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message ups.com... The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" Because it used a Merlin engine. QED. No, it used --- while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3 and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard. That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger *turbo-charger*? to produce more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production engineering and processes. For example..........?? The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand- built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes. Well that is sufficiently vague.......! |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote in message ... No, they were mass-produced at several factories in Britain, notably Trafford Park in Manchester and Hillingdon outside Glasgow as well as the original Rolls-Royce production lines at Derby and Crewe. The Derby works spent considerable time on R&D which involved disturbing volume production, but this was not true of the other sites. And Ford of England. Packard certainly made modifications to the engine to account for the use of US anciliary equipment such as coolant pipe clips and pump drives - well, at least after delivery of the first batch of them to Britain without that equipment. Also carberetors and IIRC magnetos, and US standard nuts and bolts. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "rob" wrote in message ... "Eunometic" wrote Essential Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. For a short while, they probably wouldn't have missed it had it not been designed. I have to disagree. The Wellington was the best bomber available until the Lancaster and Halifax came along, the fact that over 11,000 were produced speaks for itself. Not to mention its long service life. Keith |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" Because it used a Merlin engine. QED. No, it used --- while in fact those built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification of the Merlin design. The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3 and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard. That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand- built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes. But it was still essentially a MERLIN. If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could have designed a brand new engine but they didn't. Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two essential items... | john smith | Piloting | 19 | December 26th 06 02:48 AM |
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft | ChrisEllis | Piloting | 6 | January 17th 06 03:47 AM |
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? | Marc J. Zeitlin | Piloting | 22 | November 24th 05 04:11 AM |
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home | orange tree | Home Built | 4 | November 20th 05 04:37 PM |
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? | Jack Allison | Owning | 12 | June 14th 04 08:01 PM |