Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Australian Military Aviation History"
channel.
-
@paulbantick8266 American made, American designed airplane, American improved engine, close enough. And the original Mustang used an American engine, and North American wanted to develop a 2-stage supercharger for the Allison. And had they done that, the Allison would have curb stomped the Merlin at altitude, and also improved the P-51's range still further over the merlin, while flying faster and higher due to being lighter and lower drag profile than the Merlin engine. It was just a matter of money, time, and desire to do it. The allison had already proven capable of doing this at altitude in the P-38 with turbocharging. The P-51A was faster down low than teh Merlin mustangs, and would have been even more so faster at higher altitudes. It would be interesting for someone to do this in the modern day with a P-51A restoration, for research purposes.
1
-
@paulbantick8266 "And it was a specification requirement from the British. Whether you (or Greg) likes it or not. "
see, this is the core flaw in your whole premise/argument that you can't seem to get.
you're making baseless accusations against Greg, and now me, over your Feelings, your Perceptions. One, they are false, as I have tried to show, and two, you are hung up on this fact that simply doesn't matter. You're imagining crimes that don't exist, to create villains that don't exist, to give you life meaning and purpose where there apparently is none.
"Rolls Royce weren't going to start faffing about making a new production line and tooling (as the US were able to do) for mediocre returns when she was producing capable Merlins anyway!."
Wrong, RR couldn't meet the demand for Merlins, and even Packard couldn't keep up with the demand either. Packard made a better engine than RR as the US had better engineering and machining skills and equipment. Both the UK and Germany relied upon US machining technology in WW2 to produce their engines, but neither could match the US capabilities (precision, reliability, quality control...) during the war. Packard also used better engine bearings in their Merlin to increase service life, reduce wear and tear, and increase horsepower. They also made tweaks to make it more manufacturable. What you call mediocre returns is why the US won the war and the UK relied upon US aircraft, tanks, ships, engines, fuel, and more during WW2. Those minor tweaks made the engine more manufacturable, more reliable, more serviceable, for powerful, and more affordable. Added together over thousands of engines and that makes a huge difference. You're clearly not an engineer and lack engineering and manufacturing knowledge to appreciate this.
UK tried mounting a merlin in a Mustang, it looked like crap, was very crude. it did work, but it was a hack job. In the same time period the US mounted a Merlin on their XP-51B prototype and it was glorious. Upon approaching the US for help retrofitting their P-51A with Merlins and thus learning of the US XP-51B, the UK abandoned their efforts to retrofit their P-51As with Merlins, and the US promised to deliver 1000 P-51Bs to the UK instead. The UK was desperate for aircraft, desperate for engineering help, etc. This is why they shared things like radar, sonar, enigma work, etc. with the US, as they needed help developing it and manufacturing it. They couldn't do it alone and they were humble enough to admit it.
1
-
@paulbantick8266 "No Rolls-Royce engine, no P51 of any merit much over the P40. "
this is 100% wrong.
the P-51A was a Massively superior aircraft to the P-40, one of the best fighters of the war in fact. And NA intended to put a 2 stage supercharger on the Allison for the Mustang.
The Allison was higher HP, more fuel efficient, 200lb lighter, more aerodynamic (lower drag), more reliable, tougher, cheaper, easier to produce and maintain....
The Allison Mustangs are also Faster then Merlin Mustangs at low altitude. And with a proper forced induction system the Allison is easily superior to the Merlin at altitude as well.
"whereas Roll-Royce were manufacturing different iterations for various aircraft types of different tasks. "
Packard developed multiple versions of the Merlin as well.
"And if the British hadn't put in an order for a specified fighter aircraft, the P51 would not have been built. Or if it was, there would have been no urgency for the North American to produce the aircraft much before 1942."
the only true statement you made.
1
-
@jacktattis Nice try at logical fallacies practice.
The Packard was used in the MUSTANG. do try to keep up. your stupidity is showing.
Packard improved the Merlin for manufacturing and mass production, quality of parts, etc. They refined some internal flow paths. US machining was superior to the British and Germany in WW2, and everyone knew it. British commented on it many times. The Germans used US-made machine tools in their factories.
A lighter aircraft with a lighter wing loading and the "same" engine will reach a higher altitude. Spitfires are famously light. A Packard is functionally identical, and thus could equally propel a spitfire so high, so don't play stupid.
The ONLY thing the Allison lacked in WW2 was a 2-stage supercharger. It had superior HP, lighter weight, better fuel economy, lower drag, more reliable, easier to build and maintain, and it's crankshaft bearings were famous for bringing back aircraft despite being heavily damaged, etc. Merlins were famously finicky and tempermental.
Allisons in P-38 produced far more HP at 25k ft than any Merlin ever could.
cope harder.
1
-
1
-
@paulbantick8266 The British wanted P-40. NAA offered a clean sheet design of unspecified specs that would be better than the P-40. No British input.
All early P-51 delivered to teh RAF were Allison powered. MkI, MkIa, F-6a, etc.
The A-36 with Allison engine was far and away superior to the P-47 in ground attack. In fact the RAF exclusively used the Allison mustangs for recon and ground attack fora full 12months in Europe prior to the first P-47 combat sortie ever. And in the first 18months of RAF service, doing recon and ground attack, only 8 Mustangs were lost to enemy action. The P-51 with allison was superior in speed, dive, maneuverability, dive bombing accuracy, etc. to the P-47, and carried the same weight of ordnance as the P-47 in proportion to the aircraft's weight. P-51s used Napalm, 500lb bombs, 20mm cannons, .30cal, .50cal, and 57mm cannons, as well as rockets, and even delivered supplies using drop tanks. A-36 pilots preferred the A-36 over the P-47 and said the A-36 was more likely to bring them back alive than a P-47.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulbantick8266 "This bollocks for one!"
Stating it doesn't make it so. Stop being a child.
"Not only have you ignored my request for a 'trustworthy source' that you go by. It makes me want to ask where you got your information for that quote of yours above?"
Define: trustworthy source?
My sources are different depending upon what particular fact is in question. I have different sources for different things, such as the Allison, Merlin, P-51, P-38, etc. It depends.
But the P-38 high altitude data comes from WW2 test reports done by the USAAC, NACA, Lockheed, etc.
The P-51 with 2-stage supercharger plans come from NAA and Allison themselves. they had plans and preliminary drawings for this setup and installation.
NACA, USAAC, NAA, Allison, and more are primary sources. I also use Aerospace engineering knowledge and equations as required. tons of books that have this info/equations and explains it. Many of the equations are just basic algebra in fact, so most people should be able to do the math.
"Have you had a stroke? Putting 'e' after the 't' before the 'h' (tehn) and (teh)."
So....all you have is questioning my sources, and ad hominem fallacis? got it. so basically I am right, you are wrong, and you're just mad about it and have no actual facts. All you can do is kick and scream, whine and complain, but you have no facts to counter my claims with.
I'm not the first person to share this data on youtube. there are videos that detail out this stuff as well. and they used the same primary sources as I am using. Go educate yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamashbless7904 the allison mustangs were extremely sccessful in WW2. RAF suffered only 8 losses doing ground attack and recon. A-36 had a stellar unmatched record in combat and was loved by it's pilots almost to the point of court martial. The pilots felt and stated explicitly that the P-51 with allison was more likely to bring them home from a CAS mission than a P-47.
At altitudes below 15k ft, nothing could catch a mustang. the RAF proved this countless times in WW2 doing low level ground attack and recon, by just running away from german fighters. P-51A were the first allied fighters of WW2 to do combat sorties over Germany, and were doing low level recon over Berlin 12months before the P-47 flew its first ever combat sortie.
At low altitude the P-51A is faster than a P-51D, lower drag due to the engine having a smaller frontal profile than the Merlin, the allison is 300lb lighter, more fuel efficient than a merlin, higher HP than a merlin, more reliable than a merlin, fewer parts than a merlin, easier to maintain and repair than a merlin, etc.
1
-
@jacktattis "You forgot the proviso The Allison ran out of puff above 22000 ft"
I didn't forget it. The Merlin also ran out too.
P-40F had a Merlin engine , and still sucked above 15k ft. Why? it had a single stage supercharger like the Allisons.
The P-51 Merlin had a 2 stage supercharger.
But the P-38 with Turbocharged Allisons, outperformed the 2 stage Merlins at higher altitudes by a LARGE margin. This is why the P-38 was never equipped with Merlins, as it would have significantly hampered the performance of the P-38.
The point of all this is, that when compared apples to apples, A merlin with a proper 2 stage supercharger is inferior to an Allison with an equivalent 2 stage supercharger at ALL altitudes. And a turbocharged Allison is equally superior to the Merlin.
Had the Allison equipped Mustangs been given a 2 stage supercharger, they would have flown even faster, even higher, and even further than the Merlin Mustangs. This is because the Allison engine was smaller and lower drag, smaller frontal profile. The Allison was also 300lb lighter than the Merlin. The Allison also put out hundreds of HP more than the Merlins in comparable conditions. The Allison was also a more fuel efficient engine that was tougher, more reliable, and easier for mechanics to work on and maintain.
But for low altitude work, the Allison was superior regardless of forced induction system.
1
-
@jacktattis Oh boy. we got another one who can't read and comprehend.
No P-38 was ever equipped with actual Merlins. Just because they were testing P-38s into 1944, doesn't mean it had anything to do with Merlins. The P-38 went through preliminary evaluation for Merlins, but it was abandoned early due to the realization it would have FAR LESS performance with the Merlins, as the turbocharged Allisons massively outperformed the Merlin above 25k ft.
the POTENTIAL of the Allison if given a proper high altitude forced induction system is Far superior to the Merlin at altitude and this is a known and documented fact. In fact, North American wanted to put the 2 stage supercharger on the Allison rather than use the Merlin, but time and development was not on their side. The Allison was higher performance, more fuel efficient (longer range), had a smaller frontal cross section and lower drag (faster and more fuel efficient), and weighed 300lb less than a Merlin (faster and longer range, higher altitude), and produced 300-600hp more than the Merlin at various stages of its life (faster and higher altitudes).
Had the Allison gotten the 2 stage supercharger forced induction system applied as North American desired, the P-51 with Allison would have curb stomped the P-51B/C/D at all altitudes. It would have been faster, longer ranged, and capable of flying higher.
The Merlins didn't "run out", they were in limited supply. The Allisons were not as limited in supply. Partially due to US manufacturing capacity, and due to the simpler design being more manufacturable and easier to work on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis you ask for verifyable sources, while providing none yourself. you're claims are nothing but baseless opinions, and you declare other people's comments false with no supporting facts to prove you right.
" Do you think R/R would give anyone more Merlins after the US purloined 18000 Packards and never paid a cent."
US paid hansomely for licensing. Also, Lend Lease? The fact Europe/Russia is not under Nazi rule today....yeah, US more than paid for them in material and blood.
"I think the British Government were getting fed up with the US by 1944"
maybe so. but kind of hard to argue with results. British bomber command was wrong and accomplished little. British aircraft design produced a LOT of duds, and few stellar examples. US tried to convince the Brits to make the Spitfire into a long range fighter but they refused. British lost their naval might in WW2, british needed the US for supplies, aircraft, etc. We had to save them in the pacific, North Africa, etc. US took everything the British created and made it even better.... Yeah, people don't like getting showed up. Doesn't make teh US wrong and the British right though. You're trying for a Red Herring here.
1
-
1
-
@thethirdman225 "They suffered notoriously under conditions of high boost"
Wrong, Allisons were putting out 1800-2200+HP at 70-75" MAP as early as 1942 and verified by Allison.
The P-38 issue over Europe manifested when the throttle was pulled back abruptly, and was a turbo flaw, not an Allison flaw. Likely due to the cold air and oil system of the turbo. The P-38s were still able to fly, but without the turbo would lose significant power.
"What Allison didn't have was a supercharger design maniac like Stanley Hooker."
agreed. but had they gotten the proper supercharger, we know full well what the engine did at high altitude with sufficient boost.
"This is rose-tinted optimism at best. 'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' and tough guy talk like 'kerb stomped' doesn't get it done. If you read Calum E. Douglas' book 'The Secret Horsepower Race', you will find that the supercharged Allison was a dead duck from early on. The designers tried to make it run on a hydraulically-powered supercharger, similar to the German implementation but axially, rather than at 90 degrees to the crankshaft. This made the engine unfeasibly long and never produced the results expected of it before development was terminated."
This only reinforces what I've said. nothing wrong with the engine, simply a lack of creativity by the engineers to make a proper supercharger. Most Allison V12 in WW2 had superchargers, just not optimized for high altitude. Proving it could be done. They just never did it right, and never got enough time to figure it out.
300lb heavier that the Merlin installed in the P-51. Many sources other than myself point this out, not just me. Pull the stats and have a look. Obviously I'm comparing engines for the same airplane, but I guess you have to be an aerospace engineer to logically deduce that.
1
-
1
-
@thethirdman225 UK and US generals reported to DC and Allison their pilots were flying airplanes at 72-75" MAP in 1942, and Allison tested and verified the engines produced 1800HP at 70" MAP and caused no damage to the engine if run continuously in that condition. And P-38 had no such issues using boost anywhere else. the issues was associated with abrupt throttle reductions at altitude. And as a Professional pilot who has flown turbochargerd engines at altitude, I can tell you that if you reduce power too much too fast, teh turbos shock cool and seize.
you keep citing irrelevant sources. I'm getting info from Allison, primary sources, mechanics who actually work on these engines, and actual flying and engineering experience. You seem to be very proud of yourself for having read "masters of the Air" now that it's trendy. You cite a descent source, but none of your argument comes from there. I have these books, and far more, too. How about citing a credible source on the Allison engine regarding the P-38.
"As for your claim that ‘the Allison was the better engine’, all I’ll bother with on that score is that better is as better does and what was suitable at low to medium altitude was not what was required for medium to high altitude."
typical woke feminist woman won't debate things when you know you can't win, and just resort to dismissing things you disagree with outright. You parrot tired myths without evidence to back them up and then run away and refuse to debate further.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis You're making crap up.
"1. Rolls Royce would not have approved to give the Merlin to another US plane company They would not haver supported them in any way"
Yet, RR signed a deal with Packard to not only produce teh engines in teh US independently, but Packard also changed the design and made their own superchargers.
The Merlin was fitted into the P-51 without RR approval nor knowledge. NA started developing the XP-51B in September 1941 and the US never informed the UK of this until teh Uk came to the US asking for help converting their Mustangs to Merlins after they built their Mustang X prototype, at which point the US shared all the details of the superior XP-51B with the UK in Dec 1942, and promised to deliver 1000 P-51B under lend lease.
Also, the Curtiss P-40F used the Merlin, as did other aircraft and prototypes.
"2. Rolls Royce would have seen how ineffective the P38 was as a fighter and the Allison was good down low."
Again, RR had no say in the matter, and had no part in the matter. Packard engines would have been used, not RR. The Merlin was simply inferior to the high-altitude optimized Allisons already in the P-38. Greg has a whole video on this, go look at the performance charts. Putting Merlins in would have made the P-38 More expensive, and neutered its performance at altitude, as well as the fact there were no opposing versions of the Merlin (left/right-hand engines).
"3. And After the debacle of Lockheed trying to pull a swiftie way back when the Brits were going to purchase the plane. The Air Ministry would have vetoed the deal anyway."
That is a lie, the British and French demanded the turbos be removed and the counter rotating engine be removed as well, much to Lockheed's disappointment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1