I think that was the argument Lord Beaverbrook used in the summer of 1940.
The RAF, just that little bit better in 1940
- Thread starter tallthinkev
- Start date
It was also far slower, far less manouverable and had a far lower ceiling; as a fighter bomber and interceptor, this would give it greater potential.
I think the Truman Committee came to similar conclusions when it investigated why the P-40 was produced for so long.
In 1938 the Spitfire was almost cancelled OTL due to production delays and supply problems, so nothing was sacred!
Would it be feasible for Rolls Royce to get the Griffon ready for production early enough that those Fairey Battles and Fulmars built in 1940 were powered by them, perhaps by axing the Peregrine and Vulture early? That would also likely result in the Merlin Whirlwind being built.
More than a few British aircraft that were kept in production for longer than they should have been because their successors were late or failures.
The Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley, Bristol Blenheim and Fairey Battle spring immediately to mind.
The Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley, Bristol Blenheim and Fairey Battle spring immediately to mind.
Hindsight tells us that all but one of the Rolls Royce piston engines begun after the Merlin shouldn't have been started in the first place and that Rolls Royce should have been given the contract to built Whittle's engines instead of Rover. The one exception was the Griffon.
Some sources say that the Griffon was begun in the early 1930s, but development was suspended for several years to concentrate on the Merlin. AFAIK Griffon was suspended for a second time early in the war because it was primarily seen as an engine for naval aircraft and/or the need to concentrate on improving engines that were already in production during the invasion crisis.
However, other sources say that the early 1930s Griffon wasn't the same engine as the 1940s Griffon. It was instead a development of the Buzzard and "R" engines.
If the first version of the Griffon story is the correct one, then yes it could.
Michael J. F. Bowyer in Aircraft for the Few wrote that the Battle was intended to have the version of the Griffon developed from the Buzzard/"R".
Last edited:
Hindsight also tells us that Napier aught to have abandoned work on it's sleeve valve engines and concentrated on its diesel engines like the Cutlass and Culverin which were based on the Junkers Jumo 204.
It would have been good if the Air Ministry decided to have Napier build Merlins and Griffons instead of the Dagger and Sabre.
The Whitley never gets the the good side of the story. It was one of the main stays of Bomber Command until mid/late 1941 it could carry 2,000 lb's if needed. Then it went on the be a transport, trainer, tug and air drop.
It was very good on it's first flight, good when it entered service and more than alright until early 41
Maybe thw down rated merlin (ie meteor) can come about because napper can't manage the more complex parts of a merlin.
marathag
Banned
That they got sleeve valves to work reliably at all, tells me that poppet valve engine would not be a problem. Nothing that special about a Merlin
The Griffon was 7 inches shorter lengthwise, 6 inches taller, and weighed 340 lb more. You'd have to redesign the whole airframe to take it.
It would be more straightforward for the War Office to pay Nuffield to build a factory to build the Meteor tank engine instead of paying Nuffield to build a factory to build the Liberty as a tank engine. Or if that doesn't work on timescale grounds pay Nuffield to build the Kestrel as a tank engine and re-tool to build the Meteor later on.
OTOH the Air Ministry paid Nuffield to build the Castle Bromwich aircraft factory with unfortunate short-term consequences. Therefore, cut out the middleman and pay Rolls Royce to build a factory to build Kestrels and then Meteors as tank engines instead of paying Nuffield to build a tank engine factory.
If Bowyer in Aircraft for the Few was correct Fairey designed the Battle to take the Griffon, then redesigned it to take one of their engines and then redesigned it a second time to take the Merlin.
AIUI the Griffon was designed to replace the Merlin with a minimum of airframe redesign and they managed the change with the Spitfire.
They only have to build an existing engine that has already been made to work. Not design engines of equivalent power and try to make them work.
I'm a believer that the two griffons are separate engines although perhaps somewhat related due to being the same size 37 litre.