AHC: no RR Merlin

Let's say that Merlin design started with much more problems than per OTL, and the management decides to cancel it at start of 1936, and focus on other designs, still mostly (but not limited to) of V12 flavor. What kind of consequences that brings for the RAF, and what engines are likely to replace the Merlin in production and use? What Packard to produce?
 

Deleted member 1487

Let's say that Merlin design started with much more problems than per OTL, and the management decides to cancel it at start of 1936, and focus on other designs, still mostly (but not limited to) of V12 flavor. What kind of consequences that brings for the RAF, and what engines are likely to replace the Merlin in production and use? What Packard to produce?
License the Allison V12 and made a supercharger for it? Roll over for Hitler? Lose the Battle of Britain? Take your pick.

Edit:
Probably the Peregrine is mass produced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Peregrine

Perhaps the Hispano engine is licensed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Suiza_12Y

Perhaps a British radial gets a chance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Pegasus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Hercules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Centaurus
 
Options 2 and 3 are out :) Allison V12 is too late. Peregrine is good, probably the fighters will 1st use the Kestrel. An improved Buzzard might be an option, sorta pre-Griffon.
Bristol radials - good, Fulmar, Battle, Hurricane and Defiant with Hercules? Still a bit late it was.
 
An improved Buzzard might be an option, sorta pre-Griffon.
IF we assume the PV-12 came about because RR were aware the Kestrel/Peregrine was a bit small to compete with developments from Bristol, P&W, DB, Hispano etc then a complete failure of the program still leaves them looking for a high-capacity high-performance engine in a great hurry and with a dose of risk aversion.
The Buzzard/R line looks like an absolutely ideal solution to their problem, although it probably leaves the RAF and AM sucking their thumb a bit since I don’t think there were existing British designs capable of accepting something that big in the late thirties. So even more panic and confusion.
 
Britain did not lacked for possible engines that could be developed to replace the Merlin. Peregrine is kind of a modernized Kestrel. If Peregrine, then we see the Vulture X-24, which is basically two Peregrines stacked with one crank. No Merlin also leaves room for the Exe and further larger developments like the Pennine. Fairey's engines like the P.12 Prince at 1559ci replace Merlin, as it was being developed about the same time as the Merlin, so it could take over. I would also bet on tomo pauk's idea for an improved Buzzard pre-Griffon being developed.
 
...
The Buzzard/R line looks like an absolutely ideal solution to their problem, although it probably leaves the RAF and AM sucking their thumb a bit since I don’t think there were existing British designs capable of accepting something that big in the late thirties. So even more panic and confusion.

The Buzzard was somewhat longer than the Hispano Suiza 12Y, with similar weight, cubic capacity was within 1/2 litre - a good fit for the big Hurricane. Granted, improving the strenght will increase weight.
 
If for some reason initial problems with the Merlin were not solved, I think they were going to make do with the Kestrel for the Hurricane and Spitfire. What would happen with the Battle is anybody's guess, but doubt if it could cope with the Kestrel!! Don't think the Defiant would be viable either.

So, Gloster F.5/34 gets the go ahead, Treasury finds money for the Boulton-Paul P.88a (Hercules ^ P.88b (Vulture) prototypes.
Westland gets pestered even more to get the Whirlwind moving.
R-R in an effort to earn some 'brownie points' after this Merlin debacle, do what they can to kick-start the Griffon.
Meanwhile back at the AM, alternatives are sort, with orders going to Napier - Dagger, and to Alvis - Pelides, while putting continued pressure on Bristol to OTOH keep Mercury going, while OTOH make production progress with the Hercules, and it's successor the Centaurus.
 
Fairey Battle is probably cancelled. The fighter aircraft with Kestrels are bound to receive Peregrine, probably with an extra pair of MGs to bolster the firepower. Those fighters will certainly start as smaller than the OTL Spitfire and Hurricane.
4-engined bombers will be switching to Hercules on even bigger scale, that has both pros and cons.
The 'pre-Griffon' would be probably going to, say, 1200 HP at ~16000 ft on 87 oct fuel - not too shabby for 1939/40, and 1500 HP on 100 oct fuel? Once Hooker refines the supercharger we'd see majbe 1300 HP at 18000+ ft, an excellent value.
Griffon Mosquito, Griffon Wellington, Griffon Typhoon/Tempest??

The Packard production of the 'Griffon XX' gives interesting possibilities for the P-40 and P-51.
 
The biggest winners might have been the people at FAA. The 'pre-Giffon' would've mean a Fulmar that can better do it's job of long endurance fighter and recon, plus more potent Firefla and Barracuda with better/earlier 'real' Griffons. One or two saved carriers might come in handy in 1942-44, and Malta club runs less problematic. A better ALT Seafire?

'Griffonized' big Mosquito to carry an 8000 lb cookie for the RAF?
 
In some ways Rolls Royce was to V-12s what P&W was to radials. Any bugs that arise will get ironed out. And fairly swiftly. But given the company's success with the Kestrel and the Type R I really don't see them dropping the ball on the Merlin. Maybe the better question is that either the D-12 nevers gets optioned by Fairey which did put pressure on RR to get to work on cast block engines. That or the Conqueror is more successful. Its major problem was a tendency to burn valves.
 
Beyond the immediate issue of the Merlin itself, if it doesn't work what happens to the Meteor? Worst case scenario, that's no Cromwell, no Comet, and no Centurion.
 
In some ways Rolls Royce was to V-12s what P&W was to radials. Any bugs that arise will get ironed out. And fairly swiftly. But given the company's success with the Kestrel and the Type R I really don't see them dropping the ball on the Merlin. Maybe the better question is that either the D-12 nevers gets optioned by Fairey which did put pressure on RR to get to work on cast block engines. That or the Conqueror is more successful. Its major problem was a tendency to burn valves.

The early Merlins were problematic due to use of the 'ramp head' design feature, that was changed by 1937. (Perhaps a strongly opinionated) article: link

Beyond the immediate issue of the Merlin itself, if it doesn't work what happens to the Meteor? Worst case scenario, that's no Cromwell, no Comet, and no Centurion.

Tankerized Kestrel, Peregrine or Buzzard/Griffon?
 
Beyond the immediate issue of the Merlin itself, if it doesn't work what happens to the Meteor? Worst case scenario, that's no Cromwell, no Comet, and no Centurion.

Lions would work in all but the Centurion. By time the Meteor showed, the Army's Pool Petrol matched the higher US Standard anyway, Go with Lions over the Liberty from the start
 
Lions would work in all but the Centurion. By time the Meteor showed, the Army's Pool Petrol matched the higher US Standard anyway, Go with Lions over the Liberty from the start
Given entirely UK contracting, I'd agree, Lions are a good choice.

If you go outside, however, what about Hercules diesels from the U.S.? Or Hall-Scott gasoline engines?

As for a/c, again, what about going outside the UK? Could RAF contract for P&W R1830s or R2800s in '38-9? Or immediately on war start? Was there a prospect for licence-production of this choice (whichever it is) in Canada or Oz?

If that's pushing credulity, what are the chances for a Kestrel- or Peregrine-based development engine with separate cylinder heads & improved supercharging? Not named Merlin, of course--& not the same as OTL's Griffon; as an ATL, why would it be?
 
If you go outside, however, what about Hercules diesels from the U.S.? Or Hall-Scott gasoline engines?

Great for tanks, but the Defenders and Invaders were heavy Iron engines, perfect for the original stationary power installations. Not so good for aero, being iron. But they could run 24/7 at rated power.
But prewar, there was a real shortage of 400-1000hp Diesels suitable for tanks, most were targeted for the early railroad switcher marget, so even heavier than the Hall Scotts
 
...
As for a/c, again, what about going outside the UK? Could RAF contract for P&W R1830s or R2800s in '38-9? Or immediately on war start? Was there a prospect for licence-production of this choice (whichever it is) in Canada or Oz?

If that's pushing credulity, what are the chances for a Kestrel- or Peregrine-based development engine with separate cylinder heads & improved supercharging? Not named Merlin, of course--& not the same as OTL's Griffon; as an ATL, why would it be?

R-1830 was licensed in the Oz, so the UK and Canada can certainly do it. The R-2600 is perhaps an interesting choice, predominatly for bombers and FAA, and the timing is favorable. R-2800 is excellent choice, though the timing is a bit too late for immediate British needs. The R-1280A (Japanese were buying those pre war)? - 1400 HP at low level on 87 oct fuel.

Peregrine was making 885 HP at 15000 ft on 87 oct fuel (+6.75 psi boost). On 100 oct fuel the boost was increased to +9 psi, power went to around 1000 HP at ~12000 ft. So - have Hooker improve the supercharger, that should improve altitude performance considerably. Going by Merlin's figures, we'd probably have ~950 HP at 18000 ft (and maybe 1100 HP at 15000 ft), and in case 2-speed gearing is incorporated, a much increased low level power. On the other hand - use all of these features on a bigger engine earlier (Buzzard/militarized 'R'/Griffon) would've brought even more juicy power figures.
 
R-1830 was licensed in the Oz, so the UK and Canada can certainly do it.
"Can" doesn't mean "would", & the British aeroengine industry might be proud enough to say, "No way, we can do it ourselves"--& might be right. IDK enough about Alvis, frex, to say.
Peregrine was making 885 HP at 15000 ft on 87 oct fuel (+6.75 psi boost). On 100 oct fuel the boost was increased to +9 psi, power went to around 1000 HP at ~12000 ft. So - have Hooker improve the supercharger, that should improve altitude performance considerably. Going by Merlin's figures, we'd probably have ~950 HP at 18000 ft (and maybe 1100 HP at 15000 ft), and in case 2-speed gearing is incorporated, a much increased low level power. On the other hand - use all of these features on a bigger engine earlier (Buzzard/militarized 'R'/Griffon) would've brought even more juicy power figures.
Now you're talking about the solution I'd find most likely: boost an existing design. How hard would it have been to increase the displacement of the Peregrine or Buzzard? Or improve the blower? Or improve the carburetion (to, frex, 6 Strombergs, or mechanical FI)? This might be enough for a rename...So TTL's *Griffon might actually be more "Buzzard Major" (or something).

And that's leaving off whether Alvis or somebody comes up with a successful design not even conceived OTL, because there was no need for it...

There's also a prospect for Canada or Oz to licence a design the U.S. never bothered with, like the R2180, & get a real cheap deal on a good design...
 
"Can" doesn't mean "would", & the British aeroengine industry might be proud enough to say, "No way, we can do it ourselves"--& might be right. IDK enough about Alvis, frex, to say.

British companies were sometimes licensing French and German engines, so licensing US engine might not be such a stretch.

Now you're talking about the solution I'd find most likely: boost an existing design. How hard would it have been to increase the displacement of the Peregrine or Buzzard? Or improve the blower? Or improve the carburetion (to, frex, 6 Strombergs, or mechanical FI)? This might be enough for a rename...So TTL's *Griffon might actually be more "Buzzard Major" (or something).

And that's leaving off whether Alvis or somebody comes up with a successful design not even conceived OTL, because there was no need for it...

There's also a prospect for Canada or Oz to licence a design the U.S. never bothered with, like the R2180, & get a real cheap deal on a good design...

The R-2180A (pre-war engine) is a really misteroius engine - yes, we know the 'hard' data (bore, stroke, HP, rpm) but the 'soft' data is as good as not available, like the reliability. Just by looking at cubic capacity and power, it might be a good choice.
The Buzzard was already a big enough engine, 36.7L, so the dispalcement can remain as-is. RR have had good superchargers even before Hooker arrived, obviously Hooker will improve it still. Carb - use the 'injection carbs', not the 'float carbs'.
 
Top