R-R militarized 'R' engine: one engine to rule them all?

The gearheads of this forum will certainly remeber the Rolls Royce 'R' engine, that managed to capture several speed records, whether in aircraft, cars or boats. Developed from the RR Buzzard, it was managing beyond 2500 HP in racing trim once debugged.
The POD might be that RR says to themselves by early 1930s:
-Okay, developing and setting production for several engine types might be wasteful. Lets make one main engine type, for front-line aircraft, that is based on the R engine. Needs of lower powered engines are and will be met by Kestrel line.

So, for better or worse, there is no Goshawk, Merlin, Exe and Peregrine, there is just the 'R minus' that gives, say, 1300 HP at 15000-16000 ft on 87 oct fuel by 1935. Aircraft designed around it are 'Battle', 'Hurricane' and 'Spitfire' for the starters. On 100 oct fuel, engine makes 1600 HP at ~10000 ft, just for the BoB. Version with iprovements, including the S/C, is available my mid 1940, Packard makes that version under the license.

Whatdaya think - how much is this scenario better for the Allied war effort, what are downsides, what might be likely German answers (provided the can come out with better thins than per OTL, apart from the 'more DB 603s' hymn?). Post 1940 development (the 2-stage S/C comes to the mind easily)?
 
The Japanese worked on their version of the Buzzard in the mid-1930s called the Nakajima NWD. 160mmx170mm 41 liters; rated horsepower 900hp at 2200rpm; Max 1040hp at 2400rpm; 695kg weight.
 
Wasn't the R too finely built to be a viable mass production engine ?
Looser standards means lower power output to keep reliability.
How many HP do you want from 2240 cubic inches? Under a thousand, that engine will run a long long time.

If you shoot for the US Hyper, 1hp per cubic inch and optimally one pound weight, yeah, things will break frequently
 
Looser standards means lower power output to keep reliability.
How many HP do you want from 2240 cubic inches? Under a thousand, that engine will run a long long time.
...

My point exactly - with a sizable displacement, there is plenty of elbow room for both power and reliability. Of course, development over a decade or so + availability of ever better fuels will see increase of power while remaining reliable for military service.

Possible development in the UK & USA:
- out-of-the-box, ALT Hurricane I and Spit I should gain 10-15 mph over the OTL types, ie. ~ 325-330 and 370+mph respectively.
- plenty of HP early on means no Whirlwind (sorry, folks); the 4-cannon fighter job is done by using Hurricanes and Spitfires
- Battle can do perhaps 300 mph, it will still be hacked in 1940 without escort
- Beufighter that makes 350 mph
- Mosquito that does 400 mph out-from-the-box
- Albacore gets designed around the V-12 engine, instead of the 14-cyl radial?
- Fulmar that does 300 mph, later 320-330?
- Barracuda has a proper engine from day one
- ALT Hurricane II is a very usable fighter for BoB, 1941-42 N. Africa and 1942 SE Asia/Pacific
- ALT Spitfire V does 380-390 mph, thus no Fw 190 shock, plus easier dealing vs. Japanese
- ALT P-40F has no problems with current German or Italian opposition, let alone vs. Japanese
- early souped-up Mustang?
 
My point exactly - with a sizable displacement, there is plenty of elbow room for both power and reliability. Of course, development over a decade or so + availability of ever better fuels will see increase of power while remaining reliable for military service.
The DB-600 had 2069 cubes and ran at 2400rpm for 1000hp, 601 at 2600rpm for 1360, and the larger 605 (2179ci.) At 2800 made 1475hp
Weights respectively was 1510 pounds and 1663 for the 605, a bit heavier than the 'R'
The 600 ran on 84 or 87 Octane, the latter two on 87 or 100, late in the war, for 17-1800hp, along with methanol/water.
The 601 and 605 had fuel injection, so a bit more hp on lower octane with carbs.

So whats that mean? It would be around 1300 at the start of the war on 87, and 2000+ halfway thru, and that's without the 115/145 fuel, but 100/130
 
...
So whats that mean? It would be around 1300 at the start of the war on 87, and 2000+ halfway thru, and that's without the 115/145 fuel, but 100/130

Hopefully, it woud've mimicked development of the Merlin, with better power due to greater displacement, and due to the RR staff being concentrated on a single engine, rather than on several designs. Thus we can easily imaginne 'R XX' (mid-1940, featuring the improved Hookers S/C inlet for better power at all altitudes, say 1350 HP at 18500 ft here; ~1700 HP at 7-8000 ft; also manufactured by Packard), then 'R 45' (lighter & shorter 1-speed version of the XX; 1600 HP at 10000 ft, early 1941), 2-stage supercharged 'R 61' (for ~1500 HP at 25000 ft, ~2000 HP at 12000 ft; also for Typhoon/Tempest/Mustang/Mosquito) etc.
American development might include water-injection added, for above 2500 HP? Plus 150 oct type test in early 1944.
 
Even without pushing, a 1200hp engine that's 300 pounds heavier than the Merlin isn't a bad thing to have in 1939, that could be 1500 in 1941.
 
As I understand it Rolls Royce designed a Buzzard based detuned 'R' but dropped it. Later the Royal Navy wanted a bigger Merlin so they laid down the actual Griffon in 1938. The two were different engines. If they thought a bumped up Buzzard would do the job they would not have made a new design instead.

However, had they dropped the Vulture and Peregrine and spread Merlin development across the Merlin and Griffon it may have got into service in 1941, possibly initially in the Fulmar in 1,700bhp single stage, two speed supercharger low level form.
 
It should work IF you design the tanks to be able to fit the engine in from the start, rather than try to shoe horn it in.
 
It should work IF you design the tanks to be able to fit the engine in from the start, rather than try to shoe horn it in.
The 'R' was 100 inches long in racing trim with the supercharger, the Buzzard withba smaller supercharger was 88 inches
Take off the supercharger, and you have somethingnthe size of the Soviet V2 engine that fit fine in the T-34
 
Paging @wiking for German response upon finding out that RAF has a 1300 HP engine in service by 1936-37. Continued funding for the DB 603; He 100; Fw 187?
 
Paging @wiking for German response upon finding out that RAF has a 1300 HP engine in service by 1936-37. Continued funding for the DB 603; He 100; Fw 187?
Does the RAF actually admit to having such an engine ready for service in 1936-7 or claim it's still an experimental racing engine and quote performance figures for the basic buzzard engine when talking about coming aircraft?
 
Does the RAF actually admit to having such an engine ready for service in 1936-7 or claim it's still an experimental racing engine and quote performance figures for the basic buzzard engine when talking about coming aircraft?

FWIW, in 1938, British were publicly announcing the Bristol Hercules (that will enter limited service in late 1939) as being capable for 1375 HP, admitedly in low altitude back then.
link1
link2
Granted, RAF can state only the 'international power' of the engine for the press, that was roughly 85% of maximum power of a choosen engine back then. Works at about 1100-1150 HP for the new V12 by RR.
Aero engine power was also a measure of the national prestige back then, so both RR and RAF might mention the actual power with pride - to encourage friends and discourage enemies.
 

Deleted member 1487

Paging @wiking for German response upon finding out that RAF has a 1300 HP engine in service by 1936-37. Continued funding for the DB 603; He 100; Fw 187?
FWIW, in 1938, British were publicly announcing the Bristol Hercules (that will enter limited service in late 1939) as being capable for 1375 HP, admitedly in low altitude back then.
link1
link2
Granted, RAF can state only the 'international power' of the engine for the press, that was roughly 85% of maximum power of a choosen engine back then. Works at about 1100-1150 HP for the new V12 by RR.
Aero engine power was also a measure of the national prestige back then, so both RR and RAF might mention the actual power with pride - to encourage friends and discourage enemies.
Sounds like you answered your own question, assuming the engine is ready to go by then. Didn't seem to trigger much in the way of German response IOTL despite the British talking up the Hercules. Assuming there was a response from a 1936-37 announcement of such an engine then I guess the only response is simply to not cancel the DB603 and hope for the best. Not sure why the He100 and FW187 would factor in at all.
 
Sounds like you answered your own question, assuming the engine is ready to go by then. Didn't seem to trigger much in the way of German response IOTL despite the British talking up the Hercules. Assuming there was a response from a 1936-37 announcement of such an engine then I guess the only response is simply to not cancel the DB603 and hope for the best. Not sure why the He100 and FW187 would factor in at all.

He 100 and Fw 187 might be seen as part of plan B - next-gen designs that might perform very good or excellent even with 1000-1100 HP engines that are currently (1937 on) in development, in case the current fighters earmarked for these engines (= Bf 109 and 110) cannot. Equivalent of the British OTL wish to have Spitfire, Defiant and Whirlwind despite having Hurricane in production, or US push for P-43/44/47A*, P-46 and P-38 despite contracts for P-36, P-40 and P-39 being signed.

*P-47A was the stillborn prototype with V-1710 and 10(!) MGs
 
Top