I'm sure results will come quicker than OTL. It might help to find a skunk.
The R-2800 seemed to be out of the running for power preferences, since NAA tried to convince the USAAF to go for a swap on the B-25, and were told to go fish.
It would have to have some relevance, like this Grumman P-50, which lost to the Lockheed.
Driftless
Donor
Nice! One of many on my wish list of AH devices... If and IF that machine could have been re-assigned as a Army program earlier and with some more resource, it coulda been a contender. Maybe it's niche might have been as an attack plane, as well as a fighter?
The Allison 3420 did in fact work rather well. It was another example of a project that wasn't given adequate support pre-war. It would have been a superior engine fit for the B-29. The following link leads to an informative article about the 3420 engine.
Allison V-3420 24-Cylinder Aircraft Engine | Old Machine Press
The US Navy and Army had sufficiently supported/funded Allison in their efforts. I have read some treatises which put Allison's efforts in a poor light in attitude, and engineering effort, in the V-1710 development program. Truth is elusive and evasive, but results bear out the arguments. Some war-time companies viewed the business prospects of supplying weapons differently than some others.
A WI I've never seen is if Curtis had continued building V-12 engines. They had the supercharged V-1570 Conqueror in the late 1920s but never progressed beyond that.
I'm liking the nose art.
You suppose that's because production can't meet additional demand? (If it can't, what about the R2600?)
Which is the XP-50 Grumman should have built in the <s>fist</s> first place... (A bit less ugly could not have hurt.)
Thanks for the link.
I stumbled across the V3420 on WP, & liked it immediately. The idea of the B-29 powered by them...
Last edited:
The response given was no R-2800 engines for B-25s. R-2600 engines had 300 hp less, were slightly lighter, somewhat larger diameter, and were produced by a company that was under investigation by the Truman Commission for criminally faulty engines.
What's a fist place?
Wright made the 2600. It was the engine in the B-25 & TBF Avenger, among others.
Regarding the next update: I am plugging away with drawings of the new inter-cooler system and am also working on the canopy revision. My thinking is that as nice as it would be to introduce a full one-piece bubble canopy, realistically it is still too early in the war for them to build this. Sure, I can use some hand-waving and say that DuPont or Lockheed were able to get to the UK and saw the Miles M.20 but I just think the development of a frame-less bubble is a little beyond them in the first months of 1942. Instead this first canopy revision will most likely be a three piece sliding canopy (if I can fit the rails).
I will go into more detail on the post(s) but for now, here is a sample of the inter-cooler installation (I wanted to make sure the P-38 had enough space in the nacelle for a sufficiently large inter-cooler...it does):
Getting a POD for an earlier bubble canopy is not that difficult, The Miles M20 was designed in the summer of 1940 with a very neat bubble canopy produced by Taylor. The Tizzard mission left for the USA with inventions and designs for production and use in the USA in the summer of 1940. Simply have the Tizzard mission take the specs, production techniques and example of the M20's canopy with them.
Obviously a bad call...Evidence I can't proofread.
I think P-75s would take ASBs...We need a TL where the V-3420 is successfull, end result: P-75s escorting B-39s over Tokyo
B-39s, tho...Indeed. That is why I mentioned the M.20. On the other hand, the Tizard Mission did not, as far as I can tell, bring the information regarding the M.20 canopy and thus including it here would require a second PoD--something I am trying to avoid. I have already started to lay the ground work to get the bubble in place with the mention of DuPont and Lockheed being in contact with ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries, the British patent holder of Perspex and thus with process expertise in the needed area) but I think having a full bubble ready for production by March is a long shot. They will, instead, develop an easier solution for immediate production that will bridge the gap between the five piece greenhouse of the P-38E and the later introduction of a full bubble.
Neither USN nor USAAC funded any development of the V-1710 before the war. USN bought a single GV-1710 (G = geared) when it was completed, Army was buying the engines one by one when those passed tests. Army have had some pies in the sky where their limited funds went in 1930s, namely the singe cylindre engines with aim (mantra) of 1 HP per cu in. Later the development of whole engines, based on these single cylinders, was passed to Continental and Lycoming, both companies poured their money in the projects that gave no useful engines. Navy co-funded P&W R-1830 and R-2800 engines for military use.
Army declined Allison's suggestions for 2-stage compressor and fuel injection for the V-1710 in 1938.
When Allison tried to have Army pay 900 000 US$ of developmet costs of the V-1710 in 1940, Army swiftly said something along 'sorry, we don not intend to cover it, but we will not object the sales to foreign (= France, UK, China) governments in return'. Poor engineering effort does not deliver a 1600-1850 HP engine of 1710 cu in, in 1944*, nor does a 2-stage superchager in service 15 months before oh-so-techy Germans do.
*edit: make it 1500 HP in 1942, 1600 HP actually in 1943, per engine manuals (no jiggery-pokery)
Last edited: