WI: Successful Rolls Royce Vulture

Well, the Fairmile Ds were powered by four Packard engines derived from, ha ha, the Liberty 12; so there's precedent. There doesn't seem to be any problem of principle getting an aero engine into an MTB, or a tank for that matter- think of the g force they're expected to tolerate; mechanical strength is not the problem.

Specific availability of specific engines from specific factories may be an issue, though; does Rolls Royce at this point have the productive capacity to do absolutely everything? Delegating to Rover and British Ford suggests not- and the failure of the Vulture can be partly attributed to designers being at full stretch already.
 
How well/not well might an improved Vulture or Exe have performed in torpedo boats? The potential horsepower would have been useful, but how about service in a tight engine compartment?
Vosper boats had Packards, Whalebacks ran on Sea Lions and Canadian PTs had Merlin variants, all upright Vs or Ws. X engines would fit, particularly if designed to do so, but changing the lower spark plugs seems a little tedious. The Exe was aircooled and would require a tuba and some venting.
 

Driftless

Donor
Vosper boats had Packards, Whalebacks ran on Sea Lions and Canadian PTs had Merlin variants, all upright Vs or Ws. X engines would fit, particularly if designed to do so, but changing the lower spark plugs seems a little tedious. The Exe was aircooled and would require a tuba and some venting.

Supercharged tuba? Wrong culture, but that tuba could toot out a pretty wild "Ride of the Valkyries" I would think....
 
Last edited:
Let's say the Vulture engine overcame its reliability problems. The result would be the Hawker Tempest fighter powered by Vulture engine variants instead of (mostly) Napier Sabre engine variants.

I still think the Manchester--even with two reliable Vulture engines--would have evolved into the Lancaster with four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines anyway because of the need for a bomber that could carry larger payloads.
 
I have to wonder, in the light of Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam and half a hundred other cities, what you're using for logic here; the Heinkel 111, Ju 88, Tu-2, Mosquito, Do 217, B-25 and 26, Mitsubishi G4M, challenge that assertion- as does the unsustainable loss rate of any bomber unescorted in daylight, even (especially) the Liberators and Fortresses.

There are three layers here, the weapon itself, the military system it is part of, the political setup that direct the system; no aircraft does well if it is badly used, no military machine succeeds or survives if it is directed to jobs beyond it's means by fantasizing morons.

If the doctrine and training remain the same, you could give Bomber Command Vulcans in 1940 and they'd still cock it up.

On the other hand, there are the feedback loops between technology and tactics that influence what the system thinks it can do, what it is willing to attempt- sometimes counterproductive, as witness the RAF's belief in The Bomber, on no rational grounds whatsoever.

So, back to square one- what difference does a 1700-2000hp engine available from late 1939 make? If the Manchester gets it's wing extensions which were on the drawing board anyway, you get a larger and more effective heavy bomber force sooner, two engines being easier to build and look after than four, but that has to wait for the Butt Report before becoming really meaningful.

A Vulture- engined version of the Mosquito, on the other hand, could be very good indeed- could produce interesting doctrinal developments, as well as tactical results.
 
When the Air Ministry wanted a heavy bomber, they ordered the Supermarine 316 and Short Stirling. They ordered the twin Vulture Halifax and Manchester on purpose, as twins. When they were nudged toward a special purpose heavy bomber to cater to the fruits of Barnes Wallis's brain, they ordered the Vickers Windsor. Without the impetus of a total failure of their planning, by counting on an unproven engine, there's not much indication that they would tend to follow OTL in their planning. Only with hindsight was the Lancaster inevitable, and the Air Ministry didn't have it.
 
I thought that it was the 318 with four Hercules that was ordered with the Stirling as backup (doesn't negate your argument of course). We have Supermarine's (understandable) preoccupation with the Spitfire and the Luftwaffe (destroying the prototype completely whilst it was just a fuselage) to thank for the Stirling entering service. If the Vulture had been successful we would probably ended up with the "Super Stirling" with extended wingspan, a single bomb bay and Centaurus engines instead of the Lancaster. There would have been no reason to develop the Lancaster.

The Air Ministry apparently agreed that the "Super Stirling" was a much better plane than the Stirling but didn't want to disrupt production (and the Lancaster was coming).

How successful the "Super Stirling" would have been is open to conjecture given the Centaurus' early prediliction to burst into flames. However this might well have been the plane that got 4 Vultures.

On a complete tangent would the engine have been given the time and research it needed if it hadn't been called the Vulture? Lets say it was called the Eagle instead (OTL Eagle not even on designing board yet). Completely illogical but stranger things have happened!
 
Last edited:
I thought that it was the 318 with four Hercules that was ordered with the Stirling as backup (doesn't negate your argument of course). We have Supermarine's (understandable) preoccupation with the Spitfire and the Luftwaffe (destroying the prototype completely whilst it was just a fuselage) to thank for the Stirling entering service. If the Vulture had been successful we would probably ended up with the "Super Stirling" with extended wingspan, a single bomb bay and Centaurus engines instead of the Lancaster. There would have been no reason to develop the Lancaster.

The Air Ministry apparently agreed that the "Super Stirling" was a much better plane than the Stirling but didn't want to disrupt production (and the Lancaster was coming).

How successful the "Super Stirling" would have been is open to conjecture given the Centaurus' early prediliction to burst into flames. However this might well have been the plane that got 4 Vultures.

On a complete tangent would the engine have been given the time and research it needed if it hadn't been called the Vulture? Lets say it was called the Eagle instead (OTL Eagle not even on designing board yet). Completely illogical but stranger things have happened!

As hard as it seems to imagine a "Super Stirling", it was the only British heavy bomber designed as a heavy bomber from the beginning, and it did have the best manouevrability of all. It might have been a contender.

A viable Vulture would put less pressure (priority) on development of the Napier Sabre, to power the Tornado/Typhoon Hurricane replacement that led to the Tempest, eventually powered by Centaurus and refined into Fury. Less Sabre priority equals more timely Centaurus development.

The Rolls Royce Eagle, an H engine, was dropped not due to failure, but from foresight and the belief that turbine development would surpass it. It was still a considerable time before turbo-prop engines such as Dart and Tyne became mainstream successes. What should the Vulture have been called to be worthy of a little silver in the main bearings?
 
Top