Military Aircraft

[sappersgt]

Reading this thread a thought popped into my mind. Were the Merlin engines in Spitfires and Hurricanes interchangeable? If so, how practical would it be? Any other aircraft and engines have interchangeability come to mind? Could be quite a bonus for ground crews I would think.

[GAU-8]

Reading this thread a thought popped into my mind. Were the Merlin engines in Spitfires and Hurricanes interchangeable? If so, how practical would it be? Any other aircraft and engines have interchangeability come to mind? Could be quite a bonus for ground crews I would think.

What an excellent question. One would think so.
If Glyn doesn't pop in with the answer soon, I'll do my best to dig it up.
PM Glyn to rattle his cage on this. He can find this in his flight manuals.

Wouldn't you think the Merlin would have a standard mount? And since both aircraft had the same engine, would they not have the same motor mounts to receive the Merlin? And what about the Mustang, the Mosquito and the Lancaster bomber? They all had Merlins.

I'd like to know about the prop as well. I know the Spitfire went through some teething pains with her prop. Did they settle in on one prop for both Spitfire and Hurricane after a while?

Let's hear it Glyn.

[glyn]

Reading this thread a thought popped into my mind. Were the Merlin engines in Spitfires and Hurricanes interchangeable? If so, how practical would it be? Any other aircraft and engines have interchangeability come to mind? Could be quite a bonus for ground crews I would think.

Both the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire Mk I used the 1,013 hp Merlin II or III. Engines were pulled from airframes fairly regularly for certain servicing or repair and to have mods applied, and I don't think it was necessary or even possible to ensure that they went back into the same airframe. Theoretically a Merlin II or II should be able to be moved from one type to the other. However the Mk II Hurricane was fitted with a 1,280 hp Merlin XX and that was not fitted to any Spitfire as far as I can see. Spitfire Merlins went up to 1,720 hp.(Griffon powered Spits went to 2,050 hp).
There were many Marks of Merlin, fitted in a wide range of aircraft. Some were specific to aircraft types, others were possibly interchangeable. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough about engines to give you a definitive answer.

[glyn]

[QUOTE=GAU-8;509528]

I'd like to know about the prop as well. I know the Spitfire went through some teething pains with her prop. Did they settle in on one prop for both Spitfire and Hurricane after a while?

The Hurricane entered service with a 2 bladed airscrew which gave a maximum climb of 2,420 fpm and a maximum speed at 18,500 feet of 320mph. This was later improved by the substitution of a De Havilland 2 position 3 blader, and finally De Havilland or Rotol constant speed jobbies which could achieve 340mph.
The Spitfire also started out the same as the Hurricane, but then went to 4 bladed props, then 5 blades and finally to 6 blades ( 2 contra rotating 3 bladers). Phew!:)

[GAU-8]

Glyn to the rescue again.
Thanks and well done.
Great info.

[BadKharma]

That is very enlightening and now the reasons for the English choice on the P-38 is clearer. Thank you for that info.

[glyn]

That is very enlightening and now the reasons for the English choice on the P-38 is clearer. Thank you for that info.

Good for you BadKharma. :)
However I've managed to confuse myself!
The Allison engine would surely be the same in whatever airframe it was fitted. Where the P-38 differed was I think in having turbo supercharging units made by another vendor - (General Electric ) As far as I can see they were merely attached to the main exhaust pipe. Perhaps the RAF were right in a way as Lightnings were needed as soon as possible whereas the first production P-38 (P-38LO) didn't reach the US Air Corps until mid-1941 and the run was only for 29 aircraft. There was just 1 A model. The Bs and Cs were not built and the D (36 built) was only considered suitable as a combat trainer. The E was the first major production run with 210 produced and although it had improvements on earlier models it was not deemed combat ready and remained stateside. The first combat ready model was the P-38F but it would have proved much too late for the RAFs needs. Even then the Allison engines were no longer the same versions as those used in the Tomahawk. All very confusing even now, and almost certainly much more so then!

[BadKharma]

Your welcome Glyn, however now you have muddied the waters again. How much difference was there between the early and later Allison engines? I know the AVG initially had P-40B models which the British nicknamed the Tomahawk. However they eventually received newer models and the mechanics still cannibalized wrecked fighters to keep as many in the air as possible.
I also have a question on the F4U hope it is alright to ask it here but I'll include a picture also to be safe ;)

In Blackburn's book The Jolly Rogers he states that VF-17 was slated to be the first F4U unit to be based on a carrier and shipped off on a carrier for Pearl. Upon arrival however they were told they had to either switch to F6F Hellcats or accept assignment as land based. The reason given is that the navy would have too much trouble with logistics supplying a carrier based F4U squadron. I can understand the logistic equation but I wonder if some "political" decision was not also behind the decision as Grumman made both the Wildcat and Hellcat and the F4U was produced by Chance Vought. I have had discussions else were about this and was told the F6F was a superior fighter. I find that interesting since the F4U served on carriers into the Korean War and the F8F the Hellcats replacement did not.

[RustyBattleship]

There may well have been some political influence (as what forced Northrop to scrap his flying wings because more pockets got lined from factories that built the standard winged tube such as B-50's and B-36's).

However, it may also have been a storage problem. The Corsairs were bigger than the Hellcats and you couldn't stow as many below on the hangar deck as you could the Grummans. Though our overhead clearances on the hangar decks were high enough for the folded wings of the Corsair, F4Us on British ships had to have 8-inches clipped off the wing tips.

After WW II, we didn't think we would need the massive amounts of Carrier based aircraft (even during the Korean War). So Corsairs were the propeller driven fighters issued to carriers along with jet propelled fighters. Hellcats were downgraded to "smart bombs" being remotely controlled to dive into military targets such as railway tunnels, bridges, etc. They were the first TV guided pilotless aircraft and no longer issued as manned fighters.

So, I suspect, along with you, that the Corsair was the better plane than the Hellcat, but a tad too big to stow enough on a ship and not enough Congressmen in Chance-Vought's pocket.

[Parihaka]

They were also buggers to land at the best of times with the cockpit being so far aft. It wasn't until the Brits developed the curved approach so the pilots could see the LSO at all times that they were used for American carrier operations from late 1944.

[bugs]

Just For Fun

[BadKharma]

Rusty I did not think about the storage space very interesting point. Although like I said VF-17 shipped out on Bunker Hill and went through it's shakedown cruise operating on board. Parihaka you are correct it was not the easiest aircraft to land because of the long nose however VF-17 was fully carrier qualified with the main problem being tire blow outs from excessive bounce which Vought representatives quickly fixed retro fitting stiffer oleos.

[glyn]

They were also buggers to land at the best of times with the cockpit being so far aft. It wasn't until the Brits developed the curved approach so the pilots could see the LSO at all times that they were used for American carrier operations from late 1944.

The loony Brits were the first to operate Corsairs from carriers. As the carriers were smaller than the American jobbies, and the Brits (as mentioned) cropped the wings increasing the wing loading and thus raising the stalling speed, they were rather demanding to fly. They also had the early production F4Us with the birdcage canopy. Who says the British lack a sense of humour?

[Ammo08]

The F-111 Aardvark....

[Kommunist]

Had some nice pics, but couldn't find a more suitable thread to post em.... so here they are