I keep reading about superchargers, turbochargers, and turbo-superchargers, and issues with the P-40 and P-39 due to lack of dual-stage chargers in the beginning. The P-40s were eventually modifies to have the same type of superchargers as the European counterparts, as was the P-39. What was the impact of the superchargers, turbochargers, etc., which were better, and what did the P-40s greatly improve with the newer engines? And why did the US not use the dual-stage superchargers when they were already getting reports from Europe that US fighters wouldn't compete in the European skies without the dual chargers?
The answer is complex, technical development takes time, each company tried to make the most economical package to get their contract to build planes. The higher the airplanes would need to fly also determined how much charger would be needed to aspirate the engines. Airplane manufacturers did indeed copy more successful engines if they didn't out right buy them to add power and speed to their original planes. Having a charger meant introducing more air and possibly more fuel into the combustion chamber enabling the output of more power. There is more expense involved and engine parts need to be strong to last with the increase in power. Hope that makes sense to answer your question.
I seem to recall that the British originally intended to order a large number of P38 Lightenings - but their own specifications eliminated the supercharger. So when they got one for trials, they were so disappointed with it that they cancelled the order. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html Will have to take the time to read up on this again. Tnx! There is a good thread on Supercharger vs. Turbocharger at: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/supercharger-vs-turbocharger-2355.html
The early P-39s and P-40s only had single-stage superchargers, which affected their performance. I believe the P-40 was eventually upgraded with the Packard Merlin engine with the better chargers.
