# The "best fighter engine in the world"



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2012)

I have been reading through _Rolls-Royce and the Mustang_, by David Birch for the RRHT when I found an interesting statement made by Ernest Hives to Wilfred Freeman in correspondence date 28th June 1942:



> We are now running a Griffon 61 on test and are very pleased with it. *It is the best fighter engine in the world*, but there will be no aeroplane for it.



He goes on to dump on Supermarines about their Griffon powered Spitfire (presumably the XII) and its lack of progress. He described it as "a mock up" as it used the standard Spitfire wings.

So, was the Griffon 61 the best fighter engine in the world in mid-late 1942? Of course it didn't reach operational status until late 1943/early 1944, was it the best fighter engine in the world then?

If not, what was the best fighter engine? What was the best in the periods 1939-1941, 1942-1943, 1944-1945?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2012)

You may want to adjust the time periods a bit and qualify when an engine was available. As in the Griffon example, best fighter engine in 1942 on the test stand for future fighters or best fighter engine in squadron service, even if only one squadron. 

Maybe you would want to change the first time period to 1939-41 as 1942 would include the 60 Series Merlin and perhaps the R-2800?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2012)

That better?

I think Hives was just being proud of his company's efforts. 

I think we should stipulate engines in squadron service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2012)

Well, it evens things up a bit. The two stage R-1830 wasn't much ahead (if any) of some of the better single stage engines at the end of 1941 for power at altitude.

The 1939-1941 period sees the:

Merlin 45 and XX engines.
The P&W R-1830
Allison
DB 601

The French don't have anything and neither do the Russians or Italians. Japanese have the Sakae?


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2012)

How many Griffon engines were produced prior to May 1945?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> How many Griffon engines were produced prior to May 1945?



6-7000, maybe more.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2012)

How is that possible?

Per Wikipedia 8,108 Griffon engines were built and that includes production right up to the late 1950s.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 31, 2012)

If you look at Griffon powered Spitfires alone, there were 1688 of them before the war ended:

Griffin Spitfire Mk-------#......First flown
F Mk XII---------------100...Oct 1942
F Mk XIV, FR Mk XIV----957...Oct 1943
PR Mk XIX--------------224...May 1944
F Mk 21----------------120...Jan 1944
F Mk 22----------------287...Mar 1945
----------------------------
1688


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2012)

Because production wasn't as high a priority post war.

Maybe 6000 is on the high side, but 5000 should certainly be possible.

Griffon 61 - 1134 between 1942 1945
Griffon 64 - 200 in 1945
Griffon 65 - 1475 1943-1948
Griffon 66 - 360 1944-1945
Griffon 67 - 150 in 1945
Griffon 69 - 160 in 1945
Griffon 85 - 100 in 1945
Griffon 87 - 74 in 1945

Those are the 2 stage Griffons built mosty during WW2.

Data from Lumsden.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 31, 2012)

evangilder said:


> If you look at Griffon powered Spitfires alone, there were 1688 of them before the war ended:
> 
> Griffin Spitfire Mk-------#......First flown
> F Mk XII---------------100...Oct 1942
> ...



the 957 Spit XIV was built until december '45 so the war time production was less


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 31, 2012)

Do we take the reliability into account?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 31, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> the 957 Spit XIV was built until december '45 so the war time production was less



There was also about 700 Fireflys produced prior to VJ day (including 658 Mk 1) and about 400 Griffon powered Seafires, mostly the Mk XV.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2012)

> 700 Fireflys produced prior to VJ day (including 658 Mk 1) and about 400 Griffon powered Seafires


It appears the RN had priority for Griffon engines.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 31, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> There was also about 700 Fireflys produced prior to VJ day (including 658 Mk 1) and about 400 Griffon powered Seafires, mostly the Mk XV.



true there were also the Fireflys with Griffon engine afail all Mk 1 production is 678 and ended after the war. the Seafire XV production until april '45 was 74 when i've time i see on spitfires.ukf.net for the others months


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 31, 2012)

My vote is as follows: 

1939: Daimler-Benz 601N
1940: Rolls-Royce Merlin XX
1941: BMW 801 C-2
1942: Rolls-Royce Merlin 61
1943: P&W R-2800-10 or -59
1944: Napier Sabre V at low altitude, Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 anywhere else
1945: Tie between P&W R-2800-34W, Junkers Jumo 213E, Rolls-Royce Griffon 61

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 31, 2012)

From 1939-41: DB-601
1942-43. Merlin 
1944-45: Griffon


----------



## NeilStirling (Aug 31, 2012)

UK Griffon total supplies through to Feb 1945 from AVIA 38/887 The National Archive Kew UK.

Griffon VI,36,II, and XII total supplies 993

Griffon 61,65,66 and 69 total supplies 1,821.

Neil.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2012)

> UK Griffon total supplies through to Feb 1945 from AVIA 38/887 The National Archive Kew UK.
> Griffon VI,36,II, and XII total supplies 993
> Griffon 61,65,66 and 69 total supplies 1,821.



IMO those production numbers are surprisingly small. Germany produced more DB603 and Jumo 213 engines during the same time frame while being bombed relentlessly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2012)

And if the British really felt that they needed more Griffons what could they have done? 

The 1942 Merlin 61 was operating at 14-15lbs of boost I believe. Later changed to 18lbs with an improved supercharger drive and then to 25lbs with the coming of 150 PN fuel.

Had the improved fuel not shown up (first tested late 1943?) or some mechanical defect prevented the Merlin running at 25lbs boost then the British were in a position to change to more Griffons. With the Merlin providing "most" of the power needed/wanted there was no reason to greatly disrupt production. 

British also had the Sabre to handle big engine duties.


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 31, 2012)

I guess the biggest problems the British faced in changing over the overall Better Griffon engines were the relative unreliability and short life span of the Griffon, and, Bomber Command's apetite for Merlins. If you can't afford 5000 engine production lost... then RR factories won't retool for another engine.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2012)

Under historical circumstances the engine would need to be produced overseas as WWII Rolls Royce couldn't even meet demand for the higher priority Merlin Engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2012)

Which Griffons had the short life span and what service were they in? 

Most fighters operating from forward strips in Normandy/France had short lived engines due to sand/dirt ingestion, not defective design. Bomber engines usually last longer than fighter engines, and transport engines even longer. Shackleton engines seemed to do OK for longevity in post war use.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Under historical circumstances the engine would need to be produced overseas as WWII Rolls Royce couldn't even meet demand for the higher priority Merlin Engine.



Nice try at shifting the argument, You seemed to be claiming the Griffon was not built in as large a numbers as the DB 603 and Jumo 213. OK, it wasn't but why?

In part because those "higher priority Merlin Engine" s could do the job better than the DB 605 and Jumo 211 engines and didn't *NEED* to be replaced in Production as much as the German engines needed to be. 
Merlin 85 used in Avro Lincoln bomber was good for 1635hp for take-off and 1705hp at 5750 ft and 1580hp at 16,000ft. using 100/130 fuel. The take-off power is 115hp below the German engines but the power at altitude is a lot closer, 1620hp at 18,700ft for the more common DB 603s and 1600hp at 18,000ft for a Jumo 211A. Merlin was about 350lbs lighter. 
Griffon was even better but as there was less _NEED_ the priorities didn't need to change. AS I said, if for some reason the Merlin in 1943-44 had run into a wall and couldn't be developed as it was, THE PRIORITIES would have CHANGED and one or more factories changed over to Griffons. 

Germans were forced to change over because, now matter how HIGH a priority the DB 605 or Jumo 211 had they couldn't actually do the job needed and had to be replaced.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2012)

Getting back to the question the Griffon 61 in 1942 on test, It certainly looked like the best fighter engine known to the British at the time. 100/150 fuel not being available or at least not in a production form. 

With 2035hp at 7000ft and 1820hp at 21,000ft (at 18lbs on 100/130) it can equal a two stage R-2800 down low and have several hundred more hp at high altitude. It is 400lbs lighter than the R-2800 which helps offset the weight of the radiator and coolant. It should be easier to streamline. 

Sabre IIa may be on test stands. It doesn't show up in service aircraft until 1943. While it easily out powers the Griffon 61 down low it's 1880hp at 15,250ft doesn't look so good for medium to hi altitude work. The extra 400lbs doesn't look so good either.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 1, 2012)

Compare the Griffon to the DB603 - lighter, more comapct and more powerful.

RPM development seems to be the problem with the Griffon.

Two stage Griffon is under 2000lbs. The two stage R-2800-8 (F4U) and -10 (F6F) weigh 2480lbs, which is close to 500lbs heavier than the Griffon 65. Those R-2800s are rated at 1650hp @ 22,000ft, so about 150hp or so down on the Griffon at that altitude.

One wonders what would have happened if Republic tried a Griffon in the XP47H(?) instead of the IV-2220. Coupled with a turbo the single stage Griffon could have been used, saving a further 100-200lbs, and its suercharger geared LS (probably sea level)/MS instead of MS/FS.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 1, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Compare the Griffon to the DB603 - lighter, more comapct and more powerful.



Which Griffon and which DB 603... is the single stage Griffon, or the two stage one, is it an early DB 603A or a late DB 603E/L/LA/N? How much fuel do they consume, how much fuel needs to be carried to get the same range in the same aircraft, what it included in their weight (props, supercharger, cooling and oil systems, supercharger carburrator intercooler included - or just a bare engine block? How are dimension measurements made - do they include the propellor shaft, aux. devices sticking out, or is it just the engine block (which defines built-in dimensions)? How does their power curve looks like?

It is not very simple to give a correct answer IMHO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2012)

The DB 603 is about the weight of a 2 stage Griffon but only about as powerful as a single stage Griffon. 

I don't believe there was much problem with the Griffon RPM was there? While it's peak rpm of 2750 was lower than the Merlin in's longer stroke meant the piston speed was higher. Higher RPM might have meant a heavier engine or a shorter overhaul life or both ( short life of Griffons operating from temporary forward airstrips will be ignored unless accompanied by data of life in other settings/operating regimes) .

You are correct about the weight of the Griffon 65, I was going by the weight of the Griffon 69 and sometimes different sources have a different definition of "dry" weight, Certain accessories included or not.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> Which Griffon and which DB 603... is the single stage Griffon, or the two stage one, is it an early DB 603A or a late DB 603E/L/LA/N? How much fuel do they consume, how much fuel needs to be carried to get the same range in the same aircraft, what it included in their weight (props, supercharger, cooling and oil systems, supercharger carburrator intercooler included - or just a bare engine block? How are dimension measurements made - do they include the propellor shaft, aux. devices sticking out, or is it just the engine block (which defines built-in dimensions)? How does their power curve looks like?
> 
> It is not very simple to give a correct answer IMHO.



Fair enough, but to simplify things and keep some sense of reality which of these DB 603 engines actually saw service use in squadron numbers ( say at least 12 aircraft on strength at one time?) otherwise the allied fans can bring in late model Griffons like the two stage, 3 speed Griffon 130.

Going by Wiki ( correction more than welcome) this limits us to the DB 603A, AA, E, and possibly the "G" production canceled but at least not listed as a prototype. 

Power for the "A" is listed at 1750hp/sea level/1.4 ata/2700rpm and 1620hp/18,700ft/1.4ata/2700rpm for take-off and emergency.
Power for the "E" is listed at 1800hp/sea level/1.48 ata/2700rpm and 1550hp/23,00ft/1.48ata/2700rpm for take-off and emergency.
Power for the "AA" is listed at 1670hp/sea level/1.4ata/2700rpm and 1450hp/24,000ft/1.4ata/2700rpm for take-off and emergency.
Power for the "G" is listed at 1900hp/sea level/-.-ata/2700rpm and 1560hp/24,300ft/-.-ata/2700rpm for take-off and emergency.

Power figures are from the 1946 edition of "Jane's" and may need updating. 
E and AA were noted as having superchargers of increase diameter compared to the A and the G was supposed to have had increased compression.

Dry weights of engines almost always include the attached superchargers and carburetors/injection system. Turbos being mounted remote are not included as are many items that would vary from installation to installation, like exhaust stubs/pipes, certain pumps, starters, generators and so on. 
Dry weight is for a rather bare engine but hardly a bare engine block. (try buying a bare car engine block and see what you get, or even a "short block")


----------



## cimmex (Sep 1, 2012)

Did the Griffon have direct fuel injection?
Cimmex


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2012)

Not the ones we are talking about, if ever. But the cutting out when under negative "G" had been solved before the Griffon went into service. A number of Griffons used "injection carburetors" or fuel injection into the eye of the supercharger.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2012)

Are you comparing mass production engines from the same time frame?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 1, 2012)

This is from the AEHS ( AEHS Home ), among other stuff:


----------



## davparlr (Sep 2, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> With 2035hp at 7000ft and 1820hp at 21,000ft (at 18lbs on 100/130) it can equal a two stage R-2800 down low and have several hundred more hp at high altitude. It is 400lbs lighter than the R-2800 which helps offset the weight of the radiator and coolant. It should be easier to streamline.





wuzak said:


> Two stage Griffon is under 2000lbs. The two stage R-2800-8 (F4U) and -10 (F6F) weigh 2480lbs, which is close to 500lbs heavier than the Griffon 65. Those R-2800s are rated at 1650hp @ 22,000ft, so about 150hp or so down on the Griffon at that altitude.


Here is a comparison of cooling systems according to data in “America’s Hundred Thousand” of liquid cooled US fighters showing assigned weight and rough power levels. I think this can give an idea of off-setting weight of liquid cooled engines verses air cooled. I believe coolant system weight includes coolant.

P-38J Weight/engine-532 lbs, power/engine – 1400-1600 hp. (note: complex cooling system)

P-39D-2 323 lbs, 1100-1400 hp. (note: tightly coupled cooling system)

P-40F 306lbs, 1200-1300 hp. (note: tightly coupled cooling system)

P-51B 663lbs, 1400-1700 hp. (note: complex cooling system)

I think it is reasonable to assume coolant system weight for a 2000 hp+ engine would be around 500 lbs. Also, I think the logistics trail of a separate complex subsystem such as a liquid cooling system with fluid would be significant, something the Navy would be concerned about.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 3, 2012)

wuzak said:


> If not, what was the best fighter engine? What was the best in the periods 1939-1941, 1942-1943, 1944-1945?



1939-41: R-2800
1942-43: R-2800
1944-45: R-2800


You may argue about availability in 1939-40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fibus (Jul 28, 2018)

Tante Ju said:


> I guess the biggest problems the British faced in changing over the overall Better Griffon engines were the relative unreliability and short life span of the Griffon, and, Bomber Command's apetite for Merlins. If you can't afford 5000 engine production lost... then RR factories won't retool for another engine.


All Lancasters used Packard built Merlins.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 28, 2018)

fibus said:


> All Lancasters used Packard built Merlins.


No. Mk I used Rolls Royce, Mk III used Packard, and Mk II used Bristol Hercules.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 30, 2018)

fibus said:


> All Lancasters used Packard built Merlins.



Amazing how the first Lancaster managed to fly 8 months before the first Packard V1650 was built.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Amazing how the first Lancaster managed to fly 8 months before the first Packard V1650 was built.


Dang, another good myth wiped out by facts.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 30, 2018)

And Lancasters were know to have flown with engines sourced from different factories in the UK and from Packard at the same time!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 31, 2018)

wuzak said:


> And Lancasters were know to have flown with engines sourced from different factories in the UK and from Packard at the same time!



To build Rover Meteor tank engines used parts from life expired or damaged Merlins and V1650s were used interchangeably as long as they passed inspection. Crankshafts were always in short supply and obviously aircraft engines got priority so used or new slightly out of specification cranks could be used in Meteors where they had an easier life due to no Supercharger.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 31, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> No. Mk I used Rolls Royce, Mk III used Packard, and Mk II used Bristol Hercules.



Hey, what's the Mk.X, chopped liver?


----------



## Milosh (Jul 31, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Hey, what's the Mk.X, chopped liver?



Canadian version of the Mk III.


----------



## MACHIA (Aug 2, 2018)

The ALLISON V1710 ( if ) it had a turbosupercharger during the war , like the E27 variant , would have been the best inline reciprocating engine in that time period . The technology of the E27 was ahead of its time , but it came too late in the war . But even then , thermal stress on existing metals was problematic .
It was an engine too late for WW2 , and when perfected , not considered an important milestone due to the interest in turbines . 
Still , the ALLISON V1710 got her pilots home when damaged to a point that no Merlin could likely survive .


----------



## wuzak (Aug 2, 2018)

Thousands of P-38s were built with a V-1710 and a turbocharger.

The E27 was not turbocharged. It was a 2 stage engine with a power recovery turbine.

Installation of the E27 would have been problematic for conventional single engine aircraft, as it was looong, and the exhaust was in the middle at the back. The turbine could not be remotely mounted like a turbocharger as it had to connect to the back of the engine.

It was considered for installation into the P-63. It would have been good for a medium sized bomber or twin engine fighter.

The problem with the E27 was, as you say, the ability of the turbine to cope with the exhaust temperatures. The turbine itself was based on the unit from the GE C-series turbocharger, as used in the P-47. Improvements allowed increased temperature resistance, but still not enough.

Further development would have seen an air cooled turbine developed. But Allison weren't interested in developing a product for which they had no current market, so didn't pursue it too far.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 3, 2018)

MACHIA said:


> Still , the ALLISON V1710 got her pilots home when damaged to a point that no Merlin could likely survive



Both engines are virtually identical in construction it would take an expert to tell them apart if the name plates were removed why would one be more resistant to damage than the other. Both engines if they took a hit in the oil or water cooling systems had literally minutes or even seconds before they seized. 

Even an air cooled radial engine was a gonner if it took a hit in the oil cooling system. A WWII engine in combat always ran on the edge between running and blowing up it didn't take much to stop it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 3, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Both engines are virtually identical in construction it would take an expert to tell them apart if the name plates were removed why would one be more resistant to damage than the other. Both engines if they took a hit in the oil or water cooling systems had literally minutes or even seconds before they seized.
> 
> Even an air cooled radial engine was a gonner if it took a hit in the oil cooling system. A WWII engine in combat always ran on the edge between running and blowing up it didn't take much to stop it.



I think the V-1710 may have a small advantage in how they dealt with steam in the cooling system.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 3, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I think the V-1710 may have a small advantage in how they dealt with steam in the cooling system.



I am no expert but there shouldn't be any steam in a cooling system. If you have steam you have a leak, the cooling system is pressurised and has Glycol in the coolant both of which raise the boiling point.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 3, 2018)

Hmm. What effect did the end of licencing for Merlins at the end of the war have when NA could no longer put new Packard Merlins in the P82? Surely the performance improved with these wonder Allisons?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

yulzari said:


> Hmm. What effect did the end of licencing for Merlins at the end of the war have when NA could no longer put new Packard Merlins in the P82? Surely the performance improved with these wonder Allisons?



At first blush, the P-82E was about 17 mph slower than the Merlin-powered P-82B. On the other hand, there were probably enough other changes between the P-82B and P-82E for that difference to be illusory, as the aircraft had different equipment -- the EEW of the E model was over 10% greater than that of the B. 
North American P-82E Twin Mustang (P-82E)
North American P-82B Twin Mustang (P-82B)

My vote for best fighter engine goes to the R-2800: it was reliable, efficient, and reasonably tolerant of minor combat damage or mishandling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 5, 2018)

My vote R-2800, no liquid cooling is a good thing, you just don't need all the extra piping and systems, it gives another vulnerability. There are many stories of radials flying back to base with cylinders missing. And for an inline vote that would be Allison, simple fact all high performance race Merlins use Allison con rods, that alone has to say something. The Brit engines just overly complicated with a bunch of goofy fasteners etc. I thought I read that the Packard units where a huge improvement over the Brit stuff.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> simple fact all high performance race Merlins use Allison con rods, that alone has to say something. The Brit engines just overly complicated with a bunch of goofy fasteners etc. I thought I read that the Packard units where a huge



Why don't racers use Allison engines if they are so superior. 

Packard built Merlin's and V1650s are identical apart from some ancillaries like carbs and Magneto's to the Rolls Royce built engines. Have a guess which goofy fasteners the Packard built engines used.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2018)

You can read all sorts of stuff about how bad RR Merlin Engines were compared to Packards.

Doesn't mean any of it is true. 

There has probably been more utter crap written about RR Merlins than any other 3 engines in history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Why don't racers use Allison engines if they are so superior.



I am not denigrating the V1710 in anyway it was a great engine and the RAF Army cooperation squadrons kept their Mustang Mk Is going till they ran out of spare parts.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> My vote R-2800, no liquid cooling is a good thing, you just don't need all the extra piping and systems, it gives another vulnerability. There are many stories of radials flying back to base with cylinders missing. And for an inline vote that would be Allison, simple fact all high performance race Merlins use Allison con rods, that alone has to say something. The Brit engines just overly complicated with a bunch of goofy fasteners etc. I thought I read that the Packard units where a huge improvement over the Brit stuff.



Merlin rods were designed for 2,000hp and worked well. Race Merlins are pushing past 3,500hp, so it isn't a great surprise that the original rods don't survive at higher levels. That the V-1710 rods do survive may be a sign that they are over-designed and heavier than what they needed to be.

But it also may be that there aren't too many spare Merlin rods around. Whereas there may be quite a few V-1710 rods available, as they aren't being used in racing V-1710s....

Regarding "I read that the Packard units where a huge improvement over the Brit stuff" you need to find better reading material.

Of all the aero engines used in WW2, the Merlin did more to win the war than any other.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You can read all sorts of stuff about how bad RR Merlin Engines were compared to Packards.
> 
> Doesn't mean any of it is true.
> 
> There has probably been more utter crap written about RR Merlins than any other 3 engines in history.



My take on the Merlin has always been it was a good engine that was in the right place at the time. If the RAF had had to wait for the supposedly superior engines to arrive then it would have fought with Gloster Gladiators till 1943.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 5, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> My vote R-2800, no liquid cooling is a good thing, you just don't need all the extra piping and systems, it gives another vulnerability. There are many stories of radials flying back to base with cylinders missing. And for an inline vote that would be Allison, simple fact all high performance race Merlins use Allison con rods, that alone has to say something. The Brit engines just overly complicated with a bunch of goofy fasteners etc. I thought I read that the Packard units where a huge improvement over the Brit stuff.



Goofy fasteners? If you mean Whitworth fasteners, arguably they had a better thread form than contemporary US thread forms or the succeeding unified system. 

I do remember reading that Rolls-Royce tended to use a lot of small screws where other engine makers would use a few larger ones.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2018)

Closer spacing of fasteners on covers/access plates _might _be the way to go if your gasket material is, shall we say, suspect?
There are a lot of things than many of these engine makers bought from outside vendors. Gasket material being one of them. 
Other countries/makers may have different suppliers.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Goofy fasteners? If you mean Whitworth fasteners, arguably they had a better thread form than contemporary US thread forms or the succeeding unified system.
> 
> I do remember reading that Rolls-Royce tended to use a lot of small screws where other engine makers would use a few larger ones.



He may have meant the BA screws hat were used all over the place.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 5, 2018)

Small and fine threads are not a good thing in cast aluminum, they are easily stripped, especially if it is a fastener that is in constant use, meaning removed and reinstalled many times. I doubt the threaded holes where inserted in any form in the day, as that would have really slowed up production. 
There are Allisons in racing and the ones built properly do very well. I don't feel any of the inline engines are very good for racing applications they are not constructed strong enough.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2018)

"I don't feel any of the inline engines are very good for racing applications they are not constructed strong enough."

And, yet, they keep winning races!

Being built "strong enough" is an interesting question.

The Merlin is less than half the capacity of the R-3350 (which is used by a few air racers) but makes much more than half the power. 

The Merlins may be running as much as 160inHg MAP* - which is a massive amount of pressure for a WW2 engine. And running several hundred rpm higher than the normal maximum speed.

I should think they need to be plenty strong.

*This MAP may be beyond what actually increases shaft power, but may improve speed using exhaust thrust.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 6, 2018)

I think there are a few special additions in racing applications. If it wasn't for the mods they would not take it for very long.
scroll down to the modifications.
Reno for Gearheads  
No matter life still goes down the more an engine is pushed for more power.


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 6, 2018)

The term "best fighter engine" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Best in what way? Ability to survive damage? Least amount of maintenance required? Applicability to the greatest number of different types of aircraft? Actual use in the most different and different types of aircraft? Ability to be mass-produced? Available power for combat situations?

For me, the clear winner on ALL those categories is the P&W R-2800.

The R-2800 was legend for its ability to survive combat damage, with many, many stories of aircraft returning with cylinders hanging out a hole in the cowl and still chugging away. I'm on somewhat shakier ground on the amount of maintenance needed, but all U.S. radials were such that if they weren't leaking oil while sitting on the ground there was something seriously wrong with the engine. With ANY inline engine, one bullet in the wrong place would turn your sleek aircraft into a sleek brick headed toward the ground. The previous was a major reason that the P-47, for all its abilities as a fighter/escort, was moved so heavily into ground support in Europe and elsewhere.

As for the number of different types for which the engine was applicable, here is a list of only those that actually saw combat: B-26 Marauder; A-26 Invader; F6F; F4U; P-47; P-61. Many of the experimental fighters, attack aircraft and bombers were designed around the R-2800. And the F7F and the F8F were on the verge on combat when the war ended. the C-46 was also powered by the R-2800. Interestingly, the first B-32 off the production line was delivered with R-2800's with the thought that the later, high-powered methanol-injection versions were going to produce enough horsepower to push the aircraft in the combat requirements of the type - also because the R-2800 was a readily-available, highly-reliable and a well-known engine in all theaters. As such, the training regimens for maintenance and the logistics trail were also well-established.

The magnificent Merlin clearly meets many of the above criteria as well. However, its susceptibility to damage to the cooling system - to me at least - places it in a probable second place.

The United States had a tremendous lead in the design and production of radial engines. Much of this was due to the needs of commercial airlines who wanted light, powerful engines that were easy to maintain in the middle of nowhere. Up until the late 1930's the Army Air Corps was building its "fleet" around liquid-powered engines - especially the Allison the later into the 1930's you get. However, several important reports - the Kilner and Emmons boards - essentially stated that the U.S. was in dangerous territory putting all its eggs in one engine basket. At this point much greater emphasis was placed on higher-powered radials as well as more serious developmental work on the so-called "hyper engines."

I'd like to suggest that in such future questions a massive degree of additional specificity be part of the query. Otherwise we end up with questions that sound like "What color blue is the best?"

Respectfully submitted.

AlanG

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Aug 9, 2018)

I choose DB603 series. It was the best engine when war started and it was still one of the best engine when war was over.

Stupid Nazi bastards. They had to producing G.56 Centauro instead of shitty Zerstörers.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 9, 2018)

gomwolf said:


> I choose DB603 series. It was the best engine when war started and it was still one of the best engine when war was over.
> 
> Stupid Nazi bastards. They had to producing G.56 Centauro instead of shitty Zerstörers.


And what made it so good? Just my opinion I don't think any inverted V engine was very good.
It kind of kills all the logic of using an inline engine, and can have radial engine problems on steroids, that is the oil gathering in the lower cylinders problems and hydraulic locks. All the cylinders in that engine are lower cylinders. Then there is the problems for the mechanics all the valve gear is under neath, have you ever had to be constantly reaching up to work on something?
I do see a huge plus to it though, the crankcase/block looks to be a very strong design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

I am wondering what aircraft it powered _in service _in 1939-1940-1941 and 1942?


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 9, 2018)

Niceoldguy58, I agree with you about the R-2800 bing the best. And it isnso much that it was qualitatively better than the other 2,000+ horsepower engines during the war, it was the quantity. I don't have figures for wartime production but over 125,000 were build by 1960. Presumably then ;about 100,000 were built during the war. That's enough, as you pointed out to power the P47, F4U, F6F, F7F, F8F, P-61, B-26, A-26, and C-46. Of course, so many engines could be manufacturered because the engine was simulataneously being built not just by P&W, but also Ford and Nash in converted auto plants. 


Niceoldguy58 said:


> The term "best fighter engine" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Best in what way? Ability to survive damage? Least amount of maintenance required? Applicability to the greatest number of different types of aircraft? Actual use in the most different and different types of aircraft? Ability to be mass-produced? Available power for combat situations?
> 
> For me, the clear winner on ALL those categories is the P&W R-2800.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> Of course, so many engines could be manufacturered because the engine was simulataneously being built not just by P&W, but also Ford and Nash in *converted* auto plants.



I have no idea about Nash but Ford was using a brand new, built from ground up, facility that cost over 14 million dollars in it's first incarnation. It was latter tripled in size (cost unknown?).

In many cases the Auto plants not converted (you don't make cylinder heads with fender stamping machinery) but Automotive management teams and in some cases skilled labor went to the new plants and used mass production techniques to raise production to amazing levels. In some cases the automotive people introduced new manufacturing methods/techniques that increase production/ reduced scrap and made stronger parts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> "
> 
> Being built "strong enough" is an interesting question.
> 
> .


In the Turbo era they got engine life down to reliable minutes in F1, this is still pretty much true today, changes to the rules mean they have to last hours but not a huge number of hours. In terms of reliability and performance a merlin engine was getting "tired" after 250 hours. But after 250 hours in squadron service a spitfire or hurricane was as likely to be replaced by another later model as it was to be rebuilt. Of all the thousands of Spitfires produced the front line strength was usually one thousand or a little more.


----------



## special ed (Aug 10, 2018)

May I interject a bit from "Genda's blade". At the end of the book , while delivering three Shiden-Kai fighters to Yokosuka for transport to the US (they re still here), the three Japanese pilots decided to show what their planes could do with high octane american fuel for their Homare engines. They took off, with belly tanks full and beat the four escorting F4U's to Yokosuka.


----------



## special ed (Aug 10, 2018)

Studebaker also built R2800s


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 15, 2018)

R-2800 was magnificent, but it drank a lot of fuel.
Smaller displacement inlines got similar performance with better fuel economy.
With aircraft, everything is a tradeoff.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2018)

It drank a lot of fuel because it made a lot of power. The inlines, when cruising, burned almost the same amount of fuel per hp per hour as the R-2800 did when cruising.

Everything is a trade-off and if you want a 2000hp engine at a certain stage of engine/fuel development you pay for it in size/weight and fuel consumption. 

Compare the R-2800 not to the Allison (which made nowhere near the power) but to the RR Vulture, The Napier Sabre, The DB603 or the Russian AM-35/38.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## windswords (Aug 19, 2018)

I thought I read somewhere that during WWII half of all the American Hp generated by its aircraft came from the R-2800...


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 19, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> R-2800 was magnificent, but it drank a lot of fuel.
> Smaller displacement inlines got similar performance with better fuel economy.
> With aircraft, everything is a tradeoff.




The sfc of the R-2800 was about .37 to 0.4, depending on model


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 19, 2018)

windswords said:


> I thought I read somewhere that during WWII half of all the American Hp generated by its aircraft came from the R-2800...



I wonder what the proportion of British Hp generated by its aircraft came from the Merlin. Its going to be much higher than half I reckon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 19, 2018)

I remember reading years ago in the book _Flying the Old Planes_ by Frank Tallman, that when crusing the F4U did not burn much more fuel than the T6/SNJ. (I read this book over 30 years ago, so memory is fallable
.)


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I wonder what the proportion of British Hp generated by its aircraft came from the Merlin. Its going to be much higher than half I reckon.


In 1943/44 I would say the majority by a long way.


----------



## windswords (Aug 19, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I wonder what the proportion of British Hp generated by its aircraft came from the Merlin. Its going to be much higher than half I reckon.



That may be true, but the total Hp of the American R-2800's may exceed the total Hp of the British Merlins.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 19, 2018)

windswords said:


> That may be true, but the total Hp of the American R-2800's may exceed the total Hp of the British Merlins.



Probably but then the R2800 was bigger and more powerful. Though more Merlins were built during the war about 150,000 to about 100,000 and change so it might be close.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2018)

In 1940, the UKs front line fighter force had 500,000HP at its lowest, no way to gauge a military force.


----------



## windswords (Aug 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> In 1940, the UKs front line fighter force had 500,000HP at its lowest, no way to gauge a military force.



Yea, in the end it doesn't mean anything, but it's fun to talk numbers!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2018)

Part of the problem when comparing HP *built* is what rating do you use? all but the first few thousand R-2800s were 2000hp or above engines and the early ones were 1850hp.
Using take-off ratings for the Merlin may do them a disservice but even using* max non emergency* power puts them at about 2/3rds the power of the R-2800s. 

US production figures sometimes figure in spare parts in the HP worth of engines produced per month. Like Nash building 800 R-2800s in one month but being credited with over 1,700,000hp worth of production.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2018)

windswords said:


> Yea, in the end it doesn't mean anything, but it's fun to talk numbers!


I excluded the HP in the fairy Battle and Defiant lol


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I excluded the HP in the fairy Battle and Defiant lol



Don't forget that ripper the Whitley. It didn't so much fly as beat the air into submission.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 13, 2018)

special ed said:


> Studebaker also built R2800s


Actually not, they built R-1820s


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 13, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> Niceoldguy58, I agree with you about the R-2800 bing the best. And it isnso much that it was qualitatively better than the other 2,000+ horsepower engines during the war, it was the quantity. I don't have figures for wartime production but over 125,000 were build by 1960. Presumably then ;about 100,000 were built during the war. That's enough, as you pointed out to power the P47, F4U, F6F, F7F, F8F, P-61, B-26, A-26, and C-46. Of course, so many engines could be manufacturered because the engine was simulataneously being built not just by P&W, but also Ford and Nash in converted auto plants.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 13, 2018)

Exhibit 8 in the attached document gives the production totals by year up to 1944 for american combat engines. It is also a good read if anyone is interested in the difficulties in applying mass production methods to specialized equipment such as aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Sep 14, 2018)

I would give 1st place to the RR Merlin. It served during the entire war. Powered the best fighter (Spitfire), the second best fighter (P51), the best medium bomber (Mosquito), the second best heavy bomber(Lancaster). It had reasonable cost, affordable to most countries, allowing great production. Constantly outperformed the enemy competition by a clear margin

I would give second place to the R2800. It served from 1942 and later. It was very good from the beginning, but became brilliant only in 1944 with the C series. By then then the war had been decided. Also was big and expensive, intended for big and expensive fighters that only America had the resources to mass produce.

I would give 3rd place to the Sabre Napier. Impressive performance , technically innovative, under different circumstances could be the best.
4th the RR Griffon

I find very interesting the design of the Nakajima Homare. Very good power to weight ratio and very small diameter. If raw materials and good fuel were available could be a very competitive unit

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2018)

dedalos said:


> I would give second place to the R2800. It served from 1942 and later. It was very good from the beginning, but became brilliant only in 1944 with the C series. By then then the war had been decided. Also was big and expensive, intended for _big and expensive fighters that only America had the resources to mass produce_.
> 
> I would give 3rd place to the Sabre Napier. Impressive performance , technically innovative, under different circumstances could be the best.



Ah, a bit of contradiction there. The Sabre was only suitable for big and expensive fighters. It weighed very close to what a two stage R-2800 did and the R-2800 didn't need coolant and radiators. 

I would note that the R-2800 was powering both B-26 bombers and C-46 transports in 1942 and while not fighters the fighters showed in 1943. The "C" series was (during WW II) only used in the P-47M in Europe (about 100 built) and the P-47N in the Pacific and the "C" was also used in the F4U-4, *ALL *earlier P-47s, F4Us and F6Fs used "B" series engines. If the "B" series R-2800 didn't decide the war in the Pacific it was certainly one of the major players. 

The Sabre was technically innovative but until the very last months of the war showed no real advantage over the R-2800, at least in engines that were installed in service aircraft.


----------



## Tony Kambic (Sep 15, 2018)

Quoting from the in-depth book, _'America's Hundred Thousand U.S. Production Fighters of WWII', by Francis Dean ( 1997)'_, on page 99, _"During a 1944 fighter conference at Patuxent River, MD. a large group of service pilots and company test pilots voted on the engine they had the most confidence in, between the R-2800, V-1650, and the V-1710. 79% voted for the Double Wasp, 17% for the Merlin, and 1% for the Allison"._ Not sure where the remaining 3% went. And of course this is US pilots.


----------



## dedalos (Sep 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah, a bit of contradiction there. The Sabre was only suitable for big and expensive fighters. It weighed very close to what a two stage R-2800 did and the R-2800 didn't need coolant and radiators.
> 
> I would note that the R-2800 was powering both B-26 bombers and C-46 transports in 1942 and while not fighters the fighters showed in 1943. The "C" series was (during WW II) only used in the P-47M in Europe (about 100 built) and the P-47N in the Pacific and the "C" was also used in the F4U-4, *ALL *earlier P-47s, F4Us and F6Fs used "B" series engines. If the "B" series R-2800 didn't decide the war in the Pacific it was certainly one of the major players.
> 
> ...


 
As you see i put the r2800 above the napier. But only because of their operational record. In my opinion, the sabre was technically more interesting and with greater potential. Could be even the best engine , if they had managed to put it in production without all those problems that cost them time.Eventually produced well over 3000hp comfortably. I believe in comparison to the r2800 offered less drag, eventually better power to wait ratio, and better throttle response. It s main shortcoming was that no 2 stage supercharger was available during the war years


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2018)

dedalos said:


> As you see i put the r2800 above the napier. But only because of their operational record. In my opinion, the sabre was technically more interesting and with greater potential. Could be even the best engine , if they had managed to put it in production without all those problems that cost them time.Eventually produced well over 3000hp comfortably. I believe in comparison to the r2800 offered less drag, eventually better power to wait ratio, and better throttle response. It s main shortcoming was that no 2 stage supercharger was available during the war years




Unfortunately for the Sabre ALL of it's advantages (except less drag) took way too long to bring to fruition. And to this day nobody, outside the government record keepers, knows what a Sabre engine cost. We also don't have (or I don't, references welcome ) of the overhaul life of the Sabre. We know it got better as the war went on. 

"Eventually produced well over 3000hp comfortably"
I have no idea one way or the other on the "comfortably" part but the 3000hp Sabre VII didn't fly in a Fury prototype until April 3rd 1946. 
Two stage superchargers add weight and bulk which have to be taken into account. 

Flight Global does have good article (although a bit rah-rah) on the Sabre VII.
napier sabre | 1945 | 2283 | Flight Archive

I would expect any American magazine to be a bit Rah- Rah for any American engine at the time

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 17, 2018)

dedalos said:


> I would give 1st place to the RR Merlin. It served during the entire war. Powered the best fighter (Spitfire), the second best fighter (P51), the best medium bomber (Mosquito), the second best heavy bomber(Lancaster). It had reasonable cost, affordable to most countries, allowing great production. Constantly outperformed the enemy competition by a clear margin
> 
> I would give second place to the R2800. It served from 1942 and later. It was very good from the beginning, but became brilliant only in 1944 with the C series. By then then the war had been decided. Also was big and expensive, intended for big and expensive fighters that only America had the resources to mass produce.
> 
> ...


In three of the four theatres of war, the Allison powered fighters were the top scorers for the USAAF. The results are as follows: ETO, Merlin powered Mustang; MTO, Allison powered Lightning; CBI, Allison powered Warhawk; PTO, Allison powered Lightning. Tell me, what fighter produced the highest scoring allied aces in WW2, it was none other than the Allison powered Cobras deployed by the Soviet Union.Of course, at sea, that's a different story, the best engine award must go to the P & W R-2800 that powered the USN Hellcat and the USMC Corsair, closely followed by the R-1830 powered Wildcat and the R-1820 powered Martlet I/IV and FM-2 Wildcat. The Napier Sabre, a niche product, required by the RAF to combat low level raiders.


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

Whoops. Merlin was a Packard.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 17, 2018)

special ed said:


> Whoops. Merlin was a Packard.


Packard built Rolls Royce Merlin, in the UK, Ford built them.


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

T.he point is they were not Allison but were liquid cooled inline V-12s. I suspect all P-51s used Packards except for the orig protos with R-R as they used different mount systems. Other members Know more about the engine differences than I so I'll be quiet.


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

If I remember reading correctly, Ford had to re-draw the design also, as did Packard, so can some of the engine guys tell us if the Ford Merlins were easy interchanges with the Packards. What I read years ago was most Ford production went to bombers and to Canada for their bomber production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2018)

Ford of England built Merlins.
Ford in the US built R-2800s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

I had read somewhere Years ago that the Ford truck plant in Germany was never bombed because of Henry Ford's political pull. It was alleged that was why they were able to get back into production quickly post ww2. Can anyone give accurate info.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 17, 2018)

special ed said:


> I had read somewhere Years ago that the Ford truck plant in Germany was never bombed because of Henry Ford's political pull. It was alleged that was why they were able to get back into production quickly post ww2. Can anyone give accurate info.


I thought Ford Germany got bombed but that US Gov had to pay compensation post war.


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

That sounds more reasonable. After all, we paid Mauser for patent infringements on the Springfield 03.


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

That sounds more reasonable. After all, we paid patent infringement to Mauser for the Springfield 03.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I thought Ford Germany got bombed but that US Gov had to pay compensation post war.



The US gave/loaned money to a lot of German industries after the war as part of the Marshall plan. The US gave a lot more money to Great Britain and France. 

I don't know how much Ford of Germany got or if was reparations/compensation or economic rebuilding. People can slap a lot of labels on the same amount/payment of money. The US gave Germany over 1 billion dollars in 1948-52 dollars as part of the Marshall plan. 

Conspiracy theories are all well and good but they have to be believable on more than a superficial level. 
Like could the US bombers manage to miss the Ford factory while hitting other factories in the same city?
Or did the US avoid the whole city or a large part of it?
Were the British in on it? They just bombed (mostly) whole cities. Wouldn't do Ford of German much good if the Americans didn't bomb with in a mile or two of them and then the British come in with hundreds of planes at night and bomb the whole city with incendiaries. 
The British did bomb Cologne (the city in which Ford was located) 262 times during the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Sep 17, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> In three of the four theatres of war, the Allison powered fighters were the top scorers for the USAAF. The results are as follows: ETO, Merlin powered Mustang; MTO, Allison powered Lightning; CBI, Allison powered Warhawk; PTO, Allison powered Lightning. Tell me, what fighter produced the highest scoring allied aces in WW2, it was none other than the Allison powered Cobras deployed by the Soviet Union.Of course, at sea, that's a different story, the best engine award must go to the P & W R-2800 that powered the USN Hellcat and the USMC Corsair, closely followed by the R-1830 powered Wildcat and the R-1820 powered Martlet I/IV and FM-2 Wildcat. The Napier Sabre, a niche product, required by the RAF to combat low level raiders.



I dont understand your way of thinking. The Alison powered aircrafts were mediocre. The p40 , both in N.Africa and on the easrtern front suffered heavy casualties against the inferior powered Bf109s , despite the fact that enjoyed significant numerical superiority at both fronts. Often they had spitfire escort in their missions The P38 also failed to demonstrate clear superiority over the Lw , in fact it also suffered in occasions heavy casualties against the much cheaper german fighters. German pilots consider it relatively easy to outmanouver. 
The russian p39s scored many victories but suffered even more casualties despite also big numerical superiority.
In short, no alison powered aircraft , provided the allies with a great advantage over the lw. The nemesis of the jagdwaffe ,on technical level,was the spitfire and the p51. Both merlin powered, demonstrated absolute superiority at all altitudes over the german fighters.Even the p47 , its main advantage was not the r2800b it self but the turbosupercharger and its great superiority was at altitude. At low/ mid altitude it had little advantage against a Bf109G10 or K4 which were much much cheaper and simpler aircraft
Actually i not only consider the rr merlin the best, but by also by a huge margin

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 18, 2018)

dedalos said:


> I dont understand your way of thinking. The Alison powered aircrafts were mediocre. The p40 , both in N.Africa and on the easrtern front suffered heavy casualties against the inferior powered Bf109s , despite the fact that enjoyed significant numerical superiority at both fronts. Often they had spitfire escort in their missions The P38 also failed to demonstrate clear superiority over the Lw , in fact it also suffered in occasions heavy casualties against the much cheaper german fighters. German pilots consider it relatively easy to outmanouver.
> The russian p39s scored many victories but suffered even more casualties despite also big numerical superiority.
> In short, no alison powered aircraft , provided the allies with a great advantage over the lw. The nemesis of the jagdwaffe ,on technical level,was the spitfire and the p51. Both merlin powered, demonstrated absolute superiority at all altitudes over the german fighters.Even the p47 , its main advantage was not the r2800b it self but the turbosupercharger and its great superiority was at altitude. At low/ mid altitude it had little advantage against a Bf109G10 or K4 which were much much cheaper and simpler aircraft
> Actually i not only consider the rr merlin the best, but by also by a huge margin


You've missed my points here. Let me clarify, I'm talking about the use by the USAAF of fighters in an offensive air war with a brief mention of their use as fighters by the Soviets, not of the employment of fighters to defend one's industrial base, ports, warships or forces on the ground. If its purely defence then clearly you want the Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon / Tempest so its the Merlin, Griffon and Sabre engines, but air defence doesn't win wars, it just means you don't lose.I didn't mention the Thunderbolt because it didn't score the highest number of victories in the ETO by the USAAF, the Merlin powered Mustang did. For the RAF its the Hurricane, circa 6000, followed by the Spitfire, circa 3500. Clearly the Hurricane must have have better than the Merlin Mustang. LOL. If I was looking for the best fighter to support my ground forces in Europe then for the Normandy invasion I would choose the Thunderbolt with its R-2800 because although the Typhoon / Tempest with its Sabre would no doubt better a Thunderbolt in combat, the Thunderbolt had better payload range characteristics and could intercept everything up to any altitude such as bomb laden Me 262's or recce Ar 234's. In the MTO, the Allison powered Lightning was employed throughout the American campaign and ended up with the greatest number of victories; no mention of the British Allison powered Kittyhawk or American Merlin powered Warhawks which provided the cover for our forces on the ground or the Hurricane / Spitfires providing top cover, over Malta alone there were about 500 Hurricane and 800 Spitfire victories. The RAF in North Africa used the Tomahawk II / Kittyhawk I for air superiority from mid 1941 to mid 1942, both were Allison powered as it was a better plane for that theatre than either the Hurricane or Spitfire until the Spitfire Vc and Merlin powered Warhawk arrived. In the CBI, and at the end of a very long supply chain, the top scorer is the Allison powered Warhawk with twice the number of victories scored as the Merlin powered Mustang which when it finally did arrive was clearly the better fighter. The USAAF there used its Allison powered Mustangs for counter air, but retained their Allison powered Warhawks as their principal dogfighter as it was the superior of the two. North American Aviation still had work to do to turn the Mustang into a capable dog fighter. In the PTO, the numbers speak for themselves and is more clear cut. On the Eastern Front, the Soviet fighters were designed to defend the bombers supporting the army on the ground, while the American fighters could be used more aggressively clearing the skies of the Lufwaffe before their bombers and attack aircraft went in. Yaks were used for close escort and Lavochkins for top cover, so its the Cobra pilots that scored the victories. The Soviets used their Kittyhawks to the end of the war, the later versions being used for air defence, escort and fighter bombing in quieter zones. For air defence, they had our Hurricanes and Spitfires and your Thunderbolts after they retired their LaGG-3's and Mig-3's. Perhaps we should include their engines in the list which were license built and re-developed Hispano-Suiza and Wright double cyclone engines? Don't knock the Allison powered Kittyhawk Ia's operating in late 1942, those Allison engines could develop 1750/1780 hp at low altitudes for 15/20 minutes so more than a match for a Fw 190A fighter bomber or Bf 109G.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2018)

Attributing victories to a particular make of engine seems a bit much. It leaves out a lot of things, like airframe, armament, pilot training and tactical situation.

The Russian engines "scored" a lot of victories because they built a lot, wiki says 129,000 M-105s but that may include earlier versions? 

It is also no measure of the actual attributes of the engine, like power to weight, reliability and longevity. 

Putting M-105s in Western planes, like the P-40 and P-38 would have seen lower speeds, poorer climb, even worse performance at altitude and a much greater need for replacement engines and spare parts. Pouring 100/130 fuel into the tanks and screwing the boost control up would have resulted in very short engine life indeed. 
The Ash-82 engine was NOT license built/re-developed double cyclone. Shvetsov and team started with a single row Cyclone, developed it with some aid from Wright but the 14 cylinder version was done by the Russians themselves. It used bigger bore and shorter stroke than the _Twin Cyclone R-2600. _The double Cyclone was the R-3350. Shvetsov and team went through 4 versions of an 18 cylinder engine before getting one into production. 
Changing bore and stroke on an aircraft engine was a big deal as it affected quite a bit of things. Many companies kept the same bore and stroke while changing everything else. Like pistons, connecting rods, cylinders, cylinder heads, crankshafts and so on. 

Merlins not only increased in power, they added 20-40% in engine life during the course of the war (The ALlison and R-2800 also increased engine life) 

On the other had give 1000 Allisons to the Italians and have them stick them in Mc 202s, Re 2001, or the abortave Fiat G.50V and have the Italians keep the same armament of two 12.7mm Breda machine guns through the prop and the number of Italian victories is not going to change a whole lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Sep 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> You've missed my points here. Let me clarify, I'm talking about the use by the USAAF of fighters in an offensive air war with a brief mention of their use as fighters by the Soviets, not of the employment of fighters to defend one's industrial base, ports, warships or forces on the ground. If its purely defence then clearly you want the Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon / Tempest so its the Merlin, Griffon and Sabre engines, but air defence doesn't win wars, it just means you don't lose.I didn't mention the Thunderbolt because it didn't score the highest number of victories in the ETO by the USAAF, the Merlin powered Mustang did. For the RAF its the Hurricane, circa 6000, followed by the Spitfire, circa 3500. Clearly the Hurricane must have have better than the Merlin Mustang. LOL. If I was looking for the best fighter to support my ground forces in Europe then for the Normandy invasion I would choose the Thunderbolt with its R-2800 because although the Typhoon / Tempest with its Sabre would no doubt better a Thunderbolt in combat, the Thunderbolt had better payload range characteristics and could intercept everything up to any altitude such as bomb laden Me 262's or recce Ar 234's. In the MTO, the Allison powered Lightning was employed throughout the American campaign and ended up with the greatest number of victories; no mention of the British Allison powered Kittyhawk or American Merlin powered Warhawks which provided the cover for our forces on the ground or the Hurricane / Spitfires providing top cover, over Malta alone there were about 500 Hurricane and 800 Spitfire victories. The RAF in North Africa used the Tomahawk II / Kittyhawk I for air superiority from mid 1941 to mid 1942, both were Allison powered as it was a better plane for that theatre than either the Hurricane or Spitfire until the Spitfire Vc and Merlin powered Warhawk arrived. In the CBI, and at the end of a very long supply chain, the top scorer is the Allison powered Warhawk with twice the number of victories scored as the Merlin powered Mustang which when it finally did arrive was clearly the better fighter. The USAAF there used its Allison powered Mustangs for counter air, but retained their Allison powered Warhawks as their principal dogfighter as it was the superior of the two. North American Aviation still had work to do to turn the Mustang into a capable dog fighter. In the PTO, the numbers speak for themselves and is more clear cut. On the Eastern Front, the Soviet fighters were designed to defend the bombers supporting the army on the ground, while the American fighters could be used more aggressively clearing the skies of the Lufwaffe before their bombers and attack aircraft went in. Yaks were used for close escort and Lavochkins for top cover, so its the Cobra pilots that scored the victories. The Soviets used their Kittyhawks to the end of the war, the later versions being used for air defence, escort and fighter bombing in quieter zones. For air defence, they had our Hurricanes and Spitfires and your Thunderbolts after they retired itheir LaGG-3's and Mig-3's. Perhaps we should include their engines in the list which were license built and re-developed Hispano-Suiza and Wright double cyclone engines? Don't knock the Allison powered Kittyhawk Ia's operating in late 1942, those Allison engines could develop 1750/1780 hp at low altitudes for 15/20 minutes so more than a match for a Fw 190A fighter bomber or Bf 109G.


 
I respect your opinion. However i do consider that it has not touch with reality. The poor old , poorly powered Bf 109 had not problem to defeat the P40 at any front, no matter in defence or offence despite being constantly outnumbered. In North Africa the p40 had spitfire top cover despite the fact that p40 formations had 3-4 times numerical superiority
On the eastern front no soviet elite unit which could choose its equipment chose the P40. German 2 fighter formations did not hesitate to engage 8,10 or even 12 p40 s on the eastern
front. They had more respect for the P39 but less that that for the La5/7 or Yak 3.
The P38 did score heavily but only due very favorable circumstances. And it did suffer significant casualties on several occasions
In my opinion the title of best engine should go to the engine that permitted the creation of fighters that both on paper and operationally outperformed the enemy. WW2 would be different without the Merlin powered spitfire, and would last slightly more without the merlin powered P51. No allison or r2800 aircraft can make such a claim for the european theater.
And one last thing. The merlin powered Spitfire and P51 not only totaly dominated the Bf 109 and Fw190 but also outperformed any contemporary allison and r2800B fighter.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 18, 2018)

dedalos said:


> I respect your opinion. However i do consider that it has not touch with reality. The poor old , poorly powered Bf 109 had not problem to defeat the P40 at any front, no matter in defence or offence despite being constantly outnumbered. In North Africa the p40 had spitfire top cover despite the fact that p40 formations had 3-4 times numerical superiority
> On the eastern front no soviet elite unit which could choose its equipment chose the P40. German 2 fighter formations did not hesitate to engage 8,10 or even 12 p40 s on the eastern
> front. They had more respect for the P39 but less that that for the La5/7 or Yak 3.
> The P38 did score heavily but only due very favorable circumstances. And it did suffer significant casualties on several occasions
> ...


The USSR never developed their strategic bombing capability because they didn't believe bombers could hit their targets effectively. They concentrated on support for their army and they defeated the Germans. The Yak's were designed as escorts for the Il-2 and their task was to drive off those fighters intercepting them. Except for the late war Yak-3 they were outperformed by Luftwaffe fighters but they performed their tasks well without scoring large numbers of victories. In North Africa, the Luftwaffe may have dominated the skies with their boom and zoom tactics but they didn't protect their troops on the ground against the Allison powered Kittyhawk fighter bombers. They lost there too, just like they did in Italy. Over France, the Luftwaffe was driven from the skies. Over Germany, it was the Thunderbolts that broke the back of the German air defences, giving the Mustangs a clear run to destroy the remainder. Over England, it was the Hurricane that claimed the destruction of 6000 German aircraft, while the Spitfire only managed 3500 in the entire war. Its not me that is delusional here. You've been reading too much of the wartime and post war propaganda.


----------



## dedalos (Sep 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The USSR never developed their strategic bombing capability because they didn't believe bombers could hit their targets effectively. They concentrated on support for their army and they defeated the Germans. The Yak's were designed as escorts for the Il-2 and their task was to drive off those fighters intercepting them. Except for the late war Yak-3 they were outperformed by Luftwaffe fighters but they performed their tasks well without scoring large numbers of victories. In North Africa, the Luftwaffe may have dominated the skies with their boom and zoom tactics but they didn't protect their troops on the ground against the Allison powered Kittyhawk fighter bombers. They lost there too, just like they did in Italy. Over France, the Luftwaffe was driven from the skies. Over Germany, it was the Thunderbolts that broke the back of the German air defences, giving the Mustangs a clear run to destroy the remainder. Over England, it was the Hurricane that claimed the destruction of 6000 German aircraft, while the Spitfire only managed 3500 in the entire war. Its not me that is delusional here. You've been reading too much of the wartime and post war propaganda.


 
Yes, in n.africa l&II Jg27 failed to protect their troops. But not because of the quality of the allison p40. 60 bf 109 s with limited fuelagainst 800 desert air force aircraft was not going to end well for the germans, no matter how many p40 s were shooting down more were appearing. On the other had the spitfires even with tropical filters were extraordinary opponents.
In italy was even worse for the germans, but again spitfire was the formidable opponent.
Over france lw was driven from the skies. I agree. Because of the spitfire! No allison powered aircraft played any role in 1941 -43 over france. Channel front was only for top class aircrafts! Event the early p 47 were doing very high altitude sweeps without coming down to fight. Only after building massive numerical superiority , the p47s went after the already exausted lw. And having the advantage that the lw fighters had orders to attack heavy bombers first. It was the merlin spitfire which after 4 years of continius combat broke the lw.
Also by 1945 the american 8th air force was equiped only with merlin aircrafts except the 56fg. No allison aircrafts in air superiority role and just 56fg with r2800. 
Obviously you are an american , and you feel insulted that i put an engine from another country in no 1 position
ps1 why usaaf did not use the allison p39 against lw? Or even p 63?
ps2 very interesting your claim that the p47 could out run me 262 s and ar 234.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 18, 2018)

dedalos said:


> Yes, in n.africa l&II Jg27 failed to protect their troops. But not because of the quality of the allison p40. 60 bf 109 s with limited fuelagainst 800 desert air force aircraft was not going to end well for the germans, no matter how many p40 s were shooting down more were appearing. On the other had the spitfires even with tropical filters were extraordinary opponents.
> In italy was even worse for the germans, but again spitfire was the formidable opponent.
> Over france lw was driven from the skies. I agree. Because of the spitfire! No allison powered aircraft played any role in 1941 -43 over france. Channel front was only for top class aircrafts! Event the early p 47 were doing very high altitude sweeps without coming down to fight. Only after building massive numerical superiority , the p47s went after the already exausted lw. And having the advantage that the lw fighters had orders to attack heavy bombers first. It was the merlin spitfire which after 4 years of continius combat broke the lw.
> Also by 1945 the american 8th air force was equiped only with merlin aircrafts except the 56fg. No allison aircrafts in air superiority role and just 56fg with r2800.
> ...


I'm a Brit, I think you mean Merlin Mustang finally destroyed the Luftwaffe over Europe. In the Med, Merlin Warhawk, Spitfire and Mustang but the Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Lightnings played just as significant a role with the Lightning the top scorer in the USAAF. Agreed, no Kittyhawks in Europe but we had the Typhoon which was better.I think you'll find German jet speeds are best performance, take off 10% for worst speeds, another 120 mph with bombs fitted.The Cobras were best suited to Eastern Front conditions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2018)

Lets not confuse "best" with "most important" or "most produced" or some other factor.

The Sabre _might _have been the best from a technical geewhiz point of view but had a few strikes against. 
Any contender for *best* engine needs to consider things like competitive power, reliability, durability, and even produce-ability.

Counting kills leads to absurd conclusions like the Merlin III was a _better _engine than the Merlin 72.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Hurricane that claimed the destruction of 6000 German aircraft, while the Spitfire only managed 3500 in the entire war


Source for this? Seems suspect to me, as the Hurricane was replaced in the air to air role and delegated to other duties by 1941


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 19, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Source for this? Seems suspect to me, as the Hurricane was replaced in the air to air role and delegated to other duties by 1941


Its on these forums somewhere, you need to dig it out, but the Hurricane was still being used for fighter duties in the UK until the end of 1941. Go and look at our two Czech squadrons on Wikipedia as an example of victories scored on Hurricanes as opposed to Spitfires. They didn't re-equip with Spitfires until the end of 1941. There are detailed figures for one of the squadrons. Two thirds of their victories were scored on Hurricanes in 18 months, the remaining victories were scored in the next 42 months of war. If the rest of the RAF is the same then that would explain it and remember it was the American fighters that from early 1943 penetrated European airspace and drove the Luftwaffe from the skies. The bulk of the Luftwaffe's fighters were on the Eastern Front until the 8th Air Force became such a threat that it resulted in most of the Luftwaffe's fighters being used in the defence of the Reich. So for the RAF, slim pickings from mid 1941 until the end of the war, especially for the Spitfires. Over Malta, MTO, it was 500 Hurricane victories to 800 Spitfire victories. Don't know the rest of the figures for the MTO, only bits of them.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 19, 2018)

1. Does it consistently make rated power?
2. Can it be repaired in the field by sleep deprived mechanics of minimal skill?
3. Can it be handled care free by the pilot?
4. Is it damage tolerant?
5. Is it efficient? (HP:LB/SFC, etc.)
6. Is there room for power increases without losing 1-5?
7. Is the MTBFR better than average?
8. Can it be easily built and is the IP owner willing to let others build it? (Politics matter.)
IMO, R2800 and Merlin are probably the only two WWII engines that meet the above arbitrary criteria

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 19, 2018)

The Allison V-1710 did all of the above quite well. It was partitculalrly VERY good at lasting longer than a Merlin, and still does today. Where it fell and still falls short is high-altitude performance. The Merlin has it there, hands down, along with overall wartime production numbers. And neither the Merlin nor the Allison were worn out when they were recycled for overhaul. The standard U.S. military practice was to overhaul them while the engine blocks were still good enough so that over 95% of the engines could make it through overhaul. So, they had a LOT of useful service life left when they reached wartime TBO. So, the fact that the Allison could last longer wasn't really much of a factor. The Merlins were ALSO overhauled before they were worn out.

Did Allisons have issues at first? Yes. But, you didn't see Allison-powered planes falling from the skies anywhere. The Merlin was easily the best V-12 for the Allies for the high-altitude ETO but, elsewhere, the Allison did just fine, as claimed above. They took wartime overboost VERY well, and could be overboosted for extended periods with little effect showing. Many P-40s were flown at 75" MAP and above when necessary. Of course, the Merlin also could handle some overboost without ill effect, but not quite as much. Merlin rods fail before Allison rods do, horsepower-wise anyway. Merlin rods go away at about 2,500 HP. Allison rods win Reno at 3,850 HP regularly. But these weren't WWII numbers, so they are unimportant to wartime engine analysis.
Both served VERY reliably.

The highest-scoring engine in the PTO was the R-2800 in the F6F. The Hellcat handily outscored the P-38, though the P-38 was no slouch, being flown by seven of the top 10 aces in the PTO as well as our two highest-scoring aces of the war.

If I were picking a best fighter engine for the war, I'd choose the R-2800 followed by the Merlin, with the Allison coming in third, if only by virtue of production numbers and wartime success. But, it is very hard to argue strongly against the DB 601/605 series as VERY successful as well as the BMW 801. Togther they powered some very impressive warplnes with fantastic records for figher-versus-fighter performance.

Tough question. I consider the Bf 109 to be the most successful fighter ever at individual fighter-versus-fighter combat, even if it was on the losing side. It's actual success at being a fighter cannot be diminished by anyone looking at WWII combat seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 19, 2018)

GregP said:


> though the P-38 was no slouch, being flown by seven of the top 10 aces in the PTO


Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure the top aces in the PTO used the Nakajima Sakae engine

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 20, 2018)

Did Allisons have issues at first? Yes. But, you didn't see Allison-powered planes falling from the skies anywhere. The Merlin was easily the best V-12 for the Allies for the high-altitude ETO but, elsewhere, the Allison did just fine, as claimed above. They took wartime overboost VERY well, and could be overboosted for extended periods with little effect showing. Many P-40s were flown at 75" MAP and above when necessary. Of course, the Merlin also could handle some overboost without ill effect, but not quite as much. Merlin rods fail before ALlison rods do, horsepower-wise anyway. Merlin rods go away at about 2,500 HP. Allison rods win Reno at 3,850 HP regularly. But these weren't WWII numbers, so they are unimportant to wartime engine analysis.
Both served VERY reliably.

If I were picking a best fighter engine for the war, I'd choose the R-2800 followed by the Merlin, with the Allison coming in third, if only by virtue of production numbers and wartime success. But, it is very hard to argue strongly against the DB 601/605 series as VERY successful as well as the BMW 801. Together they powered some very impressive warplanes with fantastic records for fighter-versus-fighter performance.

Tough question. I consider the Bf 109 to be the most successful fighter ever at individual fighter-versus-fighter combat, even if it was on the losing side. It's actual success at being a fighter cannot be diminished by anyone looking at WWII combat seriously.[/QUOTE]

Hello Greg,
I thought about Axis and Allied engines before I came up with my R2800/Merlin tie. I knocked the V1710 out due to the problems in getting the engine to go high later in the war at higher power settings (The "G" series had a few issues.) 
The DB series or the 801? Didn't develop the HP in the later variants. 
_Please note, that I was very, very careful to separate the engine characteristics from any airframe characteristic with the criteria I selected._  
I know some people here will think I'm splitting hairs, but the title is "The best fighter engine in the world"

And, to commit the ultimate blasphemy, If I was going to buy a civilian warbird? Given the octane/lead content available today and the type of flying? I I would pick an R1820 or V1710 powered aircraft over an R2800 or a Merlin powered aircraft. (A good civil engine isn't always the best military engine.)


----------



## GregP (Sep 20, 2018)

My mistake, Clayton ... top U.S. Aces. I thought it was obvious I was talking U..S. pilots ... For just top seven Pacific aces, you are undoubtedly correct ... Nishizawa through Nakada.



Hi Jetcat,

I really like the Allison today, but the G-seies, as well as the early engines, DID have issues. Most were and ARE fixable, easily. It's the old trick of actually DOING it that helps! You can get a really nice G-series today that runs great and makes high horsepower reliably. But there are not many left!

The Merlins, Allisons, and DB's all ran great when they were running right. When they weren't, none were any good. In general, I'd say most ran well enough. Today, if you treat them right, both the Melrin and the Allison should give you long, reliable service. So will the rare DB 601/605.

In WWII, the Merlin was the ticket for higher altitudes in a single-engine fighter. The only single engine Allison with 2-stage supercharging I recall just now was a variant of the P-63 that we didn't buy. Too bad, but it DID have a short range, and might not have helped all that much had we bought it. The 2-stage Griffon and Merlin-powered guys were the cat's meow at the time for Allied V-12s. Right through the endof the war, a Merlin would have been fine ... unless you just HAD to fly a Griffon Spitfire. Then, you'd best get used to using oppositre rudder.

German engines ran just fine, for the most part. But they put SO MUCH effort into trying to develop new, higher-power engines, they wasted a lot of development potential from existing service engine blocks. Foresight wasn't a strong point of the RLM directives in Germany during the war. Of course, they didn't have a lock on lunacy. We ALL had it to to a degree.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 21, 2018)

GregP said:


> My mistake, Clayton ... top U.S. Aces. I thought it was obvious I was talking U..S. pilots


It WAS obvious, I was just being facetious.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 21, 2018)

From optics alone, I really like the DB engines, if for nothing else than their exceptionally clean installation


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Sep 22, 2018)

From the latest Reno air races, it looks like the good old Wasp Major would have been the best and fast as well in the correct airframe.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2018)

So long as that fighter didn't have to go over 5,000ft.

Reno has also shown us that the R-3350 and Merlin are pretty good engines.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Sep 22, 2018)

wuzak said:


> So long as that fighter didn't have to go over 5,000ft.
> 
> Reno has also shown us that the R-3350 and Merlin are pretty good engines.


Not this year they weren't too good. Over 5,000 feet???, that is pretty much the altitude of the south part of idaho and then there is the mile high city. 
The Wasp could go any place there is air to be found, just need the right device to pack it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 23, 2018)

What have air races in 2018 got to do with WWII. 

The Rolls Royce Merlin was used in Centurion tanks until fairly recently that means it was the best fighter engine. 

That statement makes about as much sense as claiming a win at a race proves anything.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> What have air races in 2018 got to do with WWII.
> 
> 
> That statement makes about as much sense as claiming a win at a race proves anything.




he is projecting again. The Wasp Major (and he really shouldn't use the name Wasp by it self as every Piston engine built by P & W had Wasp in the name somewhere as did some of their jets) wasn't used at Reno this year so it couldn't have shown anything anyway. 

The race results are also sporadic. Aside from the difference between some of the race planes and "stock" aircraft part of the field was made up of "stock" aircraft to bring up the numbers and make a better "show". 
And the winner only needs to go as fast as it takes to win, not go as fast as the plane is capable of. Breaking engines in flight is both expensive and dangerous. 
Many a race has been "won" by a plane running in 3rd place at a slower pace when the 2 planes in front drop out with malfunctioning engines so the race proves what?


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 23, 2018)

The Wasp Major wasn't used in any fighters produced in significant numbers; neither was the R-3350, although both engines did see extensive use in other types of aircraft. 

In reality, of course, there was no "best fighter engine"; there were engines that provided sufficient power with sufficient reliability and sufficiently low maintenance requirements that were properly integrated into well-designed airframes. Grumman, Vought, and Republic managed that with the R-2800, North American and Supermarine with the Merlin, Curtiss, Bell, and, eventually, Lockheed with the V-1710. German, Japanese, and Soviet designers had comparable successes and failures with their engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2018)

Definitive information is hard to come by but the Russians were not happy with the engine life of the Hispano when they negotiated the licence for it in the early 30s and demanded a test of the engine before actually committing to the contract. The first engine failed 11 hours into the test (broken crankshaft) and number of modifications were done. The first French built engines were derated to 750hp from 850hp, weight went from 966lbs to 1047lbs for the modified engines. 
The Hispano may not have been a bad engine in 1933/34 (what else was in production?) but this somewhat flawed base followed the Hispano and Russian "M-100" series engines through to the end. Like many engines, attempts to increase power resulted in weight increases to handle the higher stress. Russians even took the step of using a slightly smaller bore in order to use slightly thicker cylinder walls. 
There was more to the short service life of the Russian "M-100" series engines than poor Russian oil or poor operating procedures/maintenance. The Early Hispanos did NOT use counterweights on the crankshaft and while this worked (just) at a max of 2400rpm it didn't work at higher rpm. 
The Hispano and it's derivatives were very light engines for the size/displacement and needed considerable beefing up in the later versions with higher power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Sep 23, 2018)

Many sources I've read claim the Russian pilots flew at full throttle from takeoff. Of course, I have no first hand confirmation.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Sep 23, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> What have air races in 2018 got to do with WWII.
> 
> The Rolls Royce Merlin was used in Centurion tanks until fairly recently that means it was the best fighter engine.
> 
> That statement makes about as much sense as claiming a win at a race proves anything.


Its the PLANES man, da planes, same ones that did the big one. And well yeah the engines too.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Sep 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> . The Wasp Major wasn't used at Reno this year so it couldn't have shown anything anyway.


Are you serious? I kinda respect you for some of your knowledge of topics on this site. But sorry your WRONG on that above statement.
Dreadnought was the unlimited winner this year and this will show you what engine powers it.
Sanders Aeronautics - Aircraft - Hawker Sea Fury T Mk.20 "Dreadnought"


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 23, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> Its the PLANES man, da planes, same ones that did the big one. And well yeah the engines too.


Please list a major fighter program of any country that built a substantial number of R3350 or R4360 powered fighters that saw frontline service in multiple squadrons.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Sep 24, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> Please list a major fighter program of any country that built a substantial number of R3350 or R4360 powered fighters that saw frontline service in multiple squadrons.


Those engines are part of the WW2 engine history, they were developed during war time. Oh and I guess you forgot the B29 had R3350's and there were many built towards the end of the war, I guess you forgot the ones that dropped the big ones on japan ?? Yes R-3350's on B29's. WW2 aircraft site here not FIGHTER plane specific. Yeah I guess the thread is though sorry. Thats what happens when we get a bit older I guess. So I should stop with this topic here.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 24, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> Those engines are part of the WW2 engine history, they were developed during war time. Oh and I guess you forgot the B29 had R3350's and there were many built towards the end of the war, I guess you forgot the ones that dropped the big ones on japan ?? Yes R-3350's on B29's. WW2 aircraft site here not FIGHTER plane specific. Yeah I guess the thread is though sorry. Thats what happens when we get a bit older I guess. So I should stop with this topic here.



Hello -59B, the topic sounded like it was limited to fighter aircraft. (For the sake of civility, I think we can accept the XBT2D-1.) And, given the issues of valve/cylinder head fire problems with the 3350 installation in -29, do you really want to cite the 3350 while it was imitating the RR Vulture or DB 606?
Cheers! JC1


----------



## special ed (Sep 24, 2018)

I'm glad alcohol isn't served. Sounds like a bar fight about to begin. Remember, we all love airplanes. That's what I used to tell my lifelong buddy. Our favorite argument was "split flaps cause more drag than lift". Of course, he was right but I wouldn't admit it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2018)

special ed said:


> *I'm glad alcohol isn't served.* Sounds like a bar fight about to begin. Remember, we all love airplanes. That's what I used to tell my lifelong buddy. Our favorite argument was "split flaps cause more drag than lift". Of course, he was right but I wouldn't admit it.



No, these threads are being watched.

One thing I will add to everyone here however is to treat others as you wish to be treated. If you ride into a discussion on a high horse with a holier than though “I know better than everyone” attitude as someone is doing, you cannot expect others to respond any differently. Typically that is what turns a discussion sour.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 24, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No, these threads are being watched.
> 
> One thing I will add to everyone here however is to treat others as you wish to be treated. If you ride into a discussion on a high horse with a holier than though “I know better than everyone” attitude as someone is doing, you cannot expect others to respond any differently. Typically that is what turns a discussion sour.


Am I being rude?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> Am I being rude?



No.

I was making mostly a general statement.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 24, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No.
> 
> I was making mostly a general statement.


Thank you. As you know, I set Smokey Stover off as well. I just want to be a polite contributor and enjoy the knowledge of the folks who post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2018)

special ed said:


> Many sources I've read claim the Russian pilots flew at full throttle from takeoff. Of course, I have no first hand confirmation.


 The Russians had some engines that would not last 50 hours in service and that was the official life, not necessarily the life the using squadrons were getting. 
One account of the Russian PE-8 bomber with diesel engines says the crews looked back fondly on the AM-35 powered versions due to their reliability and yet the Mig-3 with AM-35 were some of the ones lucky to make it to 50 hours. Getting reliable figures for Russian engines is very difficult. 
The Russians did beef up the basic Hispano several times as it went from M-100 to M-103 to M-105 and then to the later models of the M-105. It gained several hundred pounds along the way and the improvements were usually due to the engines breaking or showing problems on test stands before they ever got it into service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> Thank you. As you know, I set Smokey Stover off as well. I just want to be a polite contributor and enjoy the knowledge of the folks who post.



Everyone set Smokey Stover off...


----------



## Snowygrouch (Sep 27, 2018)

I do not believe it is possible to make any serious comparison with Russian engine lifespan and others, the conditions there were totally different - in both terms of the mechanics, their facilities and the general conditions (usually a sandy dusty airfield with almost no proper tools).

A good example of this is Rolls-Royce internal reports on the use of Merlin engines sent over to repair "russian" Hurricanes. A Merlin which had passed type test in England, would be finished in 40hours in Russia, the collossal amounts of fine grit/sand in the airfields there was the main factor discussed in the reports at the time, second was the somewhat basic methods the Russian mechanics had to use, which was not due to stupidity, just total lack of tools, facilities, proper spare parts and training.

Anything being run in Russia in WW2 can perhaps - be best compared to how our engines ended up in Africa service.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 27, 2018)

Snowygrouch said:


> I do not believe it is possible to make any serious comparison with Russian engine lifespan and others, the conditions there were totally different - in both terms of the mechanics, their facilities and the general conditions (usually a sandy dusty airfield with almost no proper tools).
> 
> A good example of this is Rolls-Royce internal reports on the use of Merlin engines sent over to repair "russian" Hurricanes. A Merlin which had passed type test in England, would be finished in 40hours in Russia, the collossal amounts of fine grit/sand in the airfields there was the main factor discussed in the reports at the time, second was the somewhat basic methods the Russian mechanics had to use, which was not due to stupidity, just total lack of tools, facilities, proper spare parts and training.
> 
> Anything being run in Russia in WW2 can perhaps - be best compared to how our engines ended up in Africa service.



The book Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War Against Germany (January 31, 2002) by Dmitriy Loza (Author), James F. Gebhardt (Translator) pretty much confirms many of your thoughts about the Russian experience. The Russians found that they needed Bell tech reps onsite and a bunch of training. (Although the author states that it took official diplomatic complaints to get Bell to clean up its act.)


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 3, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> From the latest Reno air races, it looks like the good old Wasp Major would have been the best and fast as well in the correct airframe.


After literally decades of dominance by Merlins, one win by The R4360 doesn't elevate it to all time best.
For the record the only reason Dreadnought won is that Strega and Voodoo (who between them have won every race since 2008) did not race this year.
Dreadnought's winning speed was by far the lowest since at least 1990. In fact last year Dreadnought was LAPPED by both Strega and Voodoo. At no time in its history has Dreadnought ever come close to the speeds recorded by Strega, Voodoo, Rare Bear, Czech Mate or Dago Red.


----------

