1941: the best radial engine

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Was power one of the criteria

"The performance, both down low and high up (leading to suitability both for fighters and bombers)"

I interpret that passage as referring to power.

Other wise just pick the P&W Wasp. First flown in the 1920s and still in service on crop dusters and a few bush planes as "working" engines as opposed to "fun" engines. Over 80 years of service has to count for something ;)
 
What power levels we are looking at with BMW-801C of 1941? A good info about Hercules would be fine, too.

I believe you could get 1590 hp from a Hercules XI for take-off in early 1941. Power at altitude is a bit confusing, sources do not agree. Perhaps 1460hp at 9,500ft? Or 1300hp at 14,800ft? Power is quoted at both 2900rpm and 2800rpm. Some sources quote power using 87 octane fuel and others using 100 octane fuel. Some sources seem to have obvious typos, unless you believe an engine makes more power in high gear than in low gear. Or makes more power using 87 octane fuel than using 100octane.

I am not sure when a high powered mark went into service as a few of the earlier mark numbers have a different rating but were used in much less common aircraft.
 
If it's 1300 HP @ 14800 ft, that is just a tad lower than R-2600 (1300 @ 15300). It should be somewhat lighter than R-2600, but still heavier than R-1830, and of greater diameter.
 
Here is what I can gather about the Hercules in 1941. For the Mk.VI, the power was 1600 HP for take off, +8,5 lbs/sq in boost, max for 1st gear 1340 HP (at 5200 ft, + 6 lbs/sq in), max for the 2nd gear 1220 HP (13000 ft, +6 boost). Circa 940-950 HP at 20000 ft. Source :
Superchargers

Perhaps someone can decypher the power for the Mk. XI, the cata about manifold pressure and superchager ratios is on the same web page.
 
The BMW 801 is definetly in. It was reliable and in service by October 1941.

Reliable is not the adjective I'd chose for the 801C in 1941, or even in 1942.

JG 2 suffered 25 190A-2/A-3 losses during take-off in 1942 due to engine problems. However, it only suffered 15 losses of 109Fs in the same year to the same cause.

In 1941, operating only 109Es and Fs, JG 2 suffered only 18 losses on take-off due to engine failure.

The 190A-2/C-2 combination was, by all accounts I've read, a marked improvement on the 190A-1/C-1 combination. However, reliability didn't really reach satisfactory levels until the appearance of the 190A-3 with the 801D-2 in early 1942.
 
Last edited:
JG 2 suffered 25 190A-2/A-3 losses during take-off in 1942 due to engine problems. However, it only suffered 15 losses of 109Fs in the same year to the same cause.
.

need known how many takeoff done from 190 and 109 for usefull use of loss data, so it's too few, and if 190 TO were 2 times that 109 we have that 190 take off were more safe.
 
Some good reading about the Soviet M-82 and M-71 radials, in 1941 they are available only in experimental form.

Google Translate

The translation is not that accurate, but you'll get the picture.
 
For knowledgeable people: was the Hercules ever considered with two-stage supercharger, ie. was it ever even a paper project in that guise?
 
There were 2-3 Vickers Wellingtons MK Vs with either two stage or turbocharged Hercules engines. They were counter parts to the MK VI with the Merlin 60s. How much they were flown and what their actual performance or problems were seems to bey mown or little reported.
Bristol had used a two stage Pegasus to set a world altitudes record in 1938?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back