best 12 cylinders engined fighters, but RR and DB
- Thread starter Vincenzo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello Tomo
P-63A was faster than P-51D up to 6000m/20000ft according to a graph in Dean's US 100000 and climbed clearly better, roller clearly better at least up to 350mph IAS, also P-63A was better turner but P-51D accelerated better. And of course P-51D had vastly better range.
Juha
P-63A was faster than P-51D up to 6000m/20000ft according to a graph in Dean's US 100000 and climbed clearly better, roller clearly better at least up to 350mph IAS, also P-63A was better turner but P-51D accelerated better. And of course P-51D had vastly better range.
Juha
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Bell P-63 Kingcobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Powerplant: 1 × Allison V-1710-117 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,800 hp
Why didn't they put this 1,800hp engine in P-51 variants intended for missions other then high altitude bomber escort?
Powerplant: 1 × Allison V-1710-117 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,800 hp
Why didn't they put this 1,800hp engine in P-51 variants intended for missions other then high altitude bomber escort?
- Thread starter
- #24
Shortround6
Major General
Why bother?
The Allison V-1710-117 was good for 1800hp only at very low altitudes (sea level) and while using water injection. It is around a foot to a foot an half longer than the Merlin.
A Packard V-1650-7 was supposed to be good for 1720hp at 6200feet using 18 1/4lbs of boost.
Shortround6
Major General
It did but with 24 small cylinders instead of 12 big ones it's pistons were only moving 240mm (120mm stroke) per revolution of the crankshaft/s vs the 340mm (170mm stroke) of movement per revolution for the Jumo 211/213.
Don, read Dietmar's book, read squadron signal on the Ta152, and monogram closeup, and anything else you can get your hands on with actual service trial pilot reports. There was also a great book, maybe one of Dietmar's earlier ones, pub.ca. 1995 iirc specifically on the Ta-152 series and it goes into detail with scanned Jumo documentation on development of the 213 engine family and includes RLM reports about it (protracted development, failure to achieve projected figures). It was too expensive to buy at the time, specialised bookstore with about 140 bucks cover price, but those type of books are around, just go into a military bookstore and browse the reference section for the really good authors. Find out who they are from LEMB.
Like too many researchers you've grabbed the Focke Wulf documentation and taken them to heart, mate, every one of those charts are calculated figures. All of them. I've spoken personally with Dietmar about this, he told me and gave me testing records/figures. Others at LEMB chipped in helpfully too, because I was working on the Il2 flight modelling for Ta152H, C and some other projects at the time, this was the research phase (about six months worth, no kidding mate).
No pilot ever got the Ta-152H past 12500 metres. Tank claimed he got it to 14500 metres but had no proof and nobody else could get the third gear going under GM-1 without it repeatedly kicking between gears, they autochanged by pressures (vacuum and oil) and above 12km under GM-1 pressures are all over the place. This was the cited problem with that engine. The third gear sometimes kicked back above 8000m too, in the second stage, it was noted as "unreliable in the second stage" but I got the impression it was just random and not that often, but happened all the time up under GM-1. Only one pilot even got it past 10500 metres, that was the one which reached 12500 metres in a single flight and he lost consciousness because as it turns out cockpit pressurisation was completely unreliable in those days, he recovered at 3000m iirc.
After that it was altitude restricted to 10500 metres due to the pressurisation system failure and these systems were cancelled from future production, so the 109K and Ta152C never got them at all, it probably would've been dropped from Ta-152H manufacture too, as it was about to get an engine switch from the Jumo to the Daimler 603LA just as that engine reached production status (Mar45 iirc), according to Dietmar.
Oh and read the Jv44 reports. Their Ta-152H always orbited or patrolled at 7000 metres, although that was an altitude preference going back to the BoB.
Hey did you know the preproduction Ta-152H service trialled didn't have tanks in the wings, had the same fuel tankage as a 190. The Ta-152C originally had a much bigger MW50 tank in the rear fuselage, but CoG got messed up when you put an ETC on and it was unstable with any external stores, so they moved it to the wing and left the rear fuselage tank unfilled. It was specified for the prototype series not to fill the rear fuselage tank (because they all had ETC racks fitted), so it only had the front 190 tank, as it had no tanks in the wings either.
Production versions would have tankage in the wings and delete the rear fuselage fuel tank entirely, this puts Ta-152C range only marginally ahead of a Dora. Not so much a problem for the H because presumably that would never carry stores, so it would have front, rear and wing tankage, but the GM-1 cut into rear tankage a little and MW50 took one of the wing fuel cells.
Here's another thing, you know the FW auto blower gears (on anything from a BMW to a Jumo) have different throttle altitudes for different engine settings, you know that means if you move the throttle the gears might kick back and dramatically alter boost, there are different altitude guidelines for throttle settings and it's actually a little tricky for pilots to keep it functioning with a good linear performance under pilot command, in the first place. This is the reason for conservative guidelines under special boost, strict 1000m altitude restriction initially for the BMW. Because if you hit a gearchange under special boost you'll instantly scrap the engine (that was the fear, as it turned out if you carefully governed the throttle through gear switching altitudes it was fine so later was cleared for this, American flight testing of a 190F8 deals with this). It's a complicated blower system, even the Merlin 60 auto-staging is softer, but now I'm just speaking common sense.
Look, I know where you're coming from Don and I know you're just going to argue with me, so you really need to just look up more reading material or just believe what you want, no offense but I can't really be bothered today, I'm tired and have to go to work tonight, it's a saturday night, I don't want to go to work.
Like too many researchers you've grabbed the Focke Wulf documentation and taken them to heart, mate, every one of those charts are calculated figures. All of them. I've spoken personally with Dietmar about this, he told me and gave me testing records/figures. Others at LEMB chipped in helpfully too, because I was working on the Il2 flight modelling for Ta152H, C and some other projects at the time, this was the research phase (about six months worth, no kidding mate).
No pilot ever got the Ta-152H past 12500 metres. Tank claimed he got it to 14500 metres but had no proof and nobody else could get the third gear going under GM-1 without it repeatedly kicking between gears, they autochanged by pressures (vacuum and oil) and above 12km under GM-1 pressures are all over the place. This was the cited problem with that engine. The third gear sometimes kicked back above 8000m too, in the second stage, it was noted as "unreliable in the second stage" but I got the impression it was just random and not that often, but happened all the time up under GM-1. Only one pilot even got it past 10500 metres, that was the one which reached 12500 metres in a single flight and he lost consciousness because as it turns out cockpit pressurisation was completely unreliable in those days, he recovered at 3000m iirc.
After that it was altitude restricted to 10500 metres due to the pressurisation system failure and these systems were cancelled from future production, so the 109K and Ta152C never got them at all, it probably would've been dropped from Ta-152H manufacture too, as it was about to get an engine switch from the Jumo to the Daimler 603LA just as that engine reached production status (Mar45 iirc), according to Dietmar.
Oh and read the Jv44 reports. Their Ta-152H always orbited or patrolled at 7000 metres, although that was an altitude preference going back to the BoB.
Hey did you know the preproduction Ta-152H service trialled didn't have tanks in the wings, had the same fuel tankage as a 190. The Ta-152C originally had a much bigger MW50 tank in the rear fuselage, but CoG got messed up when you put an ETC on and it was unstable with any external stores, so they moved it to the wing and left the rear fuselage tank unfilled. It was specified for the prototype series not to fill the rear fuselage tank (because they all had ETC racks fitted), so it only had the front 190 tank, as it had no tanks in the wings either.
Production versions would have tankage in the wings and delete the rear fuselage fuel tank entirely, this puts Ta-152C range only marginally ahead of a Dora. Not so much a problem for the H because presumably that would never carry stores, so it would have front, rear and wing tankage, but the GM-1 cut into rear tankage a little and MW50 took one of the wing fuel cells.
Here's another thing, you know the FW auto blower gears (on anything from a BMW to a Jumo) have different throttle altitudes for different engine settings, you know that means if you move the throttle the gears might kick back and dramatically alter boost, there are different altitude guidelines for throttle settings and it's actually a little tricky for pilots to keep it functioning with a good linear performance under pilot command, in the first place. This is the reason for conservative guidelines under special boost, strict 1000m altitude restriction initially for the BMW. Because if you hit a gearchange under special boost you'll instantly scrap the engine (that was the fear, as it turned out if you carefully governed the throttle through gear switching altitudes it was fine so later was cleared for this, American flight testing of a 190F8 deals with this). It's a complicated blower system, even the Merlin 60 auto-staging is softer, but now I'm just speaking common sense.
Look, I know where you're coming from Don and I know you're just going to argue with me, so you really need to just look up more reading material or just believe what you want, no offense but I can't really be bothered today, I'm tired and have to go to work tonight, it's a saturday night, I don't want to go to work.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
I think vanity, we have a misunderstanding!
I know this fact, also from Herrmans book.
But that was not the issue for my argumentation against your post!
You were describing the Jumo 213 as problematic and perhaps "average" engine and you have argumented with dimensions, deplacement, dry weight and power output. I can't follow you at this argumentation and disagree.
From my research the Jumo 213 was the best liquid cooled V12 engine from germany in WWII!
No DB 603 or 605 was ever flown in any aircraft with an two stage supercharger.
Also I was not refering to the estimated performances of the Jumo 213E-1 with GM1, but rather to the "normal" high altitude performance.
This high altitude performance was 9600m without GM1 and this was reached with the two stage three gear supercharger in combat and testflights.
Also I agree that the two stage three gear supercharger had problems and wasn't fully developed, but it was the only one they had and it worked "mostly"without GM1 till 9600m.
I know this fact, also from Herrmans book.
But that was not the issue for my argumentation against your post!
You were describing the Jumo 213 as problematic and perhaps "average" engine and you have argumented with dimensions, deplacement, dry weight and power output. I can't follow you at this argumentation and disagree.
From my research the Jumo 213 was the best liquid cooled V12 engine from germany in WWII!
No DB 603 or 605 was ever flown in any aircraft with an two stage supercharger.
Also I was not refering to the estimated performances of the Jumo 213E-1 with GM1, but rather to the "normal" high altitude performance.
This high altitude performance was 9600m without GM1 and this was reached with the two stage three gear supercharger in combat and testflights.
Also I agree that the two stage three gear supercharger had problems and wasn't fully developed, but it was the only one they had and it worked "mostly"without GM1 till 9600m.
Last edited:
Vanity? Stop the ad hominem right there kiddo.
You're entitled to any opinion you care to choose without any reasoning whatsoever, but where that's the case the conversation is over bud.
You also might want to have a look at Fw-190V21/U1, flight testing with production series 603LA began 10 December 1944, Märschel piloting.
Ta-152V7 got the 603LA in March 45 and was flown with it by Märschel.
Listen if it helps whenever anyone says, best or great, are really nice, or awesome, nobody can really say that's not true. I mean people have their reasons to say such things right? And who is anyone to tell them they don't have a right to feel that way and be called true and forthright? So I'm not saying you're not "right" I'm not.
I'm not even wanting to argue, I'm the wrong person for it, Dietmar or Crumpp or someone like that is better for this. They have awesome libraries and memories.
As I knew from your very first post, you and I aren't going to get anywhere with each other on this. I know, you know, let's just know and call it a day, yeah? I'm comfy, you?
This is your problem right here. Get over yourself and go talk to some people instead of calling your opinion "research," as you used argumentation over extrapolation or inferrence. This isn't a competition.
You're entitled to any opinion you care to choose without any reasoning whatsoever, but where that's the case the conversation is over bud.
You also might want to have a look at Fw-190V21/U1, flight testing with production series 603LA began 10 December 1944, Märschel piloting.
Ta-152V7 got the 603LA in March 45 and was flown with it by Märschel.
Listen if it helps whenever anyone says, best or great, are really nice, or awesome, nobody can really say that's not true. I mean people have their reasons to say such things right? And who is anyone to tell them they don't have a right to feel that way and be called true and forthright? So I'm not saying you're not "right" I'm not.
I'm not even wanting to argue, I'm the wrong person for it, Dietmar or Crumpp or someone like that is better for this. They have awesome libraries and memories.
As I knew from your very first post, you and I aren't going to get anywhere with each other on this. I know, you know, let's just know and call it a day, yeah? I'm comfy, you?
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
It comes down to engine availability. The superior RR Merlin was in short supply for most of the war. If the Allison is just as good at low altitude then you might as well use it for CAS aircraft.
The Luftwaffe had a similiar engine policy. The superior DB601 / DB605 engine was in short supply prior to 1943 so it was reserved for fighter aircraft. The Jumo211 was a good enough for bombers and it was available in large numbers so it powered the Ju-87, Ju-88 and He-111.
The Luftwaffe had a similiar engine policy. The superior DB601 / DB605 engine was in short supply prior to 1943 so it was reserved for fighter aircraft. The Jumo211 was a good enough for bombers and it was available in large numbers so it powered the Ju-87, Ju-88 and He-111.
Shortround6
Major General
A BIG problem with threads or arguments about which engine (or plane) is "better/best" is that "better/best" covers an awful lot of territory.
for engines:
1. Best power?
...A. At what altitude?
...B. At what weight? best power to weight ratio?
...C. Under what conditions? One minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 15 minutes?
...D. With what accessories or add ons? water injection/MD50, GM-1, turbo chargers, etc. all add weight and bulk.
2. Reliability?
...A. engines that shed propellers or put rods through the side of the block well before normal overhaul times are not well thought of no matter how good the performance numbers.
3. Durability?
...A. this actually different than Reliability, how long can an average engine with "normal" use be expected to last before being pulled for a "preventative" overhaul or to restore performance.
...B. Do we have a 50 hour engine or a 200 hour engine or a 500 hour engine?
4. Cost?
...A. First cost, how much does the engine cost per horsepower to make and install?
......1. what is the cost of the bare engine?
.........a. does it require any special alloys (or large amounts of them)?
.........b. does it require special machine tools or manufacturing procedures?
......2. what is the cost of any accessories or installation items. Radiators, oil coolers, water injection tanks/pumps, etc?
...B. Maintenance/operating costs?
......1. Fuel and oil consumption, pretty obvious but actually fairly close for a lot of engines although the Germans had an edge in general.
......2. Routine maintenance, spark plug changes, valve adjustments for starters, checking timing, supercharger control adjustments and such could be added in. How much effort is needed to keep the engine performing at it's book numbers?
...C. Does it require special fuel or additives to reach the performance numbers.
I am sure there are considerations that I have left out.
As an example I will use British engines ( to avoid the German argument), Which was the "better" British engine out of the Bristol Hercules or Centaurus, The Napair Sabre, or the R-R Merlin and Griffon?
and PLEASE not which one accomplished the most during the war or scored more victories or other arguments like that.
The Napair Sabre was a technological wonder. It did post the highest power per unit of swept volume, especially in a few test bed engines. It may have done very well in the power to weight category but it was a very costly engine to build and it's maintenance was a trade-off, what it gained in freedom from valve adjustment it may have lost in the spark-plug changes (48 spark plugs). Overhauling 24 cylinders was going to be more time consuming than 12-18 cylinders also, It went nowhere in the post war world.
for engines:
1. Best power?
...A. At what altitude?
...B. At what weight? best power to weight ratio?
...C. Under what conditions? One minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 15 minutes?
...D. With what accessories or add ons? water injection/MD50, GM-1, turbo chargers, etc. all add weight and bulk.
2. Reliability?
...A. engines that shed propellers or put rods through the side of the block well before normal overhaul times are not well thought of no matter how good the performance numbers.
3. Durability?
...A. this actually different than Reliability, how long can an average engine with "normal" use be expected to last before being pulled for a "preventative" overhaul or to restore performance.
...B. Do we have a 50 hour engine or a 200 hour engine or a 500 hour engine?
4. Cost?
...A. First cost, how much does the engine cost per horsepower to make and install?
......1. what is the cost of the bare engine?
.........a. does it require any special alloys (or large amounts of them)?
.........b. does it require special machine tools or manufacturing procedures?
......2. what is the cost of any accessories or installation items. Radiators, oil coolers, water injection tanks/pumps, etc?
...B. Maintenance/operating costs?
......1. Fuel and oil consumption, pretty obvious but actually fairly close for a lot of engines although the Germans had an edge in general.
......2. Routine maintenance, spark plug changes, valve adjustments for starters, checking timing, supercharger control adjustments and such could be added in. How much effort is needed to keep the engine performing at it's book numbers?
...C. Does it require special fuel or additives to reach the performance numbers.
I am sure there are considerations that I have left out.
As an example I will use British engines ( to avoid the German argument), Which was the "better" British engine out of the Bristol Hercules or Centaurus, The Napair Sabre, or the R-R Merlin and Griffon?
and PLEASE not which one accomplished the most during the war or scored more victories or other arguments like that.
The Napair Sabre was a technological wonder. It did post the highest power per unit of swept volume, especially in a few test bed engines. It may have done very well in the power to weight category but it was a very costly engine to build and it's maintenance was a trade-off, what it gained in freedom from valve adjustment it may have lost in the spark-plug changes (48 spark plugs). Overhauling 24 cylinders was going to be more time consuming than 12-18 cylinders also, It went nowhere in the post war world.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Shortround,
Very wise words.
Its almost almost impossible to choose the 'best' British engine and exclude the Centaurus etc.
I would vote for the 'maid of all work' the RR Merlin.
'Yeah, yeah' you'll say 'he would say that'...but, no other British engine was fitted in such a variety of war planes and performed with such distinction.
The Griffon had more power and moved the game on and I agree with you about the Napier Sabre.
But, as a 'war engine' it has to be the Merlin
John
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Better or best?
For me it is the Merlin for the simple reasons it was available in numbers, was reliable and relatively cheap to make. Better to have an engine flying than the best engine stuck in the factory.
Luckily the Germans always seemed to go for "best" when "better" was the alternative.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
How do you figure that?
The DB601/DB605 and Jumo211 were the most important German aircraft engines during 1939 to 1945. The Me-109 and Ju-88 were the most important German aircraft during 1939 to 1945. Inexpensive, reliable and effective. Produced in huge numbers for all 6 years of the European war.
The DB601/DB605 and Jumo211 were the most important German aircraft engines during 1939 to 1945. The Me-109 and Ju-88 were the most important German aircraft during 1939 to 1945. Inexpensive, reliable and effective. Produced in huge numbers for all 6 years of the European war.
AFAIK Merlin is RR, so does not count according to the original question.
Shortround6
Major General
And the 109 and Ju-88 were being produced (along with the HE 111 and a few others) well after they should have been put out to pasture because of the FAILURE to come up with SUITABLE replacements. Many of the initial attempts to replace those aircraft failed because they tried to advance the state of the art too far, forcing the continued production of existing types as a fall back position. Wide spread failure of 2nd generation programs should not be viewed as something to boast about.
Shortround6
Major General
That is sort of the point. There is a lot more that goes into the "best" engine than a few numbers from a specification chart ( that may or may not have been attainable in the real world).
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Reliability and fuel economy were good but I don't think 1,750 hp was anything special during mid 1944. Smaller and lighter RR Merlin and DB605 engines were producing 1,750 to 1,800 hp by mid 1944.
If the projected Jumo213J and 213S engines had performed as advertised and if they had been in production during 1944 it would be a different story. But we could say the same thing for a multitude of aircraft and engines under development during 1944 which didn't enter service before May 1945.
If the projected Jumo213J and 213S engines had performed as advertised and if they had been in production during 1944 it would be a different story. But we could say the same thing for a multitude of aircraft and engines under development during 1944 which didn't enter service before May 1945.
