best engine of the war

[Admiral Beez]

Let's not forget the smaller engines, like those from Pobjoy.

Pobjoy Niagara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pobjoy Type R

 

[nuuumannn]

The KI-61 with a radial engine was the right decision, although a bit late.

Possibly because the engineering in doing so was extensive as the engine mounts were built as a part for the fuselage. Fitting the radial required an entire redesign of the front end of the aircraft.

DSC_6614

Ki-100

 

[nuuumannn]

The Merlin-powered Halifax II and V in Bomber Command were replaced with the Hercules-powered Halifax III as the latter had superior performance.

It wasn't about superior performance, in fact the Halifax Mk.III demonstrated only marginal performance increase over the Merlin engined B.II Series Ia, which it replaced and during official trials, in some parameters the B.III demonstrated inferior performance to the earlier model. The Mk.III was an interim and the next major variant of the Halifax was to be the B.IV, which did have a bigger performance increase over the previous versions as it had 60 Series Merlins, but it was discontinued, so the B.II Series Ia fitted with Hercules' became the main production variant. The squared fins for example were retrofitted to B.IIs as a kit to cure the rudder overbalance that plagued the type, and the removal of the nose turret was already a feature of the later Merlin engined B.IIs.

 

[33k in the air]

It wasn't about superior performance, in fact the Halifax Mk.III demonstrated only marginal performance increase over the Merlin engined B.II Series Ia, which it replaced and during official trials, in some parameters the B.III demonstrated inferior performance to the earlier model. The Mk.III was an interim and the next major variant of the Halifax was to be the B.IV, which did have a bigger performance increase over the previous versions as it had 60 Series Merlins, but it was discontinued, so the B.II Series Ia fitted with Hercules' became the main production variant. The squared fins for example were retrofitted to B.IIs as a kit to cure the rudder overbalance that plagued the type, and the removal of the nose turret was already a feature of the later Merlin engined B.IIs.

According to the Aircraft Data Sheets for the Halifax II and III available at WWII Aircraft Performance, the Halifax III had a slower climb rate at max. weight and slightly lower ceiling (20,000 ft compared to 21,000 ft), but had a higher maximum speed, higher cruising speed, higher maximum take-off weight, and better bomb carrying range (1,985 miles with 7,000 lbs of bombs and 1,986 gallons of fuel for the Halifax III compared to 1,660 miles with 5,250 lbs of bombs and 1,882 gallons of fuel for the Halifax II).

Of course, this presumes the Data Sheet figures are correct.

 

[nuuumannn]

According to the Aircraft Data Sheets for the Halifax II and III available at WWII Aircraft Performance, the Halifax III had a slower climb rate at max. weight and slightly lower ceiling (20,000 ft compared to 21,000 ft), but had a higher maximum speed, higher cruising speed, higher maximum take-off weight, and better bomb carrying range (1,985 miles with 7,000 lbs of bombs and 1,986 gallons of fuel for the Halifax III compared to 1,660 miles with 5,250 lbs of bombs and 1,882 gallons of fuel for the Halifax II).

Which amply demonstrates what I said.

in fact the Halifax Mk.III demonstrated only marginal performance increase over the Merlin engined B.II Series Ia, which it replaced and during official trials, in some parameters the B.III demonstrated inferior performance to the earlier model.

As mentioned, the Halifax was an evolving entity and Handley Page was expected to rectify the issues the type was suffering, with changes being made to each progressive variant of the type, the last B.II variant, which in retrospect became known as the Series Ia owing to the number of changes between variants on the production lines incorporated all the improvements that went into the Mk.III, the prototype of which was a B.II airframe with Hercules engines.

As mentioned, the Mk.III was intended as an interim until the Mk.IV was put into production, but the Mk.IV's performance wasn't that much more than the Mk.III and the 60 Series Merlin was already in demand, so it was decided to cancel that and Mk.IIs on the production line became Mk.IIIs, having standardised the improvements made to the airframe throughout its production run from the Mk.I.

Official trials of the Mk.III showed that its Hercules engines overheated during the climb, which warranted keeping cowling gills open, which reduced its climb rate, which was considered disappointing. The cooling issue became something of a problem for the Mk.III during trials, the aircraft in use was HX226, the first production Mk.III and various methods of reducing the impact of the issue were trialled including increasing speeds during the climb and even cooling fans over the cylinders trialled in May 1944 didn't help that much.

Performance trials reveal little difference between the Mk.II and Mk.III trialled, although the maximum take off weight at 63,000 lbs was not trialled, according to a book I have perhaps because of the focus on the cooling and carburation issues, which were linked.

 

[VA5124]

Leaving aside the misspellings and poor capitalization, this question requires some clarification:
1) What criteria are you using to define "best?" Lowest sfc, greatest MTBR, lowest in-flight shutdown rate, best power/weight ratio, least mechanical complexity, greatest damage tolerance, or, most likely some combination of these?
2) Can one even make a sensible comparison between engines such as the Lycoming R-680, the Rolls-Royce Merlin, and the Argus 109-014?
3) Should one look at how they influenced post-war engine design or examine their non-military uses (I'd argue "yes" for both these factors)?

In general, I believe these "what was the best..." questions are ill-posed, and this is a fairly egregious example of such.

I think along the terms of power the kind of speed that planes powered by it had and the fact that I'm a corsair fan .

 

[JDCAVE]

33K in the air and Nuuuman have gone back and forth on the performance of the Halifax IIIs and rate of climb and so forth. So I relate the following occurrence: on 5/6 March 1945. 7 Halifax's from 420, 425 and 427 Squadrons, 6-Group (a mix of III's and VII's from bases at Tholthorpe and Linton-on-Ouse) crashed immediately after take-off. 40 airmen were killed and there were 9 survivors. The Court of Inquiry found that the cause of five of these accidents was due to icing as a result of severe local weather conditions. 2 of the 7 were due to a collision but the court was unsure if icing played a roll as well in the collision as there were no survivors who could provide testimony.

F/Lt. McHolm of 420 Squadron described described to the Court his experience flying in the difficult conditions:

"At 1700' I entered cloud and my windscreen iced up as soon as I went into cloud. At 2,000' I used hot air as I thought I could hear ice being thrown off the propellers. I ran in hot air for 30 seconds, changed to cold and the engines still ran normally. After climbing to 4,500' the aircraft became very sluggish and the rate of climb dropped off. I could see heavy rime and clear icing on the wings, cowlings, windscreen and the air intakes which were completely iced over.

"On reaching approximately 6,000' the aircraft stalled at 160 mph with the engines all at full power. I checked the stall and continued to climb but the aircraft was still very sluggish and stalled three more times, loosing about 1,000' on each occasion. The last stall was more vicious than the previous ones and the controls were snatched out of my hands and the control column was forced back into my stomach and the aircraft started to spin to the right. I put the nose of the aircraft well down before I was able to apply corrective measures. On recovering from this temporary loss of control I had gained sufficient air speed to assist me in climbing again and I reached 9,500' where I broke cloud. I could then see that the aircraft was loaded with ice and it took full power to maintain this height. I continued to the French coast at approximately 9,500' but considered I had used too much petrol so I returned to Base, landing approximately five hours after take-off, and after landing the air intakes were still frozen.

"During the vicious stall, had I given the order I consider that all my crew and myself could have abandoned the aircraft without difficulty."

It was notable that the none of the Lancasters that took off from surrounding airfields were affected by the icing conditions although my dad did say that the weather was horrible and there was serious icing conditions. Dad was on this operation, taking off from Middleton St. George. One of the Lancaster bases was only 17 km away from Tholthorpe. Both the Halifaxes and Lancasters would have been fully loaded (fuel and bomb-load) on take-off.

Dad flew both Lancasters and Halifaxes (II's and V's at HCU). He did not like the Halifax. I must state that I know nothing about flying an aircraft. But I do wonder if an alternate hypothesis might be the Halifax was, for whatever reason, more susceptible to icing than the Lancaster. Perhaps it was due to a slower rate of climb or perhaps some feature with the wing surfaces or radial engines. I don't know, but perhaps something about the Halifax in severe icing conditions might have played some sort of role In these crashes.

I have the findings and testimony from one of the Courts of Inquiry into these events

Jim

 

[MCamp]

Those planes had the R-2800

No fighter had the R-2600 in the early days of the U.S. at war.
The three I mentioned upthread gave the US time to develop the R-2600 into the F6F, F4U and P-47.

Those planes had the R-2800, the R-2600 was a diffrent manufacturer and was used in the avenger

 

[GrauGeist]

No fighter had the R-2600 in the early days of the U.S. at war.
The three I mentioned upthread gave the US time to develop the R-2600 into the F6F, F4U and P-47.

Went all the way back to July to quote this, yet in your time travel, you passed over this post that was shortly after:

lol...yep, was supposed to be R-2800.

I can't even blame spell-check on that

 

[MCamp]

Sorry I must have missed that, I'm new here

 

[DarrenW]

It powered the premier night fighter of WWII

What metric(s) were used to determine this? Not questioning the validity of your statement, I just want to learn more about the Mosquito's war record...you were referring to the Mosquito, correct?

 

[VA5124]

What metric(s) were used to determine this? Not questioning the validity of your statement, I just want to learn more about the Mosquito's war record...you were referring to the Mosquito, correct?

But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that

 

[MCamp]

But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that

Correct the American enengines used a pressurized carburetor to allow fuel to flow under all flight characteristics

 

[VA5124]

Correct the American enengines used a pressurized carburetor to allow fuel to flow under all flight characteristics

Between that and the over 2000hp rating i would say it was the best

 

[MCamp]

For me,
The 2800 series in a radial, but the Packard built Merlin in a inline. Packard corrected some of the Rolls Royce Merlin issues.
The Wright 1820's took the war to Berlin, so there is that, and many of them came back missing cylinders yet still ran and returned their crew safely. There is also a strong case to be made for the BMW 801 radial, and the DB 605.This also brings the question how do we not over look the 2600 series or the Allison V-1710? Finely we have the metric P&W aka Sakae - 12. So as you can see many power plants were used and benefited the country of origin greatly, it's really hard to pinpoint or say favorite when you roll up your sleeves and really dive into them.

Russian and German radials were also offshoots of the Cyclone series, though developed in their own ways

 

[GrauGeist]

Russian and German radials were also offshoots of the Cyclone series, though developed in their own ways

The BMW132 radial was based on the P&W R-1690.

 

[MCamp]

The BMW132 radial was based on the P&W R-1690.

Thanks, wasn't sure which

 

[pbehn]

But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that

Sadly we couldnt take a rain check on the BoB until 1942.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that

How many R-2800's or V-1710's were there in front line service in 1939-41? By early 1941, Fighter Command's Merlin's had been retrofitted with the Tilly Orifice, negating the concern.