best engine of the war

[dedalos]

Calum Douglas rated the Jumo 213 as the engine with the most modern concept as well as the one with the highest development potential. The peak would have been the Jumo 213N generating 2900 PS using C3 fuel and MW50.

Despite the fact that i ordered and payed his book i never received it possibly as a result from the chaos of brexit. His an expert , but the basic jumo213A was nothing special. Power to weight ratio was nothing special, there were releability problems at least until mid autumn 1944,
Altitude performance was better than the bmw801 but worse than db603A.
The j,n models were just projects

 

[spicmart]

Despite the fact that i ordered and payed his book i never received it possibly as a result from the chaos of brexit. His an expert , but the basic jumo213A was nothing special. Power to weight ratio was nothing special, there were releability problems at least until mid autumn 1944,
Altitude performance was better than the bmw801 but worse than db603A.
The j,n models were just projects

Sorry, I meant theJumo 213J. The N variant was the almost as powerful DB 603N generating 2800 PS.
The Jumo 213J had been indeed built in very small numbers. Just about a handful, I seem to recall.
Calum Douglas published fotos of one in his book and is trying to hunt it down.
So it does exist, not just as a project.

Even if the Jumo 213A was nothing special, the concept was. Douglas is quite enthusiastic about it.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The Merlin is the only engine to be a dominant force in the major categories with the exception of transportation.
It dropped more tons of bombs than any other engine
It powered more single seat fighters than any other engine
It powered the premier night fighter of WWII
It powered the premier reconnaissance platforms of WWII
While its record is a bit mixed it did make significant contributions to naval aviation.
In comparison the R-2800 is pretty much a one trick pony.
It was in the top tier of engines for the entire war

 

[spicmart]

The Merlin is the only engine to be a dominant force in the major categories with the exception of transportation.
It dropped more tons of bombs than any other engine
It powered more single seat fighters than any other engine
It powered the premier night fighter of WWII
It powered the premier reconnaissance platforms of WWII
While its record is a bit mixed it did make significant contributions to naval aviation.
In comparison the R-2800 is pretty much a one trick pony.
It was in the top tier of engines for the entire war

That doesn't mean that it was the best. It just happened to have been used widespreadedly and was good enough to warrant that. It did have a fairly good development potential.
But the best? No.

 

[swampyankee]

hey just wonderiing what everyone think the best enigne of the war was id the say the pratt that went in the corsair i do like the merlin and the db601 and 605 but id still say the pratt

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.

 

[Shortround6]

In comparison the R-2800 is pretty much a one trick pony.

and which trick was that?

It powered more single seat fighters than any other engine

The R-2800 powered over 40,000 single seat fighters just counting the P-47, F6F and F4U.

Not as many as the Merlin but not too bad.

No four engine bombers but it did power the B-26, A-26 and Lockheed Ventura.

Over 3,000 C-46 transports, plus some late comers.

Over 600 flying boats during/right after WW II.

Was the failure of P-61 due to the engines or the joint America/British initial specification with the gun turret?

A discrete vail will be pulled over both the Merlin and R-2800 post war service as the Merlin didn't see much (new construction) and the post war R-2800s didn't share much of anything with the war time engines except the name and the bore & stroke.

 

[pbehn]

Late war jet engines were probably the best, big USA radials performed well in all theatres and niches, but without the Merlin the RAF and allies had nothing for the battles of France Britain, Malta and North Africa so you have a completely different war also without the Lancaster Halifax and Mosquito.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

and which trick was that?

The R-2800 powered over 40,000 single seat fighters just counting the P-47, F6F and F4U.

Not as many as the Merlin but not too bad.

No four engine bombers but it did power the B-26, A-26 and Lockheed Ventura.

Over 3,000 C-46 transports, plus some late comers.

Over 600 flying boats during/right after WW II.

Was the failure of P-61 due to the engines or the joint America/British initial specification with the gun turret?

A discrete vail will be pulled over both the Merlin and R-2800 post war service as the Merlin didn't see much (new construction) and the post war R-2800s didn't share much of anything with the war time engines except the name and the bore & stroke.

That doesn't mean that it was the best. It just happened to have been used widespreadedly and was good enough to warrant that. It did have a fairly good development potential.
But the best? No.

My point is that the Merlin was at or near the top of several categories for the entire war. No other engine can make that claim. As a fighter engine it certainly in the conversation for best engine with the R-2800 as its main rival but the R-2800 didn't see combat as a fighter engine until 1943. The R-2800 certainly established itself as the best Naval fighter engine after it appeared, but the at the end of the war the USAAF still preferred the Merlin.

The tonnage dropped by B-26s and A-26s was very small compared to the Merlin powered heavies.

I admitted that transportation was not the Merlins strong point.

Even with the turret removed the P-61 was no great shakes as a night fighter. Due to its low speed its main function became ground attack. In the Philippines the P-61 as replaced by USN nightfighters. From Conquering the Night (attached):

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Despite the fact that i ordered and payed his book i never received it possibly as a result from the chaos of brexit. His an expert , but the basic jumo213A was nothing special. Power to weight ratio was nothing special, there were releability problems at least until mid autumn 1944,
Altitude performance was better than the bmw801 but worse than db603A.
The j,n models were just projects

If you didnt recieve the book, you should provide all the ordering details so I can chase it.

<EDIT> Four days later and you`ve still provided me with no details.

 

[kiwi2wheels]

Don't thank me just yet, I've led you astray, it's in the Slovak Republic.

A Visit to Museum of Aviation in Kosice - KN Aviation

Kosice, Slovakia’s second-largest city is home to the country’s best-known aviation museum. The city’s Museum of Aviation, or Letecke Muzeum Kosice as it’s known in Slovak, first opened its doors to the public in 2002 and is a branch of the Slovak Technical Museum. While most of the aircraft on...

knaviation.net

No worries, I'd been hoping it was the Swiss AF Museum engine hall in Dubendorf.

 

[swampyankee]

In comparison the R-2800 is pretty much a one trick pony.
It was in the top tier of engines for the entire war

There. I fixed it.

The Merlin was certainly a great engine, but its extremely wide use by the British was not so much that it was incomparably better than other engines, but because the British aero-engine industry wasn't capable of producing an engine the air ministry viewed as completely serviceable engine during the time the Lancaster, Halifax, Spitfire, Hurricane, etc were produced. There were certainly some competent British engines contemporary with the Merlin (mainly from Bristol) but they did not seem to get the support they needed.

I think the Merlin was the finest V-12 aircraft engine of WW2 (although one could argue the Griffon was better).

 

[kitplane01]

Without US radials you dont have a daylight bombing campaign maritime recon or a carrier force, without the Merlin you dont have a competitive fighter until 1941, no ultralong escort and no Lancaster so no Tallboys Upkeep or Grand slam until 1945.

Lets suppose there are no radials available for European bombing (they're all in use by the US navy or whatever).

Designing a bomber for use in 1942 that uses 4 merlins doesn't seem hard. The Lancaster was available then, and had there been no British radials probably many more British bombers would have been designed around it. Without radials, I assume the British get on with 4 engine Merlin powered bombers earlier than they did, which was operational in Feb '42.

If the Americans have no radials .. put four Merlins on a B-17. That seems possible!

 

[kitplane01]

Here's a relevant metric.

I need an an engine that produces at least 1,200 hp (or much more). It needs to be reliable enough to put onto single engine fighters. It needs to be available in April 1944 or earlier.

Total weight is the weight of the engine plus fuel for four hours. I want the best horsepower / total_weight ratio.

Any nationality. Even Sweden or Brazil if they have the best engine.

Jets don't count.

Name that engine!

 

[wuzak]

Lets suppose there are no radials available for European bombing (they're all in use by the US navy or whatever).

Designing a bomber for use in 1942 that uses 4 merlins doesn't seem hard. The Lancaster was available then, and had there been no British radials probably many more British bombers would have been designed around it. Without radials, I assume the British get on with 4 engine Merlin powered bombers earlier than they did, which was operational in Feb '42.

If the Americans have no radials .. put four Merlins on a B-17. That seems possible!

They put V-1710s on the B-17 to create the XB-38

Boeing XB-38 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GrauGeist]

There was also the B-29 powered by Allison V-3420 engines.

Boeing XB-39 Superfortress - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[nuuumannn]

They put V-1710s on the B-17 to create the XB-38

From that angle, that looks real slick...

The Brits were doing the same, fitting Merlins to the Beaufighter to produce a widow maker, I mean a Merlin engined as opposed to a Hercules engined nightfighter, the Beaufort was fitted with Twin Wasps to become a barely reliable aeroplane instead of an unreliable aeroplane, the Whitley was fitted with Merlins to achieve a better result, the Wellington Mk.II was fitted with Merlins and the Lancaster Mk.II was fitted with Hercules engines, the Halifax was fitted with Hercules' because it just didn't like Merlins and predating those, the Handley Page Hampden was fitted with Napier Daggers to produce a boat anchor, I mean the Hereford.

 

[GrauGeist]

Some engine swaps worked, some didn't.
The two different attempts to fit a radial to the Bf109 were dead ends.

The fitting of an inline to the P-36 sure worked out.
The KI-61 with a radial engine was the right decision, although a bit late.
Replacing the radial for an inline on the Fw190 was a winner, too.

 

[wuzak]

There was also the B-29 powered by Allison V-3420 engines.

Boeing XB-39 Superfortress - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yes there was. I think there was a better case for the XB-39 than the the XB-38.

The performance increase for the XB-39 over the B-29 was better than the XB-38 vs the B-17. It still wasn't enough to get an order, also the XB-39 was late in making its first flight.

The mistake the designers (Vega) of the B-38 made was to place radiators in the leading edge between the engines. It would have been better to package the radiators in the nacelles and leave the intercoolers where they were on the B-17. The nacelles should have been built as a self contained engine module, as the V-3420 was for the XB-39.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes there was. I think there was a better case for the XB-39 than the the XB-38.

The performance increase for the XB-39 over the B-29 was better than the XB-38 vs the B-17. It still wasn't enough to get an order, also the XB-39 was late in making its first flight.

The mistake the designers (Vega) of the B-38 made was to place radiators in the leading edge between the engines. It would have been better to package the radiators in the nacelles and leave the intercoolers where they were on the B-17. The nacelles should have been built as a self contained engine module, as the V-3420 was for the XB-39.

Agreed.
General Motors could have had the XB-39 flying sooner if they had prioritized it (much like the XP-75).

 

[33k in the air]

Late war jet engines were probably the best, big USA radials performed well in all theatres and niches, but without the Merlin the RAF and allies had nothing for the battles of France Britain, Malta and North Africa so you have a completely different war also without the Lancaster Halifax and Mosquito.

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

The Hercules-powered Lancaster II, although built in limited numbers, performed well. Not quite as good as its Merlin-powered cousins, but reasonably close.