Engines?

[Lucky13]

Have seen all kinds of threads on aircrafts but none on the engine itself.
So, ALL things considered, which was the best aircraft engine of WWII? Was it a Rolls Royce, Pratt Whitney, Wright, Daimler Benz, BMW or? .....the list goes on.....

 

[seesul]

I like DB605 and Merlin.

 

[wilbur1]

Im goin merlin

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Pratt, RR, Wright and DB all made excellent engines - look at longevity and I think you'll see what the best engines of WW2 were.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I like P&W and RR but like adler said somewhere else on the forum its the one that gets you home safely

 

[Crumpp]

look at longevity and I think you'll see what the best engines of WW2 were.

To compare:

 

[AL Schlageter]

What are you saying Crumpp? All I see is that some engines took more time to do a major overhaul.

 

[Crumpp]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/reliability-ww2-fighters-10837-3.html#post301273

 

[V-1710]

Too many variables. I know a V-1710 was a lot more trouble in a P-38 (due to turbocharging) than it was in a P-39 or P-40. Same is probably true for a R-2800 in a P-47 vs. a B-26.

 

[Crumpp]

Too many variables.

There are infinitely less variables than trying to make a comparison to aircraft in combat.

This is average man hours for CONUS engines. It is about the best most objective comparison we have at the moment.

I will agree it is far from ideal. It would be nice to have scientific endurance testing all performed under the same conditions to the same standards by the same folks. Even then, the differences will not be outspoken.

The general conclusion is there is not much to choose from in aircraft engines. They are pretty much limited by the physics of just being an aircraft engine.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Lucky13]

Wonder what the Merlin's would have done for the P-38?

 

[wilbur1]

Hauled ass

 

[Lucky13]

I bet!

 

[V-1710]

Using the Merlin in the P-38 was looked into, but there would not have been much if any performance gain, so the idea was dropped. There was also a question of Packard's ability to supply enough Merlins to meet demand if another aircraft were to use them. As far as performance was concerned, remember that single stage blower Merlins didn't perform any better that single stage Allisons in the P-40. The P-51 was a much different story, as the Merlin in the P-51B had a two stage blower (as in a Spitfire) and the P-51A had a single stage Allison. The P-38's Allisons were single stage but with a turbocharger, so I believe that if the Merlin had been used in the Lightning (either 2 stage or single stage with turbo) you would have basically had the same level of performance when all was said and done. The Allison was designed from the start to use a turbocharger, and the single stage blowers used on the Allisons in P-39's, P-40's, and early P-51's put the engine at a disadvantage to the two-stage Merlin.

 

[Lucky13]

I see...thanks mate!

 

[Lucky13]

How did the engine compare to each other in quality and precision?

 

[V-1710]

That's a good question for discussion. I would tend to believe that due to the vast experience Rolls-Royce had with aero engines before the Merlin and the very nature of the firm itself, the early Merlin was probably a better piece of work than the early Allison was. That's not to say early Merlins were not without trouble of course. Allison was started as an engineering firm that specialized in making parts for racing cars (they were located right down the street from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway) but also did quite a business overhauling WWI Liberty aircraft engines for the Army Air Corps. That side business eventually eclipsed the racing car business, and the origins of the V-1710 were in an experimental Zepplin engine Allison was developing for the U.S. Navy. So, Allison was not without some experience before the V-1710. During the course of the war, many improvments were made to both the Merlin and the Allison, some to increase performance, some to make for more efficient/more precise manufacture. When Packard was licensed to produce the Merlin, they made several improvents to aid in manufacture, possibly the result of Packard's more extensive background in mass production as compared to Rolls-Royce. By the end of the war, both were developed into very high performance, very high quality engines, facts made all the more amazing when one takes into account the numbers produced. Having seen the insides of both the Merlin and the Allison, I would say the Merlin was a more 'elegant' design, and leave it at that! One finanl note: when the R.A.F captured a more-or-less intact Me. 109, rumor has it the Messerschmitt's engine was carted off to Rolls-Royce for examination. They couldn't figure out how Daimler could machine the crankshaft so precisely......