Hmm, "complexity of turning something upside down". The way I see it if one compares the DB 605 and the Merlin, the DB has no more complexity due to being inverted. Probably by parts count, excepting the injection pump, a DB may have fewer parts than the Merlin. Cylinder blocks are simpler, though poorer (dry liners).
Inverted V engine vs. V engine
- Thread starter B-17engineer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DonL
Banned
Perhaps from your way to see it!
Based on what facts?
Nobody had claimed there were advantages to inversion! You claimed that inversion was the wrong way! That's a very big difference!
And please, we can discuss which water cooled inline engine was the best and I tend to agree that it was the merlin,
but the merlin wasn't near as outstanding compare to other engines as you want to claim it!
Your suggestions that all successful high speed piston engines were the right way up and came from England or USA is ridiculous.
The DB 601/605 and 603 and Jumo 211 and 213 were as successful as their Allies counterpart. If you doesn't believe that or want to negate that, you should do some research of piston engines in WWII. All this engines were a very very close up!
Edit:
Besides this a PR 2800 R Double Wasp is also a piston engine, but a radial engine, so an engine without the right way up and I believe this engine playes in the same leage as all other successful high speed piston engines of this timeline.
Last edited:
Ah, that'll be a thing to look forward too
But I have to tell you, I'm quite sceptical. I've been on this forum for almost 5 years and have been interested in warbirds for may years more. So I have seen many debates on "best aircraft", especially on the Spitfire/Messerschmitt thing. I've never seen any conclusive evidence that one was really better then the other, so your statement is a bold one. I very interested in what news you could bring into the discussion.Shortround6
Major General
radials weren't high speed?
Hercules, late model R-2600s, R-2800s, R-3350 could all turn higher rpm than the Griffon but being radials maybe they are only 1/2 inverted
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
radials weren't high speed?
Hercules, late model R-2600s, R-2800s, R-3350 could all turn higher rpm than the Griffon but being radials maybe they are only 1/2 inverted
I should have made it clearer than I was referring only to V in lines.
I have looked into the inversion idea and I cannot really understand why it was done..
But, I do not want another 'Lend Lease' thread sort of thing.
Cheers
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Ah, that'll be a thing to look forward too
Good, I'll try my best
Cheers
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
(1) Touche.
(2) I didn't say that only British American made high speed engines. Mario Castoldi designed beautiful planes with the Fiat AS.2 engine.
But, In my reading etc I have yet to find a manufacturer who were better than Rolls Royce.
(3) The power race see sawed throughout WW2. Of course the DB were magnificent engines powerfull, sturdy and everything the LW needed.
Cheers
John
DonL
Banned
Sorry english is not my first language.
I can't translate it proper.
What do you want to suggest with this statement? .
That all german invert inline engines were outclassed?
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Your English is better than my German Don !
'see saw' means up and down. DB has the advantage then RR develop more power and they have the advantage, then DB has an idea and improves performance and they have the advantage and so on. Do you see what I mean?
I do not mean that German inverted or otherwise engines were outclassed all of the time.
Merlins gave the allied the edge at critical times.
Cheers
John
DonL
Banned
Ah ok,
thank you very much.
I agree with that statement it was a close race the whole war, at the end the Allies had the clear advantage, because of the reasons I named before in this thread.
In the meantime it was a permanent seesaw.
Now I understand this phrase.
thank you very much.
I agree with that statement it was a close race the whole war, at the end the Allies had the clear advantage, because of the reasons I named before in this thread.
In the meantime it was a permanent seesaw.
Now I understand this phrase.
Lighthunmust
Banned
I have read every post in this thread and you guys have had me going upside down, right side up, inverted, diverted, and converted so many times I am dizzy! I am going back to reading "Development of Piston Aero Engines" to stop all of your voices from ringing in my ears!
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I have read every post in this thread and you guys have had me going upside down, right side up, inverted, diverted, and converted so many times I am dizzy! I am going back to reading "Development of Piston Aero Engines" to stop all of your voices from ringing in my ears!
Merlin,Merlin,Merlin,Merlin,Merlin,Merlin
Tartle
Airman
DonL,
You are right of course ... comparing the Merlin to the right DBs gives a better picture of how Rolls-Royce were able to quickly equalise and then draw ahead of DB's developments:
Has anyone got the weights of the DB601 and 605A and D so we can do a power/weight vs year as well?
As to all the Merlin benefits coming from fuel improvements... increasing Octane Number merely says we can operate at higher bmeps, not that we will. Hence Rolls-Royce's rules:
1. Improve supercharger
2. Improve fuel
3. Develop mechanical features that enable the engine to take care of the benefits of 1. and 2.
...and reading "Development of Piston Aero Engines" is a place to start but won't help you \/ or /\ !
Schlaiffer and Heron's book.. well 2 books in one really is the bible:
The Development of Aircraft Engines, by Robert Schlaifer and
The Development of Aviation Fuels, by S. D. Heron.
It has been out of print for years and I have to borrow a friends.. but this has just caught my eye.
You are right of course ... comparing the Merlin to the right DBs gives a better picture of how Rolls-Royce were able to quickly equalise and then draw ahead of DB's developments:
Has anyone got the weights of the DB601 and 605A and D so we can do a power/weight vs year as well?
As to all the Merlin benefits coming from fuel improvements... increasing Octane Number merely says we can operate at higher bmeps, not that we will. Hence Rolls-Royce's rules:
1. Improve supercharger
2. Improve fuel
3. Develop mechanical features that enable the engine to take care of the benefits of 1. and 2.
...and reading "Development of Piston Aero Engines" is a place to start but won't help you \/ or /\ !
Schlaiffer and Heron's book.. well 2 books in one really is the bible:
The Development of Aircraft Engines, by Robert Schlaifer and
The Development of Aviation Fuels, by S. D. Heron.
It has been out of print for years and I have to borrow a friends.. but this has just caught my eye.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
DB 601 A-0 Dry weight: 590kg Weight with devices: 705kg
DB 601 A-1 Dry weight: 610kg Weight with devices: 715kg
DB 601 Aa Dry weight: 590kg Weight with devices: 705kg
DB 601 N Dry weight: 610kg Weight with devices: 780kg
DB 601 E Dry weight: 610kg Weight with devices: 780kg
DB 605 A Dry weight: 720kg Weight with devices: 764kg
DB 605 AM Dry weight: 730kg Weight with devices: 796kg
DB 605 AS Dry weight: 730kg Weight with devices: 796kg
DB 605 ASM Dry weight: 730kg Weight with devices: 796kg
DB 605 DB Dry weight: 745kg Weight with devices: 815kg
DB 605 DC Dry weight: 745kg Weight with devices: 815kg
I don't know which devices were intentioned with "Weight with devices"!
To my opinion it is a power egg without cooling.
Because a Jumo 213 with supercharger all devices and cooling was 1,8 ts.
Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
Donl seesaw is "wippen" in german its a toy children play on going up and down.
Tartle
Airman
Thanks DonL...I'll get plotting!
I am thinking that looking back 60 odd years a way of thinking is that there was a range of technologies strategically available (or not.. thinking of octanes!) which each 'team' could adopt and improve, given the tactical situation at the time. So the realisation just prior to Battle of Britain that ME109s had variable props hastened the introduction in the field (RAF were modifying 20 per day)... the Merlin XX in Hurricane was just coming in at the end of BofB; the Merlin 45 followed in the Spitfire V quick modification (thousands built!) to match 109 improvements; then FW190 appeared and outclassed the Spitfire V so the IX with Merlin 60 series was rushed into service... first the 61 which gave good high altitude performance, then the 66 which matched the FW 190 at lower heights.... etc, etc.
I am thinking that looking back 60 odd years a way of thinking is that there was a range of technologies strategically available (or not.. thinking of octanes!) which each 'team' could adopt and improve, given the tactical situation at the time. So the realisation just prior to Battle of Britain that ME109s had variable props hastened the introduction in the field (RAF were modifying 20 per day)... the Merlin XX in Hurricane was just coming in at the end of BofB; the Merlin 45 followed in the Spitfire V quick modification (thousands built!) to match 109 improvements; then FW190 appeared and outclassed the Spitfire V so the IX with Merlin 60 series was rushed into service... first the 61 which gave good high altitude performance, then the 66 which matched the FW 190 at lower heights.... etc, etc.
Tartle
Airman
DonL's data sources.....
updated graphs:
They begin to tell a story....
updated graphs:
They begin to tell a story....
wuzak
Captain
In developing the 100 series Merlins Rolls-Royce set out to run a Mk66 for 100 hours at high boost. After several false starts and damaged engines, and upgrading the problematic parts, in late 1943 one Mk66 completed 100 hours of continuous running at +18psi boost. That equates to 100 hours at 1700-1800hp.
