Most Important Aircraft Engine of the War?

[syscom3]

I was pondering "what engine made a difference that was different than from the others".

I thought the Merlin would fit the bill, but it wasnt an engine that radically changed the war or its outcome.

The R2800 was an excellent engine, but high fuel consumption does limit its usefullness for long range operations.

So I chose the -3350 as the whole B29 program would have come to an end (and it almost did because of the engine problems early in the war).

I'm now contemplating whether one of the lower powered engine's that powered the intermediate level trainers was more important. If there was one area of WW2 aviation that the allies were superior at, was the training of vast hordes of pilots that had an overall good quality. And a reliable engine for a trainer means a novice pilot will not auger in (as frequently).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not necessarily Lanc, there was not another aircraft at the time that could carry the bomb but at the same time I agree with you that is a weak arguement for best engine.

Again I say lets keep this out of the thread. This thread does not need to be poluted like the other threads.

 

[syscom3]

i can't help but think this will be yet annother one he wont back down on, it was the bomb, not the means of delivery that changed the world........

It wasnt the bomb that changed things, it was the delivery system. And if the -3350 wasnt available, then the B29 wasnt going to fly, and the atomic bomb wasnt going to be able to be used in a practical manner.

 

[k9kiwi]

You mean this?

 

[k9kiwi]

from this..

 

[pbfoot]

The Kinners Menascos Lycomings and Continentals Rangers and Jacobs were all easier to work and maintain then the Gypsy Major

 

[davparlr]

It wasnt the bomb that changed things, it was the delivery system. And if the -3350 wasnt available, then the B29 wasnt going to fly, and the atomic bomb wasnt going to be able to be used in a practical manner.

I am not sure that this is true. The AF was planning alternative engines just in case the 3350 failed, including the XB-39 which flew in '44 with basically dual Allisons connected (reliability issue?) ala He-177, By '45 the R 2800 was generating similar HP (more at altitude), and I am sure the AF would have expedited the R4360 with the failure of the 3350. The R4360 flew in May 45 as it was.

Of course, reliabilty and development problems are unknown for the above alternatives, but, if the 3350 had not worked out, you can bet there would have been lots of development and money to make one work.

I have tried to select just one engine, but I cannot. The PW-2800 powered many superb aircraft, P-47, F6F, F4U, F8F, A-26, and others, but the Merlin powered the Spitfire, P-51, Lancaster, and many others. German engines are less familar. If the DB 600 series is like the PW-2800 family, then it too powered many great aircraft. These seem to be the greatest engines considering the impact on the war.

 

[pbfoot]

I'll approach the PW 1830 record this way
it powered
-all the bombers in the most powerful air unit of the war the 8th AF
-virtually every aircraft in the Battle of Midway and early Pacific war in the Wildcat and Dauntless
-the 3 aircraft that closed the gap in the N Atlantic the Lib , Catalina and Sunderland
-75% of the aircraft flying the Hump the C47
-it flew in quantity in every theatre of the war in every climate and extreme
-and it outlived all the other engines without any debate

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree pb - it also powered the over-all best aircraft of WW2 - the C-47...

 

[davparlr]

I'll approach the PW 1830 record this way
it powered
-all the bombers in the most powerful air unit of the war the 8th AF
-virtually every aircraft in the Battle of Midway and early Pacific war in the Wildcat and Dauntless
-the 3 aircraft that closed the gap in the N Atlantic the Lib , Catalina and Sunderland
-75% of the aircraft flying the Hump the C47
-it flew in quantity in every theatre of the war in every climate and extreme
-and it outlived all the other engines without any debate

So many engines with such good arguments. I picked three engines that I felt powered formidable aircraft for the majority of the war. The 1830 was the "jeep" of the war and holds honor for that position and the fact it held off the enemy until overwhelming forces could be fielded. But, all the aircraft you mentioned were obsolete by end of 1943.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

let's not get too carried away here, only the Mk.V Sunderland was powered by the P&W, the others had Bristol engines..........

so as i see it the major players here are the P&W -1830 and the Merlin?

 

[Hunter368]

I'll approach the PW 1830 record this way
it powered
-all the bombers in the most powerful air unit of the war the 8th AF
-virtually every aircraft in the Battle of Midway and early Pacific war in the Wildcat and Dauntless
-the 3 aircraft that closed the gap in the N Atlantic the Lib , Catalina and Sunderland
-75% of the aircraft flying the Hump the C47
-it flew in quantity in every theatre of the war in every climate and extreme
-and it outlived all the other engines without any debate

I assume it was in fighters, what fighters was it in? Just wondering

 

[kool kitty89]

You probably already have answered this already elsewhere (as it's been nearly a year), but the the R-1830 did power quitw a few fighters, most noticeably the F4F Wildcat, but also the CAC Boomerang, FFVS J 22, P-35, P-66, P-36, and P-43. And I doubt the Allison V-3420 (twin allison V-1710) would have had anywhere near the problems of the Twin DB 605 engines of the He 177. The V-3420 used two V-1710 engines mounted on a common crankcase at 30 degrees. The twin DB 605's shared a common driveshaft so torque and vibration were serious problems.

 

[Instal]

It has to be the Merlin. Without the Merlin no P51. No P51, no successful raids deep into Germany. No successful raids deep into Germany, no destruction of the Luftwafe. No destruction of the Luftwafe, no victory.

Case closed

 

[lastwarrior]

The Pratt Whitney R-2800 "Double Wasp" engine is good in terms of power to weight, performance at various altitudes and reliability.

 

[mad_max]

What Instal posted ^^^^.

 

[Instal]

What Instal posted ^^^^.

WOW after 70 some odd posts someone finally agrees with me on something.

 

[kool kitty89]

You could say the same for the V-1710 though. What would have happened in the pacific without P-40s or P-38s (and to a lesser extent the P-39). For the R-2800 there's the F6F and F4U which the navy would have been crippled without. Immagine the F4F trying to continue on the front line in 1944 (or F2As for that matter)... Or if there was no P-47, verry bad for the US in the early days in the ETO.

Also I cant see why the B-29 couldn't use an uprated R-2800 instead of its Cyclones, the 2800-57C put out 2,800 hp, and though it had some mechanical problems early on, I doubt it would be more troublesome than the 3350's. Plus the B-29's R-3350-23 engines were rated at only 2,200 hp and many models of the 2800 met or exceded that. Even the earlier 2800s put out 2,000-2,100 hp.

Not saying the Merlin was any less important, but it's really hard to say it's the MOST important... Besides if they'd been able to use a turbo on the P-51 the Merlin-61 would have been unnecessary. (the V-1710 with auxiliary supercharger would have worked like in the P-63 which had a slightly higher ceiling than the P-51, though this wasn't ready 'till 1943; as a plus the P-63's engine had a higher millitary power than the Merlin 61, 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection, and it was lighter)

-Most important UK piston engine is the Merlin Hands down, though.

-Most important USN engine is the R-2800 (though the TBD, and F4F's 1830 was also quite important, though mostly early in the war) The R-1820 of the Dauntless and F2A was also quite important. (The Navy could have done fine if they had F2A2's in quantity instead of Wildcats IMHO)


-USAAF: not so clear, the V-1710 is up there (definitely the most important Liquid-cooled engine), but the 2800 isn't too far behind, and the merlin is there too. Though without It we wouldn't have had an effective fighter to stave off the Japanese in the early says of WWII, both the P-40 and P-39 are highly insremental in this, and later the P-38. What is the P-40 without an Allison, just a P-36 with a stronger armament. And don't say the merlin could be used instead, since though it was later substituted in some, there were nowhere near enough merlins for this in 1940, and the Packard V-1650 wasn't even run untill 1941. Plus ther were all the engines used for bombers and attack a/c.

-And of course the C-47 used the 1830, but I think there were alternatives.

And even so there was no fundemental flaw in the V-1710 that made it less than the Merlin (indeed the early models of each were pretty equal), but it was a USAAC philosophy that gave the bad altitude performance seen in the P-40, P-39, and P-51A.

"The most serious change, however, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger. This change was a result of a shift in philosophy on the part of the USAAC. The USAAC believed that the widths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the USA virtually immune from high-altitude attack by enemy bombers. Therefore, the development of high-altitude interceptors was curtailed in favor of strike fighters optimized for low-level close support. The 1150 hp V-1710-17 (E2) of the XP-39 was replaced by a V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated at an altitude of 13,300 feet."

"The Allison V-1710 aircraft engine was the only indigenous US-developed V-12 liquid-cooled engine to see service during WWII. A sturdy and trustworthy design, it unfortunately lacked an advanced and efficient mechanical centrifugal supercharger. Although versions with a turbosupercharger did give excellent performance at high altitude in the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the turbosupercharger was only fitted to experimental single seat fighters, with the same excellent results. The preference for turbosuperchargers, arguably to the neglect of mechanical supercharger development, reflected US Army philosophy, and not the inherent qualities of the Allison engine...The Army had earlier decided to concentrate on turbosuperchargers for high altitude boost, believing that further development of mechanical turbochargers would allow their engines to outperform European rivals using superchargers. Turbosuperchargers are powered by the engine exhaust and so do not draw power from the engine, whereas superchargers are connected directly by gears to the engine crankshaft. Superchargers as a result require increasing proportions of engine power as altitude increases (the two-stage supercharger of the Merlin 60 series engines consumed some 230-280 horsepower at 30,000 ft). General Electric was the sole source for research and production of American turbosuperchargers...However, mating the turbosupercharger with the Allison V-1710 proved to be far more problematic. As a result, designers of the fighter planes that utilized the V-1710 were invariably forced to choose between the poor high altitude performance of the V-1710 versus the increased problems brought on by addition of the turbosupercharger. The fates of all of the V-1710 powered fighters of World War II would thus hinge on that choice...The original XP-39 was built with a turbosupercharged V-1710. Numerous changes were made to the design of the production version (after a review by aerodynamicists at Langley Field), including a decision to drop the turbosupercharger. This decision came out of a combination of the severe teething problems encountered with the turbosupercharger mated to the V-1710, as well as the belief of the Army at that time that high altitude performance was not necessary in a fighter plane. The P-39 was thus stuck with poor high altitude performance and proved unsuitable for the air war in Western Europe, which was largely conducted at high altitudes. The P-39 was rejected by the British, used briefly by the U.S. in the early Pacific air war, and then was exiled by the USAAF to the Soviet Union under the Lend Lease program. The Soviets were still able to make good use of P-39s because of its excellent maneuverability and because the air war on the Eastern Front in Europe was largely short ranged, tactical, and conducted at lower altitudes."

 

[kool kitty89]

As for Jets though, I'm surprised Delcyros didn't mention the HeS-30, its development was proceding much more smoothly and rapidly han the BMW-003 and it was better than the 004 or 003 in almost every way. Had it not been canceled, it would have been the best German engine of the war. (in production breifly after the 004 entered operational service and long before the 003, also likely much easier to build than the 003)

The Jumo 004 was a good design simply because of its ease of production. It was heavy, but fairly narrow, produce a good amount of thrust, but the key was producabillity. Form the outset Jumo chose a design thet both used the advanced axial compressor, but they took a conservative approach otherwise which meant the engine could go from prototype to production almost immediately. Thus thousands of engines were able to be produced before the end of the war. It was the most practical of all the German engines!

 

[Airborne]

I'm with the Merlin guys. The war had to be won. Facism had to be beaten. The single most important engine that helped bring down Facism was the Merlin.
Jet engines had very little part to play in winning WW2. The Allies had it won with pistoned engines.
The few short range Me-262s that ventured into the skies were set apon by virtual swams of long range P-51s.