Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The first problem I see is that a smaller radial (in terms of power) would be viewed as not meeting the requirements anytime after about 1941? By then the Germans had recognized the need for more power than an engine like the R-1820/-1830 could put out.
Cook what exactly?Note that timeline starts in 1935 - plenty of time to cook something before the shooting starts
If you want high powered engines start designing high powered engines. You will probably get a few (or more than few) failures, but you are going to get failures trying to scale something up or trying to get a crankset to run 20% faster let alone trying to add a 2nd cylinder bank.
P&W was fooling around with two row engines in 1929, they were not the first, but they may have been one of the first to use the center bearing. It took 3 years to actually introduce it for sale. A two bearing two row is shorter, it is lighter, but you are going to hit limits soon with crankshaft flex. BMW used 3 bearing pretty much from the start I believe?
Can we put a radial in Germany's tanks? No cooling system, though there is the Sherman-like height issue.
For the needs of this thread, Jumo and DB remain in the liquid cooled engines' business. Merge the other companies as you see fit, and probably as early as possible, and kill of designs you see fit. No licence deals with foreign companies.
I certainly don't expect that 'my' scenario will affect the outcome of the ww2. What it might change is the technical back and forth within Germany, and slightly in the Allied camp.With DB and Jumo remaining committed to liquid cooling, what latitude is there to do something dramatically different than OTL? In OTL BMW buys Bramo, and then has its hands full with the 801 in the run-up and for pretty much the duration of the war. Ok, so maybe Argus makes a small radial instead of the air-cooled V-12 used for trainers and a few low-volume aircraft. Maybe(?) a slight improvement, but won't really affect the course of the war one way or another.
I suspect that if you want to see some major changes, either DB or Jumo would also need to pivot to radials in order to bring enough R&D muscle to be able to produce another powerful radial in addition to the 801.
One potential problem with the radial strategy is that with radials running hotter than liquid cooled engines, this might exacerbate the valve issues that were already a huge problem for them in the OTL. Also requiring higher octane gas than equivalent liquid cooled engines again due to higher CHT, which was a problem for Germany.
That being said, without really pushing the envelope in radial engine performance, they could have used something like a simple cheap robust radial capable of running on B4 instead of the Jumo 211 as their standard bomber and transport engine.
Probably not feasible as the Panther was already taller than the M4A3 Sherman anyway.Can we put a radial in Germany's tanks? No cooling system, though there is the Sherman-like height issue.
I certainly don't expect that 'my' scenario will affect the outcome of the ww2.
As for the small radial - making 30000+ of 7 cyl radials of 20L and 500-600 HP should've been easier on the German budget, manhours and raw material supply than making the same number of V12 air cooled engines.
Radial engines were running well enough with 87 oct fuel. Granted, the 100 oct fuel is a boon if it can be had.
pressure-carburated versions with smaller valve overlap (= a bit less power and worse consumption) for transports; bombers can use either of the two.
Introduce the MW 50 system earlier, talk latest in mid-1943.
True. Those torsion bars really raise the floor. What the Germans needed was externally mounted bogie supension. And if the engine is at the rear, put the drive sprocket at the rear, like the British Cromwell, Centurion, US Pershing, and most modern MBTs. These two changes will lower the tank and allow for a radial engine.Probably not feasible as the Panther was already taller than the M4A3 Sherman anyway.
Sure, wasn't saying that. But just replacing the Argus 400 series engines with a radial of roughly equal power is, in the end, a rather minute change.
Maybe? Where does the cost difference come from? Are you assuming the cost is proportional to the number of cylinders (and thus proportional to the number of pistons, valves etc.)?
But if we look at a couple of close competitors in this size class, both the P&W R-985 and Wright R-975 were 9 cylinder engines, so you might want 9 in order to comfortably reach the power levels required? Which would slightly narrow the gap to a V-12.
Yes.. I was thinking of the "conventional" wisdom saying radials need higher octane than an equivalent inline. But that's a bit of a non-sensical comparison, as you can also give the inline higher octane. Yes, radials ran hotter, but they compensated by making less power/displacement and lighter construction. I guess the question is if you give a radial 100 octane instead of 87, how many % more power can you in principle get out of it vs. the same thing with an inline (assuming the engine otherwise is sturdy enough, S/C can cram enough air into it etc etc). Is there any reason to assume the relative performance increase would be any different for an air cooled vs. a liquid cooled engine? (I fear this might lead down a rabbit hole of knock tolerance of fuel as a function of CHT.)
True. Those torsion bars really raise the floor. What the Germans needed was externally mounted bogie supension. And if the engine is at the rear, put the drive sprocket at the rear, like the British Cromwell, Centurion, US Pershing, and most modern MBTs. These two changes will lower the tank and allow for a radial engine.
I've always liked the Merkava. Put the engine in the front as added protection for the crew. Plus you can carry four infantrymen in the back, or more ammo/stuff.Nah, I think torsion bars were the correct choice, at least in the sense that most tanks, both Western and USSR, have used torsion bars since WWII, presumably for good reasons. As for putting the transmission in the rear, that's probably the solution. That might lead to a very front-heavy tank however, as the front hull armor and the heavy turret are packed at the front. It sort-of worked for the T-34, but that was a relatively light tank and the same approach might not have worked well for a heavier tank like the Panther. Then again, it worked fine for the Centurion. Many other post-war tanks mounted the engine transversely, which also helped keep the rear end reasonably short and thus the tank overall better balanced.