special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,662
- May 13, 2018
That sounds more reasonable. After all, we paid Mauser for patent infringements on the Springfield 03.
The "best fighter engine in the world"
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,662
- May 13, 2018
That sounds more reasonable. After all, we paid patent infringement to Mauser for the Springfield 03.
Shortround6
Major General
The US gave/loaned money to a lot of German industries after the war as part of the Marshall plan. The US gave a lot more money to Great Britain and France.
I don't know how much Ford of Germany got or if was reparations/compensation or economic rebuilding. People can slap a lot of labels on the same amount/payment of money. The US gave Germany over 1 billion dollars in 1948-52 dollars as part of the Marshall plan.
Conspiracy theories are all well and good but they have to be believable on more than a superficial level.
Like could the US bombers manage to miss the Ford factory while hitting other factories in the same city?
Or did the US avoid the whole city or a large part of it?
Were the British in on it? They just bombed (mostly) whole cities. Wouldn't do Ford of German much good if the Americans didn't bomb with in a mile or two of them and then the British come in with hundreds of planes at night and bomb the whole city with incendiaries.
The British did bomb Cologne (the city in which Ford was located) 262 times during the war.
I dont understand your way of thinking. The Alison powered aircrafts were mediocre. The p40 , both in N.Africa and on the easrtern front suffered heavy casualties against the inferior powered Bf109s , despite the fact that enjoyed significant numerical superiority at both fronts. Often they had spitfire escort in their missions The P38 also failed to demonstrate clear superiority over the Lw , in fact it also suffered in occasions heavy casualties against the much cheaper german fighters. German pilots consider it relatively easy to outmanouver.
The russian p39s scored many victories but suffered even more casualties despite also big numerical superiority.
In short, no alison powered aircraft , provided the allies with a great advantage over the lw. The nemesis of the jagdwaffe ,on technical level,was the spitfire and the p51. Both merlin powered, demonstrated absolute superiority at all altitudes over the german fighters.Even the p47 , its main advantage was not the r2800b it self but the turbosupercharger and its great superiority was at altitude. At low/ mid altitude it had little advantage against a Bf109G10 or K4 which were much much cheaper and simpler aircraft
Actually i not only consider the rr merlin the best, but by also by a huge margin
Kevin J
Banned
You've missed my points here. Let me clarify, I'm talking about the use by the USAAF of fighters in an offensive air war with a brief mention of their use as fighters by the Soviets, not of the employment of fighters to defend one's industrial base, ports, warships or forces on the ground. If its purely defence then clearly you want the Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon / Tempest so its the Merlin, Griffon and Sabre engines, but air defence doesn't win wars, it just means you don't lose.I didn't mention the Thunderbolt because it didn't score the highest number of victories in the ETO by the USAAF, the Merlin powered Mustang did. For the RAF its the Hurricane, circa 6000, followed by the Spitfire, circa 3500. Clearly the Hurricane must have have better than the Merlin Mustang. LOL. If I was looking for the best fighter to support my ground forces in Europe then for the Normandy invasion I would choose the Thunderbolt with its R-2800 because although the Typhoon / Tempest with its Sabre would no doubt better a Thunderbolt in combat, the Thunderbolt had better payload range characteristics and could intercept everything up to any altitude such as bomb laden Me 262's or recce Ar 234's. In the MTO, the Allison powered Lightning was employed throughout the American campaign and ended up with the greatest number of victories; no mention of the British Allison powered Kittyhawk or American Merlin powered Warhawks which provided the cover for our forces on the ground or the Hurricane / Spitfires providing top cover, over Malta alone there were about 500 Hurricane and 800 Spitfire victories. The RAF in North Africa used the Tomahawk II / Kittyhawk I for air superiority from mid 1941 to mid 1942, both were Allison powered as it was a better plane for that theatre than either the Hurricane or Spitfire until the Spitfire Vc and Merlin powered Warhawk arrived. In the CBI, and at the end of a very long supply chain, the top scorer is the Allison powered Warhawk with twice the number of victories scored as the Merlin powered Mustang which when it finally did arrive was clearly the better fighter. The USAAF there used its Allison powered Mustangs for counter air, but retained their Allison powered Warhawks as their principal dogfighter as it was the superior of the two. North American Aviation still had work to do to turn the Mustang into a capable dog fighter. In the PTO, the numbers speak for themselves and is more clear cut. On the Eastern Front, the Soviet fighters were designed to defend the bombers supporting the army on the ground, while the American fighters could be used more aggressively clearing the skies of the Lufwaffe before their bombers and attack aircraft went in. Yaks were used for close escort and Lavochkins for top cover, so its the Cobra pilots that scored the victories. The Soviets used their Kittyhawks to the end of the war, the later versions being used for air defence, escort and fighter bombing in quieter zones. For air defence, they had our Hurricanes and Spitfires and your Thunderbolts after they retired their LaGG-3's and Mig-3's. Perhaps we should include their engines in the list which were license built and re-developed Hispano-Suiza and Wright double cyclone engines? Don't knock the Allison powered Kittyhawk Ia's operating in late 1942, those Allison engines could develop 1750/1780 hp at low altitudes for 15/20 minutes so more than a match for a Fw 190A fighter bomber or Bf 109G.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Attributing victories to a particular make of engine seems a bit much. It leaves out a lot of things, like airframe, armament, pilot training and tactical situation.
The Russian engines "scored" a lot of victories because they built a lot, wiki says 129,000 M-105s but that may include earlier versions?
It is also no measure of the actual attributes of the engine, like power to weight, reliability and longevity.
Putting M-105s in Western planes, like the P-40 and P-38 would have seen lower speeds, poorer climb, even worse performance at altitude and a much greater need for replacement engines and spare parts. Pouring 100/130 fuel into the tanks and screwing the boost control up would have resulted in very short engine life indeed.
The Ash-82 engine was NOT license built/re-developed double cyclone. Shvetsov and team started with a single row Cyclone, developed it with some aid from Wright but the 14 cylinder version was done by the Russians themselves. It used bigger bore and shorter stroke than the Twin Cyclone R-2600. The double Cyclone was the R-3350. Shvetsov and team went through 4 versions of an 18 cylinder engine before getting one into production.
Changing bore and stroke on an aircraft engine was a big deal as it affected quite a bit of things. Many companies kept the same bore and stroke while changing everything else. Like pistons, connecting rods, cylinders, cylinder heads, crankshafts and so on.
Merlins not only increased in power, they added 20-40% in engine life during the course of the war (The ALlison and R-2800 also increased engine life)
On the other had give 1000 Allisons to the Italians and have them stick them in Mc 202s, Re 2001, or the abortave Fiat G.50V and have the Italians keep the same armament of two 12.7mm Breda machine guns through the prop and the number of Italian victories is not going to change a whole lot.
The Russian engines "scored" a lot of victories because they built a lot, wiki says 129,000 M-105s but that may include earlier versions?
It is also no measure of the actual attributes of the engine, like power to weight, reliability and longevity.
Putting M-105s in Western planes, like the P-40 and P-38 would have seen lower speeds, poorer climb, even worse performance at altitude and a much greater need for replacement engines and spare parts. Pouring 100/130 fuel into the tanks and screwing the boost control up would have resulted in very short engine life indeed.
The Ash-82 engine was NOT license built/re-developed double cyclone. Shvetsov and team started with a single row Cyclone, developed it with some aid from Wright but the 14 cylinder version was done by the Russians themselves. It used bigger bore and shorter stroke than the Twin Cyclone R-2600. The double Cyclone was the R-3350. Shvetsov and team went through 4 versions of an 18 cylinder engine before getting one into production.
Changing bore and stroke on an aircraft engine was a big deal as it affected quite a bit of things. Many companies kept the same bore and stroke while changing everything else. Like pistons, connecting rods, cylinders, cylinder heads, crankshafts and so on.
Merlins not only increased in power, they added 20-40% in engine life during the course of the war (The ALlison and R-2800 also increased engine life)
On the other had give 1000 Allisons to the Italians and have them stick them in Mc 202s, Re 2001, or the abortave Fiat G.50V and have the Italians keep the same armament of two 12.7mm Breda machine guns through the prop and the number of Italian victories is not going to change a whole lot.
I respect your opinion. However i do consider that it has not touch with reality. The poor old , poorly powered Bf 109 had not problem to defeat the P40 at any front, no matter in defence or offence despite being constantly outnumbered. In North Africa the p40 had spitfire top cover despite the fact that p40 formations had 3-4 times numerical superiority
On the eastern front no soviet elite unit which could choose its equipment chose the P40. German 2 fighter formations did not hesitate to engage 8,10 or even 12 p40 s on the eastern
front. They had more respect for the P39 but less that that for the La5/7 or Yak 3.
The P38 did score heavily but only due very favorable circumstances. And it did suffer significant casualties on several occasions
In my opinion the title of best engine should go to the engine that permitted the creation of fighters that both on paper and operationally outperformed the enemy. WW2 would be different without the Merlin powered spitfire, and would last slightly more without the merlin powered P51. No allison or r2800 aircraft can make such a claim for the european theater.
And one last thing. The merlin powered Spitfire and P51 not only totaly dominated the Bf 109 and Fw190 but also outperformed any contemporary allison and r2800B fighter.
Kevin J
Banned
The USSR never developed their strategic bombing capability because they didn't believe bombers could hit their targets effectively. They concentrated on support for their army and they defeated the Germans. The Yak's were designed as escorts for the Il-2 and their task was to drive off those fighters intercepting them. Except for the late war Yak-3 they were outperformed by Luftwaffe fighters but they performed their tasks well without scoring large numbers of victories. In North Africa, the Luftwaffe may have dominated the skies with their boom and zoom tactics but they didn't protect their troops on the ground against the Allison powered Kittyhawk fighter bombers. They lost there too, just like they did in Italy. Over France, the Luftwaffe was driven from the skies. Over Germany, it was the Thunderbolts that broke the back of the German air defences, giving the Mustangs a clear run to destroy the remainder. Over England, it was the Hurricane that claimed the destruction of 6000 German aircraft, while the Spitfire only managed 3500 in the entire war. Its not me that is delusional here. You've been reading too much of the wartime and post war propaganda.
Yes, in n.africa l&II Jg27 failed to protect their troops. But not because of the quality of the allison p40. 60 bf 109 s with limited fuelagainst 800 desert air force aircraft was not going to end well for the germans, no matter how many p40 s were shooting down more were appearing. On the other had the spitfires even with tropical filters were extraordinary opponents.
In italy was even worse for the germans, but again spitfire was the formidable opponent.
Over france lw was driven from the skies. I agree. Because of the spitfire! No allison powered aircraft played any role in 1941 -43 over france. Channel front was only for top class aircrafts! Event the early p 47 were doing very high altitude sweeps without coming down to fight. Only after building massive numerical superiority , the p47s went after the already exausted lw. And having the advantage that the lw fighters had orders to attack heavy bombers first. It was the merlin spitfire which after 4 years of continius combat broke the lw.
Also by 1945 the american 8th air force was equiped only with merlin aircrafts except the 56fg. No allison aircrafts in air superiority role and just 56fg with r2800.
Obviously you are an american , and you feel insulted that i put an engine from another country in no 1 position
ps1 why usaaf did not use the allison p39 against lw? Or even p 63?
ps2 very interesting your claim that the p47 could out run me 262 s and ar 234.
Kevin J
Banned
I'm a Brit, I think you mean Merlin Mustang finally destroyed the Luftwaffe over Europe. In the Med, Merlin Warhawk, Spitfire and Mustang but the Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Lightnings played just as significant a role with the Lightning the top scorer in the USAAF. Agreed, no Kittyhawks in Europe but we had the Typhoon which was better.I think you'll find German jet speeds are best performance, take off 10% for worst speeds, another 120 mph with bombs fitted.The Cobras were best suited to Eastern Front conditions.
Shortround6
Major General
Lets not confuse "best" with "most important" or "most produced" or some other factor.
The Sabre might have been the best from a technical geewhiz point of view but had a few strikes against.
Any contender for best engine needs to consider things like competitive power, reliability, durability, and even produce-ability.
Counting kills leads to absurd conclusions like the Merlin III was a better engine than the Merlin 72.
The Sabre might have been the best from a technical geewhiz point of view but had a few strikes against.
Any contender for best engine needs to consider things like competitive power, reliability, durability, and even produce-ability.
Counting kills leads to absurd conclusions like the Merlin III was a better engine than the Merlin 72.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Source for this? Seems suspect to me, as the Hurricane was replaced in the air to air role and delegated to other duties by 1941
Kevin J
Banned
Its on these forums somewhere, you need to dig it out, but the Hurricane was still being used for fighter duties in the UK until the end of 1941. Go and look at our two Czech squadrons on Wikipedia as an example of victories scored on Hurricanes as opposed to Spitfires. They didn't re-equip with Spitfires until the end of 1941. There are detailed figures for one of the squadrons. Two thirds of their victories were scored on Hurricanes in 18 months, the remaining victories were scored in the next 42 months of war. If the rest of the RAF is the same then that would explain it and remember it was the American fighters that from early 1943 penetrated European airspace and drove the Luftwaffe from the skies. The bulk of the Luftwaffe's fighters were on the Eastern Front until the 8th Air Force became such a threat that it resulted in most of the Luftwaffe's fighters being used in the defence of the Reich. So for the RAF, slim pickings from mid 1941 until the end of the war, especially for the Spitfires. Over Malta, MTO, it was 500 Hurricane victories to 800 Spitfire victories. Don't know the rest of the figures for the MTO, only bits of them.
1. Does it consistently make rated power?
2. Can it be repaired in the field by sleep deprived mechanics of minimal skill?
3. Can it be handled care free by the pilot?
4. Is it damage tolerant?
5. Is it efficient? (HP:LB/SFC, etc.)
6. Is there room for power increases without losing 1-5?
7. Is the MTBFR better than average?
8. Can it be easily built and is the IP owner willing to let others build it? (Politics matter.)
IMO, R2800 and Merlin are probably the only two WWII engines that meet the above arbitrary criteria
2. Can it be repaired in the field by sleep deprived mechanics of minimal skill?
3. Can it be handled care free by the pilot?
4. Is it damage tolerant?
5. Is it efficient? (HP:LB/SFC, etc.)
6. Is there room for power increases without losing 1-5?
7. Is the MTBFR better than average?
8. Can it be easily built and is the IP owner willing to let others build it? (Politics matter.)
IMO, R2800 and Merlin are probably the only two WWII engines that meet the above arbitrary criteria
GregP
Major
The Allison V-1710 did all of the above quite well. It was partitculalrly VERY good at lasting longer than a Merlin, and still does today. Where it fell and still falls short is high-altitude performance. The Merlin has it there, hands down, along with overall wartime production numbers. And neither the Merlin nor the Allison were worn out when they were recycled for overhaul. The standard U.S. military practice was to overhaul them while the engine blocks were still good enough so that over 95% of the engines could make it through overhaul. So, they had a LOT of useful service life left when they reached wartime TBO. So, the fact that the Allison could last longer wasn't really much of a factor. The Merlins were ALSO overhauled before they were worn out.
Did Allisons have issues at first? Yes. But, you didn't see Allison-powered planes falling from the skies anywhere. The Merlin was easily the best V-12 for the Allies for the high-altitude ETO but, elsewhere, the Allison did just fine, as claimed above. They took wartime overboost VERY well, and could be overboosted for extended periods with little effect showing. Many P-40s were flown at 75" MAP and above when necessary. Of course, the Merlin also could handle some overboost without ill effect, but not quite as much. Merlin rods fail before Allison rods do, horsepower-wise anyway. Merlin rods go away at about 2,500 HP. Allison rods win Reno at 3,850 HP regularly. But these weren't WWII numbers, so they are unimportant to wartime engine analysis.
Both served VERY reliably.
The highest-scoring engine in the PTO was the R-2800 in the F6F. The Hellcat handily outscored the P-38, though the P-38 was no slouch, being flown by seven of the top 10 aces in the PTO as well as our two highest-scoring aces of the war.
If I were picking a best fighter engine for the war, I'd choose the R-2800 followed by the Merlin, with the Allison coming in third, if only by virtue of production numbers and wartime success. But, it is very hard to argue strongly against the DB 601/605 series as VERY successful as well as the BMW 801. Togther they powered some very impressive warplnes with fantastic records for figher-versus-fighter performance.
Tough question. I consider the Bf 109 to be the most successful fighter ever at individual fighter-versus-fighter combat, even if it was on the losing side. It's actual success at being a fighter cannot be diminished by anyone looking at WWII combat seriously.
Did Allisons have issues at first? Yes. But, you didn't see Allison-powered planes falling from the skies anywhere. The Merlin was easily the best V-12 for the Allies for the high-altitude ETO but, elsewhere, the Allison did just fine, as claimed above. They took wartime overboost VERY well, and could be overboosted for extended periods with little effect showing. Many P-40s were flown at 75" MAP and above when necessary. Of course, the Merlin also could handle some overboost without ill effect, but not quite as much. Merlin rods fail before Allison rods do, horsepower-wise anyway. Merlin rods go away at about 2,500 HP. Allison rods win Reno at 3,850 HP regularly. But these weren't WWII numbers, so they are unimportant to wartime engine analysis.
Both served VERY reliably.
The highest-scoring engine in the PTO was the R-2800 in the F6F. The Hellcat handily outscored the P-38, though the P-38 was no slouch, being flown by seven of the top 10 aces in the PTO as well as our two highest-scoring aces of the war.
If I were picking a best fighter engine for the war, I'd choose the R-2800 followed by the Merlin, with the Allison coming in third, if only by virtue of production numbers and wartime success. But, it is very hard to argue strongly against the DB 601/605 series as VERY successful as well as the BMW 801. Togther they powered some very impressive warplnes with fantastic records for figher-versus-fighter performance.
Tough question. I consider the Bf 109 to be the most successful fighter ever at individual fighter-versus-fighter combat, even if it was on the losing side. It's actual success at being a fighter cannot be diminished by anyone looking at WWII combat seriously.
Last edited:
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure the top aces in the PTO used the Nakajima Sakae engine
Did Allisons have issues at first? Yes. But, you didn't see Allison-powered planes falling from the skies anywhere. The Merlin was easily the best V-12 for the Allies for the high-altitude ETO but, elsewhere, the Allison did just fine, as claimed above. They took wartime overboost VERY well, and could be overboosted for extended periods with little effect showing. Many P-40s were flown at 75" MAP and above when necessary. Of course, the Merlin also could handle some overboost without ill effect, but not quite as much. Merlin rods fail before ALlison rods do, horsepower-wise anyway. Merlin rods go away at about 2,500 HP. Allison rods win Reno at 3,850 HP regularly. But these weren't WWII numbers, so they are unimportant to wartime engine analysis.
Both served VERY reliably.
If I were picking a best fighter engine for the war, I'd choose the R-2800 followed by the Merlin, with the Allison coming in third, if only by virtue of production numbers and wartime success. But, it is very hard to argue strongly against the DB 601/605 series as VERY successful as well as the BMW 801. Together they powered some very impressive warplanes with fantastic records for fighter-versus-fighter performance.
Tough question. I consider the Bf 109 to be the most successful fighter ever at individual fighter-versus-fighter combat, even if it was on the losing side. It's actual success at being a fighter cannot be diminished by anyone looking at WWII combat seriously.[/QUOTE]
Hello Greg,
I thought about Axis and Allied engines before I came up with my R2800/Merlin tie. I knocked the V1710 out due to the problems in getting the engine to go high later in the war at higher power settings (The "G" series had a few issues.)
The DB series or the 801? Didn't develop the HP in the later variants.
Please note, that I was very, very careful to separate the engine characteristics from any airframe characteristic with the criteria I selected.
I know some people here will think I'm splitting hairs, but the title is "The best fighter engine in the world"
And, to commit the ultimate blasphemy, If I was going to buy a civilian warbird? Given the octane/lead content available today and the type of flying? I I would pick an R1820 or V1710 powered aircraft over an R2800 or a Merlin powered aircraft. (A good civil engine isn't always the best military engine.)
Both served VERY reliably.
If I were picking a best fighter engine for the war, I'd choose the R-2800 followed by the Merlin, with the Allison coming in third, if only by virtue of production numbers and wartime success. But, it is very hard to argue strongly against the DB 601/605 series as VERY successful as well as the BMW 801. Together they powered some very impressive warplanes with fantastic records for fighter-versus-fighter performance.
Tough question. I consider the Bf 109 to be the most successful fighter ever at individual fighter-versus-fighter combat, even if it was on the losing side. It's actual success at being a fighter cannot be diminished by anyone looking at WWII combat seriously.[/QUOTE]
Hello Greg,
I thought about Axis and Allied engines before I came up with my R2800/Merlin tie. I knocked the V1710 out due to the problems in getting the engine to go high later in the war at higher power settings (The "G" series had a few issues.)
The DB series or the 801? Didn't develop the HP in the later variants.
Please note, that I was very, very careful to separate the engine characteristics from any airframe characteristic with the criteria I selected.
I know some people here will think I'm splitting hairs, but the title is "The best fighter engine in the world"
And, to commit the ultimate blasphemy, If I was going to buy a civilian warbird? Given the octane/lead content available today and the type of flying? I I would pick an R1820 or V1710 powered aircraft over an R2800 or a Merlin powered aircraft. (A good civil engine isn't always the best military engine.)
GregP
Major
My mistake, Clayton ... top U.S. Aces. I thought it was obvious I was talking U..S. pilots ... For just top seven Pacific aces, you are undoubtedly correct ... Nishizawa through Nakada.
Hi Jetcat,
I really like the Allison today, but the G-seies, as well as the early engines, DID have issues. Most were and ARE fixable, easily. It's the old trick of actually DOING it that helps! You can get a really nice G-series today that runs great and makes high horsepower reliably. But there are not many left!
The Merlins, Allisons, and DB's all ran great when they were running right. When they weren't, none were any good. In general, I'd say most ran well enough. Today, if you treat them right, both the Melrin and the Allison should give you long, reliable service. So will the rare DB 601/605.
In WWII, the Merlin was the ticket for higher altitudes in a single-engine fighter. The only single engine Allison with 2-stage supercharging I recall just now was a variant of the P-63 that we didn't buy. Too bad, but it DID have a short range, and might not have helped all that much had we bought it. The 2-stage Griffon and Merlin-powered guys were the cat's meow at the time for Allied V-12s. Right through the endof the war, a Merlin would have been fine ... unless you just HAD to fly a Griffon Spitfire. Then, you'd best get used to using oppositre rudder.
German engines ran just fine, for the most part. But they put SO MUCH effort into trying to develop new, higher-power engines, they wasted a lot of development potential from existing service engine blocks. Foresight wasn't a strong point of the RLM directives in Germany during the war. Of course, they didn't have a lock on lunacy. We ALL had it to to a degree.
Hi Jetcat,
I really like the Allison today, but the G-seies, as well as the early engines, DID have issues. Most were and ARE fixable, easily. It's the old trick of actually DOING it that helps! You can get a really nice G-series today that runs great and makes high horsepower reliably. But there are not many left!
The Merlins, Allisons, and DB's all ran great when they were running right. When they weren't, none were any good. In general, I'd say most ran well enough. Today, if you treat them right, both the Melrin and the Allison should give you long, reliable service. So will the rare DB 601/605.
In WWII, the Merlin was the ticket for higher altitudes in a single-engine fighter. The only single engine Allison with 2-stage supercharging I recall just now was a variant of the P-63 that we didn't buy. Too bad, but it DID have a short range, and might not have helped all that much had we bought it. The 2-stage Griffon and Merlin-powered guys were the cat's meow at the time for Allied V-12s. Right through the endof the war, a Merlin would have been fine ... unless you just HAD to fly a Griffon Spitfire. Then, you'd best get used to using oppositre rudder.
German engines ran just fine, for the most part. But they put SO MUCH effort into trying to develop new, higher-power engines, they wasted a lot of development potential from existing service engine blocks. Foresight wasn't a strong point of the RLM directives in Germany during the war. Of course, they didn't have a lock on lunacy. We ALL had it to to a degree.
Last edited:
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
It WAS obvious, I was just being facetious.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
From optics alone, I really like the DB engines, if for nothing else than their exceptionally clean installation
