davebender
1st Lieutenant
No argument there. Especially since 960hp BMW 132 was already in production and it was dirt cheap compared to most other German aircraft engines.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think the Bristol Blenheim is an aircraft that would have been better with something more powerful than the Mercury. It was a good aircraft in the 30s, but after that 'easy-meat'.
I said 'reliable' engine. The A.80, P.XI, P.XII and P.XIX were all unreliable. The licence produced DBs do not count. The AR.128 produced almost 1000 hp, so I will correct my statement to no reliable engines over 1000 hp.Used in production aircrafts: A.80, P.XI, P.XII, P.XIX, Ra.1000, Ra.1050, AR 128.
Homologated, but used in aircraft prototypes only: AR 135, A.82, P.XVII, Zeta.
As soon as I saw this thread, I thought of you, Tomo. I am sure you could come up with two dozen of re-engined aircraft proposals!Fairey Fulmar was in need for more engine power, ditto the Firefly (rectified once two stage Griffon was installed). Spitfire could've used more HP, from time after BoB until the 2-stage Merlin entered service. Fw-190 and Bf-109 needed more power in 1944. Albacore needed, say, Twin Wasp, ditto for the Beaufort? French airplanes needed more HP, too.
Why not put a DB 606 there while you're at itHow many times do we have to tell you that the BMW 132 was too big and too heavy to be "plug in" replacement for the the Gnome-Rhone M ?
Ye, you could make a ground attack twin using BMW 132 engines but it would have very few parts in common with the HS 129 no matter what you call it.
nobody seems to be able to point out what problems the Peregrine actually had, At least as far as reliability or durability.
Fairey Fulmar was in need for more engine power
They were not. Only the A.80 had manteinance (but not not breakages) problems, similar to that of the BMW801 to name one, that were not resolved during its production (and also in this case should be reported that the Japanese, who used them on Br.20s, had several complaints concerning the aircraft, but none on the engines). Of the others, only the first samples can be considered problematic. The P.XII, for example, has been free, from the outset, by problems of breakage, vibrations and overheating, that, for a completely new engine, is almost a record. It showed some carburetion problems on the Z.1018 prototype and on the first samples of P.108, but they were working on a new aircraft with the first units produced of a new engine. I do not think that the first twenty or thirty samples of any high power radial produced during WWII, have been much more reliable. In general, the Regia Aeronautica did not order for the mass production an unreliable engine, though certainly mechanics would have preferred all them to be stone-axe reliable as the A.74.I said 'reliable' engine. The A.80, P.XI, P.XII and P.XIX were all unreliable.
You said "produced", not "designed", so they count.The licence produced DBs do not count.
Whatever his RPM were, at the time the P.XII was introduced, there were not many radials in the world that could confront it performance wise. The BMW801 A,B and C had a smaller frontal surface, but were heavier and less powerful (there is a small window, around 4000m in which the P.XII is more powerful of the C3 fuelled "D" too), and not so reliable. The Hercules had about the same frontal surface, was slightly heavier, and less powerful until the arrival of the 100/130 octane gasoline fuelled versions. The Wright R.2600, has the same frontal surface, was heavier, more powerful at any height, but required 100/130 octane gasoline only.The P.XII is interesting because it it was called a 'cold' engine, because of its very low RPM. 2,400 rpm IIRC. To me, it seems as an easy way to make an engine reliable, I guess any engine is reliable if you bring down the rpm enough.
According to who? Perhaps, as for the case of the A.80, it depends on which the terms of comparison were. Italians have made it reliable enough to evolve the basic design, and to homologate more powerful versions of it up to 1700 ps (and in September 1943 was to be approved the 1800ps P.XXII). Where Hungarian and Romanian arrived?They all managed to make it more reliable than the Italian version
The Ra.1050 had an omologation power (maximum continuous for the Ra.1050, climb and combat power for the DB-605) of 1250ps at 2600rpm at 5800m, exactly as a DB605A-1.Also, the Italian produced DB 605 did not have the same power output as the German one.
And yet it was only used on the P.108. The Z.1018, Z.511, S.84, ... were all powered by it but they wanted it replaced by the AR.135 ASAP. That gave me the impression that the Italians were very unhappy about the P.XII.Whatever his RPM were, at the time the P.XII was introduced, there were not many radials in the world that could confront it performance wise.
I definitely agree with that.One may say that's easy way to make an hi-power engine reliable, if you have 100 octane gasoline at handy. If you have not, you have to increase the displacement and, consequently, bring down the RPM. If you can also do this, keeping the weight low, you're skilled too.
To me the P.XII and his successor, the P:XV were great engines, counting that Italians cease to develop engines in September 1943.
I only know that the German tests of the Italian 5-series clearly indicates that the Italian engines gave 100 hp less than the German counterparts.The Ra.1050 had an omologation power (maximum continuous for the Ra.1050, climb and combat power for the DB-605) of 1250ps at 2600rpm at 5800m, exactly as a DB605A-1.
Also the use of P.XI on a fighter in 1939 had raised concerns. The conception of the Regia Aeronautica was to use small engines on fighters, and large engines on bombers, and even the P.XI was considered a Bombers' engine. The 1000hp engine for fighters had to be the A.76.And yet it was only used on the P.108.
The AR 135 had 100 hp more with less frontal surface. Certainly would have been a superior engine, if it had worked, but mostly, as it was presented in 1937, it was expected for a longer time.but they wanted it replaced by the AR.135 ASAP.
I think that we all know the history of the delay in production of the Z.1018. They had been so long that, in 1943, already had been tested and ordered versions with the P.XV.And yet, by 1943 they were stuck with the same engine with no new airplanes.
The P.XV was a powered-up PXII mantaining the same displacement, similar to the P.XI-P.XIX evolution. The P.XXII had still 18 cilinders, but with a bigger displacemet (156X176, 60.6 l).But for the record, wouldn't you say the P.XXII was the successor of the P.XII. It was derived from the P.XII and was being tested by the end of 1943. I always considered the P.XV similar to the Gnome-Rhone 14R.
Hungarians bought 70 Re.2000 along with the license to build 200 more with their engine. The decision had nothing to do with the reliability of P.XI, of which, when they decided to build the aircraft under license, they could not know anything. Given that they were already producing under license their 14K, they preferred to use that one for the local built Heja, instead of having to import from Italy engines and spare parts for the entire life of the aircrafts. To buy 70 complete aircraft, while they completed production lines for Heja was just the way to have the aircraft in line before. To say that they used the Manfred Weiss WM K-14 because they were unhappy with the P.XI is like saying that Italians produced the Ra.1050 because they were unhappy with the DB.605 they used until that moment.I know the Hungarians were very unhappy about the Piaggio engine and preferred to use their own licence produced GR 14K.
That's what the P.XI had from the start. Have you ever heard a Romanian complain about it?And never heard the Romanian IAR.80 pilots complain about their GR.14K, what's more, they managed to develop it further on their own, eventually reaching a 1000 hp.
For that matter, the same document clearly indicates 580 l of fuel for the G.55 instead of 560 l it had really; for all the three fighters it clearly indicates that they are not usable as fighter-bombers, when all three of the tested types had the 160kg wing racks, and the Re.2005 even the ventral one, ecc... ecc...I only know that the German tests of the Italian 5-series clearly indicates that the Italian engines gave 100 hp less than the German counterparts.
What would you say about the A.82? I have seen a proposal for the Fiat G.57, a G.55 with the Fiat A.82. Would that have been a possible engine for a fighter aircraft??Also the use of P.XI on a fighter in 1939 had raised concerns. The conception of the Regia Aeronautica was to use small engines on fighters, and large engines on bombers, and even the P.XI was considered a Bombers' engine. The 1000hp engine for fighters had to be the A.76.
That is very interesting, but you are very right. The P.XV was a 18 cyl, not a 14 cyl as I thought. But, I always thought the P.XV had an output of around 1,500 hp, equal to that of the P.XII. And wouldn't the P.XV still be too big for fighter aircraft?The P.XV was a powered-up PXII mantaining the same displacement, similar to the P.XI-P.XIX evolution. The P.XXII had still 18 cilinders, but with a bigger displacemet (156X176, 60.6 l).
The test reports clearly state that they did not consider the 5-series useful as Jabos because of the location of the oil cooler.For that matter, the same document clearly indicates 580 l of fuel for the G.55 instead of 560 l it had really; for all the three fighters it clearly indicates that they are not usable as fighter-bombers, when all three of the tested types had the 160kg wing racks, and the Re.2005 even the ventral one, ecc... ecc...
Your suspicion may well be justified. But I think the Germans must have been meticulous in their testing, even if they got the fuel capacity a bit off. However, it may very well be that the very first Italian produced engines were used on these aircraft with the natural reduced power as a consequence. That would also indicate that the standard RA as produced in 1943 had the same power output as the DB 605. However, I have read that there were some small differences. From the Italian wiki: "I DB 605C prodotti dalla FIAT avevano un rapporto di riduzione tra albero motore e elica diverso da quello di serie: 1:0,485 e non 1:0,593." If correct, why was this?I would be very surprised to know that even only one of the fighter of the "5 series" tested by the Germans in december '42 and in february '43, was not equipped with an original German engine. In february '43 the production of Ra.1050 barely begun. All fighters of the 5 series up to that moment, and probably still for two or three months later, were equipped with German engines.
Actually, I do not really think that many Germans have had the opportunity even to see, let alone test, a Ra.1050 before September 8, 1943. The vast majority of the Ra.1050 engines were produced after that date, and used directly by the Germans. To know how powerful they were from a German document, if we do not trust the Italian ones, we better look for one of 1944.