Which country designed the best engines for WWII?

Which country designed the best aircraft engines for WWII?

  • Total voters
    366

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Readie said:
I'm puzzled why radials survived longer that in-line liquid cooled engines.
Any know why?
Cheers
John
Click to expand...

Because radials have one less system to futz with, the liquid cooling. Also there were darn few in-line liquid cooled engines that matched the big radials for prolonged cruising power. The liquid cooled engines may have been able to beat the air-cooled engines (or come close ) by using high amounts of boost but for running for hours on end in airline service the radials could give the same or more power with less "thrashing" of the engine.
Some servicing was easier too. With a bad piston or swallowed valve one cylinder could be removed from the crankcase at a time and not a cylinder block of 6.
 
Shortround6 said:
Because radials have one less system to futz with, the liquid cooling. Also there were darn few in-line liquid cooled engines that matched the big radials for prolonged cruising power. The liquid cooled engines may have been able to beat the air-cooled engines (or come close ) by using high amounts of boost but for running for hours on end in airline service the radials could give the same or more power with less "thrashing" of the engine.
Some servicing was easier too. With a bad piston or swallowed valve one cylinder could be removed from the crankcase at a time and not a cylinder block of 6.
Click to expand...

Thanks shortround6.
It seems the opposite to car engines where liquid cooling gives reliability.
Liquid cooled aero-engines had the edge with sheer brute power in the early days but, as you say, more countries followed the radial route as the piston engine era peaked. FW,Grumman, Hawker to name a few.
Have you seen the model radial / rotary engines people have built for model aircraft?
Cheers
John
 
TheOptimist said:
If anyone wants to replicate the sound of a DBXXX by the way, just throw some gravel into a cement mixer.
Click to expand...

Yeah okay, can I have some of what you are smoking? :)

The DB 605 sounds amazing. Saw a 109G in flight and it roared beautifully, as does any old War Bird. At the same airshow they had an Avenger, B-17, B-25, Ju 52, Sea Fury, P-51D, Yak-3, Hurricane, Fw 190, P-40 and a Spitfire all flying and they all sounded absolutely amazing.

On a side note, the part that I enjoyed the most was the flyby from the Hurricane, Spitfire and Fw 190. They did a low flyby in formation. The ground shook, absolutely amazing!

Also where did you hear a DB 603? As far as I know, there are no surviving aircraft in flying condition that used the DB 603.

Blohm Voss BV 155
Blohm Voss BV 238
Dornier Do 217
Dornier Do 335
Fiat G.56 - two prototypes flown
Focke-Wulf Ta 152
Heinkel He 177B - prototype aircraft series
Heinkel He 219
Heinkel He 274
Macchi MC.207 - experimental installation, not flown
Messerschmitt Me 410
Reggiane Re.2006- experimental installation, not flown

Of course the above is from Wiki and they are not the greatest source for information.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have the Checkflight Gustav CD and I too feel the DB sounds like a cement mixer with gravel in it. Personally the best sounding warbird is the P-38, based on the same CD: dark, booming sound!:)
 
Last edited:
One country that hasn't had a mention are the Japanese. They designed some excellent engines, build quality was often well below what was needed but the designs were often as good as the best.

The Nakajima Homare and Mitsubushi Kasei are as good as any radial anywhere and at least as good as the R2600
 
in Spain since 1922 with the sale of hispono-Swiss just stopped manufacturing engines under license,

radial engine for my best race was the rider on the ki-100 hien, as in maintenance and in fuel consumption figures superioires the rest, many flight hours and little maintenance is essential to have mutsubishi-112-II.
I move in linear but for a taste of the product that got me crazy folcjk wulf Ta-154 with the Junkers 211N soon changed it to the junkers 211R, joined quietest engine of which were manufactured
 
The v12 engines of Great Britain were greatly influenced by the Curtis d12. The Allison was a fundamentally better design than the Merlin. But the merlin was more highly developed and the British secifications led to more efforts in supercharging.
When looking at the r2800 how can one imgine a better radial engine of that era?
 
Soundbreaker Welch? said:
I'm a bit ignorant on this subject.

But I guess Merlin was amazing, Griffon was good, so England has a good reputation.

For the USA, Pratt Whitney?

Junkers Jumo for Germany?
Click to expand...

I would dispute the idea that England or Germany were a players in comparison to America. The American version of the Merlin was much better than any English built version! They had longer TBOs and durability, but worst of all they made more power than any R-R built Merlin during or after the war! 2,218 HP in 555 Mustang Hs. No English made service Merlin made more than 1720HP during the war! None! The Gryphon was much larger and did not make significantly more power than the American Merlin-9 in the P-51H during the war! It, the Gryphon, only made 2,450 HP until well after the end of the war. The first versions only made 2,050 HP compared to the V-1650-9s 2,218 HP!

Then there is the Alison V-1710. Wartime versions made more power than the Merlin as made by either side of the Atlantic. (2,300 HP!) It weighed less, had significantly longer TBO, higher RPM, better fuel economy, made more power at less boost. The only defect was the fact that it was neutered by politics at GM/Allison! After the war, installation of backfire screens in the inlets cured the single defect that caused all of the problems in the design. Note that all modern build versions of war time planes use the Allison in lieu of the Merlin, Mikulan or others. The engine used a "Offenhauser" style Pentroof combustion chamber like most of today's modern four valve per cylinder auto engines. The head flowed more air at less boost which gave better power and economy!

Then there are the numerous radial engines who's only competition from England comes from the Bristol Centaurus. Now can you compare the larger less powerful and frugal Centaurus compare to the smaller, lighter, more powerful and frugal R-2800?

How can any rational person make the argument that the Brits were on a par with the Americans.

The Germans only claim to fame are their jets, but do you really want to hang your rep on that? The only one to reach service was the Me-262 and it's engines were LUCKY to last 20 hours. American versions of British engines, ( One more case of Politics screwing up the works!) made more power and lasted longer than British made versions during the war. After the war American versions of those engine leap frogged their British counter parts. In spite of the fact that the American Government chose to ignore jet engines until after the Germans had flown them and were well on the way to service with them!

How can any rational person make the argument that the Nazis were on a par with the Americans.

A clear case of ignorance or opinion trumping facts.
 
A clear case of being arrogant and rude if you ask me.

You can make your case without being insulting to other members, especially when you have not been around in 6 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Laurelix
M-82 engines
Replies
1
Views
599
bf109xxl
B
Z
Combustion chamber shape and valve angles in WWII aero engines
Replies
16
Views
1K
Deleted member 68059
D
H
Advantages of sleeve valves for H-24 engines?
10 11 12
Replies
239
Views
13K
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
yosimitesam
Aero engines, reverse torque, and my mechanical ignorance
Replies
2
Views
510
yosimitesam
yosimitesam
R
P-51 with a pair of buzzbomb engines attached?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Bretoal2
B
Back