Which country designed the best engines for WWII?

[Frankenerd]

The best big radial used in ww2 was R-2800. Period.
The best V12 was RR Griffon, second best was the RR Merlin. Merlin was the most important engine for the outcome of ww2, 1st in defense then both defense and attack.

DB 603 was plagued with reliability problems for 15 months (give or take) after introduction. DB 624 was supposed to operate on 2900 rpm, not to have 2900 HP.

I define 'the best in ww2' as combination of power at all altitudes used, reliability, usability, role played in the war; in this order; obviously disregarding the engines that were produced in small numbers.

Well yes, it did make over 2900 HP! See any of the books on German aero engines.

 

[Frankenerd]

Just so we are talking about the same things.

DB624

Like a lot of fancy multi-stage superchargers/intercoolers the volume of the supercharger system approaches (or exceeds) the volume of the engine itself.
Please note there is no way in this universe that this thing is going to fit into a F190/Ta 152 airframe. Me 410 is going to look like WHAT with a pair of them???
Granted a production version might have been better packaged but a lot of these "paper/test" engines leave an awful lot to be desired when compared to engines that actually saw service.

From Daimler-Benz Aircraft Engines

Have you ever actually looked at any WW-II fighter plane with the cowl panels open? WO knowing the exact dimensions, I suspect it would fit into a Me-109, IF the mounting beams - system was redesigned?
Go to the web page for the Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patt and look up the pics of their 109G10?, IIRC and then tell me there is not 18" of vertical space wasted under the cowl! ( Combining both top clearance and bottom space.)

 

[Glider]

Lets look at the Spit/Merlin combo;
The Spit was barely competitive with the Me-109 over England, with K/L ratios about 1.2/1, mainly because of throttle limits imposed by the return trip on the Germans.

Sorry but that isn't the case. The primary target for the RAF were the bombers not the fighters and that was a significant factor in the loss ratio. To blame it on the throttle limits is more than a little misleading. The RAF fighters didn't ahve the range to spend much time chasing fighters back across the channel. Did it happen from time to time, obviously yes, however it wasn't a significant factor.

When the Spit/Merlin flew across the channel to France, they had their collective butts handed to them on a silver platter with K/L Ratios of 4.5/1 to 7/1!

The biggest danger to the RAF in the Spit V was the FW190 not the 109. No one would deny the FW190 was the best fighter of the time by some margin. The 109F and Spit V were very close

This state of things never got better for the Spit/Merlin.

On this we will have to disagree. Once the Spit IX entered service the 109 was always behind the curve and at a significant disadvantage.

 

[Frankenerd]

I blame the "Luft46" crowd for the poor situation on German piston engine books. The same group is responsible for the situation in which we have detailed books on aircraft like the He 162 while not a single good technical book exists on the Ju 87.

I have one, but it is packed away and I can not remember it's title at this moment? Do a better search?
Ah Haaa! The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka, by Peter Smith?

 

[Frankenerd]

Sorry but that isn't the case. The primary target for the RAF were the bombers not the fighters and that was a significant factor in the loss ratio. To blame it on the throttle limits is more than a little misleading. The RAF fighters didn't ahve the range to spend much time chasing fighters back across the channel. Did it happen from time to time, obviously yes, however it wasn't a significant factor.
The biggest danger to the RAF in the Spit V was the FW190 not the 109. No one would deny the FW190 was the best fighter of the time by some margin. The 109F and Spit V were very close
On this we will have to disagree. Once the Spit IX entered service the 109 was always behind the curve and at a significant disadvantage.

I am just listing the actual K/L Ratios. Many here list the bombers as targets argument, but that is not relevant. They only killed 12 for a loss of ten when on this side of the channel and the throttle restrictions I mention are on the Germans not the Brits. They were reluctant to use full throttle that would let them out maneuver the Spits easily because if they did, they might not make it back to base. While a dog fight was an iffy thing, running out of gas was a sure looser!
While on the other side of the channel, the rolls were reversed and the options were on the other side. The RAF lost their shirts by huge margins! Why?
It's simple, the Me-109 was the best fighter plane of the war! Bar none! In fact, the Me-109 was the best three planes of the war as various models shot down more EA than any other plane. That means the Me-109 was FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD best fighter plane of the war, before the P-51, P-47 and in Russian hands the P-39 in forth, fifth and sixth places respectively! PS. I do not know where the Fw-190, Yak-3, F4F, F6F and Zero stood, but all were better than the Spitfire in total numbers of kills.

 

[stona]

Lets look at the Spit/Merlin combo;

!

Not sure what the relevance of this and the rest of your reply is to my post. You haven't addressed any of my points, instead arguing about different tactical situations, just one of many factors effecting "kill ratios", an often meaningless statistic, beloved of many.

I could easily reply, let's look at the Mosquito/Merlin combination

 

[tomo pauk]

Should I actually bother to discuss a religion?

 

[wuzak]

The RM 14 SM was the starting point of the V1650-9. There were significant differences between the two and detailed in other posts that list them. Secondly, the single stage Allison was much better than the single stage Merlin. Many make comps between the TSTS Merlin and the SSSS Allison. A fair comp would be the two stage Allison in the P-38 and the TSTS Merlin. The two are almost contemporary's!

I guess you don't count performance at altitude as being an advantage?

Merlin 46/47 (built 1941/42) 1190hp @ 23,000ft, @ +9psi boost.(Lumsden)
V-1710-33 (-C15) from the P-40C (first flight 1941) 1090hp @ 13,200ft @ 38.9inHg MAP (~+5psi boost).
V-1710-39 (-F3R) from Mustang I/IA (arrived UK 1942) 1150hp @ 11,700ft @ 44.6inHg MAP (+7.2psi boost)
V-1710-39 (-F3R) from Mustang I/IA (arrived UK 1942) 1490hp @ 4,300ft @ 56inHg MAP (+12.8psi boost)

The V-1650-9 differed from the Rolls-Royce 100 series Merlins in that it had an epicyclic supercharger drive (British built Merlins had Farman type supercharger drive), an American type injection carburetor, SAE spline output shaft and ADI.

Other than those differences the V-1650-9 was the same as its Rolls-Royce equivalent. Even down to all the BA screws.

There was never a 2 stage V-1710 in the P-38, apart from the turbocharged model. The two stage V-1710 was behind the 2 stage Merlin, and its performance was not as good.

 

[wuzak]

What we got right was the materials science and metallurgy to make turbos last.

Not to mention 20+ years of development.

The early P-51 eats the early Spit for lunch.

In some respects. Straight line speed is one. Climb rate is not.

Why not comp the Later Allison V-1710/145TCM to any RR V-12 at that point in time? Any R-R piston engine make 3020 HP in 1944?

No, but the RM.17SM made 2600hp in 1944 without need of a compounding turbine. And the RM.17SM was actually type tested and rated, but not put into production before the end of the war.

The V-1710 needed development of the turbine since the exhaust was too hot for the turbine. It would not have passed a type test for some time.

Their entire trouble was getting strategic hi-temp alloys that were not available. But they made it work WO anyway!

They made it work by utilising internally air cooled turbine blades (as they did with their gas turbines too). Had Allison's turbo-compound gone ahead (if they got an order) after the war they would too have developed an air-cooled turbine.

 

[wuzak]

No other LC Engine cooling system in any WW-II plane in service, comps favorably to the P-51! None! The leading edge installations are junk, if you judge them honestly. But none of the LC engines matched the tightly cowled R-2800 in the big Republic experimental XP-47J that went 505 MPH! The P-82 was faster than the Hornet by any measure. Heck, the late model P-38 was faster than the Hornet at higher altitudes! It was also faster when toting TWO Torpedoes! But wait, the Hornet can not carry TWO torps!

The P-82 was barely faster than the Hornet.

The P-38 wasn't even close to the Hornet - some 30mph slower.

And I doubt very much that the P-38 was very fast at all with 2 torpedoes.

 

[stan reid]

Yes, it depends on the type of engine.
Inline-UK
Radial-US
Jet-Germany
Rocket-Germany

 

[wuzak]

Have you ever actually looked at any WW-II fighter plane with the cowl panels open? WO knowing the exact dimensions, I suspect it would fit into a Me-109, IF the mounting beams - system was redesigned?
Go to the web page for the Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patt and look up the pics of their 109G10?, IIRC and then tell me there is not 18" of vertical space wasted under the cowl! ( Combining both top clearance and bottom space.)

Doubtful that the DB624 would fit in a Bf 109, since the basic DB 603 could not.

And it did not make 2900hp. It got to 2900rpm.
GED0112

 

[Algernon]

Yes, it depends on the type of engine.
Jet-Germany

In which parameters?
In performance, thrust?
Fuel consumption?
The weight?
The reliability and durability?

All existing German jet engines - all really produced (!!) German jet engines -, were overcome by Rolls-Royce Derwent I.

 

[stona]

The P-82 was barely faster than the Hornet.

All my info is that its maximum speed was lower than the Hornet, it had a slightly better cruising speed. F-nerd is splitting hairs anyway

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

I am just listing the actual K/L Ratios. Many here list the bombers as targets argument, but that is not relevant.

Sorry but it is very relevant. The bombers are attacking your cities, production facilities and bases then the bombers are the priority. This was clear in a number of orders given to the RAF squadrons and orders not to follow the Luftwaffe back to France.

They only killed 12 for a loss of ten when on this side of the channel and the throttle restrictions I mention are on the Germans not the Brits. They were reluctant to use full throttle that would let them out maneuver the Spits easily because if they did, they might not make it back to base. While a dog fight was an iffy thing, running out of gas was a sure looser!

I have read a lot about the conflict but have never read about any German pilot who was reluctant to use full boost in combat beacuse of fuel restrictions. Its certainly been a serious concern on the way home. If you could point me to a book or reference that supports your view that the 109 pilots were reluctant to use full boost in combat I would appreciate it, because I certainly could be wrong.

While on the other side of the channel, the rolls were reversed and the options were on the other side. The RAF lost their shirts by huge margins! Why?

Why? because the FW190 was the best fighter of any nation by a huge margin at that time. The Me109F wasn't. It was good, it was very good but the Spit V was overall as good, but both were inferiour to the FW190. The vast majority of the RAF fighter losses at the time were down to the FW190.

It's simple, the Me-109 was the best fighter plane of the war! Bar none! In fact, the Me-109 was the best three planes of the war as various models shot down more EA than any other plane.

I am sorry but this is a meaningless statistic. Take out the huge number of Russian aircraft slaughtered by the 109 and the figures would dramatically change. Interestingly the Luftwaffe didn't really believe that the 109 had any superiority over the Spitfire either. IN the desert the loss ratio was overwhelmingly in favour of the Luftwaffe, until the Spit turned up, and as soon as the first ones arrived even in small numbers the ratio changed overnight. In Russia when the first Lend Lease Spitfires arrived the first Luftwaffe pilots who saw them were asked to change their reports because of the impact it would have on Morale. Over Malta despite having every possible tactical advantage the Luftwaffe 109's still failed to eliminate the defence of the island.

That means the Me-109 was FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD best fighter plane of the war, before the P-51, P-47 and in Russian hands the P-39 in forth, fifth and sixth places respectively! PS. I do not know where the Fw-190, Yak-3, F4F, F6F and Zero stood, but all were better than the Spitfire in total numbers of kills.

And I believe in the tooth fairy

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Frankenerd, thanks for the comic relief...

 

[stona]

And I believe in the tooth fairy

Whilst I admire your effort I don't know why you are bothering to argue with someone who doesn't have the faintest idea what the statistics he is quoting actually mean. He is quoting dodgy statistics with no context.

"There are three kinds of lies:....."

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

Whilst I admire your effort I don't know why you are bothering to argue with someone who doesn't have the faintest idea what the statistics he is quoting actually mean. He is quoting dodgy statistics with no context.

"There are three kinds of lies:....."

Cheers

Steve

Because in the end they back themselves into a corner even they cannot escape from

 

[fastmongrel]

Because in the end they back themselves into a corner even they cannot escape from

ShooterNerd has backed himself into a corner many times but he always comes back again he is like a Whack a Mole game no matter how many times he gets hammered he pops up again.

 

[fastmongrel]

Well, yes it does! It's not the Hydro-Carbons that make the differences, it's the aromatic compounds and Tetra-Ethel Lead that make the real differences and the Germans were years behind everyone else!

Shooter its not even worth trying to correct you, I could mention Octane numbers, B and C grades of fuel, rich and lean settings, the use of non lead octane boosters like Benzene derivatives. But arguing with you is like wrestling with a Pig, I will only only get sweaty and muddy and the pig will enjoy it.