Which country designed the best engines for WWII?

[rochie]

well, do you or don't you?

Absolutely not !

Rolls Royce were producing thousands of Merlins of different marques before packard built their first !

that does not mean i am downplaying Packard's contribution one little bit, without them how many Merlin powered P-51's would of been produced if they didnt i'll leave for folks more knowledgeable than me to speculate as well as other types ?

 

[fastmongrel]

A large majority of the staff at the Glasgow, Crewe and Manchester sites had never seen an engine let alone manufactured one before starting work training.

 

[fastmongrel]

Look at these elderly men each with over 30 years experience in hand building engines. Oh they are young women how lucky that Britain trained its baby girls to assemble engines with a file when they were still teething.

Glasgow factory cylinder head asembly

 

[rochie]

But if Packard taught Rolls Royce how to mass produce engines how ever did they manage before then ?

 

[rochie]

Posted in the which was better thread

 

[pbehn]

But if Packard taught Rolls Royce how to mass produce engines how ever did they manage before then ?

The women of Derby were very glad to get use of their kitchen tables and sculleries back when that Glasgow place opened.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not to mention the dreaded Papa Three Nine. No, wait, I just mentioned it.

How dare you!

 

[Peter Gunn]

Not to mention the dreaded Papa Three Nine. No, wait, I just mentioned it.

GAH!!!

Immediately begins waving garlic, making the sign of the cross, looking for a goat to sacrifice... anything to ward off the dreaded P-3... GAH! Almost said it myself.

 

[markstuk]

I found this interesting as a viewpoint on German WW2 Piston engine design, testing and production.,. Apologies if previously posted

 

[mad_max]

Bottom line. When the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster and such needed them; the British did a marvelous job in production numbers. When the US needed a better performing motor than Packard could provide; the US did a marvelous job. End of story.

 

[unkated]

Answering as ...

• Engines as a group, not just a single design. The Merlin is an excellent a/c engine, a i the DB 605, but the English and the Germans built other engine, too.
• Engines as reliable performance, not the performance of any particular aircraft they power - too many other factors
• Engine performance, not number produced - that` production

American engines had a reputation for reliability an performance in the 1930s into WW2. I would say as a class, US-built engines were machined to closer tolerances and had fewer errors due to mfg issues, leading to more consistent performance.

The French were pleased as punch with the engine in Hawk 75s.
prewar Ju86 airliners with US-built engines were considered a vast improvement on German built engines by pilots ground crews alike.
Everyone like the DC3, partly for the reliability of its engines over difficult routes.
US radial engines had an amazing reputation, able o work event with smashed cylinders.

Uncle Ted

 

[fastmongrel]

I think you can reasonably say Britain built the best mechanical 2 stage 2 speed Superchargers.

 

[Sid327]

able o work event with smashed cylinders.

I'd like to see proof of this.
Any radial with a cylinder or two missing and leaving a damaged connecting rod and remains of a piston thrashing up and down at over 2,000 engine rpm and not damaging the crankcase and what seems to me, destroying the engine in pretty short order.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Bottom line. When the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster and such needed them; the British did a marvelous job in production numbers. When the US needed a better performing motor than Packard could provide; the US did a marvelous job. End of story.

A better engine than the Merlin? Didn't happen. The Merlin was in full scale production right up to VJ Day. It was the USAAF's preferred fighter engine up to and beyond the end of the war.

 

[SaparotRob]

Britain built the best inline engines. The U.S. built the best radial engines. My data comes strictly from anecdotal evidence provided by our Forum.

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't research nuthin'.

 

[mad_max]

A better engine than the Merlin? Didn't happen. The Merlin was in full scale production right up to VJ Day. It was the USAAF's preferred fighter engine up to and beyond the end of the war.

Which is basically what my post stated. Lockheed stayed with the turbo Allison in the P-38 as it could be fitted in that airframe, P-40 as the 2 stage Merlin couldn't be fitted to it and then the Allison came back in use with the P-82 when Packard quit building the Merlins.

 

[fastmongrel]

I don't research nuthin'.

Have you considered a career as an interwebs expert

 

[SaparotRob]

Have you considered a career as an interwebs expert

Okay, if I accidentally hit the reply button how do I make it stop replying?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I'd like to see proof of this.
Any radial with a cylinder or two missing and leaving a damaged connecting rod and remains of a piston thrashing up and down at over 2,000 engine rpm and not damaging the crankcase and what seems to me, destroying the engine in pretty short order.

According to USN stats damage to the power plant was the leading cause of loss of aircraft (22% of losses). In terms of percentage 70% of hits to this area resulted in loss. As a percentage this was only exceeded by the oil system (hit less often as a it was smaller target).
Of aircraft that survived serious damage only 7% suffered engine damage. The invincibility of the radial engine is greatly exaggerated.

The source for the data is the Rand Corporation paper "Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II"