Which country designed the best engines for WWII?

[swampyankee]

But in a much better position than any single engine fighter with a sick engine.
....Sorry, I missed the point you are making.

Losing one engine on a single means you are going down. Losing one on a twin doesn't mean you're staying up. In these modern times, more than one F-18 has crashed after a single engine failure after climbout. This may be a training problem, but if a twin is lost after takeoff from a land base in the Continental US, one wonders if two engine survivability is oversold.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Losing one engine on a single means you are going down. Losing one on a twin doesn't mean you're staying up. In these modern times, more than one F-18 has crashed after a single engine failure after climbout. This may be a training problem, but if a twin is lost after takeoff from a land base in the Continental US, one wonders if two engine survivability is oversold.

I'd think a twin-engined plane would have a better chance of survival than a single engined plane after one engine goes out. The second engine isn't a guarantee, but it certainly got crewmen home on occasions, right?

 

[swampyankee]

I'd think a twin-engined plane would have a better chance of survival than a single engined plane after one engine goes out. The second engine isn't a guarantee, but it certainly got crewmen home on occasions, right?

Probably more after a mechanical failure, vs combat damage.

 

[pbehn]

I'd think a twin-engined plane would have a better chance of survival than a single engined plane after one engine goes out. The second engine isn't a guarantee, but it certainly got crewmen home on occasions, right?

You would think that, but for various reasons some types couldn't run, or didn't run very well on one engine.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You would think that, but for various reasons some types couldn't run, or didn't run very well on one engine.

Sure, but I'll take "not very well" over "you've got eight miles to find a spot to deadstick".

 

[pbehn]

Sure, but I'll take "not very well" over "you've got eight miles to find a spot to deadstick".

I don't think a loaded Manchester would do 8 miles on one engine.

 

[SaparotRob]

But a B-17 would.

 

[pbehn]

But a B-17 would.

So would a Lancaster (they have 4 engines), even planes like a Mosquito had a period after take off where loss of an engine was terminal.

 

[SaparotRob]

I do not have any data to support my claim.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think a loaded Manchester would do 8 miles on one engine.

I'm pretty sure a P-38 could, since we're doing some picking of cherries. Perhaps you could address the gist rather than work for Internet Victory®? You're not getting any points for niggles, after all. I'd prefer a discussion, myself, if you're up for it.

 

[pbehn]

I'm pretty sure a P-38 could, since we're doing some picking of cherries. Perhaps you could address the gist rather than work for Internet Victory®? You're not getting any points for niggles, after all. I'd prefer a discussion, myself, if you're up for it.

I think early P-38s didn't have 100% redundancy on both engines, only one generated electricity. Some twins didn't have the capacity to transfer fuel so the remaining engine has to do all the work which uses a lot more fuel. Someone posted that the landing speed of a Mosquito on one engine was too high to land safely on a carrier. I am having a discussion, aren't you? Generally a twin engine gives more safety margin but if it cant get you home on one engine then having two just doubles the chance of mechanical breakdown.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Generally a twin engine gives more safety margin but if it cant get you home on one engine then having two just doubles the chance of mechanical breakdown.

I'm not a big fan of letting the perfect being the enemy of the better. Just getting behind friendly lines for a bailout seems better than going down for capture.

Rather cherry-pick extreme examples, your "Generally a twin engine gives more safety margin" seems like a good common ground for us here. Because anyone who's been in a tight scrape knows that little things matter.

 

[pbehn]

I'm not a big fan of letting the perfect being the enemy of the better. Just getting behind friendly lines for a bailout seems better than going down for capture.

Rather cherry-pick extreme examples, your "Generally a twin engine gives more safety margin" seems like a good common ground for us here. Because anyone who's been in a tight scrape knows that little things matter.

But there are significant disadvantages to a twin, they need more training to fly, they have three areas to hit, they are easier to see. The Manchester was a real killer, underpowered with unreliable engines plus not easy to get out of you had to have your engine failure at a fortuitous moment and altitude to get out or get back.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But there are significant disadvantages to a twin, they need more training to fly, they have three areas to hit, they are easier to see. The Manchester was a real killer, underpowered with unreliable engines plus not easy to get out of you had to have your engine failure at a fortuitous moment and altitude to get out or get back.

Sure. I'm not arguing a one-size-fits-all solution -- just the same as when I said I'd rather fight behind an R-2800, I was obviously not talking about a Hudson, and offered three different designs, each of which has strengths and flaws. I'd rather fight in a Corsair than a Hudson.

I certainly wouldn't want to go into combat doing throttle-jockey on a Vulture. I also would prefer a single-engine fighter in a dogfight. And if I took a hit in the engine, I imagine I'd be wishing for a second engine to help me along.

I think that's pretty easy to understand.

 

[wuzak]

I don't think a loaded Manchester would do 8 miles on one engine.

But a B-17 would.

So would a Lancaster (they have 4 engines), even planes like a Mosquito had a period after take off where loss of an engine was terminal.

I'm not sure that either a Lancaster or B-17 could fly on one engine when fully loaded with bombs and fuel.

Most of the stories of those flying on one engine are returning to base, low on fuel and bombs (and some part of their ammo).

If a 4 engine bomber lost two or more of its engines on the way to the target the crew would most likely jettison the bombs and turn for home.

 

[mad_max]

The ''claim'' was about a radial engine losing one or more cylinders and still being able to RTB (I assume).
Which would be noteworthy enough for someone to have made an official record of, and certainly some photographs.
Let's dispel the ''myth'', rather than move off at a tangent, which has nothing to do with loss of any cylinders.

I'm not being hard-headed about it at all, there is a serious amount of knowledge here on this forum. If anyone here can help with information or photos about ''The Claim'' I'd be grateful.

Is this enough proof for you? You can start thanking me for wasting my time to prove a point to someone; when if they were was so inclined to look for it they'd find such information. A search engine or just searching this forum would've supplied this for you mister not so hard headed.

Have a great night. I am.


Randall Hendricks managed to limp home in his P-47 (397th Fighter Squadron, 368th Fighter Group, 9th Air Force) after taking AA damage to his engine. The third picture is a cylinder head from his engine. On a later date, June 12, 1944, he shot down four fighters in a single mission. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.

 

[Sid327]

''Is this enough proof for you? You can start thanking me for wasting my time to prove a point to someone; when if they were was so inclined to look for it they'd find such information. A search engine or just searching this forum would've supplied this for you mister not so hard headed.
Have a great night. I am.
Randall Hendricks managed to limp home in his P-47 (397th Fighter Squadron, 368th Fighter Group, 9th Air Force) after taking AA damage to his engine. The third picture is a cylinder head from his engine. On a later date, June 12, 1944, he shot down four fighters in a single mission. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.''

lol, I totally misunderstood what this forum was about... thinking it was for constructive criticism and help, rather than petty minded opinions and vindictive or argumentative wording.

Mr mad-max, your lack of manners and tact is not being helpful. I asked a simple question and you turn it into a drama.

I see a cylinder head. ''Head'' is not a cylinder. If a cylinder remained on an engine then the reciprocating assembly will stay contained as part of the engine and will not cause any secondary damage.
Instead of YOU acting like an impolite hard head, maybe you should try to have a more helpful attitude.

Even if you accept it for what you believe it is, one example does not make a reputation.

Geez, ask a simple question and standby to get brow-beaten by opinionated forum members. Nice!

 

[Deleted member 68059]

That is indeed an excellent photo and a tribute to the durability of the engine, and a broken cylinder head, however, its not actually missing its cylinder, which implies that the
piston and rod are thrashing about in mid-air... which is what the last few posts have been discussing. Maybe the cylinder was blown off too,
but more photos are needed to settle that one, if there are not more images, then this one is still in the unproven category. Perhaps there are
more images of this particular event ?

Its usually fatal to any engine if you actually lose a cylinder, as the rod eventually jams against the crankcase and pings holes in it until the
crank is bent or the crankcase disintegrates. These old engines no doubt have a slight advantage here as they had such terrible
oil consumption that they usually had (by todays standards) enormous oil tanks, so if you had a relatively short flight to escape home,
its not inconcievable that you can make it with very high damage and oil leaking. However, I still cannot envisage an engine without
the actualy cylinder bore, running for more than a few seconds.

Having said all that, I think we can indeed all be impressed that this engine made it home with a clearly fatally cracked cylinder head, which
any water cooled engine of any nationality would clearly not have managed for more than a couple of minuites.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Tens of thousands of fighters (of all types) never made it home (for various reasons) but the survivors, who should not have made it back, are of interest especially when there is a greater frequency of survivors in one type over other types.
The P-47 was known to be one such type: flying through Olive groves, belly-bouncing off a field, striking a smoke-stack with a starboard wing, taking a direct flak hit to the aft fuselage and the list goes on.
Add to that list, Lt. Johnson's P-47 that was mauled by cannon and MG hits, creating extensive damage to the aircraft, including the engine, propeller, flight controls. The armor plate behind the cockpit was battered, bent and broken in places, the port-side portion of the canopy was shattered with some portions completely gone.
Johnson, despite his injuries and being covered in engine oil, still made the journey across the channel to his base.

View attachment 612643

And I believe even before that, Col. Blakeslee of the 4th Group had a similar experience that never seems to get mentioned, here's one shot of his Thunderbolt from the 4th fighter group association page:

You can just see some damage to the tail, there are other shots of the right side where there are bullet/cannon shell damage.

I'm not a big Thunderbolt fan and in all honesty, I think some of the "ruggedness" attributed to it is a bit overrated, same for the Corsair. Not saying they were delicate by any stretch, but not the impervious air dreadnaught some would make them out to be.

On the P-38, much is made of the twin engine reliability but I've read several accounts of P-38's losing one engine and not making it home, in both the ETO and the PTO.

 

[pbehn]

And if I took a hit in the engine, I imagine I'd be wishing for a second engine to help me along.

I think that's pretty easy to understand.

It is, but we were having a general discussion about twin engine aircraft, which somehow became about p-38s losing an engine. In a different discussion, some WW2 RAF bomber command pilots would prefer the Halifax because it was easier to get out of when hit, some preferred the Lancaster because it was more likely to get you back home, for Harris it was a no brainer because on long distance missions you needed twice the number of Halifaxes as Lancasters. Of all the twin fighters the P-38 was probably the best, in the presence of S/E fighters planes like the Beaufighter and Me110 just weren't competitive, but that wasn't their job.