Bomb loads and fuel loads are not a constant. An unladen Lancaster could fly with little problem on two engines, if a pilot lost one engine approaching the target he was definitely safer continuing to the target as compared with flying across or against the bomber stream. However a Manchester with engines de rated to 1450 BHP had less power than a late war Lancaster on one engine, though the Lanc was heavier with more drag. But mainly, losing an engine on a Manchester happened often with no enemy action needed.
Which country designed the best engines for WWII?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Actually, we were having a discussion about what engine we'd prefer to be flying behind, and when I said "R-2800", you posed a Hudson, as if I would prefer that in combat when the context was obviously different, even though I posed three different s/e crates as examples why.
I'm really not interested in further conversation with you. Thanks, and have a great day.
Actually it was a Ventura not a Hudson, but lets not let facts get in the way of any huff throwing. Another poster pointed out that fully feathering props on Hudsons was vital to survival. Previously on another thread (I believe) the same poster pointed out the procedure needed to feather a P-38 prop when you have lost the engine that generates the electricity, it isn't easy to do in the few seconds the pilot had to do it. Hopefully, with the support of friends and family I can cope without your input to a discussion on WW2 engines.
Dash119
Senior Airman
"Gentlemen you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
- President Merkin Muffley
- President Merkin Muffley
Plus throwing everything not needing a wrench to seperate from the aircraft out the aircraft also. Guns, ammo, brass and anything else not needed to survive; if you need to bail out or float in the water.
The best motors were made by Britain, and of any type, V-12, radial and even jet. Worst Russia. Even the Japanese made motors better than Russia. So the real question is who is second, Germany or the United States. I choose Germany, since the Germans made all their motors themselves and were the first to make serial turbojet engines. The merit of the United States is that their motors were massively reliable, but still not superior to the German ones.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Well, let's not mischaracterize my response as a "huff".
And quite frankly, I can live without having to explain a common-sensical, non-technical opinion to a pedant. But hey, at least you got to be Right on the Internet®. Glad I could help.
Over and out.
Don't forget the pigeon!!! Carrier Pigeons in the Bomber War
Last edited:
Calm down everyone. No need to get in a spat. lol
I have taken advantage of the ignore function.
I would suggest that whatever engine would lower the loss rate the most would be the best. So, if losses in combat were high enough, overall reliability might not matter so much. On the other hand, if out-of-combat losses were high enough compared to in-combat losses, reliability would matter more than performance.
Ideally, you would have plenty of reliability and plenty of performance, but it is the nature of the beast that one can be traded off for the other.
Shortround6
Major General
We may have a translation problem here, Just who was making parts or engines for the Americans in WWII?
Packard made Merlins, they got the plans/drawings and a sample engine from the British. They did not get supplies of parts that they assembled.
yes the Americans did base some of their jets on British designs.
It did take a few years to get the 'serial' (axial?) turbo jet up to desired power/efficiency. German compressor with 8 stages wasn't making the same pressure as a british single stage centrifugal compressor. Sorry, no points for being first in timing if the thing isn't as good. BTW the Americans and British both designed axial flow turbo jets before capturing any German ones.
American radials were among the best in the world, if not the best. Between power, and engine life/reliability (2 to 3 times that of the German radials?) they were hard to beat. Throw in price and it was no contest.
One German engineer is said to have known the war was lost when he saw a P & W R-2800. The American ability to mass produce such an engine (Ford in the 2nd half of 1943 was making 40 engines a day (720 cylinders a day) was something the Germans could not do.
Bristol made some fine radials but their price has never been revealed. Itis strongly hinted (by British authors) that the sleeve valve engines were much more expensive than poppet valve engines.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm curious about those axial flow engines you touched upon. I didn't know the Allies had that design at all.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Metrovick were building axial flow engines they were powerful but not as reliable as the Rolls Royce and DeHavilland centrifugal engines. Still 10 times longer lasting than most German axials just not the hundreds of hours life the Derwent and Goblin had.
Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 - Wikipedia
Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 - Wikipedia
Alan Arnold Griffith Alan Arnold Griffith - Wikipedia who was behind the Metrovic F2 had been working on axial flow jets before Whittle. This is a good read. Turbojet development at the RAE - Wikipedia.
Shortround6
Major General
Westinghouse was working on Axial compressors.
Westinghouse J30 - Wikipedia
Wiki says the 19 (for 19in diameter) was first run in March of 1943. correction welcome.
Westinghouse J30 - Wikipedia
Wiki says the 19 (for 19in diameter) was first run in March of 1943. correction welcome.
Was anything about an axial flow jet principles ever secret? I think the principle is incredibly simple, even getting one to work wasn't all that difficult, it was getting it to work reliably and under control that was the issue AFAIK.
Shortround6
Major General
Axial compressors as an "idea" may date to before WW I for industrial uses (steel mills?) but practical (real world) efficiency was never great in the early years.
For a jet engine (or turbo prop/shaft ) engine to work the compressor needs to use less power than the turbine section makes. Some of the early industrial engines could barely run (or didn't run) let alone provide extra power.
What was secret (or tried to be kept secret) was how to get all the stages in the axial flow compressor to play nicely together. If one stage stalls or misbehaves the entire assembly is useless. Figuring out which stage is the culprit and why was the hard part.
For a jet engine (or turbo prop/shaft ) engine to work the compressor needs to use less power than the turbine section makes. Some of the early industrial engines could barely run (or didn't run) let alone provide extra power.
What was secret (or tried to be kept secret) was how to get all the stages in the axial flow compressor to play nicely together. If one stage stalls or misbehaves the entire assembly is useless. Figuring out which stage is the culprit and why was the hard part.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
And I thought Metrovick was Russian! Very educational.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Was this design the one that Kelly Johnson was intending for the L-133? I see this was first run a few years after Mr. Johnson came up with his design.
