Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.
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.You would prefer a Lockheed Ventura to a Spitfire Mk XIV?
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.
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.
Don't forget the pigeon!!! Carrier Pigeons in the Bomber WarPlus 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.
I have taken advantage of the ignore function.Calm down everyone. No need to get in a spat. lol
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.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.
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.
I'm curious about those axial flow engines you touched upon. I didn't know the Allies had that design at all.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.
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.I'm curious about those axial flow engines you touched upon. I didn't know the Allies had that design at all.
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.Westinghouse was working on Axial compressors.
Westinghouse J30 - Wikipedia
View attachment 613256
Wiki says the 19 (for 19in diameter) was first run in March of 1943. correction welcome.
And I thought Metrovick was Russian! Very educational.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.
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.Westinghouse was working on Axial compressors.
Westinghouse J30 - Wikipedia
View attachment 613256
Wiki says the 19 (for 19in diameter) was first run in March of 1943. correction welcome.