Which country designed the best engines for WWII?

[starling]

i reckon england did.the merlin powered the spit,lanc and mossie.yours,starling.

 

[Glider]

Thanks Gilder for Malta figures and Jan 44 figure
on 1 Jun 44, appr. 20% of ADGB and 2nd TAF spits were Mk Vs rest were VIIs, IXs plus a small number of XIVs.

And what I have read on Normandy battles, from both sides, there were enough RAF air superiority fighters but cleary not enough LW fighters, so British could produce enough 60 series Merlins for at least ETO needs. I'm not studied MTO in 44 so much but my guess is that situation was by then same also there. And by that time they could sent some Mk VIIIs also to Far East.

Juha

That fits in pretty well with what I have.

Re the statement that the Germans had more or less re equipped with later versions of the 109 before the British that isn't suprising as the vast majority of German fighter production went into replacing losses. Allied production was to a much greater degree going into expansion.

German fighter strength
4th May 1940 1369 single engined fighters
End June 1944 1375 single engined fighters

 

[Kurfürst]

If it helps in the period 19 December 41 to 7 November 41, German losses attributed to fighters and AA fire were 249 aircraft. These figures are from German records.
In the same period The italian losses seem to have been about two thirds of the German losses (they are not collated in a similar manner and I don't have the time to go through a 650 page book).

British losses in the air for the period 1st Jan 41 to 7 November were 45 Hurricanes and 148 Spitfires.

The above figures from Malta the Spitfire Years.

Thanks, these figures appear to be a lot more reasonable. I presume its a typo and the figures are for between 19 December 1941 to 7 November 1942..?

Apart from Spitfires and Hurricanes, do you know what other British losses occured in the area?

Re the comment about the number of Spit V's in service in Jan 1944 I make it about 50/50 with a large number in the process of conversion during the first quarter of 1944. By March 44 its a lot more.
Information gleaned from squadrons of the RAF.

See attachment.

Juha

I'm not studied MTO in 44 so much but my guess is that situation was by then same also there. And by that time they could sent some Mk VIIIs also to Far East.

Nope - the MTO had far less of priority for new equipment than the ETO, the Mk Vs - clearly obsolate by 1943 - still saw much use there, while the new types were scarce.

Re the statement that the Germans had more or less re equipped with later versions of the 109 before the British that isn't suprising as the vast majority of German fighter production went into replacing losses. Allied production was to a much greater degree going into expansion.


German fighter strength
4th May 1940 1369 single engined fighters
End June 1944 1375 single engined fighters

I don`t think its true, after all, the size of the LW considerably increased between 1940 and 1944; the RAF`s fighter force remained very much the same as well in 1944 as it was in 1940; and your comparison ignores that while in 1940 single engined fighter types only went to single engined fighter units, by 1944 Bf 109s and FW 190As were found in large numbers in reconnaissance, ground-attack and of course, SE fighter units.

HoHun has made an extremely informative graph on the subject, I will re-post it below.

As of June 1944 (to remain compatible with your date), Bf 109 and FW 190 strenght with units were as follows:

Daylight fighters
1281 Bf 109s
631 FW 190s
42 Misc (110s, 163, 210, 205)

Night Fighters:
13 Bf 109s
14 FW 190s
+ a lot of others

Ground attack units
508 FW 190s
+ a lot of others

Recce units.
238 Bf 109s
17 FW 190s

So as of June 1944, you are speaking of 1532 Bf 109s and 1170 FW 190s, a total of 2702 SE fighter types with LW units, not counting stratetigic reserves. As of 4th May 1940 you noted 1369 single engined fighters - its hard to say that given the above (and taking into account that when speaking of June 1944, we are speaking of the period in the war the Luftwaffe received its most severe mauling), that almost all of the production went into replacing losses; that is quite simply not true, as the above figures demonstrate.

 

[parsifal]

Throughout most of 1941, the principal LW SE fighter remained the Me 109e,rather than the f. 1942 saw a re-equipment to the f, but the g was not seen until the latter part of 1942

According to "Campaign For North Africa", the theatre received the following reinforcements throughout 1941-42

This collation does not include withdrawals from the theatre
1941

Jan: 30 Me 110, 15 FW 200C, 30 Ju87B, 36 Ju 88
Feb:
Mar: 32 Me 110, 12 HS 126, 15 Ju 87,
Apr: 46 Me 109e, 12 Me 110, 12 Ju 52, 15 Ju 87, 12 Ju88
May: 42 Me 109e, 18 Me 110, 15 He 111, 15 Ju 52, 24 Ju 87, 15 Ju 88
Jun: 36 Me 109e, 15 He 111, 12 Ju 87, 15 Ju 88
Jul: 40 Me 109e, 15 Me 109f, 6 Me 11015 Ju 52
Aug: 38 Me 109e, 18 me 109f, 15 Me 110, 24 Ju 87, 18 Ju 88
Sep: 42 Me 109e, 32 Me 109f, 28 Me 110, 12 FW 200, 18 He 111,
22 Ju 87, 30 Ju 88
Oct: 56 Me 109e, 42 Me 109f, 28 Me 110, 12 AR 196, 12 He 111,
18 Ju 52, 12 Ju 87, 18 Ju 88
Nov: 50 Me 109e, 30 Me 109f, 6 Me 110, 15 Ju 88, 12 Ju 52, 18 Ju 87,
18 Ju 88
Dec: 18 Me 109e, 38 Me 109f, 15 Me 110, 30 Ju 87, 6 Ju 88

1942

Jan: 12 Me 109e, 48 Me 109f, 15 Me 110, 21 Ju 88, 6 He 111, 12 Ju 52.
15 Ju 87
Feb: 12 Me 109e, 36 Me 109f, 15 Me 110, 30 Ju 88, 18 He 111, 30 Ju 87,
Mar: 9 Me 109e, 45 Me 109f, 15 Me 110, 12 ju 52, 15 Ju 87, 12 Ju 88,
Apr: 36 Me 109f, 40 Me 109g, 12 Me 110, 18 Ju 88, 6 Ar 196, 6 Ju 87
May: 30 Me 109f, 36 Me 109g, 12 Fw 200, 12 He 111, 18 Ju 52, 24 Ju 87,
24 Ju 88
Jun: 15 Me 109f, 48 Me 109g, 12 He 111, 15 Ju 52, 10 Ju 87, 30 Ju 88
Jul: 20 Me 109f, 18 Me 109g, 12 Ju 88, 12 ju 52, 12 Ju 87
Aug 36 Me 109g, 12 Ju 87, 15 Ju 88
Sep: 45 Me 109g, 18 Ju 52, 6 Ju 87D, 12 Ju 88
Oct: 12 Me 109g, 12 He 111, 12 Ju87, 6 Ju 88
Nov: 12 Me 109g, 8 Ju 87
Dec: None

The pont illustrated her is that the LW also tended to put older service types into the theatres (regarding its SE fighters). Also, given what we know were the strengths of the LW at various times, the attrition of the LW was extremely heavy, even in this early to mid part of the war.

 

[Juha]

Kurfürst
Maybe the most fundamental rule of economics is the scarcity of resurces from which follows that optimal number of something is just enough. More means that the resources would have been in better use in producing something else.

So in mid-1944, IMHO RAF/RAAF/SAAF had more or less enough air superiority fighters bacause the Allies had air superiority in ETO and MTO. More Spit Mk VII or newer would not change the situation much. On the other hand LW clearly didn't have enough fighters in ETO and in MTO, they really would have had use say 500 more 109Gs. Absolute numbers doesn't matter, what matters was did one had enough air superiority fighters or not for one's needs. That doesn't exclude the fact than in 43 and in early 44 there was a need for more Merlin 60 series fighters, for ex at Salerno, if it would have been possible to deploy them (I haven't time to check that) so that they would have been in position to hinder LW's high altitude FX 1400 attacks against warships at Salerno Bay.

And on 60 series Merlins production, there were enough (Pachard-built) of them also for some 14 thousands P-51B-Ks.

Juha

 

[Kurfürst]

Throughout most of 1941, the principal LW SE fighter remained the Me 109e,rather than the f. 1942 saw a re-equipment to the f, but the g was not seen until the latter part of 1942.

It is certainly not true for the entire LW - the Emil`s production run in early 1941; by mid-1941, the 109F become the principal fighter of most frontline fighter units; the 109E was only to be seen in the more remote areas, such as JG 5 in Norway, and the various Erganzungseinheiten (=OTUs) for training purposes, and for some time in principially ground attack Jabo units.

Single engine fighters - 28.06.41

Of course here and then, especially in the Med in late 1941, the Emils could still be a significant proportion of the force, but that force was very small to begin with, not to mention the opposition (Hurricanes and Gladiators, at best) didn`t call for much more. But, by the end of 1941, there was hardly any Emils around with first line units:

Single engine fighters - 27.12.41

I am not sure of your numbers though, it shows for example 40 109Gs in April 1942; but the type didn`t actually entered into production until May, and the first ones were received by high-altitude elements on the Western Front in June 1942.

 

[parsifal]

It is certainly not true for the entire LW - the Emil`s production run in early 1941; by mid-1941, the 109F become the principal fighter of most frontline fighter units; the 109E was only to be seen in the more remote areas, such as JG 5 in Norway, and the various Erganzungseinheiten (=OTUs) for training purposes, and for some time in principially ground attack Jabo units.


I agree, I meant to say that the e was the principal type in the MTO, not as a general comment about the whole of the LW.


Of course here and then, especially in the Med in late 1941, the Emils could still be a significant proportion of the force, but that force was very small to begin with, not to mention the opposition (Hurricanes and Gladiators, at best) didn`t call for much more. But, by the end of 1941, there was hardly any Emils around with first line units:

Not true in the Med, they continued to be the principal front line fighter until about March or April 1942.

I am not sure of your numbers though, it shows for example 40 109Gs in April 1942; but the type didn`t actually entered into production until May, and the first ones were received by high-altitude elements on the Western Front in June 1942.

I saw that too, it may well be an error, I suspect they were fs instead.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a different thread?

 

[Glider]

Have to agree, I have a number of points that I would comment on but this isn't the place.

 

[slaterat]

Lots of miss information in this thread.

first :
A complete Merlin 60 series engine weighs in at between 1640 and 1660 lbs.
This includes the entire engine, supercharger, intercooler and carb or fuel injection pump. What it does not include are the underwing radiators, two for engine glycol , one for oil and one for the intercooler glycol.

lets get a fair comparison

a merlin 61/66 27 liters
weight 1640 lbs [includes entire supercharger and intercooler]
hp 1565 at 15 lbs boost
1800 at 18 lbs boost
2000 at 25lbs boost
DB 605 35.7 liters
weight 1584 lbs plus 220 lbs for mw 50 = 1804 lbs
hp 605a 1,475[no mw 50 ?]
605am 1,800 with mw50
605 dc 2,000 with mw50

As you can see both engines got progressively more powerful. The bare block merlin would be smaller and substanially lighter. However with the addition of the two stage two speed supercharger , the weights of the two powerplants are quite close. The intercooled merlin has the ability to take higher boost pressures with out water methanol injection. Different paths to the same goal.



Slaterat

 

[slaterat]

Kurfurst wrote ;

Well we certainly have a German report with rather precise measurements; as a matter of fact, it is the most detailed report on the Merlin 61 and its aux. systems I have seen so far; the suggestion that Germans were inapt at measuring the weight of an engine has considerable merit in the field of bizarre humor IMHO

Its kind of funny and ironic that you would say that.

Slaterat

 

[Kurfürst]

Lots of miss information in this thread.

first :
A complete Merlin 60 series engine weighs in at between 1640 and 1660 lbs.
This includes the entire engine, supercharger, intercooler and carb or fuel injection pump. What it does not include are the underwing radiators, two for engine glycol , one for oil and one for the intercooler glycol.

I would like to see the source which is supposed to state that 1640 lbs inlcudes the supercharger, intercooler and carb or fuel injection pump.

Without that, we`re talking in terms of fantasy here.

lets get a fair comparison

a merlin 61/66 27 liters
weight 1640 lbs [includes entire supercharger and intercooler]
hp 1565 at 15 lbs boost
1800 at 18 lbs boost
2000 at 25lbs boost
DB 605 35.7 liters
weight 1584 lbs plus 220 lbs for mw 50 = 1804 lbs
hp 605a 1,475[no mw 50 ?]
605am 1,800 with mw50
605 dc 2,000 with mw50

So what is a fair comparison in comparing peak outputs of the Merlin with Sea level outputs of the DB, quioting 1640 lbs and pretending its full engine weight for the Merlin, dismissing the fact that the Merlin requires an additional intercooler radiator but including the MW system`s weight in case of the DB..?
Not to mention the Merlin`s output of 1800 HP @ +18 lbs is incorrect as well...?

Now as fai comparison as far as engines go,

The bare DB 605A weighted 720 kg, 764 kg complete with accessories, producing 1550 (1410 at 1.3ata) PS peak output; for that it consumed 480 (400) liters/hour.

The bare Merlin 61 weighted 740, 834 kg complete with supercharger and intercooler, to which comes 44 kg for the carburator and 42.5 kg for the intercooler radiator. 920 kg in total. It develops 1550 HP at peak output, at a peak consumption rate of 615 liters/hour.

The propellers, oil tanks, engine bearers are not included in either powerplant weights; and naturally, the Merlin developed more power at altitude, ca. 1000 HP at 9500 meter vs 800 (775) PS in the case of the DB 605A-1; the latter could be however boosted to 1150 PS with use of GM-1 (at 1.3ata/2600 rpm; I have no figures for 1.42ata/2800 rpm, but likely we are talking at about 1200-1300 PS) at the expense of + 75 kg added weight for the GM-1 system.

 

[Glider]

I must admit that all the data I can find from various places both written and on the web, does give a dry weight of a Merlin 60 series of around 1640 - 1670lb.
The earlier 45 series weighing in at 1430lb again with a slight difference according to the version.

 

[slaterat]

Kurfurst, you don't know what you're talking about.
Dry weight typically means a "dry" complete engine without coolant ,fuel , or oil. A dry weight DB 605 usually weighs in at 1550 to 1585 lbs.

These are dry weights for merlins

Merlin I/II/III 1320 lbs includes single speed supercharger and carb
Merlin XX 1450 lbs includes 2 speed supercharger and carb
Merlin 61/66 1660 lbs includes 2 speed/2stage supercharger and
intercooler and carb

Can you see the progression? You say that a bare block merlin 61 weighs 1660 lbs but a merlin III weighs 1320 [with supercharger]. Keep in mind its the same bore ,stroke and engine block. Then you go on to say that a merlin 61 weighs in at 2024 lbs? Please Kurfurst just admit you are wrong and save some face and credibility while you still can. A quick check on wikipedia can save you.
If you want a source there are many on the web , I also have several books confirming this. Kurfurst the German source you are quoting is either in error or has been mis-translated.

Try this link WWII Aircraft Performance

Check the article section on development of the merlin.

We both know their power curves changed throughout their development I chose three models of each to demonstrate this. You admit yourself that the merlin developed more power at altitude.

Slaterat

 

[KrazyKraut]

Yeah that site again. I just read a small part of the "article" on Mk.I vs. 109 E. I especially liked how he put words in Moelders mouth. Selective facts and misinformation.

 

[Kurfürst]

slaterat,

There is no need to engage with you endless polemics. You`ve made several claims with regards the Merlin engines weight. Support them.

I am quite sure you have made them up. If you`d actually have 'several' books confirming your statements, there would be nothing easier than to just quote them or to post the relavant pages. Instead, you keep repeating the same claim and it gets you nowhere.

As for the Mike Williams site, it has a certain odor when it comes to credibility. It has a wide reputation of selecting its facts to support a certain agenda dear to the author.

In any case, there`s nothing on that site that would support your claims, either.

'You admit yourself that the merlin developed more power at altitude.'

It depends on which DB engine we are speaking of. The Merlin certainly did not develop more power at altitude than the AS and D series of engines.

 

[Soren]

Juha needs to study the debated engines a bit.

At relatively low boost the DB-603 produced 2,300 PS, and the final versions equipped with MW-50 were expected to reach 2,800 - 3,000 PS.

 

[Glider]

I must admit that all the data I can find from various places both written and on the web, does give a dry weight of a Merlin 60 series of around 1640 - 1670lb.
The earlier 45 series weighing in at 1430lb again with a slight difference according to the version.

For what its worth my main printed source is Janes Fighting Aircraft page 280 -281. It gives a detailed breakdown of the Merlin 61 and a list of weights/performances of the various other types of Merlin.

Some of the sites I visited are: -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin#Specifications_.28Merlin_66.29
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/294365/December+1942+The+Rolls-Royce+Merlin+engine.htm
http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html
http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Pride of Pay n Pak/Rolls-Royce Merlin V-1650 Engine.htm

They are all very close in detail and from very different sources. The only valid concluion is that the Merlin 61 series weighed in at around 1670lb.

 

[Kurfürst]

The only valid concluion is that the Merlin 61 series weighed in at around 1670lb.

Correct. Without the supercharger and the intercooler.
I am not sure if the carburrator`s weight is included in the 1670lbs/740kg figure.

 

[Juha]

Soren
now Griffon 65 produced 2035 hp with +18in boost and 2220 with +21 boost.
DB 603A, AA and E IIRC produced 1750-1900 hp.
And N, of which only prototype was ready, 2800hp. And what counts were engines which were used in combat sqns, not some prototypes which were expected to reach xxxx hp.


Juha