Which country designed the best engines for WWII?

Which country designed the best aircraft engines for WWII?

  • Total voters
    370

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Juha said:
And what counts were engines which were used in combat sqns, not some prototypes which were expected to reach xxxx hp.

Juha
Click to expand...

Speaking of that, how many Griffon 65s were around at the end of 1942, ie. when the 1850 PS DB 603A was introduced, the one you are comparing the Griffon engine?

How many Griffon 65s produced during the war?

I would say the Griffon was a fairly comparable engine to the DB 603A-E series, and the Jumo 213 series - actually the Jumo strikes as the best of these in this size class - only that the Griffon came later and was less available.
 
Kurfürst said:
Correct. Without the supercharger and the intercooler.
I am not sure if the carburrator`s weight is included in the 1670lbs/740kg figure.
Click to expand...
Kurfurst
Its an interesting document but if I read it right (and German is not something I am good at) this refers to a Merlin 47 from a Spitfire VI. This was an unusual version, only 100 of which were built specifically for High Altitude work.

Anyway the point is that the Merlin 47 had a dry weight of around 1,450lbs. It looks to me if your document is not referring to a Series 61 engine but a modified Series 45 engine.
One unique aspect of the Merlin 47 was that it had cabin supercharger which may impact on your weights.

If your interested, the Spitfire VI also had an increase in wing area to improve controllability at high altitudes with a span of 40 ft. 2 in. The pressure cabin provided a cabin differential of 2 lb./s. in., reducing apparent altitude from 40,000 feet to 28,000 feet.
 
Kurfürst
in 42 there were only a few Griffons around but during the war production must have been at least 3000 - 3500, powered at least appr. 650 Firefly Mk Is and IIs plus over 1000 Spit XII, XIV, XVIII, XIX and 21.
 
BTW
A. C. Lovesey gave as the weight of 2-stage Merlin 1660 lb in his lecture to the De Havilland Aircraft Company Technical Department in Nov 1945.
Source Aircraft Engineering July 1946.

Juha
 
Glider said:
Kurfurst
Its an interesting document but if I read it right (and German is not something I am good at) this refers to a Merlin 47 from a Spitfire VI.
Click to expand...

Document says the aircraft/engine is fitted with the same prop as was used on the Spit VI with Merlin 47. It does not say the data is from a Spit VI or Merlin 47.
 
Juha said:
BTW
A. C. Lovesey gave as the weight of 2-stage Merlin 1660 lb in his lecture to the De Havilland Aircraft Company Technical Department in Nov 1945.
Source Aircraft Engineering July 1946.

Juha
Click to expand...

I wonder Juha how many times you want to repeat a figure you don`t actually what it actually stands for to serve as distraction. I believe the matter has been decided. I see no point to discuss it any further.
 
Lovesey, who happened to have been one of the engine specialists of R-R, gave the figure in connection when comparing the size and weight of 2-stage Merlin to a hypothetical single stage engine giving same power at 30 000ft. There isn't much sense to make the comparison without including the superchargers of the both engines and the intercooler of the 2-stage engine. More so because in the profiles of the engines in the comparison the superchargers and the intercooler are clearly attached into engines.

And because I don't thing it very probable that official P-51 B/C empty, basic and gross weights were weights without superchargers and intercooler, You at least seemed to retract from the claim that they were weights also without the carb, as your oppinion imply, I don't think the question is settled. We simply disagree.
 
Lovesley didn`t write anything like that. In any case, you are using his name to give authority to your claims, without Lovesey actually supporting your opinion.

Actual measurements of the Merlin 61 show beyond reasonable doubt that the weight of the engine complete with supercharger and intercooler was 834 kg.

That some here are unreasonable is not my concern.
 
Kurfürst
if You have the article reread it and especially check the Fig. 10 and compare it with Fgures 13 and 14

Juha
 
Well Kurfurst here's some more links for you. Straight from the
WW2aircraft.net forums.

[thread]12036[/thread]

The first one is a link to the manual for a two stage merlin. In it on chapter one page 3 , it describes the 60 series as having a two speed, two stage supercharger. farther down , you will read the dry weight for a merlin 61 is 1,640lbs. Of course you know this as you have already downloaded the said manual.

[thread]10777[/thread]

The second link is an article on the merlin XX. Here it states the dry weight for a merlin XX as 1450 lbs, also remarking that the merlin XX is only 75 lbs heavier than a merlin II[ the same block with a single speed supercharger] and has a power to weight ratio of 1.13 lbs /hp. thats 1280 [the power] divided into 1450 lbs[the dry weight of the engine, including the supercharger and carb].

All merlins used the same bore and stroke and 27 liter displacement. The differences in weight are due to the different superchargers/fuel delivery systems that are installed.

Kurfurst ,you said I was making up numbers and called me a liar when you knew I was posting legitimate numbers, what does that make you ?

You have provided nothing, except a scrap of paper that doesn't mention a merlin 61 anywhere. Obviously this document is in error or just a piece of German propaganda embellished to impress the superiors. In either case I'll take the numbers from the manual used by the people who built and serviced these fine engines.

You can't seriuosly tell me that you think the Germans could build a 35 litre engine complete with supercharger , lighter than the British could build a 27 litre engine excluding the supercharger? Let me guess you say yes.

Kurfurst I am forced to conclude that you are nothing more than an agent of propaganda. Why dont you do us all a favor and go and peddle your goods somewhere else, no one here is buying.

slaterat
 
Mouth mouth mouth.

'Complete Engine (including supercharger and intercooler), but without coolant : 834 kg (1837 lbs)
Engine dry weight 740 kg. (1629 lbs)'

And since when drilling bigger holes in a piece of metal makes it heavier..?
In any case, the French could appearantly make a 36 liter engine at 470 kg.
Hispano-Suiza 12Y - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, none of your claims has factual basis, but we have accustomed to that on other boards already.
 
This is one of those situations that will probably not be solved.
On one side you have all the various sources mentioned both on line and published including the original manuals on the engine all giving the same basic weight of round 1,650lb.

On the other Kurfurst has his one source which to be fair a) does gointo detail but b) doesn't actually say that it comes from a Spit IX or a Merlin 61 series engine, only that it had the same propeller as the merlin 47 on a Spit VI

This last point could be quite important as the Spit XII with the early Griffon also had a 4 bladed Rotol prop and the weight of the early Griffon was 1800lb which is very similar to the weights on the document that Kurfurst has shown us.

I would suggest that there is a possibility that the Germans are looking at the engine from a Spit XII not a IX
 
Well I did some research and found a good comparison.

A Rolls Royce meteor, sometimes called a rover meteor, was a version of the merlin made for use in tanks. Once again it had the same bore/stroke displacement and aluminum block. The two biggest differences are that the meteor was not certified for air use and it was not equiped with a supercharger. It also used more steel componants as weight saving wasn't as essential in a tank compared to an aircraft.

Well the weight of a meteor is about 1,100 lbs. That would be the weight for a merlin block plus a carb with no supercharger.

Slaterat
 
Glider said:
And how do you explain the manuals on the engine?
Click to expand...

Explain what?

The manuals says the engine`s dry weight is 740 kg or so.
The German report says the engine`s dry weight is 740 kg or so.
The German report says the engine`s complete with supercharger and intercooler is 830 kg or so.

Clearly the weight of the supercharger and intercooler is not included in the 740 kg figure, which is the bare engine.

Dance around that fact as long as you like.

Thats the difference you see - you see a figure of 740 kg in a source and claim it includes this and that - but your source does not say that it includes this and that, its a thing you add yourself to the story.
 

The interesting thing is that I supplied a number of sources not a source and other people supplied other sources. All of them in agreement. The only exception is yours which is why I said earlier that this is one that is not going to end in agreement.

Look at it the other way, what would be your reaction if there is a report about something German and it went in the face of every piece of evidence you found in Germany. I am sure you would say no problem Glider, I agree that all the German sources, manufacturers data and independent papers published or on the web are wrong and what you have is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Scaling Laws for Gas Turbine Engines
Replies
5
Views
1K
peceed
P
T
Looking for information on the fuel injected R-1340 used on the P-26B/C?
Replies
3
Views
342
ThomasP
T
M-82 engines
Replies
1
Views
1K
bf109xxl
Z
Combustion chamber shape and valve angles in WWII aero engines
Replies
16
Views
2K
Deleted member 68059
D
S
Why such a low RPM for the Griffon?
Replies
16
Views
2K
pbehn
P
Menu
Log in
Register