Which country designed the best engines for WWII? (1 Viewer)

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

A number of sources that likely quote one primary source. Since none of them goes into detail, that doesn't help solving this question. I'm kind of surprised that noone has found an exact breakdown of the gross weight into the various subsystems, that number should be available somewhere.

I also don't see how the two numbers contradict eachother, the ~740 kg is so close to the figure quoted by various sources suggests the German breakdown might be correct. I also highly doubt the Germans measured incorrectly or, as suggested, that they faked the number for propaganda purposes
 
Glider said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are all in agreement as KrazyKraut said, but they don`t seem to agree with your claims.

Reminder: You claim the 1640ish figure includes the weight of the supercharger and whatnot.

However, none of your or others sources say that (that they include these).
 
All of the "other sources", don't say that the dry weights exclude those items either. In fact they are conspicuous by their absence. If their weight was not included in these totals ,then why wouldn't it appear farther on in the manuals/sources? Of course standard practise for dryweights would include those items. For example the dryweight for a DB 605 is usually stated in the 1,550 lbs area.

However there is lots of evidence that those items are included in the weights of the various merlin models.ie

Meteor 1,100 lbs dryweight merlin block , no supercharger
Merlin III 1,375 lbs dry weight single speed supercharger
Merlin XX 1,450 lbs dryweight two speed supercharger
Merlin 61 1,640 lbs dryweight two speed/two stage supercharger

All of these engines employ the same bore/stroke merlin block ,and compression ratios. The defining characteristic being the induction system/supercharger. In the merlin 60 manual it describes all merlin 60s as having a two speed/two stage supercharger and then goes on to state the dry weights of the different models 61, 66 ect. Since all of the above engines use essentially the same block and the same displacement how could the dryweight numbers increase by over 500 lbs if the induction systems are not included?



The limitations of Kurfursts source are obvious. First and foremost its from a competative foreign source and second there is no other sources backing up those numbers.

Slaterat
 
slaterat said:
Meteor 1,100 lbs dryweight merlin block , no supercharger
Click to expand...
Which Mark is that btw?

The limitations of Kurfursts source are obvious. First and foremost its from a competative foreign source and second there is no other sources backing up those numbers.

Slaterat
Click to expand...
Yeah, great reasoning. It's German so it must be a lie. Yet Allied sources are accepted as undeniable truth of course. Welcome to 1950.
 
KrazyKraut said:
Yeah, great reasoning. It's German so it must be a lie. Yet Allied sources are accepted as undeniable truth of course. Welcome to 1950.
Click to expand...

You could say that you look at it the other way.

Because its German it must be correct, even though all the other evidence including the manuals to support the engine, agree to a different view. Welcome to the 19 take your pick
 
As stated multiple times before, they do not necessarily disagree: you just assume that they do.

So don't act like I'm cherry picking the material here. I'm just waiting for a source that convincingly disagrees with the numbers in Kurfürst's source. Which so far none does.
 
Glider said:
even though all the other evidence including the manuals to support the engine, agree to a different view.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating that like a broken record without offering any specifics.

At this point I must conclude you are partisan who entrenched himself in the woods and therefore not worth any more of my (our?) time, at least until you can come up with something more specific than your visions of innumerable and overwhelming evidence to your claims are actually more than just that; as they were sadly absent from this thread until now.
 
slaterat said:
Of course standard practise for dryweights would include those items.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Now, what's your source for this?

For example the dryweight for a DB 605 is usually stated in the 1,550 lbs area.
Click to expand...

And? Do you know what it actually includes or you guessing again?

slaterat said:
All of these engines employ the same bore/stroke merlin block ,and compression ratios.
Click to expand...

Well this getting better and better. Slaterat in Wonderland.

slaterat said:
Since all of the above engines use essentially the same block and the same displacement how could the dryweight numbers increase by over 500 lbs if the induction systems are not included?
Click to expand...

'Essentially the same'? Tell me, slaterat, then how did the Merlin cope with apprx. 800 to 1000 HP increase between the Merlin III and Merlin 60 series with 'essentially the same' bearings, crankshafts etc?

It is very odd you say that after all this reference to constant strengthening and improving of the Merlin`s internals as described in such a lenght and ferocity by Lovesey from R-R, referred earlier with such enthusiasm?
 

An interesting but not unexpected set of comments. Re the Specifics,

I have listed some of the sites that I have looked at. The links are there and you are free to check them.
The book that I have I listed and gave the page numbers, if you have the book then look it up.
The manual mentioned is one that was posted onto this site. I checked the thread and you are on it commented that it was full of good information and had found it very interesting, so you can check it.

I truely have tried to find a breakdown of weights without any success, all I have found is that all the sources I have tried have all come up with the same numbers give or take 10-20 lbs.

I am not making a claim, I am simply reporting the results of what I have found and have given you all the information to enable you to check as well. They are not my visions of anything neiher am I entrenched in the woods.

I would be interested to know if you have checked the sources quoted or the manual that you have seen and what your comments are.
 
Well I have checked the sources and they give the same (or about the same) dry weight for the Merlin 60 series as the German report.

The German report, however, is more complete with information, and it makes it pretty clear that this dry weight does not include the supercharger and the intercooler.

This is easy to confirm, if one adds the weight listed for the supercharger and intercooler to the weight listed for the 740kg/1650ish lbs weight given for engine 'dry weight', one gets the 840kg the Germans list as 'engine complete with supercharger and intercooler'. Thus 740kg/1650ish lbs dry weight refers to the bare engine only, w/o accessories.

To that of course comes the additional weight of the intercooler radiator, which is part of the system as well, and must be considered since its a neccessity for the two-stage Merlins.

The Germans probably follow the same standard when they give the DB 605A`s weight as 720/764 kg.
Kurfrst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 605 A

Which also makes sense as the DB 605A didnt have an intercooler, and it employed a less sizeable, singe stage supercharger.

Compared to the DB 605AS (which was a 605A, with a bigger supercharger from the 603), this can be confirmed; 'dry weight' is practically the same (730 kg), whereas complete weight is higher at 796 kg, obviously from the extra weight from the big DB 603 blower, as not much else changed.
Kurfrst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 605 AS

Its a pity I cant seem to find that particular paper in my 605AS Einbaumappe, which IIRC listed a weight breakdown for the DB 605AS as well.

The part I don`t understand, that since it is so crystal clear, then why several pages of arguements?
 
Kurfürst
from your own site, "Einbaugewicht des Triebwerkes (mit Zusatzgeräten)":605 AM 794 kg and 605 ASM 796 kg, so the big difference between A and AS seems not to be from supercharger, maybe from the bigger oilcooler of later versions or from some other refinement.

Juha
 
KrazyKraut
My messages #55, 58 and 66, on weight table of P-51B and C, engine weight (incl. accessories) given as 1670 lb, nowhere in the list there is supercharger or intercooler weights. All weight adds up to given empty and basic weights, so there are no lines missing. Very small item weights are given down to pyrotechnics (6 lb). How probable you think that the empty and basic weights of P-51B/C are without supercharger and intercooler? After all that is what Kurfürst implies. And why the two-stage, two-speed Merlin ENGINE MAINTENANCE MANUAL doesn't give the weight of these engines but only weight of Merlin WITHOUT two-stage, two-speed supercharger? Somehow I feel that it would be more natural to give weights of the engines of which the manual is about.

Juha
 
From my point of view it would be logical to include these. However I'm not an engineer nor an expert on intercoolers or superchargers. Apparently the Germans indeed did NOT include superchargers when giving numbers for dryweights.

Like I said, I can't believe that for an engine this well-known there is no detailed breakdown available. I hope someone can come up with one and clear this up without further need for personal insults.
 
KrazyKat
Quote: "However I'm not an engineer "

Neither am I.

Quote: " hope someone can come up with one and clear this up"

Same to here, We have 2 sets of info which differ, so we need some new data to clear things out.

Juha
 
I'm thinking the question should be specific to what year?

The double-wasp and R-4360 major pineaple (variant) were the biggest/best engines at the end of WW2 IMHO. Starting the war the fuel injected Daimler-Benz DB 601 that didnt need carb-heat and would dive without leaning was best.

The Packard and RR merlins were awesome production machines too during and after.

KB
 
USA built the best aircraft engines.
As someone mentioned the improvements to the Packard Merlin, and even if some consider the Allison a dog, remember even the RR engines that are built for racing usually end up with Allison connecting rods in them.
Something else to consider, what brands and what country designed and built the most popular radial engines that are still flying today? I'd say the most popular "large" recip engine still in use today is the Pratt Whitney R-2800, (gosh maybe even the R-1830) that is a testament to which country did build the best engines.
And we can't forget the R-3350 powering the big Martin mars fire bomber.
I don't think there too many running examples of what any of the other countries made during the war years. Other than RR liquid cooled engines.
 
All those countries had marvelous engines, but my vote, in general, goes to the germans, because of the bmw801:
-small (front area-less drag),
-very well build cooler-system,
-injection (no need to explain),
-easy for maintenance (very fast attach-points on the fire-wall),
-delivered as a whole ready-to-use unit (power egg),
-best engine command-unit till the fifties (when a canadian company copied the design without authorisation) allowing an easier flight for the pilot,
-Solid as a rock (as the most of the radials anyway!),
-rather low weight compared to the PW's with the oversized compressors (or the complicated turbo system)
-and it's power starting at 1560 in41 and ending somewhere at +/-2050hp at the end of the war with max boost and C-3 injection (crump, if you read me and i'm wrong about that one, please correct me, i dream about the 1.65 C3injected bmw power and boost chart for the JABO-1000meters and Fighter versions!).

And i forgot about the beemer's sister in law: the Ash-82, with less qualities than the 801, but comparable in aerodynamical and power aspects, still in use today...even in the new build FW190's!

and about the pb that we only see PW's now: it's due only to the fact who won the war and who not
 

America's Hundred Thousand - Table 48 breaks down the weight of the P-51 B&C with the weight of the engine given as 1670 lb INCLUDING ACESSORIES

Table 35 breaks down the weight of the P-40F with the weight of the engine given as 1518lb with engine accessories listed separately as 114 lb.

In neither case is there a separate listing for a supercharger.
 
That seems a bit odd, as the all-up dry weight of the V-1650-1 (Merlin 20 series) should be considerably less than that of the V-1650-3/7 (60 series). (and the Pacard engines seem to be a litle heavier than their british counterparts)


Also, on a slightly different not, the carburetor fed into the supercharger, so it would not be mounted without the supercharger there as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

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
346
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