Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Most of them were based off the DB 602 which had absolutely nothing to do with the DB 600, 601 or 605.
The DB 602 was a v-16 diesel of about 2000kg that powered the two Hindenburg class airships.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Most of them were based off the DB 602 which had absolutely nothing to do with the DB 600, 601 or 605.By the way, Daimler's MB500 series marine diesels were based on the DB600 engine.
I find it interesting that the Italians used diesels in their tanks instead of designing something off of their aircraft engines. With a limited industrial base, Italy seems a good candidate for consolidation of designs across services.
Why didn't German army vehicles use aeroplane-derived engines?
I think the question should be why did the British use at Merlin derived Meteor engine in the most of their tanks from mid war onwards and two petrol engines in the Matilda II.
I could hsee the Junkers Jumo 210 being evolved as a tank engine but the HL120 and HL230 were perfectly adäquate
The Churchill engine was a bespoke design. It was sidevalve while the Bedford truck engines were OHV. The side vavle arrangement reduced engine width.Until you get to tanks of around 30 tons or heavier Aircraft type engines are not needed. Depends a bit on the engine and the tank, The US M2-M3 used a small 7 cylinder trainer engine but that may not be what people are thinking?
The Matilda II came in both diesel and gasoline versions but the engines were originally built for buses so they were in production (available and cheap), The A9 and A10 used a different bus engine.
Half-tracks, armoured cars and large military trucks don't need aircraft type engines, even trainer type engines.
The Jumo 210 was pretty much a non starter as it was inverted (harder to work on in a tank) and was about 19 liters so the Maybach HL 210 and HL 230 were going to make about the same power if run on the same fuel. The Jumo 210 might have worked if flipped over and a few other modifications but why bother, it had no real advantage.
The British trapped themselves with the LIberty engine. In part because of a lack of large truck engines. Legend has it that the Churchill used two Bedford truck engines on a common crankshaft/crankcase and that was not powerful enough for the weight of the tank. The Liberty required a large engine compartment which meant the Meteor was pretty easy to drop in.
For the British the engine used in the Covenanter was pretty much a flop and may have soured them on purpose built engines? or simply left them without enugh time to design anything else.
The Meteor was actually too powerful for the Cromwell, the suspension (and crew) could not stand up to the speeds the tank was capable of and later versions were regeared to limit the speed to about 80% of the first tanks.
The Meteor would have been great for a 40 ton tank, unfortunately the Centurion grew to about 50 tons pretty quick.
Cheers, Dave.
Care to elaborate the quoted sentence?
The meteor powered Centurion had a a combat record second to none.
Not sure what they would put it in unless some of the experimental heavy tanks T-28 and T-29 series? The T-29 got the Ford V-12.Note that Packard was at one time going to build the Rolls Royce Meteor but in cast iron.
I believe the radial was also more finicky when it came to fuel requiring 87 octane as opposed to the 80 octane supplied to the army, but I cannot relocte the referenc.
The Packard proposal was in October 1941 and was intended to substitute for the Liberty in British tank production. The stoke was to be shortened to 5 1/2 inches with a similar crankshaft but cheaper material. Crankcase, blocks and heads in cast iron. Cylinder liners and pistons as per std Merlin. Valves, camshafts, drives per std Merlin. Weight ~1700 lb.Not sure what they would put it in unless some of the experimental heavy tanks T-28 and T-29 series? The T-29 got the Ford V-12.
You original post implied that the Meteor was inadequate for the Centurion. Its mobility and reliability were as good or better than most of its contemporaries. The truly underpowered tank was the M26.That it did even though it was often criticized for it's slow speed.
However combat mobility is often somewhat disconnected from speed on level roads with good surfaces.
The Centurion was noted for it's ability to climb hills, even if slowly, that other tanks could not. Low gear in transmission?
Many tanks had similar cross country speeds. Often the cross country speed was limited by the suspension's ability to absorb shocks and keep the crew from bouncing around the inside of the tank.
Early Centurions had a very short range but that was due, in part, to limited fuel capacity under armor.
However a few other tanks may have rather exaggerated ranges because in practice they did not travel in high gear (most miles per gallon) but sometimes "cruised" in a lower gear.
Why didn't German army vehicles use aeroplane-derived engines?
Well they did TRY to....Panzer VIII Maus.
However broadly I cant imagine a worse tank engine than an aero engine.
1) Aero engines are hideously expensive because they have to be very high output AND very low weight and very small size. At least 1 and probably 2 of those
dont matter for a tank.
2) Aero engine systems are designed to work at high altitudes, in a tank this gadgetry is rendered moot.
(you can just take the supercharger off, but thats all design work).
3) Aero engines need high grade fuel, very limited supply and hard to transport because the sources are few, and immobile.
(you can just detune them, but then you lose much of the high power density advantage)
4) Aero engines are not designed to get abused, they dont like being idled for long periods, they dont like dirt and
they dont like getting overheated in cramped conditions.
All of these things can be "designed out", by which point its not really an aero engine anymore.
The only situation in which you ought to put one in a tank, is if you`ve been stupid enough not to design a proper
tank engine in the first place. I`d also say that any sensible tank engine ought to be diesel, which also counts out
just about any (western) aero engine other than a Jumo 205.
I think you meant the V-16 DB602 airship engine, not the inverted V12 airplane engine.By the way, Daimler's MB500 series marine diesels were based on the DB600 engine.
I think I meant exactly what I said, but perhaps I should have fought my spell check better.I think you meant the V-16 DB602 airship engine, not the inverted V12 airplane engine.