Wright R-1820 vs Pratt Whitney R-1830

Discussion in 'Polls' started by gjs238, Dec 10, 2009.

?

Wright R-1820 vs Pratt Whitney R-1830: Which was superior?

  1. Wright R-1820

    1 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. Pratt Whitney R-1830

    3 vote(s)
    75.0%
  1. gjs238

    gjs238 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Which was better and why?
     
  2. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    A face-off always fares better if you can put up a spec sheet
     
  3. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands

    WHEN (WHAT YEAR)?

    FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

    The R-1820 was certainly a better helicopter engine after the war:)
     
  4. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    PW R-1830 saw wider use ... especially as a fighter engine



    Kris
     
  5. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    Good Question. From Wikipedia data, the R-1820 is heavier but has a smaller frontal area, which is expected with a second row of cylinders and roughly the same displacement. It probably is more complex with more cylinders, thus less reliable and higher maintainability (my thoughts). The F4F-4 and FM-1 used a 1830, but the FM-2 used a more powerful 1820 so there seems to be better growth in the 1830. Also, Wikipedia reported better specific fuel consumption in the 1830. It appears from my simple research that either engine would have worked by itself, so, why both? It seems commonality would have been advantageous. A look at the Navy, where I would think commonality is very important, I found this usage.

    R-1820
    SBD
    F2A
    R4D-2
    J2F (Duck)
    FM-1

    R-1830
    F4F
    TBD
    R4D-1
    PBY
    FM-2

    Now the SBD and the F4F had to be assigned to same carrier. It sure seems an advantage to have both aircraft using the same engine. By the time these aircraft were developed, both of these engines were well proven, so backing up a design should not have been an issue.

    I didn’t look hard at the AAF, but they also are impacted.

    Is it the supercharger profile?

    Where are the engine experts?
     
  6. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Some info from the FAA - cut and paste to your browser.

    http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/14f1fb9c650f34d78525676a006354ef/$FILE/ATTNWJTA/5E-10.pdf

    http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/4a000705bbc87d578525670e00653f09/$FILE/ATTQ513I/ATC98.pdf

    http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/cdeba991de18cfc38525676a00670747/$FILE/ATTENLOL/5E-4.pdf
     
Loading...

Share This Page