 | 
10-15-2007, 04:59 PM
|
#31 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 752
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by ColHut  | . . . although the "king of displacement" goes to the P&W R-4360, with 4,360 cubic inches of power (that's 71.4 litres to you Europeans).
__________________  | 
|  | |
06-05-2008, 04:26 PM
|
#32 | | Member
Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Lethbridge, AB Canada
Posts: 56
Country:  | De Havilland Mosquito switched to a narrower prop and from 3 blade to 4 blade design so engine torque could be made to have maximum at a higher RPM so to aid in taking off of a carrier deck...throttle response ensured they would rev higher and respond faster for carrier deck take-offs...besides Doolittle's B-25 force, did any other Navy use and operate twin engine planes on carrier decks...
second question....did the props on the sea-fire, Seafury, F4u corsair, and other single engine planes use a different prop, or one specifically designed for carrier take-offs?? | |
| | |
06-06-2008, 03:34 AM
|
#33 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 931
Country:  | What do people know about the Ruskie engines
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
| | |
06-10-2008, 11:01 PM
|
#34 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Country:  | It was a very difficult question, because:
* In US was probably best factories and very good sources of materials. Also US has had a very nice radial engines and using of turbo supercharger has had great influence.
* In England was very good inline engines and sleeve valve radials, but had a some lack of manufacturing equipments and materials due bombing raids. Also in my opinion RR get a best influence of centrifugal supercharges in Merlin engine. Developed also very compact H-24 and X-24 engines.
* In Germany was absolutely best technical innovations, but also has had a lack of materials and manufacturing facilities. Also lack of hi-grate fuel caused lack of engine performance. Was only one country in WWII era with rocket and jet engines in military use.
* In Japan was very high productivity of engines, but lack of own innovation. Also if I has understand correct, lack of proper carburettor designs caused some performance lost of engines.
* In Russia it was generated lot of improvements of copied US and France engines, but don't have actually any good own engine design and every engines based on design before war era. | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 10:10 PM
|
#35 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 6,771
Country: | I alway smile at the fact that the Bf 109 was at first powered by a British engine - the Merlin IIRC.
__________________ 
"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" | |
| | |
06-11-2008, 10:54 PM
|
#36 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Njaco I alway smile at the fact that the Bf 109 was at first powered by a British engine - the Merlin IIRC. | Sorry, but I have heard that Bf 109 V1 was engined with Rolls Royce Kestrel IIS, not Merlin. OK, English V-12 anyway  | |
| | |
06-13-2008, 06:36 PM
|
#37 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,841
Country:  | Yeap the Bf 109V-1 was powerd by a 695hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel (which model of the Kestrel, I do not know).
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
06-13-2008, 11:00 PM
|
#38 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,780
| I say Germany because they were ahead in this field, flying jet a/c while all others were still flying propeller driven a/c.
The HeS-011 is a good example of how far the Germans were in this field.
As for piston engines, well I always admired the DB-605 which achieved some astonishing power outputs compared to its weight and size.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
06-14-2008, 02:37 AM
|
#39 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki
Posts: 546
Country: | Soren
on what was so astonishing in power outputs of 35l DB 605 when compared to 27l RR Merlin? After all 605 had almost 1/3 bigger displacement.
Juha | |
| | |
06-14-2008, 03:06 AM
|
#40 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,827
| I went for Germany simply because of the variety of first rate engines they produced. They and the UK had very good Inlines, radials and jet engines but I gave it to the Germans as they had a slight edge in the radials.
The USA probably had the best radials but their inlines were not as good as the Germans and of course they were behind in the Jet race. | |
| | |
06-14-2008, 03:22 AM
|
#41 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 931
Country: | Why are SDpain, Australia, and canada included in this poll. Did any of them even design an engine of their own. Poland and Sweden are also extremely peripheral. Italy engine development was manifestly backward.
Russia I think has some intersting engines, but i just dont know wnough about their engines to say too much. The French started the war with engines of low power, but had a couple in development that were of great technical interst. They were probably roughly on a par with the Japanese
But the big three have to be Germany, Britain, and the US, and amongst these three, it depends on the criteria that you want to apply, and the relative importance to each aspect of the engine that you are looking at as to what comclusions you want to reach.
So rating them in rough order, I think the following is applicable
1. US, Germany, Britain
4. France, Japan
6. Russia
7. Italy
8. Poland, Sweden
10. The rest (because they dint develop any engines that I know of)
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
| | |
06-14-2008, 07:49 AM
|
#42 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 191
Country: | Very close call between Britain and Germany. Both had great inline, radial and jet engines. Germany gets a big minus for never really developing the DB 603 to its true potential and a smaller one for not producing any turbocharged BMW 801s. But GB gets a big minus for not working with the Centaurus when they had it. Overall Germany wins for me, if only for the fact that they produced two operational jet engines. US comes in third imo, the PWs are great but they had no own really great inline and lacked a little in jet engines, too. | |
| | |
06-14-2008, 07:20 PM
|
#43 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: NIAGARA
Posts: 4,607
Country: | Got to go with the US as more by along shot of their engines are still around
__________________  | |
| | |
06-15-2008, 08:21 AM
|
#44 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
Posts: 543
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Juha Soren
on what was so astonishing in power outputs of 35l DB 605 when compared to 27l RR Merlin? After all 605 had almost 1/3 bigger displacement.
Juha | The DB 605 may have almost 1/3 bigger displacement, but its dimensions and weight are practically the same as the Merlins (ie. both weight ca 720 kg dry).
Which begs for the question, wheter it was wise to be stuck with 27 liters for so long time..
When one adds the aux. devices in the picture (ie. there is no need for intercooler and intercooler radiator on the DB), and that due to better fuel effiency, the DB will get you further than the Merlin (or get you to the same distance with less weight in fuel needs to be carried), its probably true that the DB was more efficient powerplant overall. | |
| | |
06-15-2008, 01:10 PM
|
#45 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki
Posts: 546
Country: | Kurfürst
DB 605 had some very advanced features: direct fuel injection, hydraulic coupling for supercharger impellers etc. It had also a good fuel efficency.
But in what RR was good was to squeeze many hps/l. That's why my question. In fact 37l Griffon was in displacement near of 35,8l DB 605 and rather early Griffons were capable to 2000hp or over.
Juha
Last edited by Juha : 06-15-2008 at 01:19 PM.
| |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM. | | |
