Was the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp the best engine of WW II?
Bombardier
P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
considered?
Bombardier
344th BG 494th BS
England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
renab...@aol.com
Bombardier wrote:
> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> considered?
SNIP
I'd tend to agree, despite the howls of RR Merlin/Griffin and DB
whatever fanatics.... plenty of power, reliable, capanle of absorbing
battle damage - what more can one ask?
Excellent applications, except for the B-26 which was a waste of good
engines on a lousy aircraft, better to have cancelled it and built more
B-25's - maybe even some with R-2800's instead of R-2600's
"In early 1944, North American submitted a proposal to the Army Air
Forces for an improved attack bomber, one which would provide the
firepower of the B-25 strafers but with substantially improved
performance. It was given the designation NA-98X by the company. Since
it was not designed for any USAAF requirement, it never carried a USAAF
designation. It was apparently intended as a lower-cost alternative to
the heavily-armed Douglas A-26B Invader.
Power was to be provided by a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-2800 air-cooled
radials, housed inside new low-drag cowlings and driving a pair of
three-bladed propellers with large conical-shaped spinners. Armament
improvements were to include a computing gunsight and a new North
American-designed low-drag canopy for the top turret. A compensating
sight was to be used in the tail turret, and illuminated reflector
optical sights were to be used on the waist guns. The wing tips were
square-cut rather than rounded, permitting the ailerons to be extended
further outboard to provide better roll control.
The proposed aircraft was to be built in two different versions -- a
medium bomber version and a strafer version. As a strafer, a solid nose
with eight 0.50-inch guns with 400 rpg was to be fitted. In addition,
two 0.50-inch upper turret guns with 400 rpg, two 0.50-inch tail guns
with 600 rpg, and two 0.50-inch waist guns with 200 rpg were to be
carried. A second strafer option involved the addition of four guns
mounted in blisters on the side of the fuselage, for a total of no less
than 18 guns. As a medium bomber, the solid nose was replaced by a
transparent nose containing a bombardier, two fixed nose guns with 300
rpg and one flexible nose gun with 300 rounds.
The 302nd B-25H (serial number 43-4406) was chosen as a testbed for the
modifications. The new aircraft was powered by a pair of Pratt &
Whitney R-2800-16 engines with Bendix Stromberg carburetors. Large
conical propeller spinners were used, and high-speed inlets for the
carburetors were added at the top of the engine cowlings. The wing tips
were square cut. Except for the removal of the fuselage blister gun
pack, the aircraft had the same armament fit (including the 75-mm
cannon) as the B-25H.
The first flight of NA-98X took place on March 31, 1944, test pilot Joe
Barton being at the controls. He reported better speed and
acceleration, reduced vibration, and a higher roll rate. War emergency
power could bring the aircraft to 10,000 in 4.9 minutes and in 5.3
minutes at military power. A maximum speed of 328 mph could be achieved
at sea level with war emergency power.
It was recognized that the increased power of the R-2800 engine, acting
in concert with the increased aileron area and reduced stick forces,
might make it possible to operate the aircraft in performance regimes
where excessive bending moments could be imposed on the wings, maybe
even leading to catastrophic failure and loss of the aircraft.
Consequently, during flight testing, the maximum airspeed was
restricted to 340 mph and a normal acceleration of no greater than
2.67g.
On April 24, 1944, the NA-98X was taken up for a test flight by Maj.
Perry Ritchie and Lt. Winton Wey. During a low speed pass over Mines
Field, the aircraft disintegrated in mid-air and crashed, killing both
pilots. An investigation showed that both outer wing panels had been
ripped off the aircraft during the low-speed pass, the plane having
been flown beyond its structural limitations by its crew. Following the
crash, all further work on the NA-98X project was abandoned."
<Ooops!>
The definitive work seems to be by Bill Gunston
The Development of Piston Aero Engines
http://www.amazon.com/Development-Piston-Aero-Engines/dp/0750944781
Dudley Henriques
the 2800, considering a compilation of their stated opinion about the
engines bolted on their aircraft as that would relate to the ability to
sustain battle damage and still bring them home, and concerning general
issues of dependability; maintenance, down time, etc, in particular the P47
community, I would have to say that in my personal opinion at least, the
R2800 was, if not the best engine on the US side, damn close to it!
Dudley Henriques
"Bombardier" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167713158.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bill Baker
>
> Bombardier wrote:
>> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
>> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
>> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
>> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
>> considered?
>
> SNIP
>
> I'd tend to agree, despite the howls of RR Merlin/Griffin and DB
> whatever fanatics.... plenty of power, reliable, capanle of absorbing
> battle damage - what more can one ask?
>
> Excellent applications, except for the B-26 which was a waste of good
> engines on a lousy aircraft, better to have cancelled it and built more
> B-25's - maybe even some with R-2800's instead of R-2600's
Oh now, that is baiting Art maliciously. The B-26, for all it's
acknowledged faults, was a productive Allied bomber in the most
dangerous theatre of air warfare (Northern Europe) during the most
dangerous period (late '42 to late '44). We'll never know how vital
the speed advantage of the B-26 over the B-25 was in contested airspace
during that period, will we? The Mitchell's might well have been
chopped to bits flying the same missions.
(BTW, Art, I've been re-reading "Catch-22" over the holidays, and when
I hit the passage about Colonel Cathcart's skeet-shooting range, I
thought of you.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Peter Skelton
aircraft were in service by 1936, a date which preceeds the twin
Wasp, the double Wasp's parent. If you allow competition between
the Merlin and the R-2800, you get to allow competition between
the R-2800 and the late-war British jets.
Peter Skelton.
deem...@aol.com
Bombardier wrote:
> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> considered?
Since it wasn't developed by Germany, how can it be the best? (Just
figured I'd throw this in before you know who....)
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> In my discussions with pilots and crew who flew aircraft in WW2 powered by
> the 2800, considering a compilation of their stated opinion about the
> engines bolted on their aircraft as that would relate to the ability to
> sustain battle damage and still bring them home, and concerning general
> issues of dependability; maintenance, down time, etc, in particular the P47
> community, I would have to say that in my personal opinion at least, the
> R2800 was, if not the best engine on the US side, damn close to it!
> Dudley Henriques
Damn but that was a long sentence. <G>
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
Bombardier
On Jan 2, 6:56 am, deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> Bombardier wrote:
> > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > considered? Since it wasn't developed by Germany, how can it be the best? (Just
> figured I'd throw this in before you know who....)
Actually the radial engine in the FW 190 was based on a pre-war license
from Pratt & Whitney so we can say they were distant cousins. Even he
Germans finally realised that in line engines were just too vulnerable,
and so they finally went radial.
Bombardier
344th BG 494th BS
England FRance Belgium Holland Italy Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bombardier
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
> >www.coastcomp.com/artkramer- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Dudley Henriques
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BdSdnZBLjKnT7gfY...@giganews.com...
Comes to you over time from living with a lot of women in the house. After a
while you get so used to trying to get a word or two in edgewise you simply
forget that a simple sentence exists in the world :-)
Dudley Henriques
Stephen Harding
> When did the R2800 come out, when did the Merlin? Merlin powered
> aircraft were in service by 1936, a date which preceeds the twin
> Wasp, the double Wasp's parent. If you allow competition between
> the Merlin and the R-2800, you get to allow competition between
> the R-2800 and the late-war British jets.
OK, include late war British jet engines.
I think if you include everything relating to the operation of
the engine, the R-2800 still comes out ahead due to reliability
an maintainability factors.
A Jumo 002 could certainly move an airframe through the air
faster than a P&W, but at what, 10???, hours before rebuild.
One probably wouldn't call it a leading engine of the war.
The RR/Whittle jet engine was certainly more durable than a
Jumo or BMW jet, but how was it in maintainability and most
importantly, survivability?
I think the R-2800 still ranks tops even over the jets.
SMH
Bombardier
On Jan 2, 12:35 am, Bill Baker <wabo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2007-01-01 21:13:28 -0800, "renabor...@aol.com" <renabor...@aol.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bombardier wrote:
> >> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> >> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> >> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> >> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> >> considered?
>
> > SNIP
>
> > I'd tend to agree, despite the howls of RR Merlin/Griffin and DB
> > whatever fanatics.... plenty of power, reliable, capanle of absorbing
> > battle damage - what more can one ask?
>
> > Excellent applications, except for the B-26 which was a waste of good
> > engines on a lousy aircraft, better to have cancelled it and built more
> > B-25's - maybe even some with R-2800's instead of R-2600'sOh now, that is baiting Art maliciously. The B-26, for all it's
> acknowledged faults, was a productive Allied bomber in the most
> dangerous theatre of air warfare (Northern Europe) during the most
> dangerous period (late '42 to late '44). We'll never know how vital
> the speed advantage of the B-26 over the B-25 was in contested airspace
> during that period, will we? The Mitchell's might well have been
> chopped to bits flying the same missions.
>
> (BTW, Art, I've been re-reading "Catch-22" over the holidays, and when
> I hit the passage about Colonel Cathcart's skeet-shooting range, I
> thought of you.)
And I'm still shooting skeet 3 times a week. Love it and will keep
shoorting skeet as long as I am physically Which should be a long time
since I am only 82.
Bombardier
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted--
Jack
> Comes to you over time from living with a lot of women in the house. After a
> while you get so used to trying to get a word or two in edgewise you simply
> forget that a simple sentence exists in the world :-)
It's true that fighter pilots have daughters.
Jack
George Z. Bush
excited about it, Peter. When all's said and done, the engine that saved my ass
is the best one in the world, and it doesn't matter if it was an R-2800, a 1280,
a liquid cooled Merlin or RR or whatever. There's only one that can be best,
and each one of us gets to decide for himself which that'd be.
Best wishes for a Happy and Healthy New Year, however belated.
George Z. Bush
Up with which you will not put, no doubt!
(^+^))))
deem...@aol.com
Bombardier wrote:
> On Jan 2, 6:56?am, deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > Bombardier wrote:
> > > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > figured I'd throw this in before you know who....)
>
> Actually the radial engine in the FW 190 was based on a pre-war license
> from Pratt & Whitney so we can say they were distant cousins. Even he
> Germans finally realised that in line engines were just too vulnerable,
> and so they finally went radial.
I'm pretty sure it was the Germans who secretly designed the P&W.
Dudley Henriques
was the best" opinion polls that always keep cropping up on Usenet
newsgroups. :-)))
As for an item being questioned; if that item got someone through a war
situation and back again in one piece, the opinion of the combat vet who
used it will reflect an opinion based on that personal experience. Then come
the "historians" (I guess this would be me as well :-) who relate what THEY
have "learned" from various and sundry sources....all inconclusive of
course.
To obtain any semblance of a useful answer to these "polls", one would have
to have access to mountains of mission data plus individual stats and
personal reports.
So in the end analysis, when these subjects come up on Usenet, ( I know
Rasimus and I always like the "which fighter is or was the best fighter 1v1
in the world....discussed of course with no reference at all from the
initial poster as to the difference between the cockpits.......available
peripheral ground radar and vectoring support etc..? :-)
The end result is almost always a very long thread where everybody and their
mother chirps in with what they consider the REAL info :-))
I'll tell you all the truth about recip engines. I've flown WW2 aircraft
with many different engines including the R2800 (F8F) and of course the
Merlin V1650-7 (P51D) and without putting combat in the equation, I'd be
hard pressed to pick a winner between them. Both engines saw me through
repeated and extended high temperature and manifold pressure scenarios and
I'm still here :-)
Personally, I honestly believe that for the combat scenario, a better way to
approach this issue about engines would be not which engine was the best,
but to gather experiences from combat vets whose engines let them down.
Approached from that direction, you get a pretty good picture of what was
what fairly quickly :-)
Dudley Henriques
"George Z. Bush" <georg...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:cWvmh.23$IM3...@newsfe05.lga...
Dudley Henriques
"Jack" <dg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hPvmh.31406$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Well, as many of you know, I'm not REALLY a fighter pilot. I just happen to
have flown fighters :-)))
Dudley Henriques
Bombardier
On Jan 2, 9:12 am, deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> Bombardier wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 6:56?am, deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Bombardier wrote:
> > > > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > > > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > > > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > > > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > > > considered?? ?Since it wasn't developed by Germany, how can it be the best? (Just
> > > figured I'd throw this in before you know who....)
>
> > Actually the radial engine in the FW 190 was based on a pre-war license
> > from Pratt & Whitney so we can say they were distant cousins. Even he
> > Germans finally realised that in line engines were just too vulnerable,
> > and so they finally went radial. I'm pretty sure it was the Germans who secretly designed the P&W.
I LOVE IT
Bombardier
344th BG 494th BS
England FRance Belgium Holland Italy Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> > > > Bombardier
> > > > 344th BG 494th BS
> > > > England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
> > > >www.coastcomp.com/artkramer-Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
George Z. Bush
> Bombardier wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 6:56?am, deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Bombardier wrote:
>>>> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
>>>> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
>>>> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
>>>> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
>>>> considered?? ?Since it wasn't developed by Germany, how can it be the
>>>> best? (Just
>>> figured I'd throw this in before you know who....)
>>
>> Actually the radial engine in the FW 190 was based on a pre-war license
>> from Pratt & Whitney so we can say they were distant cousins. Even he
>> Germans finally realised that in line engines were just too vulnerable,
>> and so they finally went radial.
>
> I'm pretty sure it was the Germans who secretly designed the P&W.
If they'd secretly designed the engine, why would they have bothered getting a
license from P&W? Why wouldn't they have been raising hell for P&W having
stolen their design?
George Z.
deem...@aol.com
It was all an insidious Nazi plot.
>
> George Z.
Bob McKellar
"Jack" <dg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hPvmh.31406$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
And these days, it's true that fighter pilots can BE daughters.
Bob McKellar (Who is neither)
Steve Hix
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote:
If you pause, you're lost.
Steve Hix
"Bombardier" <artk...@aol.com> wrote:
Good for you, Art. Having fun is a good thing. I have enough trouble
hitting targets that are nailed in place...
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>> I'm pretty sure it was the Germans who secretly designed the P&W.
>>
>> If they'd secretly designed the engine, why would they have bothered getting
>> a license from P&W? Why wouldn't they have been raising hell for P&W having
>> stolen their design?
>
> It was all an insidious Nazi plot.
Sneaky bastards.
Ian MacLure
news:_9WdnWVCSLwZAQfY...@rcn.net:
Quantity has a virtue all of its own.
The R2800 was ( and until relatively recently at that )
available in enormous quantities.
The Merlin and Griffon not so much.
All things being equal however the removal of the complication
and vulnerability introduced by liquid cooling has to be counted
as an advantage for the R2800.
Also, radials were scalable to some extent simply by adding more
rows. Most attempts to do similar things with non-radials had
problems or a greater or terminal nature.
IBM
George Z. Bush
I see....I guess that explains it all.
(^+^)))))))
George Z.
Dave Kearton
At the risk of revealing too much information, I have a wife, two teenage
daughters and live in an old house with only one bathroom.....
I live my mornings according to "carpe vacancy"
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Jack G
C-46, P-61, and the F6F Hellcat. I think it was also used in the Lockheed
twin engine bombers (Harpoon, Ventura).
Jack G.
"Bombardier" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167713158.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> considered?
>
Dave Kearton
> A few of other very important WW II types powered by the R-2800 are
> the C-46, P-61, and the F6F Hellcat. I think it was also used in the
> Lockheed twin engine bombers (Harpoon, Ventura).
>
> Jack G.
>
>
>
Were there any variations between the same engines for different aircraft ?
IOW, if you were the maintenance officer for a Hellcat squadron, would you
be in a bind if this morning's delivery of R-2800s had C-46 stamped on the
side ?
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Jack G
if he found out who got his engines!
Dudley Henriques
"Ian MacLure" <i...@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:Xns98ACC1E151...@216.196.97.131...
> Also, radials were scalable to some extent simply by adding more
> rows.
I know.
I once spent a half hour getting a 4360 fired up without a fire coming along
for the ride :-))
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
"Dave Kearton" <dkearton///////@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:459aebf8$0$2595$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
....................and I'll bet you spend the rest of the day trying to get
the hair out of the shower drain :-)))
Dudley Henriques
Dave Kearton
> ....................and I'll bet you spend the rest of the day trying
> to get the hair out of the shower drain :-)))
> Dudley Henriques
Funny you should say that ...
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Dudley Henriques
Liquid Plumber!!! Works like a charm :-))))))
DH
Dave Kearton
as does flushing the toilet when they've been in the shower too long.
(although the wife doesn't think it funny)
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Dudley Henriques
....................funny you should say that!!! :-))
DH
Dan
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dave Kearton
>>
> And have a favourite tree in the yard?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
I have an old German shepherd called Max. He keeps the burglars away
while we're at work and when bored, chases the punters along our front
fence.
Sometimes we'll come home late at night and the women make a bee line for
the bathroom. Whereas, as you rightly pointed out, the whole backyard
is _my_ bathroom - I live on 2 1/2 acres, so there's plenty of choice.
Max chooses not to follow the girls inside, but hangs around me during the
bladder venting procedure.
When I'm finished and move away from the spot, Max always urinates over my
mark (after waiting until I'm a respectable distance away). So,
curious as to what would happen, one night, I returned to the spot and did
a dry run.
So did Max.
We did the procedure about three times before the dog worked out what was
going on.
I'm still the alpha male in our pack, and I fit in just beneath the
youngest girl. ;-(
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Bob Matthews
> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> considered?
Maybe so. Would the B-29 have been better off with R-2800s rather than
R-3350s? They had similar power ratings until well after the war.
==bob
John Keeney
Bob Matthews wrote:
> Bombardier wrote:
> > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > considered?
>
> Maybe so. Would the B-29 have been better off with R-2800s rather than
> R-3350s? They had similar power ratings until well after the war.
I don't know, going from 2200 down to 2000hp sounds like a big enough
hit to be a problem to me.
George Z. Bush
AFAIK, what came out of the crate ddn't care where you hooked it up. IOW, one
size fit all.
George Z.
Dave Kearton
> Dave Kearton wrote:
>>
>> Were there any variations between the same engines for different
>> aircraft ? IOW, if you were the maintenance officer for a Hellcat
>> squadron, would you be in a bind if this morning's delivery of R-2800s
>> had
>> C-46 stamped on the side ?
>
> AFAIK, what came out of the crate ddn't care where you hooked it up. IOW,
> one size fit all.
>
> George Z.
Thanks George, that would make sense from a logistic viewpoint. I
was mainly interested in engine-driven accessories, PTOs, pumps and
generators etc. These would need to be fixed to the plane and
re-attached during the change, rather than come with the replacement
engine.
The theory being that planes like the P-61 would need more electricity, to
power the radars, than a C-46 or a pair of Hellcats.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
George Z. Bush
You might be right but, not being a maintenance weenie type, I just ran 'em
after all the gizmos were attached. I just don't remember, if I ever did know,
what exactly came outta the crates.
George Z.
Eunometic
Peter Skelton wrote:
> When did the R2800 come out, when did the Merlin? Merlin powered
> aircraft were in service by 1936, a date which preceeds the twin
> Wasp, the double Wasp's parent. If you allow competition between
> the Merlin and the R-2800, you get to allow competition between
> the R-2800 and the late-war British jets.
>
> Peter Skelton.
I'd say the PW-2800 wins over the Merlin for two reasons. Although
both engines were reliable the PW-2800 possesed several advantages
1 The PW-2800 ran of ordinary 100 octane fuel. It didn't need fancy
fuels with high aromatic content and 'rich' mixture ratings.
2 The PW-2800 was aircooled and more resistent to battle damage.
3 The PW-2800 was more powerfull.
4 Post war the Merlin faded as it wore out sooner than the PW-2800 due
to the need to use high cylinder pressures. The PW-2800 was
commercialy sucesfull.
The only question to ask is; could the PW-2800 have produced the speed
of the mosquito: yes it would have given the fact that P-47Ms and Late
model Corsairs could burn of any Grifon spitfire with its high strung
engine.
Peter Skelton
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I guess you missed the point entirely. Yes the engines from this
generation are better then the engines from the last one. WTF is
surprising about that?
Of course, the probability of P2800s getting into the war if
there hadn't been Merlins earlier is not fun to contemplate.
Peter Skelton
renab...@aol.com
All US engines had a "Dash" number; ie R-2800-5. There were two
entirely different systems - Army engines got even numbers and Navy
engines odd (or vice-versa, I forget the details). Although the core
power producing portion of the engine remained relatively constant,
each Dash Number specifically adapted that particular engine to an
airframe. Note that it was possible for the Dash number installed on a
particular model of aircraft to change as time went on, for example,
IIRC, the B-25C used a different R-2600 Dash number than a B-25J.
There >must< be a master list somewhere out on the Web which matches
Dash number and airframe, but I'm too lazy to find it.
So to take your example, it was probably theoretically possible to
strip off the C-46 preculiar parts of an engine and add the parts for
an F6F, but as a practical matter it probably couldn't/wouldn't be done
at less than Depot level (Fourth Echelon) maintenance.
Dave Kearton
>
> All US engines had a "Dash" number; ie R-2800-5. There were two
> entirely different systems - Army engines got even numbers and Navy
> engines odd (or vice-versa, I forget the details). Although the core
> power producing portion of the engine remained relatively constant,
> each Dash Number specifically adapted that particular engine to an
> airframe. Note that it was possible for the Dash number installed on a
> particular model of aircraft to change as time went on, for example,
> IIRC, the B-25C used a different R-2600 Dash number than a B-25J.
> There >must< be a master list somewhere out on the Web which matches
> Dash number and airframe, but I'm too lazy to find it.
>
> So to take your example, it was probably theoretically possible to
> strip off the C-46 preculiar parts of an engine and add the parts for
> an F6F, but as a practical matter it probably couldn't/wouldn't be
> done at less than Depot level (Fourth Echelon) maintenance.
Thanks. It's hard to visualise the size and complexity of the logistic
effort that was required to run the air forces in the field. The
approach you listed above would certainly be the best of both worlds.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
John Keeney
renab...@aol.com wrote:
> Dave Kearton wrote:
> > George Z. Bush wrote:
> > > Dave Kearton wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Were there any variations between the same engines for different
> > >> aircraft ? IOW, if you were the maintenance officer for a Hellcat
> > >> squadron, would you be in a bind if this morning's delivery of R-2800s
> > >> had
> > >> C-46 stamped on the side ?
> > >
> > > AFAIK, what came out of the crate ddn't care where you hooked it up. IOW,
> > > one size fit all.
> > >
> > > George Z.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks George, that would make sense from a logistic viewpoint. I
> > was mainly interested in engine-driven accessories, PTOs, pumps and
> > generators etc. These would need to be fixed to the plane and
> > re-attached during the change, rather than come with the replacement
> > engine.
> >
> >
> > The theory being that planes like the P-61 would need more electricity, to
> > power the radars, than a C-46 or a pair of Hellcats.
> >
> >
> SNIP
>
> All US engines had a "Dash" number; ie R-2800-5. There were two
> entirely different systems - Army engines got even numbers and Navy
> engines odd (or vice-versa, I forget the details). Although the core
The vice-versa, Army numbers were odd to judge by a quick glance
through Fahey's U.S. Army Aircraft 1908-1946. There are a few kinks:
some P-61s (XP, YP and the P-61-1,5) used R-2800-10, the rest -65s or
-73s. C-47s seem to have had even dash numbers.
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
THis may be of interest - something I just stumbled on
2,200 hp R-3350-13 17ft 0" (5.18m) three-blade propellers 3 XB-29s
2,200 hp R-3350-21 17ft 0" (5.18m) three-blade propellers 14
service-test YB-29s
2,200 hp R-3350-23 16ft 7" (5.05m) four-blade Hamilton Standard
constant-speed, full feathering propellers B-29s
R-3350-41; R-3350-57; R-3350-57A
R-3350-57 Specs
Type: Air-cooled, 18-cylinder twin-row radial engine
Country/Date: U.S.A., 1942
Rating: 2,200 hp @ 2800 rpm
Displacement: 3,350 cu. in.
Weight: 2,779 lbs.
Bore & Stroke: 6.125" & 6.3"
The immensely powerful Wright R-3350 was chosen as the powerplant for
the B-29. Four of these massive engines provided the power to move each
B-29. Problems with overheating were legendary but were overcome with
numerous field modifications and changes in engine use. Altogether the
R-3350 went through tens of thousands of design changes during its
early development. Pilots learned to use as much of the runway as
possible and build up speed to help cool the engines before slowing
climbing for altitude.
Work on the engine began in January 1936 and the first one ran in May
1937. It was similar in design to the company's R-2600 14-cylinder
radial, sharing the same bore and stroke but adding two more cylinders
per row for additional displacement. A three-piece forged aluminum
(later changed to steel) crankcase, cast heads and a magnesium
supercharger case to reduce weight. Downdraft carburetion on early
engines yielded mixture inconsistencies between the front and rear
cylinder rows, which was solved on later models by changing to a direct
fuel injection system.
Wright Aeronautical built a new facility at Woodbridge, NJ for the
R-3350 and shifted production at their Cincinnati plant exclusively to
the Wright engine. Total output between these two plants approached
13,800. Chrysler's Dodge Chicago Division, supplied over 18,400 engines
from their Chicago, IL location. As design problems were overcome the
R-3350 saw its time between overhauls increase from 100 to 400 hours by
the end of the war.
Almost all of the engine nacelles, as big as a fighter fuselage, were
made by the Fisher Body division of General Motors. Cleveland facility
Harry Andreas
"Dave Kearton" <dkearton///////@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> I live my mornings according to "carpe vacancy"
>
Now THATs funny.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Bombardier
Great post. Luckily for me and a lot of other guys our R-2800's worked
perfectly from the get-go.
Bombardier
344bg 494 bs
England France Belgium Italy Holland Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Glenn Dowdy
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote in message
news:atWdndWtcsG6HAfY...@rcn.net...
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:BdSdnZBLjKnT7gfY...@giganews.com...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> In my discussions with pilots and crew who flew aircraft in WW2 powered
>>> by
>>> the 2800, considering a compilation of their stated opinion about the
>>> engines bolted on their aircraft as that would relate to the ability to
>>> sustain battle damage and still bring them home, and concerning general
>>> issues of dependability; maintenance, down time, etc, in particular the
>>> P47
>>> community, I would have to say that in my personal opinion at least, the
>>> R2800 was, if not the best engine on the US side, damn close to it!
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>>
>> Damn but that was a long sentence. <G>
>
> Comes to you over time from living with a lot of women in the house. After
> a while you get so used to trying to get a word or two in edgewise you
> simply forget that a simple sentence exists in the world :-)
> Dudley Henriques
Glenn D.
Dudley Henriques
"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.n...@hp.spam.com> wrote in message
news:eMenh.3953$KT1...@news.cpqcorp.net...
If the girls had one I doubt if they'd let me have it. They would have to
stop talking long enough to let it change hands.
:-)
DH
Glenn Dowdy
Glenn D.
Dave Kearton
Damn, Glenn, don't wish us any more ........
They all arrive at the same time anyway.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Bombardier
On Jan 3, 1:36 pm, "Dave Kearton" <dkearton////...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> renabor...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > All US engines had a "Dash" number; ie R-2800-5. There were two
> > entirely different systems - Army engines got even numbers and Navy
> > engines odd (or vice-versa, I forget the details). Although the core
> > power producing portion of the engine remained relatively constant,
> > each Dash Number specifically adapted that particular engine to an
> > airframe. Note that it was possible for the Dash number installed on a
> > particular model of aircraft to change as time went on, for example,
> > IIRC, the B-25C used a different R-2600 Dash number than a B-25J.
> > There >must< be a master list somewhere out on the Web which matches
> > Dash number and airframe, but I'm too lazy to find it.
>
> > So to take your example, it was probably theoretically possible to
> > strip off the C-46 preculiar parts of an engine and add the parts for
> > an F6F, but as a practical matter it probably couldn't/wouldn't be
> > done at less than Depot level (Fourth Echelon) maintenance.Thanks. It's hard to visualise the size and complexity of the logistic
> effort that was required to run the air forces in the field. The
> approach you listed above would certainly be the best of both worlds.
I was always in awe of the efficiency and capabilies of our supply
systems. We never wanted or ran out of anything. Planes, engines, spare
parts, guns ammo, food, clothing, parachutes, medical supplies
everything was there. And if we needed more, like another Marauder for
example,, they would just roll one out for us. It was truly amazing
just how efficiently our supply systems were. There was an old saying,"
The right way and the army way" As far as I am concerend based on my WW
II experiences, the Army way was the right way.
Bombardier
344BG 494th BS
England France Belgium Italy Holland Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> --
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave Kearton- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Gernot Hassenpflug
> On Jan 3, 1:36pm, "Dave Kearton" <dkearton////...@ozemail.com.au>
I don't know if the US was the undisputed master of supply in WW2
(take, for example, the Russians) but certainly most studies of
logistics I have seen are written in the US based on the fantastic
experience built up during WW2. I suppose keeping some ground rules
about how to advance based on logistics made your life easy (in those
cases where those rules were not kept, disaster often followed in
short order), and also depended in large measure on how "messy" the
front was. I.e., the relationship between being able to provide
materiel and being able to protect the same is not trivial. This I
guess makes logistics much harder when circumstances force an army to
retreat. Pretty tricky: in retreat logistics are constrained by the
circumstances that make retreat necessary (or may be the reason
itself) while advance is constrained by the logistics (and the enemy's
efforts). Interestingly similar to the famous bujutsu body training
maxim found in Asian
(India->China->Thailand/Philippines/Indonesia/Korea->Japan) martial
arts of maintaining an internal structure and balance, of sending all
power inwards which as a result allows that power to be felt at the
outside, and not letting it out no matter what happens, but always
maintaining the internal in-yo/a-un/yin-yang structure (related in
explanation to the old Qi/Chi/Ki cosmology, which though mostly
replaced by Western science still lingers on in explaining practical
training phenomena for physical training, food and other
health-related regimens).
--
Gernot Hassenpflug (ger...@rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp) Tel: +81 774 38-3866
JSPS Fellow (Rm.403, RISH, Kyoto Uni.) Fax: +81 774 31-8463
www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot Mob: +81 90 39493924
Ian MacLure
[snip]
> I know.
> I once spent a half hour getting a 4360 fired up without a fire coming
> along for the ride :-))
> Dudley Henriques
Hence the "to some extent".
However the Wright R-3370s in the Canadair Argus were pretty darn
reliable for such a complex piece of machinery.
IBM
Bombardier
On Jan 1, 9:13 pm, "renabor...@aol.com" <renabor...@aol.com> wrote:
> Bombardier wrote:
> > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > considered?SNIP
>
> I'd tend to agree, despite the howls of RR Merlin/Griffin and DB
> whatever fanatics.... plenty of power, reliable, capanle of absorbing
> battle damage - what more can one ask?
>
> Excellent applications, except for the B-26 which was a waste of good
> engines on a lousy aircraft, better to have cancelled it and built more
> B-25's - maybe even some with R-2800's instead of R-2600's
>
> "In early 1944, North American submitted a proposal to the Army Air
> Forces for an improved attack bomber, one which would provide the
> firepower of the B-25 strafers but with substantially improved
> performance. It was given the designation NA-98X by the company. Since
> it was not designed for any USAAF requirement, it never carried a USAAF
> designation. It was apparently intended as a lower-cost alternative to
> the heavily-armed Douglas A-26B Invader.
>
> Power was to be provided by a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-2800 air-cooled
> radials, housed inside new low-drag cowlings and driving a pair of
> three-bladed propellers with large conical-shaped spinners. Armament
> improvements were to include a computing gunsight and a new North
> American-designed low-drag canopy for the top turret. A compensating
> sight was to be used in the tail turret, and illuminated reflector
> optical sights were to be used on the waist guns. The wing tips were
> square-cut rather than rounded, permitting the ailerons to be extended
> further outboard to provide better roll control.
>
> The proposed aircraft was to be built in two different versions -- a
> medium bomber version and a strafer version. As a strafer, a solid nose
> with eight 0.50-inch guns with 400 rpg was to be fitted. In addition,
> two 0.50-inch upper turret guns with 400 rpg, two 0.50-inch tail guns
> with 600 rpg, and two 0.50-inch waist guns with 200 rpg were to be
> carried. A second strafer option involved the addition of four guns
> mounted in blisters on the side of the fuselage, for a total of no less
> than 18 guns. As a medium bomber, the solid nose was replaced by a
> transparent nose containing a bombardier, two fixed nose guns with 300
> rpg and one flexible nose gun with 300 rounds.
>
> The 302nd B-25H (serial number 43-4406) was chosen as a testbed for the
> modifications. The new aircraft was powered by a pair of Pratt &
> Whitney R-2800-16 engines with Bendix Stromberg carburetors. Large
> conical propeller spinners were used, and high-speed inlets for the
> carburetors were added at the top of the engine cowlings. The wing tips
> were square cut. Except for the removal of the fuselage blister gun
> pack, the aircraft had the same armament fit (including the 75-mm
> cannon) as the B-25H.
>
> The first flight of NA-98X took place on March 31, 1944, test pilot Joe
> Barton being at the controls. He reported better speed and
> acceleration, reduced vibration, and a higher roll rate. War emergency
> power could bring the aircraft to 10,000 in 4.9 minutes and in 5.3
> minutes at military power. A maximum speed of 328 mph could be achieved
> at sea level with war emergency power.
>
> It was recognized that the increased power of the R-2800 engine, acting
> in concert with the increased aileron area and reduced stick forces,
> might make it possible to operate the aircraft in performance regimes
> where excessive bending moments could be imposed on the wings, maybe
> even leading to catastrophic failure and loss of the aircraft.
> Consequently, during flight testing, the maximum airspeed was
> restricted to 340 mph and a normal acceleration of no greater than
> 2.67g.
>
> On April 24, 1944, the NA-98X was taken up for a test flight by Maj.
> Perry Ritchie and Lt. Winton Wey. During a low speed pass over Mines
> Field, the aircraft disintegrated in mid-air and crashed, killing both
> pilots. An investigation showed that both outer wing panels had been
> ripped off the aircraft during the low-speed pass, the plane having
> been flown beyond its structural limitations by its crew. Following the
> crash, all further work on the NA-98X project was abandoned."
>
> <Ooops!>
Of course we have to take the good with the bad. Our R2800's were
fitted with Curtis Electric props.
Bombardier
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> http://www.amazon.com/Development-Piston-Aero-Engines/dp/0750944781
guy
Roy Fedden (Bristol Chief Designer) recommended the Licence production
of the B29 in Britain, but with the Centaurus as the powerplant,
and'proved' it would be better (admitedly he was a bit biased:-)
Like the best fighter/bomber/whatever of ww2 the question is
meaningless. This was a period of massive innovation so there is no
comparison of like with like.
However my vote has to be the Merlin, It was up with the best, if not
the best, in 1939 and still there in 1945. Did any other engine match
this?
guy
guy
nice point:-)
guy
Bombardier
On Jan 2, 7:58 am, "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriq...@noware.com> wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:BdSdnZBLjKnT7gfY...@giganews.com...
>
> > Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> In my discussions with pilots and crew who flew aircraft in WW2 powered
> >> by
> >> the 2800, considering a compilation of their stated opinion about the
> >> engines bolted on their aircraft as that would relate to the ability to
> >> sustain battle damage and still bring them home, and concerning general
> >> issues of dependability; maintenance, down time, etc, in particular the
> >> P47
> >> community, I would have to say that in my personal opinion at least, the
> >> R2800 was, if not the best engine on the US side, damn close to it!
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Damn but that was a long sentence. <G>Comes to you over time from living with a lot of women in the house. After a
> while you get so used to trying to get a word or two in edgewise you simply
> forget that a simple sentence exists in the world :-)
> Dudley Henriques
As we used to say that if the Marauder didnl;t get youu the Curtis
Electric props were sure to do the job.
guy
Bill Baker wrote:
> On 2007-01-01 21:13:28 -0800, "renab...@aol.com" <renab...@aol.com> said:
>
> >
> > Bombardier wrote:
> >> Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> >> P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> >> hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> >> and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> >> considered?
> >
> >
> > I'd tend to agree, despite the howls of RR Merlin/Griffin and DB
> > whatever fanatics.... plenty of power, reliable, capanle of absorbing
> > battle damage - what more can one ask?
> >
> > Excellent applications, except for the B-26 which was a waste of good
> > engines on a lousy aircraft, better to have cancelled it and built more
> > B-25's - maybe even some with R-2800's instead of R-2600's
>
> acknowledged faults, was a productive Allied bomber in the most
> dangerous theatre of air warfare (Northern Europe) during the most
> dangerous period (late '42 to late '44). We'll never know how vital
> the speed advantage of the B-26 over the B-25 was in contested airspace
> during that period, will we? The Mitchell's might well have been
> chopped to bits flying the same missions.
>
> (BTW, Art, I've been re-reading "Catch-22" over the holidays, and when
> I hit the passage about Colonel Cathcart's skeet-shooting range, I
> thought of you.)
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I am reminded of an article in 'Flight' many years ago, The boss of Pan
Am had given a talk about how he had had just started flying B26s,
which were then regarded as a bit speical, and during a test flight
came across this little limey bird. Deciding to have some fun with it
he wound the B26 up but the Mosquito (as he later discovered it was),
stayed with the B26. Eventually there was black smoke pouring from the
exhausts, at which point the Mossie dropped its landing gear, rolled
inverted, accelerated and climbed away!
guy
Bombardier
On Jan 8, 7:29 am, "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baker wrote:
> >http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----I am reminded of an article in 'Flight' many years ago, The boss of Pan
> Am had given a talk about how he had had just started flying B26s,
> which were then regarded as a bit speical, and during a test flight
> came across this little limey bird. Deciding to have some fun with it
> he wound the B26 up but the Mosquito (as he later discovered it was),
> stayed with the B26. Eventually there was black smoke pouring from the
> exhausts, at which point the Mossie dropped its landing gear, rolled
> inverted, accelerated and climbed away!
Great planes those Mossies.
Bombardier
344thBG 494th BS
England France Italy Belgium Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> guy- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
guy
Bombardier wrote:
SNIP
> Actually the radial engine in the FW 190 was based on a pre-war license
> from Pratt & Whitney so we can say they were distant cousins. Even he
> Germans finally realised that in line engines were just too vulnerable,
> and so they finally went radial.
>
Sorry, as much as | respect your opinion on most matters aeronautical
'The Germans went radial' is plain rubbish The FW190 started with a BMW
radial but switched to an inline Jumo (annular radiator so it looked a
bit like a radial)
got any other examples where the 'Germans went radial?'
guy
(also, while the R2800 undoubtedly got people home sometimes with
cylinders shot off you could not , of course, shoot a cylinder off a
Merlin in the first place)
Andrew Chaplin
news:1168334978.0...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
But you could certainly hole its cooling system as you tried.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Gernot Hassenpflug
Hmm, interesting question - in Europe virtually all the Axis-allied
(!) countries switched from radial to liquid-cooling. I think here
particularly of the Italian 5-series fighters which all utilized the
DB 605 (or variants thereof?). So was this the most useful engine the
European Axis had available (apart from jet engines that is)? Same for
the Ju88 IIRC. I cannot come up with any examples of moving in the
other direction...I suspect it is a matter of industrial
specialization: the Germans/Italians (and other Axis nations in
Europe) did not have the ability (technology and resources) to build
hugely powerful brute-strength radials that could match the inline
liquid-cooled ones they had developed. And then the jet age arrived...
--
Debian Hint #11: Keep up to date on what's going on - read the Debian
Weekly News. Read it on the web at http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/, or
subscribe to debia...@lists.debian.org.
Eunometic
So lets compare the Merlin to its cotemporaries in 1939/1940
The single stage supercharged allison V-1710 was slightly smaller and
yet more powerfull than the Merlin.
The DB601 was a little bigger but produced more power on inferior fuel.
When the battle of britain came the Merlin was completely dependent on
fancy fuel of high lean octane rating and expecially high rich mixture
octane rating that came from fancy sources in Persia and Brunei. For
decent performance the allison and latter PW R-2800 were not so
reliant. The Soviets at first couldn't even use their Spitifres and
Hurricanes properly because of the demands of fancy fuel. Thank the
chemists more than rolls royce.
Next phase; Me 109F-4s, on improved C3 93/110 but still inferior fuel
are outperforming Spitfire V's on 100/130.
Next Phase; long range escorts are needed becuase on one equation
heavily armoured Fw 190's destroy 20 of 40 B-17's in 30 minutes for no
losses.
It's the Allison engined P-38 that provides the long range escort.
It's the PW-2800 engined P-47 that provides the mid ranged escort; the
merlin engined spit can't do the distance.
The Merlin was not crucial during the Battle of Britain and the then
the Allison and DB601 were just as good and the spit could've used
other engines eg Allison under liscence. The Merlins luck was to be in
a fine plane but short legged fighter.
The Merlin was damage prone and needed fancy fuel to perform.
>
> Peter Skelton
guy
what utter rubbish!
guy
Peter Skelton
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
And it was a liquid-cooled V. You can go home now.
Peter Skelton
Eunometic
Bob Matthews wrote:
> Bombardier wrote:
> > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > considered?
>
> R-3350s? They had similar power ratings until well after the war.
>
decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor
temperature detonation could be induced. They ran the engine at extreme
boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more
amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure!
This, with common 100/130 avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted,
the engines were completely worn out, but survived without a single
component failure. Try that with Rolls Royce Merlin or Allison V-1710.
These engines consistently produced 2800hp on the 480mph P-47M in 1944.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html
The PW2800 could've done the job, and probably better than the CW 3350,
and then the USAAF could've moved onto the PW R-4360 corn cob for the
B-50/B-29D and had an engine that gave the aircraft a decent speed and
reliabillity for use in Korea in airspace contested by MiG 15's.
Eunometic
We're debating what's the best engine of WW2 not whether air cooled is
better than liquid cooled. So you can go back to sleep.
Liquid cooled is probably a little easier to engineer.
The Amaurotean Capitalist
wrote:
>So lets compare the Merlin to its cotemporaries in 1939/1940
>
>The single stage supercharged allison V-1710 was slightly smaller and
>yet more powerfull than the Merlin.
How many V-1710-engined fighters were flying in service units in 1939?
>When the battle of britain came the Merlin was completely dependent on
>fancy fuel of high lean octane rating and expecially high rich mixture
>octane rating that came from fancy sources in Persia and Brunei.
And even fancier sources in Billingham on Teeside ("Aye, right
exotic!"), Heysham in Lancashire ("Bye 'eck, that's reet exotic, that
is!") and Stanlow in Cheshire (Local stereotypical statement about
exoticism lifted by light-fingered scousers from the other side of the
Wirral).
>The Merlin was not crucial during the Battle of Britain
Presumably no modern air defence system needed fighters with such
clearly obselete concepts as engines.
>and the then
>the Allison and DB601 were just as good and the spit could've used
>other engines eg Allison under liscence.
Strange then that the V-1710 in the P-40 was initially phased out to
use the inferior Merlin. It must be a conspiracy!
Gavin Bailey
--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En
Eunometic
Bombardier wrote:
> On Jan 2, 6:56?am, deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > Bombardier wrote:
> > > Was the R-2800 the best engine of the war? It was the basis for the
> > > P-47, the Corsair and the B--26. It made them all possible. And it was
> > > hard to beat on reliability under fire often getting cylinders shot out
> > > and still pulling power.. Was it the best engine of the war everything
> > figured I'd throw this in before you know who....)
>
> Actually the radial engine in the FW 190 was based on a pre-war license
> from Pratt & Whitney so we can say they were distant cousins. Even he
> Germans finally realised that in line engines were just too vulnerable,
> and so they finally went radial.
The BMW801 was pretty much 100% BMW-Bramo's work. Its true to say that
BMW and Bramo-Fafnir (the old Siemens Schuckert) manufactured a variey
of Pratt and Whitney and Bristol air cooled engines under liscense
before they merged and built up their know how and skill but the 801
was all their own design.
There were three unique "German" features
1 The high speed gear driven fan that provided the neat streamlined
cowling.
2 The multipoint direct in cylinder fuel injection system.
3 The "Komando Garaet" single leaver control which controlled throttle,
mixture, overboost emergency power.
Certainly there wasn't anything else exceptional; like Bristols Sleave
Valves.
Curtiss Wright could've learned a little from BMW; the R-3350 engine
fire problems were substantially solved by the use of fuel injection.
The German penchant for fuel injection relates to inferior
vapourisation properties of their fuels and the fact that high
performance carburator development liscenses and patents were already
taken.
The BMW 801 14 cylinder radial was well liked and BMW tried to produce
an 18 cylinder version, the BMW802. A few test bench models were run.
Development dragged on and I think the resources went into jet engine
designes and improving the BMW801. Not much use for a big new piston
engine in 1944 Germany.
Peter Skelton
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
What crap. If you care to read my post, I'm responding to a chap
who felt that the air-cooled 2800 (a good engine, no doubt about
it) was the best and compared it to the Merlin to prove his
point. I pointed out that the Merlin was an earlier generation.
I'm not certain what your point is. Your candidate wasn't exactly
common on front line equipment at any stage in the war (at least
compared to the 2800, Merlin, and several others.)
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<g.j.b...@delete.me.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 10 Jan 2007 01:11:49 -0800, "Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>So lets compare the Merlin to its cotemporaries in 1939/1940
>>
>>The single stage supercharged allison V-1710 was slightly smaller and
>>yet more powerfull than the Merlin.
>
>How many V-1710-engined fighters were flying in service units in 1939?
>
>>When the battle of britain came the Merlin was completely dependent on
>>fancy fuel of high lean octane rating and expecially high rich mixture
>>octane rating that came from fancy sources in Persia and Brunei.
>
>And even fancier sources in Billingham on Teeside ("Aye, right
>exotic!"), Heysham in Lancashire ("Bye 'eck, that's reet exotic, that
>is!") and Stanlow in Cheshire (Local stereotypical statement about
>exoticism lifted by light-fingered scousers from the other side of the
>Wirral).
>
>>The Merlin was not crucial during the Battle of Britain
>
>Presumably no modern air defence system needed fighters with such
>clearly obselete concepts as engines.
>
>>and the then
>>the Allison and DB601 were just as good and the spit could've used
>>other engines eg Allison under liscence.
>
>Strange then that the V-1710 in the P-40 was initially phased out to
>use the inferior Merlin. It must be a conspiracy!
>
I'm surprised you brought this up. Wouldn't have been more fun to
mention the Mustang?
Peter Skelton
Gord Beaman
It was indeed Ian...I have a bit over 5000 hours of airtime
logged on that aircraft (as well as a bit over 4000 on the C-119G
with the same engines) and I agree with you about their
dependability. That's likely just a typing error there but they
were R-3350 engines.
--
-Gord.
(use gordon in email)
Gord Beaman
Art, I think we may have had this discussion before but the Argus
had Curtis Electric props also and they were extremely reliable
so it's possible that it might have been some other system
anomaly that was to blame on your particular a/c...
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>> As we used to say that if the Marauder didnl;t get youu the Curtis
>> Electric props were sure to do the job.
>
> Art, I think we may have had this discussion before but the Argus
> had Curtis Electric props also and they were extremely reliable
> so it's possible that it might have been some other system
> anomaly that was to blame on your particular a/c...
I could be wrong about this but I swear I've read they had problems with Curtis
Electric props in the C-46 also.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
George Z. Bush
Yes, they did. The electric motors that changed the blade angles were prone to
corrosion which caused the contacts to fail. When they did that, the props went
into fixed pitch and oversped.
George Z.
Bombardier
On Jan 10, 2:15 pm, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@charter.net.nospam>
wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > Gord Beaman wrote:
> >>> As we used to say that if the Marauder didnl;t get youu the Curtis
> >>> Electric props were sure to do the job.
>
> >> Art, I think we may have had this discussion before but the Argus
> >> had Curtis Electric props also and they were extremely reliable
> >> so it's possible that it might have been some other system
> >> anomaly that was to blame on your particular a/c...
>
> > I could be wrong about this but I swear I've read they had problems with
> > Curtis Electric props in the C-46 also.Yes, they did. The electric motors that changed the blade angles were prone to
> corrosion which caused the contacts to fail. When they did that, the props went
> into fixed pitch and oversped.
>
> George Z.
And many is the runaway props that threw blades sometimes into the
cockpit killing the pilot and or the copilot.Luckily most runaways that
threw blades through them away from the fuselage.There's a lot to be
thankful for if you ended up in Marauders,
Bombardier
344th BG 494th BS
England France Belgium Italy Holland Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Gord Beaman
Hang on here a second George, I've never heard of that happening
on an Argus ever. Mind you the C-119 had hydraulic props so they
don't count but the Curtis Electrics on the Argus just didn't do
that. Never. Matter of fact, there's no 'contacts' IN the
propeller itself anyway, there's a bunch of copper slip-rings
around the prop-shaft which carry the 72 VDC or 28 VDC to the
electric motor.
Also, if the prop is selected to 'fixed pitch' with the propeller
switch on the F/E panel (or the operating voltage is lost) then
the blades do (as you say) go to fixed pitch and stay there but
they certainly won't overspeed...unless you hugely increase the
airspeed OR the engine power.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:1168420308.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes, the idea here is to compare the Merlin III to whatever engine
is needed, not for example the Merlin XII or XX that came into service
in 1940, no it must be the 1938 version. This way the preferred results
can be made then the evidence arranged.
> The single stage supercharged allison V-1710 was slightly smaller and
> yet more powerfull than the Merlin.
The V-1710 early versions were rated at 1,040 to 1,150 HP , the more
powerful versions appearing in 1941 production. A 28 litre engine,
it seem most references give the details of the later models, the E-19
rated at 1,200 HP for take off, 100 Octane fuel, came in at 651 kg.
The Merlin was a 27 litre engine, the III came in at 629 kg for 1,030
HP, the XII at 647 kg for 1,150 HP, the XX at 647 kg for 1,240 HP.
> The DB601 was a little bigger but produced more power on inferior fuel.
DB601Aa 33.9 litres, 590 kg. Bf109 power plant in 1940. Rated at 1,150 HP
Bigger here is defined as bigger displacement, above it seems to be
defined as higher weight.
> When the battle of britain came the Merlin was completely dependent on
> fancy fuel of high lean octane rating and expecially high rich mixture
> octane rating that came from fancy sources in Persia and Brunei.
Meantime we presume the Bf109s were not dependent on fancy fuel
from fancy sources, like the hydrogenation plants in Germany. By
the way try the Caribbean refineries, which is where the RAF was
drawing 100 Octane supply from.
100 Octane pushed the Merlin II output to 1,160 HP at 9,000 feet.
The higher octane fuels gave better low level performance, they did
not give any better high altitude performance. To illustrate, the
Spitfire VIII modified to 150 Octane and 25 pounds boost, versus its
100 Octane 18 pounds standard configuration, was 30 mph faster at
14,000 feet but no faster at 20,200 feet.
By the way the fuel the allies used out of Britain came from a common
pool, the USAAF fighters were using the same fuels as the RAF. This
of course contradicts the idea the Merlin had its special fuel needs so
it has to be ignored.
> For
> decent performance the allison and latter PW R-2800 were not so
> reliant.
This is one of those unquantified statements that are designed to
make the preferred bad guys look bad without providing any evidence.
The USAAF was the first to go to 100 Octane, even it did not
have as much as it wanted in WWII, enacting restrictions on
training engines and some operations in the US to preserve stocks.
> The Soviets at first couldn't even use their Spitifres and
> Hurricanes properly because of the demands of fancy fuel. Thank the
> chemists more than rolls royce.
Ah I see, the facts are no good so time to basically write fiction. The
Merlins ran quite well on 87 octane fuel, that is what the RAF used in
the late 1930's. It decided to go onto 100 Octane fuel in 1940.
The Soviets noted all their western imports had trouble with the
lower grade fuels they had. The various stories out have different
"worst performer", and the Merlin features in these.
By the way is the idea the troubles continued until the first Spitfires
arrived in 1943? The main UK Spitfire export to the USSR were mark
IX's, and that effectively started in 1944, some 36 delivered by June
1944.
> Next phase; Me 109F-4s, on improved C3 93/110 but still inferior fuel
> are outperforming Spitfire V's on 100/130.
Note by the way we are now in late 1941 and Bf109 versus Spitfire
comparisons abruptly stop here, it would be bad for the conclusion
to include the mark IX or later. Oh yes, the F-4 is generally regarded
as the best Bf109 version when it comes to things like handling and
overall performance per HP.
Of course the fact the Bf109F-4 has better supercharging than the
Spitfire V, had half the armament and was something like 14% lighter
is not going to be mentioned here. The idea is to claim it is all the
engine, the airframe is irrelevant.
> Next Phase; long range escorts are needed becuase on one equation
> heavily armoured Fw 190's destroy 20 of 40 B-17's in 30 minutes for no
> losses.
In case people are wondering we are in late 1944, the up gunned and
up armoured Fw190s. The entire Merlin 60 series Spitfires need to
be removed from the review.
The exact date is not given of course, there were a couple of occasions
when these Sturm Fw190s caught unprotected US bomber formations
and really hurt them. The "no losses" idea applies to return fire from the
bombers, not the actual losses on the day. For example when JG301
shot down 15 of the 491st B-24s their Sturm gruppen lost 22 pilots
killed and 3 wounded, on 26 November 1944.
Of course on 26 November 1944 the allies had lots of airfields close
to German, medium range fighters could then cover most of German
controlled territory.
> It's the Allison engined P-38 that provides the long range escort.
I gather no reading has been done on the very real problems the P-38
had when doing escort missions in Europe. There is a reason the 8th
Air Force moved to the P-51.
> It's the PW-2800 engined P-47 that provides the mid ranged escort; the
> merlin engined spit can't do the distance.
Actually it can, if the tankage is fitted, the reality was though the
RAF was not prepared to risk the loss of production in early 1943
and had lots of long range fighters on order by mid/late 1943.
I note by the way the inferior Merlin idea requires the removal of
the P-51.
> The Merlin was not crucial during the Battle of Britain and the then
> the Allison and DB601 were just as good and the spit could've used
> other engines eg Allison under liscence. The Merlins luck was to be in
> a fine plane but short legged fighter.
It appears the idea is to ignore the Lancaster, Mosquito, Halifax,
Hurricane,
Battle, Defiant, Fulmar, Wellington, Whitley, Beaufighter, Barracuda, P-40
and P-51.
Then forget the Hornet. And do not mention the Meteor version used
in so many British tanks.
> The Merlin was damage prone and needed fancy fuel to perform.
Strange that, just ignore the same statements on all WWII high end
combat aero engines for fuel, and all liquid cooled engines for damage.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
George Z. Bush
"Gord Beaman" <go...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:2pabq25ul4vd1sdor...@4ax.com...
I never mentioned Argus.......wouldn't know one if I stumbled over one (unless
it was a camera of the same name). I was responding to Mort's comment about
C-46s. Although I never had the pleasure while flying 46s, I do recall that
there was a what-to-do page in the manual pertaining to overspeeding Curtis
Electric props. Here are some references to prop failures I found by Googling:
".....The Commando outperformed the C-47 but the Curtiss transport also suffered
its share of mechanical problems in the harsh environment: engine vapor locks at
high altitudes, erratic hydraulic boost for flight controls, corrosion and
failure of electric propeller governors, and in-flight explosions."
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/curtiss_c46.htm
""If you got a runaway prop, you couldn't do anything with it," Noyes said. "You
had to shut the engine down. In other words, it would go up to such speeds that
it would probably disintegrate."
George Z.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> ".....The Commando outperformed the C-47 but the Curtiss transport also
> suffered its share of mechanical problems in the harsh environment: engine
> vapor locks at high altitudes, erratic hydraulic boost for flight controls,
> corrosion and failure of electric propeller governors, and in-flight
> explosions."
> http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/curtiss_c46.htm
>
> ""If you got a runaway prop, you couldn't do anything with it," Noyes said.
> "You had to shut the engine down. In other words, it would go up to such
> speeds that it would probably disintegrate."
>
> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/wwii/13155040.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Here's another:
"....The early C-46s (as flown by Eastern Airlines) were fitted with 3-bladed
Hamilton propellors. Fairly early in production these were replaced by the
4-bladed Curtiss electrically operated props. An electric motor was used to
alter the angle of the blades. Wiht a little corrosion, the electric contact
could be lost, resulting in the prop moving into fine pitch and the engine
overspeeding. This was perticularly serious on take off from high altitude
fields. Like Kunming. With gross weights above those initially intended by the
designers....!"
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/c46_tech.htm
Peter Skelton
I think that's the clue. I don't know anything about these
particular props, my experience being peripheral and much later
but here goes.
Automatically controlled props try to keep engine revs constant,
the pilot sets the power and the prop goes coarser or finer to
keep the revs right. (This is very close to power optimum for the
throttle setting.)
If load decreases, as it does after take-off, and on descent or
speed increases (as it does through take-off) a coarser pitch is
needed. If the adjusting motor fails, the engine over-revs. If
the prop stalls, the engine really over-revs.
Peter Skelton
guy
Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:32:01 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >George Z. Bush wrote:
> >> ".....The Commando outperformed the C-47 but the Curtiss transport also
> >> suffered its share of mechanical problems in the harsh environment: engine
> >> vapor locks at high altitudes, erratic hydraulic boost for flight controls,
> >> corrosion and failure of electric propeller governors, and in-flight
> >> explosions."
> >> http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/curtiss_c46.htm
> >>
> >> ""If you got a runaway prop, you couldn't do anything with it," Noyes said.
> >> "You had to shut the engine down. In other words, it would go up to such
> >> speeds that it would probably disintegrate."
> >>
> >> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/wwii/13155040.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
> >
> >
Alex Henshaw had a similar experience when returning to Castle
Bromwich, the prop suddenly going to fully fine. Everything held
together but even at max power the prop generated virtually no thrust.
Apparently the look on the faces of the ground crew as he was on
approach was quite a picture as this howling Spitfire crawled over the
boundary.
guy
Bombardier
On Jan 11, 3:28 am, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@charter.net.nospam>
wrote:
> "Gord Beaman" <g...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in messagenews:2pabq25ul4vd1sdor...@4ax.com...
> > (use gordon in email)I never mentioned Argus.......wouldn't know one if I stumbled over one (unless
> it was a camera of the same name). I was responding to Mort's comment about
> C-46s. Although I never had the pleasure while flying 46s, I do recall that
> there was a what-to-do page in the manual pertaining to overspeeding Curtis
> Electric props. Here are some references to prop failures I found by Googling:
>
> ".....The Commando outperformed the C-47 but the Curtiss transport also suffered
> its share of mechanical problems in the harsh environment: engine vapor locks at
> high altitudes, erratic hydraulic boost for flight controls, corrosion and
> failure of electric propeller governors, and in-flight explosions."
>
> http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/curtiss_c46.htm
>
> ""If you got a runaway prop, you couldn't do anything with it," Noyes said. "You
> had to shut the engine down. In other words, it would go up to such speeds that
> it would probably disintegrate."
>
> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/...
>
> George Z.-
If youi had a runaway prop you had to shut the enginedown but a B-26
with its heavy wing loading couldn't maintain altitide on single
engine.- Down you go 500 ft/min until the inevatable takes place
Bombardier
344th BG 494th BS
Gord Beaman
True, but I was just defending the Curtis Electric props which
were most reliable on the Argus thats all. I think what is
happening here is that these nasty descriptions like overspeeds
are likely the results of the props going to 'fine pitch' rather
than 'fixed pitch'. Helluva big difference...
I had one of those Argus C-4 cameras too... :)
Eunometic
The context was the crucial phases of the Battle of Britain. You know
context where you follow a bit of the preceding post.
The Merlin III is the appropriate engine. Merlin XII is little
different going into Castle Bromwich Spitfire II while Merlin III went
into Supermarines Spitfire I's; the difference in performance was
slight: coffman starter and supercharger setting differences. Merlin
III's started runnung on 87 octane and finished on 100 while Mk.XII
always ran on 100 octane. XII had pressurised cooling circuit, III
proably did as well. I/II didn't.
>
> > The single stage supercharged allison V-1710 was slightly smaller and
> > yet more powerfull than the Merlin.
>
> The V-1710 early versions were rated at 1,040 to 1,150 HP , the more
> powerful versions appearing in 1941 production. A 28 litre engine,
> it seem most references give the details of the later models, the E-19
> rated at 1,200 HP for take off, 100 Octane fuel, came in at 651 kg.
>
> The Merlin was a 27 litre engine, the III came in at 629 kg for 1,030
> HP, the XII at 647 kg for 1,150 HP, the XX at 647 kg for 1,240 HP.
The III did 1030 at 9000ft on 87 octane and 1310 on 100 octane at
9000ft. At takeoff both did 880hp.
This proably means that 87 octane was really 87/87 octane and 100
octane was probably 87/100 lean/rich.
>
> > The DB601 was a little bigger but produced more power on inferior fuel.
>
> DB601Aa 33.9 litres, 590 kg. Bf109 power plant in 1940. Rated at 1,150 HP
>
> Bigger here is defined as bigger displacement, above it seems to be
> defined as higher weight.
Either way the DB601 seems to be the winner here in terms of
power/weight ratio; all the more remarkable for the use of lower octane
fuels. B4 was rated at 87/81 at this time; latter increased to about
91 lean octane.
>
> > When the battle of britain came the Merlin was completely dependent on
> > fancy fuel of high lean octane rating and expecially high rich mixture
> > octane rating that came from fancy sources in Persia and Brunei.
>
> Meantime we presume the Bf109s were not dependent on fancy fuel
> from fancy sources, like the hydrogenation plants in Germany. By
> the way try the Caribbean refineries, which is where the RAF was
> drawing 100 Octane supply from.
>
> 100 Octane pushed the Merlin II output to 1,160 HP at 9,000 feet.
>
> The higher octane fuels gave better low level performance, they did
> not give any better high altitude performance.
Your don't know what you are taliking about. Increased octane ratings
increases available over boost and thefore power at all levels so long
as the supercharger can supply the air. Octane rating is decisive
under all conditions.
British fuels had two ratings; the lean and the rich. For instance
100/125, 100/130 (the latter common UK/USA stock), 115/145 and 100/150.
British aviation fuel was probably 87/87 octane and then 87/100 and
then 100/125 and then settled in for most of the war at 100/130.
The first figure is the lean mixture rating when the fuel to air ratio
is stoichiometric i.e. adjusted so that there is slightly more than
sufficient air to burn all of the fuel (about 14:1). The second
figure is the rich mixture rating where there is something like a
12.5:1 ai fuel ratio. The effect of aromatic compounds is to increase
the overall octane ratings slightly but moreso to increase the rich
mixture ratings. One effect is a charge cooling effect which increases
the air density as the fuel evaporates while increasing the effective
octane rating.
The Merlin used overboosting with rich mixture settings like the mid
war German Daimler Benz engines used MW50 (water methanol injection).
Above a certain altitude
> To illustrate, the
> Spitfire VIII modified to 150 Octane and 25 pounds boost, versus its
> 100 Octane 18 pounds standard configuration, was 30 mph faster at
> 14,000 feet but no faster at 20,200 feet.
The fuel you label 100 octane is realy 100/130 octane. The fuel you
label 150 octane is really 100/150.
Above a certain alitude the charge cooling effect of rich mixture i(or
MW50) injection has little effect on the already cooled air.
Howevever the British have available 115/145 fuel which is what is
needed to get better high altitude performance as the 115 lean rated
fuel would allow the surcharger to process more air/fuel mixture in its
lean setting at high altitude and therefor produce more power.
Early german B4 fuel was rated about 87/81. Note here that the rich
mixture rating is worse than the lean mixture rating and therefore rich
mixture injection is useless. Battle of Britain Me 109s only used B4.
Around 1943 the fuels rating increased to about 91.
C3 fuel was rated at around 91/110 and around mid 1943 increased to
about 95/125 (possibly as high as 96/130 but not consistently so);
hence the German figthers had disadvantge due to the fact that their
octane ratings were lower.
American 100 octane fuel had a poor rich mixture rating becuase the
Americans didn't used rich mixture settings to gain power. This is why
the British had problems with American fuel.
>
> By the way the fuel the allies used out of Britain came from a common
> pool, the USAAF fighters were using the same fuels as the RAF. This
> of course contradicts the idea the Merlin had its special fuel needs so
> it has to be ignored.
>
> > For
> > decent performance the allison and latter PW R-2800 were not so
> > reliant.
>
> This is one of those unquantified statements that are designed to
> make the preferred bad guys look bad without providing any evidence.
>
> The USAAF was the first to go to 100 Octane, even it did not
> have as much as it wanted in WWII, enacting restrictions on
> training engines and some operations in the US to preserve stocks.
As I pointed out above US 100 octane fuel lacked the rich mixture
rating of British fuels. The US created its fuel via catalytic
cracking; the houdry process which only produces the lean component.
>
> > The Soviets at first couldn't even use their Spitifres and
> > Hurricanes properly because of the demands of fancy fuel. Thank the
> > chemists more than rolls royce.
>
> Ah I see, the facts are no good so time to basically write fiction. The
> Merlins ran quite well on 87 octane fuel, that is what the RAF used in
> the late 1930's. It decided to go onto 100 Octane fuel in 1940.
>
> The Soviets noted all their western imports had trouble with the
> lower grade fuels they had. The various stories out have different
> "worst performer", and the Merlin features in these.
>
> By the way is the idea the troubles continued until the first Spitfires
> arrived in 1943? The main UK Spitfire export to the USSR were mark
> IX's, and that effectively started in 1944, some 36 delivered by June
> 1944.
>
> > Next phase; Me 109F-4s, on improved C3 93/110 but still inferior fuel
> > are outperforming Spitfire V's on 100/130.
>
> Note by the way we are now in late 1941 and Bf109 versus Spitfire
> comparisons abruptly stop here, it would be bad for the conclusion
> to include the mark IX or later. Oh yes, the F-4 is generally regarded
> as the best Bf109 version when it comes to things like handling and
> overall performance per HP.
>
> Of course the fact the Bf109F-4 has better supercharging than the
> Spitfire V, had half the armament and was something like 14% lighter
> is not going to be mentioned here. The idea is to claim it is all the
> engine, the airframe is irrelevant.
No, the idea is to claim that the merlin was not the best engine of the
war. I'm trying to do that by pointing out that in some phases of the
war the merlin was not the best engine and that when it was it was not
decisive as in the Mk.V vs Me 109F-4 comparison. The Me 109F-4 used
inferior fuel.
>
> > Next Phase; long range escorts are needed becuase on one equation
> > heavily armoured Fw 190's destroy 20 of 40 B-17's in 30 minutes for no
> > losses.
>
> In case people are wondering we are in late 1944, the up gunned and
> up armoured Fw190s. The entire Merlin 60 series Spitfires need to
> be removed from the review.
>
> The exact date is not given of course, there were a couple of occasions
> when these Sturm Fw190s caught unprotected US bomber formations
> and really hurt them. The "no losses" idea applies to return fire from the
> bombers, not the actual losses on the day. For example when JG301
> shot down 15 of the 491st B-24s their Sturm gruppen lost 22 pilots
> killed and 3 wounded, on 26 November 1944.
>
> Of course on 26 November 1944 the allies had lots of airfields close
> to German, medium range fighters could then cover most of German
> controlled territory.
>
> > It's the Allison engined P-38 that provides the long range escort.
>
> I gather no reading has been done on the very real problems the P-38
> had when doing escort missions in Europe. There is a reason the 8th
> Air Force moved to the P-51.
The reason is that P-38's were dedicated to North Africa where its
range was indispensible and to the pacific where twin engine safety was
mandated. Having said that the P-38 stopped the Luftwaffe from simply
blowing B-17's out of the sky from a distance or approaching with super
heavy armoured aircraft. The P-51 attrited the Luftwaffe but it was
the P-38 that saved the bombers.
>
> > It's the PW-2800 engined P-47 that provides the mid ranged escort; the
> > merlin engined spit can't do the distance.
>
> Actually it can, if the tankage is fitted, the reality was though the
> RAF was not prepared to risk the loss of production in early 1943
> and had lots of long range fighters on order by mid/late 1943.
>
> I note by the way the inferior Merlin idea requires the removal of
> the P-51.
The P-51's role could have been performed by reingineered wet wing
P-47's. The P-51 could have been fitted with a turbo-charged allison
instead of a duel stage Merlin 266.
>
> > The Merlin was not crucial during the Battle of Britain and the then
> > the Allison and DB601 were just as good and the spit could've used
> > other engines eg Allison under liscence. The Merlins luck was to be in
> > a fine plane but short legged fighter.
>
> It appears the idea is to ignore the Lancaster, Mosquito, Halifax,
> Hurricane,
> Battle, Defiant, Fulmar, Wellington, Whitley, Beaufighter, Barracuda, P-40
> and P-51.
All could've run on alternative engines that were as good or better.
Taurus, Hercules, twin cyclones, Turbo Allisons.
>
> Then forget the Hornet. And do not mention the Meteor version used
> in so many British tanks.
>
> > The Merlin was damage prone and needed fancy fuel to perform.
>
> Strange that, just ignore the same statements on all WWII high end
> combat aero engines for fuel, and all liquid cooled engines for damage.
The aircooled engine ended up the winner apart from a few shakeltons
with Griffons no one wanted anyting to do with merlins and griffons.
Eunometic
Allisons came with either a single stage single speed supercharger or a
turbo.
Merlins came with either a single stage two speed supercharger or a two
stage two speed supercharger with intercooler.
Early Allisons matched Merlins and actually provided more power at low
altitude. Two stage Merlins need to be compared to Turbo Allisons and
in this contest the Allison leaves the Merlin in the dust at high
altitude. About 1450hp versus 990 Hp at 30,000 feet (by recollection)
There was also a turbo compound allison though it wasn't ready.
> >
> I'm surprised you brought this up. Wouldn't have been more fun to
> mention the Mustang?
Mustang could've been modified from single stage Allison to Turbo
Allison. There was lots of work to convert from the single stage
allison to the two stage Merlin.
All it took to fix the allison was the two speed supercharger and then
a two stage supercharger.
The USN used two speed two stage superchargers in the Pratt and
Whitney's of Wildcats figthers so it wasn't beyond US industry.
>
>
> Peter Skelton
Eunometic
It's a pretty good theory.
Engine development was neglected in Italy: even their Schneider trophy
victories relied upon brute force oversized engines.
In Germany the severed restrictions upon aviation placed upon her after
WW1 would've slowed development of air cooled radials. In fact it
virtually shutdown the industry and only small sporting engines of
under 100hp could be produced for a while. Remember the technology for
air cooled radials didn't develop unitill WW1. Siemens and Halske
developed small aircooled radials of around 150hp but had to turn to
liscense production of the Bristol Juipeter to get into the big league.
This lead eventually to the bramo 323. Meanwhile BMW got back into
aviation by proiducing PW Hornet which eventually lead to the improved
BMW 123. These were all single row radials.
BMW then developed the 801 from the experimental BMW 139 by cuting down
from 18 to 14 cylinders. The 801 was all BMW's work. Note Siemens
and Haske became bramo which merged with BMW; hence all radial engine
manufacture was concentrated in BMW.
Aircooled engine development seems to be a little harder than water
cooled development; especialy cooling the cylinder heads.
This left Germany with Junkers and Daimler Benz whose expertise was in
water cooled engines and diesels.
Note Kurt Tank wanted an water cooled engine for the Fw 190 and was
forced to use the BMW801 becuase of the limited supplies of the Daimler
Benz 601/603/605 which were reserved for Me 109's. The junkers Jumo
211 was too heavy though when Junkers added a pressurised cooling
circuit in the Jumo 211J there was a big power increase it was still
not enough untill the Jumo 213 was developed from the Jumo 211.
The junkers Jumo 222 was a 24 cylinder 'star' engine that was water
cooled; suffered from protracted development including 2 stroke and 3
bore increases, one cancellation and then reinstatment when its
problems looked soluable. BMW had an 18 cylinder development of its 14
cylinder 802 but development also was slow and there seemed no point as
the aicraft it was intended for were also cancelled at times.
The one air cooled radial the Germans had, the BMW801 performed well
though more effort was needed on high alttitude supercharger
development and turbo supercharger development (though metals for that
were in short supply). I believe the BMW801R had a two stage 4 speed
supercharger and the BMW801F proably had a two stage supercharger and
could produce 2400hp. Bastardised BMW801D with this supercharger were
apparently used on some Fw 190A-9's which could outrun a P-51D at sea
level with MW50 injection.
The daimler benz db605 and its bigger cousin the db603 were good
engines despite being in lin liquid cooled V-12's. The db603 had
development potential, for such a huge volume of 44L was quite light,
and ran on low grade B4 fuel and a single stage supercharger. The
DB603L was used on the Ta 152 and Do 335 added a two stage supercharger
while the DB603N added higher octane C3 fuel and an intercooler and was
also intended for the above.
No point investing in an aircooled radial if the water cooled stuff is
good enough.
BMW shifted back to water cooling with the r-4360 size BMW803.
The Amaurotean Capitalist
wrote:
>Early Allisons matched Merlins and actually provided more power at low
>altitude. Two stage Merlins need to be compared to Turbo Allisons and
>in this contest the Allison leaves the Merlin in the dust at high
>altitude.
Which explains why the 8th AF had such problems with turbo-charged
Allisons in the P-38 that they switched to the Merlin-powered P-51.
Err....
>Mustang could've been modified from single stage Allison to Turbo
>Allison.
Yes, but this would have required a radical shift in turbo Allison
supply away from the P-38 which the USAAC would not have tolerated.
>All it took to fix the allison was the two speed supercharger and then
>a two stage supercharger.
And then an inconclusive search for oils, fuels and a maintainence
regime that would stop them blowing up at high altitude in damp
conditions.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Ah I see, the Merlin III is decreed the appropriate engine, mainly
so the preferred conclusions can be reached. I note by the way
in all the information given about the Merlin XII its HP rating
goes missing. Amazing it is "almost the same", just that it was
rated at about 100 HP more, sort of what is 10% extra power
when discussing things like power to weight issues.
The British have decided the Battle of Britain went from July
to October 1940. I know it is mid July but I will use the full
July production figures.
In that 4 months Supermarine built around 421 mark I and Castle
Bromwich built 203 Spitfire II.
Meantime the Hurricane II was starting deliveries in September 1940.
The first combat loss was on 4 September. Merlin XX engine.
>> > The single stage supercharged allison V-1710 was slightly smaller and
>> > yet more powerfull than the Merlin.
>>
>> The V-1710 early versions were rated at 1,040 to 1,150 HP , the more
>> powerful versions appearing in 1941 production. A 28 litre engine,
>> it seem most references give the details of the later models, the E-19
>> rated at 1,200 HP for take off, 100 Octane fuel, came in at 651 kg.
>>
>> The Merlin was a 27 litre engine, the III came in at 629 kg for 1,030
>> HP, the XII at 647 kg for 1,150 HP, the XX at 647 kg for 1,240 HP.
>
> The III did 1030 at 9000ft on 87 octane and 1310 on 100 octane at
> 9000ft. At takeoff both did 880hp.
>
> This proably means that 87 octane was really 87/87 octane and 100
> octane was probably 87/100 lean/rich.
So now I gather the idea is the RAF did not really have 100 Octane
fuel in 1940, but rather a better 87 Octane blend, with a true rich
mixture setting. Sure this is correct?
By the way the take off run of the Spitfire was decreased by 30 yards
when using 100 Octane, a test with 87 Octane produced 1,030 HP
at ground level, 100 Octane pushed this to 1,320 HP but at a very
real cost in engine wear. So there were gains at take off.
>> > The DB601 was a little bigger but produced more power on inferior fuel.
>>
>> DB601Aa 33.9 litres, 590 kg. Bf109 power plant in 1940. Rated at 1,150
>> HP
>>
>> Bigger here is defined as bigger displacement, above it seems to be
>> defined as higher weight.
>
> Either way the DB601 seems to be the winner here in terms of
> power/weight ratio; all the more remarkable for the use of lower octane
> fuels. B4 was rated at 87/81 at this time; latter increased to about
> 91 lean octane.
It seem the RLM specifications give B-4 as 89 lean.
What I really like though is no effort is made to clarify the terms
being used, bigger is either decided by weight or by displacement,
depending on preference. Makes it easy to decide the results in
advance.
>> > When the battle of britain came the Merlin was completely dependent on
>> > fancy fuel of high lean octane rating and expecially high rich mixture
>> > octane rating that came from fancy sources in Persia and Brunei.
>>
>> Meantime we presume the Bf109s were not dependent on fancy fuel
>> from fancy sources, like the hydrogenation plants in Germany. By
>> the way try the Caribbean refineries, which is where the RAF was
>> drawing 100 Octane supply from.
>>
>> 100 Octane pushed the Merlin II output to 1,160 HP at 9,000 feet.
>>
>> The higher octane fuels gave better low level performance, they did
>> not give any better high altitude performance.
>
> Your don't know what you are taliking about. Increased octane ratings
> increases available over boost and thefore power at all levels so long
> as the supercharger can supply the air. Octane rating is decisive
> under all conditions.
I agree I should have made it clear I was assuming nothing else
was done, rather than the absolute statement I typed.
You see the RAF did not do anything to things like supercharging
in the Merlin III, hence my statement.
> British fuels had two ratings; the lean and the rich. For instance
> 100/125, 100/130 (the latter common UK/USA stock), 115/145 and 100/150.
> British aviation fuel was probably 87/87 octane and then 87/100 and
> then 100/125 and then settled in for most of the war at 100/130.
Everyone had the two ratings, the allies decided to call it Performance
Numbers.
The 100/130 rating was the allied standard, used by both air forces.
> The first figure is the lean mixture rating when the fuel to air ratio
> is stoichiometric i.e. adjusted so that there is slightly more than
> sufficient air to burn all of the fuel (about 14:1). The second
> figure is the rich mixture rating where there is something like a
> 12.5:1 ai fuel ratio. The effect of aromatic compounds is to increase
> the overall octane ratings slightly but moreso to increase the rich
> mixture ratings. One effect is a charge cooling effect which increases
> the air density as the fuel evaporates while increasing the effective
> octane rating.
So which web site is this from?
> The Merlin used overboosting with rich mixture settings like the mid
> war German Daimler Benz engines used MW50 (water methanol injection).
> Above a certain altitude
The Germans as a result of using 87 Octane fuel I gather, given it has no
rich mixture setting.
>> To illustrate, the
>> Spitfire VIII modified to 150 Octane and 25 pounds boost, versus its
>> 100 Octane 18 pounds standard configuration, was 30 mph faster at
>> 14,000 feet but no faster at 20,200 feet.
>
> The fuel you label 100 octane is realy 100/130 octane. The fuel you
> label 150 octane is really 100/150.
Actually they are performance numbers, not Octane ratings being
used here.
By the way I like being corrected about using the upper performance
number to identify the fuel when above 100 Octane is defined as 87/100.
> Above a certain alitude the charge cooling effect of rich mixture i(or
> MW50) injection has little effect on the already cooled air.
Now above the extra Octane value is at all altitudes, here there is
a definite ceiling on the effect.
> Howevever the British have available 115/145 fuel which is what is
> needed to get better high altitude performance as the 115 lean rated
> fuel would allow the surcharger to process more air/fuel mixture in its
> lean setting at high altitude and therefor produce more power.
You see the 115/145 fuel being talked about is not dated, that would
give away the fact it was not available in 1940. The US military
specification for the fuel was issued in 1944.
For example the USN version went into production in mid 1945.
Raising the lean mixture rating helped cruise performance.
Think of it this way, amazing the allies standardised on 100/130
if 115/145 was available in 1940 or earlier.
> Early german B4 fuel was rated about 87/81. Note here that the rich
> mixture rating is worse than the lean mixture rating and therefore rich
> mixture injection is useless. Battle of Britain Me 109s only used B4.
> Around 1943 the fuels rating increased to about 91.
>
> C3 fuel was rated at around 91/110 and around mid 1943 increased to
> about 95/125 (possibly as high as 96/130 but not consistently so);
> hence the German figthers had disadvantge due to the fact that their
> octane ratings were lower.
I note the post war USN investigation rated the German C3 fuel as
corresponding roughly to the 130 grade, with a poorer lean mixture
performance.
> American 100 octane fuel had a poor rich mixture rating becuase the
> Americans didn't used rich mixture settings to gain power. This is why
> the British had problems with American fuel.
Except of course the allies pooled their avgas and drew it out according
to need, so the same fuel was being used by both air forces in England
as the obvious example.
>> By the way the fuel the allies used out of Britain came from a common
>> pool, the USAAF fighters were using the same fuels as the RAF. This
>> of course contradicts the idea the Merlin had its special fuel needs so
>> it has to be ignored.
No reply here.
>> > For
>> > decent performance the allison and latter PW R-2800 were not so
>> > reliant.
>>
>> This is one of those unquantified statements that are designed to
>> make the preferred bad guys look bad without providing any evidence.
>>
>> The USAAF was the first to go to 100 Octane, even it did not
>> have as much as it wanted in WWII, enacting restrictions on
>> training engines and some operations in the US to preserve stocks.
>
> As I pointed out above US 100 octane fuel lacked the rich mixture
> rating of British fuels. The US created its fuel via catalytic
> cracking; the houdry process which only produces the lean component.
Simply put what is being used here as "US 100 Octane" is some
of the 1930's formulations, before the British Formulations were
seen and a standard developed. The RAF trials in the 1930's
began by using US 100 Octane.
I have not yet checked the following claim about the actual
British supply sources in 1940,
"In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
oil, two in the US and one in the Caribbean (about 45%), the
Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
refineries in Borneo (30%). Half the British supply was
non-US in origin.
Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). You might also
consult the British Official History volume entitled "Oil",
by Payton-Smith, (HMSO, 1971)."
>> > The Soviets at first couldn't even use their Spitifres and
>> > Hurricanes properly because of the demands of fancy fuel. Thank the
>> > chemists more than rolls royce.
>>
>> Ah I see, the facts are no good so time to basically write fiction. The
>> Merlins ran quite well on 87 octane fuel, that is what the RAF used in
>> the late 1930's. It decided to go onto 100 Octane fuel in 1940.
>>
>> The Soviets noted all their western imports had trouble with the
>> lower grade fuels they had. The various stories out have different
>> "worst performer", and the Merlin features in these.
>>
>> By the way is the idea the troubles continued until the first Spitfires
>> arrived in 1943? The main UK Spitfire export to the USSR were mark
>> IX's, and that effectively started in 1944, some 36 delivered by June
>> 1944.
No reply here.
Apparently adding tin to the Soviet fuel really helped.
>> > Next phase; Me 109F-4s, on improved C3 93/110 but still inferior fuel
>> > are outperforming Spitfire V's on 100/130.
>>
>> Note by the way we are now in late 1941 and Bf109 versus Spitfire
>> comparisons abruptly stop here, it would be bad for the conclusion
>> to include the mark IX or later. Oh yes, the F-4 is generally regarded
>> as the best Bf109 version when it comes to things like handling and
>> overall performance per HP.
>>
>> Of course the fact the Bf109F-4 has better supercharging than the
>> Spitfire V, had half the armament and was something like 14% lighter
>> is not going to be mentioned here. The idea is to claim it is all the
>> engine, the airframe is irrelevant.
>
> No, the idea is to claim that the merlin was not the best engine of the
> war.
Ah no, the idea is to spend a lot of time coming up with preferred
reasons for the Merlin being bad, different outlook, followed by
rewrites about what is supposed to be going on.
> I'm trying to do that by pointing out that in some phases of the
> war the merlin was not the best engine and that when it was it was not
> decisive as in the Mk.V vs Me 109F-4 comparison. The Me 109F-4 used
> inferior fuel.
No engine was "best" for all the war, but I guess the statement
needed to be made to try and change recent history again over
what is being claimed.
I note it is still a case nothing will be made of the other advantages
the Bf109F-4 airframe had over the Spitfire V one, in this attempt
to claim the engine was all.
>> > Next Phase; long range escorts are needed becuase on one equation
>> > heavily armoured Fw 190's destroy 20 of 40 B-17's in 30 minutes for no
>> > losses.
>>
>> In case people are wondering we are in late 1944, the up gunned and
>> up armoured Fw190s. The entire Merlin 60 series Spitfires need to
>> be removed from the review.
>>
>> The exact date is not given of course, there were a couple of occasions
>> when these Sturm Fw190s caught unprotected US bomber formations
>> and really hurt them. The "no losses" idea applies to return fire from
>> the
>> bombers, not the actual losses on the day. For example when JG301
>> shot down 15 of the 491st B-24s their Sturm gruppen lost 22 pilots
>> killed and 3 wounded, on 26 November 1944.
>>
>> Of course on 26 November 1944 the allies had lots of airfields close
>> to German, medium range fighters could then cover most of German
>> controlled territory.
No reply here.
>> > It's the Allison engined P-38 that provides the long range escort.
>>
>> I gather no reading has been done on the very real problems the P-38
>> had when doing escort missions in Europe. There is a reason the 8th
>> Air Force moved to the P-51.
>
> The reason is that P-38's were dedicated to North Africa where its
> range was indispensible and to the pacific where twin engine safety was
> mandated. Having said that the P-38 stopped the Luftwaffe from simply
> blowing B-17's out of the sky from a distance or approaching with super
> heavy armoured aircraft. The P-51 attrited the Luftwaffe but it was
> the P-38 that saved the bombers.
Where to start with this one. Firstly note the very real problems the
P-38s had in Europe are ignored. Instead we are told the P-38s were
dedicated to other fronts. Not noted is the fact the P-38 had only 300
gallons of internal fuel storage until the J model, and they were long
range escorts with 600 gallons of external fuel. The J model upped
internal storage to 410 gallons, all the above are US gallons.
P-38s started arriving in Britain in late 1943 about the same time
as P-51s, in numerical terms the two types were about the same
until the P-51 figures break away from March 1944 onwards.
In case people were wondering at the end of 1943 the USAAF deployed
356 P-38s against the Japanese, 216 in the Mediterranean and 380 in
England. Note the Mediterranean strength was declining from 550 mid
year, but the strength in England was increasing. All figures include
reserves.
The idea about what the P-38 did as escorts are a joke.
>> > It's the PW-2800 engined P-47 that provides the mid ranged escort; the
>> > merlin engined spit can't do the distance.
>>
>> Actually it can, if the tankage is fitted, the reality was though the
>> RAF was not prepared to risk the loss of production in early 1943
>> and had lots of long range fighters on order by mid/late 1943.
>>
>> I note by the way the inferior Merlin idea requires the removal of
>> the P-51.
>
> The P-51's role could have been performed by reingineered wet wing
> P-47's. The P-51 could have been fitted with a turbo-charged allison
> instead of a duel stage Merlin 266.
You see there never was a wet wing P-47 unless you count the N model,
with 556 US gallons of internal fuel, appearing in December 1944. The
first Spitfire VIIIs came out over 2 years previously.
I like the idea the P-51 could be reengineered to take a turbo supercharger
apparently without much trouble and cost. Must remember that when the
P-51 is denigrated again. Look at the installations on the P-38 and P-47.
>> > The Merlin was not crucial during the Battle of Britain and the then
>> > the Allison and DB601 were just as good and the spit could've used
>> > other engines eg Allison under liscence. The Merlins luck was to be in
>> > a fine plane but short legged fighter.
>>
>> It appears the idea is to ignore the Lancaster, Mosquito, Halifax,
>> Hurricane,
>> Battle, Defiant, Fulmar, Wellington, Whitley, Beaufighter, Barracuda,
>> P-40
>> and P-51.
>
> All could've run on alternative engines that were as good or better.
> Taurus, Hercules, twin cyclones, Turbo Allisons.
You see here the idea is to denigrate the Merlin no matter how desperate
the fiction becomes.
Rather like the Germans could have run the Bf109 on the above engines.
Meantime back in reality. And 1940.
Taurus, radial, about the right weight and power but as a quick look
at the history of the Beaufort will show it had problems in 1940.
Altitude performance was inferior. For later aircraft its power level is
too low.
Hercules, radial, 200 kg heavier, altitude performance inferior to Merlin.
More power though, worse fuel economy, see the results of the Lancaster
II, lower range and ceiling.
Twin Cyclones, R-2600 types, radial, around 200 to 300 kg heavier than the
Merlin III, around 200 built to April 1940 (-1 to -7) when the standardised
-8 model went into production. More power, the -8 had a sea level rating
of 1,500 HP, 100 Octane fuel.
Turbo allisons, split this into 2, note the amount of equipment needed
to install a turbo supercharger, note the allison of 1940 had inferior
height capabilities when compared to the Merlin.
So the usual Eunometic make a fact non reply.
>> Then forget the Hornet. And do not mention the Meteor version used
>> in so many British tanks.
>>
>> > The Merlin was damage prone and needed fancy fuel to perform.
>>
>> Strange that, just ignore the same statements on all WWII high end
>> combat aero engines for fuel, and all liquid cooled engines for damage.
>
> The aircooled engine ended up the winner apart from a few shakeltons
> with Griffons no one wanted anyting to do with merlins and griffons.
Actually the jet and turbo prop ended up the winner for high performance
engines. And not surprisingly the air cooled engine ended up being
preferred for light aviation and US engines being preferred post war by
the US industry.
Andrew Chaplin
news:45ab2928$0$27942$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
<snips galore>
> Except of course the allies pooled their avgas and drew it out according
> to need, so the same fuel was being used by both air forces in England
> as the obvious example.
Would the decision to standardize the fuel have been a requirement for
interoperability, so that aircraft diverting to allied fields could refuel and
take off again?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
guy
Andrew, what fuel would
a) lend lease a/c used by the USSR use
b) allied a/c operating temporaily from the USSR e.g. Tirpitz raid
Lancasters
guy
Bombardier
On Jan 15, 4:15 am, "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au> wrote in messagenews:45ab2928$0$27942$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> <snips galore>
>
> > Except of course the allies pooled their avgas and drew it out according
> > to need, so the same fuel was being used by both air forces in England
> > as the obvious example.Would the decision to standardize the fuel have been a requirement for
> interoperability, so that aircraft diverting to allied fields could refuel and
> take off again?
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
No in-line chemoically cooled engine can be rated "best" To easily
knockced out of action by ebeny fire, And the Merlin owes its
performance to American 100 Octane fuel, del;ivered to Britain on the
lives of American seamen diring the battle of the Atlantic.
Paul J. Adam
Bombardier <artk...@aol.com> writes
>No in-line chemoically cooled engine can be rated "best" To easily
>knockced out of action by ebeny fire,
Thus explaining the infamous failure of the P-51 Mustang, widely reviled
for its appalling combat performance and short service life.
>And the Merlin owes its
>performance to American 100 Octane fuel, del;ivered to Britain on the
>lives of American seamen diring the battle of the Atlantic.
How many US sailors died delivering fuel to the UK in 1940?
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
Peter Skelton
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <1168981002.5...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
>Bombardier <artk...@aol.com> writes
>>No in-line chemoically cooled engine can be rated "best" To easily
>>knockced out of action by ebeny fire,
>
>Thus explaining the infamous failure of the P-51 Mustang, widely reviled
>for its appalling combat performance and short service life.
>
>>And the Merlin owes its
>>performance to American 100 Octane fuel, del;ivered to Britain on the
>>lives of American seamen diring the battle of the Atlantic.
>
>How many US sailors died delivering fuel to the UK in 1940?
Do you think the British bought much oil or gas from the US in
the cash and carry period, given that they had adequate sources
that gave credit?
Peter Skelton
Gord Beaman
>In message <1168981002.5...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
>Bombardier <artk...@aol.com> writes
>>No in-line chemoically cooled engine can be rated "best" To easily
>>knockced out of action by ebeny fire,
>
>Thus explaining the infamous failure of the P-51 Mustang, widely reviled
>for its appalling combat performance and short service life.
>
>>And the Merlin owes its
>>performance to American 100 Octane fuel, del;ivered to Britain on the
>>lives of American seamen diring the battle of the Atlantic.
>
>How many US sailors died delivering fuel to the UK in 1940?
...aand in like vein the reputation that the Lancaster gained for
the great influence that it had on the success of the bombing
raids over Germany must have been overblown then?...mind you, the
Lancaster WAS a damned dangerous aircraft to fly, it had very
poor flight control effectiveness and was a bitch to land safely.