Author Topic: WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov vs Jumo (Read 29313 times)

1K3 · « **on:** May 23, 2007, 04:35:05 AM »

In the radial department, nothing beats the Pratt & Whitney series. Not even the BMW radials can beat P&W.

When it comes to Inline liquid-cooled engine, which company made THE best inline engine

[ EDIT: Jumo is added to the list ]

Yarbles · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2007, 06:02:53 AM »

Rolls Royce (for versatility) Spits, Hurri's,Lancs, Mossies, Mustangs,Cromwell Tank, Comet Tank, Centurian Tank I think some Brit MTB,S AND MGB,s Merlin, Griffin and Packard Builds under Liscence.

leitwolf · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2007, 07:53:04 AM »

Allisons win the "best sound" award.

Virage · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2007, 08:05:22 AM »

I would judge an engine by its power to weight ratio.

Does anyone have this info on engines?

1K3.. why do you consider the P&W to be the best radial?

Yarbles · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2007, 08:36:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
I would judge an engine by its power to weight ratio.

And reliability, fuel efficiency, in war ease of consruction, level of vibration, performance under diferent climatic conditions and altitudes, versatility, ease of maintainance, length of time in production, ease of up grade and pottential for development plus wheter it represented a significant change in technology etc lets assume

Knegel · « **Reply #5 on:** May 23, 2007, 08:53:02 AM »

Hi,

difficult to compare engines without to consider the used fule, altitude to be used in, reliability and how(easy/difficult)) to maintain it.

I guess the Jumo 213E + MW50 + GM1 will be one of the best regarding the performence.

Otherwise RR and DB did produce(constructed) the best engines in large numbers. Sometimes DB sometimes RR was in front, at the end the better fuel probably gave RR the lead.

The winner always depends to the available fuel and additional injections, but also to the airframe and altitude to be used in. The Jumo213 didnt fit into the 109, same like the Kilmov 106 didnt fit into the smal russian fighters, or at least the needed cooling systems dont found place.
It also was difficult to place MW50 and GM1 into a 109, while the superchared planes could fight in high and low alt.
On the other hand the 109 construction did allow the mechianics to maintain the engine rather easy.

Imho, same like with the planes, there is no exact decission possible.

Greetings,

Knegel

leitwolf · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2007, 09:24:23 AM »

Jumo 213 for performance?
I vote Napier's Sabre. Nothing beats overkill

Charge · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2007, 09:30:40 AM »

Err, best engine in conditions where they were used or just engine design? Does this include only the engine design or the charging solution too?

The DB certainly had a great supercharger. The turbo had its advantages, too.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930081638_1993081638.pdf

Does anybody know why Germans made their V-engines inverted? Better view from cockpit? Any disadvantages e.g. bigger oil consumption etc?

Do i remember correctly that DB had a solid block but RR could be taken into quite small pieces?

-C+

Xasthur · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2007, 11:00:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by leitwolf
Allisons win the "best sound" award.

Nahhhhh, can't be the 109 with the super-charger whine.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #9 on:** May 23, 2007, 12:16:54 PM »

Oh yes, it can! And two of them sounds twice as good.

evenhaim · « **Reply #10 on:** May 23, 2007, 12:35:53 PM »

i vote merlin for overall!:aok

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** May 23, 2007, 12:47:54 PM »

Charge, it might have just been to accomodate the cowl guns in the airframes of the time. Keep in mind the 109s started with only MGs in the cowling. Wing guns were added later. Then removed later. Then added later again. The nose guns always stayed.

Could be as simple as that (or, could not be).

zorstorer · « **Reply #12 on:** May 23, 2007, 01:05:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by leitwolf
Jumo 213 for performance?
I vote Napier's Sabre. Nothing beats overkill

DING DING!!!

Nothing quite like taking two 12 cyl engines and bolting them together

Also getting the sleeve valve system to work was nice

Knegel · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2007, 01:14:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge

Does anybody know why Germans made their V-engines inverted? Better view from cockpit? Any disadvantages e.g. bigger oil consumption etc?

-C+

Afaik due to the lower(centered) propellor position, the thrust line goes right through the COG, this minimize the interferenz drag and allow to create a airframe with smaler front surface(smaler drag again), while the pilots forward sight remain good.

Somewhere i did read that it also was more easy to maintain the engine, cause all important parts could get reached from below and the side.

I never did read about disadvantages.

Greetings,

Knegel

Platano · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2007, 09:02:49 PM »

DB605