Author Topic: WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov vs Jumo  (Read 32146 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #105 on: June 06, 2007, 05:16:35 PM »
On the flip side, how would the P38 have performed with a Griffon ?
Cruising on the buffering line?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #106 on: June 06, 2007, 05:38:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
On the flip side, how would the P38 have performed with a Griffon ?
Cruising on the buffering line?


I don't know, and neither does anyone else that I know of. Honestly, since it was literally designed around an Allison (if you've ever seen the skin off the engine cover of a P-38 you'll know what I mean), it'd be hard to get anything else in it and not screw up the aero package or the CG, if not both. There was so much more that could have been done by simply turning up the Allison V-1710 (put the G series in it) and getting rid of the awful Curtiss props that nothing else would ever have been needed, or used. A G series V-1710, running at 3400 RPM and 84" of boost would make 2200HP at least (the unlimited hydro guys dynoed them higher than that in stock form) and a Hamilton Standard prop could have harnessed all of it, especially a 13'6" four blade. That would have made it easily possible to compress in level flight. But it would have pushed the climb rate to over 4000fpm, and made it accelerate about 15% faster, if not more.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here, the basic combination of plane and engine is plenty sound, it just never was fully refined. All serious efforts to improve the P-38 essentially stopped with the P-38K, there were detail refinements afterward, but the WPB's decision to decline the P-38K, combined with Lockheed's resources being squandered on dead end projects, and the fact that Lockheed was building B-17's while a cargo plane company was trying unsuccessfully to build P-38's, pretty much ended real development work on the P-38, and that was April of 1943. The J was already nearing production, and the L was simply a J-25-Lo with minor detail refinements.

It's sad, really. The P-38K was a wicked plane in its own right. Figure the engine would have seen further improvements, and the Hamilton Standard props would have eventually changed from 3 to 4 blades to streamline manufacturing. So the P-38K, which was a vast improvement performance wise over both the J and L, would have been superceded by an L that was a refinement of the K and not the J.

There's no doubt the Merlin and the Griffon were excellent designs, and well executed. But the attempts to label the Allison engine as second class simply because GM/Allison was not ALLOWED to fit a two speed two stage supercharger ignore obvious facts.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
power to weight chart
« Reply #107 on: June 08, 2007, 08:06:49 PM »
Here is a chart for most of the engines of the era

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hp_wt.gif

-blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Virage
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?

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
The BMW should be compared to Wright's R2600, but that engine was used in bombers.

The late war AshFN82 (Russian) was a pretty darn good radial engine.

-Blogs


Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
:rofl   Oh boy.  Okee-dokee.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
bristol engines
« Reply #109 on: June 08, 2007, 08:12:31 PM »
Bristol made excellent engines, but the Hercules is a bit small to compare to the R2800. The better comparison is the Centaurus, but it came a bit too late. - Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by gripen
In the category of inline engines nothing comes close to the Merlin; by far the best developed and only one of these to see some civil use.

In category of radials the Hercules comes close the R-2800; infact in the terms of reliability (particularly TBO) and fuel consumption, it's better than R-2800. However, the R-2800 saw much wider use during war as well as large civil use.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #110 on: June 08, 2007, 08:15:15 PM »
Certainly differences in fuel mattered, but the Merlin was eventually developed with the most efficient of the two speed superchargers. The DB's were single stage, but benefited from fuel injection and a continuosly variable clutch.

-Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel
The Merlin???

Even the Griffon did count as more advanced, the main advantage over  the DB´s was rather the fuel than the stage of development.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
HP at altitude
« Reply #111 on: June 08, 2007, 08:19:16 PM »
That's not necessarily true. The supercharging gearing can be such that maximum horsepower cannot be developed at sea level without detonation. In fact, a lot of WW2 engines were designed exactly this way.

-Blogs


Quote

NO piston engine with a crank driven supercharger, even WITH a two speed two stage supercharger, makes sea level power at high altitude.
 [/B]

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
horsepower charts
« Reply #112 on: June 08, 2007, 08:20:39 PM »
Here are the numbers for most engines of the era...

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hp_disp.gif

-Blogs


Quote
Originally posted by gripen
This has been discused here several times, the Merlin utilizes exhaust thrust which in practice balances the situation. And the P-38K never saw service.

Besides, 2000hp Merlins saw quite wide service during war and were type tested for over 2600hp.  The Allisons maxed around 1800hp during war (very limited use in the P-63).


 

The race use has pretty much nothing to do with practical service use and in the service the Merlin proved to be more powerfull and more reliable than the Allison.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
not exactly
« Reply #113 on: June 08, 2007, 08:24:10 PM »
Schlaifer's history goes into great deal on this. It is not that Allison was prohibited from developing gear driven superchargers; the government was simply unwilling to pay for the development. And Allison's only customer for these engines was the government. The airforce was convinced the turbo would be ready, but they underestimated the difficulties>>>

-Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Once again, in simple, easy to grasp terms. The Allison, as required by the USAAF and the War Production Board, was produced with a single speed supercharger. Without the ability to increase the speed of the supercharger, there was not enough boost available to make horsepower at higher altitudes.
The Merlin had a two speed supercharger. At low altitudes it ran at a low speed, and at higher altitudes it ran at a higher speed to produce more boost in the thinner air at higher altitudes. Around 20,000 feet or so, the Merlin supercharger went from low speed to high speed.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
merlin vs DB601, 605
« Reply #114 on: June 08, 2007, 08:27:45 PM »
The Germans offset lower max manifold pressures (limited by ltheir ower octane fuel) with larger displacement. Both approaches worked quite well.

-Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel
So was the DB601 and DB605, despite the less good fuel, the DB engeeners always found a way to get to a very similar stage of power.

To say the "Merlin was by far the best developed" engine is not true, at least much overdone.
1st the DB601A was ahead of the MerlinII, then the brits got better fuel and the Merlin had a WEP advantage, then the germans did use better fuel and the DB601N was ahead again, then the Brits got a new engine, then the DB601E and so on.
Only in mid 1942- mid 44 there was a advantage for the merlin, cause the germans gave all the good fuel to the BMW´s. Later, with MW50 and GM1 the DB605 was on paar again, while the fuel still was the main problem(next to the typical late war production problems).

The DB603 and Jumo213 also was very good designs.

There simply is no best engine, there are airframes where the engines fit in and turn to be very good and there are tactical situations where the engine need to fit.
The high alt performence of the allied engines wasnt much worth while a tactical airwar in MTO and russia, while the great Ash82 and BMW801 was bad while interceps in high alt.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
compression & HP
« Reply #115 on: June 08, 2007, 08:35:52 PM »
Here is data on compression ratios for WW2 engines:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hp_lb.gif

BTW, before the raid, Doolittle was put in charge of inspecting aircraft factories for the Air Force. He put in a critical report on the Allison factory in Indiana - way too dirty for an aircraft engine plant...

-Blogs


Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts


...
You obviously do not grasp the concept of compression ratio. The difference between 6.0:1 compression and 6.6:1 compression is not even worth measuring, and makes no real difference at all. Production tolerances will create a difference of as much as 0.1:1. The difference between 6.0:1 and 6.6:1 will not make enough difference in the amount of boost that can be run to make it necessary to adjust either the boost, the cam timing, or the ignition timing. And I should know, I worked on Allison pulling tractor engines, and I still build racing engines for a living to this day, including supercharged and turbosupercharged engines.

...Speaking of Doolittle, he flew over Normandy on 6, June, 1944 in a P-38J, while several units of the 20th flew escort and cover missions over the incasion, and they too were in Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighters.
ional duties and capabilities were. Enjoy your delusions.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Re: HP at altitude
« Reply #116 on: June 08, 2007, 08:51:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by joeblogs
That's not necessarily true. The supercharging gearing can be such that maximum horsepower cannot be developed at sea level without detonation. In fact, a lot of WW2 engines were designed exactly this way.

-Blogs


In theory. In the real world, you can only spin a crank driven supercharger to a certain RPM before it begins to take WAY more power to spin than it generates. Given a fixed supercharger size, it does not take long to reach the point of diminishing returns, even with a centrifugal supercharger, with two speeds and two stages.

That's not to say you can't gear the supercharger up so it spins really fast at high altitude, and makes more power than it would at a lower speed at that same altitude, but it won't necessarily make sea level HP. You can, and some of the Merlin engines were tuned that way. You can also increase the size of the supercharger relative to the engine. However, the larger supercharger will also require more HP to spin.

There's no such thing as free HP with any supercharger of any type. You cannot keep spinning it faster and faster and get more power without penalty.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Re: not exactly
« Reply #117 on: June 08, 2007, 08:58:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by joeblogs
Schlaifer's history goes into great deal on this. It is not that Allison was prohibited from developing gear driven superchargers; the government was simply unwilling to pay for the development. And Allison's only customer for these engines was the government. The airforce was convinced the turbo would be ready, but they underestimated the difficulties>>>

-Blogs


Prohibited is probably the wrong word. Let's phrase it real carefully. The War Production Board AND the USAAF/USAAC told GM/Allison, "We will not pay for development of a two stage two speed supercharger, and we will not purchase one if you develop it." So your only customer tells you they won't pay for development, and won't purchase it if you fund development on your own. What do you do?

Take it a step further. The customer says, "I want X number of product, I want Y-Z features developed and refined, that is all I will pay for, and I will fine you if you do not meet MY production and development goals". If you have limited production and R&D capacity, and need funds and time to develop something they didn't ask for, what do you do?
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Re: bristol engines
« Reply #118 on: June 08, 2007, 09:16:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by joeblogs
Schlaifer's history goes into great deal on this. It is not that Allison was prohibited from developing gear driven superchargers; the government was simply unwilling to pay for the development. And Allison's only customer for these engines was the government. The airforce was convinced the turbo would be ready, but they underestimated the difficulties>>>


I don't have "Vees for Victory" in hand but Allison started the developement of the mechanical (variable speed) auxilary stage quite early. The problem was just that the development was slow, particularly if compared to the Merlin; two stage Merlin reached service 1942 (basicly same time as the V-1710 with exhaust driven auxilary stage) while the V-1710 with mechanical auxilary stage came about two years later and saw very little combat use.

Note that the Merlin was originally developed by the Rolls Royce as a private venture project without government support, the original project name being PV-12 (PV = private venture).

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: merlin vs DB601, 605
« Reply #119 on: June 09, 2007, 05:23:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by joeblogs
The Germans offset lower max manifold pressures (limited by ltheir ower octane fuel) with larger displacement. Both approaches worked quite well.

-Blogs
German C3 fuel had a rich mixture rating of 130 to 140. Can you explain that comment about German fuel octane further, please?