I was waiting for someone to mention the Sabre. The Sabre was the only 24 cyl. liquid-cooled aircraft engine ever to see mass-production. It had more than it's share of problems, but it worked well enough at the time. The Sabre's greatest weakness, perhaps, was that it put very heavy demands on it's cooling system. Any problem with it and The Sabre would quickly overheat. A high-altitude version of the Sabre would likely have been very impressive but was never developed. In test-stand runs where cooling limitations were absent, The Sabre achieved some truly staggering power outputs. The end of the war ended the Sabre's career due to the Brits' decision to concentrate their resources on the RR engines.

German supercharger technology was behind that of the Allies throughout the war. RR knew more about building efficient superchargers than anyone in the world, though P&W wasn't far behind. The other major disadvantage the Germans had was inferior gasoline. They started the war with 87 octane. By '42 it was a bit better, but by war's end they were back to 87 octane synthetic gas derived from coal tar. The Allies also began the war with 87 octane. By the time of the Battle of Britain, the Brits were using 100 octane obtained from the U.S.A..
By 1944, the Allies were using 150 grade fuel and were experimenting with 170 grade on a limited basis. An engine's power output is in direct proportion to the octane level of the fuel. Boost octane and you can boost the power, assuming the engine is strong enough to handle it. German aero-engines were able to keep pace (more or less) with the Allied engines by having notably larger displacements than their rivals. The Ta-152H, the ultimate development of the FW-190 series, used water/alcohol injection and liquid nitrous oxide injection to boost power at high altitudes. Yet another clever solution that came far too late to be of any real help.
[/quote]

What you say makes a whole lot of sense with the RR putting out super efficient superchargers. I know the mustang was suppose to be no good above 15,000 feet or so until it was fit with the merlin engine. I think the british were pretty quick to dump the american engines out of their p40's too. I guess when you think about the only high performance fighter that was all american in design was the corsair. The british also started us off by giving us their first jet engine designs, by the way supposedly british designed engines made their way to the mig 15. They came up with radar, the first electronic computer, and the steam catapult for carriers, not to shabby.

Have you forgotten the Thunderbolt? The P-47 was on-par with the Corsair performance-wise throughout it's career. Both used the same basic engine. (R2800) The corsair's was two-stage, two-speed supercharged, while the Thunderbolt's supercharger was fed by a General Electric turbocharger housed in the aft fuselage along with the intercooler. When they finally put internal wing tanks in the P-47,(P-47N) it's range was AT LEAST as long as the P-51's. The P-47's high-altitude performance and dogfighting capability was second-to-none.

As far as the MiG15's engine is concerned, it was a dead-nuts copy of the RR Nene engine. Desperate for post-war sales, the British Govt. approved the sale of a number of Nenes to the USSR. Upon hearing the news, Stalin replied "What fool sells his own secrets?" Indeed. The Russians quickly put them into production. The first Home-grown Russian jet engines didn't appear until the mid-50's.

This is an area where the Brits never seem to get the credit they deserve. The first "American" jets were powered by license-built copies of British designs. The Brits not only invented the steam catapult, they also originated the angled-deck concept as well as the fresnell lens (meatball) landing-light system. All are still in use today. While we're at it, they also invented the afterburner, though they called it "reheat". A lot of this was given to the U.S. after the war to help satisfy their massive debt to us incurred during the war. Personally, I think they kinda got screwed.

yes thats all well & good for the Limeys but without the US lend/lease they would have been is serious trouble
no matter what they had.

as for the P-47 Thunderbolt I think its dismal barely over 1:1 kill/loss ratio speaks volumes. looks like the PW2800
couldn't hellp it.

also, the germans with there inline DB605 (XX) was making nearly 2000hp on synthetic 87 octane. truely remarkable.

the Navy went with the Radial purely for reliability (ie: less things to go wrong) for open ocean flights.

Some of those German engineers were pretty damned sharp, there's no doubt about it. Yet in spite of fielding some of the most impressive technology seen during the war, they were led by a full-blown nutjob and his idiot cronies. Oh, and did I mention that this lunatic leader was ELECTED by the German people?

When your fuel is being destroyed as fast as your enemy can find it and when your pilots are being killed faster than you can replace them and all the while your cities are being leveled and you can't stop any of this, how much good did your wonderful technology really do you? A country can have the best technology the world has ever seen, but if they start a war with inadequate resources and the inability to defend what they do have, they are doomed to failure. The Germans learned this lesson by the most brutal means I can imagine. Let's hope that the example set by the Germans and Japanese continues to be remembered.

no doubt, ww2 put an end to the english empire.

yeah, probably not a good idea to try to take on the entire world.

Hitler did NOT want to take"on" the world. he wanted most ofwestern europe, the balkin states, & parts of russia for
"space for the German people". he had ZERO, I repeat, ZERO desire to attack the United States of America.
the U.S. also had ZERO desire to enter into another european war.

All was well & good until the Limeys declared war on Germany, and the japs attacked the U.S. of A.. then be default
Germany declared war on the US.

and to get more into it, the Treaty of Versailles assured a second world war.

Not sure where you get your numbers but a quick search of the net yields a kill ratio for the Thunderbolt of between 4.6/1 in aerial combat in the ETO to an overall ratio of about 8/1.

While no where near some of the numbers of other aircraft, it has to be remembered that for the most part the roll of the Jug wasn't air superiority but ground assault and close air support.

Also I'm not sure what kill to loss ratios figure into a discussion about most effective engine design. The Corsair and the Mustang both enjoyed a similar kill/loss ratio of about 19/1 depending on your sources. Does that mean there is no benefit to either design? Additionally even with all of the hundreds of kills each by some of the 109 aces, by wars end the kill/loss ratio for the 109 was actually negative due to loss of all the Luftwaffe's best pilots and the fact that at the end of the war 109 pilots were out numbered 30-50 to 1. So does that mean that inline engines should never have been considered for use in fighter aircraft?

Scott

no, the P-47 had a 1.3:1 kill/loss.

Experten 109/40, you should read more and type with care. The only thing you got right was the bit about the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans DID have plans to attack the USA by coming up through South America. Do you really think they would have stopped here? NO. They would have gone for Canada as well. Can't imagine why they would want it, but at the time it would only have taken a 3-day weekend anyway.

You also seem to be blaming the whole thing on the "Limeys". BULLS**T! England was as much a victim as anyone on the continent. Their saving grace was the English Channel. Just as ours was the Atlantic. Even though we were directly attacked by Japan, our first priority was still Germany. Why? Because they were the biggest threat. Being of Irish descent, no one will ever accuse me of "loving" the English. I do however respect their many accomplishments in the world of aviation. The Germans were good, too. But they were in over their heads and their evil leadership was too insane to even realize it.

Please lets return to our discussion about ENGINES and leave this revisionist-history crap behind.

Shrky, I couldn't have said it better. By Experten's logic, the Me109 must have been a total P.O.S. by the end of the war. Even I know better than that.

The Germans did some amazing things with piston engines during the war. Their greatest legacy is probably that of fuel-injection. They pioneered the use of it and developed it to a high level in a relatively short period of time. As far as aviation in general is concerned many of the features of modern high-speed aircraft can trace their roots directly back to war-time Germany. Their biggest problem was a shortage of everything but genius. Kinda hard to work under those conditions, but they managed, at least for awhile.

German radials were somewhat unremarkable other than the fuel injection. Their inlines on the other hand were on par with RR other than the superchargers, which while good, were not as good as RR's. The Allison V1710 never reached the level of either. The Allison was developed in the mid-thirties as an airship engine. GM accorded a low priority to development due to the fact that the only real market was the airlines, and they preferred the radial. The final versions of the V1710 used in the P/F-82's were rated at 2200 hp with water injection. At high boost pressures, the Allison was never as reliable as it's European cousins. It was, however, AVAILABLE. In wartime, availability is everything. Just ask the Germans.

I must take offense at the reference to the Wildcat as a "turd". While decidely inferior to its primary opponent in both speed and manuerability, it still managed to more than hold its own in combat. Not to mention serving thru the entire war. Sounds like a pretty successfull design to me.....


And incidentially, the Hellcat was a fresh sheet of paper...

Oh, and I think it's significant to mention that the Germans were the first with single lever engine control on the FW 190... talk about reducing pilot workload during combat.....

"By Experten's logic, the Me109 must have been a total P.O.S. by the end of the war."

WHAT? my two favorite engines are the Allison V-1710 & the DB605's. my two favorite
warbirds are the Me 109 and Curtiss P-40.I suggest, as you said to me, "watch what you type".

Also, show me one.. just one shred of proof that going to S.America to envade the US was their plan.
thats fantasy. pure fantasy. mabey try reading Mein Kampf. and yes I know when it was written.

and yah, it was the Limey's fault. read the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. most allied countries agreed
the terms was way to harsh & they knew what the consiquences of that was going to be.

I happen to agree that the Wildcat was definitely NOT a turd. It was a first-generation monoplane adapted from a biplane design. By the beginning of the war, it was pretty-much obsolete, but it was all the USN had, other than the Buffalo which probably does qualify as a "turd", at least in U.S. service. Wildcats met the enemy and destroyed them in sufficient numbers that the Japanese never again had an adequate number of experienced pilots. The Wildcat's kill/loss ratio against the Zero was about even. Since the U.S. could produce pilots and aircraft in numbers the Japanese could barely imagine, the Wildcat held on long enough for the Hellcats and Corsairs to come on line. Had the Wildcat been a truly BAD airplane, the Navy would have canceled it right then. Instead, GM continued to produce them so as to allow Grumman to concentrate on the Hellcat. The Wildcats then saw duty on escort-carriers in convoy protection operations. Another good example of availability.

You must be goofy?? Surely ALL wasnt well with the poles? Or Dutch or French or lots of others who got drug into the war.

Yes the treaty after wwi was harsh.. but so was wwi. Starting wwii didn't and wouldnt provide recompense for what happened to Germany as the result of wwi.

yep. the WildCat for sure wasn't a Turd.. far from. the WildCat & P-40 did a hell of a job holding off the japs
in the Pacific. they WildCats main problem was a lack of guns. Pilot Skill & the planes manuverbility wasn't a
problem.

"as for the P-47 Thunderbolt I think its dismal barely over 1:1 kill/loss ratio speaks volumes. looks like the PW2800
couldn't hellp it."


By this logic, the Me109 is also "dismal" given it's kill/loss ratio over the course of the war. Think.

Glad to hear you like P-40's. Me too. They've never really been my #1 favorite, but I like them. The P-40 is another example of a fighter that while verging on obsolete, was available when we needed it most. I've always thought it a damned shame that when they put Merlins in some P-40's, they used single-stage engines that offered little advantage over the Allison. Imagine the P-40 with the same two-stage, two-speed supercharged Merlin used in the Mustang.(V1650-7/9) I think a two-stage engine may have been too long for the P-40's airframe, but that's just a guess on my part.

allied aircraft shot down vs German losses

1939-40.....1500 enemy a/c shot down vs 800 losses
1941........6500 enemy a/c shot down vs 900 losses
1942.......10500 enemy a/c shot down vs 1000 losses
1943.......12000 enemy a/c shot down vs 2800 losses
1944.......12000 enemy a/c shot down vs 9100 losses
1945........2500 enemy a/c shot down vs 2500 losses</p>

total 45000 enemy a/c shot down vs 17000 loses
2.65:1 kill/loss in favor of the Germans.</p>

the Germans produced over 30000 Me 109's
you can see the effects of the US bombing
of Germany in 1944.</p>

the 17000 loses are for all Luftwaffe aircraft.
even if you account for half of those losses are
109's thats only 8500 losses vs 30000 built. more
then half of the enemy a/c shot down were due to
the 109. so its kill/loss is still in favor of the
109.

the Top 10 German 109 aces had more kills the
all Allied aces combined.</p>

the reason for no dual stage supercharger for the P-40 was that the USAAF axed that idea.
they felt that for the alttitudes the dogfighting will take place, &amp; that the bombers fly so high,
there was no need.

Curtiss did however built a few P-40J-CU's with a turbo/supercharger, made crazy horsepower,
climbrates, payloads, top speeds were greatly increased. but the USAAF never ordered any.</p>

Please consider this. Found it on Airliners.com. It compares not just the engines but also the P-47 to the P-51, but interesting none the less.

"This is a summary of his 12 points (italics are quotes from the article):

1. Air-cooled radial engine was more reliable and could take hits and keep on running, even with inoperable cylinders.

2. The Jug's air-cooled engine did not have the Achilles' heel that the Mustang did: A small-caliber hit on an aluminum coolant line could down a Mustang in minutes, even if the fighter was otherwise undamaged.

3. The P-47's big turbocharger enabled it to fly higher than the P-51 (over 40,000 feet).

4. The Jug could outdive the Mustang.

5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower.

6. Later model Jug's could carry 2,500 lbs of bombs.

7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction.

8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom, so it handled ditchings and gear up landings much better.

9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47.

10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.

11. The Jug had a very wide landing gear, which was especially valued when landing on rough fields.

12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.

But, the big factor, above all else, it saved pilots in great numbers. Ask most fighter pilots who flew both in active combat and they will tell you that, given a choice to fly either one in combat, it would be the Juggernaut hands down.

Now one last thing: the P-51 Mustang was a superb fighter. I am fully aware of that! But, considering that I flew about every kind of mission the Pentagon could dream up, and a few they didn't know about, I will rate that 8 tons of destruction first as long as I live, and no one can change my mind. I was there. Simply walk up to one of them and see for yourself.


I guess that the fact that the Mustang is more aesthetically appealing than the Thunderbolt probably has something to do with its continuing popularity."

So even though the kill ration was not quite as good, you have a better chance of survival, if your plane was mortally damaged, being in the P-47. It saved more pilots and the radial contributed to this.

The economy was falling apart, people were desperate and desperate people do desperate things. P.S. Hitler got rational leaders in the German military to go along in the beginning because they thought he was going to restore the pre-WW1 borders, get rid of the overly constraining restrictions of the Versai treaty and pretty much stop there. After they found out how far he intended on going it was kind of to late.

in regards to #12, thats crazy. do you know how many of those e/a were on the ground? cause for a2a kills I
read it was something like 3300 kills to 3000 loses there inabouts.

as far as aesthetics.. P-47 Razorback all the way. the P-51D does nothing for me.

This was written by a pilot who had flown them both. I suspect he had his own personal ideas on the subject, but I thought he also made some good points.

yah no doubt the P-47 was a powerhouse. I read that some Fw190 pilots emptied all the guns
into a P-47 and it still flew. and were taking taking 20mm cannon hits.

the P-47 was a truely great aircraft. did alot more in WWII then the Mustang ever did.

Anyone out there have serious knowledge of WW2 Soviet piston engines? They seem to be missing from this discussion.