Re: Was the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp the best engine of WW II?

[Dave Kearton]

Bombardier wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:35am, Bill Baker > wrote:
>> On 2007-01-01 21:13:28 -0800, "
>> > said:
>>>>
>> (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--

--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[[email protected]]

I'd be inclined to say yes, because of all the famous aircraft it powered,
such as the P-47, F4U, B-24, etc. but a very strong second has to go to the
Wright R-1820, whose earlier generation, single bank 9-cylinders powered the
B-17 and the SBD, not to mention the "hot rod" version of the Wildcat, the
FM-2, and of course the Brewster Buffalo. Curtiss-Wright was a wartime
mediocrity, except for the R-1820 and the P-40, but the R-1820 in particular
was the right product at the right time.

Brian O'Neill

[[email protected]]

I'd be inclined to say yes, because of all the famous aircraft it powered,
such as the P-47, F4U, B-24, etc. but a very strong second has to go to the
Wright R-1820, whose earlier generation, single bank 9-cylinders powered the
B-17 and the SBD, not to mention the "hot rod" version of the Wildcat, the
FM-2, and of course the Brewster Buffalo. Curtiss-Wright was a wartime
mediocrity, except for the R-1820 and the P-40, but the R-1820 in particular
was the right product at the right time.

Brian O'Neill

[Ray O'Hara]

> wrote in message
ng.com...
> I'd be inclined to say yes, because of all the famous aircraft it powered,
> such as the P-47, F4U, B-24, etc. but a very strong second has to go to
the
> Wright R-1820, whose earlier generation, single bank 9-cylinders powered
the
> B-17 and the SBD, not to mention the "hot rod" version of the Wildcat, the
> FM-2, and of course the Brewster Buffalo. Curtiss-Wright was a wartime
> mediocrity, except for the R-1820 and the P-40, but the R-1820 in
particular
> was the right product at the right time.
>
> Brian O'Neill


the merlin deserves consideration. and the engines powering the focke-wulfs
were very nice. especially the water-cooled cooled 190d and ta-152

[Ray O'Hara]

> wrote in message
ng.com...
> I'd be inclined to say yes, because of all the famous aircraft it powered,
> such as the P-47, F4U, B-24, etc. but a very strong second has to go to
the
> Wright R-1820, whose earlier generation, single bank 9-cylinders powered
the
> B-17 and the SBD, not to mention the "hot rod" version of the Wildcat, the
> FM-2, and of course the Brewster Buffalo. Curtiss-Wright was a wartime
> mediocrity, except for the R-1820 and the P-40, but the R-1820 in
particular
> was the right product at the right time.
>
> Brian O'Neill


the merlin deserves consideration. and the engines powering the focke-wulfs
were very nice. especially the water-cooled cooled 190d and ta-152

[[email protected]]

I agree; I was thinking radial engines when I wrote this. Both the BoB
victory and the USAAF's destruction of the Luftwaffe in early 1944 are
unimaninable without the Merlin powering the Hurricanes and Spitfires, and
the Packard-Merlin variants powering the P-51.

Brian

[[email protected]]

I agree; I was thinking radial engines when I wrote this. Both the BoB
victory and the USAAF's destruction of the Luftwaffe in early 1944 are
unimaninable without the Merlin powering the Hurricanes and Spitfires, and
the Packard-Merlin variants powering the P-51.

Brian

[Henry_H@Q_cyber.org[_1_]]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 02:54:04 GMT, wrote:

>I'd be inclined to say yes, because of all the famous aircraft it powered,
>such as the P-47, F4U, B-24,

Lets see, I have a real hard time with P&W insect names, (especially
with the "Twin" and "Double" what's the dif?) but the P-47 and the F4U
had, I believe the R-2800, call it what you like (and, I think that is
the engine mentioned in the header).

OTOH, the B-24 had the R-1830, the P&W counter to the C-W 1820. That
was good, since other wise, there would have only been B-17s for the
first couple of years in Europe.

It might be slightly unfair to conflate P&W engines when comparing to
individual competing engines.

The F6F, B-26 and A/B-26 (among others) also had the R-2800.

>etc. but a very strong second has to go to the
>Wright R-1820, whose earlier generation, single bank 9-cylinders powered the
>B-17 and the SBD, not to mention the "hot rod" version of the Wildcat, the
>FM-2, and of course the Brewster Buffalo.

And, the R-1830 could also be mentioned. Let see there was the F4F,
for one example.

I am a big fan of the Brewster Buffalo. I think it should be noted
that it beat the F4F fair and square in the fly off (when the F4F
R-1830 failed) and it had a better combat record than the F4F at
Midway.

It is also true that the R-1820 was blamed (rightly or wrongly) for
many of the Buffalo problems.

>Curtiss-Wright was a wartime
>mediocrity, except for the R-1820 and the P-40, but the R-1820 in particular
>was the right product at the right time.

It was a bad time for C-W and then it got worse.

But, if I recall correctly, there was also a C-W engine, 33xx
something. Had something to do with B-29 I think? Does that figure
somewhere?

>
>Brian O'Neill

In general, I consider all questions of a form including "greatest" to
be "ill posed."

It all depends on what is meant by "greatest" which can be anything
the poser desires.

And, all that does is generate endless arguments, which never get
anywhere. (And, if you don't believe me, just check the annual
discussion of "MVP" in baseball or what ever. Can the "best" engine be
on the losing team? Etc.)

But, I do consider this to be an interesting question. In fact, it is
one that I posed to myself some time ago, and which I sort of followed
as a guide to WW II aviation history.

My conclusion was NO, the R-2800 (fine and handy to have engine that
it was) was not even in the running.

If aviation won the war, it was the Merlin that did the most. (And,
that is my definition of "best" which contributed the most to winning
the war.)

(Forget the fact that WW II was a German vs. Russian conflict with the
US and Britain conducting diversionary efforts in the rear.)

The British certainly were responsible for more than half the aviation
effort in Europe. Even after the US was involved they were still
delivering half the tonnage or more.

And, the British survived the BOB and gave the allies the "unsinkable
aircraft carrier" from which the invasion was launched. Without that,
the war would have been a lot tougher.

It was the Merlin that won the BOB. If it had done nothing else, that
made it the "best". It also delivered much of the bomb tonnage.

When the US did get involved, the R-2800 was not yet available. When
it did become available, in the P-47, it was moderately successful in
the air superiority role, but the Merlin quickly replaced it, again in
the P-51.

The Merlin was literally a "lean, mean fighting machine". Not only did
it have a very favorable power to whatever ratio; it had lower frontal
area than a radial. There was a lot of argument then, and later as to
whether that really resulted in higher performance, but that does seem
to have been the case.

A short version of the last years of the air war (the ones the US was
involved in) where that the Allies kept up strategic bombing, even
when it didn't seem to be working that well, which goaded the Germans
into responding. When they did respond, the P-51s (with help)
decimated, over and over, the German forces.

Eventually, aircraft production, nor production of other war goods,
didn't make any difference. The Germans couldn't train pilots fast
enough to replace their losses. (And the Germans had no access to any
training grounds that didn't expose novice pilots to attack from their
first moments in flight.)

Not only was the Merlin the superior engine, (in the fighter role) it
cost LESS. (Might not expect that from Roll Royce/Packard). In fact,
P-51s cost about HALF what P-47s did. (My assertion, I am not going to
provide backup.)

Well, cost is no object when the lives of our boys are at stake.

But, although an air operations planner might hesitate at the choice
between P-47s and P-51s, given the choice of one P-47 or TWO P-51s,
the choice is a "no brainer".


And, that is what the Merlin did, let the Allies have even more of a
numerical superiority than they otherwise would have had.

There is no question, from an operations analysis stand point, given
even roughly equal capabilities you have lot fewer losses against the
same opponent with twice the planes. So cheap was good for the "boys"
too.

The Pacific was a whole different story, and the R-2800 was more
important there, but lets face it, the Pacific was a sideshow.

Henry_H.

[Henry_H@Q_cyber.org]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 02:54:04 GMT, wrote:

>I'd be inclined to say yes, because of all the famous aircraft it powered,
>such as the P-47, F4U, B-24,

Lets see, I have a real hard time with P&W insect names, (especially
with the "Twin" and "Double" what's the dif?) but the P-47 and the F4U
had, I believe the R-2800, call it what you like (and, I think that is
the engine mentioned in the header).

OTOH, the B-24 had the R-1830, the P&W counter to the C-W 1820. That
was good, since other wise, there would have only been B-17s for the
first couple of years in Europe.

It might be slightly unfair to conflate P&W engines when comparing to
individual competing engines.

The F6F, B-26 and A/B-26 (among others) also had the R-2800.

>etc. but a very strong second has to go to the
>Wright R-1820, whose earlier generation, single bank 9-cylinders powered the
>B-17 and the SBD, not to mention the "hot rod" version of the Wildcat, the
>FM-2, and of course the Brewster Buffalo.

And, the R-1830 could also be mentioned. Let see there was the F4F,
for one example.

I am a big fan of the Brewster Buffalo. I think it should be noted
that it beat the F4F fair and square in the fly off (when the F4F
R-1830 failed) and it had a better combat record than the F4F at
Midway.

It is also true that the R-1820 was blamed (rightly or wrongly) for
many of the Buffalo problems.

>Curtiss-Wright was a wartime
>mediocrity, except for the R-1820 and the P-40, but the R-1820 in particular
>was the right product at the right time.

It was a bad time for C-W and then it got worse.

But, if I recall correctly, there was also a C-W engine, 33xx
something. Had something to do with B-29 I think? Does that figure
somewhere?

>
>Brian O'Neill

In general, I consider all questions of a form including "greatest" to
be "ill posed."

It all depends on what is meant by "greatest" which can be anything
the poser desires.

And, all that does is generate endless arguments, which never get
anywhere. (And, if you don't believe me, just check the annual
discussion of "MVP" in baseball or what ever. Can the "best" engine be
on the losing team? Etc.)

But, I do consider this to be an interesting question. In fact, it is
one that I posed to myself some time ago, and which I sort of followed
as a guide to WW II aviation history.

My conclusion was NO, the R-2800 (fine and handy to have engine that
it was) was not even in the running.

If aviation won the war, it was the Merlin that did the most. (And,
that is my definition of "best" which contributed the most to winning
the war.)

(Forget the fact that WW II was a German vs. Russian conflict with the
US and Britain conducting diversionary efforts in the rear.)

The British certainly were responsible for more than half the aviation
effort in Europe. Even after the US was involved they were still
delivering half the tonnage or more.

And, the British survived the BOB and gave the allies the "unsinkable
aircraft carrier" from which the invasion was launched. Without that,
the war would have been a lot tougher.

It was the Merlin that won the BOB. If it had done nothing else, that
made it the "best". It also delivered much of the bomb tonnage.

When the US did get involved, the R-2800 was not yet available. When
it did become available, in the P-47, it was moderately successful in
the air superiority role, but the Merlin quickly replaced it, again in
the P-51.

The Merlin was literally a "lean, mean fighting machine". Not only did
it have a very favorable power to whatever ratio; it had lower frontal
area than a radial. There was a lot of argument then, and later as to
whether that really resulted in higher performance, but that does seem
to have been the case.

A short version of the last years of the air war (the ones the US was
involved in) where that the Allies kept up strategic bombing, even
when it didn't seem to be working that well, which goaded the Germans
into responding. When they did respond, the P-51s (with help)
decimated, over and over, the German forces.

Eventually, aircraft production, nor production of other war goods,
didn't make any difference. The Germans couldn't train pilots fast
enough to replace their losses. (And the Germans had no access to any
training grounds that didn't expose novice pilots to attack from their
first moments in flight.)

Not only was the Merlin the superior engine, (in the fighter role) it
cost LESS. (Might not expect that from Roll Royce/Packard). In fact,
P-51s cost about HALF what P-47s did. (My assertion, I am not going to
provide backup.)

Well, cost is no object when the lives of our boys are at stake.

But, although an air operations planner might hesitate at the choice
between P-47s and P-51s, given the choice of one P-47 or TWO P-51s,
the choice is a "no brainer".


And, that is what the Merlin did, let the Allies have even more of a
numerical superiority than they otherwise would have had.

There is no question, from an operations analysis stand point, given
even roughly equal capabilities you have lot fewer losses against the
same opponent with twice the planes. So cheap was good for the "boys"
too.

The Pacific was a whole different story, and the R-2800 was more
important there, but lets face it, the Pacific was a sideshow.

Henry_H.

[Overlord]

The Pacific was a "sideshow" ???? Tell that to the men who fought there,
including my Grandfather....

As to the R-2800...

Ask anyone who has ACTUALLY flown a round engine...

The shake, they leak, and when a cylinder blows completely off they still
get you home. Been there, done that.

The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
weaknesses.

Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
excellent aircraft.

Arguements about which machine was best are silly. The real discussioin
should be about which men were the best. Men win wars, machines don't.

OL

[Overlord]

The Pacific was a "sideshow" ???? Tell that to the men who fought there,
including my Grandfather....

As to the R-2800...

Ask anyone who has ACTUALLY flown a round engine...

The shake, they leak, and when a cylinder blows completely off they still
get you home. Been there, done that.

The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
weaknesses.

Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
excellent aircraft.

Arguements about which machine was best are silly. The real discussioin
should be about which men were the best. Men win wars, machines don't.

OL

[Bobby Galvez]

wrote:

> Lets see, I have a real hard time with P&W insect names, (especially
> with the "Twin" and "Double" what's the dif?)

Well it looks like somebody over there owes you an apology. See that you get it.
Nobody should give you a hard time. Ever.

(stuff that gave me a hard time snipped)

> The Pacific was a whole different story, and the R-2800 was more
> important there, but lets face it, the Pacific was a sideshow.

Yeah.

Pearl Harbor, Doolittle, Corregidor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Midway, Hiroshima,
Nagasaki .... why do historians even bother mentioning them?

Sheesh!!!

BobbyG

[Bobby Galvez]

wrote:

> Lets see, I have a real hard time with P&W insect names, (especially
> with the "Twin" and "Double" what's the dif?)

Well it looks like somebody over there owes you an apology. See that you get it.
Nobody should give you a hard time. Ever.

(stuff that gave me a hard time snipped)

> The Pacific was a whole different story, and the R-2800 was more
> important there, but lets face it, the Pacific was a sideshow.

Yeah.

Pearl Harbor, Doolittle, Corregidor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Midway, Hiroshima,
Nagasaki .... why do historians even bother mentioning them?

Sheesh!!!

BobbyG

[Henry_H@Q_cyber.org[_1_]]

It seems that I either dash off messages before I get them right, or I
hone them untill they are perfect, and I never get them posted.

First problem with my message was that it was "after the fact".

I have to remember to quit arguing when other people change their
position. Sorry.



On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:09:01 GMT, "Overlord"
> wrote:

>The Pacific was a "sideshow" ???? Tell that to the men who fought there,
>including my Grandfather....

No point asking. In "Up Front" Joe says to Willie "I don't give a damn
what they say, this is the most important hole in the world, I am IN
it!"

A side show for deciding which was the best engine.

I was thinking about that, and it is really scary that we came very
close to losing more people in the secondary theater than we did ni
the primary one. Jeeze!
>
>As to the R-2800...
>
>Ask anyone who has ACTUALLY flown a round engine...

Asking anyone who has flown a radial, and only a radial is just the
same as asking the guy if hile is important.
>
>The shake, they leak, and when a cylinder blows completely off they still
>get you home. Been there, done that.
>
>The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
>excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
>weaknesses.
>
>Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
>excellent aircraft.
>
>Arguements about which machine was best are silly. The real discussioin
>should be about which men were the best. Men win wars, machines don't.

As an engineer, I tend to think about machines, and if I think about
men, it is mainly the ones that made the machines!

It is easy to find cases of brave, heroic men who lost because they
had the wrong machines, or had some other "system" failure.

Henry_H.
>
>OL
>

[Henry_H@Q_cyber.org[_1_]]

It seems that I either dash off messages before I get them right, or I
hone them untill they are perfect, and I never get them posted.

First problem with my message was that it was "after the fact".

I have to remember to quit arguing when other people change their
position. Sorry.



On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:09:01 GMT, "Overlord"
> wrote:

>The Pacific was a "sideshow" ???? Tell that to the men who fought there,
>including my Grandfather....

No point asking. In "Up Front" Joe says to Willie "I don't give a damn
what they say, this is the most important hole in the world, I am IN
it!"

A side show for deciding which was the best engine.

I was thinking about that, and it is really scary that we came very
close to losing more people in the secondary theater than we did ni
the primary one. Jeeze!
>
>As to the R-2800...
>
>Ask anyone who has ACTUALLY flown a round engine...

Asking anyone who has flown a radial, and only a radial is just the
same as asking the guy if hile is important.
>
>The shake, they leak, and when a cylinder blows completely off they still
>get you home. Been there, done that.
>
>The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
>excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
>weaknesses.
>
>Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
>excellent aircraft.
>
>Arguements about which machine was best are silly. The real discussioin
>should be about which men were the best. Men win wars, machines don't.

As an engineer, I tend to think about machines, and if I think about
men, it is mainly the ones that made the machines!

It is easy to find cases of brave, heroic men who lost because they
had the wrong machines, or had some other "system" failure.

Henry_H.
>
>OL
>

[Henry_H@Q_cyber.org[_1_]]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:55:15 -0600, Bobby Galvez
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> Lets see, I have a real hard time with P&W insect names, (especially
>> with the "Twin" and "Double" what's the dif?)
>
>Well it looks like somebody over there owes you an apology. See that you get it.
>Nobody should give you a hard time. Ever.

I agree. But, I do not expect any apology.

I would have been happy if some one would have just explained it for
me. But, since they did not, I tried to figure it out for myself.

My cut is:

Desigination Name rows cylinders bore stroke
Displacement (according to me)
R-985 Wasp Junior 1 9 5.2 5.2 993.9017088
R-1340 Wasp 1 9 5.75 5.75 1343.807128
R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior 2 14 5.1875 5.1875
1534.946567
R-1690 Hornet 1 9 6.125 6.375 1690.541286
R-1830 Twin Wasp 2 14 5.5 5.5 1829.39295
R-2800 Double Wasp 2 18 5.75 6 2804.46705
R-4360 Wasp Major 4 28 5.75 6 4362.5043

I had several problems, but mainly it seems fairly simple.

First they had the "Wasp" and then they had the "Twin Wasp". The
"Twin" didn't mean what I once thought that it was composed of two
banks that were "twins" of the singel row version. It just mean that
there were two rows.

Then they had the "Double Wasp" which was, fairly close, two "Wasps".



>
>(stuff that gave me a hard time snipped)
>
>> The Pacific was a whole different story, and the R-2800 was more
>> important there, but lets face it, the Pacific was a sideshow.
>
>Yeah.
>
>Pearl Harbor, Doolittle, Corregidor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Midway, Hiroshima,
>Nagasaki .... why do historians even bother mentioning them?

No one said that side shows couldn't be interesting.

BTW AFAIK, there were no R-2800s involved in any of the spots you
mention.

I guess that the engines that were the U. S. "MVPs" in those cases
were:


Pearl Harbor R-1830
Doolittle C-W R-2600
Corregidor
Bataan
Guadalcanal R-1830
Midway (I have to think about that)
Hiroshima C-W R-3350
Nagasaki C-W R-3350


There were few, if any Merlins, either. The ETO wouldn't turn loose of
them.



..... why do historians even bother mentioning them?


Too much time on their hands?


Actually, as I already said, the Pacific was important, it just wasn't
the "engine showcase."


Henry_H.




>
>Sheesh!!!
>
>BobbyG
>
>

[Henry_H@Q_cyber.org[_1_]]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:55:15 -0600, Bobby Galvez
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> Lets see, I have a real hard time with P&W insect names, (especially
>> with the "Twin" and "Double" what's the dif?)
>
>Well it looks like somebody over there owes you an apology. See that you get it.
>Nobody should give you a hard time. Ever.

I agree. But, I do not expect any apology.

I would have been happy if some one would have just explained it for
me. But, since they did not, I tried to figure it out for myself.

My cut is:

Desigination Name rows cylinders bore stroke
Displacement (according to me)
R-985 Wasp Junior 1 9 5.2 5.2 993.9017088
R-1340 Wasp 1 9 5.75 5.75 1343.807128
R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior 2 14 5.1875 5.1875
1534.946567
R-1690 Hornet 1 9 6.125 6.375 1690.541286
R-1830 Twin Wasp 2 14 5.5 5.5 1829.39295
R-2800 Double Wasp 2 18 5.75 6 2804.46705
R-4360 Wasp Major 4 28 5.75 6 4362.5043

I had several problems, but mainly it seems fairly simple.

First they had the "Wasp" and then they had the "Twin Wasp". The
"Twin" didn't mean what I once thought that it was composed of two
banks that were "twins" of the singel row version. It just mean that
there were two rows.

Then they had the "Double Wasp" which was, fairly close, two "Wasps".



>
>(stuff that gave me a hard time snipped)
>
>> The Pacific was a whole different story, and the R-2800 was more
>> important there, but lets face it, the Pacific was a sideshow.
>
>Yeah.
>
>Pearl Harbor, Doolittle, Corregidor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Midway, Hiroshima,
>Nagasaki .... why do historians even bother mentioning them?

No one said that side shows couldn't be interesting.

BTW AFAIK, there were no R-2800s involved in any of the spots you
mention.

I guess that the engines that were the U. S. "MVPs" in those cases
were:


Pearl Harbor R-1830
Doolittle C-W R-2600
Corregidor
Bataan
Guadalcanal R-1830
Midway (I have to think about that)
Hiroshima C-W R-3350
Nagasaki C-W R-3350


There were few, if any Merlins, either. The ETO wouldn't turn loose of
them.



..... why do historians even bother mentioning them?


Too much time on their hands?


Actually, as I already said, the Pacific was important, it just wasn't
the "engine showcase."


Henry_H.




>
>Sheesh!!!
>
>BobbyG
>
>

[fannum[_1_]]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:09:01 GMT, "Overlord"
> wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
>excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
>weaknesses.
>
>Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
>excellent aircraft.
>
>Arguements about which machine was best are silly.

As far as the comments go, more energy has been wasted arguing about
terms like: best, first, fastest, highest, most, etc, etc. Regional,
National, Corporate and individual egos get wrapped up in this
passionate discourses and no one's opinion is ever changed, and no one
winds up satisfied.

I ever am entertained by all the qualifiers and modifiers that folks
wax eloquent with in order to support their position. You start with a
superlative, and then add so many adjectives and adverbs that the
claim really means nothing! (For example, don't try to tell a European
or Brazillian or Australian or Russian that the Wrights were the first
to fly!)

What's wrong with "one of the . . ."

Now to the argument, I spent many hours in the Navy being thrust
through the skies by R3350s and J-79s and feel they are both
remarkable, important engines.

However, I do consider the R2800 the better engine, and certainly more
relable and mechanically elegant. On many levels, when compared to any
other engine in WWII, when all factors are considered: power to
weight, reliability, variety of application, longevity,
maintainability, cost of manufacturing, or any other I can think of,
Pratt & Whitney really hit a home run!

One indicator, was when neophytes would ask what the difference was
between the similar appearing DC-6s (2800) and DC-7s (3350) the
standard reply was the former had four engines with three bladed
propellers, while the latter often was powered by three engines with
four bladed propellers!

Cheers, Bob

[fannum]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:09:01 GMT, "Overlord"
> wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
>excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
>weaknesses.
>
>Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
>excellent aircraft.
>
>Arguements about which machine was best are silly.

As far as the comments go, more energy has been wasted arguing about
terms like: best, first, fastest, highest, most, etc, etc. Regional,
National, Corporate and individual egos get wrapped up in this
passionate discourses and no one's opinion is ever changed, and no one
winds up satisfied.

I ever am entertained by all the qualifiers and modifiers that folks
wax eloquent with in order to support their position. You start with a
superlative, and then add so many adjectives and adverbs that the
claim really means nothing! (For example, don't try to tell a European
or Brazillian or Australian or Russian that the Wrights were the first
to fly!)

What's wrong with "one of the . . ."

Now to the argument, I spent many hours in the Navy being thrust
through the skies by R3350s and J-79s and feel they are both
remarkable, important engines.

However, I do consider the R2800 the better engine, and certainly more
relable and mechanically elegant. On many levels, when compared to any
other engine in WWII, when all factors are considered: power to
weight, reliability, variety of application, longevity,
maintainability, cost of manufacturing, or any other I can think of,
Pratt & Whitney really hit a home run!

One indicator, was when neophytes would ask what the difference was
between the similar appearing DC-6s (2800) and DC-7s (3350) the
standard reply was the former had four engines with three bladed
propellers, while the latter often was powered by three engines with
four bladed propellers!

Cheers, Bob