AviationBanter - View Single Post - Was the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp the best engine of WW II?

**Henry_H@Q_cyber.org[_1_]** · January 5th 07, 06:27 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

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.