Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
marat,jean       6/28/2013 11:22:18 AM
That could indeed  be plausible. I understand that Henry Ford was not exactly enamored of either the British or of Roosevelt, so politics and vanity could have been involved. Nevertheless the origin, the Ford G series engine, either in v-12 or 8 was phenomenal, truly a masterpiece of Ford motor company design and technology. Just two years from draft to working prototype! The Allison took ten, and the Merlin took twelve and in the case of the Allison that engine never hit full potential until post-war.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/28/2013 12:23:41 PM
So much for expert opinions!

so much for yours, the Ranger was never developed for motor cannon but in the XP77 it was intended to be mounted ABOVE the engine and could fire through the spinner due to the large reduction gear used, however this was pure theory as the XP77 was such a diaster 
Well, so much for your opinion; The Ranger IV-12-770 was expressly developed to use a "Motor cannon"! The large gear you mentioned served two purposes, first to allow it to swing a longer prop and clear the ground with short landing gear. Secondly to allow a "Motor cannon" to be mounted above the engine as you state. I'll save demolishing your opinion of the Bell XP-77 for another thread.

Both Continental and Ford may have similar fits but neither was designed for a motor cannon 
But yes, they were developed expressly to mount a "motor cannon" read your company histories and any of the better books on same.

no US engine I have heard of used a hollow crank setup needed for a motor cannon
This is where you show your monumental ignorance of how those things work for all to see! While some engines have hollow crankshafts, typically some older large radials, no crank ever made was designed to have a cannon barrel mounted inside it. The offset of the crank throws would preclude any such idea. Most, but not all Motor cannon accommodations are in the form of a tube between the cylinder banks, under the intake manifolds, that is sealed off from the oil and coolant flows, and is mounted in such a way as to line up with the CL of the prop shaft that is off set from the crank's main bearing CL by the reduction gears so that the cannon barrel can pass through the hollow prop shaft. All higher powered aircraft engines use reduction gearing to mate the requirement of low RPM prop speed for maximum efficiency with the engine's need for higher RPMs required to produce maximum power. The arrangement of those reduction gears is such that the CL of the prop is aligned, more or less with the geometric center of the engine's frontal aria. That is done to reduce the total drag.
So much for your expert opinion!

 



 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/28/2013 12:49:02 PM
 
Marat speaks:
 
Please read the engine details CAREFULLY, and see why  I insist you have no clue as to why people laugh at you when they read this reply to your latest silly posting.   
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/28/2013 3:27:12 PM
That could indeed  be plausible. I understand that Henry Ford was not exactly enamored of either the British or of Roosevelt, so politics and vanity could have been involved. Nevertheless the origin, the Ford G series engine, either in v-12 or 8 was phenomenal, truly a masterpiece of Ford motor company design and technology. Just two years from draft to working prototype! The Allison took ten, and the Merlin took twelve and in the case of the Allison that engine never hit full potential until post-war.
 
the fact that Ford had a full set of plans and specs of the merlin before they started couldn't have influenced the design could it
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/28/2013 3:35:37 PM
so much for yours, the Ranger was never developed for motor cannon but in the XP77 it was intended to be mounted ABOVE the engine and could fire through the spinner due to the large reduction gear used, however this was pure theory as the XP77 was such a diaster 
  Well, so much for your opinion; The Ranger IV-12-770 was expressly developed to use a "Motor cannon"! The large gear you mentioned served two purposes, first to allow it to swing a longer prop and clear the ground with short landing gear. Secondly to allow a "Motor cannon" to be mounted above the engine as you state. I'll save demolishing your opinion of the Bell XP-77 for another thread
Both Continental and Ford may have similar fits but neither was designed for a motor cannon 
But yes, they were developed expressly to mount a "motor cannon" read your company histories and any of the better books on same.
 
oh I have and neither were designed for motorcannon, and I can find no aircraft ever having them fitted

no US engine I have heard of used a hollow crank setup needed for a motor cannon
This is where you show your monumental ignorance of how those things work for all to see! While some engines have hollow crankshafts, typically some older large radials, no crank ever made was designed to have a cannon barrel mounted inside it.
 
yes I was wrong I meant hollow layshaft - you got me
 
The offset of the crank throws would preclude any such idea.
obviously, most people would have realised that it was a mistake
 
  All higher powered aircraft engines use reduction gearing to mate the requirement of low RPM prop speed for maximum efficiency with the engine's need for higher RPMs required to produce maximum power. The arrangement of those reduction gears is such that the CL of the prop is aligned, more or less with the geometric center of the engine's frontal aria. That is done to reduce the total drag.So much for your expert opinion!
 
this last part spoils what for you was a accurate description, the critical siting of the prop was the thrust line not the  geometric center (especially as it was rarely the case)
 
and as your posts are so riddled with errors it amusing to read your comments
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/28/2013 3:52:08 PM
It did not. The Merlin actually has very little in detail common with the Ford, except to show the Ford engineers what RR did not do right when they examined the drawings. The1942  RR Merlin is NOT the 1938 Merlin. War taught the British much, they did not know about carburetors and manifolds. The Ford engineers solved those problems blind.  
 


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/28/2013 4:48:16 PM
It did not. The Merlin actually has very little in detail common with the Ford,
 details no, however it did provide a wealth of knowledge of what worked and what didn't I am not putting down the engine just pointing out that ford did get a bit of help with the hard work
 
except to show the Ford engineers what RR did not do right when they examined the drawings.
hard won info that had not war been imminent would have been very closely guarded  
 
 The1942  RR Merlin is NOT the 1938 Merlin.
the 1938 design was not the merlin actually in production in 38 but the later version that Packard eventually produced
 
 War taught the British much, they did not know about carburetors and manifolds.
disagree with that, and certainly ford didn't have the skills in supercharging that RR had
 The Ford engineers solved those problems blind.  
ford bought Stromberg carbs so I would say that that's wrong too
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/28/2013 5:44:23 PM
I should clarify. The 1938 engine was not optimized.
 
Packard received the 1942 engine (an actual engine) and they tore it apart. They were appalled at the poor hand fit the mismatched tolerances and the aspiration pathways with the sharp elbows. The Packard Merlin was tweaked for American production practice. Elbows were made more gentle in curve, and other things RR COPIED.  
 
Ford received drawings. These did not show the manufacturing and tolerance faults, nor the basic carburetor fault with the (flapper design which the British fixed during the BoB as well as throttle stick issue [ice] at above 7000 meters.)
 
So Ford knew a lot of things that neither GM, Allison, RR, or Wright did not going in, from their own sources. [Ford UK.]
 
And as the STROMBERG was an AMERICAN technology, (BENDIX Alfred Stromberg, around 1926, Chicago, inventor) don't you mean RR bought their carburetors from FORD, the UK outlet supplier?
 
 

 

except to show the Ford engineers what RR did not do right when they examined the drawings.


hard won info that had not war been imminent would have been very closely guarded  

 

 The1942  RR Merlin is NOT the 1938 Merlin.


the 1938 design was not the merlin actually in production in 38 but the later version that Packard eventually produced

 

 War taught the British much, they did not know about carburetors and manifolds.


disagree with that, and certainly ford didn't have the skills in supercharging that RR had

 The Ford engineers solved those problems blind.  


ford bought Stromberg carbs so I would say that that's wrong too

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/29/2013 12:11:57 AM



Ranger IV-12-770  Your link id bazook!
 

 

Marat speaks:

 

Please read the engine details CAREFULLY, and see why  I insist you have no clue as to why people laugh at you when they read this reply to your latest silly posting.   

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/29/2013 12:18:58 AM

Both Continental and Ford may have similar fits but neither was designed for a motor cannon 
But yes, they were developed expressly to mount a "motor cannon" read your company histories and any of the better books on same.

oh I have and neither were designed for motorcannon, and I can find no aircraft ever having them fitted
That is two parts. just because the had the ability, does not mean they did that!
no US engine I have heard of used a hollow crank setup needed for a motor cannon
This is where you show your monumental ignorance of how those things work for all to see! While some engines have hollow crankshafts, typically some older large radials, no crank ever made was designed to have a cannon barrel mounted inside it.

yes I was wrong I meant hollow layshaft - you got me
Caught you head in the door again did you?! It's not a lay shaft, it is however an access tube sealed from both coolant and oil.
 
The offset of the crank throws would preclude any such idea.

obviously, most people would have realised that it was a mistake
Then why did you do/make it?
 
All higher powered aircraft engines use reduction gearing to mate the requirement of low RPM prop speed for maximum efficiency with the engine's need for higher RPMs required to produce maximum power. The arrangement of those reduction gears is such that the CL of the prop is aligned, more or less with the geometric center of the engine's frontal aria. That is done to reduce the total drag.So much for your expert opinion!

this last part spoils what for you was a accurate description, the critical siting of the prop was the thrust line not the  geometric center (especially as it was rarely the case)
While thrust line is important, it is not critical and can easily be adjusted. 


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics