Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Take a modern Formula One engine that has such tight tolerances it has to be heated to operating temperature -just to start without being ruined- as an example of the best power/weight IC made, and they are good for one race....

hope no one thinks that all the parts in those exchange easily.

That kind of fit was possible in 1936 too. The tightness of machining then for those engines was high though nowhere as CNC fast as now. But they did have to make the things able to cold start, be fixed relatively quickly, and last just a bit longer.

Perhaps you need to have cut metal yourself to understand just how fine the better AC engines of those times really are. Calling the Merlins crude is like saying that people in the past were stupid because they didn't know what is known by some people now. Yet we can't get a real dialog on global warming....

You want crude, get an old Harley made to 1910 technology -- any made up to perhaps the 60's.

You can't know much about engines if you don't realize that any piston engine from the 1940's were crude. F1? Get a grip dude, taking an extreme approach like that and comparing those engines to Merlins just makes you look narrow. One race? Read the F1 regulations for 2011, and also compare how many revolutions those engines makes between tear downs to a Merlin from 1940. We're talkin roughly 19000rpm compared to 2500rpm. I wouldn't be surprised if F1 engines surpass Merlins in terms of longevity through crank revolutions. But put simply, they are not comparable.

I'm not calling the Merlins crude because people back then were stupid, you would probably think like that but I'm saying that Merlins(And DB600 series for that matter) are crude because it was on a lower step on the evolutionary scale. Yes, we still use internal combustion engines and yes it is (mostly) the same principles but when a 3L straight six from BMW can fork out over 300hp/400nm reliable power you gotta wake up and smell the coffee man. There's a reason to why piston engines left fighter aircrafts. They were crude, too much prone to failures and something better came around.

Want a fair comparison? Take a 1940's car engine and compare it to a modern one. Any engine.

[waspfarmer]

Did too.

[MaxGunz]

LOL, I've worked with engineers and machinists from that era back in the 80's. I know fine work when I see it and those Merlins were fine. There were damned few cars then made to the same standards but you can compare a period Rolls to a period Ford any time you want.
Or perhaps some time you can talk with someone who has had a period BMW, Daimler or Merlin apart, seen the craft work and put micrometers and verniers on the actual pieces instead of comparing apples to oranges on a juice-squeezed basis.

The switch to jets is simple. Props lose thrust with increased speed and jets don't. Props start to become brakes around .7 Mach. That's why 50's-modern fighters went to jet power.

As to comparing a 300HP IC engine to a 1200-2000+ HP engine as to redline and power to weight, that is a poor comparison. Or even comparing car motors that when something goes wrong you pull over to the side of the road to AC engines that have to be more reliable, just go ahead but don't expect me to take you seriously because I know better.

Small engines can run much faster than larger engines and they generally need to. The less power you output, the more efficient you can make the engine as well. As you increase size your weight and volumes increase by cubes while load-bearing cross sections are 2D, the strength increases by the square only. It is straight physics that says the smaller can be stronger and faster, it is technology that says how small you can build well. An ant can lift many times it's own weight so that makes humans uselessly weak??

Yes they can and do make finer IC engines nowadays. Pretty much all of them much smaller and gawdawful expensive.

Using the word CRUDE to describe the better engines of those days is an insult to the people who designed and built them. Like I wrote above, you want CRUDE then go look at a 1915 AC engine because those things fit the word without any comparisons needed at all.

I'll just wait till Crumpp weighs in since he has been hands-on with the hardware and seems to know some things about machining as well.

[kimosabi]

MaxGunz, you're contradicting yourself on a large scale. Us who knows a bit about engines also knows that crude quite often means better reliability. Look at a pushrod 350 SB Chevy for example. I never said they weren't reliable. Who said anything about crude = higher bearing tolerances etc.??? I also didn't study engine mechanics and get a certificate/work as an engine mechanic to argue with tools like yourself on the internet, so this is REALLY the last thing I post about those damn lumps. Do yourself a favour and try to assume that people have an idea of what they post about before you answer them back with tons of lecturing. Should save you some time typing. Sing it to your wife instead.

[nearmiss]

Kimosabi vs MaxGunz

Straight up, good heated discussion should not lead to personal attacks. You can't call someone a "tool" and not expect counter-attack. I was enjoying the engine discussion, even though off topic.

Save the mud slinging and make your debate without the name calling and personal put down remarks. Otherwise you won't leave a good choice for moderation.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

All in all I wish my car got the mileage this silly thread got

[MaxGunz]

Us that's worked in tool and die, precision machining for years, after years of design school down to materials and strengths wouldn't know a thing about any of that. We're just tools I guess. But for who I don't have the foggiest.

I'll just drag my knuckles along out of this now that the mud has started to fly.

[Crumpp]

piston engine from the 1940's were crude

The designers from the 1940's knew more about high powered piston engine aircraft design and engines than we do today.

Nobody is building 2000 hp (+) piston engine powered aircraft today.


Computer controls, chemical engineering, and materials science have allowed us to build to better engines in some respects today. As far as engine knowledge and engineering, a mechanical engineer from the 1940's would just have to learn today's design tools but there is not any new knowledge we could teach him. We could learn from his experience however!!

[kimosabi]

Yeah rights and wrongs all over the place. Sorry if I offended you MaxGunz, but I am done here and it is how I roll. Too happy inside to jump back on this. Got some good news today and I'll be dancing with polar bears soon. Yoohooo!

Crumpp, some I agree with and some I don't. I'll leave it at that. Hugz and kizzes.

*edit* Nearmiss, I was expecting a counter-attack. It's just that I was done here. Still am lol. Hugz, No kizz for you.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The designers from the 1940's knew more about high powered piston engine aircraft design and engines than we do today.

Nobody is building 2000 hp (+) piston engine powered aircraft today.


Computer controls, chemical engineering, and materials science have allowed us to build to better engines in some respects today. As far as engine knowledge and engineering, a mechanical engineer from the 1940's would just have to learn today's design tools but there is not any new knowledge we could teach him. We could learn from his experience however!!

Back around 1970 my father took me to see a co-worker who had built a VW-engine powered airplane in his barn. I was told that they ran lower revs with extra-heavy pistons (he showed a regular VW piston and a special 2x as heavy piston) because as he put it, you don't want the engine to seize up there. The extra weight was for extra inertia -- I was told -- to help keep the piston moving.

Was that just something special to VW engines used in small GA AC?

Perhaps 40 years ago is just ancient history. What differences do more modern regular AC IC engines have from ground car engines?