As an FAA-licensed A&P Mechanic, I can tell you that inverted engines have less wear because upon start up, the cylinders have better lubrication. This is because gravity causes oil to settle in the cylinder walls. The primary benefits are visibility, maintenance access and less engine wear.
David Gold great point but in theory the ground crew could turn the propeller by hand as it is usually done on big radial engines in order to scavenge oil around especially on the lower heads but I never seen it done on the Merlin / Packard engines, why?
@@paoloviti6156 On radial engines, it's possible to get a hydraulic lock if the bottom cylinder is on compression. The Packard/RR are upright and therefore the oil drains away from the pistons.
I enjoy the absence of bias and bravado which seems rare, just well resourced facts, very well presented with a clear voice and smooth accent! Thank you Greg!
@@JerryBanks572 Today we got more information and more opportunities to be unbiased than ever but the news choose to be biased still. Back in the day before the internet things were misinterpreted so often...Or just as today, it's always the "us against them" scenario. How much more biased can you get? It's always been like that.
I am studying to be a war historian and I'm quite "the nerd" when it comes to the technology of WW2. I had never once considered why the most of the V-type piston powered aircraft have an inverted engine. This was very fascinating and very enlightening for me! Thank you sir! As a war historian I love your channel! Keep up with your great work!
You must remember that only the Germans adopted the inverted V-12 engines unless it was produced under license in other countries including Sweden and Japan. The allies only produced upright V-12 engines aside the radial engines produced on both sides.
I believe this analysis is 100% spot on. Logistics is one of those things people just don't take into consideration most of the time when discussing these topics. fantastic.
Yes. Cost and standardization is also a thing often forgotten. Bf 109 won over the He112 because it cost half of what the Heinkel cost, even if it was slightly lower performing. Standardization allowed also to use different engines easily on some airframes. Ju88/188 could use Jumo211 or BMW801 with ease. In general though it was one of the biggest failings of the German industry to not be standardized enough.
While discussing the merits of the German inverted V-12s, I think I am one of MANY folks that did NOT expect you to tie that into the engines in...tanks! These are the kinds of things that make your channel so darned interesting! When I see an M1 (and I am around them nearly every day!), I still scratch my head and wonder how someone married a helicopter engine up to a tank. Someone did and it clearly works. Again, things like this are very interesting and thanks for sharing your knowledge!
His use of superlatives is appropriate considering he is dealing with data that could be debunked or argued against. Superlatives are a product of our adversarial times.
Many early aircraft in WW1 up to the beginning of WW2 had inverted engines. This allowed the direct propeller drive of the engine to be higher in the airframe helping with propeller/ground clearance. This may have influenced the later German designs.
I think your right. A tradition of inverted aero engines made them comfortable with the inverted layout even when the primary reason for it went away with reduction geared outputs.
It's kind of funny that I came for a lesson on inverted engines and got one of the best arguments in support of the Sherman tank. Your channel has the right mix of technical and story telling to keep it very interesting.
The only arguments in support of the Sherman tank are in it's cost and production capability. Otherwise it was a poor machine, badly designed and incapable of taking on it's opposition. The soldiers left to fight in it were abandoned to economics, left to burn, because it was more cost effective to allow them to die rather than to build a better tank. Dead soldiers provide only tiny pensions for widows, much cheaper than a production run on a really good tank.
“A heavy tank like a tiger 1 can be very effective on the battlefield. But what if you can’t get it to the battlefield... then you have no tank which is not good” Subbing for that dry, witty comment alone. Great content, speech, pace, information, and presentation. Keep up the good work Greg!
I believe another reason for having inverted v-12 engines, is because, even when the engines haven’t been working for a while, the cylinders and pistons, don’t dry out of oil, gravity contribute to have them lubricated
Greg, you asked why Germans used the inverted V12. I suspect or has to do with having enough space for the 2 machineguns above the engine. This kind off engine has the advantage off flying inverted with having no fuel problems because off its pumping system wich RollsRoyce Merlin did found out.
Greg, Always a pleasure. Everything I've read, where they do add input by Db Engineers and the "Blackshirts" is serviceability and ease of maintenance for the Db's, plus the small valve train pieces were the main culprit for engine failure, invert the "V" add small magnets in critical areas, supposed longer life. Again great vids and info
A simple food for thought comment. Mercedes Benz 300 gull wing had direct cylinder injection and had problems with cylinder ring washing with fuel on no start conditions damaging. Rings and bore,inverting would allow it to simply go out the exhaust doing no damage to cylinders and bores due to no lubrication from washing with fuel
@@spitefulwar an upright one so that's why he said that 300 had issues with ring washing, inverted engine avoids that problem. How many cylinders does not matter, their orientation does
@@mmdirtyworkz It was a straight six but not very upright one at all. The ring washing problem was the fault of the groundbreaking direct fuel injection system, so trying to fix a fuel supply problem by turning the engine upside down is just ridiculous. The engine had seen service earlier in a 4 door Mercedes with carburetors without any problems.
@Max Pain Also, keeping the hot exhaust gas low and away from the tail helped with rudder efficiency because it made sure the rudder was as much as possible flowing in dense, cold air.
I think it's worth considering the number of inverted engines that were produced for aircraft use. The costs savings in maintenance might have been huge for their fleet size.
I love the fact that you often go off-track in your videos! That way, we can learn other fascinating facets of technology, that we otherwise would never have encountered. Thanks for this immense work!
I initially thought that lower centre of gravity might be the inspiration behind this design. But ease of maintenance and better visibility add up to three out of three advantages over a standard upright V design. You managed to answer your own question and very elegantly too I might say. Thanks for that.
I just love your channel Greg i could listen to your warm agreeable voice all day long talking about any subject, But your prowess in aviation and automobile engineering are as clear as day. Combined with your thoroughly researched material, clarity of thought, unbiased analysis and rationale. Thank you once again Greg totally superb !!!
I took aircraft maintenance in college and we touched lightly on this Your video is very informative One thing my teacher said is by inverting the v12 the crankshaft is now on the top of the engine higher up from the ground Effectively allowing a larger prop U have more thrust per rotation of the propeller at a potentially slower speed of the engine allowing for greater fuel economy And if needed I can throttle up and due to the larger prop have a “in theory” a better climb rate and more acceleration All on paper at least Great video
Great video Greg , I guess another advantage of the inverted V, (in the case of the 109 and 190d at least ) would be having room for armament centrally located in the nose..Incidentally my father was a mechanic during the war and worked on the DB 605 , BMW 801 , the Argus AS 10 as well as the Maybach V12.s used in tanks and halftracks.
I was thinking "improved visibility" when I clicked on this and right away, you state that is your highest contender amongst reasons. Now I feel all smart (at least for a while until my next duh moment).
Another great topic and video! Kept my attention the whole time, partly from all the great photographs matching all the topics. Love your work, keep it up! :)
I agree 100% with Greg’s analysis. I really like this channel and his great speaking voice is perfectly suited for videos. Excellent topics, well researched, produced and presented. I’m a fan. Thank you
great doco, another use of non inverted V-12s was in Air-Sea Rescue boats, the RAAF rescue boats used right up until 1986 had twin Hall Scott Defender V-12s
Yip, that makes me think of the river boats in Vietnam. I road in a few of those manning a 50 cal & in my youth then I didn't pay much attention to what powered them, but they did haul ass!
Great Video Greg, thank you.One other possible reason for the inverted V engine being so desirable in fighter aircraft (The BF109 being the best example) is the fact that you can configure the installation to have a cannon or heavy machine gun firing through the impeller spinner... theoretically the best place for such a weapon to be mounted since the recoil is almost perfectly aligned with the center of gravity of the aircraft, the cannon's recoil can be absorbed by the relatively strong and heavy engine, and no interrupter mechanism is required to prevent the cannon from destroying the propeller. Also, it is somewhat easier to mount additional heavy machine guns in the top of the cowling (in my opinion the rifle caliber machine guns that the Japanese mounted in the cowling of their fighter aircraft were not very effective against fast, heavily armored aircraft like late war US fighters. The Germans, in contrast, used heavy machine guns).This gave the BF 109 pilot easy to aim, parallel and concentrated 30mm and two 13mm (approx. .51 caliber) firing right under their gun sight. This is similar to the advantage that the P38 had with its concentrated and parallel firing four 50's and 20mm firing through it's nose. My two cents. Time to get back to work now ; )
Interestingly, the French Hispano 12Y upright engine allowed an engine mounted cannon between the cylinder blocks - on the Bf 109 the cannon breech was behind the engine, under the cockpit, between the pilot's legs.
@@johnusher1921 This engine was also the basis for the Soviet engines used in the Yak-1, 3 and 9. All those aircraft also featured guns firing through the spinner, typically a 20mm ShVAK cannon. Some versions of the Yak-9 were even upgunned to 37mm or 45mm weapons, still somehow managing to fire through the spinner.
An excellent video! I just asked an aftermarket supplier for parts to a popular Detroit V-8 what it would take to run the engine upside down - beyond having a dry sump, he mentioned oil pickups in both valve covers and in the crankcase breather cavity. But it's possible, and would make maintenance on a plane I'm Imagineering easier, as well as lowering the CG...
Enjoyed your post very much. Back in the 60's I flew the rare Waco ENF with an inverted Martin engine. When I asked I was told inversion was for prop clearance. Your clip gave me a much better understanding of the issue, thanks
Not being familiar with the Martin engine, it may have been for prop clearance. The common reason for inverting engines which were direct drive was clearance. After they started using reduction gears between the crankshaft and the prop that reason went away.
According to a teacher that I had in Airplane Mechanic School in 1973 and 74, Merc Motter said that the reason for the crankshaft being on top in German aircraft was That they didn't have the quality on materials for bearings available to them as we did so they had to be able to change bearings much more frequently then we did hence the reason for the crankshaft on top to allow for quick easy bearing changes.
Two informative videos in one day! A wonderful late birthday gift. The better view over the nose with the Inverted-V is very apparent and advantageous to those who can fight well. Indeed in IL2 the view over the nose between the 109s and the Spitfires is telling and very handy for aces like IL2 pilots like Arianne Scharfi, who can use it to help pull great deflection shots. But the other factors in maintanance are new to me and logical. Despite the downsides of dealing with the increased possibility of hydraulic lock from pooling fluids. Informative stuff as always. Great work.
The 109 had exceptional focused firepower with it's engine block mounted cannon that fired through the gear reduction hub and nose cone. As well as the two MG 131s firing forward of the cockpit and along each side of the crankcase. Also keeps the weight of the guns and ammunition in the fuselage and not way out in the wings.
I absolutely love flying my K4 on DCS world, i didnt realize what a special plane that was until i found your channel. My small flying group has been binge watching you haha. Cheers!
I'm fast approaching the truth (fact ?) that the best four words in the English language are "Greetings this is Greg". Thanks again for going beyond the "keyhole analysis" that others provide, to make connections to distant areas and show a bigger picture and how seemingly unrelated things are connected. Reading comments from others, clearly I'm not the only one thinking this way. So glad I Subscribed !
Another excellent video. I would be very interested in a similar comparative discussion of sleeve vs poppet valve aviation engines, , especially inclusive of the Napier Sabre and Bristol Centaurus on the sleeve valve side. Happy to support you via Patreon and encourage others to as well.
I do want to cover the sleeve valve engines. I think those might have proven to be the way forward had the turbine engine not showed up on the scene. The potential of that design is massive.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I think that with an aircraft engine in wartime another factor to consider is manufacturing hours. How any manhours to build a RR Griffon vs a Sabre. With the sleeve valve you effectively doubling or triping your manufacturing time per cylinder with all of the machining operations required
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesSleeve valve engines suffer badly from cold starting 'stickiness' of the sleeve assembly and the gear train comes under enormous loads if the engine hasn't been run for a while. Modern lubricants might solve this, but the complication of design and manufacture has always favoured the simplicity of poppet valves in a separate head assembly. See old BMW flat twin engines from the '70's !
@@jimlambert1398 I think the sleeve valve only really pays off in multi-row radials where it isn't practical to fit more than 2 poppet valves per cylinder.
I had this conversation stood next to a Bf 109 G-2 at RAF Cosford, talking with the engineers that maintain the aircraft. There was no definitive answer they knew of either, but floated most of the thoughts and ideas seen in the comments here. Nice to see you had some pics of Commonwealth troops making those bridges by the way - love form England!!
It made sense for the allied engine manufacturers to produce upright V12s as that was what they had already and they would be easier to adapt to other uses as you said. When developing their aircraft the Germans were working from a clean slate and aircraft engines were designed specifically for aircraft so those advantages (vis and maint) were worth it.
The Allison brothers got their start racing cars and refurbishing and modifying Liberty V12's for racing. They moved to Indianapolis to be close to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In 1929 the USAAC wanted a aircraft engine capable of operating at high altitude and making 1,000hp. Allison brothers used their experience building racing V12's and produced the Allison's V-1710. The Great Depression slowed development down but in April 1937 Allisons V1710 C-6 completed testing and was rated at 1,000hp at the required altitude. I have read that Allisons was able to obtain a contract that any USAAC aircraft built with a V12 had to use a Allison V12. The only exception was the P-51. The Merlin engined P-51 gave such a boost in performance, especially at altitude, that it could not be ignored and was immediately ordered into production. You cant compare a Tiger to a Sherman. two different tanks designed for to very different roles. The Tiger developed from the 1938 Durchbruchswagen, basically a break through tank. It was designed to be deployed, punch a hole in the lines, be pulled back and serviced and readied for next assault. In that role it was very effective. When Germany started losing break through tank turned into "Fire Brigade" tank unit that was rushed from spot to spot along the front to counter attack a enemy breakthrough. The problem was while Tiger unit was plugging this hole in the line the Soviets were breaking through at two or more other places along the line. The Tiger was also very good in its defensive role. But when your constantly outnumbered ( 1,347 Tiger I's versus 60,000 T-34's and 55,000 Shermans), constantly forced to withdraw so you dont get your maintenance time attrition constantly wears those numbers down. Add to this a German logistics system obsessed with producing more tanks and no spare parts then you see the readiness numbers constantly go down as tanks were cannibalized of parts to keep other tanks running. Panther is a whole different bag of apples.
BINGGgggg!!! CORRECT! A document was found in RLM archives that simply said pilot view was reason for inverted V preference. IIRC it was dated 1936, about time when first inverted DB601 was put on Bf 109 and He 112. Before it was upright BMW IV series used on nearly all German aircraft. I wish I could link to you the actual document, but someone translated it and posted on forum (I think it was Key Publishing forums). The Bf 108 did use Argus, maybe that inspired desire for similar when making 109? Also, look at the He 51. It had BMW IV with downward pipes to get exhaust away from pilot, I am sure that was a supporting argument for inverted. There is some significant challenges in the oil system, both in scavenging and oil consumption (think Radial engine), but advantages as you point out are worth it. Your intro was a bit short, as there were plenty of inverted in-line engines, such as the Ranger (US), Gypsy (UK), and other Argus engines, and few others. There is more, but want to keep this short. Good video!
Excellent video and plausible reasoning. Thank you. I was left wondering which was first, inverted V engines and then specifications requiring them or vice versa.
As usual an interesting and informative presentation. I was also fascinated by the report on Landstuhl/Ramstein. My father was stationed at Ramstein when I was in grade school in the 60s. We had more than one family outing hiking to the Landstuhl castle. As I recall it was mostly just a ruin in those days. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
Thanks for the excellent videos Greg! Regarding the use of inverted DB60X series engines on Me 110, 210, 310 & 410 - Once the inverted V-12 installation for an aircraft is developed (Me109), it is much easier from design, manufacturing and logistics point of view (as you pointed out in your video) to “copy” or adapt similar installations into multiengine aircraft, where the improved forward visibility is not affected by the engine(s) installation, especially when they use engines from the same family.
A few house further where I live there is an engine restoration company and there is a DB-605 engine, from a crashed BF109, sitting ready for restauration. I have to say it is an impressive engine
Fascinating. Another great video. My comment on the inverted V-12. The inverted engine follows the "egg" shape of the fuselage cross section as viewed from the front, wide side on bottom, possibly improving aerodynamics
Specifically the bf-109 I saw other videos and believe that the German obsession with having the cannon centered in the prop has a lot to do with engine orientation in that particular aircraft. As for the ju-88, that application could have to do with engine availabilities and power output. If it performs great in fighters, 🤷 throw 4 on a bomber. Great work, great video, subscribing now👍
Hi Greg, as usual, outstanding presentation - as an engineer and former Navy pilot, I learned lot. Thank you for your very informative collection of vintage aircraft/car presentations, Cioa, L (Veteran)
At the Messerschmitt foundation in Germany they told me that the main reason was the weight distribution down to the longitudinal axis reducing adverse jaw and faster roll rate. The heavy gun and accessories are all underneath the crankshaft.
Thank you for an outstanding piece of work; obviously a labor of love. An additional subtopic might be the influence of fuel injection versus carburetion on the choice of inversion. Finally, a nice side note might address the two approaches to constructing an aircraft engine around a hollow tube, specifically Mercedes versus BMW and the Bf 109 nose cone gun.
Your channel is underrated in way to see it. As an engineer your content your content is gold, man. As a veteran, but still active in the Swedish National Guard, but now working in the civilian life with mostly mechanical designs your info is very useful in many applications for me. Thanks. You shouldn't compare the Sherman with Tiger I or the Panther but with the Panzer IV and Stug III or IV tank with was more likely to be the Sherman's adversary. Why? They where more numerous and in the end of the ww2 the Germans couldn't afford to build so many tanks and it was cheaper for the Nazi regime to go for panzer jaeger or tank destroyers instead.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles When you were describing the logistics issues that effected the Sherman's design, I thought you HAD watched his video. You hit all the same points.
@@Mishn0 -- That might be, but Germans took into account bridges limits, that is why originally their tanks weight only 18 tons, then 24, and every time weight limit increased the number of places where Panzers can go decreased, so they were aware of bridge and logistic limitations...
@@RussianThunderrr the Germans built most of their tanks for Ford rivers, but they didn't have to worry about transport besides train width. The US had to fit their tanks on ships and amphibious landing craft
Reg Spitalls, the Northampton tank commander, said the only way to kill a tiger tank was to get round the back of it and bust either a track or the gas tank. He survived the war!
It may as well have helped with noise levels in the cockpit. Short pipes on 1000 + horsepower engine must have meant almost unbearable noise levels causing deafness in pilots
Really nice point, actually that reminds me that at least two pilots who have flown Buchon (Upright Merlin) and original Bf 109 G (Inverted DB605), complain the noise is considerably louder and much worser in Buchon due to packaging of the engine configuration, as well as the engine exhausts being higher and closer to the pilot.
I've also read that a reason they went with the inverted engines, is because the civilian engines which were available at that time (Argus, if i remember correctly) were a good starting point for developing military grade engines. And those civilian engines happened to be inverted. Although i dont have any proper sources to back up such claim.
Great video as usual. Germany already had the Maybach gas V12 for tanks, so I don't believe that they were concerned with cross use (although the Nazi's optimization of their industrial base was not particularly efficient, especially given their otherwise authoritarian state). As far as naval usage, the E-Boat was much bigger than a PT and in no way an Apples-to-Apples comparison. I think the E-Boats actually used sub engines.
I read an article,from years ago,that what became the E boat design was based around a particular marine diesel engine. It was not until about 1925 that fuel injection could be made small enough for automotive use. Thus a compact marine diesel was relatively new. FWIW,the single greatest design item that separated the E boat from the British MGB family was the use of two outboard rudders that were cocked at a slight angle. These applied drag at the point of greatest leverage,thus holding the bow down. Quite unlike anyone else's hull. At any rate, the E boat was an outstanding design,one carefully thought through for some years before the war. Little details add up,and in a mad rush to accomplish years in months,no one else got all the bits quite as right as that particular design.
@@paulmanson253 Thanks for that Paul some really interesting information there. I know that in WW2 the E-Boat was such a threat that the British had radar stations searching for them and if spotted the RAF sent out Spitfires to hunt them down. Problem was they could only operate in the daytime.
Being and authoritarian state was not the advantage you may think, Paul. For one thing the Germans military decided in the spring of 1943 that all defence research which would not be completed withing 12 months would be stopped. This meant that research such as that into surface to air missiles stopped. Something which would have made a great deal of difference to the USAAF bombing raids in 1944/45. The simplest missile looked like a smaller version of the Me163, wire guided and with a 1000 lb warhead. Imagine that going off in the middle of 12 B17s. And it could have been transported on a tracked vehicle. And the best part. All those scientists, engineers, et cetera were sent by the German Army to fight on the Eastern Front.
@@bigblue6917 Whoops. Never said that. The article I read mentioned one small group of people put the bits together,and much of that was former Kaiser Kreigsmarine people held together,experienced trained, professional, etc. There were two small sets of precursor builds before the standardization of the classic E boat design. They worked out the bugs by way of actual operation,and that took time,years in fact. The Royal Navy very visibly dropped the ball over many years,submarine design being bizarre at times,read about the lunacy of steam powered submarines intend That is what I meant. The bravery of both sides in the small craft war in the Channel was exemplary,with high casualties of a small group of personnel that in the war years took a high toll on very brave men. intended to be fast enough for Fleet common operations. Oops bad editing. Also the development of effective small craft design was neglected,with the Germans having the better designs plural. I do not know how to fix an accidental keystroke that separated the text. Meaning should come through.
E-boats used a displacement designed hull. Whereas the Brits and US used a planing hull. Quite a bit different. The reference to the rudders; you are talking about the Lurssen ''effect.'' They didn't cause drag, pls read the link, a very smart idea! ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/L%C3%BCrssen_Effect.html. As for the German E-boats, they were powered by the first high speed diesels, 3x MB501 V20 2000hp each. @@paulmanson253
Thanks so much for this and other videos! As a WWII aviation buff, I thought I knew a lot about the subject, but I have learned a ton from your videos. Thanks, again!
Always interesting subject matter. I would have guessed that an inverted V would give a bit more room for MG's and Ammo. I think Packard built an "X" engine at one time.
I was thinking the same thing. The Germans mounted two MG and a 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub in the nose. American designs usally had the armement in the wings
I was waiting for you to mention the Chrysler 5 bank, installed in the Sherman tank...ugly, heavy, and interesting. Thanks for the video, I think you're spot on.
@@mpetersen6 Exactly right. The 5 bak always comes to mind when I hear about the Sherman because it's the most unusual, though the dual bus engine is a very close second in that regard. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that. Great comment, BTW.
Lower Center of Gravity point for the inverted V-12 is absolutely correct, as is static stability. The Spitfire owing to the higher CG was probably more statically unstable, but that might have contributed to a higher roll rate. German WW2 fighters not being known for their high roll rate. But they were very stable gun platforms, conversely. Great topic, Greg!
@@pimpompoom93726 At speeds above 325 knots indicated you are correct At speeds below 325 knots indicated I am correct. www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
You sort of indicate it yourself, but it's a fact that the RLM requirement that led to the Bf 109 having the gear under the fuselage was related to train transportability for repairs. (07:03)
As much development as the 109 received throughout WW II, it's somewhat surprising that they never seemed to bother with even a prototype with the landing gear under the wings.
@@chuckschillingvideos They did, several, look it up, and the landing gear wasnt that much of an issue, the Finns operated the type without issues, bag LW basic training and macho attitude created the problem, it wasnt fixed until LW pilots started dying in droves in the F-104.
Well you pretty much hit that spot on. Air racing set the standard for a sleek, liquid cooled, inline v12. Inverting the engine gave the ability for better visibility during landing and takeoff. A good example is the radial double wasp engine used in both the Grummand Hellcat, and the Corsair. The Hellcat had the pilot seated very high up in the airframe, while the Corsair had a long nose, and standard seating arrangement. Soon once sea trials began for the two fighters by the US Navy, they realized that visibility was so bad in the Corsair, that test pilot's could not see the carrier deck upon approach. Air cooled radial engines had reliability, and were very robust, but visibility suffered, same with an upright V12, the long heads and exhaust manifolds prevented proper visibility at high angles of attack. As for why it was used in other multyengine designs, I'm sure it was due to available engines that fit a given criteria. Aircraft designers design airframes, not engine's, so they grab one off the shelf of available engines at the time.
As an FAA-licensed A&P Mechanic, I can tell you that inverted engines have less wear because upon start up, the cylinders have better lubrication. This is because gravity causes oil to settle in the cylinder walls. The primary benefits are visibility, maintenance access and less engine wear.
I can see that. because there is oil that settles around the piston rings. so there's less friction when starting. Great point
Too bad about those main and con rod bearings.
David Gold great point but in theory the ground crew could turn the propeller by hand as it is usually done on big radial engines in order to scavenge oil around especially on the lower heads but I never seen it done on the Merlin / Packard engines, why?
@@paoloviti6156 On radial engines, it's possible to get a hydraulic lock if the bottom cylinder is on compression. The Packard/RR are upright and therefore the oil drains away from the pistons.
Did you have to clear oil accumulating in the cylinders prior to starting to avoid "hydraulicking".
This is probably the ONLY pro-maintenance as opposed to anti-maintenance decision on German equipment during all of WW2.
😁
I enjoy the absence of bias and bravado which seems rare, just well resourced facts, very well presented with a clear voice and smooth accent! Thank you Greg!
I know. Can you believe our news used to be presented the same way?
Jerry Banks News never had been unbiased in history ever. Stop talking such nonsense.
@@Leon_der_Luftige How old are you?
@@JerryBanks572 Today we got more information and more opportunities to be unbiased than ever but the news choose to be biased still.
Back in the day before the internet things were misinterpreted so often...Or just as today, it's always the "us against them" scenario. How much more biased can you get? It's always been like that.
@@JerryBanks572 I hate to break it to you mate but news was always biased.
I am studying to be a war historian and I'm quite "the nerd" when it comes to the technology of WW2. I had never once considered why the most of the V-type piston powered aircraft have an inverted engine. This was very fascinating and very enlightening for me! Thank you sir! As a war historian I love your channel! Keep up with your great work!
You must remember that only the Germans adopted the inverted V-12 engines unless it was produced under license in other countries including Sweden and Japan. The allies only produced upright V-12 engines aside the radial engines produced on both sides.
I believe this analysis is 100% spot on. Logistics is one of those things people just don't take into consideration most of the time when discussing these topics. fantastic.
Thanks Central.
Yes. Cost and standardization is also a thing often forgotten. Bf 109 won over the He112 because it cost half of what the Heinkel cost, even if it was slightly lower performing. Standardization allowed also to use different engines easily on some airframes. Ju88/188 could use Jumo211 or BMW801 with ease. In general though it was one of the biggest failings of the German industry to not be standardized enough.
a higher number of units are Often better than a few slightly better ones
as the case with German tigers/Panthers vs Sherman/T34s
@@JoelLinus wat
Amatuers study tactics
Professionals study logistics
While discussing the merits of the German inverted V-12s, I think I am one of MANY folks that did NOT expect you to tie that into the engines in...tanks! These are the kinds of things that make your channel so darned interesting! When I see an M1 (and I am around them nearly every day!), I still scratch my head and wonder how someone married a helicopter engine up to a tank. Someone did and it clearly works. Again, things like this are very interesting and thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Greg, without overuse of superlatives, your videos are sheer magic!
Thank's John, I am glad you like them.
Magic to us, John, but I think he still makes them the old fashioned way. A lot of hard work and research.
@@bigblue6917 you're-absolutely right!
His use of superlatives is appropriate considering he is dealing with data that could be debunked or argued against. Superlatives are a product of our adversarial times.
Another side benefit of the inverted v12 was a slight decrease in noise experienced by the pilot- the exhaust stacks were much lower.
İs sound going really lower or just a little effect
@@semihegeakdogan4964 It CAN be noticed,but i would not call it an important thing..you won´t hear much outside the cockpit either way :D
Surely every little helps. Remember, I don't think the Germans were using turbos, which means losing their muffling effect.
Many early aircraft in WW1 up to the beginning of WW2 had inverted engines. This allowed the direct propeller drive of the engine to be higher in the airframe helping with propeller/ground clearance. This may have influenced the later German designs.
And possibly also keeping the thrust line in the right place.
I bet you're right. It allowed a larger diameter prop with shorter landing gear.
See what DeHavilland did when they went from the Gipsy Moth to the Moth Major. That was the exact reason why.
Yep, but once you go geared you have the opposite problem. The prop shaft of the 109 is lower.
I think your right. A tradition of inverted aero engines made them comfortable with the inverted layout even when the primary reason for it went away with reduction geared outputs.
It's kind of funny that I came for a lesson on inverted engines and got one of the best arguments in support of the Sherman tank. Your channel has the right mix of technical and story telling to keep it very interesting.
The origin of the PT-109’s motor is in here, too! 8:20
Unless you actually were IN a Sherman when it got blasted and incinerated everyone in it of course!
The only arguments in support of the Sherman tank are in it's cost and production capability. Otherwise it was a poor machine, badly designed and incapable of taking on it's opposition. The soldiers left to fight in it were abandoned to economics, left to burn, because it was more cost effective to allow them to die rather than to build a better tank. Dead soldiers provide only tiny pensions for widows, much cheaper than a production run on a really good tank.
@@tag491a And yet none of that is true.
@@jaykilbourne1110 Substantiate your statement.
Once again i am glad to see quality content from you. Thank you
“A heavy tank like a tiger 1 can be very effective on the battlefield. But what if you can’t get it to the battlefield... then you have no tank which is not good”
Subbing for that dry, witty comment alone. Great content, speech, pace, information, and presentation. Keep up the good work Greg!
An underrated channel indeed! Awesome content keep it up!
But loved and appreciated by those that know it.
@@bigblue6917 100% AGREE; WITH BOTH OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find it amazing he doesn't have 100's of thousands of subs , honestly!
I believe another reason for having inverted v-12 engines, is because, even when the engines haven’t been working for a while, the cylinders and pistons, don’t dry out of oil, gravity contribute to have them lubricated
Greg, you asked why Germans used the inverted V12.
I suspect or has to do with having enough space for the 2 machineguns above the engine.
This kind off engine has the advantage off flying inverted with having no fuel problems because off its pumping system wich RollsRoyce Merlin did found out.
I really love how you are very clear about what is a sourced fact and what is your educated conclusion on things. It's so refreshing for this site.
Greg, Always a pleasure. Everything I've read, where they do add input by Db Engineers and the "Blackshirts" is serviceability and ease of maintenance for the Db's, plus the small valve train pieces were the main culprit for engine failure, invert the "V" add small magnets in critical areas, supposed longer life. Again great vids and info
I have always wondered about the 'why' of the inverted V12 in aircraft.. Your video answered that beautifully !! Thank you for work on this subject.
I can't believe how interesting Greg's videos are! I'm quite addicted to this channel now, Tthanks for your work Greg.
I've never been one to comment on audio but good god is this mans audio on point. It just sounds so much better then other channels
A simple food for thought comment. Mercedes Benz 300 gull wing had direct cylinder injection and had problems with cylinder ring washing with fuel on no start conditions damaging. Rings and bore,inverting would allow it to simply go out the exhaust doing no damage to cylinders and bores due to no lubrication from washing with fuel
Or cause hydrolock and damagethe whole engine
The MB 300 gull wing used a straight-six engine...
@@spitefulwar an upright one so that's why he said that 300 had issues with ring washing, inverted engine avoids that problem. How many cylinders does not matter, their orientation does
@@mmdirtyworkz It was a straight six but not very upright one at all. The ring washing problem was the fault of the groundbreaking direct fuel injection system, so trying to fix a fuel supply problem by turning the engine upside down is just ridiculous. The engine had seen service earlier in a 4 door Mercedes with carburetors without any problems.
@Max Pain Also, keeping the hot exhaust gas low and away from the tail helped with rudder efficiency because it made sure the rudder was as much as possible flowing in dense, cold air.
I think it's worth considering the number of inverted engines that were produced for aircraft use. The costs savings in maintenance might have been huge for their fleet size.
Greg, I'm really glad your channel is starting to get the recognition it deserves. Great stuff as always.
I love the fact that you often go off-track in your videos! That way, we can learn other fascinating facets of technology, that we otherwise would never have encountered. Thanks for this immense work!
I initially thought that lower centre of gravity might be the inspiration behind this design. But ease of maintenance and better visibility add up to three out of three advantages over a standard upright V design. You managed to answer your own question and very elegantly too I might say. Thanks for that.
I just love your channel Greg i could listen to your warm agreeable voice all day long talking about any subject, But your prowess in aviation and automobile engineering are as clear as day. Combined with your thoroughly researched material, clarity of thought, unbiased analysis and rationale. Thank you once again Greg totally superb !!!
in my opinion the best video-source about airplane design and related topics.
Absolutely
Sorry, but I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of a throughly sensible, informative and enjoyable UA-cam clip. Very well done indeed.
Terrific video...love the info. I look forward to your videos with glee. Thanks for the hard work and research. Cheers,
Carl, I appreciate your support.
I took aircraft maintenance in college and we touched lightly on this
Your video is very informative
One thing my teacher said is by inverting the v12 the crankshaft is now on the top of the engine higher up from the ground
Effectively allowing a larger prop
U have more thrust per rotation of the propeller at a potentially slower speed of the engine allowing for greater fuel economy
And if needed I can throttle up and due to the larger prop have a “in theory” a better climb rate and more acceleration
All on paper at least
Great video
Excellent! So much information but also with interesting sidetracks! Great job!
When you look at a 109 it makes sense.
Bill Cotton really, the spanish Casa made Buchon seems to be wrong with the merlin, even the very first 109 prototype used RR engine..
Nice to hear an analysis that includes logistical support. Well done.
Great video Greg , I guess another advantage of the inverted V, (in the case of the 109 and 190d at least ) would be having room for armament centrally located in the nose..Incidentally my father was a mechanic during the war and worked on the DB 605 , BMW 801 , the Argus AS 10 as well as the Maybach V12.s used in tanks and halftracks.
I was thinking "improved visibility" when I clicked on this and right away, you state that is your highest contender amongst reasons. Now I feel all smart (at least for a while until my next duh moment).
It's hard to argue against the logic you have used for the reasons for inversion, in this excellent summary
The audio quality in your video is exceptional!
really underrated channel. ...deserve more subscribers
I really enjoyed this program and learned things I never knew before. Thank you for the well presented account.
Another great topic and video! Kept my attention the whole time, partly from all the great photographs matching all the topics. Love your work, keep it up! :)
I agree 100% with Greg’s analysis. I really like this channel and his great speaking voice is perfectly suited for videos. Excellent topics, well researched, produced and presented. I’m a fan. Thank you
great doco, another use of non inverted V-12s was in Air-Sea Rescue boats, the RAAF rescue boats used right up until 1986 had twin Hall Scott Defender V-12s
Yip, that makes me think of the river boats in Vietnam. I road in a few of those manning a 50 cal & in my youth then I didn't pay much attention to what powered them, but they did haul ass!
I enjoy airplane history. I am also an audio buff. Your voice and tone and sound dynamics, articulation and clarity are beyond amazing!
Great Video Greg, thank you.One other possible reason for the inverted V engine being so desirable in fighter aircraft (The BF109 being the best example) is the fact that you can configure the installation to have a cannon or heavy machine gun firing through the impeller spinner... theoretically the best place for such a weapon to be mounted since the recoil is almost perfectly aligned with the center of gravity of the aircraft, the cannon's recoil can be absorbed by the relatively strong and heavy engine, and no interrupter mechanism is required to prevent the cannon from destroying the propeller. Also, it is somewhat easier to mount additional heavy machine guns in the top of the cowling (in my opinion the rifle caliber machine guns that the Japanese mounted in the cowling of their fighter aircraft were not very effective against fast, heavily armored aircraft like late war US fighters. The Germans, in contrast, used heavy machine guns).This gave the BF 109 pilot easy to aim, parallel and concentrated 30mm and two 13mm (approx. .51 caliber) firing right under their gun sight. This is similar to the advantage that the P38 had with its concentrated and parallel firing four 50's and 20mm firing through it's nose. My two cents. Time to get back to work now ; )
Interestingly, the French Hispano 12Y upright engine allowed an engine mounted cannon between the cylinder blocks - on the Bf 109 the cannon breech was behind the engine, under the cockpit, between the pilot's legs.
@@johnusher1921 This engine was also the basis for the Soviet engines used in the Yak-1, 3 and 9. All those aircraft also featured guns firing through the spinner, typically a 20mm ShVAK cannon. Some versions of the Yak-9 were even upgunned to 37mm or 45mm weapons, still somehow managing to fire through the spinner.
Thank you for another excellent and informative video. I really appreciate the time and care you obviously take in creating these gems.
An excellent video! I just asked an aftermarket supplier for parts to a popular Detroit V-8 what it would take to run the engine upside down - beyond having a dry sump, he mentioned oil pickups in both valve covers and in the crankcase breather cavity.
But it's possible, and would make maintenance on a plane I'm Imagineering easier, as well as lowering the CG...
A Detroit powered plane would be something to hear lol
Enjoyed your post very much. Back in the 60's I flew the rare Waco ENF with an inverted Martin engine. When I asked I was told inversion was for prop clearance. Your clip gave me a much better understanding of the issue, thanks
Not being familiar with the Martin engine, it may have been for prop clearance. The common reason for inverting engines which were direct drive was clearance. After they started using reduction gears between the crankshaft and the prop that reason went away.
Fascinating. Many thanks for posting this.
According to a teacher that I had in Airplane Mechanic School in 1973 and 74, Merc Motter said that the reason for the crankshaft being on top in German aircraft was That they didn't have the quality on materials for bearings available to them as we did so they had to be able to change bearings much more frequently then we did hence the reason for the crankshaft on top to allow for quick easy bearing changes.
The distributer / Mag. and valves need the most "love" . Germans invented steel.
Two informative videos in one day! A wonderful late birthday gift.
The better view over the nose with the Inverted-V is very apparent and advantageous to those who can fight well. Indeed in IL2 the view over the nose between the 109s and the Spitfires is telling and very handy for aces like IL2 pilots like Arianne Scharfi, who can use it to help pull great deflection shots.
But the other factors in maintanance are new to me and logical. Despite the downsides of dealing with the increased possibility of hydraulic lock from pooling fluids.
Informative stuff as always. Great work.
The 109 had exceptional focused firepower with it's engine block mounted cannon that fired through the gear reduction hub and nose cone. As well as the two MG 131s firing forward of the cockpit and along each side of the crankcase. Also keeps the weight of the guns and ammunition in the fuselage and not way out in the wings.
Always but always fascinating discovery and analysis. Deeper understanding and appreciation of the machinery. Love it.
I absolutely love flying my K4 on DCS world, i didnt realize what a special plane that was until i found your channel. My small flying group has been binge watching you haha. Cheers!
Thanks Ryan.
Another great video from you! You are a real "talking encyclopedia ". Thx for upload Greg ;D
I'm fast approaching the truth (fact ?) that the best four words in the English language are "Greetings this is Greg". Thanks again for going beyond the "keyhole analysis" that others provide, to make connections to distant areas and show a bigger picture and how seemingly unrelated things are connected. Reading comments from others, clearly I'm not the only one thinking this way. So glad I Subscribed !
Another excellent video. I would be very interested in a similar comparative discussion of sleeve vs poppet valve aviation engines, , especially inclusive of the Napier Sabre and Bristol Centaurus on the sleeve valve side. Happy to support you via Patreon and encourage others to as well.
I do want to cover the sleeve valve engines. I think those might have proven to be the way forward had the turbine engine not showed up on the scene. The potential of that design is massive.
Mmm8
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
I think that with an aircraft engine in wartime another factor to consider is manufacturing hours. How any manhours to build a RR Griffon vs a Sabre. With the sleeve valve you effectively doubling or triping your manufacturing time per cylinder with all of the machining operations required
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesSleeve valve engines suffer badly from cold starting 'stickiness' of the sleeve assembly and the gear train comes under enormous loads if the engine hasn't been run for a while. Modern lubricants might solve this, but the complication of design and manufacture has always favoured the simplicity of poppet valves in a separate head assembly. See old BMW flat twin engines from the '70's !
@@jimlambert1398 I think the sleeve valve only really pays off in multi-row radials where it isn't practical to fit more than 2 poppet valves per cylinder.
I had this conversation stood next to a Bf 109 G-2 at RAF Cosford, talking with the engineers that maintain the aircraft. There was no definitive answer they knew of either, but floated most of the thoughts and ideas seen in the comments here. Nice to see you had some pics of Commonwealth troops making those bridges by the way - love form England!!
It made sense for the allied engine manufacturers to produce upright V12s as that was what they had already and they would be easier to adapt to other uses as you said. When developing their aircraft the Germans were working from a clean slate and aircraft engines were designed specifically for aircraft so those advantages (vis and maint) were worth it.
Thanks Barton, always nice to see you here.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Always good to be here. Love your videos. Always very good information.
The Allison brothers got their start racing cars and refurbishing and modifying Liberty V12's for racing. They moved to Indianapolis to be close to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In 1929 the USAAC wanted a aircraft engine capable of operating at high altitude and making 1,000hp. Allison brothers used their experience building racing V12's and produced the Allison's V-1710. The Great Depression slowed development down but in April 1937 Allisons V1710 C-6 completed testing and was rated at 1,000hp at the required altitude.
I have read that Allisons was able to obtain a contract that any USAAC aircraft built with a V12 had to use a Allison V12. The only exception was the P-51. The Merlin engined P-51 gave such a boost in performance, especially at altitude, that it could not be ignored and was immediately ordered into production.
You cant compare a Tiger to a Sherman. two different tanks designed for to very different roles.
The Tiger developed from the 1938 Durchbruchswagen, basically a break through tank. It was designed to be deployed, punch a hole in the lines, be pulled back and serviced and readied for next assault. In that role it was very effective. When Germany started losing break through tank turned into "Fire Brigade" tank unit that was rushed from spot to spot along the front to counter attack a enemy breakthrough. The problem was while Tiger unit was plugging this hole in the line the Soviets were breaking through at two or more other places along the line.
The Tiger was also very good in its defensive role. But when your constantly outnumbered ( 1,347 Tiger I's versus 60,000 T-34's and 55,000 Shermans), constantly forced to withdraw so you dont get your maintenance time attrition constantly wears those numbers down. Add to this a German logistics system obsessed with producing more tanks and no spare parts then you see the readiness numbers constantly go down as tanks were cannibalized of parts to keep other tanks running.
Panther is a whole different bag of apples.
Excellent, concise, educational and a pleasure to listen to as usual !. Many thanks from the UK.
BINGGgggg!!! CORRECT!
A document was found in RLM archives that simply said pilot view was reason for inverted V preference. IIRC it was dated 1936, about time when first inverted DB601 was put on Bf 109 and He 112. Before it was upright BMW IV series used on nearly all German aircraft. I wish I could link to you the actual document, but someone translated it and posted on forum (I think it was Key Publishing forums). The Bf 108 did use Argus, maybe that inspired desire for similar when making 109? Also, look at the He 51. It had BMW IV with downward pipes to get exhaust away from pilot, I am sure that was a supporting argument for inverted.
There is some significant challenges in the oil system, both in scavenging and oil consumption (think Radial engine), but advantages as you point out are worth it.
Your intro was a bit short, as there were plenty of inverted in-line engines, such as the Ranger (US), Gypsy (UK), and other Argus engines, and few others.
There is more, but want to keep this short. Good video!
Also don’t forget the Canon in the middle of the engine. And twoMachine Guns On top of the engine created a buzz saw effect.
@@eugenechurch6135 Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, Yak-1, Yak-3 and Yak-9 had cannons firing trouh propeller hub with upright v-engines.
Excellent video and plausible reasoning. Thank you. I was left wondering which was first, inverted V engines and then specifications requiring them or vice versa.
You did a great presentation!!
Please keep it goin!!!
From a factory trained Waukesha VHP mechanic!!!
Love me some V12
As usual an interesting and informative presentation. I was also fascinated by the report on Landstuhl/Ramstein. My father was stationed at Ramstein when I was in grade school in the 60s. We had more than one family outing hiking to the Landstuhl castle. As I recall it was mostly just a ruin in those days. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
Thanks for the excellent videos Greg! Regarding the use of inverted DB60X series engines on Me 110, 210, 310 & 410 - Once the inverted V-12 installation for an aircraft is developed (Me109), it is much easier from design, manufacturing and logistics point of view (as you pointed out in your video) to “copy” or adapt similar installations into multiengine aircraft, where the improved forward visibility is not affected by the engine(s) installation, especially when they use engines from the same family.
This is an excellent channel. Greg is really a bright guy who knows his stuff. Excellent, excellent channel.
A few house further where I live there is an engine restoration company and there is a DB-605 engine, from a crashed BF109, sitting ready for restauration. I have to say it is an impressive engine
Fascinating. Another great video. My comment on the inverted V-12. The inverted engine follows the "egg" shape of the fuselage cross section as viewed from the front, wide side on bottom, possibly improving aerodynamics
Specifically the bf-109 I saw other videos and believe that the German obsession with having the cannon centered in the prop has a lot to do with engine orientation in that particular aircraft. As for the ju-88, that application could have to do with engine availabilities and power output. If it performs great in fighters, 🤷 throw 4 on a bomber. Great work, great video, subscribing now👍
I was thinking along that same line.
Hi Greg, as usual, outstanding presentation - as an engineer and former Navy pilot, I learned lot. Thank you for your very informative collection of vintage aircraft/car presentations, Cioa, L (Veteran)
At the Messerschmitt foundation in Germany they told me that the main reason was the weight distribution down to the longitudinal axis reducing adverse jaw and faster roll rate. The heavy gun and accessories are all underneath the crankshaft.
Centralising rotating & static mass along the thrust line axis will certainly take some wobble out your roll.
Thank you for an outstanding piece of work; obviously a labor of love. An additional subtopic might be the influence of fuel injection versus carburetion on the choice of inversion. Finally, a nice side note might address the two approaches to constructing an aircraft engine around a hollow tube, specifically Mercedes versus BMW and the Bf 109 nose cone gun.
As promised!! :D
Thank you Greg!!
You're welcome!
Your channel is underrated in way to see it. As an engineer your content your content is gold, man. As a veteran, but still active in the Swedish National Guard, but now working in the civilian life with mostly mechanical designs your info is very useful in many applications for me. Thanks.
You shouldn't compare the Sherman with Tiger I or the Panther but with the Panzer IV and Stug III or IV tank with was more likely to be the Sherman's adversary. Why? They where more numerous and in the end of the ww2 the Germans couldn't afford to build so many tanks and it was cheaper for the Nazi regime to go for panzer jaeger or tank destroyers instead.
The chieftain makes this exact same point about tanks.
That's good to hear. I know who that is! I'll have to watch his videos.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles When you were describing the logistics issues that effected the Sherman's design, I thought you HAD watched his video. You hit all the same points.
@@Mishn0 -- That might be, but Germans took into account bridges limits, that is why originally their tanks weight only 18 tons, then 24, and every time weight limit increased the number of places where Panzers can go decreased, so they were aware of bridge and logistic limitations...
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
The Ford GA series of V-8s and 12s originate from the Ford V-1650 designed from the start for aircraft use.
@@RussianThunderrr the Germans built most of their tanks for Ford rivers, but they didn't have to worry about transport besides train width. The US had to fit their tanks on ships and amphibious landing craft
BF109 is imho the best looking prop driven fighter of all time. Another great video, thanks very much.
This is great to watch and very informative even for someone with only basic knowledge of airplanes and engines
EngineNerd451 p
EngineNerd451 mouse
Reg Spitalls, the Northampton tank commander, said the only way to kill a tiger tank was to get round the back of it and bust either a track or the gas tank. He survived the war!
Another great video. Your conclusions make a lot of sense to me. Thank you and please keep it up.
It may as well have helped with noise levels in the cockpit. Short pipes on 1000 + horsepower engine must have meant almost unbearable noise levels causing deafness in pilots
That certainly makes sense. Noise gets very fatiguing.
Really nice point, actually that reminds me that at least two pilots who have flown Buchon (Upright Merlin) and original Bf 109 G (Inverted DB605), complain the noise is considerably louder and much worser in Buchon due to packaging of the engine configuration, as well as the engine exhausts being higher and closer to the pilot.
As usual, very interesting and informative.
This man is a wealth of information with a very professional presentation!
I've also read that a reason they went with the inverted engines, is because the civilian engines which were available at that time (Argus, if i remember correctly) were a good starting point for developing military grade engines. And those civilian engines happened to be inverted. Although i dont have any proper sources to back up such claim.
Thank you for proposing logical explanations to a question that I have been wondering about for a long time.
Great video as usual. Germany already had the Maybach gas V12 for tanks, so I don't believe that they were concerned with cross use (although the Nazi's optimization of their industrial base was not particularly efficient, especially given their otherwise authoritarian state).
As far as naval usage, the E-Boat was much bigger than a PT and in no way an Apples-to-Apples comparison. I think the E-Boats actually used sub engines.
I read an article,from years ago,that what became the E boat design was based around a particular marine diesel engine. It was not until about 1925 that fuel injection could be made small enough for automotive use. Thus a compact marine diesel was relatively new. FWIW,the single greatest design item that separated the E boat from the British MGB family was the use of two outboard rudders that were cocked at a slight angle. These applied drag at the point of greatest leverage,thus holding the bow down. Quite unlike anyone else's hull.
At any rate, the E boat was an outstanding design,one carefully thought through for some years before the war. Little details add up,and in a mad rush to accomplish years in months,no one else got all the bits quite as right as that particular design.
@@paulmanson253 Thanks for that Paul some really interesting information there. I know that in WW2 the E-Boat was such a threat that the British had radar stations searching for them and if spotted the RAF sent out Spitfires to hunt them down. Problem was they could only operate in the daytime.
Being and authoritarian state was not the advantage you may think, Paul. For one thing the Germans military decided in the spring of 1943 that all defence research which would not be completed withing 12 months would be stopped. This meant that research such as that into surface to air missiles stopped. Something which would have made a great deal of difference to the USAAF bombing raids in 1944/45. The simplest missile looked like a smaller version of the Me163, wire guided and with a 1000 lb warhead. Imagine that going off in the middle of 12 B17s. And it could have been transported on a tracked vehicle.
And the best part. All those scientists, engineers, et cetera were sent by the German Army to fight on the Eastern Front.
@@bigblue6917 Whoops. Never said that. The article I read mentioned one small group of people put the bits together,and much of that was former Kaiser Kreigsmarine people held together,experienced trained, professional, etc.
There were two small sets of precursor builds before the standardization of the classic E boat design. They worked out the bugs by way of actual operation,and that took time,years in fact.
The Royal Navy very visibly dropped the ball over many years,submarine design being bizarre at times,read about the lunacy of steam powered submarines intend
That is what I meant. The bravery of both sides in the small craft war in the Channel was exemplary,with high casualties of a small group of personnel that in the war years took a high toll on very brave men.
intended to be fast enough for Fleet common operations. Oops bad editing.
Also the development of effective small craft design was neglected,with the Germans having the better designs plural.
I do not know how to fix an accidental keystroke that separated the text. Meaning should come through.
E-boats used a displacement designed hull. Whereas the Brits and US used a planing hull. Quite a bit different. The reference to the rudders; you are talking about the Lurssen ''effect.'' They didn't cause drag, pls read the link, a very smart idea! ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/L%C3%BCrssen_Effect.html.
As for the German E-boats, they were powered by the first high speed diesels, 3x MB501 V20 2000hp each. @@paulmanson253
Thanks so much for this and other videos! As a WWII aviation buff, I thought I knew a lot about the subject, but I have learned a ton from your videos. Thanks, again!
Always interesting subject matter. I would have guessed that an inverted V would give a bit more room for MG's and Ammo. I think Packard built an "X" engine at one time.
Interesting thought. Possibly more like taking an advantage of the design.
I was thinking the same thing. The Germans mounted two MG and a 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub in the nose. American designs usally had the armement in the wings
Rolls Royce did as well.. the Vulture was one. Didn't work out.
Looking forward to having a read of Taylor's "Aircraft Propulsion", good stuff!
Good one!, I like to hear about ww2 many and varied developments.
great work greg .u know what i love about your channel accurate info
always glad to see il-2 pictures and references. I love flying in that game.
Well done channel and really appreciate the appropriate references. Very well done.
sir, i had killed my hobby of reading on ww2 and 1 military history and industrial history. you have given it a new lease of life.
Top notch content. Thanks Greg.
I was waiting for you to mention the Chrysler 5 bank, installed in the Sherman tank...ugly, heavy, and interesting.
Thanks for the video, I think you're spot on.
A case of what can we do with what we have on hand. Dual GMC 2 stroke inline 6 diesels were also used
@@mpetersen6 Exactly right. The 5 bak always comes to mind when I hear about the Sherman because it's the most unusual, though the dual bus engine is a very close second in that regard. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that. Great comment, BTW.
Lower Center of Gravity point for the inverted V-12 is absolutely correct, as is static stability. The Spitfire owing to the higher CG was probably more statically unstable, but that might have contributed to a higher roll rate. German WW2 fighters not being known for their high roll rate. But they were very stable gun platforms, conversely. Great topic, Greg!
The FW190 was definitely known for it's high roll rate :-)
@@notsureyou Not compared to the P51 Mustang or the P47 Thunderbolt.
@@pimpompoom93726 At speeds above 325 knots indicated you are correct
At speeds below 325 knots indicated I am correct.
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
Once you have designed and manufactured the inverted vee, why change if you don't need to? Likewise the other way up.
Greg, you do the best ww2 aircraft videos in the web.
Thank you so much!!
Клац-клац от Торнайда пришёл посмотреть на ваши труды!
Thanks for your very interesting and in depth presentations Greg.Cheers from Australia.
Can't get enough of it! Great job! Very informative.
Great video ..My Grandfather was a Stuka pilot during the war... That had to have been thrilling to say the least..
You sort of indicate it yourself, but it's a fact that the RLM requirement that led to the Bf 109 having the gear under the fuselage was related to train transportability for repairs. (07:03)
As much development as the 109 received throughout WW II, it's somewhat surprising that they never seemed to bother with even a prototype with the landing gear under the wings.
@@chuckschillingvideos They did, several, look it up, and the landing gear wasnt that much of an issue, the Finns operated the type without issues, bag LW basic training and macho attitude created the problem, it wasnt fixed until LW pilots started dying in droves in the F-104.
@@chuckschillingvideos why they had FW190 ;)
@@chuckschillingvideos Wings too thin, would have been a complete reconstruction, not an evolution. Thus not feasible.
Well you pretty much hit that spot on. Air racing set the standard for a sleek, liquid cooled, inline v12. Inverting the engine gave the ability for better visibility during landing and takeoff. A good example is the radial double wasp engine used in both the Grummand Hellcat, and the Corsair. The Hellcat had the pilot seated very high up in the airframe, while the Corsair had a long nose, and standard seating arrangement. Soon once sea trials began for the two fighters by the US Navy, they realized that visibility was so bad in the Corsair, that test pilot's could not see the carrier deck upon approach. Air cooled radial engines had reliability, and were very robust, but visibility suffered, same with an upright V12, the long heads and exhaust manifolds prevented proper visibility at high angles of attack. As for why it was used in other multyengine designs, I'm sure it was due to available engines that fit a given criteria. Aircraft designers design airframes, not engine's, so they grab one off the shelf of available engines at the time.
Tank vs tank combat was only 17% of the shermans job .it was outclassed by the bigger tanks at 17% of its job . It was excellent at the other 83%