Pratt and Whitney R-2800 - America's Indestructible WWII Aircraft Engine

Corrections to this video:
- Chrysler, not Chevrolet coined the term “Hemi”
- The final shot of a Lockheed Constellation is not using Double Wasps but rather the R-3350 Duplex Cyclone.
Enjoy this video? Leave us a tip at: / flightdojo
The Pratt and Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp was a WWII aircraft engine that left a lasting impression on the aviators privileged enough to operate one. While not the greatest at any one particular thing, the Double Wasp could do everything well. Most importantly, though, it was known for being able to sustain incredible battle damage and get its pilot home safely. This is the story of the development and application of the Double Wasp, an engine that deserves to be remembered.
Music Featured in this Video:
Screen Saver by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: filmmusic.io/standard-license
Rising Tide by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
Half Mystery by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
Sincerely by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
Inspired by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
#WWIIHistory #AviationHistory

[@dickpilz1432]

I believe it was Chrysler, not Chevrolet that used the Hemi (tm) name, stemming from their work with the XIV-2220 inverted vee 16 cylinder engine in WWII. That said, how about some discussion of the most produced engine of WWII, the P&W R-1830, powering the B-24, C-47, PBY, and some models of the F4F.

[@flightdojo]

You're absolutely right. I totally mispoke there.

[@2davydo]

What about the R 4360 corn Cobb engine?

[@flightdojo]

@Jason Phelan I guess we'll never know...

[@silentotto5099]

@Jason Phelan Hmmm.... Now that you mention it, messing a detail like that is a good way to generate comments. That would be very devious. :)

[@Archlegan]

Hemispherical combustion chambers were designed and brought to production by Dodge/Chrysler, however after this obviously beneficial design was seen by other companies, almost everyone were also making "Hemi" engines, since the term Hemi simply refers to the engine having a hemispherical shaped combustion chamber instead of the older flat, wedge, or bathtub designs since it provided [IIRC] more "room" for intake and exhaust gases to move in and out through poppet valves efficiently, while the position of the spark plug in the hemispherical combustion chamber provided more efficient combustion that was less prone to knock and also effectively changes the compression ratio, as well as the total cubic inches. Feel free to correct me, but this is what I learned in tech college though my memory isn't perfect. The engine in this video is also of Hemi design, you can see the half-circle combustion chamber shape in the cutaway at the beginning

[@rayschoch5882]

My Dad's F6F took a Japanese 40mm flak hit to its P&W R-2800 in October, 1944. Instead of going down in flames, it ran "rough but cool" while bringing him 250 miles back to the carrier for a safe landing.

[@burtvhulberthyhbn7583]

My dad's favorite engine to work on. He was USN in WW2

[@benoitlaferriere5420]

DEPENDABLE ENGINES

[@steveb6103]

The same thing happened to my dad in 1943 over Truk. Three cylinders blown off and made it back.

[@Nurhaal]

All of you in this thread have amazing heroes for Dads. Much respect. The WASP R2800 was the best of the old adage "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". It got many of our heroes home, and that's what mattered.

[@ianando9459]

Holy crap. You Yanks engineers sure built a helluva engine. Talk about redundancy . Only way to bring the plane down was to kill the pilot . American quality engineering at its best . From one of your many mates in Australia

[@KONY2025]

My great grandfather was Frederick Rentschler. Thank you for posting this video

[@jennyjugs13]

He's a legend! Cheers!

[@flaircraft]

My grandfather was a WWII fighter pilot. He flew P47s based in New Guinea. One of the stories he liked to tell was about one of his dogfights - he had a head-on duel with a Japanese fighter, and got hit. He was fine but the engine in his P47 started making the most horrible, loudest noise and vibrating like mad, and spitting oil all over the place. He immediately headed for home and was miraculously able to make it all the way back and land safely. All the way to his airfield the engine was threatening to vibrate the airplane to pieces and destroy his hearing. He got out of the plane and looked to see what had happened... one of the engine's cylinders had been completely shot off! The piston and rod were still there and operational however! The piston had been banging the 5h!t out of the neighboring cylinders since it was no longer contained by its own cylinder. The mechanics at the airfield had to scrap the whole engine because the exposed piston flopping around had done so much damage to the rest of the engine. Those engines were almost as tough as the men that operated them...

[@ryanandangelamccullough5671]

Amazing story. My grandfather was in the navy on the USS Ward which ferried many soldiers from New Guinea. They were hit by a Japanese bomber that had made a kamikaze dive into them after being shot down by a p47 in the battle of Ormoc Bay.

[@ohger1]

Amazing that it didn't puke all its oil and seize!

[@rockkitty100]

That engine brought my uncle home in '45 in his P-47 after taking a 20mm round through the damn engine and he still made it home. It was a work horse.

[@dantreadwell7421]

Yea, the 'Jug' was a tank.

[@paultiffanyrutherford5898]

Your Uncle Rocks!

[@paultiffanyrutherford5898]

P47 is and was the real badass fighter of ww2

[@paultiffanyrutherford5898]

Rockkitty100you know your stuff,peace from Dallas!

[@jacktattis]

@@paultiffanyrutherford5898 Could not climb, turn, dive or get very high other than that it was fine

[@Dave-jd9qn]

Dad flew The Hump in C-46s. One night in January 1945 they got caught in a typhoon and severe icing. He pushed the throttles into War Emergency Power which was to be used only as a last resort. He made it back to Chabua in Assam and told the engineering office the engines were a write-off. The next he heard was the R-2800s were fine and returned to service.

[@castinn]

Dad once told me about taking a 20mm round up through the bottom of his Double Wasp powered A-26 over North Korea. The round passed through sides of several cylinders and pistons before exiting out the top and taking a whole cylinder head with it. They felt the shudder and immediately studied the gauges, which had opposed needles to make it easy to spot differences. There was no change in RPM, oil pressure or temp. So they decided to shut down and restart each engine to see if they had to return to base or continue on. Both engines restarted without issue, so they finished the mission. No one on the ground could believe they had shut down and restarted the engine.

[@singleproppilot]

That makes sense, because they used constant speed propellers. Engine RPM is dictated by the propeller governor. It will compensate for a reduction in power output by reducing the pitch of the propeller blades to maintain the same RPM.

[@howardrickert2558]

@@singleproppilot I don’t want to be rude, but your not even close.

[@howardrickert2558]

I would not have done that, but then again, I’ve never been shot at while flying.

[@singleproppilot]

@@howardrickert2558 Oh, I guess I’ll just surrender my A&P and pilot’s certificates on your account… Or not.

[@howardrickert2558]

@@singleproppilot yes, please do.

[@monsieurcommissaire1628]

Looking back at the comments, there are quite a few of us with fathers, grandfathers, uncles, etc. who had experience with these engines in Korea and WWII. I'm finding that unexpectedly moving- it's difficult to put into words, but here we are, connected by this big, loud, round beast of an engine... God bless you all, and thank you for sharing your stories.

[@terrencemolinari]

My mother was a naval aviation mechanic during WWII. She regularly maintained these engines. After the war she recycled the overhaul manuals so as a child I thought that all 3 ring binders had "double wasp overhaul manual" on the cover.

[@haraldpettersen3649]

terrencemolinari - In other words, a tough lady, my friend.

[@Ruinskiy]

Здесь речь про вторую мировую . вов это отдельный этап когда в войну вступил СССР открыв второй фронт после Британии , а по словам СССР ,Адольф сам себе открыл второй фронт напав на СССР

[@kl0wnkiller912]

I still have one of those overhaul manuals... plus the original leather bound shop manuals for assembling the engine.

[@Cynsham]

Your mom sounds like one badass lady!!

[@jennyjugs13]

What a FIND!

[@stevenkeating225]

My father was a Flight Engineer with 6,000 hours on the Douglas DC-6. he had previously been engine fitter in the Royal Air Force, mainly in North Africa and Italy. He had vast experience with the R.R. and Packard Merlins, Alison V1710, Bristol Hercules and Centaurus, Wright Cyclones (1820 and 2600) even the P.W.4360 ( B.O.A.C. Stratocruisers). He swore by the 2800 best engine ever built.

[@davidedmundson8402]

True that. There are still about 50 airworthy R-2800 powered DC-6s, but no airworthy DC-7s, which used the Wright 3350.

[@stevenkeating225]

@@davidedmundson8402 I didn't realise it was that many. Dad also flew the DC-7c with the 3350 Turbocompound.

[@billyjanus]

@@davidedmundson8402 50 is a bit high. We have about 7 airworthy in Alaska, one in Hawaii, Red Bull in Austria, and maybe one or two others around the world

[@rubenomarbueno1134]

El P. W R - 2800 lo uso el C-123 " Provider " en la guerra de Vietnam.

[@dknowles60]

that is what the air lines said. they retired the dc7 and kept the dc6

[@t.r.campbell6585]

I have seen the inside of these engines. The engineering alone is a master piece of work. The machining alone is a master piece of work. What an amazing engine.

[@dallynsr]

You could say that again, you could say that again.

[@joefair3391]

Best part? Done with brains and slide rules. No CAD, no computers... Nothing like that.

[@newmoon54]

WHO WAS THE MASTER ENGINEER THAT CREATED YOUR HEART!?!? IT HOLDS THE POSITION OF ~~NUMBER-1 ~~ AS THE WORLDS BEST, AND MOST EFFICIENT PUMP EVER MADE~!~

[@Farweasel]

@@newmoon54 That would be my parents. And your parents, our parents etc.. Themselves the product of aeons of evolutionary selection.

[@deadcarnahans1932]

Hand polished rods! I picked a -43 B series off ebay. Have not tore into it yet. Building a decent stand to mount it on first.

[@abarratt8869]

One can't help but admire this engine. The very best engineering is that which has a real world impact. One cannot overstate the impact of the R2800. A truly great engine.

[@terencerucker3244]

The Pratt and Whitney company was founded in 1860 and built precision machinery. They didn't build aircraft engines until Rentschler approached them with his ideas. Just yesterday, I heard a couple of R-2800s going overhead attached to an A-26 being followed by a Learjet camera plane. Today, I see your video. Keep up the good work.

[@clintwilde1048]

The time line is what is amazing to me. A mere 35 or so years earlier, the Wright Brothers built their own engine, contracting with a local foundry to pour the aluminum block. In those 35 years, metallurgy, precision machining, fuel and oil chemistry expanded to allow the creation of some of the most powerful piston engines ever made, and made them works of art at the same time. Some folks say the computer followed a similar explosion in technology, but there is no comparison to that early 20th Century evolution, one not fettered by government controls or restraints.

[@xxxYYZxxx]

Not only are you correct, but today's computer tech has proven to be a dead end, unless NFT's and virtual real estate are considered things 😂.

[@Farweasel]

The magnitude of the leap from the Wright flyer to, say, a P 37 was astoundingly impressive. Not so sure I buy mar into the idea computer technology evolution's been ' fettered by government controls or restraints'? In what way do you have in mind?

[@babboon5764]

@@xxxYYZxxx And what do you suppose enables modern air traffic to operat as it does? What is the critical technology underpinning the ability of, say, an F16 Viper to fly whilst being so agile. Is that done with NFTs too?

[@xxxYYZxxx]

@@babboon5764 Air traffic control was around long before stuff like the iPhones and iPhone 2's and iPhone 3's etc. The reason things like NFTs exist is because there's virtually nothing new to sell. Everything "new" these days is just another proto-obsolescent, back-door infested android app, OS upgrade, or "environmentally compliant" electronic device.

[@xxxYYZxxx]

@@Farweasel I'd say it's not just "control and restraint" when every last new, ie "compliant" electronic device is basically just hackable spyware.

[@smithwesson7765]

It was truly a legendary power plant. The R-2800 could take unbelievable damage and bring the aircraft home. With a liquid cooled engine, a single round in the cooling system could cause it to fail very quickly.

[@LaneHadway127]

Do you mean water meth?

[@niteriderevo9179]

@@LaneHadway127 nope, meaning typical car engine style cooling where the block and head[s] have water jackets and a pump that cycles to a radiator.. break any part of that system, the water leaks out, rendering it unable to cool off properly.. thus dead engine after it cooks the oil or melts components

[@dennisyoung4631]

Water-cooled engines can overheat easily with a leaky cooling system. My last car had serious issues when the head gasket went leaky…

[@jacktattis]

How quickly and how many times did it happen ?Stop a Merlin the Plane will glide for 20+ miles Stop a P/W and the plane goes into a fatal nose dive

[@breckhollis1089]

Re the cooling fin design and manufacture. They designed the heads with very fine and deep fins that were in fact too fine to be cast. The solution was to machine the fins from a solid casting. This presented the production problem of machining out a whole lot grooves in each head. The solution was to create a new milling machine with the required number of milling saws controlled by cams (To give the proper depth to each cut.). The fins on each head could be machined out in one pass, making the mass production of heads poassible. Pretty brilliant.

[@MaxCruise73]

@Breck Hollis, fascinating information.

[@gapratt4955]

Let us not forget one of the more novel applications the PW 2800 found itself in. The Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave was powered by a pair of those monsters.

[@caseynaler6914]

I'm so glad someone said about that. My grandfather flew those back in the army

[@paulbourgeois5600]

Your name is Pratt... any relation to the PW family?

[@gapratt4955]

@@paulbourgeois5600 Very distant. Nowhere near close enough to be of any consequence.

[@rogerhuber3133]

In the Navy I spent a lot of time working on and flying the R-2800 on the C-118B A/C. Everything you said was true! Reliable, powerful and the sound was awesome. I sure miss those engines.

[@davidnewcomb2700]

Just this afternoon, I heard a sound that I could not immediately place. Then I looked up, a DC-6 or the like. I had maintained a C-118 for three years while in the USAF. Four R-2800 radials cranking away -- one never forgets.

[@asw19B100]

A round engine always makes me look up, particularly nowadays. Riding around in a B-25 was sonic nirvana.

[@Henry455]

A little bit of trivia, Ford Motor Company built 57,637 R-2800's under licence from 1941-1945. Pratt & Whitney built 54,620 R-2800's from 1939-1960. R-2800's were also built by Chevrolet, 4282 units and Nash 16,987 units

[@mpetersen6]

Some of the licensed manufacturers built engines meant for specific applications. I know Nash primarily built engines meant for naval aircraft. F6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs. Aircraft that used the R-2800 include the P-47, F6F, F4-U, B-26, and F7F. The engines saw later use in passenger aircraft and helicopters.

[@trainnerd3029]

Ford also built an incredible amount of jeeps!

[@williamturner1517]

With 18 cylinder s, that's a lot of pistons times 57,000.

[@Henry455]

@@williamturner1517 At peak production (July 1944) the Rouge River Plant was spitting out 186 R-2800's a day.

[@Chris_at_Home]

My Dad worked at P&WA from 1940-1976. During the war he worked in the experimental department where they would trouble shoot problems and come up with solutions

[@kl0wnkiller912]

During WW2 my grandfather worked at Buick (actually did all his life) and during the war Buick made the cylinder heads for the R-1830 engines for the B-24 bombers. After the war he took home a set of leather bound engine manuals for the -1830 engine, plus the rebuild manuals. He gave them to me in the 1970s and I still have them. They are really works of art with photographs, high quality drawings and well bound leather covers with a gold silhouette of a B-24 on the front. I even have the "special pass" he needed to get the books out of the plant... they are stamped "top secret" on almost every page.

[@neilpuckett359]

Make sure your kids know what those manuals are and their story. It seems today's young people are uninterested in their own family history unless they can sell it on eBay or a yard sale otherwise they toss it out on their way to Starbucks.

[@ivonakis]

I didn't have appreciation for radial engines untill I watched the series from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. Nothing is simple in aeronautics.

[@thomasbarlow4223]

Please elaborate..... I wanna watch. Im just so mesmerized right now. Everything is engineered to be such a junk nowadays I'm just in awe about this quality engineering!

[@panan7777]

@@thomasbarlow4223 Takes skill, time, creativity. Most of this missing today: must be cheap, engineered to break down, made fast. High quality engineering is an art, the skill acquired over many decades AND mistakes. For me the perfect design also has a beauty, elegance. But we engineers are weird, it's a common knowledge. ;))

[@MaxCruise73]

@@panan7777 As a Machinist and Machine Repairman back in the day, I occasionally came across a design I called "Elegant simplicity."

[@jacktattis]

The better engines for fighters was always Allison , Merlin, Packard.

[@newmoon54]

INFORMATION WE'D NEVER LEARN IF VIDEOS LIKE THESE WEREN'T BEING MADE~!~ SO ......... THANKS A MILLION~!~

[@zeppelinkiddy]

FYI: The man with the round eyeglasses standing next to Rentschler at 1:58 and again later in the video is William Boeing, founder of Boeing Aircraft Company. Also, it's unfortunate you just used footage of a Wright-engined Lockheed Constellation when you were talking about the Dual Wasp's post-war use in various airliners. Compared to the ultra reliable Dual Wasp, the Wright powered Connies often had to shut down a bad engine in flight, so much so that it was given the nickname of being "the best three-engine airliner ever built".

[@DanielDuhon]

I was thinking of the Douglas DC-6 for post war uses lol

[@OlOleander]

The man himself? That's really cool, thanks for pointing that out

[@edwardfletcher7790]

That's a really informative comment, thank you 👍

[@danielsacks7152]

I noticed the Connie too, the first B-29 with the Wright 3350s was forced down several times and eventually crashed into a factory killing many. We were supposed to see the B-29 "Fifi" at mount comfort but he threw a jug through the cowling and turned back. But I do love the sound of an idling A-1 skyraider! Neat to know that was Boeing. I was thinking how he looked like Floyd the barber from Mayberry!

[@lenrichardson7349]

Four valves only starts to give real benefits at rev ranges beyond what the engine would normally operate at. With forced induction it is also less of a factor. Two valves is lighter more robust and much less complex, all things desirable in things that are getting shot at.

[@captiannemo1587]

Something that Chrysler bet on with their cast iron v12 in the 40s. Ford went with a all aluminum v12 with twin cams and 4 valves. Ford had enough of a lead in development that the cost (resource) advantage to the Chrysler didn’t help.

[@casematecardinal]

@Jazzmaster Jay layers of protection. Especially at that time when you were likely going to take a hit whether you wanted to or not. Its like knife fighting.

[@dizzywow]

Well, a radial needs to use pushrods (as opposed to overhead cams). four valves per cylinder with pushrods is not very practical. So, radial -> 2 valves per cylinder, even if it's not as good as 4 valves per cylinder.

[@joefair3391]

@@dizzywow Four valves with pushrods is common. Pretty much all truck diesels, including in the 3/4 and one ton trucks, trains, and such, and I believe the Ford Godzilla 7.3 gas is a four valve pushrod V8.

[@Ares-jx4ep]

@@joefair3391 You're kinda wrong on a few points. Most Large commercial vehicle on US roads today are OHC or DOHC. Cummins ISX (15L) and M series DOHC and OHC motors replaced the pushrod N14 and M11 20 odd years ago. I'm not a expert on the ISM but I'm real familiar with the ISX as I own and maintain one. Cummins X or M series are pretty much the rule for all Internationals and the most common engines in newer Peterbilt, and Kenworth. Commons X and M are available and common in Volvo's, Freightliner, and Western Star Detroit went OHC way back at the end of the 80's with the series 60 family. (10L thru 14L) Currently they are on the DD series, also OHC. (13, 15, and 16 liter.) I've owned both a 60 (12.7L) and DD (15L). Series 60's and DD's were/are the standard engines for Freightliner and Western Star. Lastly, Ford's 7.3 Godzilla is a 2 valve engine.

[@felixcat9318]

I have always thought that this engine was a masterpiece of design and engineering, whose manufacture, construction and reliability was utterly remarkable!

[@alt5494]

The mods to increase power applied to engine when super high octane fuel became available where rather extreme, but P&W made a stout engine. When the company rep is going around telling crew chiefs how to hot rod the engine you know it's solid.

[@dukecraig2402]

There weren't really any mods to increase power, not in the sense that the words mods/modifications are applied to cars and motorcycle's. The addition of water injection made the War Emergency Power (WEP) setting on the throttle possible, which is 130% throttle also known as overboost, previous to that the maximum power setting on the throttle was called military power and is considered 100% throttle, but aside from that all power increases were done by increasing boost as a result of the advent of higher octane fuel and the use of after-cooler's, they always had inner-cooler's, after-cooler's were added on when boost was increased to a certain point because the higher boost increased the intake charge temperature to the point where without additional cooling of the charge the power increase was offset by having to retard the timing and richen the fuel mixture to eliminate detonation. But there were no changes to the cams or heads or any of the types of mods associated with increasing power the way it's typically done with vehicles, it was simply the ability to turn up the boost level because of the increased octane levels. They started out at the beginning of the war with octane levels around 95 and by the end of the war were running 130, which was actually rated at 130/150. Some sources and people like to quote the 150 number because it's the bigger of the two number's but the rating system used by the aircraft industry at the time used two ratings, the lower one is representative of the octane level at the "auto lean" setting for the fuel control of the engine and the higher number is representative of the octane level at the "auto rich" setting on the fuel control. Also, those octane number's can't be compared to what's commonly called "pump gas" which is what we get at gas stations in the US since commercial gas for vehicles is measured on a different scale.

[@TheHarryMann]

@@dukecraig2402 excellent clarification

[@alt5494]

@@dukecraig2402 It's been awhile since I read material, but if I remember correctly. Mods like shimming the blowoff valves, advancing the camshafts, and porting/polishing the intake/exhaust/turbo was all being done. Which is significant modification when combined with massive increases in manifold pressure(52" to 72" MAP) & fuel injection.

[@jacktattis]

Hot rod hardly worth the effort Rugged engine but not a speedster

[@jacktattis]

@@alt5494 They were still massive engines and their P:W ratios were below the Inline and their S:P ratios were as well

[@FlightSimHistorian]

I used to work with the Double Wasp every weekend (mounted in the A-26B and B-26K Invaders the museum I volunteered at). Pretty interesting engine to work on.

[@jennyjugs13]

I LOVE working on radials. This is a fun one.

[@dorightal4965]

How about a story on the Wright R-1820? It was used on many different aircraft, and in various models were even produced as diesels and as tank engines. A big factor in the Navy preference for aircooled engines was the logistics of not needing to supply coolant to the fleet. Air was everywhere!

[@robertsmith5872]

I worked on the R2800-52W on the Navy C-131F and the C-118B. Great engine and great to work on.

[@TalkingGIJoe]

Quite possibly one of the most incredible engines ever built...

[@tomnekuda3818]

This upload was truly great for me as it took the time to go into the engine dynamics. For example, I always wondered what it was that made the P-47 engine so powerful and rugged; this upload clarified that. When my kids were young and still at home I bought a big camper to pull with my Ford van. I was working where I could build an engine for it and I chose the 460, pushed the compression, recurved the distributor, completely freed up the exhaust, put a good Edelbrock manifold and Carter AFB on it....along with a tight converter and reprogrammed transmission. Like the P-47 Thunderbolt, I put on a water/methanol injection system on it to quell detonation. Guys marvelled at the power and mileage I got out of that engine and. later, when I tore it down, the chambers and pistons were absolutely clean from the good burn that I got from it. Wish I still had that engine.....sigh.

[@loboheeler]

The P-47 used both mechanical supercharging and turbocharging. Other uses of the R-2800 never used a turbo. The P-47 was still a useful fighter later in the war, as it could climb to higher altitude than just about any other warplane. It certainly helped to have 150 octane gas!

[@SPACECRUISER96]

Did my internship as Aircraft Engineer in Hellenic Aerospace Industry, working on Canadair CL-215s firefighters (water bombers) that still use the R-2800 Engine. This engine is so damn beautiful. Most mechanics don't like it cause you are guaranteed to get covered in oil thus they prefer the much cleaner turboprop engine of CL-415. But I really loved working in the Radial cause I feel it was probably the last time I will work on something like that.

[@petermarsh5762]

Canadair LTD produced the CL-215 water bomber right up until 1988. Brand new water bombers rolled off the assembly line with 2 P&W R2800 CA3 engines.

[@FusionAero]

"If you want to impress your girl, fly a Mustang. If you want to make it back to your girl, fly a Thunderbolt."

[@Matsumoto77]

@@TheInfidel_SlavaUA why do you think the TBOLT was later relegated to ground attack missions once the prancing horse came onto the scene in force. Both are very good aircraft that did their respective jobs very well, stop the damn hate train before I blow it up with 10 HVARS

[@FusionAero]

Unsurpassed by WHOM? Certainly not the ME-262 jets to which you refer, their kill ratios were off the charts, but they were too late to the fight to affect the outcome of the war. Kill ratios and flight characteristics aren't the sole criteria for rating a warbird's "greatness" because it wasn't just planes shooting at each other, it was a race of science and industry where the sooner a new design cold be fielded, the more overall impact it would have on the war. Most A2A kills overall? Who downed the FIRST ME-262? By the time the 'Stang arrived, the Luftwaffe had been pretty much hollowed out by the T-Bolt, the Lightning, the Brits, and especially, the RUSSIANS. If I were to choose one to personally own and fly, I too would go with the Mustang, but if I had to rate them by the overall amount of damage meted out to the enemy over the course of the war, the Jug wins, hands down.

[@Matsumoto77]

@@FusionAero absolutely agreed, I love the mustang and the way it flies in simulators, but if I had to go into a world war and had the choice between a 51 and a 47, I would pick the 47 every time

[@chrisneidert3167]

Each had a specific reason for being built . & Both airplanes did great at their job .. the 47 was big & bad & could take a bullet . But it couldn't make it on fuel to Germany & back as an escort to the bombers ! Then came the mustang built for that job ! .and a well needed plane for sure . Both were great planes .so thanks to the 2800 & thanks to the merlin .! Without both we may not be free americans today . ! But .neither engine can cure our problems today ...June 12th 2023 .just saying that ..love the fact we won wwii . & Thanks to our leader those days .F.D.R. & Churchill ..

[@lestergillis8171]

The Pratt & Whitney Wasp family of engiines were a Grand Slam Home Run in aviation history. 😉

[@hangie65]

Great story on the "otherwise unremarkable" as per your own words, but otherwise very successful beast of an engine that was the R-2800. Thanks for posting.

[@paoloc2571]

The fins on the pistons shows the ingenuity of those engineers-artists. Yes, such creations are also a work of art. Thank you for the wonderful images.

[@patrickporter6536]

The cylinders have fins as do all air cooled engines. The pistons not so much.

[@jacktattis]

I would contend that the MS and FS gears on the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger were just as complex

[@vladimpaler3498]

When you are in a single engine plane flying from a carrier, several hundred miles of ocean, engage in combat, then have to fly several hundred miles back, you want a reliable, durable and tough engine. This one gets the job done and gets you home for dinner.

[@monsieurcommissaire1628]

The Douglas A-26 that my dad crewed on in Korea had 2 R2800 engines. He said they were really, really loud. Of course, I've never stood as close to one as he did, but I think they are one of the most beautiful sounding engines of all time.

[@mtacoustic1]

More minor corrections: The German plane that held the speed record before WWII was the one-off Me 209R, The Lockheed Constellation shown used Wright R-3350 engines; later Douglas DC-6 and 7's used R-2800s. Pretty informative overall.

[@terencewong-lane4309]

Douglas DC-7s also used Wright R-3350s......

[@shawns0762]

You remind me of me

[@edperkins4178]

Again, a bit off. The R2800 was used on the entire DC6 series, as well as the Convair 240-340-440 and Martin 202-404. The DC7 used a Wright turbo compound 3350.

[@mustang_5197]

I adore these engine videos so much. as an aspiring mechanic I love these videos on prop aircraft so much. please continue this series of works!

[@mikekuczynski1552]

Have been working on P&WC engines since 1968 in the crop dusting business then came the PT-6 turbo prop engine still in production and the most reliable engine made . They just make good engines. Thanks for the video

[@DaveMorgansghost]

Im from the connecticut river valley, its great to see wherever i go in the world,bits of home....pratt n whitney, hamilton standard, colt, indian, springfield armory.....ive seen our stuff as far away as italy and hawaii.....too bad its almost all gone

[@johannmckraken9399]

This would be the engine I would want in front of me if I had to fly in WW2! 🇺🇸

[@crgintx]

The Pratt and Whitney R-2800 was the most powerful engine in widespread use during WW2. The Griffin barely saw any action during the war at all. The Napier Saber couldn't make power above 22k ASL. Wright 3350's eventually made more power but not until after the war and only saw use in the B-29 and B-32.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

it's a Griffon, and a Sabre, and you need to get the rest of your facts straight too, especially about the Sabre.

[@richardrichard5409]

Ahh, the Napier Sabre, 70 hours service life. My old boss Ron Sheraton was on the development team at Napier.

[@burtvhulberthyhbn7583]

My dad was US Navy in WW2 and the one engine he worked on most was the 2800 Pratt and Whitney. I have an ashtray he made out of one of those pistons downstairs.

[@karmabomberger4410]

So was my dad. The F6F was his specialty but he worked on anything with the Wasp or Double Wasp. Lucky for my mom and us eight kids, he got stationed in Chicago with the Great Lakes fleet. He hated it there and refused to ever go back to Chicago.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

Good Job, the R-2800 is one of those things that is far greater than the sum of its parts. The Merlin was a beautiful engine and the Spitfire was a thoroughbred of an airplane, But if its cold and dark and you know your plane has been hit, you and that big radial can lean on each other and most of the time somehow it will work out all right.

[@craigmaudsley440]

Yes thanks

[@rayceeya8659]

Man that shot of a Lockheed Constellation is gorgeous. Thing is though, they used Wright Cyclones, not P&W Wasps. Both 18 cylinder, both similar application, both really good engines. I'd love to see a comparison video between the two.

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Beautifully practical engineering involved here. They sound magnificent too.

[@jetdriver]

Very nice video. Love to see a more in-depth version like you did with the Sabre. One other small criticism. The piston powered airliner you showed was a Constellation which was powered by the R3350. The DC-6 was R2800 powered as was the CV-240 family.

[@markdonovan2475]

Wow! This vid garnered a lot of attention. Well done. My Dad's MD ANG Commanding Officer (1960-62) was hit with ground fire over Japan. He did not get hit hard but coolant poured out of his P-51D and Scotty, the pilot, jumped over the sea. Picked up by a US submarine on picket duty, he lived to tell the tale. An air cooled R-2800 mighta made it back to Iwo. Awesome presentation.

[@aircraftnut15]

In college I had the privilege of doing a aircraft start up (I went for aircraft maintenance and engineering) on a beech 18 with two r 985 radials. The sound was incredible the vibrations shook your teeth filling out lol I can only imagine the double wasp let alone 2-4 of them Jewel of an engine absolute masterpiece

[@ronjon7942]

Mmmm, the Beech 18 - while going to school for my A&P, I worked for an ex ceo, retired from SnapOn. I primarily worked on a T-28 restoration project, but they had a few other aircraft, a T-6, T-34, and our favorite, his Beech 18. It was polished aluminum in Army Air Corp markings, and was their vacation plane and was flown regularly. I absolutely loved working on the 985s, to me they’re like what the Chevy 350 is to car guys. When I worked for another guy, he also had a Beech 18 he wanted to have restored, and I got to work on cataloging everything and disassembling it for a year or so. But he ended up selling it before I could start rebuilding anything. I REALLY wanted to take a crack at the disassembly of the 985s, inspect them, and clean/repaint/repolish to make them look new again. Sigh, twas not to be. I did get to work on Merlins, a Bristol Centaurus, the Allison V-1710 (my personal favorite), 1340s, 1820s, the usual Continental and Lycomings, a Ranger and a few other radials, but never the R2800 - although I came close. I did some volunteering at the CAF on a Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon restoration, but it was a complete teardown that was taking years, and unfortunately a lot of the WWII guys who were doing a lot of cleaning, some disassembly and such, were passing - so they were getting antsy to get a plane that was already done and airworthy, which they did; however they sold the Harpoon to a private individual to finish restoring. We got the engines pulled off, but they basically just sat in a corner. I touched the 2800 a lot, but that’s about it.

[@jamesjenni27]

You were doing great right up to the end. The Conny at the end is powered by the Wright R3350 with power recovery turbo superchargers. I myself worked on the Navy R6D - R2800-52W in the early 60's. TNX great presentation.

[@alexclement7221]

I noticed the Constellation as well. Not being certain whether it had a P&W engine or a Wright engine, I DID remember that the Constellation was joking called "The World's Finest Tri-motor" because it would often lose at least one engine on any long flight.

[@bcstechnologylimited896]

A couple of minor points: 1) Chrysler did not invent the hemi. That combustion chamber's design was known in the early 20th century and was found in both aero and automotive engines. 2) Only the exhaust valves are sodium cooled. The sodium is not in a liquid form but liquifies during engine operation. It constantly circulates through the stems to carry heat way from the valve face, which is the hottest part of the valve during operation. 3) The Sikorsky CH-37 helicopter was powered by two R2800s. At the time, the CH-37 was the largest and most powerful helicopter in the world. 4) No mention was made of the many civil aviation applications for the R2800. Due to the engine's reliability and power, commercial aircraft builders used it in large quantities. For example, the Douglas DC6 was powered by the Double Wasp. It was also the powerplant used in the Convair 440, the Martin M202 and M404 airliners, as well as many others. 5) The R2800 was one of the few reciprocating aero engines to achieve one horsepower per pound of engine weight, which was long a goal of aircraft designers.

[@richardgalli7262]

One of my favorite programs was "Wings". I think on the History Channel when it was actually about history unlike today. Loved "Wings" all about planes and their engines.

[@diggr13]

What, you don't think making swords and digging for gold are historical?

[@dukecraig2402]

@@diggr13 Neither are UFO's.

[@richardgalli7262]

@@diggr13 It use to be about historical events, the current channel has little to do with it anymore. This so called "Reality TV" is nothing of the sort, it is rehearsed, scripted, choreographed and staged, there is nothing spontaneous about it. Watching someone pretend to struggle digging for gold or someone hammering out a knife from a railroad spike on a studio set is not actual history, its a fabrication. It often has very little to do with tech its all about a commentator critiquing, if it doesn't have drama or conflict it wont fly. Unfortunately, the majority of what is now on TV is fabricated reality TV, I find it silly and annoying. I watch some news or reruns of Johnny Carson and finally turn it off, then read a book about actual history.

[@OlOleander]

This was great! I'd always been curious about the ubiquity of this engine, and what little I knew of aircraft engines told me that yes, radial air-cooled engines seemed to be considered older and weaker than liquid-cooled engines. This was the perfect balance between informative and concise, not to mention entertaining.

[@cramersclassics]

Very well done! So amazing to think these were all hand-made, no CNC back then.

[@VIPER03100]

At the Paris war museum i saw a FW-190A8 BMW 801 radial engine that had 3 of its cilynders completely blown off, you could see the krank shaft and the piston rods inside chewed up by enemy fire.That particular aircraft returned home flying in minus 3 cylinders.The answer to your question for me is simple ,the best engine is the one that gets you home and no liquid cooled engine can do that.Excellent upload thank you!

[@jacktattis]

Your Merlin stops you can glide a Spitfire better than 20 miles Your P/W stops you go into a fatal dive the plane glides like a Brick

[@mpetersen6]

The company where I served my apprenticeship and retired from had a couple of Pratt & Whitney jig bores in our Tool Room. The machine tool company may have lent its name to the aero engine firm but that's about it. The lathe manufacturer LeBlond was also involved in manufacturing radial engines in the 20s.

[@jamesfisher4326]

Pratt and Whitney Machine hired several disgruntled engineers from Curtis Wright to start their aircraft engine business.

[@billlawrence1899]

Love it! I just gotta be a little nit picky here. At the end where he mentions the R-2800 went on to power various airliners, a Lockheed Constellation is shown. The "Connie" was powered by the Wright 3350. The P&W R-2800 was used on Convairs, Martins, and DC-6.

[@Loulovesspeed]

@Bill Lawrence - When I was just a kid, my family went to I think, Laguardia Airport to see Grandma off to Mexico, probably in the mid fifties. As the plane, a Lockheed Connie was building speed, an engine caught fire in a big way - flames pouring out of it as it launched. It circled around and landed without any issues, but we all thought we were waiving goodbye to Grandma for the last time! Quite a harrowing thing to watch in person.

[@billlawrence1899]

@@Loulovesspeed Those big Wright 3350s that powered the Connies didn't have the reliability that the R-2800 did. The Connie has been referred to as the "world's best 3 engine airplane", because it was always flying around with one shut down. It's a pretty good bet the pilots of your grandma's plane had practice at that sort of thing.

[@Loulovesspeed]

@@billlawrence1899 - I hadn't seen a Connie for many years until I moved to Florida in 1974. I went to the Sebring 12hr. endurance race and right in the middle of the grounds was a Constellation on display. Pretty cool to see one after all those years. It is still a contemporary looking propeller driven aircraft of sorts.

[@billlawrence1899]

​@@Loulovesspeed The Connie was arguably the most beautiful airliner ever built. It was also a mechanical nightmare. Pilots who flew it came in two flavors. They either loved it or hated it. There was no in between.

[@kcouche]

Good vid- simple understandable explanation of the P&W R2800. I flew both the R-2000 and then the CB-16 and the later was a real improvement.

[@ohger1]

I read somewhere that a German engineer knew they were in trouble when they were inspecting a downed 2800. They were amazed that the two crankcase halves were not only machined so closely that they didn't need a gasket but that they were also doing this in war production quantities.

[@Robert-ff9wf]

I love the sound of the big radials!

[@0giwan]

First of your videos I've seen, but well done! I've watched a lot of Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles videos, but he doesn't go that much into engines. It is fantastic for someone to explain WHY the Double Wasp was a marvel of engineering. I'm a massive fan of the P-47, so I would LOVE to see a video on the combination of the Double Wasp with that mondo turbo built into the Jug.

[@SillyPuddy2012]

You commonly hear that the RR Merlin is the engine that “won the war” but I disagree. If any aircraft engine holds that distinction, it’s definitely an P&W Wasp, or Wright Cyclone… Workhorse radials that powered countless numbers of some of the most pivotal allied aircraft.

[@SillyPuddy2012]

@@AtlasLathe US factories and shipyards running full tilt, well outside the range of axis bombers would certainly agree with the first statement.

[@mpetersen6]

If any aircraft engine could be said to be the "engine that won the war" it would most likely be one of the Soviet engines used by the Red Air Force. The Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe. In the Pacific it most definitely is one of the Wright or Pratt & Whitney radials. The R-2800 is the engine that powered the fighters that destroyed Japanese naval aviation. The Hellcat and Corsair. Aside from the Allison's and some Merlins used in P-40s, P-39s, P-51s post Iwo Jima and P-38s every engine used by the US in the Pacific theater was a radial.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

People seem to forget that it was that bombers that destroyed the Nazi's ability to make war, the fighters just had a supporting role.

[@SoloRenegade]

The Allison V1710 was used in more total airplanes and more types of airplanes in WW2 than any other allied engine, and served from the 1930s right through WW2, and powered some very capable designs such as the P-40, P-38, A-36, and more. It continued in use post war in airplane racing, boat racing, tractor pulling and much more. It even powers modern replicas of the FW190 and Russian Yaks.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@AtlasLathe Fair points, ground forces win wars, not airpower. If you never capture the territory, the enemy never needs surrender. But many fighters did double duty as CAS and strike aircraft as well (P-51, A-36, P-38, F4f, F4U, P-40, P-47, Typhoon, Mosquito, etc.). Bombers did next to nothing to stop the IJN in teh Pacific. And until the B-29 was in range of Japan, bombers in general accomplished very little overall in terms of strategic bombing in the Pacific.

[@ronjon7942]

New subscriber - when I was a kid (and happier), I used to rebuild WWII and postwar prop aircraft. Your channel brings back some good memories doing A&P maintenance on rdials. Thnx!

[@tallperson9422]

My favorite engine in my favorite plane (P-47). I'll be digging out my Graham White manual for another great look at this engine. Keep up the great work.

[@stevencarkeek8186]

I think it would be interesting to see a video telling of the evolution of R-2800 induction technology. Comparing a 2800 set up for turbo charging in a P-47 to a sidewinder supercharging installation in a F4U or the basic blower setup installed on a Convair 440 would tell an interesting story of power generation. Also, I thought it curious to see a Lockheed Constellation as an example of a civil aircraft powered by a 2800.

[@silentotto5099]

Kermit Weeks, who runs a channel for his vintage aviation museum, did an interview with the guy who rebuilds his R-2800s. One interesting point was that the R=2800 is designed with a tapered cylinder, getting slightly narrower as it gets closer to the head. The reason for this was the uneven heating of the cylinder. As the heat is generated near the head, the cylinder expands more at that end, so the taper was introduced to bring the cylinder to true as it warmed up. He said that's one of the reason radial engines like this run a little rough when they're cold and why it's important to make sure they're warmed up before stressing them.

[@woodhonky3890]

That's very interesting!

[@dizzywow]

How the hell would they bore a tapered cylinder? Do you have a cite?

[@silentotto5099]

@@dizzywow They grind it in apparently, but I don't have a clue as to what the precise technique is. They refer to the taper as a 'choke' when they're discussing it. Here's a link to the video I referenced: kzbin.info/www/bejne/emaUk619o72pb80 The full video was broken up into 2 parts and this is the second. They discuss the geometry of the cylinder at about the 5 minute mark. I highly recommend watching both parts of the chat as it's a fascinating glimpse into a very rarely discussed topic.

[@woodhonky3890]

@@dizzywow with a tapered boring tool.

[@clearjet]

Couple of things... Detonation is also called "knock", "ping" or "Pre-ignition". It happens when the CHT (Cylinder Head Temp) is high, or the timing is off, etc. The piston compressing the mixture gets slammed by a virtual sledge hammer, which causes damage that can lead to a catastrophic failure.

[@TradinTigerJohn]

For some reason, there seems to be a scalability limit to piston aircraft engines.* The R-2800 seems to have been at the sweet spot between power and reliability. The Wright R-3350 never achieved good reliability, leading to the old saw about the P&W powered DC-6 being a 4-engine airplane with 3 bladed props, and the Wright powered DC-7 being a 3-engine airplane with 4-bladed props. Although in the twilight of their service, there are still DC-6 aircraft that will be flown profitably until parts supplies finally dry up. P&W were hardly immune to this unwritten law of nature. The mighty 4360 Wasp Major 4 row radial was such a maintenance prima donna that any aircraft powered by it had to have taxpayer assistance in the form of government subsidies for the Boeing Stratocruiser, or a money is no object budget in military applications like the B-36 Peacemaker bomber. The advent of commercial (and military) jet power spelled an abrupt end for the outsize piston engines while the R-2800 still soldiers on! This is not to take away from the fact that the R-2800 is an absolute masterpiece of engineering. But neither Wright nor Pratt & Whitney (nor any other piston engine manufacturer) ever built anything more powerful that could be owned and operated at a profit. That would be the job of turbine engines that can reliably and economically scale to the rough equivalent of 100,000+ HP. *In the world of marine engineering, no one, not Rolls-Royce nor Asea Brown Boveri seem to be able to build a reliable pod propulsor beyond about 30 MW. If you need more power on your pod-propelled ship, you have to add multiple units.

[@mikehawk6563]

I LOVED THIS VIDEO!! I have watched your other videos and this one is my favorite! Your voice tones and narration = perfect, the background music = perfect, the slides and delivery also perfect! Many will point out small mistakes like HEMI was Mopar and not Chevy and other small "mistakes" however I learned a TON of info I had no idea I was even interested in. I'm going to re watch your video rite now and I'm thinking about getting books on these super cool air cooled beasts.

[@ronjon7942]

Haha, I’m glad I found a comment that pointed out the Hemi comment; I was thinking of posting, glad I didn’t.

[@paoloviti6156]

Very interesting video as always on the wonderful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 double row engine. I know quite well this engine because I was flying very often with the Convair CV-240 in Sweden to connect it's cities almost using as a bus from Malmo up to Stockholm, as a young boy I really enjoyed every minute of it's flight generally powered by a 2,400 hp Pratt &Whitney R-2800 variant! But I must point out that according to the excellent series of Detail & Scale, bought years ago, written somewhere on one of those booklets, by memory as I remember very well, it emphatically stated that the radial engines were always more powerful than the V12 engines, cheaper to produce, relatively easier to have more horse power or upgraded and it was generally more reliable not to mention that of course more battle resistant, a big advantage indeed! There was disadvantages as well, firstly it had a big frontal surface not always capable to be adequately air-cooled especially on the heads of the cylinders especially around the valves. But generally had higher consumption of gasoline and oil too, not to mention that it was quite leaky. Thanks for sharing this interesting video and I'm looking forward to see your next video as I like it very much that I just subscribed 👍👍

[@wargamingchina9174]

Thank you so much, I learnt such a lot from that video, you explain the technical challenges and achievements really well. Keep it up I pressed like and subscribed

[@billtruett8593]

Just found your channel “awesome” being a mechanic I’m so amazed at the engineering with a slide rule. There’s a piece of engineering in itself(slide rule) now there’s a lost art in itself. The wasp was a brut of a engine. I would love to see someone build a Radial engine with the technology and Materials and state of the art electronics we have today. I would almost bet you could double the horse power on most radial configured engines. Keep up the great content.

[@HistoricAeroEngines]

Interesting and well prepared presentation. We have a few in our group. However, direct comparisons with water cooled engines are not always straight forward. Horses for courses.

[@wickedcabinboy]

Absolutely impressed with your video. New sub here. Look forward to more quality content. The absence of a robovoice is a nice plus.

[@densealloy]

Another great video. You have found a winning formula! Keep up the good work!

[@martingannon132]

What an awesome video. I really enjoy all of the technical knowledge and history that is put into this video. I'll definitely look forward to seeing more from this channel. Thanks very enjoyable

[@edwardfletcher7790]

I wish you'd added an extra minute to give examples of the insane reliability. Eg: WW2 planes getting home with entire cylinder heads blown off ! Good luck doing that with a water cooled engine !

[@davidmerritt5075]

Need a picture of that. Do you know of any?

[@guysmith1826]

Some great work here! A lot of effort went into this. Near the end of the video the narrator says that the radial 2800 powered some post-war airliners, and it shows a Lockheed Constellation, however the consolation was powered by the Wright Whirlwind Radial 3350, which was nowhere near as reliable, earning the Constellation the nickname "The world's finest tri-motor." Also, and I'm not sure about this, but I believe only the exhaust valves were sodium-filled, not the intake valves, can anyone clue me in as to whether or not the intake valves or sodium-filled? I'm pretty sure they were not.

[@blackhawk7r221]

Only exhaust

[@dreamdiction]

8:42 cooled by being sodium filled? Would the sodium be blown out every time the exhaust valve opened?

[@blackhawk7r221]

@@dreamdiction Research how a sodium filled valve works. It’s pretty clever.

[@ysoitney]

Excellent post about an icon. Thanks for the effort and production. Outstanding.

[@southronjr1570]

Talking about water injection. I have an old 1995 GMC Suburban (yes, GMC made suburbans too, not just chevy) wirh the 6.5 Torbo diesel engine. Well, the engine cooling system was designed for the Canadian market but they sold very weel here in the US. Living in middle Georgia, one can imagine I had cooling issues whenever I had to haul a heavy load or drive long distances during the summer. I finally got tired of it and began modifying things to keep ot cool, I put in aftermarket oil and trans fluid coolers, aftermarket intake system and put a larger fan behind the radiator with little help to the issue. While researching things, I found a couple of guys who had built their own water/methanol injection systems and raved about how good they worked. I decided to build one myself, between Mcmaster Carr, Amazon and the local hardware stores, I built it and the first time I ran it I was shocked. I was test driving it and while under heavy load I activated the system and black smoke began to pour out of the tail pipe but the gauges didnt show anything but the temp going down. Turns out, that the first time you run a system on a motor with some miles on it, it basically steam cleans the pistons, heads and turbo, hence the black smoke. I used the truck to go out to AZ the following July and the only time I had any overheating issues was on one long hill climb on I-40, otherwise it works great.

[@stuartf6385]

When considering weight you also have to include fuel, as liquid cooled engines invariably had much better specific fuel consumption (air-cooled engines were run rich to cool the cylinders) , the overall weight usually favoured liquid cooled engines.

[@Farweasel]

I wonder how far that was offset when P&W introduced the water & glycol injection system? Given the cooling need, maybe they overlaid that on a rich mix? It a fair point to throw into the mix 'though.

[@stuartf6385]

@@Farweasel the water and glycol was on top of the rich mixture and was usually limited to a few minutes at a time (for take offs and combat) to save blowing up the engines. Liquid cooled engines also used water and glycol, the Germans also used Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) on air and liquid cooled engines.. The Americans and Brits experimented with super fuels like Triptane that boosted performance so much that octane rating were superseded by Performance Number ratings. There is also a mindset issue, most US radial engines (and later derivatives) were initially designed with economical commercial use in mind (short bursts of high power followed by long periods of medium to low power whilst cruising), whilst the European liquid cooled engines always had military applications in mind with high power use for most of the flight and shorter lives. Air cooled sleeve valve radials like the Bristol Hercules and Centaurus seemed to have more stamina and power per cubic inch than there poppet valve contempories (a post war commercial version of the Hercules had the longest time between overhauls (TBO) of any large aircraft piston engines). An engine that is not well known in the US is the Napier Sabre a 24 cylinder H configuration water cooled sleeve valve of similar displacement to the RR Griffin it eventually reliably produced about 50% more power than the Merlin and a sprint version was once believed to have exceeded 4500bhp. The piston engines from that era with the lowest specific fuel consumptions were Napier designs the Nomad I & II, liquid cooled, flat 12 cylinder, 2 stroke diesel, with variable speed supercharger, power recovery turbo charger and in one version reheat, they looked like a cross between a gas turbine and liquid cooled piston engine.

[@Farweasel]

@@stuartf6385 D'Oh! P47s. *Of course* - Forgot about that didn't I! What's that advisory? Oh yeah. 'Engage brain before operating Keyboard'.

[@LCMNUNES1962]

ÓTIMO DOCUMENTÁRIO 👍👍👍 🇧🇷

[@GabaranRickshaw]

The P47, my personal favorite. Thanks for all the footage!

[@michaelsimonds2632]

FUN & interesting video! Thank you! Your up-front technical corrections show your dedication to excellence -- very much appreciated. RE production: easy to listen to narration and fine choice of background music which does not interfere. Glad I found you!

[@patrickshaw8595]

My Dad worked for Chevrolet when it made the ultimate R2800 - the C Series. You see in Hartford CN Pratt & Whitney was developing biggest aircraft piston engine of all time - the R4360. Mister 2800, Luke Hobbs was having fun by matching every milestone of the R4360 with the C-Series R2800 ! Long story short - several times my Dad was at the throttle during 1 hour C-series tests at FOUR THOUSAND HORSEPOWER. That was 2800 rpm and 130 inches manifold pressure ( that's about 50 psi boost to you automobile peasants) it was done repeatedly, and there were no failures. The US War Department immediately classified it Military Top Secret and it remained that way until Daryl Greenamyer successfully lobbied Congress to declassify the info so he could use it for his 1969 unlimited piston engine speed record (held by the Nazi Me109R for 30 years)

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

Calling it indestructible is quite a stretch. They even had a nasty tendency of hydrolocking and breaking themselves (usually bent rods) simply from starting after sitting too long due to oil filling the lower cylinders. This was an issue with all radial engines. Common procedure was to engage the starter with the ignition and fuel still off and let it run through a full cycle on all the cylinders to ensure they're clear, then it would be started. You can still see old warbirds doing this at airshows like Oshkosh.

[@air-headedaviator1805]

Wouldn’t that be a mistake in start up vs a limitation (within reason that is) of design?

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

@@air-headedaviator1805 yeah, that's operator error. And I know at least some warbirds have systems now that won't turn on the ignition until it does the required rotation. I think those are retrofit, but it might have been original in some (or all) of them. They are very reliable engines, but nowhere close to turbine engines, and far from "indestructible."

[@jamesfisher4326]

Often the rotation was done by manually pulling the blades on the prop.

[@asw19B100]

@@jamesfisher4326 That was HARD work!

[@michaelnorth5215]

Depends on whether or not the starter is clutched. If not, you pulled the blades through by hand to feel for liquid lock. It was 9 blades for a Pratt 1830

[@sixstringedthing]

The reputation for relibability that the P&W radials held is pretty remarkable really, I've seen one of my favourite radial beasts (ex RAAF DHC-4 Caribou, Twin Wasp)) with the cowlings open and it's pretty damn busy in there. And then you notice the multiple patches on the cowlings/internal baffle plate and realise that based on the location of the holes, those bullets/fragments most definitely hit some part of the engine, or the fuel lines, or electrical wiring... Wallaby Airlines (35 Squadron RTFV) flew the Caribou on transport/resupply/mail/medevac runs for seven years over Vietnam with zero casualties and only one airframe loss due to a runway excursion on landing at some rough'n'ready dirt strip in the middle of the jungle. I'd wager a bit of money on the proposition that their MIA/KIA record would not look that clean if they were operating liquid-cooled aircraft.

[@05Hogsrule]

My Uncle Mitch Retired from P&W in the 70's, ex-Navy Machinist-Mate, he had a great career after world war 2. I know he would have LOVED to see this segment. Thank you.

[@lightunicorn1371]

I don't how but you are really popping these videos out really quickly, make sure you don't get too caught up in your work.

[@flightdojo]

Thanks for noticing Light! I hope you enjoyed the video. Don't worry, I make plenty of time to loaf off, just ask my wife.

[@raymondwelsh6028]

Loved this video, would have loved you to have touched on the 28 cylinder 4300 radials as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a video on these. Also the inverted German V12’s, never for the life of me could understand why they’re inverted but they must have had there reasons.🇦🇺

[@glennpowell3444]

If I remember in the me109 it gave the pilot a better view ahead during combat but I have never found a definate reason and always have wondered how the oil system worked.?

[@robertmoreth8536]

@@glennpowell3444 They used a dry sump oil system, oil is pumped from a tank to all the parts that need it, then scavenge pumps pick it up and return it to the tank.

[@jbepsilon]

Greg's airplanes channel has a two part explanation at kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmK8faqIhrF1las and kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2i1ZGyqf5yjqdk

[@glennpowell3444]

@@robertmoreth8536 Thanks.I figured it must be a similar setup as a radial.

[@neilmchardy9061]

Even stranger they had superchargers which ran at 90 deg to the crank plane.

[@chrisnewman7281]

May I say this is an excellent technical summary of the Wasp engine. No hyper, matter of fact, clear and logical and well set out, the way that technical stuff should be explained

[@savannah505]

This was a great video, thanks so much.

[@markdaniel8740]

Speed records are nice, but might be the least important thing about an engine. Durability and reliability are far more important when you are not on a closed course with and unlimited maintenance schedule and budget.

[@demetridar506]

In order to compare the R2800 with the competition, you have to compare it to the Nakajima Homare of 2200 cubic inches. In late 1944, the Homare, also an 18 cylinder radial, produced the same power as the R2800, with less weight. Yes, the Homare had water injection and 3000 rpm. But the Nakajima Hayate could fly rings around the P-51's, F4U's, and F6F's that it met. Unfortunately for Japan, there were not enough of them, nor enough experienced pilots to fly them.

[@jbepsilon]

The war-winning formula of US war materials production wasn't that everything they did was better than the competition in every aspect, but that it was good enough, reliable, and produced in absolutely staggering numbers.

[@dukecraig2402]

There is no comparison, the Homare 2200 engine was never anywhere nearly as reliable as the R2800 engine was

[@dukecraig2402]

They weren't making the same power as an R2800 engine in 1944, they made about the same power as the R2800 did in 1941/42, by 1944 the R2800 was making 2,300 to 2,800 HP depending on variant, and if you were to put the Homare 2200 engine in a P47 it wouldn't be able to "run rings" around anything, the only reason that the Frank had the performance it did is for the same reason the Zero did, because the designer's of it didn't give any consideration to survivability, that's the biggest reason the Japanese didn't have any experienced pilots left the last 2 years of the war, as with any of their aircraft one good squirt from .50 cals and they just came apart, and the Homare engine wasn't anywhere nearly as reliable as the R2800 was, they were notoriously high maintenance. The engine's single stage supercharger was really only good for performance to medium altitude, after that power started dropping quickly, the only reason that the Frank had a service ceiling of 39,000 ft is the same reason it had speed at medium altitude, because it was so light from not having survivability designed into it, the P47 weighed twice as much and had a service ceiling the same depending on variant and that's because at 39,000 ft it's engine was making the same power it was at 20,000 ft because of it's turbo, at higher altitudes the Frank wouldn't have been a match for the P47, the Frank's max speed is given at 20,000 ft where it goes it's fastest, because of it's single stage supercharger at higher altitudes it would have been clawing for air and it's performance would have been way down, the Japanese were trying to address that issue by designing things like a turbo and a 2 stage 3 speed supercharger for it but they were designs that never left the drawing board. When sources like Wikipedia list the top speed of any aircraft they list them at an altitude that it flies it's fastest at but that can be deceiving, to really get an idea of an aircraft's true performance capabilities you need to look at it's speed and it's engine's power ratings at all altitudes, a plane that lists it's top speed at 20,000 ft is going to be way down on performance at 39,000 ft, the P47's top speed is listed at around 35,000 ft (depending on variant some as high as 40,000 ft) because it's engine can make max power up to that altitude, and it weighed twice as much as the Frank, if everything that gave it the tremendous survivability it had was stripped out of it then it'd run rings around anything in the sky but the US military always put survivability high on it's list of priorities when a combat aircraft was designed, that's why the US had so many experienced pilots left at the end of the war. No, there is no comparison of the two, the R2800 made just as much power per ci, had a much higher critical altitude rating (the altitude that an engine can make max power) and was twice as reliable as the Homare engine was.

[@demetridar506]

@@jbepsilon That is correct. The same applies to the Soviet aircraft. The super crude Sturmovik was not the prettiest thing out there, but with brutal force, i.e., huge numbers, it slowly bent the tide towards the Soviets. The Soviets built more than the Germans could shoot down. The R&W R2800 was something like that.

[@demetridar506]

@@dukecraig2402 Yes, but not due to the fault of the design. It was other factors that caused the statistical lack of reliability. If there were any limitations in raw materials or labor or under fed labor force, you would see similar reliability problems to the R2800.

[@marksherrill9337]

Thank you. Excellent video.

[@litltoosee]

I like your narration voice and pace. You've earned my subscription.