2500-hp XI-2220 V16 Hemi

[MG42pillbox]

"It was the premier load carrying single engine fighter of the war. It could get airborne with bomb loads exceeding that of some twin engine medium bombers"

The F4U,

[boomer400]

Actually Gabby Gabreski is the top USAAF ETO fighter ace with 28 kills. He's followed by Robert Johnson with 27 kills and then George Preddy with 26 kills. The first 2 guys were in P47s and then Preddy with P51 time. It's interesting to conjecture about which planes were superior (then and now too) and I'm sure every pilot has these types of discussions whether or not it's a combat plane or a civilian airliner. I think one thing that we should all consider is the while tech specs are great for initial comparisons, we all have to consider what the operational conditions are when we compare planes. For instance, the Spitfire was as stated a great point defense plane and thus served admirably during the Battle of Britain (which was incidentally actually primarily fought by the tough yet unheralded Hawker Hurricane). Most European fighters then had very short ranges and didn't really have much external weapons load. So looking at the Spitfire and BF109, their histories show little ability to carry useful loads very far and that's pretty typical of all mid to late 1930s single engine designs. In addition, we ought to look also at what kind of pilot is being put into these aircraft. Early war pilots had lots of "garrison" flying with emphasis on formation and rulebook combat maneuvers. Exceptions would be the Germans with their Spanish Civil War testing ground and the Japanese with their Chinese war. Because of this, the Allies had some false presumptions about air combat. For instance, most US military men didn't believe that the Japanese could come up with a plane superior to what was being built in the US even though Claire Chennault in China was sending critical information about what was happening back to the US. So when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the overriding response was amazement and disbelief that the Zero could even exist.
Personally speaking, if I were a fighter pilot then, I would pick a radial engined fighter like the P47 for the ETO and the F4U or F6f for the PTO. Why? Radial engines can take a lot more abuse and damage than a liquid cooled engine. A Mustang or Spitfire was typically out of the fight if it took a single bit of damage to the radiator. A Mustang might be nursed back if the conditions were right and the radiator damage not too bad. On the other hand, a radial engined fighter like the P47 could take major damage and still keep the plane up. From a survival point of view, that's really important. Both the P47 and F4U are replete with stories of planes and engines being abused or taking fire and then bringing the pilot back to base. P51 or liquid cooled engine fighter stories of the like are far fewer. What is important to me is that pilot survival means more retained combat experience for the squadron and better wingmen/squadron mates and thus better survival for me. For that moment in time when a FW190 starts hitting with cannon/mg rounds, a plane that can take it and dish it back a few seconds later and then take me home seems to win the day. It may not be quite as important over Europe where it's easy to bail out and survive as it would be over the Pacific where bailing out means floating in the ocean with sharks and dubious rescue possibilities. An F4U, F6F or a P38 seems the way to go there. It's interesting but no liquid cooled aircraft did well as carrier aircraft. The Brits tried to convert the Spitfire as the Seafire but it was unsuccessful (too fragile of an airframe) and they actually preferred even the Martlet (the F4F in Brit disguise).

[mopardave]

I saw the airplane engine at the WPC Museum when I went up for the 50th Anniversary of the HEMI and "An Evening With the Ramchargers" in Mar '03. I took some pix of it and since then I have received some info on it along with the new 5.7 HEMI. It is a big page with the airplane engine in blueprint form saying" The First HEMI" on one side and "The Latest HEMI" on the other side in blueprint form. It is difficult to believe that something that big in an airplane when you think about how large the airplane would have to be. It should have been faster than the original P-47 just from an aerodynamic standpoint. The connecting rods look like something out of a diesel engine. The supercharger was gear driven from the middle of the engine. Makes me wish that I could have been smart enough to have been an engineer.

[mopardave]

The XI-2220 weighed 2131 lbs and was 122 inches long. The length was the result of having each cylinder manufactured as an individual unit instead of being bored into a block. It took 56 months from first drawing to completed engine. Flew first time July 1945 2500 hp at 3400 rpm (takeoff). Specific fuel consumption(cruise) .42-.44 pounds/hp/hr. How'd you like to pay that fuel bill? One thing other than the HEMI design is that it has a single overhead cam. Wonder why the car engines didn.t do that? Cost? There are 3 of the engines left. New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT, National Air & Space Museum in DC, and WPC Museum in Auburn Hills, MI.