Was the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp the best engine of WW II?

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:09:01 GMT, "Overlord"
wrote:

The fact of the matter is that both the Packard-Merlin and the P&W-2800 were
excellent engines in their time. Each had it's strong points, and it's
weaknesses.

Ruggedness went to the P&W. Fuel efficiency went to the Merlin. Both powered
excellent aircraft.

Arguements about which machine was best are silly.

As far as the comments go, more energy has been wasted arguing about
terms like: best, first, fastest, highest, most, etc, etc. Regional,
National, Corporate and individual egos get wrapped up in this
passionate discourses and no one's opinion is ever changed, and no one
winds up satisfied.

I ever am entertained by all the qualifiers and modifiers that folks
wax eloquent with in order to support their position. You start with a
superlative, and then add so many adjectives and adverbs that the
claim really means nothing! (For example, don't try to tell a European
or Brazillian or Australian or Russian that the Wrights were the first
to fly!)

What's wrong with "one of the . . ."

Now to the argument, I spent many hours in the Navy being thrust
through the skies by R3350s and J-79s and feel they are both
remarkable, important engines.

However, I do consider the R2800 the better engine, and certainly more
relable and mechanically elegant. On many levels, when compared to any
other engine in WWII, when all factors are considered: power to
weight, reliability, variety of application, longevity,
maintainability, cost of manufacturing, or any other I can think of,
Pratt & Whitney really hit a home run!

One indicator, was when neophytes would ask what the difference was
between the similar appearing DC-6s (2800) and DC-7s (3350) the
standard reply was the former had four engines with three bladed
propellers, while the latter often was powered by three engines with
four bladed propellers!

Cheers, Bob