New engine designs

There is sone new engine designs out there and some belive this ones has a future.
Can we put them to rest?

Revetec Claims to make 3 times the torque with the same hp, but from what I can read on there webpage they produce 2,9 times the torque and use 3 times the work cycle to make this hapend.
Look like I have misunderstod the realationship betwen torque and hp unless they mashure this data in Nm per revelution and hp for work cycles per second. Help me kill it.
www.revetec.com

Quasiturbine Don't nead mutch coment.
www.quasiturbine.com

To this day I did not see anny data that would convinse me to change traditional piston and crankshaft

Why don't you ad CMC Power's Scotch Yoke engine to the list? I think this one looks quite promising (unlike the other two)

http://www.cmcpower.com/

How is the Scotch Yoke going anywhere?


Something else I have always wondered about...Australia seems to be a hotbed for alternative engine designs, and companies promoting them. Why is that do we suppose.

www.rcvengines.com for an interesting rotary-valve (actually rotary-cylinder) engine.

Originally posted by McGuire
How is the Scotch Yoke going anywhere?


Something else I have always wondered about...Australia seems to be a hotbed for alternative engine designs, and companies promoting them. Why is that do we suppose.

I take it you don't think its a good idea? I've looked at it long and hard and it seems pretty bulletproof, if you don't want to go much above 6000rpm at least... Care to share your insights with us?

I think the Scotch Yoke design has been around for over 100 years. It was going to take off, surely it would have by now?

Well, McGuire, that is a very good question.

I think it is probably that every likely lad on either coast fancies himself as an engine nut, so when shown a cross section through some new mechanism, is taken in by the glib talk of the spruiker, and gambles his beer money. Of course it is even better when you are investing other people's money. Ahem, Orbital, ahem.

One of the more laughable attempts in the last decade actually made it onto the SAE-A magazine, which consequently suffered a distinct drop in credibility around here. It had the backing of Sir Jack Brabham, and was one of these millions of tiny cylinders rotating a big crank very slowly affairs.

http://www.splitcycle.com.au/

and I see they are even trying to revive it.

Perhaps another reason of course is that the Repco/ Brabham F1 engines proved that a small Australian effort /could/ take on the world. Which is always a fun idea.

Its to do with self image. Aussies and Kiwis always go on about their homegrown ingenuity and about "battlers" fighting against the "big fella". Hence these kind of things get a willing audience.

Shaun

Yeah, but then why is the USA obsessed with cars that run on water, and 100 mpg carbies? Does each nation have some sort of unique blind spot? Was the equivalent for the Poms a belief that oil will stay inside a production engine if you just wished it to do so?

As a slight expansion on Shaun's observation, in Oz politics it is supposedly advantageous to be seen as the 'underdog' in any election. So you occasionally have the ludicrous sight of two grown men both insisting that he himself is the underdog and the other bloke's got more chance.

http://www.plug2work...sllc/index.html

http://www.archereng...o.uk/detail.htm

You also get the Beare head engine also from Australia.
www.jack-brabham-engines.com

Or this top
http://www.coatesengine.com/index.html

Interesting observation, Greg. With respect to "blind national obsessions" in revolutionary propulsion tech as I paraphrase you, at least the Aussies are a little bit more sophisticated with their novel engine mechanisms than the technically laughably dismissable engines that run on water and 100 MPG vapour carbs in the U.S.

At least some of the novel mechanism engines are actually workeable (if not practical and hardly living up to many of their claims), although not going to replace conventional designs the world over as they would like to hope. Often good technology still falls away because of the weight of the status-quo. That's why there will be always a small group who will develop niche technology and try to push into the mainstream.

Originally posted by Wuzak
I think the Scotch Yoke design has been around for over 100 years. It was going to take off, surely it would have by now?

Good ideas and superior products don't always take off for one reason or another. Look at VHS vs Betamax for instance... While I don't want to get into a discussion about WHY that is, as I'm sure we can find a thousand and one reasons, I just wanted to see what you gentlemen thought was wrong with the concept.

I think VHS vs Beta is a slightly duff comparison. If both formats were to live then essentially both formats would have to support the full range of films the customers wanted. This would double the distribution costs, so once the industry saw which way the wind was blowing, bye bye beta.

Scotch Yoke engines don't force such a dichotomy on the infrastructure, they could co-exist with conventional crank and slider engines.

The numbers on the CMC site look believeable, except for the NVH one - nobody has a 4 cylinder engine running at 95 dBA second order at 4500 rpm in the first world - (and errors(?) like that make me wonder about the rest of the info) - none the less the company has gone broke.

My guess is that the cranks were very complex - they'd have to be built-up, and the conrod is quite tricky. Losing the gudgeon pin and piston skirt is terrific of course (hmm, how do they get the heat out of the piston crown?). Also I'm not entirely sure about the balance.

http://www.sliderengine.com/ here is one companu that claim they can make other configurations but flat as a scotch york prinsiple.

Hahahahahahahaha

That's the best one yet. Once upon a time drunks used to doodle on beermats, and lunatics on the walls of their cells, now they all use Solidworks and Flash animations.

Here's a serious question though: if holding the piston square in the bore is so great (and I'm prepared to believe that it may be a step forward in efficiency) why doesn't an IC engine using a conventional crosshead (as used in steam engines) have any popularity? My guess is that the reduction in useful rpm, and increase in package volume and mass more than compensates for the slight increase in efficiency.

Originally posted by Greg Locock

Here's a serious question though: if holding the piston square in the bore is so great (and I'm prepared to believe that it may be a step forward in efficiency) why doesn't an IC engine using a conventional crosshead (as used in steam engines) have any popularity? My guess is that the reduction in useful rpm, and increase in package volume and mass more than compensates for the slight increase in efficiency.

Crossheads are ubiquitous in large (10MW+) diesels. Even down to a few hundred kW you get articulated pistons in diesels (which are effectively cross heads). you are right that they take up more space and weigh more, but the weight issue is less serious at the low rpm of big engines as the inertial forces become small compared to gas forces.

New/alternative ways of transfering work from combustion to rotation.
www.revetec.com
www.quasiturbine.com
www.cmcpower.com
www.splitcycle.com.au
www.sliderengine.com

New top and valve designs.
www.jack-brabham-engines.com
www.coatesengine.com/index.html
www.rcvengines.com
www.new4stroke.com

And finaly all new concepts
www.regtech.com
www.plug2work.com/angellabsllc/index.html
www.archerengine.dabsol.co.uk/detail.htm

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Hahahahahahahaha

That's the best one yet.

Hey! some one actualy put there hart and soul into this (unknown for what reason)

Seriously how mutch of this actualy have anny value exspect it is a nice thing to display in tecnical museums by the time we are retired?

There was a new one in autoweek by Crower. It is a 6 stroke compound engine that injects water into the cylinder after the exhaust stroke to absorb cylinder heat and generate work from the steam.
The steam acts as "coolant" for the engine, which has no cooling system besides some fins on parts of the head.
He has a running model of course, who doesn't? But he has a reputation (Crower Cams etc.) in the engine world the makes it possible to take him seriously.
Dunno, looks possible, limited RPM I would guess, but in some applications that would be ok. It would be getting work out of heat that is now thrown out, so maybe it can help
JwS

I have read that article to.

It is a hobby project he has and it seams he don't take it seriously if it fails.
I can tell you it will not work that well. It has ben tested allready 100 years ago.
It has ben conducted some test resently where fuel and water has ben mixed.
It show that up to 15% of water in the fuel can lover NOx because the combustion become colder and also reduction off co2.

Water in fuel will make fuel drops explode when water evaporate causing bether combustion to so it ad a litle power and it generate some steam witch also generate power. If you use more than 15% you will cool down the combustion so mutch that the exspansion of gases is reduced so mutch that you lose power.

I did think about a water injection system myself once, using water cooling on the cylinder liner and have the water superheated by the exhaust and then injecting it having a temperature of 200C it should evaporate quickly and I should able to use alot more. Only a theory I had witch I newer tested.

He do mention a 6-stroke system and I did not see this so maybe he got something going that I don't know. Maybe he got something that will make me look like a fool.

Also the numbers I present is not acurate since it's 2 years since I last look at this stuff.

Originally posted by Stian1979
He do mention a 6-stroke system and I did not see this so maybe he got something going that I don't know.

Note that he is not mixing the gas and water, nor is he injecting water into the combustion chamber when the gas/air mixture is in there. As mentioned, the cam rotates 1/3rd crank speed rather than half.

From that, I gather...

[1 down] intake stroke (intake valve open) air/gas sucked in
[2 up] compression stroke (both valves closed)

[3 down] "gas/air burn" power stroke (both valves closed)
[4 up] exhaust recompression stroke (both valves closed)

[5 down] "steam expansion" power stroke (both valves closed)
[6 up] exhaust stroke (exhaust valve open)

Bruce Crower isn't some backyard inventor... and his "hobby" shop is seriously equipped for prototyping, R&D, and testing. It does surprise me though that he went public at a point when he hasn't yet done more testing, verification, and a more "automobilish" prototype.

Oh... and don't dismiss ideas that were "tested already 100 years ago." Improvements in materials, processes, and just understanding, etc., can be enabling.

Originally posted by Engineguy


Note that he is not mixing the gas and water, nor is he injecting water into the combustion chamber when the gas/air mixture is in there. As mentioned, the cam rotates 1/3rd crank speed rather than half.

From that, I gather...

[1 down] intake stroke (intake valve open) air/gas sucked in
[2 up] compression stroke (both valves closed)

[3 down] "gas/air burn" power stroke (both valves closed)
[4 up] exhaust recompression stroke (both valves closed)

[5 down] "steam expansion" power stroke (both valves closed)
[6 up] exhaust stroke (exhaust valve open)

Bruce Crower isn't some backyard inventor... and his "hobby" shop is seriously equipped for prototyping, R&D, and testing. It does surprise me though that he went public at a point when he hasn't yet done more testing, verification, and a more "automobilish" prototype.

Oh... and don't dismiss ideas that were "tested already 100 years ago." Improvements in materials, processes, and just understanding, etc., can be enabling.

Don't insult engineer's 100 years ago. They found sulutions we have not ben able to replace until this day. It's not only 100 years ago they have ben doing this. it has ben don'e several times by both unerveretys and motorproducers. There are engines used comercial that use water injection both mixed with fuel and injected seperatly.

Still if he inject the water the way you figure out the engine get force added to the cranshaft from the combuston. Then the same force has to be aplied to the pistion again to compress the gasses.
Then the water is injected and the temperature drops and make the gases increase it's densety(drop in preshure)

Seriously I think the outcome will be that you only stil can use 15% water and you waste energy on performing 2 extra cycles

Also how manny times the water ekspands when avaporated is something he must have taken out of a old bock about locomotives. If you got a preshure at 22090kPa the water will not ekspand at all while at 1kPa it will expand 129000 times. It's alot depended on preshure and temperatures.

He say himself that I see the sulution in a dream and that he still did not use a dyno on it and as far as I can tell he did not go to the media, but they come to him. If a journalist came to wisit me I would take him to showoff my colection on strange machines to.

I don't doupht he's abilety, but I consider it as a old mans hobby and he seam to have the try and fail mentalety and not the type to sitt hours at the table with tables and calculator.
Don't misunderstand because I am impresed about the idea.

Hello? What article did you read?
The combustion gases are exhausted as normal, there is no re-compression work. The water is then injected to absorb cylinder heat and it's expansion makes another work cycle.
I don't think it is anything against engineers of the past to recognize that there are materials and methods available today that can solve some of the problems that they might have not been able to solve.
The expansion work of the water is found in steam tables, you don't have to go back to steam engine days. I graduated in 1993 and guess what, we did extensive work with steam tables even then, it is still the basis for most power generation.
JwS

Here is a more complete article than Autoweek.

Bruce Crower has lived, breathed and built hot engines his whole life. Now he’s working on a cool one—one that harnesses normally-wasted heat energy by creating steam inside the combustion chamber, and using it to boost the engine’s power output and also to control its temperature.

“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30 years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder. “One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I knew immediately that I had the answer.”

Hurrying to his comprehensively-equipped home workshop in the rural hills outside San Diego, he began drawing and machining parts, and installing them in a highly modified, single-cylinder industrial powerplant, a 12-hp diesel he converted to use gasoline. He bolted that to a test frame, poured equal amounts of fuel and water into twin tanks, and pulled the starter-rope.

“My first reaction was, ‘Gulp! It runs!’” the 75-year-old inventor remembers. “And then this ‘snow’ started falling on me. I thought, ‘What hath God wrought…’”

The “snow” was flakes of white paint blasted from the ceiling by the powerful pulses of exhaust gas and steam emitted from the open exhaust stack, which pointed straight up.

Over the following year Crower undertook a methodical development program, in particular trying out numerous variations in camshaft profiles and timing as he narrowed the operating parameters of his patented six-stroke cycle.

Recently he’s been trying variations of the double-lobe exhaust cams to delay and even eliminate the opening of the exhaust valve after the first power stroke, to “recompress” the combustion gasses and thus increase the force of the steam-stroke.

The engine has yet to operate against a load on a dyno, but his testing to date encourages Crower to expect that once he gets hard numbers, the engine will show normal levels of power on substantially less fuel, and without overheating.

“It’ll run for an hour and you can literally put your hand on it. It’s warm, yeah, but it’s not scorching hot. Any conventional engine running without a water jacket or fins, you couldn’t do that.”

Indeed, the test unit has no external cooling system—no water jacket, no water pump, no radiator; nothing. It does retain fins because it came with them, but Crower indicates the engine would be more efficient if he took the trouble to grind them off. He has discarded the original cooling fan.

So far he has used only gasoline, but Bruce believes a diesel-fueled test engine he is now constructing—with a hand-made billet head incorporating the one-third-speed camshaft—will realize the true potential of his concept.
Potential…and Questions
Crower invites us to imagine a car or truck (he speaks of a Bonneville streamliner, too) free of a radiator and its associated air ducting, fan, plumbing, coolant weight, etc.

“Especially an 18-wheeler, they’ve got that massive radiator that weighs 800, 1000 pounds. Not necessary,” he asserts. “In those big trucks, they look at payload as their bread and butter. If you get 1000 lb. or more off the truck…”

Offsetting that, of course, would be the need to carry large quantities of water, and water is heavier than gasoline or diesel oil. Preliminary estimates suggest a Crower cycle engine will use roughly as many gallons of water as fuel.

And Crower feels the water should be distilled, to prevent deposits inside the system, so a supply infrastructure will have to be created. (He uses rainwater in his testing.) Keeping the water from freezing will be another challenge.

But the inventor sees overriding benefits. “Can you imagine how much fuel goes into radiator losses every day in America? A good spark-ignition engine is about 24 percent efficient; ie., about 24 cents of your gasoline dollar ends up in power. The rest goes out in heat loss through the exhaust or radiator, and in driving the water pump and the fan and other friction losses.

“A good diesel is about 30 percent efficient, a good turbo diesel about 33 percent. But you still have radiators and heavy components, and fan losses are extremely high on a big diesel truck.”

Bottom-line, Bruce estimates his new operating cycle could improve a typical engine’s fuel consumption by 40 percent. He also anticipates that exhaust emissions may be greatly reduced. It’s all thanks to the steam.

“A lot of people don’t know that water expands 1600 times when it goes from liquid into steam. Sixteen hundred! This is why steam power is so good. But it’s dangerous…”

The danger of a boiler explosion has long been a factor in engineering—and in operating—steam powerplants of all kinds, and Crower is properly wary of the miniature boiler he has conjured up inside his test engine. That’s one reason he chose to use one originally manufactured as a diesel, for its inherent strength, though he installed a carburetor and ignition system so it could burn gasoline at first.

The original diesel fuel injector system now supplies the water spray to generate the steam-stroke.

In addition to producing extra power, the injected water cools the piston and exhaust valve, which suggests to Crower that he could raise the compression ratio. “I’ve done this many times on regular engines: 15-to-1 on gasoline for the first five seconds works pretty good until you get some chamber heat and then suddenly it gets into pinging. But with the chamber being chilled, I bet 12-, 13-to-1 will be no problem on cheap fuel.

“So what we can maybe do is have fuels that aren’t quite as good…It’ll save a nickel a gallon not having to keep three grades going.”

As for his hope of lowering emissions, Bruce speculates the steam might purge “cling-on hydrocarbons” out of the combustion chamber. “This thing may turn out to be so clean that you won’t have to have a catalytic converter.

But he admits that’s unknown, saying “there’s a lot of experimenting still to be done.” Which prospect makes him smile. He thrives on this kind of challenge.
Bruce’s Background
“You’ve kinda got to be in the cam business and know the dynamics of engines,” Bruce Crower says about how the idea occurred to him. And he certainly has that background.

He was building and racing hot rods (and hot bikes), manufacturing speed equipment and operating his own speed shop in his home town of Phoenix when he was still a teen.

After moving to San Diego in the 1950s, among other exploits he dropped a Hemi into a Hudson and drove it to a 157-mph speed record at Bonneville.

Inevitably, the inventive and inexhaustible Crower built up a major equipment business in superchargers, intake manifolds, clutches and, especially, camshafts. He’s also credited with first suggesting a rear wing to Don Garlits—in 1963, three years before Jim Hall’s winged Chaparral. Bruce Crower is now in Florida’s Drag Racing Hall of Fame.

Crower actually had introduced a wing two years earlier, during practice on Jim Rathmann's 1961 Indianapolis car—five years before Jim Hall’s winged Chaparral. Bruce had been crewing at the Speedway since 1954 (Jimmy Bryan, second place), and had been part of Rathmann's 1960 victory effort. He was likewise on the winning teams in 1966 (Graham Hill) and 1967 (AJ Foyt). Three decades later, in 1998, Eddie Cheever won with Crower cams.

Bruce even produced his own complete Indy engine, a flat-8 that didn’t quite make the field in 1977 and then was rendered obsolete (due to its width) by the advent of ground-effect tunnels. But the Crower 8 and its automatic clutch did win an SAE award for innovation.

Today, Crower Cams and Equipment Company employs about 160 people in five facilities, and manufactures not only cams but crankshafts and connecting rods—including titanium rods for (unnamed) Formula One customers.

Bruce Crower can’t be called retired now, but he’s happy to let the company he founded “roll along” while he “plays with cars.” That’s how he looks at the intensive R&D work he carries out in the privacy of his 13-acre horse property near the rural community of Jamul.

One of several projects is building up Honda S2000 engines for the Midget raced by his granddaughter, Ashley Swanson. (“I think she’s on par with Danica Patrick,” says the proud grampa.)

But his prime focus is proving his six-stroke engine is as revolutionary as he believes it is. “I’ve been trying to find something wrong with the whole basic idea for almost a year,” he says, “but I think we’re going to have a very marketable item.”

Then he adds philosophically, “If it turns out to be great, fine. If it doesn’t, it’s just another year out of my life that I’ve had a lot of fun doing something.”

Recently he’s been trying variations of the double-lobe exhaust cams to delay and even eliminate the opening of the exhaust valve after the first power stroke, to “recompress” the combustion gasses and thus increase the force of the steam-stroke.

Say's so right there; I didn't dream it up... but it does seem that leaving ALL the exhaust gases in would be counter-productive... essentially nullifying all the gasoline power meaning all of the net power comes from the steam expansion.

Might as well close the valve a little early to keep more heat and some starting positive pressure in the bore. One of those things that needs experimentation to optimize the trade-offs.

Originally posted by Engineguy

Say's so right there; I didn't dream it up... but it does seem that leaving ALL the exhaust gases in would be counter-productive... essentially nullifying all the gasoline power meaning all of the net power comes from the steam expansion.

Some of the combustion heat will find its way into the block, head, and piston. Since the exhaust gases being re-compressed are slightly cooler than the exhaust gases that originally expanded, the pressure in the cylinder will be slightly lower. Thus, it will take less work to recompress the exhaust gases than the work the gases did when they expanded.

I don't doubt that the difference will be slight, especially at higher RPMs where there is less time for the heat to conduct into the surroundings. I can't help but think that a quick blip of the exhaust valve at BDC would improve performance slightly. However, not opening the valve at all is definitely one of the boundaries of the process, and would be a useful performance data point for comparison.

Originally posted by JwS
Hello? What article did you read?
The combustion gases are exhausted as normal, there is no re-compression work. The water is then injected to absorb cylinder heat and it's expansion makes another work cycle.
I don't think it is anything against engineers of the past to recognize that there are materials and methods available today that can solve some of the problems that they might have not been able to solve.
The expansion work of the water is found in steam tables, you don't have to go back to steam engine days. I graduated in 1993 and guess what, we did extensive work with steam tables even then, it is still the basis for most power generation.
JwS

The steam tables I have here in my office tels me it will only exspand 1600 times at atmosferic preshure (100kPa) So I suspect he did not exsactly read a steam table, but more a bock about old locomotives. I did not say steam is old time stuff.

I hated steam in scool. I found it boring to calculate on turbine angles and enthalpi loss, but it was not that stupid after all.

What if water was preheated in a oil cooler, heated in the cylinder water jacked, super heated by the exhaust gasses.

Have a 3 valve cylinder and 1 steam nozzle.
1.fuel go in (inlet valve open).
2.comresion.
3.work.
4.exhaust out (exhaust valve open) .
5.superheated water go in trough steam nozzle and avaporate imidently and consuming remaining heat in cylinder while performing work.
6.steam go out(steam valve open to condenser) purpose of having 3 valves.

It would nead some filters to clean the water befour it's reused.

Gues I have to start playing in my workshop to.

Originally posted by Stian1979
5.superheated water go in trough steam nozzle and avaporate imidently and consuming remaining heat in cylinder while performing work.
6.steam go out(steam valve open to condenser) purpose of having 3 valves.

It would nead some filters to clean the water befour it's reused.

I was wondering about the possibility of recyling the water/steam after it has done its work. That would cut down the water usage substantially, but will never be a 100% recovery, obviously.

If that is not viable then the engine may be doomed by the fact that in some areas of the world water can be very scarce at certain times of the year (or the whole year around).

By the same token, it may give some governments (like ours) the impetus to implement water recycling plants.

Originally posted by Wuzak


I was wondering about the possibility of recyling the water/steam after it has done its work. That would cut down the water usage substantially, but will never be a 100% recovery, obviously.

If that is not viable then the engine may be doomed by the fact that in some areas of the world water can be very scarce at certain times of the year (or the whole year around).

By the same token, it may give some governments (like ours) the impetus to implement water recycling plants.

I gues the water usage would be reduced with quite a bit and refilling could be done by recovering water from the air conditioner evaporator if it's used in a car with AC.

Wonder if we might have some old 4 valve diesels on the shipyard.
Could cutt some camshafts and weld them together to fitt this aplication.

Remove 1 inlet valve and use it for leting in steam and use 1 exhaust valve for leting it out again.
Keep the original diesel nozzle.

It's should be good enough for a testrunn. Just nead to find a way to test the performance.

Maybe use a electric motor and 3 cables out into the sea to breake the speed and meshure the power in the cables trough curent transformers and a multimeter?

1 testrunn befour rebuilding and 1 after.
Not a good way to do it, but should provide enough information if it's anny point of even thinking about it annymore.

It's late here in asia now so I actualy don't have brain capasety annymore.

Originally posted by Stian1979

http://www.slidereng.../Crosshead.html

http://www.pivotalen....html#animation

Steam tables seem interesting but what about the flexebility of a piston engine? Is an additional injection of water in the same stroke effective? And again, water injection was done in plane engines (but it was the best fighter of WWII).

Originally posted by dominick
And again, water injection was done in plane engines (but it was the best fighter of WWII).

Care to tell us which plane was the best fighter in WW2, since many planes in WW2 used water injection or water/methanol injection, even some had nitromethane injection.

The Germans used water and methanol/water more than the British or Americans. The aicraft Americans usually had water injection fitted to were fitted with big radials - such as the P&W R2800.

Originally posted by Stian1979


The steam tables I have here in my office tels me it will only exspand 1600 times at atmosferic preshure (100kPa) So I suspect he did not exsactly read a steam table, but more a bock about old locomotives. I did not say steam is old time stuff.

I hated steam in scool. I found it boring to calculate on turbine angles and enthalpi loss, but it was not that stupid after all.

What if water was preheated in a oil cooler, heated in the cylinder water jacked, super heated by the exhaust gasses.

Have a 3 valve cylinder and 1 steam nozzle.
1.fuel go in (inlet valve open).
2.comresion.
3.work.
4.exhaust out (exhaust valve open) .
5.superheated water go in trough steam nozzle and avaporate imidently and consuming remaining heat in cylinder while performing work.
6.steam go out(steam valve open to condenser) purpose of having 3 valves.

It would nead some filters to clean the water befour it's reused.

Gues I have to start playing in my workshop to.

That will work with the addition of a retro-encabulator.

You will definitely need to recalibrate the flux capacitors if thats going to work

Inquiring minds want to know. Here are some contenders.

Originally posted by Wuzak


Care to tell us which plane was the best fighter in WW2, since many planes in WW2 used water injection or water/methanol injection, even some had nitromethane injection.

The Germans used water and methanol/water more than the British or Americans. The aicraft Americans usually had water injection fitted to were fitted with big radials - such as the P&W R2800.

Water injection was for cooling and it also raised the CR.

Oops, that should be a P38.

Originally posted by Wuzak


Care to tell us which plane was the best fighter in WW2, since many planes in WW2 used water injection or water/methanol injection, even some had nitromethane injection.

The Germans used water and methanol/water more than the British or Americans. The aicraft Americans usually had water injection fitted to were fitted with big radials - such as the P&W R2800.

I graduated '68. Rivets and boilers for steam engines and 300 year old formulas was about all I learned.

Originally posted by JwS
Hello?
The expansion work of the water is found in steam tables, you don't have to go back to steam engine days. I graduated in 1993 and guess what, we did extensive work with steam tables even then, it is still the basis for most power generation.
JwS

Originally posted by phantom II
I graduated '68. Rivets and boilers for steam engines and 300 year old formulas was about all I learned.

I think the only one that has changed is kj instead of rankie or what it was called.
The only new thing to steam is angles on the turbine blades in steam turbines, that is only 100 years old.

I do think it's a diference betwen a old bock about locomotives and a old bock for enginers about steam. If I want to learn combustion theory I don't go and buy Hot Road Magazin or wings west product catalogue if I want to learn aerodynamics. I would like to learn that actualy, I only learn hydro dynamics at school. :

Dos annyone hawe a shankie diagram around? The only ones I got is from huge 2-stroke diesels.
I would like to see how mutch that go away in heat and from where on a normal car engine.

I once read the best WWII plane was the P47, I'm sure. I thought it was warbird mag. that featured the comparison. The 262 and the spitfire have their known advantages, but also the flaws (handle with care!). The 162 can be seen as the german counterpart, I think.

http://forums.starwa...59180&start=180
4th message. It goes on for 176 pages!!!

Didn't read your link, but the 'best' is rather a difficult concept when it comes to WW2 planes, what was the mission? which timeframe? what tradeoffs do you want? Does production volume count? does production cost count?

They were developing at a rate slightly slower than tanks (which were running about 1 generation in 9 months), none the less, there was no question that in 18 months the previous 'best' design would have been outbested by the latest.

Having said that the P47 was a fine airplane, no question.

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Didn't read your link, but the 'best' is rather a difficult concept when it comes to WW2 planes, what was the mission? which timeframe? what tradeoffs do you want? Does production volume count? does production cost count?

They were developing at a rate slightly slower than tanks (which were running about 1 generation in 9 months), none the less, there was no question that in 18 months the previous 'best' design would have been outbested by the latest.

Having said that the P47 was a fine airplane, no question.

Exactly.

If you wanted an aircraft to defend your airspace with only a small amount of warning then the Spitfire would probably be better than the P47, P38, or P51. However if you wanttop roam deep into enemy territory then the Spitfire was not the best bet.

The other point is that there were many variants of each type. The Spitfire evolved beyond recognition. The P38 didn't solve many of its flaws until the J or L model, and after several thousand had been produced.

Originally posted by dominick
I once read the best WWII plane was the P47, I'm sure. I thought it was warbird mag. that featured the comparison. The 262 and the spitfire have their known advantages, but also the flaws (handle with care!). The 162 can be seen as the german counterpart, I think.

http://forums.starwa...59180&start=180
4th message. It goes on for 176 pages!!!

I think I read somewhere that the spitfire was concidered bether because of it's engine.
Did not both of them use the merilin?
I have ben wondering about this for some time and maybe someone here know the answer

The P-47 used the P&W R- 2800 with a turbo charger. The Spit used the Merlin with some later versions using the Griffon. WPT

Originally posted by WPT
The P-47 used the P&W R- 2800 with a turbo charger. The Spit used the Merlin with some later versions using the Griffon. WPT

Thanx

best is highly relative... my favourite is the mosquito. if i remember well, none was ever shot down by the flak.

second favourite, the mustang.

gm

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Didn't read your link, but the 'best' is rather a difficult concept when it comes to WW2 planes, what was the mission? which timeframe? what tradeoffs do you want? Does production volume count? does production cost count?

They were developing at a rate slightly slower than tanks (which were running about 1 generation in 9 months), none the less, there was no question that in 18 months the previous 'best' design would have been outbested by the latest.

Having said that the P47 was a fine airplane, no question.

Spot your favourites..

If I have to pick a favorite I would pick the invader.
It survived for a long time and I think it look kind of cool.

The counterpart of the P-47 is probably the Fw190 (not 162). It is the additional protection of the pilot what gives an advantage, at the invasion. The mosquito is an interesting case, entirely made from wood by jobless furniture-makers! It it stands up well againts ennemies according to the simulator. Certainly when the Airacobra is tried, it looks a bit like the Me262 with a nose landing-gear but it can hardly hit a cruising bomber.

My own research would have the late "dora" FW190 as about as good as it gets, pre jet.

Shaun

As far as a military prop plane goes, I think you'd be hard pressed to overlook the Douglas A-1. It was an attack plane that was introduce right at the end of WW II. From there, the Air Force went on to fast, sleek jets. In Korea and Vietnam, they realized that fighter jets were great at high altitude for short amounts of time, but for tough duty they needed something that would carry the kitchen sink, and fly forever all while doing close ground support. The A-1 was just that plane. It was commissioned until the 70's. That's a hell of a long time for a combat aircraft to be on the books.

Everyone knows the A-1's successor, the A-10 Warthog. It does basically the same job, except with jet engines.

Originally posted by crono33
best is highly relative... my favourite is the mosquito. if i remember well, none was ever shot down by the flak.

second favourite, the mustang.

gm

My vote is for the Spitfire. Maybe not the best but by far the most significant.

It had to carry the fight early in the war and if it had not been successful all the others wouldn't have counted for much.

One Britain was out an invasion from Africa or through Russia woudl have been tough.

Germany already had missles and the US had a long way to catch up.

If we had to invade through Russia the post war world would have been very different