Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Big Piston Aero Engine using today's technology


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#351 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:37

I wonder what it would be rates at after undergoing the UK 114 hour or US 150 hour type test from WW2....

Half? wild alcohol affected guess.. ;)



Advertisement

#352 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:09

Another form of Hemi six 'type-test'...

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LwBdUJU7ie4



#353 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:25

I am not concerned with Reno, though radials put that one on the map with the Bearcat, I am speaking of war where engine failure means death or life in a hell hole.

 

In combat the radial engined planes greatly improved the chances of the pilots not suffering the above.

 

I do not dislike V engines but war is truly hell and pilots need every survival break they can have.

There were different demands for the aircraft engines adopted by US Navy/Marine fighters, USAAF fighters/escorts or USAAF bombers.  The US Navy/Marines had a policy of using only air-cooled engines, since they perceived them to be more reliable.



#354 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:35

Sorry Bob, but the Bearcat has finished way back from the chequered flag at Reno in recent races..

 

& sure, for bomb-truck/transport roles where for steady rpm droning duty

& where a dedicated engineer was aboard to fiddle-faddle,

fuss & fettle them fickle radials - that's a fine application,  no-contest..

 

But fighter jocks are like racers, they want best possible performance at the max end of the envelope with

least buggerising around with myriad engine management systems in combat situations..

 

The liquid-cooled inlines offered that, & A2A fighter pilots did not see themselves as targets, unlike bomber boys..

Of the top ten U.S. aces in Europe, seven them flew P-47s, including the top two.

The only one killed was a P-51 pilot.

Of the top twenty the only two killed were flying P-51s, the types flown split fifty-fifty.

 

Go to a Korean War Veterans meeting and tell that bs to some pilots who lost friends because their Mustangs liquid cooled engines and less sturdy airframe got them killed.

You are prattling like a fool about something that got a lot of pilots killed or captured..

 

War is not a damn game and is not similar to a race in any stinking manner, people get killed, leaving widows and children without fathers , pull your head out of your buttocks..



#355 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:45

One particularly nonsensical part of Bob's 'Chuck Hawks' P-47 spiel was the remark about the Mustang's ventral

air-scoop being a lethal liability in a belly landing/sea ditching emergency..

 

 

 

The person who wrote that nonsense was this man.

 

Lt. Richard "Rip" Collins - 40th Squadron - New Guinea to Okinawa
 

Richard Collins flew 92 missions in the Pacific during WWII with the 35th Fighter Group attacking the Japanese in New Guinea, Netherlands Indies, the Phillipines and finally to Okinawa. His war ended with long range over water flights to Taiwan and fighter sweeps to the Japaneses mainland where if captured, the Japanese secret police more often that not executed captured fliers. Flying in the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mustang, on one of his last missions he witnessed the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

 

 

I am sure you know so much more about flying a fighter in WWII than he did.

He is now deceased.


Edited by Bob Riebe, 26 January 2014 - 06:49.


#356 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:49

Right back at ya Bob..

 

I have had the pleasure of having spoken to a number WW2 fighter pilots, including Kiwi veterans who

got to fly the best of British & American recip fighters..

 

Guess what?

 

All of them I spoke to - def' preferred the fuss free fighter power of the thoroughbred liquid-cooled types,

over the bomber radial transplants, which were fickle gas-hogs when run in fighters..

 

FYI, the USN did a comprehensive survey of damage/survivability of its recips ( all radials)

& concluded that any significant engine related damage was rarely survivable..

 

Also, USN operated Corsairs suffered - just as heavily as Mustangs did, when doing A2G duty in Korea..



#357 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:56

Another recently deceased WW2 fighter vet was Urban Drew, who shot down Me 262s in the ETO,

while flying P-51Ds - then went to the PTO, & flew P-47Ns..

 

 He much preferred the Mustang, & was not impressed by the mile long take off run.....

a fully loaded( virtual flying gas tank, wet wings & all) Jug took to get airborne, nor your survival chances if it failed.

 

In fact,(& notoriously)- a hot-shot Republic Aviation test-pilot was sent over to show them how, & augured in, cremating himself..


Edited by JAW, 26 January 2014 - 07:36.


#358 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:15

From "Tank Buster vs Combat Vehicle" P.68  Re P-47 combat losses in ETO A2G ops..

 

" From 6 June to the end of December `44 ... 953 P-47s."

 

"There was no was no gradual decline of these losses until the last month of fighting;

even in Feb `45, just 2 months before the end, 150 P-47s...were lost "

 

"From 1 Jan  to 8 May `45... 421 P-47s."

 

Sending those expensive hi-altitude turbo-optimised Jugs down to do A2G dirty work  - was a costly business..

 

But those purty ponies done stole the glamour A2A gig.. ..simply because they were better at it..

 

Top scoring ETO USAAF FGs flew P-51s, & P-51s heavily out-scored Jugs from the get go,

which is why the 8th AF dumped all but one FG of them ( & all P-38s)..


Edited by JAW, 26 January 2014 - 07:34.


#359 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:27

& Bob, FYI - one of my mothers uncles was a very distinguished WW2 fighter pilot,

& he did liken hammering a hot recip fighter plane to being a factory/sponsored  racer, 'cept it was faster..

 

& more of a buzz, getting to blow the shit out of stuff, - even at the risk of your life & seeing your mates die..

 

Plenty of racing deaths, casualties & widows too, - over the years, lots of luck, Bob..


Edited by JAW, 26 January 2014 - 07:32.


Advertisement

#360 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,578 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:36

There were different demands for the aircraft engines adopted by US Navy/Marine fighters, USAAF fighters/escorts or USAAF bombers.  The US Navy/Marines had a policy of using only air-cooled engines, since they perceived them to be more reliable.


And one less fluid to store on-board.

#361 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,578 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:37

Of the top ten U.S. aces in Europe, seven them flew P-47s, including the top two.
The only one killed was a P-51 pilot.
Of the top twenty the only two killed were flying P-51s, the types flown split fifty-fifty.
 
Go to a Korean War Veterans meeting and tell that bs to some pilots who lost friends because their Mustangs liquid cooled engines and less sturdy airframe got them killed.
You are prattling like a fool about something that got a lot of pilots killed or captured..
 
War is not a damn game and is not similar to a race in any stinking manner, people get killed, leaving widows and children without fathers , pull your head out of your buttocks..


If ace making is the measure then the liquid cooled engine wins - thanks, mainly, to the Bf 109.

#362 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:40

& Bf 109 pilots - when interrogated post capture,& as reported in USAAF documents, reckoned the porcine Jug,

( when out of its hi-altitude element - as most were post D-day) to be no match for their birds..


Edited by JAW, 26 January 2014 - 07:42.


#363 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:59

The Jug would have been good and perfect for the pacific with its speed if it had the range... 

 

Any combat records on the M and N models?



#364 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 26 January 2014 - 22:28

 

Top scoring ETO USAAF FGs flew P-51s, & P-51s heavily out-scored Jugs from the get go,

which is why the 8th AF dumped all but one FG of them ( & all P-38s)..

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

 

Of the top twenty U.S. aces in Europe, it was split fifty-fifty between the P-47 and the P-51 with the only two KIA flying Mustangs

Of the top ten seven of them flew the P-47 including the top two.

 

As far as best air to air fighter of WWII had the F6F not been limited to one theater of operations, its score would probably have out done the Mustang as even though the Mustang flew in four theater of operations, it only scored 786  more than the P-51 with 5954 for the Mustang and 5168 for the Hellcat.

 

In the Pacific the P-51 scored a total of nine more kills than the much maligned P-39.

 

If you are going to play stupid number games, at least check your statistics before you make obtuse statements.

 

You think death, or coming home with parts of your body missing is some kind of game, you are still young and stupid , so one can only hope you voluntarily leave Neverland before reality drags you out.

 

Reno and a battle field are not even in the same universe.



#365 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,578 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 January 2014 - 23:12

Of the top twenty U.S. aces in Europe, it was split fifty-fifty between the P-47 and the P-51 with the only two KIA flying Mustangs
Of the top ten seven of them flew the P-47 including the top two.


That is all true.

You have to also consider that the P-47 was on operations a year before the P-51B (Merlin version), and that the USAAF didn't operate many P-51A/A-36s in the ETO.

http://acepilots.com...f_eto_aces.html

 

As far as best air to air fighter of WWII had the F6F not been limited to one theater of operations, its score would probably have out done the Mustang as even though the Mustang flew in four theater of operations, it only scored 786  more than the P-51 with 5954 for the Mustang and 5168 for the Hellcat.


The Hellcat was not limited to the PTO. Britain operated F6Fs (and F4Us) in the ETO.

That said, I don't think the Hellcat would have lasted quite as well in the ETO.


 

In the Pacific the P-51 scored a total of nine more kills than the much maligned P-39.


A case of opportunity again.


As for statistics:
P-47 - claims: 1550.5 air, 739.0 ground
P-47 - Losses: 214 air, 200 ground
P-47 - claim/loss: 7.2 air 3.2 ground

P-51 - claims: 3328.0 air, 3212.8 ground
P-51 - Losses: 326 air, 570 ground
P-51 - claim/loss: 10.2 air 5.6 ground

http://www.wwiiaircr..._OPERATIONS.pdf

Edited by Wuzak, 26 January 2014 - 23:15.


#366 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,576 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 27 January 2014 - 23:34

Actually Wuzak 100 hours at full power was the point at which development were allowed to start playing with the engines, until then the engine is still basic design's responsibility. that was at Rover Lotus and Ford. If Koeniggsegg ignore that then they will have reliability problems right through the development phase, never mind production.



#367 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,578 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:16

Actually Wuzak 100 hours at full power was the point at which development were allowed to start playing with the engines, until then the engine is still basic design's responsibility. that was at Rover Lotus and Ford. If Koeniggsegg ignore that then they will have reliability problems right through the development phase, never mind production.


Is that 100 hours at 1200hp or 100 hours at the original/base engine's max power output?

#368 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,576 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:34

Sorry i was assuming it was a Koennigsegg production engine and spec. I don't know what tuners get up to but i bet one hour at full power would be unusual at 1200hp on a typical engine dyno.

 

That's a hundred gallons of fuel, and some red hot radiators. 



#369 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,415 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:36

Endurance testing automotive engines should bear some relevence to the end use. Would there be any point requiring an F1 engine to last for 100 hours at 700 hp? When would a Koenigsegg have the oportunity to be operated at 1200 hp for 100 hours?



#370 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,576 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 28 January 2014 - 03:25

The 100 hours at full power is not representative of final use, it is just a signoff that the basic parts of the engine are sufficiently well designed to be worth working on. Typically you'd reach that point on a new engine at about 2-4 years from the start, or 2-3 years before production. The Austin A plus Turbo engine is the only one I've been involved in that passed first time, which considering it was just a turbo conversion of an existing engine isn't all that amazing.

 

At Geelong it is also the default durability test on production engines, gets them on and off the dyno in a week.



#371 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 January 2014 - 04:42

I've worked on a few commercial turbofan engine projects.  These engines are typically designed to operate at 60% plus power levels for 90% of their 10,000 hour service life.