5 replies to this topic

[mariner]

As the auto industry moves form pure IC through hybids and struggles to get publically accepted range out of EV's I am reminded of passenger planes in the early 1950's.

 

During WW" the Brits and Germans focussed on jet engines as air superiority was much more important than long range. The US led on large air cooled radials , fuel effeicent so the B29's etc. could carry a decent bomb load to Japan , and to power their huge production of transports like the DC4 .

 

The first generstion of passenger planes  were all US and used the well developod bomber engines to give transatlantic range at last . Like the Boeing Stratocruiser,the Lockhed Constallatiion and the DC6.. The engines were very comples with 28 cylinders ans 56 valves and plugs. Taht complexity caused heavy maintaince , acceptable in war but not for cheap air flighs 

 

Then the military realised that their piston bombers were to vunerable against jet figthere as in Korea so demanded more fuel efficent jet engines for range.Those engines led to the  B47 and B52 in US and the V bombers in UK . 

 

As ever miltary budgets paid for a technical advance with  better materials for example  the constantly hot combustion chambers being key.

 

Just like hybrids there was an attempt to marry jets with propellers for more effiicecy and th Brits built three turboprop passenger planes , the Viscount, Vanguard and Britannia while Lockheed did the Electra ( not wholly succesful but its engines and wings basically live on in the ubiquituos C130. The benefit of the turboprop was better efficincy at lower speeds and altitudes 

 

Finally the aero engine guys learnt to make huge fans ( the CF ones bankrupting Rolls Royce ) which gave the slower stream efficency advantage of the turboprop but no big, heavy expensive prop gearboxes.

 

Sounds somewaht similar to wher we are on IC vs Hybrid vs EV today??

 

 

[Bob Riebe]

Not really, all the aero items used liquid fuel which could be replaced in , depending on tank size, rather quickly.

You push hard , because you have to, and run your battery dry, especially in the frigid North, you are screwed in a bad way.

 

Internal combustion and turbines can be made to work just long enough to get where one must go by locating/purchase (have used white gas and mixed gasoline, in an emergency) fuel that may not do the engine any good but enough to make it run.(rubbing alcohol is better than nothing or as Parnelli Jones found out Tequila will work.)

You cannot replace fuel in an elecromobile quickly in an emergency.

Edited by Bob Riebe, Yesterday, 21:01.

[GreenMachine]

What is your point Mariner?  If you are trying to say that a new technology evolves, perhaps in several directions, I think we already know this.  If you are tying to say that a new technology may be hailed as a panacea or over-hyped, and reassessments of its strengths and limitations occur over time, well quell surprise.

 

Your question might be better phrased 'how do we see the EV/ICE/hybrid powertrains evolving' into the future.

 

Bob, that is a straw man and you know it.  Not saying that some people aren't trying to run EVs in ultra-unfavourable situations (you always get somebody like that), but as I have indicated when you have brought that up previously, if it isn't suitable you get something that is (more) suitable. 

 

As to refuelling, I do believe that I have seen something about the AA/RAC/similar working on solid state batteries (capacitors?) for a short range boost for stranded EVs.  That though is not targetted at your Tesla stuck in the middle of the Sahara, or somewhere north of the Artic circle.  The recent Chinese leap in reducing charging time is, I suspect, indicative of a major focus of battery makers and the vehicle manufacturers on range and recharging improvements.

[Wuzak]

During WW" the Brits and Germans focussed on jet engines as air superiority was much more important than long range. The US led on large air cooled radials , fuel effeicent so the B29's etc. could carry a decent bomb load to Japan , and to power their huge production of transports like the DC4 .

The British developed liquid and air-cooled piston engines for most of their fighters.

Jet engines were developed as well, but didn't get into service in WW2, except for the Gloster Meteor.

The Americans were also developing jet engines, many based on British designs. The Lockheed P-80 prototype flew on a de Havilland jet engine, while the XP-59 had two earlier Whittle designs.

There were several proposals for jet bombers towards the end of the war, but, as far as I know, none were built.

The Germans, on the other hand, were desperate. They were being outproduced, so needed a technological edge to be able to compete. Thus the various jet fighters and bombers, along with high perforamce piston aircraft as well.

 

The first generstion of passenger planes  were all US and used the well developod bomber engines to give transatlantic range at last . Like the Boeing Stratocruiser,the Lockhed Constallatiion and the DC6.. The engines were very comples with 28 cylinders ans 56 valves and plugs. Taht complexity caused heavy maintaince , acceptable in war but not for cheap air flighs

The first generation of passenger planes were largely WW1 types, developed through the 1920s.

 

Improvements were made during the 1930s with models like the Douglas DC-1 and DC-2 and Boeing Model 247.

 

The Boeing Stratocruiser was, essentially, a B-50 with a new fuselage for passengers. It was developed from a military transport version of the B-29.

 

The Douglas DC-6 was developed as a military transport, and then made into an airliner after the war.

 

The Lockheed Constellation was originally intended as an airliner. It started life as a military transport aircraft.

 

Post WW2 there were quite a few surplus military transports which would be used as the backbone of the airline industry.

 

The DC-6 used Pratt & Whitney R-2800 18 cylinder radials and the Constellation family 4 Wright R-3350 18 cylinder radial engines.

 

The Stratocruiser used the R-4360 28 cylinder radial, which was not a popular choice with airlines, for the reasons you said.

 

The follow-on from the DC-6, the DC-7 used R-3350s too. Later versions of it and the Constellation used the R-3350 turbo-compound engines.

 

Over in the UK there were airliners based on the Lancaster named the Lancaster, for example, with the Bristol Brabazon (8 x 18 cylinder Centaurus engines) as a new design.

 

And there was the de Havilland Comet, which fir flew in 1949.

 

Then the military realised that their piston bombers were to vunerable against jet figthere as in Korea so demanded more fuel efficent jet engines for range.Those engines led to the  B47 and B52 in US and the V bombers in UK .

Certainly the USAAF/USAF were aware of the potential issues that jet fighters posed for the B-29/B-50.and had organised trials against jets like the Meteor well before the Korean war.

 

The B-47 first flew in 1947. The first proposal that led to the B-47 were from 1943.

 

There was also the NAA B-45 bomber, which was in service before the Korean War, though it was not a long range heavy bomber like the B-47. There were also the Convair B-46 and Douglas B-48 prototypes.

 

Many of the aircraft used in the Korean War were left-overs from WW2.

[gruntguru]

It is worth mentioning that jets of that era were LESS efficient than piston engines - particularly the Wright Turbo Compound. The jet advantage was power, weight, speed and performance at altitude.

Edited by gruntguru, Today, 03:19.

[GreenMachine]

The Brits and the Germans had jet engined fighters prior to the end of WW2, and if you include the Me262 Germany had two 'bombers', the second being a proper twin jet light bomber (an Arado) seen in action at the close of the war in limited numbers.

 

The Brits lagged with immediate-post-WW2 commercial passenger planes, as far as I can tell due to their reliance on military mostly liquid cooled engines, engines produced with the expectation of short lives - there was no thought of a veneer of civility or possible potential reuse in an altogether different environment - long haul, long TBO.  This may have been a case of optimism about jets but waiting too long, certainly (obviously) DH put all their money on the Comet and for a long time they were the only game in town.

 

 

It is worth mentioning that jets of that era were LESS efficient than piston engines - particularly the Wright Turbo Compound. The jet advantage was power, weight, speed and performance at altitude.

 

Exactly - efficiency be buggered, we want effectiveness.

 

I suspect that the breakthrough was the low bypass turbofan, turboprops being a branch line going nowhere much but serving a noble role as standin until the jets got their act together.  And we know what happened then, the turbofan just took off, metaphorically and literally.

 

Grunt, do you know how a modern state-of-the-art turbofan stacks up for efficiency against the Turbo Compounds?  Presumably the measure is sfc/power?

 

 

.