Really the allison don't sucks, it is a very good "ground attack engine" but his performance to hight altitude leaves very much to be desired, and i think that he was quickly outdated because this reason.
Best Twin-engined fighter
- Thread starter Njaco
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Really the allison don't sucks, it is a very good "ground attack engine" but his performance to hight altitude leaves very much to be desired, and i think that he was quickly outdated because this reason.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
How about this @sshole - you don't like it here LEAVE or better yet I could expedite your departure...lool realy ? what you think you are ?? you think that for be moderator of this forum you can insult me ??people here have to express ideas like they want. if you don't like the idea at least sow some respect for the others.
by the way, your theories are extremely americans,you defend allways the americans aircrafts why?? you need read more about the others cultures it is going to do well.
Read some of my post and you'll find I'm far from being American biased with regards to aircraft (if that's what you're implying) - can I help it if you're a freaking nitwit and 80 percent of your recent posts don't make any f#*king sense!?!?
My only warning - stop being an idiot or you're out of here - compreenda o @sshole!!!!!
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Yeah, look up some history on the V-1710, even with just the standard supercharger configuration it could be configured for up to 23,000 ft crit. altitude. The main problem was the design lacked the capibillity for a 2-stage or 2-speed supercharger so it was a problem for aircraft that could not use turbochargers. This was due to the USAAC deciding that the engine should be used for low altitude, and if additional high-alt performance was needed a turbocharger would be added.
And we might have seen some turbocharged single-engine V-1710 fighters (like the original P-39 design) if it wasn't another USAAC decision that the US was involnerable to high altitude attack due to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and so fighters were to focus primarily on low altitude strike capibillities. They were prooven wrong at Pearl...
The Merlins had the same poor altitude performance (or almost so) untill the Merlin-61 with 2-stage supercharger. When some P-40s had their allisons replaced with merlins (standard single supercharger) performance did not improve much. Eventually Allison saw the need to incorporate a 2-stage supercharger in their design and added a auxiliary supercharger (as a rudementary 2-stage, though it lacked the 2-speed gearbox and coolers of the Merlins) to the engine. Water injection was also later added. This was used in the P-63 which had markedly improved altitude performance and ceiling over the P-39. (that model was the Allison V-1710-117 rated at 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection)
Even earlier versions had power uprated so even with the inadequate supercharger smaller fighters (like the P-39) would have enough power at altitude even with the drop-off past the critical zone. ( 1325 hp Allison V-1710-47 uprated from the original 1150 hp) Such was seen in the XP-76 (a redesign of the P-39 originaly the P-39E using the Contenetal V-1430 "Hyper" engine). Though Bell added a 2-stage supercharger. It seemed to work and performance was almost up to the turbocharged version of the XP-39, a series was ordered in 1942 but later canceled so Bell could manufacture B-29s. So we'll never know how the P-76 would have done...
see: Bell XP-76 and Bell XP-39E Airacobra
Even though Wikipedia isn't the best resourse, its still more accurate than you've been. There's a good overview on the history of the V-1710 here: Allison V-1710 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And we might have seen some turbocharged single-engine V-1710 fighters (like the original P-39 design) if it wasn't another USAAC decision that the US was involnerable to high altitude attack due to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and so fighters were to focus primarily on low altitude strike capibillities. They were prooven wrong at Pearl...
The Merlins had the same poor altitude performance (or almost so) untill the Merlin-61 with 2-stage supercharger. When some P-40s had their allisons replaced with merlins (standard single supercharger) performance did not improve much. Eventually Allison saw the need to incorporate a 2-stage supercharger in their design and added a auxiliary supercharger (as a rudementary 2-stage, though it lacked the 2-speed gearbox and coolers of the Merlins) to the engine. Water injection was also later added. This was used in the P-63 which had markedly improved altitude performance and ceiling over the P-39. (that model was the Allison V-1710-117 rated at 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection)
Even earlier versions had power uprated so even with the inadequate supercharger smaller fighters (like the P-39) would have enough power at altitude even with the drop-off past the critical zone. ( 1325 hp Allison V-1710-47 uprated from the original 1150 hp) Such was seen in the XP-76 (a redesign of the P-39 originaly the P-39E using the Contenetal V-1430 "Hyper" engine). Though Bell added a 2-stage supercharger. It seemed to work and performance was almost up to the turbocharged version of the XP-39, a series was ordered in 1942 but later canceled so Bell could manufacture B-29s. So we'll never know how the P-76 would have done...
see: Bell XP-76 and Bell XP-39E Airacobra
Even though Wikipedia isn't the best resourse, its still more accurate than you've been. There's a good overview on the history of the V-1710 here: Allison V-1710 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
OUTSTANDING!
I AM GAY!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Goodbye d!ckhead - it's obvious you're in the lower part of the European gene pool!
I saw that coming!
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The original design looks nice though, maby of the callibur of the Hornet, only available before the war's end... Looks cool too! Would have been more use than the final version of the Welkin.
Looks more like the Gloster F.9/37 than the Whirlwind though.
Attachments
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Wow, first "the su-47 is gangsta" now this guy (Neto), you guys are cleaning up today...
Thanks for the complement FBJ. 8) Of and nice edit. LOL
Thanks for the complement FBJ. 8) Of and nice edit. LOL
"I'm gay" means he's happy, isn't it ?
So then I'm glad that he's happy to be banned, suits him.
on you moderators
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
You do know FBJ edited it to say that right?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks guys - we don't mind novices but its hard to allow stupidity here...
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Especially arrogant stupidity!
- Thread starter
- #134
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Its amazing how you can tell when someone is headed to "Banned Heaven"!
That looks amazing, Kool, any idea what the armament would've been ?
That looks amazing, Kool, any idea what the armament would've been ?
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Gloster F.9/37 was mentioned earlier (FBJ had it on the comparisons chart on pg 5) It was to be armmed with 4x 20mm cannons. Performance was similar to the Whirlwind.
The one below is the initial version of what became the Welkin, before it was redesigned for the altered specifications for high-altitude use. I think it had 6x 20mm cannons. I think it looks verru cool Had it been persued in the original form, it might have been like the Hornet... Graeme should know more about this.
The one below is the initial version of what became the Welkin, before it was redesigned for the altered specifications for high-altitude use. I think it had 6x 20mm cannons. I think it looks verru cool Had it been persued in the original form, it might have been like the Hornet... Graeme should know more about this.
Of course, I didn't suppose that he was banned, just because he confessed he's gay. But the moderators way of modifying stupid posts is usually quite amusingYou do know FBJ edited it to say that right?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
But the moderators way of modifying stupid posts is usually quite amusing
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Yes it certainly can.
And Gramme, is there any more you know about the Westland F.4/40 design, proposed dementions maby? It looks like it would have been much better than the F.7/41 version turned out (Welkin).
And Gramme, is there any more you know about the Westland F.4/40 design, proposed dementions maby? It looks like it would have been much better than the F.7/41 version turned out (Welkin).
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I just reread the begining of the thread and noticed that it was claimed that the Beaufighter had a heavier armament than the Mossie. Not true, both had 4x 20mm cannons and the Mossie had 4x .30 cals while the Beau 4x plus 2x, so only a slight increase in firepower and these were in the wings so not as effective as the mossie's nose guns. I also think the Mossie could carry more ammo, so the mossie would be a better all-around fighter.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
A good example of what Flyboy(I think) was talking about when he said that putting a bigger engine in an AC not resulting in more performance was the F2G-1D. It had a R 4360-4 engine rated at 3000 hp for takeoff but had very little better performance than the F4U4 with the R 2800 and inferior performance compared to the F4U5 with the R 2800.
