Engine questions help

BiffF15 said:

Additional questions.

1. Why were motor driven cannons not explored during the war?

Click to expand...

Who knows but electric motors and electric generators/alternators were VERY heavy and very inefficient. Same to a lesser extent with hydraulics and engines did not have drive pads for large hydraulic pumps. From memory, motorised Gatling guns were tested on aircraft in ww1 and discarded as impractical at that time.

MiTasol said:

Who knows but electric motors and electric generators/alternators were VERY heavy and very inefficient. Same to a lesser extent with hydraulics and engines did not have drive pads for large hydraulic pumps. From memory, motorised Gatling guns were tested on aircraft in ww1 and discarded as impractical at that time.

Click to expand...

The hydraulics point of view is interesting as I believe the Fw-190 had electric gear and flaps.

BiffF15 said:

The hydraulics point of view is interesting as I believe the Fw-190 had electric gear and flaps.

Click to expand...

Using hydraulics was AFAIU the 'standard' solution at the time. FW 190 and B-29 were pioneers in going more in the direction of electrically powered things. From https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/september/pilot/the-lady-has-a-history about the B-29:

Almost everything aboard the Superfortress was operated electrically, including the landing gear, flaps, propellers, and cowl flaps. Electrical systems were considered less vulnerable to enemy fire than hydraulic systems. The airplane had six engine-driven generators plus a small auxiliary power unit (APU), a 15-horsepower, two-cylinder engine (called the "putt-putt") that drove a seventh generator. Only the brakes were hydraulic. The APU provided electrical power for starting those huge engines. It also was used while taxiing to power the electric hydraulic pump for the brakes.

Click to expand...

The trend towards more and more electrically powered auxiliary systems has continued post-war. The latest poster child in the airliner space being the B787, but also in military aircraft. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.03887

elbmc1969 said:

In addition, WWII fighters didn't have very powerful electrical systems because there weren't many systems that drew a lot of power. The spark plugs would have been drawing much of the power!

Click to expand...

The vast majority of WWII aircraft had two electrical systems.

The ignition system was powered by way of a magneto and the radio equipment plus any form of radar (like IFF early on) was on a separate, generator powered system which included a battery.

The onboard electrical systems were typically high-amp, 24 VDC.

I'm going to start with the bonus question - why were motor driven cannons not explored during the war?
*Note 1: I changed the answer slightly from motor to engine.
As for sleeve valves, everyone so far has missed that they smooth out engine vibrations (Going into a little extra depth for your engineers)
**Note 2: Inline 6 cylinder engine (and V-12, arrow 18, X-24 are all multiples of Inline 6) is statically balanced without any counter weights!
As for connecting rods.

Which is why you see the articulated rods which S Shortround6 has pictured.
As for the blade and fork. As has been the theme, if you center the load on the bearing journal, you can minimize the stress on the crankshaft = lighter crank = lighter engine = lighter airplane.
Note 3: Junkers did a more elegant solution of a simple cut in the rod to minimize the lateral force - which could be applied to both the blade and fork rods, allowing them to get away with just 2 piece rods (main rod and cap) The same Junkers solution is used to today's F1 engines (per Callum).

z42 said:

Using hydraulics was AFAIU the 'standard' solution at the time. FW 190 and B-29 were pioneers in going more in the direction of electrically powered things. From https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/september/pilot/the-lady-has-a-history about the B-29:



The trend towards more and more electrically powered auxiliary systems has continued post-war. The latest poster child in the airliner space being the B787, but also in military aircraft. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.03887

Click to expand...

z42,
I didn't realize the B-29 was so electric biased. I actually fly the 787 and will agree to its heavy electrical engineering to include its brakes (and its very reliable).
Cheers,
Biff

Shortround6 said:

Somebody hung an electric motor, a couple of pullies and a v belt on a Gatling gun before 1900 (?).

Click to expand...

It was the USN who evaluated it. Reportedly they rejected it on the basis that it fired too fast.

re the amount of electrical and/or electro-hydraulic power needed by power driven gatling type guns

re possible power sources for gatling.

During the 1960s and 1970s there were several gun pods developed that used independent power sources for the 20mm M61 Vulcan gun and linkless feed system.

One pod (the SUU-16/A) used a ram-air driven generator (located in the pod) to generate electricity for the gun and feed drives. ROF was the same as for the standard M61A1 gun at 4000 or 6000 rpm (or shorter bursts of 3, 15, 30, or 60 rounds). However, a minimum aircraft speed of 300 knots was necessary for the ram-air turbine generator to produce enough power for full ROF. Ammo load was 1200 rounds and AUW was 1650-1719 lbs.

Another pod (the SUU-23/A) used a modified gun (the GAU-4/A 6-barrel) capable of self powering. A relatively small electric motor is used to start the rotation and feed the first round(s). After the first round is fired the continued operation is via the propellant exhaust gases. The exhaust gases drive unit only adds 25 lbs to the basic 252 lb weight of the standard 6-barrel gun. ROF is same as the SUU-16/A. Ammo load was 1200 rounds and AUW was 1730 lbs.

And another pod (the GPU-2/A) used a rechargeable NiCad battery pack. This pod carried a modified gun (the M197) with only 3-barrels, along with 300 rounds. The batteries could fire 3 complete loads before needing recharge or replacement. ROF was either 700 or 1500 rpm. AUW was 586 lbs.

If we assume that one or more of the above systems could be integrated into a WWII airframe, the volume and weight of the SUU-16/A and SUU-23/A set-ups would seem to me to prevent the practical installation in anything smaller than a P-70, Mosquito (it fit the 57mm Molins gun so...), or similar size aircraft (ie a twin engine as tomo pauk suggested up-thread). Maybe the late-war F7F?

The weight of the GPU-2/A system with the M197 3-barrel gun - at 586 lbs - is actually lighter than the gun load of the 4x 20mm gun Spitfire VC (~880 lbs) or Hurricane IIC (~750 lbs), so weight is not the issue with a single-engine airframe. The problem is where to put the gun? You cannot put the gun in the wing, as both the volume required, weight, and off-center recoil forces would make that unworkable. Also, again as mentioned up-thread, the 20mm Vulcan gun is a large weapon (6' 2" long just for the gun and electro-hydraulic drive) so it would even be a problem to fit it in the nose of the P-39/P-63 (I think, although it might be possible to rearrange some weighty items like radios and armour? ) - maybe extend the nose a bit to allow the installation. Maybe in the nose of the P-38? Although that is a twin-engine airframe.

Dropping down to a .50 cal sized gatling gun (the GAU-19/A 3-barrel) opens up a considerable number of options for installation. The larger single-engine fighters (P-47, F6F, F4U, etc) of the later war period could probably fit one in each wing, and fitting one in the nose of the P-39/P-63 with a useful ammo load should not be a problem. The P-38 could probably fit at least 2 (with a useful ammo load) in its nose. (Note that the GAU-19/A .50 cal gun fits inside an Ø18" gun pod.)

Dropping down still further in the size range, the GAU-2 .30 cal minigun could be made to fit in the about same volume as a 20mm cannon of any type (or in the place of a .50 cal Browning with a bit of a wing bulge?). ROF is from 2000-6000 rpm depending on the drive motor and settings. Weight of the basic GAU-2 gun with a full 3000-round magazine is only about 250 lbs. AUW of a SUU-11B/A gun pod variant (which includes 1500 rounds and a NiCad battery for power) is 325 lbs. (Note that the GAU-2 .30 cal minigun fits inside the Ø12" SUU-11B/A pod.)

Another significant problem is ammo load vs ROF/firing time vs accuracy.
1. Even the comparatively large and heavy modern jet aircraft carry a limited amount of 20mm ammo - with the F-15 (940) carrying the most, followed by the F-14 (675), F-18 (520), F-16 (510) - among the US fighter airframes.
2. At max ROF that is only about 10 sec of fire for the F-15, 7 sec for the F-14, and a little over 5 sec for the F-16 and F-18.
3. When the Vulcan project was begun (in 1946?47?) it was realized that the very high rates of fire would only be acceptable if a commensurate increase in hit probability was achievable. I do not know if even the late-war GGS gunsights would allow effective use of such high ROFs. In the early-war with reflector gunsights . . .? Its not going to do any good firing a 1 second 100-round burst of 20mm/.50 cal/.30 cal if you cannot hit the target, although if you are thinking of shooting at large and relatively unmaneuverable heavy bombers?

Just some thoughts.

A guy I went to college with in the early 1970's had been a USAF enlisted man. He said his F-4E unit deployed to Vietnam and almost immediately after arriving were tasked with a ground support mission. He said that when they fired their M-61's you could count how many bursts they fired because the gun skipped firing one or two rounds between bursts. After that first combat mission they found there were NO unused rounds.

I recall reading that they tested a 5.56MM minigun that fired 11,000 rounds/min.

And on supersonic jet fighters getting rid of the empty shells was a concern. On the F-104 they ran the shells over inside the wings to keep from tossing them outside where they might damage something. The CF-104's were built without M-61's installed because their original role was low altitude recon and nuclear strike. When Canada went non-nuclear M-61's had to be installed in their 104's.

MIflyer said:

And on supersonic jet fighters getting rid of the empty shells was a concern. On the F-104 they ran the shells over inside the wings to keep from tossing them outside where they might damage something.

Click to expand...

Also, at high speed ejection ports cause a lot of drag. At some point most decided it wasn't worth it and cycled spent shell casings back into the magazine.

z42 said:

The trend towards more and more electrically powered auxiliary systems has continued post-war. The latest poster child in the airliner space being the B787, but also in military aircraft. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.03887

Click to expand...

More interesting(?) reading on the topic: https://www.researchgate.net/public...dubG9hZCIsInByZXZpb3VzUGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QifX0

BiffF15 said:

The hydraulics point of view is interesting as I believe the Fw-190 had electric gear and flaps.

Click to expand...

As Z z42 said most aircraft of the period had hydraulics for flaps and landing gears. On a significant percentage the hydraulic pump was manually operated. A few, like the Curtoss P-36/40 series, had a hydraulic system powered by an electric motor. Most with engine driven pumps had a hand pump for emergencies and a smaller number had a separate emergency hydraulic reservoir as well.

In fact there were engine-driven machine guns in use during the WWII. Namely 7.92 mm and 12.7 mm Hungarian Gebauer GKM Machine Guns. GKM = Gebauer Kényszermeghajtású Motorgéppuska.

Some context is needed for the Schwarzlose machinegun. While fairly reliable it was one of the slowest firing machine guns of any army adopted anywhere. The .303 Browning gun could fire about 3 times faster than Schwarzlose so needing a connectection to the petrol engine and two barrels to fire only 33% faster in the early/mid 30s was not exactly putting itself in the for front of gun design.

"This gun is remarkable for being the only machine gun based on the retarded blowback system which met with any degree of success prior to 1950"

z42 said:

Also, at high speed ejection ports cause a lot of drag. At some point most decided it wasn't worth it and cycled spent shell casings back into the magazine.

Click to expand...

From my readings of weapons development at the time, and working on some 1950s jets, I think that it was less an issue with drag, and had more to do with, among other things, reducing the possibility of damage to the firing airplane due to getting hit by ejected cartridge cases and belt links (The Hunter, for example, dumped the cases, but was getting damaged by the links - which is why the "Sabrinas" - the streamlined fairings under the gun bay were scabbed on to store the links rather than dropping them out.
The M39 guns used on the F-100 and F-5 dump the cases
With Gatlings like the Vulcan and the GAU-8, mounted internally, with their linkless feeds feed the cases back into the drums - This keeps the CG shift from moving all that weight around to a minimum, and makes the problem of what to do with the rounds that feed, but don't get fired, when the gun spools down, or that misfire and get extracted as part of the normal operation of the gun. The gun pods save the links, but drop the cases.