Dawncaster
Airman 1st Class
- 110
- Dec 23, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ah, I didn't expect it to look that way.I encircled the area in a brighter shade of red than the area you encircled, and connected them together. The front area is the front of the tear-drop.
It's a cool calculation again.As for your graph on the F4U-4, I was under the impression that, up to this point, that the propeller was 13'4" instead of 13'2". You learn something new everyday. As for the gear ratio being reduced from 0.5 to 0.45, is definitely smart.
While the tip-speed is still quite high, it only goes supersonic at critical altitude in WEP and Military power settings, despite being considerably faster...
I guess I was wrong then...Ah, I didn't expect it to look that way. . . It's flap linkage.
It's not a complicated math calculation (SQRT*((FPS)^2+(RPM/60)^2)))/Speed of Sound at Altitude, but it's nice to illustrate the tip-speed. It seems that the goal in such a large propeller was to drive up climb-rates (which is a low-speed domain on propeller aircraft) at low-speeds. Performance gets sacrificed at high speeds (particularly altitudes where the speed of sound is lower).It's a cool calculation again.
Oh well, I could run some numbers for based on actual flight test data.Well, calculation seems to have used the detailed specification of F4U-4.
I guess I was wrong then...
I'd guess there are two important questions to ask
- Did they ever put the "tear-drop" arrangement on an operational aircraft?
- Do you have any pictures of such an aircraft from the side or aft quarter?
It's not a complicated math calculation (SQRT*((FPS)^2+(RPM/60)^2)))/Speed of Sound at Altitude, but it's nice to illustrate the tip-speed. It seems that the goal in such a large propeller was to drive up climb-rates (which is a low-speed domain on propeller aircraft) at low-speeds. Performance gets sacrificed at high speeds (particularly altitudes where the speed of sound is lower).
Looking at this, I would figure the first three figures were based on wartime-emergency power, with the remaining three on military-power.
I'm reminded of a pilot who found that at certain speeds, lowering the RPM on the governor actually gave him better performance. It's probably for the same reason as on this graph. I'm curious how often pilots in practice would run at 2600 in favor of 2700 at WEP settings at 18360 feet, and at 23480-23500', at 2500 in favor of 2700? It seems like it would have certainly provided more speed...
Oh well, I could run some numbers for based on actual flight test data.
BTW: What's the WEP figures for the R-2800-18W in WWII times? I'm seeing 2380 hp & 2450 hp, and I'm not sure if either are accurate.
BTW: I'm not sure who said this, but somebody said that there were early problems with the F4U-1 that, in addition to issues with the supercharger, there were flights were complete engine failure occurred about 29000 feet (well below the aircraft's service ceiling) due to malfunctions where sparks would jump the gap and burn out the distributor points.
Why did this happen?
That's pretty cool.Yes, it was installed on the late F4U-1s.
That seems to cover it, though normal rated power usually involves a lower manifold pressure, which is easier to achieve, even at higher altitudes.Great, perhaps the below content of the manual is also about it.
So 2450 @ 60" and 2650 @ 70".It's not clear. documents during World War II specify 2450 BHP of 60"hg and 2650 BHP of 70"hg. 2380 BHP was the figure specified by 1946 ACP.
Does this have to do with the air having an insulating effect against electricity? I remember another member talking about this on high altitude designs because with less air, it makes it easier for electrical currents to jump.It looks like the contents of a post I wrote a few pages ago.
According to Barrett Tillman, It was traced to faulty pressurization from the Pratt and Whitney supercharger, which sometimes aloowed the spark to "jump the gap" and burn out the distributor points.
It had to do with the basics of cowl design (and there might be errors here, so bear with me -- I'm used to being the village idiot when it comes to propeller driven aircraft).
Some aircraft have tighter cowlings than other aircraft, being barely big enough to encompass the engine they're built around; a more prominent bell-mouthed shape, a fatter spinner, and a narrower aft-cowling, and so on. These are generally aimed at reducing cooling drag, though they have a tendency to reduce cooling. I figure, if the top-cowling flap was faired over by a metal-plate, then the airflow would have to escape out the other flaps, or the cowling would simply be "tighter" in the back.
- Propeller: Since almost all aircraft were tractor props, the propeller would be in front of the cowling. The propeller accelerates the airflow and increases the pressure of the flow.
- Cowl-Lip: The cowl is divergent in shape, which slows down the airflow going through the cowling: This effectively provides more pressure and more air in a given area to absorb the heat from the engine. Provided the velocity is slowed down and builds up pressure, yet remains fast enough to carry away the heat, you have a design that seems workable. While increasing pressure does produce heat, it's not particularly massive (this becomes more significant when supersonic), and the air outside is very cold, and the air temperature is high.
- Air-Cooled Engine: Air flows from the cowl-lip to the engine, and is heated up substantially by the engine. This causes the air to absorb the heat, and bringing down the engine temperature. It also causes the air to heat up, and expand. Provided the expansion goes more rearwards than forwards, you have a degree of "thrust" that is produced (unfortunately, it almost never equals the amount of drag, but it will negate some of the drag produced by the assembly).
- Aft Cowl / Cowl-Flaps: I'm not sure the exact term but it's basically the shape of the cowl/fuselage behind the engine, which form a convergent shape. Theoretically you want to make the shape quite convergent as it accelerates the airflow the most, but pressure plays a role in imposing limits on this. The pressure gets too low, and you'll see the air dam up, so you'll have cowl-flaps to allow extra area for the air to escape. This arrangement reminds me a bit of the nozzles on jet-fighters, which are fully open at idle to allow the airflow plenty of area to escape; as the engine spools up, the exhaust pressure goes up, and the nozzle can be narrowed down, and produce a faster exhaust velocity. When 100% power is produced, the nozzles are narrowed in as much as possible. This set-up seems the same on cowling flaps.
Hi Darren,
Hope these images help!
Cheers,
Dana
View attachment 577615View attachment 577616View attachment 577617
According to Barrett Tillman, It was traced to faulty pressurization from the Pratt and Whitney supercharger, which sometimes aloowed the spark to "jump the gap" and burn out the distributor points.
Yes. Air is a pretty decent insulator at sea level, but the thinner it gets, the thinner its insulation value gets. Engines operating above 18-20K generally need to have the Magneto's, and sometimes the entire ignition system, pressurized. All it takes is one leaky seal amongst the many in the system, and arcing and sparking set in. Not only hurts performance, but generates radio interference as well.Does this have to do with the air having an insulating effect against electricity? I remember another member talking about this on high altitude designs because with less air, it makes it easier for electrical currents to jump.
When was this starting to become a common feature on aircraft engines?Yes. Air is a pretty decent insulator at sea level, but the thinner it gets, the thinner its insulation value gets. Engines operating above 18-20K generally need to have the Magneto's, and sometimes the entire ignition system, pressurized.
When did engines with high tension ignition start operating for extended periods above 20K? That's your history assignment.When was this starting to become a common feature on aircraft engines?
Searching...When did engines with high tension ignition start operating for extended periods above 20K? That's your history assignment.
F6F-5:
Empty Weight: 4780kg
Loaded Weight: 5630kg
Wing Area: 31.0m2
Engine: Pratt Whitney R2800-10W
Take Off: 2135hp (WEP)
2000hp at SL / 1755hp at 1650m / 1800hp at 4800m / 1650hp at 6400m
-
Max Speed: (Military Power)
547km/h at Sea Level
629km/h at 7050m
-
Max Speed: (WEP)
559km/h at Sea Level
644km/h at 5700m
-
Rate of Climb: (Military Power)
Time to 6000m: 8:24
-
Sustained Turn Time: (WEP, Sea Level)
21 seconds
-
Stall Speed: (At Sea Level, No Flaps)
163km/h IAS
-
Armament:
6x 12.7mm M2 (400 rounds per gun)
References:
• http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-5N_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_July_1944.pdf
• http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-72731.pdf
• http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf
Hi Laurelix,
Your maximum speed is correct for an F6F-5 in a 'clean' condition but in reality most combat missions were flown with an assortment of bombs, rockets, and drop tanks. The wing and fuselage racks required for this normally lowered top speed by 11-16 mph (16-26 km/h), depending on altitude (without munitions and drop tanks of course). Climb rate seems to be with pylons installed.
Your empty weight looks more like an aircraft with a basic loading, which included fuel, oil, and the pilot. According to Grumman actual empty weight was 9079 lbs (4118 kgs).
And while I have seen WEP ratings at S/L as high as 2250 hp, I think your figure of 2135 hp is more accurate. I derive this from WEP testing performed from 58 - 64 inHg, where unauthorized levels were required to achieve the 2250 hp output.
Not to be too critical, but the given stall speed should state a 'power off' condition. With 'power on' and no flaps the stall speed was closer to 97 mph (156 km/h) and 80 mph (129 km/h) with flaps.
Where did you get that turn rate from? Just curious how it was determined.....
With Pylons you're looking at F6F-5 doingHi Laurelix,
Your maximum speed is correct for an F6F-5 in a 'clean' condition but in reality most combat missions were flown with an assortment of bombs, rockets, and drop tanks. The wing and fuselage racks required for this normally lowered top speed by 11-16 mph (16-26 km/h), depending on altitude (without munitions and drop tanks of course). Climb rate seems to be with pylons installed.
Your empty weight looks more like an aircraft with a basic loading, which included fuel, oil, and the pilot. According to Grumman actual empty weight was 9079 lbs (4118 kgs).
And while I have seen WEP ratings at S/L as high as 2250 hp, I think your figure of 2135 hp is more accurate. I derive this from WEP testing performed from 58 - 64 inHg, where unauthorized levels were required to achieve the 2250 hp output.
Not to be too critical, but the given stall speed should state a 'power off' condition. With 'power on' and no flaps the stall speed was closer to 97 mph (156 km/h) and 80 mph (129 km/h) with flaps.
Where did you get that turn rate from? Just curious how it was determined.....
It's estimated by me. I have a list of planes with documented turn time. Then I compare F6F-5's power to weight ratio, stall speed and drag coefficient compared to them to give a rough estimate value for its sustained turn tim
With Pylons you're looking at F6F-5 doing
523km/h at SL (WEP)
608km/h at 5700m (WEP)