GE turbochargers
- Thread starter Milosh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- internet turbochargers type weights
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
kmccutcheon
Airman
- 51
- Jan 1, 2013
- Thread starter
- #3
kmccutcheon
Airman
- 51
- Jan 1, 2013
No you don't. Click on the General Electric Turbosupercharger Data Link, or even better, click on this:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Turbochargers/GETurbochargerData.jpg
http://www.enginehistory.org/Turbochargers/GETurbochargerData.jpg
- Thread starter
- #5
I had recently been wondering what the turbocharger installation in a P-47 weighed.
Per the referenced chart, a C series turbocharger by itself weighs 235 pounds. By the time you add the intercoolers and ductwork (air to compressor, exhaust from engine to turbine, pressurized air from intercoolers to engine, intercooler exit flaps, etc., etc.) I would guess that a complete P-47 installation would be close to 500 pounds.
Per the referenced chart, a C series turbocharger by itself weighs 235 pounds. By the time you add the intercoolers and ductwork (air to compressor, exhaust from engine to turbine, pressurized air from intercoolers to engine, intercooler exit flaps, etc., etc.) I would guess that a complete P-47 installation would be close to 500 pounds.
The AHT lists the 'engine accessories' for the P-47D-25 at 977 lbs. Unfortunately, that weight covers the turbo, inter-coolers, generator, pumps, carburetor, magnetos etc. ADI tankage is listed separately.
The weight of the 'engine accessories' for the R-2800-10W in the F6F-5 are at 318 lbs, plus 41.5 lbs for ADI system. The difference of some 660 lbs vs. the engine from P-47. However, The R-2800-10W was heavier than the 'bare' (ie. no turbo) R-2800-21 and similar engines, by some 200 lbs.
The weight of the 'engine accessories' for the R-2800-10W in the F6F-5 are at 318 lbs, plus 41.5 lbs for ADI system. The difference of some 660 lbs vs. the engine from P-47. However, The R-2800-10W was heavier than the 'bare' (ie. no turbo) R-2800-21 and similar engines, by some 200 lbs.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That can get a bit fuzzy as the entire aircraft was made larger and heavier to allow space for the turbocharger system installation.
As constructed, the P-47 carried in protected tanks 1/4 more fuel than the F4U and F6F. It also carried 1/3rd heavier 'lethality package'. Those two things tend to increase both weight and size.
It was also smaller than the those Navy fighters, at least when we look at size of the wing.
The turbo allowed for much greater power above 25000 ft, and comparable above 15000 ft, even if we take the exhaust thrust in the equation.
It was also smaller than the those Navy fighters, at least when we look at size of the wing.
The turbo allowed for much greater power above 25000 ft, and comparable above 15000 ft, even if we take the exhaust thrust in the equation.
Last edited:
kmccutcheon
Airman
- 51
- Jan 1, 2013
Tomo, would you happen to have complete weight data for the P-47D-25? I would be interested in comparing the P-47H.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I'm under the impression P-47 turbo system was in the fuselage. If so wing size has nothing to do with it.
USN aircraft probably had larger wings to lower stall speed which is important for CV operations.
USN aircraft probably had larger wings to lower stall speed which is important for CV operations.
Wing size got to do a lot with it. It 'lifts' the aircraft, a too small a wing is not going to cut it. Especially if the aircraft 'A' has more fuel, engine power (= heavier powerplant) and firepower aboard than the aircraft 'B'.
The big fuselages of the F4U and F6F were rather empty behind the pilot, when compared with P-47.
The USN aircraft have had indeed bigger wings, partly to improve low speed handling; their wings were either thicker (F4U) or significantly bigger and outfitted with better flaps (F6F) than P-47, again because of low speed handling. Had they sported as much of protected fuel and as much firepower as the P-47, they would either had to have even bigger wings, or to sacrifice a bit of low speed handling. They would suffer in performance either way.
We may recall that F8F came about when USN decided, in 1944, that they can go with 185 gals (half of what P-47 carried in 1944) and 4 BMGS (again just half of what P-47 carried), so the aircraft can be smaller, so the single stage (but improved, C series) R-2800 can provide enough performance on low and medium altitudes.
USAF, on the other hand, in 1940 wanted a interceptor fighter with heavy firepower (= 8 BMGs) and great performance above 20000 ft, and even above 30000 ft (= R-2800 with turbo). That was provided by P-47.
The big fuselages of the F4U and F6F were rather empty behind the pilot, when compared with P-47.
The USN aircraft have had indeed bigger wings, partly to improve low speed handling; their wings were either thicker (F4U) or significantly bigger and outfitted with better flaps (F6F) than P-47, again because of low speed handling. Had they sported as much of protected fuel and as much firepower as the P-47, they would either had to have even bigger wings, or to sacrifice a bit of low speed handling. They would suffer in performance either way.
We may recall that F8F came about when USN decided, in 1944, that they can go with 185 gals (half of what P-47 carried in 1944) and 4 BMGS (again just half of what P-47 carried), so the aircraft can be smaller, so the single stage (but improved, C series) R-2800 can provide enough performance on low and medium altitudes.
USAF, on the other hand, in 1940 wanted a interceptor fighter with heavy firepower (= 8 BMGs) and great performance above 20000 ft, and even above 30000 ft (= R-2800 with turbo). That was provided by P-47.
Shortround6
Major General
Unseen penalty of trying to fight at higher altitudes is you need a bigger propeller to transmit the power at higher altitudes. F4U and F6F 3 blade props were around 490lbs. Early P-47 props were about 540lbs. The paddle blade P-47 props went about 660lbs and the 4 bladed props on the F4U-4 went around 645lbs. Prop on P-51B/C went around 480-485lbs. Props on single stage Allison powered planes didn't go over 420lbs.
And as we know the early P-47 props were too small to do what was wanted.
If you want 2000hp at 25,000ft you need a lot of powerplant which means a big airplane. The P-47 should be compared to the P-38, not most single engine fighters. Similar power at high altitudes (planed power in 1940/41), Similar fuel loads, both have heavy armament load. Early P-47 had over 33% more power at 25,000ft than an early F4U-1.
Other countries also goofed a bit on future altitudes of combat. Germans designed Bf 109G to have pressurized cockpit. British built the Spitfire MK VI and VIII with pressurized cockpits. Both countries planned other planes with pressurized cockpits.
And as we know the early P-47 props were too small to do what was wanted.
If you want 2000hp at 25,000ft you need a lot of powerplant which means a big airplane. The P-47 should be compared to the P-38, not most single engine fighters. Similar power at high altitudes (planed power in 1940/41), Similar fuel loads, both have heavy armament load. Early P-47 had over 33% more power at 25,000ft than an early F4U-1.
Other countries also goofed a bit on future altitudes of combat. Germans designed Bf 109G to have pressurized cockpit. British built the Spitfire MK VI and VIII with pressurized cockpits. Both countries planned other planes with pressurized cockpits.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Hi Milosh
Is this the sort of data you want.
Got it just before heading north to work and it will not fit my scanner so I used a camera. Quality is poor - sorry
Mi
Is this the sort of data you want.
Got it just before heading north to work and it will not fit my scanner so I used a camera. Quality is poor - sorry
Mi
- Thread starter
- #15
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Okay
Will scan when I am at the local library and post for you - not home now for a month and then depends when I get to a library
Will scan when I am at the local library and post for you - not home now for a month and then depends when I get to a library
kmccutcheon
Airman
- 51
- Jan 1, 2013
Thanks to data provided by tomo pauk, I was able to compare the empty weights of an air-cooled P-47D-RE (whatever that is) to the liquid-cooled P-47H. I chose the P-47D-RE because its fuel capacity most closely matched that of the P-47H, which results in the most accurate comparison I could achieve. Interestingly, the P-47H was no faster than the P-47D, but the 1,725 lb weight increase would have hurt its useful load. If gross weight had been increased to accommodate an equal useful load, its range, rate of climb, maneuverability, etc. would have suffered.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Thanks for the nudge Tomo.
Getting anything bigger than 220mm wide scanned within 200 km is not possible unless I go to Officeworks where the staff think that high resolution full colour TIFF means the lowest possible resolution PDFA.
Fortunately your nudge reminded me to take the book with me to Brisbane where I copied it - hopefully this will help
Getting anything bigger than 220mm wide scanned within 200 km is not possible unless I go to Officeworks where the staff think that high resolution full colour TIFF means the lowest possible resolution PDFA.
Fortunately your nudge reminded me to take the book with me to Brisbane where I copied it - hopefully this will help
