Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It wasn't a turbo compound.But the YP-37 was never actually fielded by the USAAF, since the turbo-compound supercharger was large and complicated and it pushed the pilot so far back in the fuselage that it made it hard to see past the part of the plane that was in front of them.
Apologies. What was that supercharger called then?It wasn't a turbo compound.
It could also be called a turbo prop with the least efficient combustion and power recovery known to aviation or science.and turbo compound is where the exhaust driven turbine(s) help drive the propeller by feeding power in to the crankshaft through the back of the engine.
?Centrifugal superchargers are commonly referred to as turbochargers.
Centrifugal superchargers are commonly referred to as turbochargers. Turbochargers are spun by spent exhaust gases.
Roots type superchargers are usually driven on aircraft engines with a gearbox turned by the crankshaft.
A turboprop usually refers to a turbine engine that drives a propeller through some type of a reduction system.
Then why did they need to dedicate so much of the fuselage to it?Today we call it "turbocharged."
In WWII, they called it turbo-supercharged.
Same compressor, but the supercharger is driven vy the crankshaft and the turbocharger is driven by exhaust gases.
When you mentioned "Rootes type superchargers", you mean a supercharger that is similar to one found on a Detroit Diesel Engine, right?Centrifugal superchargers are commonly referred to as turbochargers. Turbochargers are spun by spent exhaust gases. Roots type superchargers are usually driven on aircraft engines with a gearbox turned by the crankshaft. Both are superchargers.
A turboprop usually refers to a turbine engine that drives a propeller through some type of a reduction system.
The cooling system was in the fuselage behind the engine . A unique arrangement to say the leastThen why did they need to dedicate so much of the fuselage to it?
CorrectWhen you mentioned "Rootes type superchargers", you mean a supercharger that is similar to one found on a Detroit Diesel Engine, right?
Disagree, rather completely.Centrifugal superchargers are commonly referred to as turbochargers. Turbochargers are spun by spent exhaust gases. Roots type superchargers are usually driven on aircraft engines with a gearbox turned by the crankshaft. Both are superchargers.
A turboprop usually refers to a turbine engine that drives a propeller through some type of a reduction system.
Regardless of what you do on a single engined fighter the prop is in front of the engine and any supercharger / turbo charger system goes behind. An exhaust driven turbo was discounted by Rolls Royce for the high altitude Wellington engine because it couldnt be fitted to a Spitfire even though it would have been OK in a Wellington as it was in US bombers.Then why did they need to dedicate so much of the fuselage to it?
OK. I'm not an engineer. They don't even let me blow the whistle or ring the bell. However, in Edward F Obert's book, Internal Combustion Engines Analysis and Practice, first published in 1944, he defines "supercharging as any assistance given to the intake process by a supplementary fan, blower, or compressor."Disagree, rather completely.
The difference is drive.
If the compressor is driven by the crankshaft, it is today and was in WWII called a supercharger. If it is driven by exhaust gases, it is today called a turbocharger, but was known them as a turbosupercharger.
This confusion is the source of commonly held but incorrect belief that a WWII Allison V-1710 was not supercharged. In fact, all Allisons for aircraft were supercharged, but only the P-38 Allison V-1710 got turbocharged. The rest were simple, single-stage supercharged that basically started giving up at about 15,000 or so feet.
YupWhen you mentioned "Rootes type superchargers", you mean a supercharger that is similar to one found on a Detroit Diesel Engine, right?