- Thread starter
-
- #121
wuzak
Captain
That was an option also explored by the Germans.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The added weight of a non-propulsive engine, plus the necessary ducting, intercoolers, and fuel load, would have eaten into payload, range, and overall efficiency. And all that complexity meant more maintenance headaches and more things to go wrong at 40,000 feet. In many ways, it was an elegant solution to a tough problem—but also one that created new trade-offs.
Seems very over complicated to me. The Merlin was one of the most advanced engines of the war. Just equip the propulsion plants with turbochargers like was done in the R-3350 and there will be enough airflow into all crew compartments.
I don't see the need for 40,000 foot altitude design.
The B-29 Superfortress was designed for high-altitude strategic bombing and had a service ceiling of about 31,850 feet.
Prototype for the Pe-8 had provisions for a "Central Supercharging Unit" in the fuselage as well.That was an option also explored by the Germans.
Wallis's original plan also included designing a massive six-engine bomber called the Victory to carry the bomb to the required altitude—but wartime constraints made that impractical.40,000ft was the target release altitude for the 10 ton deep penetration bomb that Barnes Wallis proposed.
As for cabin pressurisation, several Merlin variants had cabin blowers in their accessory drives. They were used on various PR Spitfires and the PR.XVI and B.XVI Mosquitoes.
The 40,000 ft. number was actually estimated to be above enemy anti-aircraft range.40,000ft was the target release altitude for the 10 ton deep penetration bomb that Barnes Wallis proposed.
Wallis's original plan also included designing a massive six-engine bomber called the Victory to carry the bomb to the required altitude—but wartime constraints made that impractical.
Question:
In 1938/39, which British aircraft manufacturer had the most experience (and success) with large aircraft?
Could one of these manufacturers have modified an existing airframe to an upscaled, six engine heavy bomber from that existing design?
I think that adding an extra common production engine plus a large familiar technology blower and ducting out would be quicker than changing to making four unfamiliar technology turbines and ducting in. But it is a matter of judgement not certainty and what suits the circumstances of national production. The extra engine is a better match to Britain's stretched full war economy whose sub machine gun production included a very large shed near my childhood home where Sten gun welding was done by part time housewives, school leavers and pensioners and also performing as trained Home Guard soldiers, Air Raid Wardens and Civil Defence Workers etc. Importing turbochargers would mean some being lost at sea and something not sent at all to make shipping room for them.Seems very over complicated to me. The Merlin was one of the most advanced engines of the war. Just equip the propulsion plants with turbochargers like was done in the R-3350 and there will be enough airflow into all crew compartments.
I don't see the need for 40,000 foot altitude design.
The B-29 Superfortress was designed for high-altitude strategic bombing and had a service ceiling of about 31,850 feet.
If you're going back to the 38/39 timeframe, Short would be your manufacturer of choice.Question:
In 1938/39, which British aircraft manufacturer had the most experience (and success) with large aircraft?
Could one of these manufacturers have modified an existing airframe to an upscaled, six engine heavy bomber from that existing design?
It also means you would be looking at 6 - RR Vultures; they are the only engine that comes close to the required power on 87 octane fuel. At least the Vulture has 2 speed supercharging There isn't any Griffon, and the Merlin and Hercules aren't near powerful enough.
Are you talking about an engine used in the test house?Could they use a Vulture for an auxiliary blower engine? With Merlins or Griffons for the main power.
The Vulture was used to drive the experimental 2-stage superchargers for the Merlin, IIRC.
Are you talking about an engine used in the test house?
Any engine is going to need improved superchargers.So, an aircraft fitted with 4 or 6 Vultures will struggle for altitude performance unless improved superchargers are available, or they can use turbochargers.
Turbochargers in the USA were still problematic at this time, and the USA was still officially neutral. So there may have to be some UK turbochager development along side their gas turbine developments.
SNCAC-150 first flew on May 11th, 1939 yes. In the end the bi-tri layout was deemed impractical and they were to go for one S-C per engine driven directly by each of the two engines.The French tried the extra engine in the fuselage trick just before the war (?)
Long after WW II at that.The 40,000 ft. number was actually estimated to be above enemy anti-aircraft range.
The USAAF also used that altitude as a requirement for a high altitude, long range heavy bomber in 1941.
As it turns out, it wouldn't be until the B-36 came along, that the 40,000 ft. operating range was realized.
The standard B-36 in typical war dress could cruise at 40,000 feet.Long after WW II at that.
The B-36 didn't fully achieve its high-altitude performance goals until the "Featherweight" modifications came into play, especially in the later B-36J variants.
The "Featherweight" modifications to the B-36 Peacemaker were approved in February 1954, with the first modified aircraft delivered in May 1954.
The "Featherweight" program stripped out most of the aircraft's defensive armament—removing up to six retractable gun turrets and their associated fire control systems. This significantly reduced weight and drag, allowing for:
=> Higher service ceilings—up to 44,500 feet in some configurations.
=> Increased fuel capacity—by saving weight, they could carry an extra 2,700 gallons, boosting range and endurance.
=> Smaller crew requirements—from 15 down to 13 in the Featherweight III models.
So yes, the B-36 finally met the original 1941 vision of a 40,000+ ft intercontinental bomber—but only after it shed a lot of its Cold War-era armor.