High altitude vs. low altitude

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Not true the Rolls Royce R was running 21 lb/in2 from a single stage supercharger in 1931.

Actually it is perfectly true. For altitude performance you have to compare the ambient air (outside) to the manifold pressure.

Sea level air pressure is 14.7 lb/in2 so a supercharger with a pressure of 2.43 will handle it, perhaps a bit more for flying at 1-2,000ft.

Now at 16,000ft the air pressure is about 7.97 lb/in2 so to get 6lb boostin the intake manifold (20.7 total) you need a compressor that will deliver a 2.59-2.6 pressure ratio.

The Merlin 61 gave 12lb of boost at 23,500ft (26.7lb /in2 total pressure) but the air at 23,500ft is about 5.82 lb/in sq. so you need a pressure ratio of about 4.59:1 . Rolls claimed 5.1:1, they may have used a different pressure chart?

NO single stage compressor could reach much over 4:1 pressure ratio with any sort of acceptable efficiency and most were around 3:1.
 
In 1931 Rolls Royce was in the middle of the Schnieder Cup series and was running the "R" engine. It does NOT surprise me that they could get 21 psi of boost. They got an R to over 2,000 HP at that time and ran the S.6B to 440 mph with the floats attached.

But they were NOT flying at 21 psi operationally in military service ... it was for racing only and very short-lived at that.
 

The S6B's record was 407mph on average. It was the Macchi MC72 that managed 440mph.

Merlins and Griffons of the late war period could run +21psi boost, or more, using PN150 fuels.
 
I meant they weren't running 21 psi in active military service during the Schneider Cup years, and they weren't.

I know the boost they were making during WWII, but you know that.

Teach me to not look at the context!

In terms of boost levels run during the Schneider Trophy years I would think it would be not much boost, if any at all. I think late Kestrels, ie after the Schneider Tropy, got up to +6psi. Early Kestrels didn't have superchargers at all.
 
Also, for racing applications, they would have been prepared to accept a loss in supercharger efficiency as long as they could obtain increased power even if this required special fuels that would not have been acceptable for operational use.
 
The cutting edge of piston engines was a tough place to be when things went wrong. It was probably tough to find out what failed when most of what is left looks like scrap metal, and that assumes you get it back in whatever pieces it was in.

The "R" led to the Merlin and that was a good thing.

I am still amazed the Germans came up with teh DB 600 / 601 series, the British the Merlin, and the Americans the Allison and ALL came up with aircraft close in performance. The Soviets came up with an improved Hispano-Suiza that never made much power and ALSO came up with planes that could operate in Siberia to very good performance levels.

The Japanese got 350 mph speeds from what was basically an 1,130 HP radial.

So ... it seems everyone was fairly inventive.

Amazing.
 
Attached is an interesting paper on the Merlin that includes a discussion on supercharging. Figure 11 shows that although the single stage Merlin 50 could achieve a ratio of 5 to 1, the efficiency fell to 60% as compared to close to 70% for a Merlin 61.
 

Attachments

  • merlin-lovesey.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 69

Excellent post.
 

Users who are viewing this thread