I don't understand how some planes ended up being so fast

[pbehn]

Would you say it created less drag than any wing before it?

I am not qualified to say, in terms of WW2 and pre war fighters I believe so from what I have read here, but it wasn't laminar flow(that I can say quite definitely), it just had more laminar flow than others, at the time of its introduction it certainly had the lowest drag at high speed, it may even have had laminar flow at taxi speed but at that speed it isn't an aircraft.

 

[Carboncrank]

It's a really interesting take on the relative ineffectiveness of the P-47. I hope you post more information because relative loss and victory ratios would let us know a lot.

I don't go for the story about IG Farben being bombed or rather not bombed on time. It's a conspiracy theory. Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories, they must be created and examined because sometimes they are true. I love conspiracy theorists. In this case it doesn't work for me.

How about instead of a conspiracy theory we assume I.G.Farben operated a coal to liquids synthetic fuel plant in the area and this was part of the carefully timed allied pre invasion oil campaign that was designed to disrupt German fuel supplies prior to D-day. Allied particularly US bombing had deliberately avoided attacks on the oil industry to avoid alerting the Germans. That's what all the documents say and what the timing actually was. US bombing was directed against ball bearings, airframes, engines, shipyards where it caused long term damage to plant and tooling that was in many cases irreplaceable. Then before the invasion, before the Germans can take measures, you disrupt their fuel supplies so that their transport problems support the invasion.

The P47 fighter pilots and bomber pilots and their respective planners who didn't rendezvous for a successful escort mission to various I.G.Farben synthetic fuel plants didn't fail because nazi sympathising shareholders had a secretly organised a conspiracy via their network in the USAAF. There wasn't a lot of computerized tracking and navigation or experience in this.

I never said or implied the missed handoff out of any nazi sympathising effort.

There were no significant nazi sympathisers in the USA and non had any power or access to media control. Control of banking had long passed from WASPs. It's just a label people use to demonise or dehumanise people arguing against them. In this case Isolationists. I won't be part of it. What there were was people that wanted their country to stay neutral because they knew what terminal harm it would do to our civilisation and that when big powerful country gets talked into supporting a little country that little country becomes more pugilistic and intransigent and war is more likely. There was ample evidence of this to the American public from WW1 because the British actually apologized for it in parliament. (Refreshing, no one does that anymore). All the really nasty stuff in a war happens years after it starts so avoiding it is a noble thing.

The house committee on unamerican activities was of course looking for nazis. Finding shareholders is not finding nazis. The Congress Committee always gets confused with Senator Joseph McCarthy (lawyer, judge, USMC intelligence officer and 13 mission tail gunner (for photo recon purposes) because they both exposed communist activities as well. Having a business or a corporation doing business in Japan or Germany between the wars is also not wrong. Free trade agreements would have given the Germans and Japanese what they wanted (materials) and this almost succeeded with elements in both countries.

I was not refering to the unamerican activities committee hearings. And of course it was wrong to invest in German war related companies after they had taken the low countries, France, and almost invaded England. It was morally wrong to do business with the enemey of your friend especially when you know eventually US soldiers are going to be killed by the stuff you helped them make. JFK's "while england slept" ring any bells.

There is another spin on this conspiracy. This one is that Standard Oil (ie Exxon) gave the "Nazis" the technology to make tetra ethyle lead to boost octane ratings.

the standard oil stuff is covered in my supporting docs.

If we assume that German chemists were too dumb to figure out how to make tetra ethyle lead and simply ignore international patent law when war came about then maybe this was a bad thing. But of course German Chemists could make TEL and in fact they had first developed other effective anti knock agents such as iron pentacarbonyl (marketed as Motalin by Farben in 1927)

But what actually happened is that IG Farben and Standard Oil swapped patents. The Germans got the right to use TEL and the US got the right to use BUNA synthetic rubber. That was in 1934 when Hitler was only just elected Chancellor.

It was a profitable deal for the Americans because the Germans couldn't make money out of synthetic rubber since they lacked the cheap raw material required.

In fact the raw material needed to make both octane and synthetic rubber is a gas called butylene. Butyl rubber. That's the real reason the Luftwaffe lacked 100 octane. Apparently those idiots thought the German Army and population having tires was more important than fighters flying around with a 100kg of butylene derived octane.

You need to do some reading.Don't forget, there were members of the Farben family that were tried and conviected of war crimes and much of that has to do with collusion with and decesption of western investors. Those trials are easy to google.

Here is the hearing I said i wasn't going to take the time to look up, but I found it.

Elimination of German resources for war. v.1-6.

And here is more about the financing of of the war.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/histo...deral-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318

It's a really interesting take on the relative ineffectiveness of the P-47. I hope you post more information because relative loss and victory ratios would let us know a lot.

I don't go for the story about IG Farben being bombed or rather not bombed on time. It's a conspiracy theory. Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories, they must be created and examined because sometimes they are true. I love conspiracy theorists. In this case it doesn't work for me.

How about instead of a conspiracy theory we assume I.G.Farben operated a coal to liquids synthetic fuel plant in the area and this was part of the carefully timed allied pre invasion oil campaign that was designed to disrupt German fuel supplies prior to D-day. Allied particularly US bombing had deliberately avoided attacks on the oil industry to avoid alerting the Germans. That's what all the documents say and what the timing actually was. US bombing was directed against ball bearings, airframes, engines, shipyards where it caused long term damage to plant and tooling that was in many cases irreplaceable. Then before the invasion, before the Germans can take measures, you disrupt their fuel supplies so that their transport problems support the invasion.

The P47 fighter pilots and bomber pilots and their respective planners who didn't rendezvous for a successful escort mission to various I.G.Farben synthetic fuel plants didn't fail because nazi sympathising shareholders had a secretly organised a conspiracy via their network in the USAAF. There wasn't a lot of computerized tracking and navigation or experience in this.

There were no significant nazi sympathisers in the USA and non had any power or access to media control. Control of banking had long passed from WASPs. It's just a label people use to demonise or dehumanise people arguing against them. In this case Isolationists. I won't be part of it. What there were was people that wanted their country to stay neutral because they knew what terminal harm it would do to our civilisation and that when big powerful country gets talked into supporting a little country that little country becomes more pugilistic and intransigent and war is more likely. There was ample evidence of this to the American public from WW1 because the British actually apologized for it in parliament. (Refreshing, no one does that anymore). All the really nasty stuff in a war happens years after it starts so avoiding it is a noble thing.

The house committee on unamerican activities was of course looking for nazis. Finding shareholders is not finding nazis. The Congress Committee always gets confused with Senator Joseph McCarthy (lawyer, judge, USMC intelligence officer and 13 mission tail gunner (for photo recon purposes) because they both exposed communist activities as well. Having a business or a corporation doing business in Japan or Germany between the wars is also not wrong. Free trade agreements would have given the Germans and Japanese what they wanted (materials) and this almost succeeded with elements in both countries.

There is another spin on this conspiracy. This one is that Standard Oil (ie Exxon) gave the "Nazis" the technology to make tetra ethyle lead to boost octane ratings.

If we assume that German chemists were too dumb to figure out how to make tetra ethyle lead and simply ignore international patent law when war came about then maybe this was a bad thing. But of course German Chemists could make TEL and in fact they had first developed other effective anti knock agents such as iron pentacarbonyl (marketed as Motalin by Farben in 1927)

But what actually happened is that IG Farben and Standard Oil swapped patents. The Germans got the right to use TEL and the US got the right to use BUNA synthetic rubber. That was in 1934 when Hitler was only just elected Chancellor.

It was a profitable deal for the Americans because the Germans couldn't make money out of synthetic rubber since they lacked the cheap raw material required.

In fact the raw material needed to make both octane and synthetic rubber is a gas called butylene. Butyl rubber. That's the real reason the Luftwaffe lacked 100 octane. Apparently those idiots thought the German Army and population having tires was more important than fighters flying around with a 100kg of butylene derived octane.

 

[Carboncrank]

being an ex para, and the son of a para who was the son of a para and also being the grandson of a Royal Navy Veteran does that mean my dick is bigger than yours and i can adopt an aggressive and confrontational tone in nearly all of my posts because being from a family of brave veterans means i am always right ?

just wondering

kick me out if you want. I don't really give a damn. I was just saying I have value whether you like my manner or not. and not liking my manner is another thing I don't really give a damn about.

 

[rochie]

kick me out if you want. I don't really give a damn. I was just saying I have value whether you like my manner or not. and not liking my manner is another thing I don't really give a damn about.

How to win friends and influence people !
I just love internet tough guys.

 

[Wayne Little]

Mmmm......some interesting reading.....

 

[Kryten]

In another life I was Alexander the Greats chief Eunuch!

 

[ChrisMcD]

Firstly what engines would have been practical to license other than the Merlin

Hope I got the right "quoter"!

The obvious choice was the Napier Sabre, but it was considered too different in technology for anyone to be really keen. But bear in mind that P&W got bitten by the sleeve valve bug in the late 30's and even persuaded the Navy to fund a water cooled XH-3130 before sanity was restored and they got on with the R-4360.

Pratt & Whitney XH-3130 - Wikipedia

 

[pbehn]

Sleeve valves have a theoretical advantage on radial engines because they don't have the valve gear on the head, meaning a narrower engine for a given piston stroke.

 

[drgondog]

Would you say it created less drag than any wing before it?

Yes. Proven to develop 30=% less profile drag than comparable NACA 23015 wing

 

[pbehn]

Yes. Proven to develop 30=% less profile drag than comparable NACA 23015 wing

I was hesitant to say because I have no idea about earlier wings on say an Eindecker, which may or may not have had less drag but the wing is of no use to a WW2 fighter, no room for weapons fuel, no control surfaces or strength for turning.

 

[Shortround6]

Sleeve valves have a theoretical advantage on radial engines because they don't have the valve gear on the head, meaning a narrower engine for a given piston stroke.

Unfortunately the theory didn't work out in practice. The Hercules being larger in diameter the Gnome-Rhone 14N/R (and the 14K derivatives ) that used the same bore and stroke. Difference in diameter compared to the Wright R-2600 was also minor although the Wright used a 4.8mm shorter stroke (but bigger bore)
This was pretty much the story of the sleeve valve. Most of it's promised advantages were measured against mid/late 1920s engines. Many of the problems with those engines had been solved by other means by the time the sleeve valve engine became a mass produced article.

 

[pbehn]

Unfortunately the theory didn't work out in practice. The Hercules being larger in diameter the Gnome-Rhone 14N/R (and the 14K derivatives ) that used the same bore and stroke. Difference in diameter compared to the Wright R-2600 was also minor although the Wright used a 4.8mm shorter stroke (but bigger bore)
This was pretty much the story of the sleeve valve. Most of it's promised advantages were measured against mid/late 1920s engines. Many of the problems with those engines had been solved by other means by the time the sleeve valve engine became a mass produced article.

I was careful to add theoretical as a "rider" as a motorcyclist in the 1970s there were all sorts of developments that promised the theoretical earth. Stepped pistons, rotary valves, desmodromic valves, disc valves, exhaust power valves, reed valves....some worked some were complete fantasy.

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry I wasn't more careful with my wording, I wasn't trying to "correct" you but to expand on the theoretical

 

[pbehn]

Sorry I wasn't more careful with my wording, I wasn't trying to "correct" you but to expand on the theoretical

I didn't take it that way at all SR, there are all sorts of suspension systems on motorcycles that offer a theoretical advantage, but in practice they havnt changed on the front or rear for years, they have just had refinements added.

 

[Koopernic]

Sleeve valves have a theoretical advantage on radial engines because they don't have the valve gear on the head, meaning a narrower engine for a given piston stroke.

The sleeve valve was a response to a problem Sir Harry Ricardo himself had noted which was that poppet exhaust valves were getting so hot they would start causing pre-ignition as engine performance grew. This stimulated the development of sleeve valves in Britain some with one and some with two sleeves. There were even several automobiles in production that used them.

Sodium cooled exhaust valves, better springs and a myriad of refinements overcame the issue of the poppet valves.

At one point US researchers promoted the idea of installing a sleeve in a poppet engine to reduce fuel consumption, piston wear and pollution. Apparently the motion of the sleeve at top and bottom dead centre maintains the hydrodynamic oil film which reduces friction and prevents stiction. Oddly poppet valves had developed to the point that the idea of cutting a port into the sleeve to aspirate the engine via the anti-friction sleeve was not seen as an advantage.

The Sleeve valved Bristol Hercules and Centaurus offered no diameter advantage over the contemporary R-2600, R2800, R-3350, BMW801.

Looking at a cutaway of the Sabre shows that an enormous amount of space was allocated to the cylinder head, so much I question whether it even reduced the height of the cylinder and head assembly over a poppet valve system. The Sabres advantage may have come from the balance its horizontally opposed design offered and the high RPM this allowed.

I suspect the 3000hp Sabre probably would have given tempest a speed of around 430mph at sea level because the 2600hp version got to 410 on 150 PN fuel.

Fw 190D with plane old Jumo 213A (an engine the same weight as the Sabre were running at 2 ATA boost (about 2310hp over the 1.75 ATA 2100hp engines) so the Sabre was winning but 2.2 ATA must have been around the corner for the advanced versions of the Jumo engine which were expected to achieve 2700hp and that with a refined intercooled two stage 3 speed supercharger.

By that time jets were offering 520 mph at sea level and by the end of 1945 had exceeded 600mph. So the Sabre won a technical war it was maybe by 10%-15% over similar sized engines with single stage supercharger but that the margin would be less when inter cooling was added.

Obviously the money went to the jet.

 

[tomo pauk]

Unfortunately the theory didn't work out in practice. The Hercules being larger in diameter the Gnome-Rhone 14N/R (and the 14K derivatives ) that used the same bore and stroke. Difference in diameter compared to the Wright R-2600 was also minor although the Wright used a 4.8mm shorter stroke (but bigger bore)
...

...
The Sleeve valved Bristol Hercules and Centaurus offered no diameter advantage over the contemporary R-2600, R2800, R-3350, BMW801.
...

Hercules was with 3 in smaller diameter than the R-2600 - 52 vs. 55 in. It was lighter than BMW 801, by some 15%.

 

[Koopernic]

Hercules was with 3 in smaller diameter than the R-2600 - 52 vs. 55 in. It was lighter than BMW 801, by some 15%.

BMW801 weight is always confounded by the incorporation of gearbox, integral fan gearbox and the often armoured tank cooler.

Double check your sources, the Hercules has the largest diameter.

I've spot checked 3 sources and all give the Bristol Hercules and Curtiss Wright R-2600 as 55 inches diamter . The R-2800 the biggest displacement and most powerful of the engines is actually the smallest at 52.8.

The BMW801 is also significantly more powerfull than the Hercules. The BMW801 ended the war at about 2000hp for the 801D and 801TS at 1.62 ATA with the 801TS being able to operate at 1.82 ATA and 2350hp for emergencies. The 801 competed with the centaurus. The 801F version could have produced 2600hp.

The BMW 801 was 51 inches in diameter as opposed to the Hercules's 55 inches. The small diameter as well as the tight fan cooled cowling is what made it suitable for use on a fighter.

The diameter of the Bristol Centaurus was 55.3 inches, the same as the Hercules and the R-3350.

Conclusion, no advantage in diameter for the sleeve valve.

This credible source, they actually have one, says the 801 weighed 880kg, which would make it quite a light engine. Same as the 875kg of the Hercules.
BMW 801, Radial 14 Engine

 

[tomo pauk]

BMW801 weight is always confounded by the incorporation of gearbox, integral fan gearbox and the often armoured tank cooler.

Double check your sources, the Hercules has the largest diameter.

I've spot checked 3 sources and all give the Bristol Hercules and Curtiss Wright R-2600 as 55 inches diamter . The R-2800 the biggest displacement and most powerful of the engines is actually the smallest at 52.8.
The BMW 801 was 51 inches in diameter as opposed to the Hercules's 55 inches. The small diameter as well as the tight fan cooled cowling is what made it suitable for use on a fighter.

The diameter of the Bristol Centaurus was 55.3 inches, the same as the Hercules and the R-3350.

Conclusion, no advantage in diameter for the sleeve valve.

This credible source, they actually have one, says the 801 weighed 880kg, which would make it quite a light engine. Same as the 875kg of the Hercules.
BMW 801, Radial 14 Engine

52 in diameter for Herucles, per contemporary source: link
BMW 801 weight starts from 1010-1012 kg. link

The BMW801 is also significantly more powerfull than the Hercules. The BMW801 ended the war at about 2000hp for the 801D and 801TS at 1.62 ATA with the 801TS being able to operate at 1.82 ATA and 2350hp for emergencies. The 801 competed with the centaurus. The 801F version could have produced 2600hp.

The BMW 801S was supposed to make 2200 PS for emergency, minus what fan consumed (70 PS max) = 2100 HP? Hercules 100 was making 1800 HP at 10000 ft, but also 1630 HP at 20000 ft - no worse than 801S. link Later versions went above 2000 HP.
Centaurus went above 2500 HP in service use early on, later version went to 2740 HP, with water injection above 3000 HP. Military versions, Mk.XV and XVIII (for Sea Fury and Tempest II) were making 2100 HP at 20000 ft, 400-450 HP more than 801S there.
801F was making 2600 PS on test bench, that is not service figure.

 

[Shortround6]

Diameter of the Hercules is often confounded by the same factor as the BMW 801, many sources give the diameter of the cowl and not the bare engine as the Hercules was often supplied as a "power egg".
Bare engine was usually given as 52in. Weights on the Hercules are going to be all over the place as there were quite a few versions. Be very careful the source is NOT using numbers from post war engines which used a new crankshaft and crank case in addition to new cylinder heads. Also note the weights for the Hercules, like the BMW 801, sometimes include the cowl/exhaust and sometimes are for the "dry" (or bare) engine.

Can we please stop with the experimental or limited production German engines being compared to bog standard Allied engines?
By the end of the war the Hercules 100 series was well in hand but British development was going it a bit different direction When introduced in 1944 the Hercules 100 was said to be approaching 2000 hours overhaul life. While rated at 1675HP for takeoff it was good for 1625HP at 19,500ft. in high gear. (1800hp at 9,000ft). In 1944/45 I have no idea how far along the Hercules 120 was (it shows up in the 1946 edition of AIrcraft engines of the World) and it offered 1330hp at 27,500ft from it's single stage, two speed supercharger.


I left out the P & W R-2800 as it used 18 cylinders which of course are smaller (6.0 in stroke) and would tend to cloud the comparison/claim that sleeve valves would allow a smaller diameter on the same (pr similar) stroke engine

Sources on diameter of the Hercules are Lumsden and several editions of Aircraft Engines of the World

 

[Koopernic]

52 in diameter for Herucles, per contemporary source: link
BMW 801 weight starts from 1010-1012 kg. link



The BMW 801S was supposed to make 2200 PS for emergency, minus what fan consumed (70 PS max) = 2100 HP? Hercules 100 was making 1800 HP at 10000 ft, but also 1630 HP at 20000 ft - no worse than 801S. link Later versions went above 2000 HP.
Centaurus went above 2500 HP in service use early on, later version went to 2740 HP, with water injection above 3000 HP. Military versions, Mk.XV and XVIII (for Sea Fury and Tempest II) were making 2100 HP at 20000 ft, 400-450 HP more than 801S there.
801F was making 2600 PS on test bench, that is not service figure.

The service figures you quote are for engine service ratings achieved well after WW2. In 1945 they were bench figures just like the BMW801F.

Quite interesting data. The claims that the Hetcules had a diameter of 55 occurs multiple times as does that it was 52, perhaps an indication that different things are being measured.

Note the exhaust manifolds that increase diameter.

Either way the difference is marginal. Sleeves thicken a cylinder.

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/Sleeve.pdf
14. Conclusions 14.1. Weight and Size

Both air and liquid-cooled sleeve-valve engines were heavier per unit of displacement than their poppet-valve counterparts. The Bristol air-cooled engines were competi- tive on a weight per take-off horsepower basis while only the Napier Sabre in its VII A version was competitive with the liquid-cooled poppet-valve engines on the same basis.

The frontal area of the radial sleeve-valve engine was comparable to the poppet-valve radials, while the liquid- cooled sleeve-valve engines were somewhat larger than the poppet-valve engines. The latter comparison is somewhat subjective since both of the liquid-cooled sleeve-valve engines were of an H configuration while the poppet-valve engines were all V-12s. There were no poppet-valve H con- figurations with which to compare the sleeve-valve engines, so one cannot state definitively that the difference in the frontal area was due solely to the presence of the sleeve- valve.

------

German engines often are quoted at their sea level power. At about 1500m their rated power will be greater than the sea level power. This is inevitable in engines that choke of the supercharger pressure. Im thinking the 801TS produced 2200 at sea level and a little higher at rated altitude.