Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nice now with that Bristol Brabazon I, lets add CI engines of modern design as well as a modern airframe. Then the fuel can be the same as what the jet uses as well as the passenger load and less fuel too boot.
Simple logic tells us if it is a prop test the other engines are only going to be running to take away any drag that they would cause if they where shut down, it would not be a fair test of the props ability if the normal engines where causing unnecessary drag. And what ever, its a prop plane that flew 1.2 mach.
It is old school if the date now is 2018 and not the mid 50's. I guess you don't understand what old school means.
Nice now with that Bristol Brabazon I, lets add CI engines of modern design as well as a modern airframe. Then the fuel can be the same as what the jet uses as well as the passenger load and less fuel too boot.
Simple logic tells us if it is a prop test the other engines are only going to be running to take away any drag that they would cause if they where shut down, it would not be a fair test of the props ability if the normal engines where causing unnecessary drag. And what ever, its a prop plane that flew 1.2 mach.
It is old school if the date now is 2018 and not the mid 50's. I guess you don't understand what old school means.
Nice now with that Bristol Brabazon I, lets add CI engines of modern design as well as a modern airframe. Then the fuel can be the same as what the jet uses as well as the passenger load and less fuel too boot.
You simple logic is at odds with descriptions of how the tests were run. The logic also runs slam into the wall of the logic of how the hell The XF-88B with it's size and surface area was supposed to go anywhere near mach 1 on 2500hp which was all the engine in the nose would provide.
as to the "whatever" somehow I don't think most people would consider that speed in dive with the propeller feathered is any indication of how well the propeller worked at that speed in regards to propulsion. There was a lot more to propeller testing than just power in vs speed achieved.
View attachment 510702
Top speed achieved in level flight was mach 0.9 and that was with the afterburners running. Speeds of mach 1.01 (yes with the zero in there) were achieved in dives.
A modern airframe will show much improvement over the Barbazon but it will still get nowhere near the speed of a jet. The only prop plane that really did
View attachment 510703
used four 14,800hp engines for 200 passengers (6 abreast seating)
It had almost three times the power of the Barbazon. (ratio may be higher at cruising altitude).
A newer airframe may be better but it is going to have to fantastic in order to reduce the needed power by very much.
Slowing down would help a lot but even diesel engines of 30-40,000hp total are going to be large and heavy.
Yes you could up the cruising RPM but then you losing some of the advantage that the car/motorcycle enjoy. The ability to use high rpm to make lots of power when needed and the ability to cruise at a much lower rpm when only a fraction of the power is needed and use multi-speed transmissions to suit the engine speed (power band) to the task at hand.
If they were wind milling it then there would be no need for an engine to power the prop.
Bought all I'm going to say to this is that.A very important thing to note in a post full of good points. High power ratings in automotive engines are often produced under conditions that would drastically reduce the operating life of the engine (TBO) if sustained. By that, I mean that it only takes about 15-20 hp to move a typical passenger car at 60 mph on level ground. You'll also be shifting up to top gear to cruise at those speeds, probably at under 2000 rpm, in a motor that is capable of 300 hp at 6500 rpm. Now, imagine using that same engie to pull such a heavy load that you floor the accellerator pedal to maintain 60 mph...I'm pretty sure you won't make it to 100,000 miles without a major overhaul!
In aviation, you don't have the luxury of cruising along at 20 hp with the occasional brief romp at 200 hp to blip from 60 mph to 75 mph while impressing your passengers. You will be cruising along at a much higher percentage of maximum power, for hours at a time. This affects a lot of design parameters, and doesn't allow the sort of super high power/weight and power/displacement ratios found in racing automobiles...unless said aircraft engine is racing around pylons someplace.
Okay, I'll bite. There is no official recognition by the FAI of any aircraft solely propelled by a propeller that has ever exceeded Mach 0.9 in level flightSo then out of all this nay saying here. You would all then agree that there has been no propeller powered plane, that is powered by just the propeller in level flight to ever exceed Mach 1.0 ? And no record of such thing ever happening? Is this correct?