Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why did the Germans have such an obsession with mounting their superchargers on a 90-degree angle? There was a guy who has a channel on YouTube named Greg called "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles", and he was also curious about that.
So they could fire a cannon down through the engine and out the prop hub.
Supercharger has to go someplace, either off to one side or the other or push it down below the cannon or maybe even lay it flat ( I don't think anybody did that).
Hispanos didn't use a very big supercharger and they pushed it down low on the engine and the cannon went over the top.
View attachment 541368
If you want to use a bigger supercharger you have to figure out where to put it.
The "long nose" XF5F was actually the Army's XP-50. The longer nose on the XP-50 was for the nose-gear.
There was only one of each ever built and they both used the Wright R-1820.
XF5F: R-1820-40/42
XP-50: R-1820-67/69 turbosupercharged (which is why it had larger nacelles than the XF5F)
I notice the exhaust and intake is both on the outside of the V, leaving the inside for the cannon.
Maybe one of the reasons the Hispano was such a underperformer HP wise.
The intake passages to the intake valve had to be pretty convoluted through that head from the outside
Unfortunately the longer nose, longer nacelles, prop spinners and a few other changes still didn't get the drag low enough get the performance where they wanted.
Oh, okay: I get it now"If I may ask, how did you compute the differences in speed due to different horsepower figures?"
New hp/old hp = X Cube root of X multiplied times old speed
1200 hp/1000 hp = 1.2. Cube root of 1.2 is 1.06265857. 1.06265857 x 330 mph (at 19000) = 350 mph.
So, it has to do with the nacelle extending further rearward...The lengthened nacelles doesnt refer to how much the engine sticks out the front. Look at the short nosed F5F, the engine nacelles stop midwingand then the long nose F5F the nacelles extend past the rear edge of the wing.
Actually, I have a book on the plane and I thought I remembered that it was looked at very early on...The P&W 1830 was never considered
Oh, okay: I get it now
So, it has to do with the nacelle extending further rearward...
Actually, I have a book on the plane and I thought I remembered that it was looked at very early on...
I thought you were supposed to use cube-root, but the numbers look okay.1150/1000 = 1.15. Square root of 1.15 is 1.047689. 1.047689 X 326 = 341.5 mph
I thought you were supposed to use cube-root, but the numbers look okay.
Actually, I gave three allowances for specifications
- The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
- A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender: While way after WWII, many feel the YF-23 should have won over the YF-22, for example.
- A more realistic/practical specification: Basically the specifications are made more realistic to allow a practical design to be developed, an example would be the He-177 having 4 x DB-601's instead of 2 x DB-606's, or simply not being designed as a dive-bomber.
This is an idea that's interesting. Do you have any documentation on this suggestion?
A DB-603 with a turbo would have given it some great high altitude performance. When you say the idea was beaten to death -- I'm not sure what you mean, however.
Not sure for Fury and Gladiator being designed as monoplanes?
The trouble is, even if it happened, you don't get anything really useable and you don't get a lot of good design experience, except perhaps what not to do
Supermarine 224
Fixed gear, thick wing, open cockpit of early Bristol 133
later
No flaps or flaps added later? Landing gear makes a P-35 look good. Why the fuselage is that fat for the engine it used or what had to go in it?
The Gladiator was never intended to be a "standard" fighter. It was another of the all too many "we need an interim plane NOW, to equip the new squadrons with while we work on the new monoplanes." that the British ordered in 1936-37. Only eight squadrons in England were ever equipped with them, some replaced the Bristol Bulldog.
But some squadrons had already re-equipped with Hurricanes by Sept of 1939. At which point they were being fosted off on the RN or overseas stations.
The Gladiator could easily have seen some improvement (like many other British planes) by fitting it with a 2 speed or variable pitch propeller. Given the British shortage of production capacity for modern propellers it was probably pretty far down on the list of priorities.
Vaguely back on topic -- how about a better air filtration system for the Merlin, at least as installed on the Spitfire and Hurricane?
I think they finally got one.
The Updraft carb was probably a mistake in hindsight as any air intake on the bottom of the plane and 4-6 feet behind the propeller is going to catch all kinds of crud the prop blast/swirl kicks up, especially when the tail wheel comes up and the prop is only inches from the sod, dirt, sand, coral, etc, etc.
P-40s and Allison P-51s had the air intake on top and only inches behind the prop so their intake of self made grinding compound was much less, However formation take-offs needed care as your buddy's/wingman's plane could sure kick up enough crap to kill your engine.
The Vokes filter was probably overkill but few people had designed air filters for aircraft at that time.
The B-26 sure got some large air intakes when they sized them to fit filters.