Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not much of an economical cruise - 1240 HP in low gear. That's 20% more than max power of the late Sakae versions.
664 L (175.4 US gals) of the internal fuel of the Shiden-Kai is less than 200 US gals I've proposed. Two drop tanks of 300 or 400 liters should complement that fine.
Against the Zero - yes, we have more stuff in the aircraft, but also much more power.
A 10% greater RPM of 'engine X' is no match for 50% greater displacement of 'engine Y'. Everybody knew that - P&W, Wright, DB, RR, Bristol, Soviets, Japanese.
Turning a few more revs always seems a cheap and easy way to get some additional HP, but with these large displacement engines with so much rotating and oscillating mass it comes at the cost of exponentially increased bearing loads, friction penalties, and piston speed stresses, as well as cooling loads with their added drag penalties. Sooner rather than later you come up against the limits of the metallurgy available to you.The very curious thing about "Everybody knowing that" is that just about everyone ended up increasing the maximum RPM of their later engines.
Turning a few more revs always seems a cheap and easy way to get some additional HP, but with these large displacement engines with so much rotating and oscillating mass it comes at the cost of exponentially increased bearing loads, friction penalties, and piston speed stresses, as well as cooling loads with their added drag penalties. Sooner rather than later you come up against the limits of the metallurgy available to you.
Just a reminder to some of you folks who seem to like to throw engine numbers around like you were pulling them out of a hat.
Ayup, got a souvenir or two lying about.Mechanics often like to save the really interesting looking failed pieces.
I always try and keep my turbo diesel sports saloon between 1800 and 2500 rpm so it's just cruising.Hello XBe02Drvr,
I am in complete agreement with your summary, but you have to admit that it WAS a general tendency for just about everyone to try to increase the RPM of their engines a bit with the later models. Whether it was a good idea or not, everyone was doing it.
Now, with these larger aero engines, we are still only talking 2400 RPM to about 3200 RPM max which is just idling when compared to smaller engines like we find in Formula 1 racers and about equal to what your family sedan is doing just puttering around the neighbourhood. I was surprised as heck to find my little push lawn mower's engine was set to run at 7800 RPM. I spent an awful lot of time around auto shops as I was growing up, so I also had a chance to see what happens when certain things break. Mechanics often like to save the really interesting looking failed pieces.
- Ivan.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
That 1240 HP actually is pretty close to what the Army version of the Sakae (Ha-115) with water-methanol injection was making in the Ki 43-III.
The other factor here is that the airframe that is being hauled by this engine isn't the lightweight Ki 43 or A6M but something a bit more capable and carrying more equipment, fuel and protection.
The fuel load of the Shiden-KAI is a bit more than you think it is.
270 Liter Forward Fuselage Tank
260 Liter Aft Fuselage Tank
2 x 93 Liter Wing Tanks
Total of 716 Liters Internal
plus
140 Liters of Water-Methanol to be able to run the engine past cruise settings.
To ignore the requirement for carrying water-methanol is to ignore the realities that the Japanese designers had to deal with as the power levels of their engines were increased.
The very curious thing about "Everybody knowing that" is that just about everyone ended up increasing the maximum RPM of their later engines. The R-2800 C series ran slightly faster as did later model JuMo and Daimler Benz engines, Klimov VK-107, The Allisons installed in the P-40Q, The Sakae engines already mentioned. The Napier Sabre and Nakajima Homare engines also ran surprisingly fast.
- Ivan.
True enough, but a 10-12K revving Ferrari engine wasn't going to happen in 1940 state of the art metallurgy, fuel, and lubrication wise. And the moving parts, despite their incredible speeds, are a tiny fraction of the weight of those of an R2800 or a DB601. Despite their relatively lower numbers, those engines weren't loafing; not by a long shot.Now, with these larger aero engines, we are still only talking 2400 RPM to about 3200 RPM max which is just idling when compared to smaller engines like we find in Formula 1 racers
Yes, and that's all what it can do. We can try water injection on Kasei 20s, result being 1800+ HP to the prop.
Yes, you are right, the 664L US gals of fuel was the figure for the 1st Shiden version (one with mid-wing).
Japanese state 1430 km for the 'K1-J, and 1713 km for the 'K2-J (figures without drop tank). One drop tank adds 1100 km.
Kasei will be doing 10% less power = better mileage, another drop tank will benefit both range and radius, so will extra 40 liters of internal fuel.
I'm all for water-methanol to be carried once available.
Later R-2800 of any flavor were still inferior to the R-4360. Jumo 213 indeed revved much faster than Jumo 211, price to pay was increase of dry weight by 50% give or take. DB 603 > DB 605. VK-107 didn't make more power than AM-42. Under same conditions, V-1710 or Merlin were inferior in power to Griffon. Sakae was not making power as good as Kinsei, let alone bigger Japanese engines. Sabre did run fast, and it made twice the power than even faster revving Dagger. Homare also run fast, Nakajima was still trying with big Ha 219.
In wartime especially, it was easier to increase max RPM by 5 or 10% on any given engine, than to increase displacement of a given engine.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
You were the one doing the comparison between the cruise power of Kasei and the max power of the Sakae.
From what I have been able to find, that isn't really correct for the N1K1-J either. Perhaps that was the data for the N1K1???
The N1K1-J carried
210 Liter Forward Fuselage Tank
165 Liter Aft Fuselage Tank
2 x 180 Liter Wing Tanks
Total of 735 Liters of internal fuel.
Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost. Note that the F2G Corsair got pretty much nowhere except in civilian racing while the inferior F4U-4 seemed to do pretty well.
The point I was trying to make was that despite "everyone knowing", just about everyone tried increasing the RPM of their engines in a given model. Comparing engines across different lines can be done all day and come to no real conclusion.
- Ivan.
Beat me to it, Ivan! Stole the words right out of my mouth!Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost. Note that the F2G Corsair got pretty much nowhere except in civilian racing while the inferior F4U4 seemed to do pretty well.
...
Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost.
A perfectly rational decision by the bean counters and the slipstick sliders who don't have to deal with the nitty gritty. It's the operational folks, maintenance and flight crews who have to face the accusations when it doesn't live up to readiness and availability expectations and exceeds its projected maintenance budget.To return here a bit. When going to the B-50, opinion of the USAAF was that 3500 HP provided by R-4360 was a superior option than whatever the R-3350 was making on it's extra 100 rpm, let alone the R-2800.
R-2800C was a completely different engine that shared the same bore and stroke (and the starter dog?), New crankcase, new crankshaft, new con rods, new pistons.The R-2800 C series ran slightly faster as did later model JuMo and Daimler Benz engines, Klimov VK-107, The Allisons installed in the P-40Q,
The Allisons in the P-40Q (and some other late war aircraft) had a crankshaft with 27lbs worth of counter weights added.
The Bristol Pegasus engine due to it's long stroke had one of the highest piston speeds of the time. 190mm (75in) times 2600rpm giving 3250fpm uncorrected. The corrected piston speed was 2850fpm to account for the light pistons (small diameter.)
The formula is twice the stroke in feet, times the rpm, then the mean piston speed is divided by the square root of the stroke/bore ratio, to reflect large diameter/heavy pistons and small diameter light pistons.
Major Halford went off on his small cylinder, high RPM tangent in an effort to build a powerful and fuel efficient engine given the fuels of the time. A small cylinder will cool better than a large cylinder (more cylinder wall per unit of volume) and he was hoping to use higher compression in the cylinders and more rpm to make power. Unfortunately for him (and Napiers) fuel improved faster than he could develop his engines and the large cylinder engine designers could simply boost pressure (and redo the broken parts) with little or no change in rpm.
The lots of little cylinders branch of development also had increased maintenance loads. One reason the R-4360 was so unpopular, 56 spark plugs to change.
If you get all your resonance calculations spot on, probably not. Small errors can result in significantly higher bearing stresses. Revving response should not be an issue if you have a reasonably responsive constant speed prop and governor, as RPM shouldn't change much. Not so with some electric props whose response lag allowed RPM excursions under rapidly changing flight loads, like air combat. Years ago I remember seeing a utube video taken from inside a Cessna 152 Acrobat doing its thing, in which the tachometer and view out the windshield were both visible. The RPM fluctuations of the fixed pitch prop graphically highlighted the widely varying aerodynamic loads on the prop.Is there really a problem with increasing the size of counterweights on the crankshaft other than it reducing the revving response of the engine?
If you get all your resonance calculations spot on, probably not. Small errors can result in significantly higher bearing stresses. Revving response should not be an issue if you have a reasonably responsive constant speed prop and governor, as RPM shouldn't change much. Not so with some electric props whose response lag allowed RPM excursions under rapidly changing flight loads, like air combat. Years ago I remember seeing a utube video taken from inside a Cessna 152 Acrobat doing its thing, in which the tachometer and view out the windshield were both visible. The RPM fluctuations of the fixed pitch prop graphically highlighted the widely varying aerodynamic loads on the prop.
Hello XBe02Drvr,
My knowledge of the differences is based on the differences between the old Ford 289 CID V-8 and the newer 302 CID "5.0 Liter" V-8 and also other automotive V-8 engines.
The older 289 had larger counterweights and therefore a greater rotating mass, but didn't have the same requirement for a large harmonic balancer at the end of the crankshaft to dampen vibrations along the crank because there were not as many. Each reciprocating mass of piston and connecting rod was better balanced locally.
I believe "close" is all you would ever get with an actual engine and there would always be resonances at some RPM range. They would just be worse with smaller counterweights.
This was also typical NASCAR engine practice with larger counterweights. They were willing to give up a little quick revving in acceleration in order to have better durability in sustained high RPM operation.
- Ivan.
Hello Shortfound6,
Thank you for a very interesting discussion about the issues of high RPM engines. I am not entirely unfamiliar with them.
You and XBe02Drvr seem to have come to the conclusion that I was ADVOCATING increasing RPM to increase power for large aero engines.
I was actually doing nothing of the sort. I was simply making an OBSERVATION that contrary to the statement that "everybody knew it would not work", just about every company tried increasing RPM on its later engines. I never claimed it was a good idea.
Is there really a problem with increasing the size of counterweights on the crankshaft other than it reducing the revving response of the engine?
In my opinion, to reduce overall stresses on the engine, balancing with counterweights on the crank is much superior to a harmonic balancer on the end of the crankshaft even though the harmonic balancer is lighter overall.
I believe it tends to reduce the resonant vibrations through the engine which may be less predictable at various RPM ranges.
I understand the idea of piston speed and BMEP, but why would you divide by the square root of the stroke/bore ratio?
As I understand it, small diameter long stroke pistons also don't do well for overall friction either.
I wonder if these engines have an advantage in piston dwell time such as one might get by longer connecting rods?
My knowledge of the differences is based on the differences between the old Ford 289 CID V-8 and the newer 302 CID "5.0 Liter" V-8
It's great fun talking and reminiscing about muscle car and hotrod engines, but let's not forget, they're a whole different animal in a whole different ecosystem from a fighter engine. Let's not draw too many parallels, as their performance demands and operating profiles are so radically different, especially if the aircraft is constant speed equipped.The Ford 289 K Code / HiPo engine used a different balancer and a hatchet counter weight on the crank to help with the RPMs. I have a 1966 Mustang GT 2+2 with this little screamer.
Ivan,
The Ford 289 K Code / HiPo engine used a different balancer and a hatchet counter weight on the crank to help with the RPMs. I have a 1966 Mustang GT 2+2 with this little screamer. The 66 warranties were 12 months 12k miles for the standard V8, and 3 months 4K for the K codes. Ford expected them to be abused I guess.
"The 289 High Performance balancer is larger in width at 337⁄64 inches wide. It is wider and heavier to compensate for the high revs and larger/heavier 3/8-inch rod bolts. The 1969–1970 Boss 302 balancer is also wider and on par with the 289 High Performance balancer."