Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The table in Wilkinson's book, refer to the Sabre section, the final production unit he lists notes the output at ~70" Hg (+20lb) on 100/130.Care to post some docs that show Sabre's boost with 100/130 + ADI?
IIRC Fedden didn't design neither Sabre nor Jumo 213.
As noted by the above member, swept volume was not what was propelling the aircraft.
On the p/w basis, a host of other engines were doing at least as good. What Sabre was not good was power at higher altitudes, but that somehow ends swept under the rug when people talk about the Sabre as it was the next best thing after the sliced bread.
Unfortunately, the primary sources disagree with him, at least what is posted on this thread.The table in Wilkinson's book, refer to the Sabre section, the final production unit he lists notes the output at ~70" Hg (+20lb) on 100/130.
Fedden led a British Engineering/Technical appraisal of German aero-engine developments in 1945, he examined the Jumo 213,
and expressed his incredulity at the notion of such a long-stroke engine running reliably at 3,700rpm, per basic stress limitations.
Swept volume is the fundamental dimensional metric of a piston engine as a fluid working machine.
Altitude compensation is an add-on, the Sabre could hack hard running (unthrottled) at sea-level as a measure of how robust it was.
One of the Napier engine charts available on Calum's ('snowygrouch' here) site shows the Sabre with turbo-altitude compensation,
as was intended for US production (with Typhoons built by Bell Corp, & the Sabre built by Chrysler Corp - in the event, Stalin's need
for the P-39, & the top priority US B-29 program, with its big, troublesome Wright mills - built/remediated by Chrysler, killed this).
Actually, its pretty clear that Wilkinson's tables were copied from the type-test records, as they match the figures supplied to 'Flight',Unfortunately, the primary sources disagree with him, at least what is posted on this thread.
Okay, roger that.
Altitude power was an important thing (as eg. Luftwaffe pilots experienced on their own skin from mid-1943 on), unfortunately Sabre lagged badly behind the top cop of the engines of the day.
Swept volume is not end-all metric of an engine, let alone of an aircraft's performance. Sabre was many things, robustness was not one of these, as seen here (contribution of Calum Douglas).
As-is, Sabre was not doing well at high altitudes. Both P&W and RR made engines that were very good/excellent at high altitudes without resorting to turboes.
Typhoons built by Bell, Sabre built at Chrysler - I guess we can dream all day. Real-world questions: a) how is that earlier than P-47 production, and b) how is that better than P-47 production and use?
Couple of things there Calum, cam boxes/drives to add, plus it clearly shows how those poppets crowd the combustion chamber,The Napier idea of a high speed short stroke engine was a good one, very forward thinking, I wish they`d made it a poppet valve though. I did a rough scheme for the increase in engine width using some period DB 605 valves as "representative". Its not as bad as you might think...and could probably be even more compact with a rocker format OHC instead of cam/buckets. In fact it can even be improved further because since the bottom of the liner doesnt go up and down without a sleeve, you can probably shorted the con-rods without the crank banging into the bottom of the liner, which is always the choke point.View attachment 759192
You will hopefully understand me not buying the +20 psi and 3500-3550 HP figures, in light of the docs available now.Actually, its pretty clear that Wilkinson's tables were copied from the type-test records, as they match the figures supplied to 'Flight',
and included in their articles.
Altitude performance was important if you wanted to stop turbo'd USAAF bombers, & contest their fighter escort likewise, but by
1943, that was not really a primary business for the RAF, & even the LW, from mid 1944, when it was redirected to anti-JaBo work,
against the Allied tactical airforces, as being a more tenable use of its limited resources - was operating below 20,000ft.
Ironically, the USAAF's expensively turbo-optimised P-38 & P-47 were also redirected to operate in TAF roles, too.
The USAAF themselves recognised the P-47 was not as good at low-level, or for A2G as the Typhoon, but its what they had...
(The Soviet VVS tested their Lend-Lease P-47s & found the idea of using them for A2G 'Ludicrous', & sent them to air defence units)
Couple of things there Calum, cam boxes/drives to add, plus it clearly shows how those poppets crowd the combustion chamber,
introduce problematic hot-spots, coolant/oil circulation issues, & obtund ports to restrict volumetric efficiency.
You will hopefully understand me not buying the +20 psi and 3500-3550 HP figures, in light of the docs available now.
That "4,000hp" figure was duly noted in 1950s era 'Flight' article, which was a reputable journal, FWIW.I thought was the 4000 hp figure from Setright that was discredited. Both Ricardo and Bingham state that the Sabre achieved 3500/3600 hp.
Thats from HERE by the way > note, post war, 1946.As Tomo posts accurately above, 3050 bhp is the absolute peak power figure which is currently known in actual Napier documents. I`ve been to the archive,
and this is the highest power rating I`ve found for an engine which actually existed. The higher figures all seem to be from the Sabre VIII (which never existed
except on paper and was re-designated E.122 at some stage to be a completely different engine, which appears to be a sort of half way house to a Nomad).
(17.25lbs boost & water methanol, no higher boost exists in any papers I have ever seen)
View attachment 759224
Sorry Calum, but seeing the flow comparison of cylinder porting to poppet valves (check out how Toyota tried to run one of its DOHC 4VThe 2nd last poppet valve engine I worked on used 4 bar boost on fuel you can get from a normal petrol station. A well designed set of
poppet ports gets you over 100% volumetric efficiency with no boost at all. Trust me, these issues you mention stopped existing about 1935
once the valve alloys improved.
You will hopefully understand me not buying the +20 psi and 3500-3550 HP figures, in light of the docs available now.
Since Germans tried to stop the high-flying bombers and their escorts during the 2nd half of the ww2, I'd say that altitude performance was very important. It was for Germans, for Americans, and also for the RAF, who were the 1st people to push for 2-stage superchargers in military engines in Europe, and, with P&W, in the world. RAF were also the 1st to provide some sort of escort for the 8th AF.
No irony there - Americans have had money to buy stuff, and were using the stuff in the way they saw fit, even gifting them to the Allies.
If you think that turboed Sabre will come in cheap, I have the Brooklyn bridge on sale, real cheap.
Any source that describes the P-47s being considered for A2G by Soviets, the same Soviets whose fighters were hopeless in A2G? Any sources describing USAAF wanting the Typhoon?
The P-47s surely killed a lot of Axis ground assets for not being good at low level.
Sorry Calum, but seeing the flow comparison of cylinder porting to poppet valves (check out how Toyota tried to run one of its DOHC 4V
engines on a 2-stroke cycle & quickly ran into flow-capacity poppet valve limitations) gives me trust in actual results...
See the final test figures for a Sabre test in the link below - scroll to bottom - showing 22 bar (321lb/sq.in) BMEP @ +1.37 bar boost (+20lb)
I suspect as is always the case, there is a lot of difference between projected (i.e. sales figures) and test bed figures, if it is real, where is the power curve ?Yes, but doubtless the data wasn't simply 'made up' back in 1947.
Yeah, that is much appreciated - so can you ask BAE - if they still have the Hawker flight test archive from 1940s Langley?I suspect as is always the case, there is a lot of difference between projected (i.e. sales figures) and test bed figures, if it is real, where is the power curve ?
Nobody likes finding obscure WW2 aero engine power curves more than I do (literally nobody) - and I cant find it in the Napier archive.
Yeah, that is much appreciated - so can you ask BAE - if they still have the Hawker flight test archive from 1940s Langley?
A wee bit more, Ol' Len Setright claimed to have read through the Napier Engineering docs back in the `60s, & discussed them withI suspect as is always the case, there is a lot of difference between projected (i.e. sales figures) and test bed figures, if it is real, where is the power curve ?
Nobody likes finding obscure WW2 aero engine power curves more than I do (literally nobody) - and I cant find it in the Napier archive.