Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
1037It was common, in WW2 at least, for people to use the term "two stage supercharging" interchangably with "two speed supercharging."
And I still wonder about a very nice article in Air Enthusiast about the Stormavik that said the engine did not have a supercharger. I very much doubt that. Even the Vultee BT-13 had a supercharger.
Years ago, the Air Vectors site claimed that AM-38 engine had no supercharger, so I've sent them a mail saying that was not the case. I'm not sure what took them to change that, however now they claim that this:And I still wonder about a very nice article in Air Enthusiast about the Stormavik that said the engine did not have a supercharger. I very much doubt that. Even the Vultee BT-13 had a supercharger.
So did AE get it from them or vice versa?Years ago, the Air Vectors site claimed that AM-38 engine had no supercharger,
I'm not sure what do you mean there.So did AE get it from them or vice versa?
I very seriously doubt the prototype with the turbo had lower performance. People have proposed that, but there is no way to be sure, and the prototype's performancre at altitude was very certainly better than a non-pturbo Allison ever had.Okay here are another couple of errors.
He states that the P-39 had poor high altitude performance because of the removal of the turbosupercharger. In reality the P-39 prototype had lower performance with the turbo than it did with just the single stage supercharged V-1710.
On P.44 he states: "The P-40F differed from the P-40E's they had been flying by having the Allison V-1710 engine of the P-40E replaced with the Packard built V-1650-1 Merlin = equivalent to the Rolls Royce Merlin XX and designated Packard-Merlin 28 by the RAF - with a single stage two speed supercharger that produced full power at higher altitudes than the Allison could reach, as it lacked a supercharger."
I am kind of amazed that people are still writing that "the Allison lacked a supercharger." The basic V-1710 had a single stage single speed supercharger that in the P-40E and P-39 was set up for maximum speed at about 15,000 ft while in the P-51A it produced maximum speed at about 20,000 ft. The V-1650-1 had single stage two-speed supercharger that produced a maximum speed at about 15,000 ft in low speed, at which point it switched to the high supercharger speed and gave the airplane its highest top speed at about 20,000 ft.
You can check it out at the pg. 85 of the book 'Vee's for victory'. XP-39 was good for 340 mp/h at 20000 ft per the graph posted there.I very seriously doubt the prototype with the turbo had lower performance. People have proposed that, but there is no way to be sure, and the prototype's performancre at altitude was very certainly better than a non-pturbo Allison ever had.
The problem was that the limited room in the airframe led to the turbo and its exhaust producing literally more drag than it was worth.I very seriously doubt the prototype with the turbo had lower performance.
And the high speed of the P-39 prototype was because it effectively a "racing" version with no armor or armament.
Yes, P-39 was a small aircraft (at least as far as the US aircraft go) in what the designers tried to stuff everything - a V12 engine with it's cooling systems, a tricycle undercarriage, roomy cockpit*, 200 gals of fuel (initially, 170 at the P-39C, 120 once the s-s tanks were introduced for the D), a 37mm cannon + machine guns' battery, a turbocharger with it's intercooler...The problem was that the limited room in the airframe led to the turbo and its exhaust producing literally more drag than it was worth.
If you are referring to the XP-39, the speed was low, not high.
Yes, P-39 was a small aircraft (at least as far as the US aircraft go) in what the designers tried to stuff everything - a V12 engine with it's cooling systems, a tricycle undercarriage, roomy cockpit*, 200 gals of fuel (initially, 170 at the P-39C, 120 once the s-s tanks were introduced for the D), a 37mm cannon + machine guns' battery, a turbocharger with it's intercooler...
* one of the things NACA suggested, and was implemented for the P-39s past the XP-39 was a smaller canopy
The XP-39, as is, have had max speed of 340 mph at 20000 ft was maximum, per the NACA chart at pg. 85 of the book 'Vee's for victory'.Several factors contributed to the deleting of turbocharger on the P-39.
One of the primary reasons was that, while the prototype did indeed fly at over 380 mph, it was below the target of 400 mph, and especially because this performance was achieved with an aircraft much lighter than the hypothetical production aircraft, since it lacked weapons and armour.
A complete redesign of all the involved components showed that there was no room for a separate turbocharger in an aircraft as small as the P-39.
US turbochagers were developed & manufactured by General Electric (with a sprinkle of Wright-made ones, that didn't mattered in ww2).On the other hand, what the NACA report doesn't say is that neither the USAF nor Bell, whose financial resources were limited, were keen to embark on the development of a turbocharger.
The natural solution was therefore to revert to a mechanical supercharged engine, as on the P-40, P-51, and others, especially since the NACA had claimed that with this configuration—and a few other tweaks such as the canopy height, landing gear doors, and the rudder design—the aircraft could reach 429 mph.
Yes. Some sources says even 390 mph, but I think the truth is written by Dan Whitney : "Birch Matthews, aviation historian and author who has researched Belle Aicraft and the P-39 extensively, reports that he never found a source document confirming this maximum speed."The XP-39, as is, have had max speed of 340 mph at 20000 ft was maximum, per the NACA chart at pg. 85 of the book 'Vee's for victory'.
Correct, but when I wrote "development," I wasn't referring to the turbocharger manufacturer, which is GE of course, but to the airframe engineers, who had to manage the engine-turbocharger-intercooler assembly, with all its ducts for the intake, exhaust, waste gate and intercooler & turbocharger cooling. This problem is even more complex on a single-engine liquid-cooled airplane because the main radiator ducts also have to be integrated.US turbochagers were developed & manufactured by General Electric (with a sprinkle of Wright-made ones, that didn't mattered in ww2).
And what source do you have to support a maximum speed of 380mph?
In light of the fact that the XP-39 could not develop full power do to excessive vibration and that the 12-13" diameter temporary oil-cooler installation produced excessive drag, even 340 mph seems improbable.
The time-line of events make it very doubtful that any calibrated speed tests were conducted.
Given the prototype's low weight, the author adds, "That meant the existing aircraft, when normally loaded, would have a hard time exceeding 340 mph." This is consistent with the Dan Whitney graph cited by Tomo Pauk.