Online lecture on WW2 engine development (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So the Germans had less advanced radiators than allied designs?
 
Last edited:
So the Germans had less advanced radiators than allied designs?
The British, not the allies. The Americans continued to use old fashioned honeycomb construction long after Rolls Royce adopted the much more efficient secondary surface (fin and tube) style.
 
black.png


UPDATE:

Book is going to printing press on Friday 25th Sept 2020.

Printing will take a month, and shipping another week, so would expect pre-ordered
copies to arrive at peoples doorsteps in +6weeks from that date (i.e. 6th Nov 2020)
 
D Deleted member 68059 ,

So, far I'm about 50-60 minutes in, and it would appear that they didn't seem to generally put as much thought into the design of radiators that were designed sturdy enough to withstand the structural forces imposed by high-pressure cooling systems, and it was leading to cracks in the cooling system, though it seemed that Junkers Jumo was handling the problem better than would Daimler Benz.

Though you note that Messerschmitt seemed the only person who really seemed to fully grasp the problem, however, I remember Heinkel had worked on the idea of a surface evaporative cooling system which did involve considerable pressurization of the coolant (I'm not sure what kind of pressures they used, however).

BTW: I did find the idea of the swirl throttle to be quite interesting -- I thought the USSR was the only nation to have 'em.
 
Last edited:
D Deleted member 68059 ,

So, far I'm about 50-60 minutes in, and it would appear that they didn't seem to generally put as much thought into the design of radiators that were designed sturdy enough to withstand the structural forces imposed by high-pressure cooling systems, and it was leading to cracks in the cooling system, though it seemed that Junkers Jumo was handling the problem better than would Daimler Benz.

Though you note that Messerschmitt seemed the only person who really seemed to fully grasp the problem, however, I remember Heinkel had worked on the idea of a surface evaporative cooling system which did involve considerable pressurization of the coolant (I'm not sure what kind of pressures they used, however).

BTW: I did find the idea of the swirl throttle to be quite interesting -- I thought the USSR was the only nation to have 'em.

As far as I have discovered, the swirl throttle was a French invention in radial form, thereafter (since it was published) anyone sensible started their own designs, I think Germany next got one and then Russia, however, I`ve not had nearly as much Russian info as I`d like, so its possible that Russia and Germany were in roughly parallel development.

Its chicken and egg for radiators, if you dont forsee the need for high pressure cooling, you dont develop strong radiators... however it takes a long time to do it, so its something you need to have integrated into your long term gameplan as its not rapidly implimentable.
 
As far as I have discovered, the swirl throttle was a French invention in radial form, thereafter (since it was published) anyone sensible started their own designs, I think Germany next got one and then Russia, however, I`ve not had nearly as much Russian info as I`d like, so its possible that Russia and Germany were in roughly parallel development.
Fascinating.
Its chicken and egg for radiators, if you dont forsee the need for high pressure cooling, you dont develop strong radiators... however it takes a long time to do it, so its something you need to have integrated into your long term gameplan as its not rapidly implimentable.
That I understand. I'm just curious how well Heinkel did with the surface evaporative cooling. Do you have any idea how pressurized the coolant was?
 
Fascinating.
That I understand. I'm just curious how well Heinkel did with the surface evaporative cooling. Do you have any idea how pressurized the coolant was?

The trouble with evaporative cooling, is that if you pressurise the whole system it stops it from evaporating in the first place, its extremely difficult to allow it to boil-off at some point after the engine, and still maintain a high pressure inside the engine. There are a few things you can do with flow restrictions and so on to get the benefit without letting
the metal temperature in the engine get too high, but its on a knife-edge the whole time, and if the engine power demand suddenly increases, you can get significant
boiling happening inside the cylinder head etc, then you`re done for. There is a lot of interest in evaporative cooling today in automotive engines because of the
very high cooling possible by allowing boiling (i.e phase change) you can get away with a much lower flow rate of coolant which means smaller pumps etc,
but it requires a lot of very clever controls to make it work, which has so far not seen it being adopted in production. Even when it is set up perfectly
the metal temps in the head in some typical studies are 10 degrees higher. Which might not sound much, but if you have a high performance engine,
it might be enough to cause problems - and thats if it works perfectly. I`ve never used such a system, so I only know what I`ve read on it.

Some modern studies in evaporative cooling for engines are:

http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/63582/1/A REVIEW OF EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEM CONCEPTS.pdf
https://people.bath.ac.uk/enscjb/D22903.pdf

1606289278719.png
 
Shell-tube heat exchangers are much easier to build and much, much easier to repair than fin-plate HEXs (like you see in an auto radiator). But shell tube HEX have much lower effectiveness per area than do fin-plate.

You could just about build a shell-tube HEX in your garage using hand tools. But almost no one even tries to repair an auto radiator other than perhaps soldering up a leaky edge.

The F-106 ECS used shell tube. The F-4 ECS uses fin plate. The F-4 has two ECS systems, but the total area of the HEX for the two are no more than that of the F-106, and probably less.

We had a company that had developed a success repair method for shell-tube and had built replacements for Boeing 727 ECS fin-plate HEX. They wanted to build replacement shell -tube HEX for some fighters but we said NO. Jet fighters have a lot less margin in their ECS than do airliners.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back