P-39 vs P-40

Schweik · Jan 9, 2019

Do you have data on higher boost settings for the V-1710-33? I've never seen anything other than military power settings. Would very much appreciate a reference with page number if possible.

CORSNING · Jan 9, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Trying to figure out how to make graphs,

.....Good luck and God speed sir. I haven't had any luck in that area either.

Shortround6 · Jan 9, 2019

That 1700hp at sea level is a theoretical (or calculated ?) number but it does come from an Allison chart for the -33 engine.

We are told that the Flying Tigers overboosted their engines but we are not told by how much. We are told the Russians over boosted their Tomahawk engines but not by how much, as did the British (and commonwealth) in the desert. This is possible limits on the engine if/when a squadron or pilot did use more than the factory limit.

I don't believe Allison or the US military ever approved over boosting the -33 engine, please remember that Alison had to rebuild 277 of the very early -33 including new crankshafts just to get them cleared for the 1090hp rating at 13,200ft. Nobody in the US was in any hurry to push the engine any harder until they accumulated thousands of hours in service to see how well they standing up. Once they found they could extend the overhaul several times over the original rated life then perhaps they could seriously consider pushing the engine.
On the -33 the reduction gear was a weak point and would not stand up very well to higher than normal powers. Strangely enough it was not usually the reduction gear itself that failed but the crankshaft right behind the front bearing.

The Chart says 1700hp at 61in but it is dated 12-5-39, actual power due to charge heating or other problems may be the reason behind the later engines needing more inches of pressure to get similar power.

Schweik · Jan 9, 2019

I've read all the same rumors but can never find any hard data on that for the Tomahawk. Is that from Vees for Victory? Can you give me the page number?

What do you think is a realistic WEP / boost / hp level for the V-1710-33?

CORSNING · Jan 10, 2019

Shortround6 said:
That 1700hp at sea level is a theoretical (or calculated ?) number but it does come from an Allison chart for the -33 engine.

Great information Shortround, is there a site where this chart can be viewed?

Greyman · Jan 10, 2019

Shortround6 said:
We are told that the Flying Tigers overboosted their engines but we are not told by how much. We are told the Russians over boosted their Tomahawk engines but not by how much, as did the British (and commonwealth) in the desert. This is possible limits on the engine if/when a squadron or pilot did use more than the factory limit.

I've brought this up before --- but with no automatic boost control -- the point is there is no real limit. It's whatever the pilot wants at that moment (depending on altitude). Inattentive or undisciplined throttle control is going to result in an 'overboosted' Tomahawk.

Now this could be intentional as well. Sort of a "Well boys, we all know the book says we're limited to 5 minutes at 40 inches, but we're gunna do what we gotta do out there to get home."

Schweik · Jan 10, 2019

Some P-40s did have automatic boost control, though it was sometimes removed in the field.

tomo pauk · Jan 10, 2019

CORSNING said:
Great information Shortround, is there a site where this chart can be viewed?

Here.
From here.

DarrenW · Jan 10, 2019

Shortround6 said:
One estimate for the P-51 said that an extra 1000lb INTERNAL was good for 3mph speed loss. That may have been optimisc.

Grumman also said the very same thing about the F6F-3.

Shortround6 · Jan 10, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Here.
From here.

Thank you Tomo.

I would note that the graph itself uses smaller boxes on the right side than on the left so it turns a curve into a straight line. This was common for a number of engine charts of the time.

I would also note that some engine companies (or book writers) would try to compare theoretical engine power at sea level as a way of comparing engines, The Merlin II for instance was supposed to make the equivalent of 1500hp at sea level at 2600rpm. Of course with 87 octane fuel it had zero chance of coming anywhere near that power level.

Also please note this test was done using US 100 octane fuel which was pretty much 100/100 which is another reason the US did not going in for over boosting engines in 1940-41.

tomo pauk · Jan 11, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Trying to figure out how to make graphs,

Here is an attempt at Allison engine powers.

COuld be a little off, Please note that all the 8.80 supercharger gear engines track pretty well which is what I would expect. This is without RAM.
Upper limit at 25,000f t comes from an Allison chart for the -33 engine but doesn't seen out of line for climb numbers for later engines.

FWIW, the -81 and similar engines were not always rated for 1125 HP at 15500 ft. Sometimes the rated altitude is stated as low as 14500 (14600?) ft, or even at 14200 ft (all without ram effect): link (scroll down a bit)

Schweik · Jan 11, 2019

Maybe it depended on air temperature or the loaded weight

Milosh · Jan 24, 2019

Schweik said:
Maybe it depended on air temperature or the loaded weight

Why would loaded weight effect HP?

P-39 vs P-40

More options

Schweik

Banned

CORSNING

Tech Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

Schweik

Banned

CORSNING

Tech Sergeant

Greyman

Tech Sergeant

Schweik

Banned

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

DarrenW

Staff Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Schweik

Banned

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads