It had a liquid aftercooler.
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mig-31bm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,671
- Dec 6, 2006
I'm not seeing it in the photos
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
OK, trying to keep up here but struggling.
So which is the top option between the V-1710-E27 and the V-1710-H?
And photos would help please...
So which is the top option between the V-1710-E27 and the V-1710-H?
And photos would help please...
Do you need a hammer or a screwdriver?OK, trying to keep up here but struggling.
So which is the top option between the V-1710-E27 and the V-1710-H?
And photos would help please...
A power recovery turbine setup, like the E27, is best for raw power at medium and low altitudes as there is no need to throttle the turbine. A pure turbo-supercharged engine, like the V1710-H, is a mechanicaly simpler and lighter system that offers better fuel efficiency at a slight cost in maximum power
Seversky XP-41 has no place in a turbocharged list. The engine is Pratt & Whitney R-1830-19, a two-stage gear-driven supercharger with an intercooler between the stages, a close relative to the engine used on the F4F-3/4 and FM-1 Wildcats.
The XP-41 is quite well documented in the NACA series reports (e.g. NACA WR E-105)
Shortround6
Major General
Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion about the XP-41. I believe there were two different Seversky fighters built for the 1939 fighter trials, not sure if they both showed up in time? One had the two stage mechanical supercharger, as you describe. The other had a turbo (the AP-4) and was a company owned demonstrator. The problems seem to be which airplane was identified as what later on. While rather similar (both had the inward retracting landing gear) the air scoops/inlets in the wing leading edges were different.
A lot of books/articles seem to confuse the two planes and often misidentify photos.
