Super Blenheim fighter
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
don4331
Senior Airman
Yes, both the Peregrine and the Vulture* had downdraft carburetors;
*The Vulture II in the Tornado used an updraft carburetor. The Vulture also had battery powered coil ignition initially instead of magnetos.
wuzak
Captain
The Tornado had a downdraft carburettor.
The intake is above and behind the spinner.
don4331
Senior Airman
I thought so too, but I did some research and there we a couple "credible" sites that said there were updrafts in the Tornado....
I should have stuck with my knowledge (I found lots of other mistakes on the Vulture and Peregrine that I knew were wrong...)
I was trying to find out if Peregrine used Battery/coil or Magneto. I sticking with it used Mags.
Last edited:
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
I have not checked the actual spaces but I note that the nacelles of the Whirlwind also had to contain the undercarriage and wheels unlike the single seaters so that may have a part to play in the packaging. I do know that the Merlin installation offered to their Airships did involve some change to make room enough for the Merlin intake by some alteration to the space used by the undercarriage and wheels.
- Thread starter
- #46
Admiral Beez
Major
I wonder how the Whirlwind would have done with the Hispano-Suiza 12Y? It's one of the few other in-line V12s that's smaller than a Merlin.
Hi
The Whirlwind's pilot's notes has "Magneto switches" on the cockpit instrument panel photograph I would think Magnetos were used.
Mike
Shortround6
Major General
It was lower powered and it was lighter. Smaller is another story.
Trying to stuff twelve 150 x 170 mm cylinders into a smaller space than twelve 137 x 152 mm cylinders often means you have to leave out something.
RR Peregrine engine.
Carb in upper right hand corner.
The H-S 12Y engine was well past it's prime and any British factory that tooled up for it should have had it's directors hung for treason.
1000hp at 3260meters doesn't really beat 885hp at 4550meters if you are trying to figure out how to get performance at 20,000ft.
- Thread starter
- #49
Admiral Beez
Major
Sounds like there isn't a sub-25L inline v-12 that's any better than the Peregrine. A small group, mind.
Let's stick a Peregrine onto some of the Kestrel applications. Can we get a Super Nimrod instead of the Sea Gladiator until the Skua and Fulmar can replace it? Throw on an enclosed canopy, akin to the Avia B-534.
Let's stick a Peregrine onto some of the Kestrel applications. Can we get a Super Nimrod instead of the Sea Gladiator until the Skua and Fulmar can replace it? Throw on an enclosed canopy, akin to the Avia B-534.
Thanks for that, everyday a school day . Seeing as from what I understand, the Peregrine was based on the Kestrel, did the Kestrel have an updraft or downdraft carb?RR Peregrine engine.
Carb in upper right hand corner.
don4331
Senior Airman
Kestrels were updraft as far as I know
Attachments
Probably where my confusion has come from, it seems counter intuitive to flip flop the induction systems like this.
So, given the resources & seeing as this is an A Admiral Beez thread
, with an updraft induction system & Merlin 60 type supercharging, what could have been expected from the Peregrine.
MiTasol
Captain
The above photos clearly show magnetos between the cylinder banks and the supercharger.
All I have on the Kestrels say updraft carbs and magnetos.
Unfortunately I have nothing on the Vulture but member William Pearce has a good rundown at Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 Aircraft Engine.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Shortround6
Major General
As shown in the diagram provided by Don4331 in post #51 the Kestrel did use updraft carburetor/s in many versions.
However note that they used side inlets with a sharp turn to the carburetor throats and also note that the supercharger inlet was offset to one side.
Two poor features that had nothing to do with the supercharger housing or impeller.
There were some Kestrels that were not supercharged and they used a pair of carbs in-between the cylinder heads/banks.
The two small scoops on top of the cowl are the carb intakes.
On some early Kestrels the air intakes just went straight up. No turn to the front.
Airflow was very primitive in the late 20s/early 30s.
On supercharged engines there either a scoop down low on the cowl on each side or a grate/opening with no scoop.
Many of the older biplanes got engine changes so the air intakes are the only good way to figure out what the plane had when the picture was taken.
However note that they used side inlets with a sharp turn to the carburetor throats and also note that the supercharger inlet was offset to one side.
Two poor features that had nothing to do with the supercharger housing or impeller.
There were some Kestrels that were not supercharged and they used a pair of carbs in-between the cylinder heads/banks.
The two small scoops on top of the cowl are the carb intakes.
On some early Kestrels the air intakes just went straight up. No turn to the front.
Airflow was very primitive in the late 20s/early 30s.
On supercharged engines there either a scoop down low on the cowl on each side or a grate/opening with no scoop.
Many of the older biplanes got engine changes so the air intakes are the only good way to figure out what the plane had when the picture was taken.
Shortround6
Major General
Getting back somewhat to the original question the American Douglas DB-7s with R-1830 engines and the Martin Marylanders also with R-1830 engines can provide some comparisons as to what was needed for power for a 3 seat light bomber to hit 300-310mph. Both planes were built with both single speed superchargers and two speed superchargers. Max power often listed in take-off power and not max power at altitude. P&W was not shipping two speed engines until the summer of 1940.
Air inlet shape certainly has some effect, but I'd imagine it's hard to say anything sensible based on extrapolating from water flow in a pipe, despite both being fluids that can be described by Navier Stokes. Density is different by a factor of approx 800 (at sea level, bigger difference at altitude), dynamic viscosity is different by a factor of 50 or so. And air is compressible, whereas to a first approximation water isn't.
MiTasol
Captain
error
Yes. Not implying otherwise.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
All fair points, though the fact that water is not very compressible implies that working around a bend in the plumbing might actually be facilitated in water, where the reflected column can add "thrust" to the flow. On the other hand, friction loss with the fluid being air is going to be much lower than water, I think.
I'm not trying to extrapolate anything, but just bringing up some points that may (or may not, I don't know) matter.
