Supercharger vs Turbocharger (1 Viewer)

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

The fuel limited the amount of boost that could be used, but was not the source of the high altitude issues.

All of the German engines that saw widespread service had single stage superchargers. With a single stage supercharger the pressure ratio that can be achieved is limited. At high altitudes their superchargers couldn't give enough boost to maintain power. There were several projects for 2 stage superchargers and turbocharged engines, but I don'tthink many, if any, saw service.

The major German engines: BMW 801 and Jumo 211 had two speed superchargers by the time the war started while the Merlin, Allison had only one.

The DB600 series was not so dependant on its supercharger: this engine used a compression ratio of up to 8.5:1 compared to levels below 6.4:1 for the Merlin.

High compression ratios provide for high power, high efficiencies. This means the engine needs less boost and so a single stage supercharger will provide sufficient altitude compensation.
 
The major German engines: BMW 801 and Jumo 211 had two speed superchargers by the time the war started while the Merlin, Allison had only one.

The DB600 series was not so dependant on its supercharger: this engine used a compression ratio of up to 8.5:1 compared to levels below 6.4:1 for the Merlin.

High compression ratios provide for high power, high efficiencies. This means the engine needs less boost and so a single stage supercharger will provide sufficient altitude compensation.


Obviously it didn't, otherwise they would not have played with GM-1 and such like.

The high compression ratio means that at a given altitude the supercharger needs a lower pressure ratio to provide the air to the engine, but at higher alltitudes the pressure ratio will be beyond the supercharger's comfort zone, and it will take a lot more hp to drive than a 2 stage supercharger would.

As we have seen before, 2 speed supercharging does not in itself provide higher altitude performance. It may mean that there has to be less compromise in the supercharger settings, giving a higher altitude rating. But we do know that the BMW struggled for performance at altitude.
 
The major German engines: BMW 801 and Jumo 211 had two speed superchargers by the time the war started while the Merlin, Allison had only one.

The Merlin X was announced at the 1938 Paris air show with a 2 speed supercharger. It was used in the Whitley bomber.
The DB600 series was not so dependant on its supercharger: this engine used a compression ratio of up to 8.5:1 compared to levels below 6.4:1 for the Merlin.

High compression ratios provide for high power, high efficiencies. This means the engine needs less boost and so a single stage supercharger will provide sufficient altitude compensation.

The Merlin always used a 6.0:1 compression ratio. While the higher compression ratios provide for higher efficiencies in all engines they only really provide higher power in un-supercharged engines. A higher compression gives you more power per unit of fuel/air burned but the higher compression ration ( for any particular fuel) limits the amount of boost that can be used and since the amount of boost governs the TOTAL amount of fuel/air burned per power stroke the higher compression engine actually winds up being able to make less power. It was the German use of a large displacement slower turning engine OF THE SAME WEIGHT for the SAME POWER that allowed them to use lower boost to get the same power using the lower boost. The lower boost needed did provide higher critical altitude than the higher boost Merlin and Allison but only up to a certain point. Part of the reason the DB600 series was able to do "so well" at altitude was the fact that the 109 was one of the lighter fighter aircraft of WW II. Trying to use a DB600 series (not including the 603) in an 8-9,000lb fighter would have soon shown that it's altitude performance was wanting, at least up until the very last 605s. That was one reason for the GM 1 equipment. Supplemental oxygen for the engine becaseu the supercharger wasn't good enough.

The Germans had used high compression ratio engines in WW I to maintain altitude performance in WW I with un-supercharged engines but that required gated throttles to prevent wide open throttle plates at low altitudes which would wreck the engines. As the Plane reached certain altitudes the the throttle lever was moved to a different slot which allowed a greater throttle opening.
 
Part of the reason the DB600 series was able to do "so well" at altitude was the fact that the 109 was one of the lighter fighter aircraft of WW II. Trying to use a DB600 series (not including the 603) in an 8-9,000lb fighter would have soon shown that it's altitude performance was wanting, at least up until the very last 605s.

He 177 was certainly no light but it is difficult to see how altitude performance was 'wanting'. I think you see thing from other side completely, you see, Bf 109 was one of the lighter fighter aircraft of WW II exact because DB 600 series was itself very light and compact.. the whole package. Good fuel consumption means less fuel needs carried for same range, and lack of two stage supercharger means no bulky intercooler, intercooler radiator needed, coolant requirement is less so small radiator will do. No wonder it was light.

There is decreasing dividients with increasing power via supercharge. More power is developed, yes, but more and more power is lost: cooling installation drag greater, weight is greater etc.

Its easy to see costs of such system. For example Spitfire Mark type V and Mark Type IX are really same aircraft, save engine: Mark type IX has two stage supercharged engine, larger prop, intercooler, needs intercooler radiator, larger oil cooler, larger coolant cooler. Otherwise all same. Now V weights about 6500 lbs, IX about 7400 lbs. So you add 900 lbs or about 400 kg for to install two stage system. Probably closer to 1100 lbs if you consider that range was down by about 20 % too, so to sompensate you need to carry about 200 lbs more fuel, fuel installation.. Now two stage system makes much more power, butmuch of that power goes into nullify that 900 (1100) lbs extra weight.

That was one reason for the GM 1 equipment. Supplemental oxygen for the engine becaseu the supercharger wasn't good enough.

Also I think because no supercharger was so good as GM 1.. and GM 1 was simply, easy added device to any aircraft where such performance was desire. Idea was to produce one engine tuned for generic altitudes, and add GM to these few planes requiring for more. Easier production, mainatiance.
 
Last edited:
The major German engines: BMW 801 and Jumo 211 had two speed superchargers by the time the war started while the Merlin, Allison had only one.

...

1. BMW-801 was in use 2 years after war started
2. If we really want to list down non-fighter, two-speed engines, than the R-1820, -1830, -2600 all were two-speed ones, with R-1830 even offering two-stage variant, unlike German engines
3. Merlin X is already covered by SR6
 
1. BMW-801 was in use 2 years after war started
2. If we really want to list down non-fighter, two-speed engines, than the R-1820, -1830, -2600 all were two-speed ones, with R-1830 even offering two-stage variant, unlike German engines
3. Merlin X is already covered by SR6

DB 600 series was two speed from start, that is 1934 I think... 1938 in operation. Really two speed design is only give you flexibility between altitude range, it do not give *better* altitude performance. For example, Merlin XX was two speed design, Merlin 45 wasimplified Merlin XX in which only one speed was, but that was for high altitude, ie. max gear I know.
 
lso I think because no supercharger was so good as GM 1.. and GM 1 was simply, easy added device to any aircraft where such performance was desire. Idea was to produce one engine tuned for generic altitudes, and add GM to these few planes requiring for more. Easier production, mainatiance.

People of course had different tastes, I'd not like to have an unprotected tank of highly explosive liquid in my fighter plane. And probably some others thought the same, after all GM 1 wasn't much used in 109s. And after the liquid was used only thing left was the weight of the system. Also all the problems in handling, storing and supplying explosive liguid. British also knew the system but IIRC they used it only in the rare high altitude Mossie XV, at least in fighters. IMHO the GM1 system was better suitted for recon planes, which tried to avoid combat than in fighters, which seeked combat.

Juha
 
1. BMW-801 was in use 2 years after war started
2. If we really want to list down non-fighter, two-speed engines, than the R-1820, -1830, -2600 all were two-speed ones, with R-1830 even offering two-stage variant, unlike German engines
3. Merlin X is already covered by SR6

Lets not forget the Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger (first production engine with a two speed supercharger) and the Bristol Pegasus. The Bristol Hercules had two speeds by the time the BMW 801 came along.
 
He 177 was certainly no light but it is difficult to see how altitude performance was 'wanting'.

Ok, I will bite on this one, Just how did the He 177 altitude performance compare to the B-17 or B-24. Operational use differed considerably from book figures. Service ceiling is usually the altitude at which a single plane (operating at normalgross weight can still climb at 100ft/min. Operational ceiling (much less commonly given) is the height at which a plane can still climb at 500ft/min. this is a much more useful limit as it covers the needs of a group of planes flying in formation. The Worst performing plane of the group may be in a position were it needs to go to maximum power in order to maintain it's formation position in a particular maneuver. Let us not forget that operational height could also be determined by weather (trying to fly under clouds) and by the fact that some systems may not have equaled the engines ability to operate at high altitudes. Crew heating (either cabin or flying suits) and oxygen may not have kept pace with engine development for prolonged high altitude operations. He 177s didn't do a lot of high altitude, large formation flying did they?

I think you see thing from other side completely, you see, Bf 109 was one of the lighter fighter aircraft of WW II exact because DB 600 series was itself very light and compact.. the whole package. Good fuel consumption means less fuel needs carried for same range, and lack of two stage supercharger means no bulky intercooler, intercooler radiator needed, coolant requirement is less so small radiator will do. No wonder it was light.

I think that you too, are seeing things from one side only. The Early DB 600/601s were no lighter and not any more compact than the early Merlin or Allison. The last of the DB 605s also managed to pick up about 155kg of "dry" weight over the DB 601A so while they still may have been "compact" it was only about 60-100lbs lighter than a two stage Merlin not including accessories. A difference of 3-4% is not much to excited about.

There is decreasing dividients with increasing power via supercharge. More power is developed, yes, but more and more power is lost: cooling installation drag greater, weight is greater etc.

Its easy to see costs of such system. For example Spitfire Mark type V and Mark Type IX are really same aircraft, save engine: Mark type IX has two stage supercharged engine, larger prop, intercooler, needs intercooler radiator, larger oil cooler, larger coolant cooler. Otherwise all same. Now V weights about 6500 lbs, IX about 7400 lbs. So you add 900 lbs or about 400 kg for to install two stage system. Probably closer to 1100 lbs if you consider that range was down by about 20 % too, so to sompensate you need to carry about 200 lbs more fuel, fuel installation.. Now two stage system makes much more power, butmuch of that power goes into nullify that 900 (1100) lbs extra weight.

Really? range was down 20% under the same conditions? what were they? or was the loss of range closer to 10%?
Now what did they get for it? Compared to a Merlin III the the Merlin 61 got double the horsepower at 30,000ft. Compared to a Merlin 45/46 they didn't get double the HP but a 50% increase. At certain altitudes of around 30,000ft and higher they got double the climb rate. Some times around 2 1/2 times the climb rate. Comparing at Spit V and a IX at 30,000ft gives the IX around 60-70mph more speed. It sure seems like there was at least some extra power to provide extra performance after nullifing ALL that extra weight.


Also I think because no supercharger was so good as GM 1.. and GM 1 was simply, easy added device to any aircraft where such performance was desire. Idea was to produce one engine tuned for generic altitudes, and add GM to these few planes requiring for more. Easier production, mainatiance.

Simple to add I will accept. maintenance I am not sure of. Extra weight and bulk rather depends on the aircraft and it's mission. Short range interceptor may have been fine with it. Which German Bomber was it that needed a 1400-1500lb installation (with N2O tanks full) that filled the rear half of the bomb-bay?
 
Obviously it didn't, otherwise they would not have played with GM-1 and such like.

The high compression ratio means that at a given altitude the supercharger needs a lower pressure ratio to provide the air to the engine, but at higher alltitudes the pressure ratio will be beyond the supercharger's comfort zone, and it will take a lot more hp to drive than a 2 stage supercharger would.

As we have seen before, 2 speed supercharging does not in itself provide higher altitude performance. It may mean that there has to be less compromise in the supercharger settings, giving a higher altitude rating. But we do know that the BMW struggled for performance at altitude.

I would disagree with a fiar bit of what you've state about the DB600, Improvements in DB605 performance (aside from tuned scavenging and spark plugs) came about as a result of improvements in piston compression ratio and compressor fluid dynmamics, latter on still the supercharger was increased in size in the D and AS series engines but still remained a single stage. 1.98 ata boost, the maximum used by the 2000hp DB605DCM at CR of 8.5 is only 14 psig or 59 inches of mercury. To achieve somewhat lower power levels the Merlin needed 25psig (about 2.8 ata boost) for the same wieght and worse fuel consumption. Two stage compressors are not more efficient than single stage, they may draw less shaft power but this comes at the expense of intercooling which is basically throwing away energy into the intercooler for disposal by a bulky radiator of some kind.

Note I didn't say the DB605 with a single stage supercharger was better than engines with a two stage unit, I said it was far dependant on high supercharger compression ratios and provided sufficient performance; it clearly still faded away slightly earlier but not at all by much especially the latter englarged supercharger versions. The Merlin used its supercharger not to compensate for altitude but to overboost its engine while the DB605 did less so and it seems gained considerable fuel economy.

As far as the BMW 801 was converned, it used CR of around 6.5:1 as did allied engines, the aircraft did quite well at altitude besting Sabre Typhoons and Griffon XII Spitfires and P-40's. its supercharger was improved and so it could remained competitive to 25,000ft which met most needs.

The DB605 was eventually developed as the DB605L (with two stage supercharger for the Me 109K-14) and also the bigger DB603L and LA of the Ta 152C, however these engines didn't use intercoolers and hardly gained weight. An earlier DB605 derivative

The BMW 801 also was developed as a turbo version, the BMW801T and Q which had outstanding performance, while there was also a BMW 801F with apparently a two stage three speed supercharger for the BMW 801F (for Fw 190A-10),

However I would argue that the DB605 didn't need a two stage supercharger due to a minimal gain in performance.

GM-1 was used for very specialised reconaisance missions and Mosquito intercepts, some USAAF P-51s also used NOX in an attempt to chase Me 262.

For various reasons the Germans fell behined in engine power throughout 1943 but caught up in 1944, however lack of two stage superchargers is a not the cause of this lag.
 
People of course had different tastes, I'd not like to have an unprotected tank of highly explosive liquid in my fighter plane. Juha

It wasn't so bad, earlier versions were compressed NOX. Latter cryogenic versions were rendered combat safe (relatively speaking) by various methods.
 
It wasn't so bad, earlier versions were compressed NOX. Latter cryogenic versions were rendered combat safe (relatively speaking) by various methods.

Used in GM-1 was NO2.. also known "Haha" gas. Completely harmless and non-flammable. Juha is simply complete wrong, and I am not sure why he would have problem with 100 liters of lets say "highly explosive" (which is not) gm1 if he has no problem with on other hand 1000 liters of highly explosive aviation fuel... regular carried of course by all plane.
 
Used in GM-1 was NO2.. also known "Haha" gas. Completely harmless and non-flammable. Juha is simply complete wrong, and I am not sure why he would have problem with 100 liters of lets say "highly explosive" (which is not) gm1 if he has no problem with on other hand 1000 liters of highly explosive aviation fuel... regular carried of course by all plane.

Hello Tante Ju
Maybe you should read more, first of all it os N20, 2 really should be ½ line lower, and if you read instructions of its use as narcotic, smoking is absolutely forbidden in the spaces it is used, guess why, and why the N2O cylinders must be absolutely clean before filling. You might also look on page 100 in Fernández-Sommerau's Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual, or simply think why fertillers with high Nitrogen component are good base material for IEDs. And all burning needs oxygen.

Fuel tanks in 41-45 were usually self-sealing, that's why they were not so dangerous than high pressure tank with potentially explosive liquid gas which could self-ignite when got in contact with oil, grease, rubber etc.

Juha
 
Last edited:
I would disagree with a fiar bit of what you've state about the DB600, Improvements in DB605 performance (aside from tuned scavenging and spark plugs) came about as a result of improvements in piston compression ratio and compressor fluid dynmamics, latter on still the supercharger was increased in size in the D and AS series engines but still remained a single stage. 1.98 ata boost, the maximum used by the 2000hp DB605DCM at CR of 8.5 is only 14 psig or 59 inches of mercury. To achieve somewhat lower power levels the Merlin needed 25psig (about 2.8 ata boost) for the same wieght and worse fuel consumption. Two stage compressors are not more efficient than single stage, they may draw less shaft power but this comes at the expense of intercooling which is basically throwing away energy into the intercooler for disposal by a bulky radiator of some kind.

Merlin 66 +25psi, PN100/150 fuel, 2000hp @ 5,250ft. In 1944.

Two stage superchargers are more efficient than single stage superchargers, particularly for higher pressure ratios, which were required at higher altitudes.

The single stage supercharger will heat the air more for a given pressure ratio. The Merlin two stage engines used intercooling (cooling passageways in the supercharger housing) and aftercooling - the big water to air radiator mounted at the top of the back of the engine.

As the German engines used higher compression ratios they needed less pressure ratios from their superchargers. This less heating of the air and less need for ADI/aftercooling. Though, the MW50 system used in several German engines was ADI.

The intercooler prevented detonation by providing lower temperatures for the air to the engine, and ADI was not required.


Note I didn't say the DB605 with a single stage supercharger was better than engines with a two stage unit, I said it was far dependant on high supercharger compression ratios and provided sufficient performance; it clearly still faded away slightly earlier but not at all by much especially the latter englarged supercharger versions. The Merlin used its supercharger not to compensate for altitude but to overboost its engine while the DB605 did less so and it seems gained considerable fuel economy.

All superchargers on WW2 aircraft were used to compensate for altitude. In the Merlin's case they did add extra boost.

Note that a single stage Merlin is equally capable of +18psi or +25psi boost (providing it has the necessary upgraded components) as the two stage engines. It will not be able to maintain the boost at the same altitudes, though.

The two stage engine was developed specifically for the high altitude Wellington that was under development. It was Lord Hives (or Rolls-Royce) that came up with the idea of sticking one in a Spitfire.

The two stage Merlins make more power at the higher altitudes - somewhere above 20,000ft. Unless they are tuned for low level work (like the Merlin 66).


The DB605 was eventually developed as the DB605L (with two stage supercharger for the Me 109K-14) and also the bigger DB603L and LA of the Ta 152C, however these engines didn't use intercoolers and hardly gained weight.

The DB605L used MW50 - which is a form of ADI. The purpose of MW50 is exactly the same as the inter/aftercooler. The difference is that once it is used it is gone. Rolls-Royce could have done a similar thing, but chose not to.


As far as the BMW 801 was converned, it used CR of around 6.5:1 as did allied engines, the aircraft did quite well at altitude besting Sabre Typhoons and Griffon XII Spitfires and P-40's. its supercharger was improved and so it could remained competitive to 25,000ft which met most needs.

Sabres, MkXII Spitfires and P-40s all used single stage engines. The XII was developed as a quick way to fight Fw190s.

Most Rolls-Royce engines used 6.0:1 compression ratios. Some Allisons had 6.5:1, many later ones had 6.0:1.

25,000ft may have met "most" needs - but couldn't combat PR Mossies and late mark bombers zipping across the sky at 30,000ft+.


The BMW 801 also was developed as a turbo version, the BMW801T and Q which had outstanding performance, while there was also a BMW 801F with apparently a two stage three speed supercharger for the BMW 801F (for Fw 190A-10),

However I would argue that the DB605 didn't need a two stage supercharger due to a minimal gain in performance.

The turbo version is a two stage system of another type.

If there was aminimal gain in performance why did they persist in developing 2 stage systems? The answer is they didn't want improved performance, they wanted improved altitude performance.


GM-1 was used for very specialised reconaisance missions and Mosquito intercepts, some USAAF P-51s also used NOX in an attempt to chase Me 262.

Why did they use GM-1 for chasing Mossies? Perhaps because they needed better altitude performance?



For various reasons the Germans fell behined in engine power throughout 1943 but caught up in 1944, however lack of two stage superchargers is a not the cause of this lag.

Fuel grade may be one reason.

But the higher octane fuels in allied aircraft allowed more boost at lower altitudes. That is, the critical altitude of the engine became lower, but would make the same hp at the critical altitude of the engine using the lower octane fuel.

So, higher octane fuels didn't allow for higher altitude performance. That had to be gained by work on the supercharger.
 
Hello Tante Ju
Maybe you should read more, first of all it os N20, 2 really should be ½ line lower, and if you read instructions of its use as narcotic, smoking is absolutely forbidden in the spaces it is used, guess why, and why the N2O cylinders must be absolutely clean before filling.

Because medical tanks actually contain a mix of N2O and 50-70% oxigene? Its oxigine that is flammable. Also please read sign:

N2O_Medical_Tanks.jpg


Again, I am sorry you are not right in this matter.N2O Nitrogen oxide is complete unflammable, read up please. It is only flammable when it decomposes at high temperature to oxygene and nitrogene, ie. when its already in the engine, doing the thing it is supposed to do.

Nitrogen dioxide, NO2 on other hand is flammable, but it is not what is in GM-1. Perhaps this is root of confusion.

You might also look on page 100 in Fernández-Sommerau's Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual,

I do not have book. What does it say?

or simply think why fertillers with high Nitrogen component are good base material for IEDs. And all burning needs oxygen.

Chemistry simply does not work this way.. Compund has different properties than individual element. Nitrogen in fertilzer is good for explosive. Hydrogene is explosive, oxygene needs for burning. By logic it follows that if I mix fertilizer with water (H2O) I get some highly explosive stuff, right..? No, I actually don't.. I get just a stinky goo.

Fuel tanks in 41-45 were usually self-sealing, that's why they were not so dangerous than high pressure tank with potentially explosive liquid gas which could self-ignite when got in contact with oil, grease, rubber etc.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is not potentially explosive, its completely non-flammable especially not in liqued form. Second you seem to mix it bit: "high pressure tank with potentially explosive liquid gas" - no such thing was ever used by German..

There was (i believe, steel) high pressure bottles, which I believe stored Nitrous oxide (GM-1) in gas form, similiar to oxygene bottles that were on any and every plane.
Then there was low pressure, insulated tank, this was simple aluminium I believe. It stored cooled Nitrous oxide gas that because of relative low temperature in liquid form, so no pressurization needed.

Now, thinking about bit, GM-1 (N2O, Haha, "Nitrous") was probably not preferred on Allied engines because it is more problem on carburrator engines, more risk of backfire. Not really on German engines, all of which were direct fuel injected.
 
Because medical tanks actually contain a mix of N2O and 50-70% oxigene? Its oxigine that is flammable. Also please read sign:

Hello Tante Ju
At least in Finland they sell it 100% pure, when given to the patient, it had to be mixed so that the mixture incl at least 21% oxygen. It is inflameable but "Oxidant. Strongly supports combustion. May react violently with combustible materials." as it stands in the data sheet.

Nitrogen dioxide, NO2 on other hand is flammable, but it is not what is in GM-1. Perhaps this is root of confusion.

Now read my previous message, I know it is N2O.


I do not have book. What does it say?

"Potentially explosive, the gas demanded very careful handling" Now in that I made a mistake, it isn't highly explosive only potentially explosive.

Chemistry simply does not work this way.. Compund has different properties than individual element. Nitrogen in fertilzer is good for explosive. Hydrogene is explosive, oxygene needs for burning. By logic it follows that if I mix fertilizer with water (H2O) I get some highly explosive stuff, right..? No, I actually don't.. I get just a stinky goo.

Frankly, I have had lectures on how to make IEDs and because of obvious reasons would not go into details, but I'd say what you wrote isn't entirely correct.


Nitrous oxide (N2O) is not potentially explosive, its completely non-flammable especially not in liqued form. Second you seem to mix it bit: "high pressure tank with potentially explosive liquid gas" - no such thing was ever used by German..

There was (i believe, steel) high pressure bottles, which I believe stored Nitrous oxide (GM-1) in gas form, similiar to oxygene bottles that were on any and every plane.
Then there was low pressure, insulated tank, this was simple aluminium I believe. It stored cooled Nitrous oxide gas that because of relative low temperature in liquid form, so no pressurization needed.

In that you are probably right, there were 3 systems, in 2 the gas was stored in 4 or 8 cylinders/bottles and might have pressuried, the 4 bottles system was behind the pilot and was protected by a steel plate, but the 3rd system, used in 109G-5, it was in a insulated unprotected light alloy tank behind the pilot.

Juha
 
Last edited:
r
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is not potentially explosive, its completely non-flammable especially not in liqued form. Second you seem to mix it bit: "high pressure tank with potentially explosive liquid gas" - no such thing was ever used by German..

I am not so sure of this non-flammable designation. Liquid O2 is also non-flammable. Only, it makes everything else burn. Just ask the Apollo astronauts. I always considered the liquid oxygen on the aircraft as far more dangerous than jet fuel. Now I really don't know much about Nitrous, but if it is an oxidizer, it could be very dangerous. What did the yellow tag say on the bottle?
 
Fuel tanks in 41-45 were usually self-sealing, that's why they were not so dangerous than high pressure tank with potentially explosive liquid gas which could self-ignite when got in contact with oil, grease, rubber etc. Juha

It's not high pressure effectively zero pressure, its cryogenic. N2O is weakly cryogenic. As I am overseas I don't have my library, however there is a reference to the N2O system being made safe in "junkers aircraft and engines" by Anthony Kay in reference to the Ju 88S-1. It's a non inflamable liquid that could be protected by some kind of a self sealing system. Obviously as an oxidiser it needs to be kept away from flamable materials.
 
Last edited:
Hello davparlr
the yellow tag normally means Oxidizing substances.

Juha
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back