Time Machine ENGINE consultant!!!

[tomo pauk]

...
You know, dry weight of Griffon 65 is 1,980 lb (900 kg).Weight of coolant is approximately 60-70 kg. So It is easier with coolant by about 100-110 kg than R-2800

The radiators and tubes that connect it to engine must weight something, so the difference disapears.
.
About the power - take in attention that figures of P&W is with water-injection, which wasn't installed on Griffon.

Water injection was introduced in winter 1943/44, and it was used only on low altitudes. So R-2800 remains up.

Faster on the same alltitudes as Griifon-powered Spits, or in the stratosphere?

Now where I said 'P-47 was faster then Spit with Griffon' (Not that it wasn't for the most of the time...)??

It's not the easy question, but if Germans succeded with Db-603N of 2800 HP it would be interesting to get to know your opinion

However, they didn't.

But look at Napier Sabre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sabre VII of 3,055 horsepower (2,278 kW).

Already heard about it

.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The only thing we all agree on is building the Bf-109Z. But putting more 20mm and 30mm on the target still eludes us, we still don't have a high velocity, high RoF 20mm and 30mm cannon.

Bronc

The 109Z would be more then able to carry 4 cannons of MG 151/20 and/or MK 108 size, so that makes the task (shells on target) somewhat easier.

 

[davebender]

"You're an insane nutjob dictator and it's time you start acting like it. Start randomly killing some of your own weapons development and production people, because DEATH is a wonderful motivator."

Hitler will start by killing you after you give him this advice.

 

[pbfoot]

Even the British tended to use many more Hercules and Centaurus engines in commercial planes than Merlins, Griffons and Sabres.
.

Not forgetting the DC4/C54 powered by Merlins that flew higher , faster and longer then the radial powered version

 

[Bronc]

I've done quite a bit of research and study into Hitler's personality and behavior.
I think the "last discussion" rule applied to Hitler. Whoever got to have "the last
discussion" with Hitler on any given issue usually won--until someone had another
"last discussion" and then he changed his mind.

Galland in his interviews says he could make progress with Hitler when he was alone,
one on one, but when other people were in the room, or someone had a subsequent
discussion on the issue, things always went wrong.

Hitler was quite uneducated, and he didn't have the emotional or intellectual background
to make a really good dictator. He let too many people slide, like Goring. The "Fatman" Goring
should have been shot about 50 times for outright theft and looting, much less Dereliction of Duty.

If he shot me for that advice, the president of our Time Machine Consulting business would
threatened to cancel our consulting contract and then tripled the fee. It's a cut-throat business!

Bronc

 

[Shortround6]

Not forgetting the DC4/C54 powered by Merlins that flew higher , faster and longer then the radial powered version

Would that be the Canadair 4 version?

I would hope it flew Higher ,faster and longer than a regular DC-4, not only did it have 300hp more per engine for take-off, the fact the the cabin was pressurised unlike regular DC-4 might have something to do with cruising altitude.

No sense having a commercial airliner try to fly at 25,000ft if the passengers have to be on oxogen the whole time.

And of course the fact that the Canadair 4 weighed about 3 tons more than DC-4 empty and over 4 1/2 tons more at max gross weight has got nothing to do with flying further either, right?
the extra 1,000gals of fuel has nothing to do with range

As for a better comparison you might try the Canadair 5. Less than 3,000lbs heavier empty and 3,700lbs heavier at max gross it's radial engines propelled it just 1mph faster and 5,000ft lower. while it did have a lower ceiling it needed less runway (by about 700ft) and actually covered an extra 100miles on 34 liters less fuel at 10,000ft.
Of course these radials were R-2800s rather than R-2000s

 

[pbfoot]

Would that be the Canadair 4 version?

I would hope it flew Higher ,faster and longer than a regular DC-4, not only did it have 300hp more per engine for take-off, the fact the the cabin was pressurised unlike regular DC-4 might have something to do with cruising altitude.

No sense having a commercial airliner try to fly at 25,000ft if the passengers have to be on oxogen the whole time.

And of course the fact that the Canadair 4 weighed about 3 tons more than DC-4 empty and over 4 1/2 tons more at max gross weight has got nothing to do with flying further either, right?
the extra 1,000gals of fuel has nothing to do with range

Doesn't matter you stated the radial was the engine of choice and it was for the most part but the North Star did what it did with Merlins and did it well

 

[Shortround6]

The DB 604C was a 3,500 hp 24-cylinder injection X-engine.

What source are you using for the 3,500hp?

After production began, the entire DB-604 program was cancelled on 4th September, 1942. Put a 3,500 hp engine into a German fighter aircraft, have them flying by late 1943, and things get interesting. Bolt the DB-604C on the He-177 and that ends all the problems.

The 3500hp figure for the 604 means more power per liter than the Merlin was getting in 1945 in service use. rather doubtful in 1942/43.

Don't like the 604C? Build the DB 610A-B, a 3000 hp engine.

they did. you do know that a 610 is the same as a 606 exept for using 605 engines instead of 601s?

A fighter with this engine might wind up looking like a P-75.

or the BMW 802, a 2,800 hp 18-cylinder radial with exhaust gas turbocharger, .

if the Germans could have built a turbo charger of any sort a lot of theri problems would have been solved, another non-starter.

or the DB-628 a 1,600 hp engine with a two-stage supercharger .

Maybe but by the time it was ready it wasn't really competive.

or the DB 623, a 2,300 hp high altitude engine.

Back to the Turbo chargers

If the Germasn could have made them they would have, No raw materials.

Put the Jumo, BMW, DB, Heinkel and Walter engine engineers into a room and tell them, "You have a shockingly short amount of time to cooperate on getting a new powerful water-cooled inline, radial and jet engine perfected and into production. No more company secrets, no more proprietary data, no more competition instead of cooperation, because in about two months, we start killing you and your families."

In a very short period of time, all these engine development and production troubles would have been a thing of the past.

Bronc

Or in three months your problems are even worse because you have shot the peaple with the skill/knowledge to help you.

developing engines is like making babies, you can't make a baby by getting 9 women pregnent for one month.

P&W had over 3000 hours of test stand time on the R-2800 before they ever stuck one in a test mule aircraft. I have no idea how much test stand time they had when they rated the "C" series engines at 2300hp for take off. It is claimed by some writers that the onlythings the 1850HP "A" series had in commen with the "C" series is the bore and stroke and the starter dog. Different cylinder heads, valves, cylinder barrels, pistons, rings, connecting rods, crankshafts and crank cases.

while you can develop an engine faster if use more than one test engine making too many doesn't do much good if you dicover something basic has to be changed. like a crankshaft, then you have to make new cranks for just about all the test engines. Shooting peaple doesn't make the lathe turn any faster or the castings cool any quicker.

 

[Shortround6]

Doesn't matter you stated the radial was the engine of choice and it was for the most part but the North Star did what it did with Merlins and did it well

I think it does matter because your original statement made it sound like the Liquied cooled engines had superior performance in the SAME plane. THe difference in cruising speeds at the altitude difference between an unpressureized aircraft and a pressurized one rather blows the comparison.

given the differences in the actual use, weights, and capabilites of the aircraft the performance difference is a lot less, in fact the Regular DC-4 may actually have greater range the North star, it just travels a whole lot slower.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The DB 604C was a 3,500 hp 24-cylinder injection X-engine. After production began, the entire DB-604 program was cancelled on 4th September, 1942. Put a 3,500 hp engine into a German fighter aircraft, have them flying by late 1943, and things get interesting. Bolt the DB-604C on the He-177 and that ends all the problems.

The 604A/B was making 2,660 hp at best (not 3,500 hp). The 604C had barely been tested, an I can't find a reliable reference to any hp figure (3,500 hp or otherwise). You can't just wave your hand and magic a new engine through testing and development. Particularly not a 46.6 L X configuration, whether its making 2,500 hp or 3,500 hp.

While the engine was similar to the 610 and 606, there was a reason that the Luftwaffe persisted with these engines in the He 177, even with their reliability concerns. The 604 simply wasn't ready to go into production. One five 604s had been made by 1941.

Most aero engines took 4-5 years from initial testing to reliable, front-line running. Even then, even the best of them were temperamental beasts (the Sabre II and BMW 801 spring to mind immediately).

Don't like the 604C? Build the DB 610A-B, a 3000 hp engine or the BMW 802, a 2,800 hp 18-cylinder radial with exhaust gas turbocharger, or the DB-628 a 1,600 hp engine with a two-stage supercharger or the DB 623, a 2,300 hp high altitude engine.

I don't know where you are getting these engine ratings, they don't tend to coincide with the data I'm privy to.

The DB 610 only made 3,000 PS (2960 hp) well into 1944. Prior to this, it was rated at 2,450 PS. The engine had massive cooling problems at this output, and was rarely pushed above 2,500 PS.

The 802 was only cleared for 2,400-2,600 PS on bench tests. There was no flight testing of the engine, due to a singular lack of reliability. I cannot locate a reference to 2,800 hp, unless you are referring to the twin turbocharged private development, the P.8011, which again, never left the testing room.

The 628 again, only cleared for 1,490 PS before it was abandoned, in early 1944.

The DB 623 DID make 2,300 PS (2,270 hp) but DB basically gave up on the engine in mid 1942, and terminated the programme in the beginning of 1943.

Put the Jumo, BMW, DB, Heinkel and Walter engine engineers into a room and tell them, "You have a shockingly short amount of time to cooperate on getting a new powerful water-cooled inline, radial and jet engine perfected and into production. No more company secrets, no more proprietary data, no more competition instead of cooperation, because in about two months, we start killing you and your families.

In a very short period of time, all these engine development and production troubles would have been a thing of the past.

Speaking as a Time Machine Consultant to Adolf Hitler, "You're an insane nutjob dictator and it's time you start acting like it. Start randomly killing some of your own weapons development and production people, because DEATH is a wonderful motivator."

Again with the killing of the designers thing…

Here's an idea. Instead of threatening major industrial players with death, appoint a single individual in charge of overall aircraft engine production. Have them concentrate talent into 6-8 major industrial engine efforts, and let all other projects go by the wayside.

Give them power to directly intervene in production and design decisions, with an eye to getting workable designs into aircraft, rather than very powerful but unreliable engines running on test benches.

Folks, in these threads we are Time Machine Consultants working for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi. I say we stop accepting excuses and do whatever it takes to find some solutions. Whatever it takes. The only thing we all agree on is building the Bf-109Z. But putting more 20mm and 30mm on the target still eludes us, we still don't have a high velocity, high RoF 20mm and 30mm cannon.

Bronc

Actually, I tend to think that the 109Z was a stupid idea, and the Germans would of been better off with a dedicated zerstroyer with all the bugs worked out, rather than that cobbled together monstrosity.

The Germans had essentially the best aerial cannon of the war, particularly anything above 20 mm. Your 'high velocity' (what 750 m/sec isn't fast enough?) 20 mm is going to be longer and heavier (and possibly bulkier) than the MG151/20, so is it worth the sacrifice?

 

[Bronc]

"I don't know where you are getting these engine ratings, they don't tend to coincide with the data I'm privy to." and "What source are you using for the 3,500 hp?"

Source is: Luftwaffe Secret Projects - Strategic Bombers 1933-1945 The author is none other than: Dieter Herwig, a former member of the staff of the Chief of aircraft Procurement Office(ZWB) which was a branch of the RLM. Mr Herwig is also author of many specialized Luftwaffe periodicals.

In the Appendix of Luftwaffe Secret Project - Strategic Bombers are pictures and descriptions of "Engines
and Special Powerplants.

The DB 604C is listed at 3,500 hp and was in production before cancellation in Sept, 1942
The DB 603 ASM is listed at 2,250 hp w/ MW-50 and C3 fuel
The DB 610A-B is listed at 3,000 hp
The DB 623 is listed at 2,300 hp
The BMW 802 is 2,800 hp

There is a picture of the 4,500 hp BMW 803 and a drawing of the 6,700 hp BMW 109-028 turboprop.

Personally, I like the DB 613 C-1 a 4,000 hp 24 cylinder coupled engine of two (2) DB 603 E/Gs.

It was written: "Developing engines is [not] like making babies, you can't make a baby by getting 9 women pregnent for one month" and "P&W had over 3000 hours of test stand time on the R-2800 before they ever stuck one in a test mule aircraft." DEFEATIST NONSENSE - TOTAL NONSENSE.

Work 24 hours a day and mill (machine tool) out 10 prototypes of whatever engine you are interested in. Put those 10 engines on test stands and run them 7 days a week. (10 prototypes running only 12 hours a day will amass 120 hours of run time each day. In 10 days you will have 1200 hours, and in a month you will have 3,600 hours of run time. In one month, we will know what that engine design is going to do. We have 12 hours each day to tear each engine apart and see what kind of wear we are getting and we have 10 to run under different and varying conditions.

REMEMBER -- NO engine is EVER going to run more than 80 to 150 hours before a major overhaul, so testing them for 3000 hours IS STUPID.

We are trying to win a war! Keeping the lights turned on 24/7 is how you do it.

And stop whining about no strategic metals and materials.

We have thousands and thousands of BIG gold bars and millions of diamonds stolen (confiscated) from people all over Europe. Lets sack some of that stuff up and go shopping. (At the end of the war, dragon hoards of Gold, Silver, Diamonds and Art were discovered stashed in caves.) Trust me, when you're willing to part with gold and diamonds at bargain basement prices the mine owners, ore merchants and metal dealers in Turkey, Spain and Sweden are going to deliver... The British locked up Turkey's chromium just before the war. So what. Go down there with 10 tons of solid gold and 50 bushel sacks of diamonds and we will soon close on a "secret side deal" that will give us all the Chromium we need.

Yeesh-- We are Time Machine Consultants!! Let's stop making excuses and GET THE JOB DONE.

Bronc

 

[Shortround6]

Personally, I like the DB 613 C-1 a 4,000 hp 24 cylinder coupled engine of two (2) DB 603 E/Gs.

OK I'll bite, this fantasy land right? we take two 1800-1900hp engines and by mounting them side by side and gearing them together we magically get another 200-400HP.

It was written: "Developing engines is [not] like making babies, you can't make a baby by getting 9 women pregnent for one month" and "P&W had over 3000 hours of test stand time on the R-2800 before they ever stuck one in a test mule aircraft." DEFEATIST NONSENSE - TOTAL NONSENSE.

Work 24 hours a day and mill (machine tool) out 10 prototypes of whatever engine you are interested in. Put those 10 engines on test stands and run them 7 days a week. (10 prototypes running only 12 hours a day will amass 120 hours of run time each day. In 10 days you will have 1200 hours, and in a month you will have 3,600 hours of run time. In one month, we will know what that engine design is going to do. We have 12 hours each day to tear each engine apart and see what kind of wear we are getting and we have 10 to run under different and varying conditions.

Mill out of what? Billet crankcases? And I suppose you think P&W and Bristol and Rolls-Royce were working 40 hour weeks during WWII? more fantasy.

Now suppose you find a deffect in the crank design 4 hours into the test on several engines the first day? OOPS, time to "mill (machine tool)" ten new crankshafts at the very least.

By the way, I worked for P&W for four years back in the 70s and my father was a production engineer for Winchester and Colt. I Have some idea what "mill" means.

REMEMBER -- NO engine is EVER going to run more than 80 to 150 hours before a major overhaul, so testing them for 3000 hours IS STUPID.

Really blew it with this one, ALL Western engines would go at least that long unless operating in truely horriable conditions. In the US Merlins and Allisons were routinly getting over 300hrs before overhaul and in some cases in training commands they were getting 750hrs. and R-1820s, R-1830s and R-2800s were getting fom 469 to 591 hrs depending on engine in the first qtr of 1945.

Not testing engines as much as possiable is really stupid. There are always production variations, do you want to be flying the WORST engine in a batch of 100 on it's 25th combat mission without an overhaul?

Of course in fantasy land it is easier/cheaper to build 20,000 crappy short life engines than 10,000 long life engines of the same size and power, right? All those workers don't need lunch breaks and if they work 16 hrs a day 7 days a week they should be rested enough so they don't make any mistakes on the engine you will be flying right?

Putting 3000hrs into a test program is not the same as testing a single engine for 3000hrs. Test programs with lots of hours is how you find weak points, increase power, increase overhaul life and so on.





Bronc[/QUOTE]

 

[DAVIDICUS]

REMEMBER -- NO engine is EVER going to run more than 80 to 150 hours before a major overhaul, so testing them for 3000 hours IS STUPID.

What about test of R-2800-63 (P-47 engine) run at WEP (2,700rpm / 2,600hp) for 7-1/2 hours when it wasn't to be used for more than 5 minutes.

 

[Bronc]

Shortround6 wrote: "OK I'll bite, this fantasy land right? we take two 1800-1900 hp engines and by mounting them side by side and gearing them together we magically get another 200-400 hp."

Where to start...? Where oh where to begin...? The DB 603 E/G was NOT the DB 603A. It's like the Jumo 213A and the Jumo 213E... DIFFERENT ENGINES.

Shortround6 wrote: "Mill out of what? Billet crankcases? Blah, blah, blah more fantasy. Now suppose you find a deffect in the crank design 4 hours into the test on several engines the first day? OOPS, time to "mill (machine tool)" ten new crankshafts at the very least. By the way, I worked for blah blah blah.. I have some idea what "mill" means."

Given the fact I have EVERY MACHINE SHOP and EVERY MACHINE TOOL IN GERMANY at my disposal, it will take less than a week to get all this done.

1) We mill everything that is to be cast in steel out of zinc or aluminum. We use our zinc or aluminum patterns to make molds and then we cast what we have to cast in steel. We then finish mill our cast steel blocks and other parts. For ten prototypes, using the full resources of Germany, this will take about a 24 hour day.

2) We parcel out the milling work to about two hundred different shops. All the gears, cams, etc will be done in a 24 hour day. We are Time Machine Consultants, all of Germany is at our disposal.

3) We assemble our engines and go on from there. All 10 would be on a test stand and running in well under 5 days.

Shortround6 wrote: "Really blew it with this one, ALL Western engines would go at least that long unless operating in truely horriable conditions. In the US Merlins and Allisons were routinly getting over 300hrs before overhaul and in some cases in training commands they were getting 750hrs. and R-1820s, R-1830s and R-2800s were getting fom 469 to 591 hrs depending on engine in the first qtr of 1945."

You don't know what you are talking about. Period. Except on the Russian Front, no crew chief ANYWHERE would let an engine go into combat with 100 hours on it much less 300. 300 hours on an engine would be a full combat tour of duty for an American pilot. Trust me, he didn't fly 30 ten hour missions on the same engine.

American crew chiefs pulled engines for little reason or no reason at all. They did not hesitate to pull an engine EVER. If the serial number on an engine looked unlucky IT GOT PULLED.

Think about it. If crew chiefs are going to pull engines out of planes at under 80 hours (for any reason or no reason at all) and send them for depot level inspections and possibly a rebuild NO engine needs run testing for 3000 hours.

By the way, I didn't say stop testing. Keep testing, but just get the show on the road in the mean time.

Enough of this silly nonsense. We have a WAR to WIN and right now we are LOSING. Shortround6 is fired and his Time Machine privileges are revoked.

Bronc

 

[Jabberwocky]

Source is: Luftwaffe Secret Projects - Strategic Bombers 1933-1945 The author is none other than: Dieter Herwig, a former member of the staff of the Chief of aircraft Procurement Office(ZWB) which was a branch of the RLM. Mr Herwig is also author of many specialized Luftwaffe periodicals.

In the Appendix of Luftwaffe Secret Project - Strategic Bombers are pictures and descriptions of "Engines
and Special Powerplants.

The DB 604C is listed at 3,500 hp and was in production before cancellation in Sept, 1942
The DB 603 ASM is listed at 2,250 hp w/ MW-50 and C3 fuel
The DB 610A-B is listed at 3,000 hp
The DB 623 is listed at 2,300 hp
The BMW 802 is 2,800 hp

There is a picture of the 4,500 hp BMW 803 and a drawing of the 6,700 hp BMW 109-028 turboprop.

Personally, I like the DB 613 C-1 a 4,000 hp 24 cylinder coupled engine of two (2) DB 603 E/Gs.

Uggh, enough with the bolding, please.

The DB 604C was in production? The A/B hardly even left the test bench, let alone got into production. The RLM still listed the engine as "prototype".

Quoting from 'Aeronautical research in Germany: from Lilienthal until today' on the DB 604:

"Five test engines were manufactured, which were tried on the test bed and a Ju 52 flight test vehicle: On instruction from the RLM, the development was discontinued in 1942."

That's it. No mention of any rating except for 2,500 hp, no production. Just five test engines.

BMW Aero Engines, in their own history, only credit the 802 with 2,600 PS. Again, the inhouse P.8011, a BMW 802 derivative, was expected to produce 2800-2900 PS, but the German aero industry simply did not have the necessary strategic metals in store for large scale high speed/high temperature turbo production.

It looks like the back of 'Luftwaffe Secret Project - Strategic Bombers' is full of draft board statistics and wishful projections for engines that could of existed.

Work 24 hours a day and mill (machine tool) out 10 prototypes of whatever engine you are interested in. Put those 10 engines on test stands and run them 7 days a week. (10 prototypes running only 12 hours a day will amass 120 hours of run time each day. In 10 days you will have 1200 hours, and in a month you will have 3,600 hours of run time. In one month, we will know what that engine design is going to do. We have 12 hours each day to tear each engine apart and see what kind of wear we are getting and we have 10 to run under different and varying conditions.

I take it you've neve worked in a design or engineering office, or a machine shop.

One man may get a job done in 100 hours. Two mean working together may get the same job done in 45 hours each, saving 10 man hours.

But ten men together wont get the job done in 9-10 hours each. They may not even get it done in 15-20 hours each.

Each project has a balancing point where merely throwing additional labour at it ends up costing more hours than its saves. Ever heard of the law of diminishing return and inverse economies of scale?

We have thousands and thousands of BIG gold bars and millions of diamonds stolen (confiscated) from people all over Europe. Lets sack some of that stuff up and go shopping. (At the end of the war, dragon hoards of Gold, Silver, Diamonds and Art were discovered stashed in caves.) Trust me, when you're willing to part with gold and diamonds at bargain basement prices the mine owners, ore merchants and metal dealers in Turkey, Spain and Sweden are going to deliver... The British locked up Turkey's chromium just before the war. So what. Go down there with 10 tons of solid gold and 50 bushel sacks of diamonds and we will soon close on a "secret side deal" that will give us all the Chromium we need.

With arguments like these, I wonder if you are really serious or just trolling, and, indeed, just how old you are...

Melting down precious metals from confiscated artworks would provide a MINUSCULE amount of the hard currency that Germany would need to cover its requirements. Do you have any idea about the scale of a war economy required to support close to 4 million men under arms?

The Allies successfully denied Germay access to strategic materials. It was the one thing that they were very good at from the beginning of the war. Marching down to try and buy your way out of trouble is hardly going to be successful.

We are interjecting factual arguments, covering realistic difficulties and obstacles that will need to be surmounted before your fantasy projects can get airborne.

 

[Bronc]

Jabberwocky wrote: "I take it you've [neve] sic worked in a design or engineering office, or a machine shop. One man may get a job done in 100 hours. Two [mean] sic working together may get the same job done in 45 hours each, saving 10 man hours blah, blah blah, Ever heard of the law of diminishing return and inverse economies of scale?"

Actually, POM is something I'm an expert in AND it's always VERY easy to spot the machine shop kinda guys with no understanding of POM. There are a large number of complex mathematical techniques and equations that govern POM and trust me the "law of diminishing returns" and "inverse economies of scale" are economic ideas and are not engineering POM concepts until you get way out on the tail...

"Melting down precious metals from confiscated artworks would provide a MINUSCULE amount of the hard currency that Germany would need to cover its requirements. Do you have any idea about the scale of a war economy required to support close to 4 million men under arms?"

The above is two parts of an intertwined straw man fallacy argument. Nowhere did I didn't say melt down artwork. I said put the several hundred tons of gold bullion that the Germans had to use and work. The "4 million men under arms" nonsense is the second straw man. We don't need to alloy and plate "4 million men" with chromium.

We need relatively small amounts to make critical alloys and plating in parts numbering in the thousands and we can get that by using all those diamonds that we stole. The Japanese were sending us tin bars in cargo submarines and even that made a huge difference, when it actually arrived.

Remember, we are trying to win this war. When we win, all that gold and all those diamonds are going to come back to us through predatory currency exchange rates and trade policies. So there is no reason to be leaving it sitting in some cave the way dragons did. We need to be buying stuff with it.

Jabberwocky is fired too.

Bronc

PS: Jabberwocky: If you bold your type, you can see it enough to spell!

 

[Shortround6]

1) We mill everything that is to be cast in steel out of zinc or aluminum. We use our zinc or aluminum patterns to make molds and then we cast what we have to cast in steel. We then finish mill our cast steel blocks and other parts. For ten prototypes, using the full resources of Germany, this will take about a 24 hour day.

Bronc

If you talk to any engineer about making cast steel engine blocks for aircraft enigines you are the one who is going to be taken out and shot for wasting their time.

If these is depth of your knoweldge there is no point in debating with your further.

 

[gorizont]

REMEMBER -- NO engine is EVER going to run more than 80 to 150 hours before a major overhaul, so testing them for 3000 hours IS STUPID.

What about test of R-2800-63 (P-47 engine) run at WEP (2,700rpm / 2,600hp) for 7-1/2 hours when it wasn't to be used for more than 5 minutes.

Please, don't confuse me (and yorself, too) with results of trails on a land testbad. It's a rather different thing from running in the air on an aircraft. Many of engines which at last wasn't installed on aircrafts showed almost proper and encouraging work on a testbad.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

REMEMBER -- NO engine is EVER going to run more than 80 to 150 hours before a major overhaul, so testing them for 3000 hours IS STUPID.

Talking out of your ass in more ways than one....

Just so you know, engine endurance tests were established by the manufacturer to confirm reliability calculation during the initial design and to come up with a manufacturer's suggested overhaul during normal use. It's the operator who will decide when to pull an engine (using recommendations from the manufacturer) and usually a barometer of that is testing compression and accomplishing ground runs to see if the engine is making power at specified RPMs and manifold pressures.

BTW - in post war years many military engines were running well in excess of 150 hours with both civilian and military operators.

Just so YOU know, I have an A&P and worked on a few round engines including some restored on warbirds. Mind you no operator will subject a round engine in today's world to the same conditions seen in WW2.

Now with that said....

PS: Jabberwocky: If you bold your type, you can see it enough to spell!

Bronc - I'm getting really tired of your crap.

Stop being an ass and stop bolding every other sentence you friggin moron. I am not going to give you another warning, the next time you're gone for good.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Please, don't confuse me (and yorself, too) with results of trails on a land testbad. It's a rather different thing from running in the air on an aircraft. Many of engines which at last don't be installed on aircrafts showed almost proper and encouraging work on a testbad.

It is different running an engine in a test cell than it is on an airplane, but doing these tests establishes reliability numbers for the engine and accessories as well as allowing the manufacturer to establish overhaul criteria.