Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks for the detailed explanation. For some reason I always thought that it was only the 2nd stage that was "2-speed" and that the 1st stage was at one constant ratio to engine RPM. Good to learn the difference.If I may.
Both impellers on both supercharger stages were on the same shaft on 2-stage Merlin (and Griffon, as well as on many German 2-stage supercharged engines). When driving gear was in 1st speed, both impellers were rotating at same angular speed. Or, doing the same RPM if you will. For example, on the Packard Merlin V-1650-3, the impellers were rotating 6.391 times the crankshaft RPM - for 3000 rpm the crankshaft will be making, impellers were making 19173 rpm, providing the boost of 61 in Hg at the rated (low) altitude.
When driving gear was switched up to 2nd gear, again both impellers were rotating at same angular speed (or, on same RPM), this time the ratio was 8.095:1 vs. crankshaft - for 3000 rpm the crankshaft is making, impellers will be making 24285 rpm, again providing the boost of 61 in Hg at the (now much higher) rated altitude.
The faster the impellers rotate, the more compressing work they will do, but also suck up more power (we're talking about gear-driven supercharges, as used on ww2 aero engines,but not just on them).
Low impeller speed (= S/C drive is in low gear; British name is 'MS' - medium supercharge) means the S/C will be using less power to provide required boost, so there is more power left to the prop. It is okay, since at altitudes the low gear is used has thick air around, so there is less of need for the S/C to compress the air. High impeller speed (= S/C drive is in high gear; British name is 'FS' - full supercharge) means the S/C will be using more power, but again that's okay since it will be providing the required boost at high altitudes. More boost = more power; the trade-off favors the 2-speed superchargers.
Some engines were outfitted with 3-speed 2-stage superchargers - yes, the drive gear is outfitted with 3 sets of gears. Such engines were the Jumo 213E and F (late ww2), as well as RR Griffon 100 series (post war)
Widely produced were the 2-speed 1-stage supercharged engines - 2 sets of gears, one impeller.
This what you are looking for?I've been trying to find the weight of just the turbocharger system myself.
For the RR and some (?most?) of the German 2 stage speeds, the 2 impellers are on the same shaft, so both turn the same speed.Thanks for the detailed explanation. For some reason I always thought that it was only the 2nd stage that was "2-speed" and that the 1st stage was at one constant ratio to engine RPM. Good to learn the difference.
That's the weights of just the turbosuperchargers, they don't include the ducting and all of the rest of the items that make up the P-47 turbocharger system.This what you are looking for?
In Francis Dean's 1997 book "America's Hundred-Thousand U.S. Fighter Production of WWII", P-47 Empty and Basic Weights: ENGINE 2283 lbs. ENGINE ACCESSORIES 977 lbs. Not clear what engine accessories exactly are, but gets a better idea. Could include oil coolers. Two other categories are ENGINE SECTION 383 lbs. and ENGINE CONTROLS 58 lbs. COOLING category is left blank as I interpret this as being part of the above categories.That's the weights of just the turbosuperchargers, they don't include the ducting and all of the rest of the items that make up the P-47 turbocharger system.
Dumb question, could they make the P-47 without the turbo?
I don't mean a large redesign, just someone proposing to ditch the big and expensive thing since most missions were becoming lower altitude ground attack ones.
Maybe add more armor in place of it to balance the CG.
We still end up with big, heavy and expensive P-47, that has less power.
Unless you make it into the XP-72 with the R-4360.
From what I understand, that didn't have a turbo, but an auxiliary stage supercharger in the rear fuselage driven by an extension shaft.
That picture always impresses. I can see just one of the many reasons jet engines are superior. Could that set up (except with an Allison inline engine) be installed in a P-39?
If you take away the stuff that gives away the scale it looks like some things you see on refineries around cooling towersThat picture always impresses. I can see just one of the many reasons jet engines are superior. Could that set up (except with an Allison inline engine) be installed in a P-39?
Unless you can get original documents or get the museum that has it on display to weigh their display I doubt you will find the weight for the "system".
Weight for component parts may be available but the weight of the exhaust pipes and air ducts may be much harder to come by. Ducting that will withstand air pressure with a difference between inside and outside pressures of over double is going to be heavier than the air ducts in a building
Didn't the Corsair use the same engine as the P-47 but lacking a turbosupercharger?
How much damage could this take?View attachment 648927
From an old thread showing the P-47 from the engine back.
The engine from the single single stage is going to have just a few thousands of altitude and a lot less power at even 10,000ft.
The plumbing is a large target, a few holes would seriously effect boost, the supercharger impeller would explode if a couple of 20mm AP rounds hit it, the P47 is a big target full of important stuff.How much damage could this take?
I'd assume any hits in the plumbing or the intercooler would cause a massive loss of boost or maybe even a turbine failure.
But the p-47 has a reputation as a tough prick (confirmed in IL-2, you can't take that plane down on anything smaller than 20mm)