Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Continental was intended to be used with a turbo charger and had a single speed supercharger drive to the engine supercharger in most versions (there were at least 13 different versions) there were one or two two speed versions and a 2 speed two stage version but many of these models never made it into an airframe for flight testing.
I don't believe the Ford engine ever made it out of the test cells to be installed in a test mule aircraft so it's actual configuration is also pretty open ended.
Apparently the P-47M was quite able to convert the massive horsepower into forward motion. At 35k, the much cleaner Ta-152H was capable of 459 mph, the P-47M, 475 mph. In fact the P-47M was faster than the Ta-152H all the way up until the nitrous kicked in.Power is one thing, but how much power is translated into forward motion is another.
At such altitudes the performance of the prop falls off, unless the prop is designed for such altitudes. And if the prop is designed for high altitudes it will be less effective down low.
Until I saw one at the Yanks Museum in Chino,CA the P-47M seemed like a mythological beast. Seeing your location davparir I am guessing you have seen it. If not, make time, you will enjoy Yanks.
I think the Lancaster (and the follow-on development, the Lincoln) was handicapped by being Merlin powered.
Four turbo charged Allisons (basically the whole engine package from a P-38J/L) would have been more effective. More allitude capability compared to the Merlin 20 series in the Lancaster (equal to the Merlin 85 engines in the Lincoln) to help get above the flak and fighters. The stronger Allison power section could handle more power longer than the Merlin (good for the long climb to allitude) with less maintenance. Most importantly, the turbocharged Allison burned less fuel than a Merlin for the same horsepower, so more bombs for the same takeoff weight.
Griffon power in the Shackleton (another Lancaster follow-on) was also less than ideal. Allison had a turbocompound V-1710 running in their test cell. A single stage single speed version of a gas sipping Allison turbocompound would have been a better match to the Shackleton than the Griffon. (Note, this assumes that Napier misfires with their diesel work. They already had data and blueprints for the Jumo 205 diesel, a Deltic version of a Jumo 205 would have been could have been winner for long range patrol aircraft. Even the 'simplified' second version of the Nomad was wayyyyy too complicated. As with the Sabre, Napier reached too far).
As the Shackleton was designed as an ASW aircraft, altitude performance was not necessary, and its range and endurance was more than sufficient for the task.
I'd also add that a better alternative would have been the turboprop engines that began appearing after the war.
FWIW a B-17E (IIRC) was converted from Wright R-1820 power to Allison V-1710 power by Lockheed Vega, who were one of the factories producing the B-17. This was the XB-38. It had better performance than the standard version, but was deemed too much work to stop the production lines and change over. The engine installation owed much to that of the P-38, though the turbo remained in the standard B-17 location (bottom of nacelles). the coolant radiators were located in the leading edge between the engines.
I wonder how this would have held up to German attacks, compared to the air cooled engines.
It would have been a huge mistake. No additional performance would have balanced the increased mechanical vulnerability.
Note that the USAAC had considered in-line liquid cooled engines essential for bombers because they could give more power for a certain capacity.
Not sure how much more vulnerable a B-17 would have been with the Allisons. The performance gain would have been totally lost by the tactics of mutual defensive fire, as this meant that the B-17s could rarely perform as well as it was able.
The B-29 could have had reduced "mechanical vulnerability" had they adopted the V-3420 installation of the XB-39 - some 30mph faster, more takeoff power, and proven and reliable engines (V-3420 was basically two V-1710s). The XB-39 used an engine installation, first trialed on the XP-19, which was specifically designed to bolt up to the same bulkhead as the R-3350. All cooling requirements were handled within the power egg.
Right from Wikipedia
It was in the 30s that liquid cooling was considered essential. Part to it was theory. They hadn't really done much for trials. Aircooling wasn't developed as much as it was just a few years later. This liquid went along with the "hyper" cylinder or engine and we know how that turned out.
The P&W R-2800, fine as it was, may not have been able to power a B-29. There is not only take-off power and Military power but Cruising powers to consider. The R-3350 may have had a max cruise power using auto-lean settings of several hundred horsepower more than the R-2800. Considering that these max auto lean settings produced power down around 1200hp an extra couple of hundred HP is actually quite a percentage change.
As you frequently are, I think you are correct about the R2800 being marginal. I admit I have a bias toward P&W over Wright.
It is my understanding that the primary problem with the R-3350s on the B-29 was insufficient cooling due to cowl design. The result being failures and fires. The fires burning through the wing in less than a minute with catastrophic wing failure occurring.
Right from Wikipedia
Yes, I couldn't find a more succinct source. Other than a degree in Physics !
Cheers
John
What search terms are you using on wikipedia?
I don't doubt your veracity, considering all the individuals in positions of power within the USAAC during the 1930's with certitude on so many ideas that the events of 1939-45 quickly showed to be very wrong.
If the "Brass" was fixated on liquid cool performance it is the same thing narrow vision that resulted in the battlecruiser. I'm sure you know how unsuccessful those faster, similarly armed, but more vulnerable, battlecruisers fared when facing slightly slower, similarly armed, but less vulnerable battleships. The idea that they were enamored with inlines is especially interesting considering that radials were used on every major design after 1935. Perhaps this is more due to availability than desire, but thank goodness it happened.
I don't doubt your veracity, considering all the individuals in positions of power within the USAAC during the 1930's with certitude on so many ideas that the events of 1939-45 quickly showed to be very wrong.
If the "Brass" was fixated on liquid cool performance it is the same thing narrow vision that resulted in the battlecruiser. I'm sure you know how unsuccessful those faster, similarly armed, but more vulnerable, battlecruisers fared when facing slightly slower, similarly armed, but less vulnerable battleships. The idea that they were enamored with inlines is especially interesting considering that radials were used on every major design after 1935. Perhaps this is more due to availability than desire, but thank goodness it happened.
Spitfireperformance has good data on the R-2800 under P-47M performance however I could only find rudimentary info on the 3350. What I found was that the 3350 max continuous power at 28k was 2050 hp, the R-2800 in the P-47M had a max continuous power of 1650 hp there, and at most altitudes up to 33k. Now, I think the 3350 was supercharged, not turbocharged, if so, power might drop off quicker than for the turbocharged 2800, which did not drop off.The P&W R-2800, fine as it was, may not have been able to power a B-29. There is not only take-off power and Military power but Cruising powers to consider. The R-3350 may have had a max cruise power using auto-lean settings of several hundred horsepower more than the R-2800. Considering that these max auto lean settings produced power down around 1200hp an extra couple of hundred HP is actually quite a percentage change.