Messy1
Master Sergeant
FlyboyJ, are the unlimiteds using OE blocks and castings? Or have they moved to using aftermarket block and engine components?
Which airframe
- Thread starter Bug_racer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bugracer,
Here is what an attempt at a transonic prop-driven aircraft looks like:
XF-84H Thunderscreech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note: one test pilot flew once and refused to fly it ever again, and another had 10 forced landings out of 11 flights. Not exactly the sort of aircraft that you want to be screaming around at 100ft in.
Here is what an attempt at a transonic prop-driven aircraft looks like:
XF-84H Thunderscreech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note: one test pilot flew once and refused to fly it ever again, and another had 10 forced landings out of 11 flights. Not exactly the sort of aircraft that you want to be screaming around at 100ft in.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I believe the Mustangs may be using some AM stuff. Rare Bear had to use basically a stock engine this year!
- Thread starter
- #24
Good posts and lost of good info
The XF-84 project is an interesting one . Im curious why the propellor blades had to revolve so fast on the ground ? I thought you could lower the rpm of the engine to slow them down ?
This looks like a 50's project . we have a lot more better materials available to us now compared to then . Titanium for example , surely that can be used to replace steel in some sections of the aircraft ???
Now I keep hearing these planes being cutting edge . All the technolgy Im talking about has only been out in the last 10 years or so . Stand alone engine management was really only developed in the mid 90s , only in the last 3-4 years has it become as complex as what it is today . Sometimes you can swap computers over but most of the time you need a whole new harness . FSI first was used on a race car in the Audi R8 in 2000 . It was later fitted to VW/Audi cars in 2004 onwards . Oil squirters on pistons AFAIK came on the 1.8T first back in 1995 .
Now can you honestly tell me that any of the reno racers has followed motorsport and seen what they are doing to improve it on their own aircraft OR they are only improving whats on the aircraft and not doing any drastic changes ????
I believe cars are far more advanced than planes these days . In 5 years technology advances so fast in cars that turbo cars from 10 years ago are equal in power to N/A cars today of the same cubic capacity . Diesel technology is now so well established that it wouldnt suprise me if you started seeing people putting diesel engines in planes . If you still think planes are so advanced name 1 thing thats been revolutionary in aircraft engine design in the last 5 years !
The XF-84 project is an interesting one . Im curious why the propellor blades had to revolve so fast on the ground ? I thought you could lower the rpm of the engine to slow them down ?
This looks like a 50's project . we have a lot more better materials available to us now compared to then . Titanium for example , surely that can be used to replace steel in some sections of the aircraft ???
Now I keep hearing these planes being cutting edge . All the technolgy Im talking about has only been out in the last 10 years or so . Stand alone engine management was really only developed in the mid 90s , only in the last 3-4 years has it become as complex as what it is today . Sometimes you can swap computers over but most of the time you need a whole new harness . FSI first was used on a race car in the Audi R8 in 2000 . It was later fitted to VW/Audi cars in 2004 onwards . Oil squirters on pistons AFAIK came on the 1.8T first back in 1995 .
Now can you honestly tell me that any of the reno racers has followed motorsport and seen what they are doing to improve it on their own aircraft OR they are only improving whats on the aircraft and not doing any drastic changes ????
I believe cars are far more advanced than planes these days . In 5 years technology advances so fast in cars that turbo cars from 10 years ago are equal in power to N/A cars today of the same cubic capacity . Diesel technology is now so well established that it wouldnt suprise me if you started seeing people putting diesel engines in planes . If you still think planes are so advanced name 1 thing thats been revolutionary in aircraft engine design in the last 5 years !
- Thread starter
- #25
The record for the fastest single-engined piston plane is held by a modified Grumman F8F Bearcat, the Rare Bear, with a speed of 850.24 km/h (528.33 mph) on 21 August 1989 at Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America.[8][9]
The record was set 20 years ago !
The record was set 20 years ago !
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
1. Modern-day automotive recips may be more technically advanced than their WWII counterparts but I can't see the comparison with anything else - who but Reno racers use piston engines these days? There is no commercial or market pressure to make them more advanced.
2. They already did that too - the Ju86P
3. ADVENT (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology)?
The ADVENT of a Better Jet Engine?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
peaple were putting diesels in airplanes in the early thirties.
You aren't listening to the physics.
IF the airplane engine doesn't vary in rpm by more than a couple of hundred rpm in a lap (if that) why worry about coming on boost? the engine never went off boost.
Changing parts of the F-84 to titianium won't change it's biggest flaw. The noise from it's supersonic propeller made peaple in the area (ground crew) physically sick, as in nauseous.
all the fancy engine management computers in the world aren't going to change the way sound waves work or change airflow behavior at transonic speeds.
Another limiting factor is the propeller, Think of it,in part, as the tires on a car. A cartain size propeller(tire) can only transmit so much force (power) then you need a bigger (wider) prop/tire. Except that the bigger prop/tire weighs more and planes have CG issues that cars don't.
Could you build a modern engine that puts out much more power than an old aircraft engine per cubic in?
Certainly and by a large margin.
But aircraft are not limited to displacement (at least in the unlimited class) And power per pound is more important to an aircraft designer and while by this measure modern engines may be much better the difference might not be quite so marked. If the modern engine is using high rpm to get it's power it is going to need a larger, heavier reduction gear to lower the rpm to speed that the propeller can use.
Modern engine management systems may owe a tip of the hat to the engine anyalisis sytem employed on the P&W R-4350 engines in the B-36.
You aren't listening to the physics.
IF the airplane engine doesn't vary in rpm by more than a couple of hundred rpm in a lap (if that) why worry about coming on boost? the engine never went off boost.
Changing parts of the F-84 to titianium won't change it's biggest flaw. The noise from it's supersonic propeller made peaple in the area (ground crew) physically sick, as in nauseous.
all the fancy engine management computers in the world aren't going to change the way sound waves work or change airflow behavior at transonic speeds.
Another limiting factor is the propeller, Think of it,in part, as the tires on a car. A cartain size propeller(tire) can only transmit so much force (power) then you need a bigger (wider) prop/tire. Except that the bigger prop/tire weighs more and planes have CG issues that cars don't.
Could you build a modern engine that puts out much more power than an old aircraft engine per cubic in?
Certainly and by a large margin.
But aircraft are not limited to displacement (at least in the unlimited class) And power per pound is more important to an aircraft designer and while by this measure modern engines may be much better the difference might not be quite so marked. If the modern engine is using high rpm to get it's power it is going to need a larger, heavier reduction gear to lower the rpm to speed that the propeller can use.
Modern engine management systems may owe a tip of the hat to the engine anyalisis sytem employed on the P&W R-4350 engines in the B-36.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The rpm ran constatnt and the prop pitch was changed as needed, as if it was a giant transmission
Actually there was magnesium used in that aircraft. The basic F-84 design was a second generation jet, all you're looking at was a turbo prop hung on a swept-wing post WW2 design.
You have to be able to apply that technology to aviation products and sometimes that's problematic.
I could tell you that some of the team engineers know intimately what's going on in motorsports (some of the are even participating and employed in the design of some components). Again its a matter of being able to apply that technology to the airframes and engines available and in the end to be able to conform to RARA rules AND be able to gain an Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA. Although the aircraft are in "experimental" category, the Feds still have to approve the aircraft for flight, especially if it's designed from the ground up.
It depends what aspect of aviation you're talking about. In terms of recip engines - yes. In terms of general aviation systems including navigation, GPS, terrain and traffic warning - miles ahead of the automotive industry. Go into corporate, airliners or military aircraft and it's like comparing a sun dial to the atomic clock.
They already have..
Diamond Aircraft :: New engine for General Aviation
Easy;
Towards First Flight - Lockheed Propulsion System
The technology for this been around for a few years, it just got recently perfected...
Scramjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's plently more and this is what we know about.
Messy1
Master Sergeant
The problem with comparing car vs. Plane tech and new designs and breakthroughs is that by the time a "new" plane is released, it has been around and developed in secrecy, sometimes 10-15 years before it the public even knows or hears about it. Cars are not too involved or have to worry about national security. For instance, the B-2 program was started on Oct. 20TH, 1981, and was first released for public viewing on Nov. 22nd, 1988.
F-22 started in the the mid 80's, and the aircraft was officially unveiled in 1997.
Cars programs are generally not cloaked in such secrecy.
F-22 started in the the mid 80's, and the aircraft was officially unveiled in 1997.
Cars programs are generally not cloaked in such secrecy.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #30
Car technology is a lot easier to copy , and its usually companies like Bosch etc that have the patents with a certain car brand for X years before it gets released to other car companies . Expect to see every car manufacturer start moving to Direct injection soon !
Ijust got the full schematics of the fw190 . Just by having a quick look through there already is some changes which Id make ! I guess I need to speak to anairframe developer before I go ahead and make any changes to the design
I do have one question. Contra-rotating propellers . What are the advantages/disadvantages with these over Multi-bladed propellors ?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Weight and complexity. You're carrying a gearbox 2x the weight of a normal one.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Here Bug
I've just been looking over this site, it seems interesting and might even answer some of your questions wrt the transition of the piston engine between track and air
EPI, Inc. Engine and Drive System Technology and Components for Aircraft, Automotive, Marine and Industrial Applications.
I've just been looking over this site, it seems interesting and might even answer some of your questions wrt the transition of the piston engine between track and air
EPI, Inc. Engine and Drive System Technology and Components for Aircraft, Automotive, Marine and Industrial Applications.
- Thread starter
- #34
Shortround6
Major General
Yep, There was an Aircobra just after WW II that had 9 ft clipped from it's wings and a few Corsairs with shortend wings, maybe even a few Mustangs.
I am not sure about the newer, more well funded teams.
A lot of the 1945-51 racers were ex military pilots with shoestring operations. A couple of teams might have add access to a wind tunnel but most of them were seat of the pants modifications.
THE post 60s racers probably have more technical knowledge and engineering.
I am not sure about the newer, more well funded teams.
A lot of the 1945-51 racers were ex military pilots with shoestring operations. A couple of teams might have add access to a wind tunnel but most of them were seat of the pants modifications.
THE post 60s racers probably have more technical knowledge and engineering.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Most of the unlimiteds have not only their wing tips clipped but have some type of winglet or engineered wingtip
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It would, now would it qualify for the gold?
- Thread starter
- #38
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I'm not a pilot
but with assymetric lift, on an aeroplane that spends its working life going like a bat out of hell (and generating an awful lot of lift), isn't that going to require some pretty fancy trimming?
Quite the opposite, in fact.
An aircraft is not like a car, where you are having to hold the steering wheel in one position in order to make it turn. The ailerons are largely used during the initial roll-in.
During the turn, you are usually holding opposite aileron, as the wing on the outside of the turn is traveling slightly faster than the wing on the inside of the turn. things start getting a bit different again when turnign with very steep angles of bank, but having one wing longer than the other still wouldn't help, you would be holding opposite aileron constantly.
