Why or why not turbo chargers

[Shortround6]

I don't think you know the difference between supercharging and turbo-supercharging..

Please tell me which american aircraft in WW II that had a turbocharger on it that did not have a mechanical single stage supercharger on the engine. Two stages=multi-stage supercharging.

Show me that I am wrong.

Mechanical, two-stage superchargine was less developed in America than it should have been.

In which year? Less developed in 1941? or in 1942? or in 1943? or 1939?

Exhaust-powered TURBO-charging was emphasized above all else and never ended up hitting stride until 1944 when the P-47 and the P-38 really started becoming game-changing aircraft.

I see, all those P-47s and P-38s and B-17s and B-24s flying around in 1943 (and a few of these planes in 1942) did nothing to change the game.

Of course you are speaking of Army aircraft only aren't you?

The US Navy doen't count or figure into "Exhaust-powered TURBO-charging was emphasized above all else"

 

[Clay_Allison]

Please tell me which american aircraft in WW II that had a turbocharger on it that did not have a mechanical single stage supercharger on the engine. Two stages=multi-stage supercharging.

Show me that I am wrong.

In which year? Less developed in 1941? or in 1942? or in 1943? or 1939?

I see, all those P-47s and P-38s and B-17s and B-24s flying around in 1943 (and a few of these planes in 1942) did nothing to change the game.

The P-47C had a pretty miserable climb rate because they still had the toothpick propeller. The P-38 was unsuitable for the ETO because the Turbo and the Manifolds were both prone to failure in the cold. Both planes were not very well received at first and it took time for pilots to learn to use their advantages. Also the -47 was denied battle in the ETO by lack of range in 1943. As for the bombers, catastrophic losses from our daylight raids speak for themselves.

Of course you are speaking of Army aircraft only aren't you?

The US Navy doen't count or figure into "Exhaust-powered TURBO-charging was emphasized above all else"

Of course. I said Army in my original post.

 

[billswagger]

I see, all those P-47s and P-38s and B-17s and B-24s flying around in 1943 (and a few of these planes in 1942) did nothing to change the game.

This is an overstatement, granted many of these planes were going through their teething process, but they did make a difference.
They did bring some hurt to the germans, but what happened was the Germans learned the limited escort range of the P-47, so they waited just out of range to attack the bombers.
This sounds like a change in tactics to me.
In any case, the P-51 had been introduced, and both the P-47D and 38 were assigned to cutting off supply lines on the ground.

They made a huge impact before 44.

I'm not sure what this has to do with turbos.

 

[Clay_Allison]

This is an overstatement, granted many of these planes were going through their teething process, but they did make a difference.
They did bring some hurt to the germans, but what happened was the Germans learned the limited escort range of the P-47, so they waited just out of range to attack the bombers.
This sounds like a change in tactics to me.
In any case, the P-51 had been introduced, and both the P-47D and 38 were assigned to cutting off supply lines on the ground.

They made a huge impact before 44.

I'm not sure what this has to do with turbos.

Call it an overstatement on my part, I'll say Mid-43 then. But I stand by the fact that reliance on turbocharger technology kept the Army from being competitive in the fighter role above 20,000 in both theatres for about a year and a half of our involvement in the war.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-47C had a pretty miserable climb rate because they still had the toothpick propeller. The P-38 was unsuitable for the ETO because the Turbo and the Manifolds were both prone to failure in the cold. Both planes were not very well received at first and it took time for pilots to learn to use their advantages. Also the -47 was denied battle in the ETO by lack of range in 1943. As for the bombers, catastrophic losses from our daylight raids speak for themselves.

Really?
The Fact that the P-47C didn't use water injection and had 300less HP had nothing to do with rate of climb differences?
The fact that many of the time to altitude numbers are taken from tests in which the output of the engine is throttled back to 1625hp from 2000hp after 5 minutes to conform the 5 minute rule for combat power (which is not WER) has nothing to do with it either I suppose.

Did the P-47 have a great climb rate? no. but not becasue of the propellor.

THe P-47 was denied battle in 1943 becasue of lack of range?
"On 17 August, P-47s performed their first large-scale escort missions, providing B-17 bombers with both penetration and withdrawal support of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, and claiming 19 kills against three losses."

"75 U.S. gal (284 l) drop tank, a teardrop-shaped steel tank produced for the P-39 Airacobra, was adapted to the P-47 beginning 31 August 1943, initially carried on a belly shackle but used in pairs in 1944 as underwing tanks;"

"108 U.S gal (409 l) drop tank, a cylindrical paper tank of British design and manufacture, used as a belly tank beginning in September 1943 and a wing tank in April 1944; "

But then I guess the Spitfire was also denied battle in 1943 because of a lack of range.

You did say change the game. The game was changed. The fact that the changes didn't produce instant victory isn't the point. Air combat was going to place at 30,000ft and above and both sides had better prepare for it.

Of course. I said Army in my original post.

You are correct there but why should the Army pay for work that the Navy was already doing? Once the US declared war if the Turbo had really failed big time the Army could have borrowed the mechanical-two stage knowedge that had been developed for the Navy. It didn't offer the same peformance potential but it was there as a back up.

I am also looking for all those high altitude Japanese fighters in 1942 that the Army needed to fight? or is there another theatre that I am missing?

 

[Clay_Allison]

The P-47 was denied battle in 1943 becasue of lack of range?
But then I guess the Spitfire was also denied battle in 1943 because of a lack of range.

To an extent, yes. The Germans figured out they could wait for the escort fighters (mostly P-47s) to turn around and then lay into the bombers. Obviously both planes were fighting in the PTO as well, but in the ETO it was the P-51 that took the fight to the enemy in a huge way. Unsurprisingly, it was not a turbocharged fighter.

You are correct there but why should the Army pay for work that the Navy was already doing? Once the US declared war if the Turbo had really failed big time the Army could have borrowed the mechanical-two stage knowedge that had been developed for the Navy.

On the R-2800, yes. The P-47 could have been given a twin-supercharger just like the Hellcat. The Navy never paid for any work on the Allison though. If GE had dropped the ball on the Army, the only way to save the P-38 would have been to re-engine it with Merllins. If the British hadn't fitted the Merlin on to the P-51, we'd have had to try to beat Germany solely with P-47s.

We should have had a two-stage-supercharged Allison V-1710. It was foolish of the Army not to come up with the funding for Allison to develop one.

 

[Shortround6]

To an extent, yes. The Germans figured out they could wait for the escort fighters (mostly P-47s) to turn around and then lay into the bombers. Obviously both planes were fighting in the PTO as well, but in the ETO it was the P-51 that took the fight to the enemy in a huge way. Unsurprisingly, it was not a turbocharged fighter.

Well that worked right up until the P-47s stared flying relays. One group flying over the Dutch airfields, another flying with bombers and yet a third flying directly to the target area at economical cruising speed to meet up with bombers and escort them back. By the time the Mustangs began to show up in any real numbers the P-47s were being fitted with under wing drop tanks, while still shorter ranged than a clean Mustang a Range of 790 miles at just under 300mph wasn't too shabby. Late model Ds could carry even more fuel. Uneconomical to be sure but that might have had something to do with the size and weight of the P-47 and not necessarily the type of supercharger on the engine.

You are the one who keeps compalining about high altitude performance, An early P-47 D was about 20mph faster than a B model Mustang at most altitudes over 30,000ft.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Uneconomical to be sure but that might have had something to do with the size and weight of the P-47 and not necessarily the type of supercharger on the engine.

any idea what the size and weight of a GE Supercharger was? That has nothing to do with the size and weight of the P-47?

You are the one who keeps compalining about high altitude performance, An early P-47 D was about 20mph faster than a B model Mustang at most altitudes over 30,000ft.

If we had rolled out the P-47D in January 1942, I wouldn't have any complaints. The Germans and Japanese might have griped a bit but I'd be happy as a clam.

 

[Shortround6]

Correct again aren't you?

The size and weight of the P-47 had nothing to do with carrying EIGHT .50cal MG did it.
The size and weight of the P-47 had nothing to do with the 305gal of fuel it carried internally (all in the fueslage) on early models and 370 gal in the later models.

and of course on a long range mission the extra 410 gallons of fuel in external tanks didn't weigh anything either or cause any drag?

As for fuel economy and the type of supercharger let's look at the R-2800 in its -8 and -21 forms for a Corsair and an Early P-47 shall we.

Corair. max continous at 24,000ft. 1550Hp burning 210gallons an hour.
P-47...max continous at 29,000ft.. 1625Hp burning 210gallons an hour.
P-47.. economy max at. 25,000ft.. 1200hp burning 105gallons an hour.
P-47...min. consumption 25,000ft...1100hp buring.. 95gallons an hour.
Corsair.....max cruise at 26,000ft....950hp burning 82 gallons an hour.

Gee, no real difference in specific fuel consumption at the 1200-950hp range.

 

[davebender]

I'd hazard a guess that hardly any WWII aerial combat took place at altitudes over 30,000 feet.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Correct again aren't you?

The size and weight of the P-47 had nothing to do with carrying EIGHT .50cal MG did it.
The size and weight of the P-47 had nothing to do with the 305gal of fuel it carried internally (all in the fueslage) on early models and 370 gal in the later models.

and of course on a long range mission the extra 410 gallons of fuel in external tanks didn't weigh anything either or cause any drag?

As for fuel economy and the type of supercharger let's look at the R-2800 in its -8 and -21 forms for a Corsair and an Early P-47 shall we.

Corair. max continous at 24,000ft. 1550Hp burning 210gallons an hour.
P-47...max continous at 29,000ft.. 1625Hp burning 210gallons an hour.
P-47.. economy max at. 25,000ft.. 1200hp burning 105gallons an hour.
P-47...min. consumption 25,000ft...1100hp buring.. 95gallons an hour.
Corsair.....max cruise at 26,000ft....950hp burning 82 gallons an hour.

Gee, no real difference in specific fuel consumption at the 1200-950hp range.

I never said the Turbo engines burned more fuel. I'm surprised they didn't burn less since the turbocharger doesn't drag on the engine. My point was that it was heavy and the P-47 had to be significantly bigger than, say, the Hellcat to hold it.

The P-47D was a great plane, one of the best of the war, and we could have won the war with just it once airfields in Europe became available to us after D-Day. I think that the army failed to have a plan in place to make us more competitive for the first year and a half of our involvement. From October 1940 until December 1941 we saw no reason to catch up with the rest of the world and get the Allison-Powered Mustang ready for prime time. I think a year with some priority funding could have gotten the Mustang A to perform up to par at 25,000 feet with an Allison power plant.

 

[Shortround6]

I never said the Turbo engines burned more fuel. I'm surprised they didn't burn less since the turbocharger doesn't drag on the engine. My point was that it was heavy and the P-47 had to be significantly bigger than, say, the Hellcat to hold it.

"in the ETO it was the P-51 that took the fight to the enemy in a huge way. Unsurprisingly, it was not a turbocharged fighter."

No, while you didn't say the turbo engines burned more fuel it seemed to me that you implied it.

Empty weight of F6F-3 9,023lbs.
Empty weight of P47C 9,900lbs
Hellcat had bigger wing that folded but has 2 less guns and tankage for 70gal less fuel.

The P-47D was a great plane, one of the best of the war, and we could have won the war with just it once airfields in Europe became available to us after D-Day. I think that the army failed to have a plan in place to make us more competitive for the first year and a half of our involvement. From October 1940 until December 1941 we saw no reason to catch up with the rest of the world and get the Allison-Powered Mustang ready for prime time. I think a year with some priority funding could have gotten the Mustang A to perform up to par at 25,000 feet with an Allison power plant.

Sept, 13, 1940 order placed for first 170 P-47Bs AND for 602 P-47Cs.
Cct, 13, 1941 the Army ordered 850 D models even though NO production Bs had yet been delievered.
Note that this is 3 1/2 weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbor. Orders are place very close to this time for Additional P-47s to be built in a new factory to be built in Evansville Indiana and Curtiss got a contract for 324 to be built in Buffalo NY. It took both Evensville and Curtiss a little over a year to begin delivering aircraft.

By the way Pratt&Whitney delivered only 17 R-2800s in all of 1940 and 1469 in all of 1941. Ford was coming on line in 1941 with 264 engines delivered after being given 14.3 million dollars on Sept, 17 1940 to build and tool up a new factory just for R-28000s. Production jumped to 5431 R-2800s by P&W in 1942 with 6403 by Ford and the first 6 of an eventual 16,987 to be deliverd by Nash by the end of the war.

You do realize the British didn't get their first Mustang delivered to England until the late summer of 1941 don't you? It takes time to build factorys. tool them, train workers and get production lines to where they can really turn out numbers.
Ford eventually hit a production figure of 186 engines in one day, but it wasn't until 7-8-44 and until the plant had been expanded from the original 889,717sq.ft. to 3,852,273sq.ft.

By the way, the Army gave contacts for a total of 272 P-43s to Republic not because they thought the P-43 was really very good but to help finance Republics expansion and training of workers for the upcoming P-47 production.

 

[Clay_Allison]

"in the ETO it was the P-51 that took the fight to the enemy in a huge way. Unsurprisingly, it was not a turbocharged fighter."

No, while you didn't say the turbo engines burned more fuel it seemed to me that you implied it.

Empty weight of F6F-3 9,023lbs.
Empty weight of P47C 9,900lbs
Hellcat had bigger wing that folded but has 2 less guns and tankage for 70gal less fuel.



Sept, 13, 1940 order placed for first 170 P-47Bs AND for 602 P-47Cs.
Cct, 13, 1941 the Army ordered 850 D models even though NO production Bs had yet been delievered.
Note that this is 3 1/2 weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbor. Orders are place very close to this time for Additional P-47s to be built in a new factory to be built in Evansville Indiana and Curtiss got a contract for 324 to be built in Buffalo NY. It took both Evensville and Curtiss a little over a year to begin delivering aircraft.

By the way Pratt&Whitney delivered only 17 R-2800s in all of 1940 and 1469 in all of 1941. Ford was coming on line in 1941 with 264 engines delivered after being given 14.3 million dollars on Sept, 17 1940 to build and tool up a new factory just for R-28000s. Production jumped to 5431 R-2800s by P&W in 1942 with 6403 by Ford and the first 6 of an eventual 16,987 to be deliverd by Nash by the end of the war.

You do realize the British didn't get their first Mustang delivered to England until the late summer of 1941 don't you? It takes time to build factorys. tool them, train workers and get production lines to where they can really turn out numbers.
Ford eventually hit a production figure of 186 engines in one day, but it wasn't until 7-8-44 and until the plant had been expanded from the original 889,717sq.ft. to 3,852,273sq.ft.

By the way, the Army gave contacts for a total of 272 P-43s to Republic not because they thought the P-43 was really very good but to help finance Republics expansion and training of workers for the upcoming P-47 production.

And none of that has anything to do with designing superchargers. I'll admit to the fact that the P-51s would have been a little late anyway, but the P-39 and P-40 were allowed to suck at high-altitude as well. We knew (or should have known) they weren't going to be competitive back in 1939.

 

[Shortround6]

And none of that has anything to do with designing superchargers. I'll admit to the fact that the P-51s would have been a little late anyway, but the P-39 and P-40 were allowed to suck at high-altitude as well. We knew (or should have known) they weren't going to be competitive back in 1939.

You are correct, it has nothing to do with designing supecharges but it does have to do with your idea that

"I think that the army failed to have a plan in place to make us more competitive for the first year and a half of our involvement. From October 1940 until December 1941 we saw no reason to catch up with the rest of the world "

Having around 2000 P-47s on order by Dec of 1941 doesn't strike me as having no plan to make us more competitive. It also doesn't look like we saw no reason to catch up with the rest of the world.

The P-39 wasn't "allowed to suck". It was produced in the only form it could have been produced in at that time, the question is whither we should have gone on building them in 1943.

IN 1939 EXHIBITED performance of British fighters was handicaped by both 87 octane fuel and fixed pitch propellors.
In 1939 the EXHIBITED performance of French fighters was such that the P-36 looked better than anything they had and we already considered the P-36 obsolete.
In 1939 the EXHIBITED performance of Italian fighters was what? The Macchi 200 as a high point? NO disrespect to any Italian members of this forum but an 870hp fighter wasn't going to compare with 1200hp fighters.
In 1939 the EXHIBITED performance of Russian fighters was the I-16 which was already 5 years old.
In 1939 the Japanese had NO INSERVICE fighter with retractable landing gear.

That leaves only the Germans with a fighter that demostrably better than what we had in 1939 and since we were planing not only the p-39 and P-40 but the P-38 and the navy had placed a contract for the first Corsair protoype in June of 1938 I think that shows tha we were at least trying to be competative.

 

[Clay_Allison]

That leaves only the Germans with a fighter that demostrably better than what we had in 1939 and since we were planing not only the p-39 and P-40 but the P-38 and the navy had placed a contract for the first Corsair protoype in June of 1938 I think that shows tha we were at least trying to be competative.

We may have been planning the P-40 and P-39, but what were we planning for them to be? The P-39 was designed for high-altitude interception and was ruined by NACA and a lack of high altitude performance (designed to have a turbocharger that never materialized). The P-40 was too heavy and started losing performance over 15,000 feet.

The British somehow managed to have two good ideas in 1935 (Spitfire, Hurricane) that were better than anything we had in mind in 1939. You have to admit we were way behind the curve. I know isolationism in the 1930s had to have a lot to do with this, but we should have held ourselves to the same standard as England and Germany and gotten our crap together accordingly.

 

[Shortround6]

We may have been planning the P-40 and P-39, but what were we planning for them to be? The P-39 was designed for high-altitude interception and was ruined by NACA and a lack of high altitude performance (designed to have a turbocharger that never materialized). The P-40 was too heavy and started losing performance over 15,000 feet.

The British somehow managed to have two good ideas in 1935 (Spitfire, Hurricane) that were better than anything we had in mind in 1939. You have to admit we were way behind the curve. I know isolationism in the 1930s had to have a lot to do with this, but we should have held ourselves to the same standard as England and Germany and gotten our crap together accordingly.

The P-39 was not ruined by the NACA. The fact that it did perform as well as it did is DUE to the NACA.

PLease prove this claim.

The intial XP-39 was severaly flawed and didn't come close to meeting it's performance estimates.

There is a strong claim that the XP-39 NEVER flew ANY test flights to support those 390mph claims or the 20,000ft in 5 minutes. It flew test filights but of limited time amd power output and was shuffled off to the NACA full size wind tunnel in almost indecent haste.

Conspiracy by the anti-altitude crowd in the AAF or another case of Bell promising performance it couldn't deliver?
See Airacuda, see XP-77, See P-59 jet.

You are now claiming the Hurricane was better than the P-40?
The Hurricane was better than the P-38?

 

[Clay_Allison]

You are now claiming the Hurricane was better than the P-40?
The Hurricane was better than the P-38?

In 1939 the Hurricane was better than the P-40. Later models of P-40 got faster than the Hurricane was capable of being pushed with its big fat wing. By the time the P-40 was better they were both obsolete.

In the case of the P-38, it was never effective in Europe because of (big surprise) the unreliable turbocharger. With two-stage intercooled superchargers it might have escorted bombers all over Germany.

 

[Shortround6]

In 1939 the Hurricane was better than the P-40. Later models of P-40 got faster than the Hurricane was capable of being pushed with its big fat wing. By the time the P-40 was better they were both obsolete..

Which is it, was the Hurricane better than what we had in 1939 or better than what we had in mind in 1939?

It is tough to argue with shifting sand.

In the case of the P-38, it was never effective in Europe because of (big surprise) the unreliable turbocharger. With two-stage intercooled superchargers it might have escorted bombers all over Germany.

Never effective? mighty bold statement, care to back it up.

While a two-stage intercooled supercharged Allsion might have done better, studies done during the war indicated anywhere from a 10% to 33% drop in range if the P-38 had switched to Merlin 60 series engines.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Which is it, was the Hurricane better than what we had in 1939 or better than what we had in mind in 1939?

It is tough to argue with shifting sand.

Honestly, we didn't have anything like the Late-War P-40N in mind in 1939, we thought of the improvements that made it better than the Hurricane much later.

But if you must have it that way, then it was better than anything we had in mind in 1934 that was deliverable within two years. Certainly it was light years better than anything we had in mind in 1935 (P-35, P-36). So we were at least 5 years behind the times.

Never effective? mighty bold statement, care to back it up.

While a two-stage intercooled supercharged Allsion might have done better, studies done during the war indicated anywhere from a 10% to 33% drop in range if the P-38 had switched to Merlin 60 series engines.

The P-38 would be the only fighter to make it into combat during World War II with turbosupercharged V-1710s. The operating conditions of the Western European air war - flying for long hours in intensely cold weather at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) - unmasked several severe problems with the turbosupercharged V-1710. These had a poor manifold fuel-air distribution and poor temperature regulation of the turbosupercharger air, which resulted in frequent engine failures (detonation occurred in certain cylinders as the result of persistent uneven fuel-air mixture across the cylinders caused by the poor manifold design). The turbosupercharger had additional problems with getting stuck in the freezing air in either high or low boost mode; the high boost mode could cause detonation in the engine, while the low boost mode would be manifested as power loss in one engine, resulting in sudden fishtailing in flight. Specific details of the failure patterns were spelled out in a report by General Doolittle to General Spatz in January 1944.[2] It was too late to correct these problems in the production lines of Allison or GE, and so the P-38s were steadily withdrawn from Europe until they were all gone from bomber escort duty with the Eight Air Force by October 1944. It is not clear if all of the problems were ever corrected, as Merlin-engined P-51 arrived at this same time and succeeded well enough to redirect attention to the more successful design. A few P-38s would remain in the European theater as the F-5 for photo reconnaissance, flying at low and medium altitudes.

It had all the potential in the world to be a devastating weapon and was, in my opinion, partly held back by the Army obsession with Turbochargers.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

*Daydream*

In the daydream world of respect for fellow forum members where Burmese Bandit lives in, this is how people disagree with each other.

"X, you have posted that Because A did B desirable out come Z did not happen. I would beg to differ. Let us look at statistical table S1, S2, S3, and factsheet F1 and F2. These show that that the action B you referred to had little or no effect on desirable outcome Z. But I acknowledged that I, along with everyone in this forum, am not infallible. If I am wrong, could you point that out?"

Ah, 'tis but a daydream. And Kufurst is now banned, as is at least 10 members since I joined this forum. Why is it that people are so quick to point the finger at the mote in the other's eye, when they may well have a beam in their own?