Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
537
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:30 pm
T-C, as a perusal of the Pilot's Notes of the various Griffon-powered Seafire/Spitfire marks
will show - only the contra-prop equipped types - were cleared for full-power take-offs.
I have already shown that this is false and how this is false
if true that would have been material and stated in official correspondence/disputes at the time and available since to history

amusingly the contra-prop Seafires had less thrust for a given takeoff power (having smaller prop diameter)
ie the propstream being smaller would be faster and so have less efficient of conversion of power into thrust

good conversion of power into thrust at low speed eg Sea Fury 14' prop means sacrifice of conversion efficiency at high speed
the design of a fighter shouldn't be skewed towards low speed conversion - but the design for ground attack should be

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:50 pm
J.A.W. wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:30 pm
T-C, as a perusal of the Pilot's Notes of the various Griffon-powered Seafire/Spitfire marks
will show - only the contra-prop equipped types - were cleared for full-power take-offs.
I have already shown that this is false and how this is false
if true that would have been material and stated in official correspondence/disputes at the time and available since to history

amusingly the contra-prop Seafires had less thrust for a given takeoff power (having smaller prop diameter)
ie the propstream being smaller would be faster and so have less efficient of conversion of power into thrust

good conversion of power into thrust at low speed eg Sea Fury 14' prop means sacrifice of conversion efficiency at high speed
the design of a fighter shouldn't be skewed towards low speed conversion - but the design for ground attack should be
Well T-C, I've cited verbatim from the 'Pilots Notes' & posted a link to a site where they can
be checked, so any "false" claims can be debunked at source, for those who are interested...

As for the contraprop offering neutral torque effects & thus allowing a max-available boost
power-level for take-off accordingly, that would indeed tend to negate yet another assertion.

The Centaurus radial powered Hawker Fury used a smaller diameter (albeit a 5-blade) prop
than the 14ft unit of the Sabre Tempest, while the Fury prototype which also flew with the
R-R Griffon - ran contraprops, which were duly cropped in an attempt to find the predicted
performance - yet the Martin-Baker MB5 also utilised a contraprop set up, sans drama.
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

This vid shows how a longnosed Spitfire Mk 18 contrasts with a shortnosed FW 190A,
staccato growl & supercharger whine of the R/R Griffon vs BMW's grumbling rumble:

Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

This was initially posted yesterday and initially removed, because "one does not just make a first post in a forum with links to a commercial product in it" /insertlordoftheringsmemehere/

It turns out to be relevant, so here is the post and links:

snowygrouch wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:57 pm
Going back to "The Secret Horsepower Race" whih someone mentioned earlier in this thread, for those interested my WW2 fighter engines book is finally at the printers and will be sent out in 4 weeks. (I`m the author).

The publisher has made a 22page preview (of the 470 pages), which includes the Foreword by
James Allison.

https://issuu.com/mortons-digital/docs/ ... Nzk0MzA3Nw

If anyone is interested in purchasing, best link is below:

https://www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/ ... Code/15057

I think we have about 50 of the signed ones left (1st come 1st served) and 700 of the total 2000
print run left.
@snowygrouch, it looks like the automatic site bots also found this suspicious and your user might have been deactivated. If you cannot log in, feel free to make a new user to join any discussion.
¡Puxa Esportin!

User avatar
Mudflap
307
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Totally relevant I would say.

I might have been the one to mention the book a while ago.

Callum is a former colleague and one of the best engineers I've worked with.
He's had spells in engine design at TMG (Toyota) and Mercedes HPP.

I've been to a couple of his lectures on ww2 engine design and all I can say is the book is a must have for anyone with an interest in the field.
nah pop no style

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

Mudflap wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:50 am
Totally relevant I would say.

I might have been the one to mention the book a while ago.

Callum is a former colleague and one of the best engineers I've worked with.
He's had spells in engine design at TMG (Toyota) and Mercedes HPP.

I've been to a couple of his lectures on ww2 engine design and all I can say is the book is a must have for anyone with an interest in the field.
In an oddly convergent coincidence, Calum has posted some excerpts from his book on
a WW2 aircraft forum, & on page 79 he discusses the crankshaft details of the Jumo V12
engine, noting that it featured through drilling with plain big-end bearings, pressure-fed from
the end, glowingly describing it as "...decades ahead of its time " & "...probably prompted by the
high cylinder pressures of the diesel engines which Jumo had already become famous for..."

Yet as shown in a recent crankshaft design thread, these features had in fact been in use
by Napier in their 'Lion' W12 engine for "decades" already, (& given that Napier & Jumo
were on 'friendly' business terms, it seems probable that Jumo would've had a Lion to
inspect, just as Napier's had access to Jumo 2T diesel-tech - indeed buying a licence
to manufacture them & post-war utilizing its design in their big 'Deltic' diesels) - so it is
perhaps not unreasonable - to sheet home these design qualities to the proven British unit.
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

tangodjango
tangodjango
41
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:38 pm

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

While I know this isn't relevant for this particular topic. I was unsure where to post it and hope some of the experts on here could shed some light on this aspect of aircraft engines:
"One engineering problem that all of these aircraft have to overcome is how air is ingested by the engines at high speed.

Gulping in air at supersonic speeds creates problems for all aircraft engines. The intakes are devised so as to break up that airflow and reduce it to a velocity the engine can cope with.

It's a highly sensitive area, which even caused an Anglo-French rift at the time of Concorde's retirement. Air France retired its fleet, but British Airways was keen to keep the aircraft flying.

"One reason Airbus, which had assumed authority over Concorde's design, wouldn't give us the full design authority to keep it flying was because the intake design was still secret," says Mr Bannister."

BBC News - New jets promise to revive supersonic travel
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54416696
“Hamilton’s talent is perhaps even more than that of Ayrton or Schumacher or Fernando." - Rubens Barrichello

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Last & Best of the Piston Engine Fighter Aircraft.

Post

tangodjango wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:16 pm
While I know this isn't relevant for this particular topic. I was unsure where to post it and hope some of the experts on here could shed some light on this aspect of aircraft engines:
"One engineering problem that all of these aircraft have to overcome is how air is ingested by the engines at high speed.

Gulping in air at supersonic speeds creates problems for all aircraft engines. The intakes are devised so as to break up that airflow and reduce it to a velocity the engine can cope with.

It's a highly sensitive area, which even caused an Anglo-French rift at the time of Concorde's retirement. Air France retired its fleet, but British Airways was keen to keep the aircraft flying.

"One reason Airbus, which had assumed authority over Concorde's design, wouldn't give us the full design authority to keep it flying was because the intake design was still secret," says Mr Bannister."

BBC News - New jets promise to revive supersonic travel
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54416696
Yeah, you should probably start a dedicated thread, & FYI, its not so "secret",
check this citation, linked below:

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/air-in-take-system

Previously, the Americans had built long-range Mach 3 military aircraft,
like the SR-71, (including the largest ever to fly, the XB-70), & in these, had
chosen other methods to blend problematic supersonic shock & air intakes.

If you are interested in supersonic nozzle design, (which may relate to F1 tech),
NASA education conveniently offers a 'DIY' program:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/ienzl.html
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"