Author Topic: How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?  (Read 1712 times)

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« on: February 29, 2004, 03:18:53 AM »
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?

I am talking as if you could use the fuel they had back then since modern fuel is not as high of an octane. Or say you could go back with all the improvements, and then give them to the allies.

Forgetting jets for the minute.  

 How far how we come from the world war two technologies? Have drag racers or anyone who still using piston engines come up with stuff that if applied to an R2800 or Merlin, would make them last longer, put out more power, etc?

Like has oil improved enough to really add life to the motors? Or with today’s knowledge could you make the heads flow better?  

Just how good where the engines back then?

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2004, 03:22:25 AM »
F1 motors were making ~1500 hp from 1.5 liters (91 c.i.), and that was 20 years ago.  Even if you cut the specific output in half you still get something on the order of 15,000 hp for a Merlin sized engine.

Offline _Schadenfreude_

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2004, 03:26:16 AM »
I think modern materials would make more of a diff than engine tech - aren't for instance the fastest prop planes now flying still WW2 era fighters?

Tank technology was vastly improved due mostly to the increase in power to weight ratio of turbines engine - it allowed the increase in armour and firepower  that we see today. But I'm not sure if that would be included in your what if.

Also if you look at the designs of infantry weapons - basic lmg, rifles pistols mortars - they're either based on WW2 versions and haven't changed much at all.

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #3 on: February 29, 2004, 03:38:17 AM »
To elaborate further on relationship between F1 and fighter engines, let's look at two WW2 era mechanically supercharged V-12's made by the same company with some of the same technology and probably some of the same engineers.
Mercedes F1 car, 1939, 480 bhp, 3 liters, 160 hp/l
DB601, 1939, 1175 hp, 33.9 liters, 34.7 hp/l
160/34.7 = 4.62, ratio of specific output of F1 engine to specific output of fighter engine.

The factor of 4.62 accounts for the fact that the F1 motor had smaller displacement (specific output generally decreases as displacement increases), ran on much better fuel, and only had to last 2-3 hours rather than hundreds of hours, was hand built, and had a production run of 10-12 rather than 10,000 or so.

Back to the 1980's turbo F1 example, let's say 1,000 (reliable) hp from 1.5l.  1000/1.5 = 667 hp/l
Derate by a factor of 4.62 to get to a figure for aircraft -> 144 hp/l
Multiply times displacement of notional modern piston fighter engine (let's use 33.9 liters of DB601) -> 4,890 hp.

So something like 5,000 hp.
A lot less than my 15,000 guesstimate above but nothing to sneeze at.  In either case I think we are looking at way more horsepower than any WW2 fighter prop system could handle.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2004, 03:40:21 AM by FUNKED1 »

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #4 on: February 29, 2004, 03:40:52 AM »
Ok Funked that sounds good but the engines also have to put up with ****ty conditions and have tolast a fairly long time. How long does and F1 engine last? What was the life of a world war two aircraft engine in hours?

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #5 on: February 29, 2004, 03:54:47 AM »
Read it again, I took that into consideration in my second post.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #6 on: February 29, 2004, 04:02:30 AM »
A bigger question is what sort of WW2  style fighter we could come up with today considering advances in aerodynamics, computers, engines, automatic cannon and of course composite materials.

What sort of performance could we come up with, starting from scratch? Lets say design must be taildragger, wing up front, engine up front, single seater to weigh around 10,000 lbs or less and driven my piston engine dering a propller. Of course must have 20mm or bigger weapons and combat sealing type fuel systems, pilot armor, full communications, and some basic range and reliability figures.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2004, 04:04:36 AM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2004, 04:34:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A bigger question is what sort of WW2  style fighter we could come up with today considering advances in aerodynamics, computers, engines, automatic cannon and of course composite materials.

What sort of performance could we come up with, starting from scratch? Lets say design must be taildragger, wing up front, engine up front, single seater to weigh around 10,000 lbs or less and driven my piston engine dering a propller. Of course must have 20mm or bigger weapons and combat sealing type fuel systems, pilot armor, full communications, and some basic range and reliability figures.


     If we're using tech from today, why not install a turboprop
instead of an internal combustion engine?  Lessens the pilot
load all around, and much better power to weight.

     Rino
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2004, 04:36:51 AM »
No turboprop - needs to be a piston engine for the sound and the spirit of the thing. :)

Offline Mark Luper

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1626
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2004, 04:40:02 AM »
Funked,
your analogy is fine up to a point. One of the reasons the F1 engines made so much hp/ltr was the engine speed used. Upwards to 10,000 rpm in the later turbocharged engines. Aircraft engines work in a very different envelope. The DB601 was a geared engine that probably never turned more than 6,000 rpm at max output. It also had a very high torque rating at the lower RPM levels which was required to produce the necessary thrust from a large, heavy prop throughout the rpm range used.

The smaller F1 engines are very "peaky". They have small rpm range they run in. You couldn't do that in an aircraft because of the requirement for power over a very broad rpm range. That is where the cubic inches ( or cubic centimeters ) came into play.

I do agree however that using modern materials, combustion chamber designs, heads, intake, and fuel metering systems that one could certainly enhance the performance and durability at lot however I doubt it would increase more than perhaps 25% to 30% from the original design.

The Merlin engine, for example, was already using 4 valves per cylinder and over head cams. A newer design would work better, as in the use of variable cam timing, but the old designs amazingly were'nt that far off from what is used today.
MarkAT

Keep the shiny side up!

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2004, 04:46:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I think modern materials would make more of a diff than engine tech - aren't for instance the fastest prop planes now flying still WW2 era fighters?

Tank technology was vastly improved due mostly to the increase in power to weight ratio of turbines engine - it allowed the increase in armour and firepower  that we see today. But I'm not sure if that would be included in your what if.

Also if you look at the designs of infantry weapons - basic lmg, rifles pistols mortars - they're either based on WW2 versions and haven't changed much at all.


Nah the turbine did not do that. The abrams is the only one thatuses it in comparison to the big v12 diesels of T90, leopard 2, challenger 2, merkava 3 and the v8 of the lecrec.

The biggest advances have come from electronic fire controls and stabilization which allows fire on move and also development of chobbam armor to defeat heat threat and kinetic in one package.

Offline Roscoroo

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8424
      • http://www.roscoroo.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2004, 05:20:31 AM »
You guys are forgetting about something that needs to be included in the formula .........

Constant Speed variable pitch Propellers !!!!!!!!

(it wont matter about the Rpm ) hint hint   5252 <-- anouther hint

(i'd think in modern turbo technology and  electronics "Fuel/water injection ect ) Hint hint

Ok you guys can return to running with this ....:aok
« Last Edit: February 29, 2004, 05:23:44 AM by Roscoroo »
Roscoroo ,
"Of course at Uncle Teds restaurant , you have the option to shoot them yourself"  Ted Nugent
(=Ghosts=Scenariroo's  Patch donation

Offline DmdBT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 331
      • http://www.damned.org
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2004, 08:29:59 AM »
Picture the horror of sending back in time a few hundred of the most hardcore ricers!
"Dude lets throw in some naaawwwzzzzz with a conical air filter on a short aluminum air intake and put another wing behind the cockpit... hehe COCKpit... and I got these altezza landing lights that are the roxxor, then we can add some stickers, well yeah its Japanese writing but still each one adds about 5-10 horsepower, now about lowering that landing gear and installing this huge tailpipe..."

Next on the History Channel, follow the exploits of Col Hubert "Fo Shizzle" Zemke as he leads the 56th Fighter Posse on their quest for victory.

Someone wake me!

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #13 on: February 29, 2004, 08:52:59 AM »
The LW had nitrous (GM-1)  in WW2 and 109s kept adding things that (arguably) made them look cooler but hurt performance.  But most significantly the fastest 109 of all time actually was a type R... Go figure. :)

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #14 on: February 29, 2004, 09:03:29 AM »
HMMMM.....Twin 600 cubic inch nitro burning supercharged hemis,three thousand H.P. each...of course you would need a 12,000 gal tank.