Author Topic: How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?  (Read 1705 times)

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2004, 09:22:08 AM »
/

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #16 on: February 29, 2004, 09:25:49 AM »
I wouldnt put in gatling guns, they weigh too much.  A revolving breech cannon would be much better and the germans invented those righ at the end of ww2.

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2004, 11:13:31 AM »
I belive modern a composite material fuselage would make a difference as well. Lighter, stronger and better withstand battle damage. If they could have figured a way to make an AWACS C-47 or B-17  that would have made a huge impact.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2004, 11:27:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mark Luper
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.


2 things.

1.  I did account for engine speed, in my second post.
2.  Airplane engines actually have less flexibility requirements than auto engines.  Peaky is not a big problem for an airplane with a constant speed variable pitch prop.  It's like having a CVT in a car.

Offline wklink

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
      • http://www.simhq.com
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2004, 11:40:50 AM »
I doubt we could have made a pure piston engined (or even turboprop) aircraft that was a whole lot faster than the ones in WW2.  Maybe 475mph tops but the mach limitations on the prop itself (someone with a physics degree could probably explain it better) would make it impossible to reach mach speed.

What others have said, composite materials, computer assisted design, new metal alloys would  have made the aircraft safer, more maneuverable and better able to sustain damage.  Can you imagine an AC130 over the beachhead at Normandy:eek:
The artist formerly known as Tom 'Wklink' Cofield

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #20 on: February 29, 2004, 11:47:28 AM »
Rare Bear develops something more than 4,000hp.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2004, 02:25:40 PM »
Consider for a moment the huge impact of having the global positioning system. :)
sand

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #22 on: February 29, 2004, 04:00:46 PM »
all we gotta do is add a type-r badge to one and already its 100 times faster and betterer
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #23 on: February 29, 2004, 04:10:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furious
Rare Bear develops something more than 4,000hp.


Yep, and I think the hottest Merlins are pushing 4,000 as well.  And that's with 50 year old motors.  Give those guys a few billion (budget for a modern fighter engine) and I don't think my 5 to 15 thousand guess would be wrong.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #24 on: February 29, 2004, 04:12:48 PM »
is rare bear running and R2800, or a R4360?

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #25 on: February 29, 2004, 05:34:47 PM »
The secret to the Merlins making near 4K HP and living at all? Allison rods. And they still come apart like a dimestore watch.

If you've ever watch the races at Reno, about 20% of the planes blow engines before the weekend is over. The Merlins are the worst.

To have been designed in or around 1934, the Allison is quite modern. Pent roof combustion chamber, dual spark plugs in each cylinder, four valves in each cylinder, overhead cams, forged pistons, a dry sump oiling system, and a pretty decent rod:stroke ratio and bore:stroke ratio, given that it was a low RPM engine.

You simply can't increase the RPM of those old engines that much, because there's too much mass, both reciprocating and rotating. Much over 4000 RPM and you're just waiting for the insides to become outsides.

Basicly, what you can do to those old engines is increase the compression ratio (they were around 6:1 or 7:1) to around 8:1 or 9:1. You can replace the crank, rods, and pistons with somewhat lighter and stonger parts. While the Allison used forged pistons, crank, and rods, metalurgy has improved. But there is a limit to how light you can make pistons and cranks for bores and strokes in the 6" range. Rods are pretty much the same, since you need a long rod to make a 6" stroke work.

You can also move to modern camshaft designs. The Allison is very adaptable to this with the overhead cam setup. The use of new technology in valvesprings and the rest of the valvetrain can allow significant advances in valvetrain speed and durability. This means that you can make the valves move a lot faster and still stay together. The faster you accelerate the valves open and closed the more air and fuel you can move in and out.

You can improve the rings and general combustion sealing with modern techniques and components.

There's also modern ignition to make sure you burn all you put in it.

Finally, you can improve the intake and exhaust systems. An Allison was converted to normally aspirated, with individual runner direct port fuel injection, and tuned headers. It easily made 800 more HP than the best of the Allisons in the P-38, with no supercharger at all.

You can improve the oiling system somewhat, but they are already dry sump, so there isn't as much room as you'd think.

My best estimate is that an Allison could be reliably pushed to around 3500+ HP and survive in combat conditions. You might get 5000+ HP if you pushed it all out, but I'm not sure I'd want to fly it if you did that. Most of the crashes at Reno are due to engine failure. When they fail, they often ventilate the crankcase and the oil catches fire. Not good, not good at all.

Now the big problem is going to be harnessing the power. The power the F117 and F130 Allisons had could not be harnessed by those raggedy Curtiss Electric props. It will take an incredible prop to fully harness that knid of power efficiently. The Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle prop came close, and if they used the four blade it would have been even better. While they have plenty of power, the planes at Reno don't effectively use it all. The prop is the limiting factor now.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #26 on: February 29, 2004, 05:38:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
is rare bear running and R2800, or a R4360?


3350

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #27 on: February 29, 2004, 05:46:26 PM »
PS Mr Shelton has been known to buzz around these parts, maybe he can add something to the discussion.  :)

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #28 on: February 29, 2004, 05:46:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by weaselsan
HMMMM.....Twin 600 cubic inch nitro burning supercharged hemis,three thousand H.P. each...of course you would need a 12,000 gal tank.


Nitro hemis in the Top Fuel and Fuel Coupes are 500 cubic inches and closer to 7000 horsepower. They use fuel systems that move 55 gallons of fuel per minute.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
How much better could modern tech make a world war two engine?
« Reply #29 on: February 29, 2004, 05:50:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by wklink
I doubt we could have made a pure piston engined (or even turboprop) aircraft that was a whole lot faster than the ones in WW2.  Maybe 475mph tops but the mach limitations on the prop itself (someone with a physics degree could probably explain it better) would make it impossible to reach mach speed.

What others have said, composite materials, computer assisted design, new metal alloys would  have made the aircraft safer, more maneuverable and better able to sustain damage.  Can you imagine an AC130 over the beachhead at Normandy:eek:


Dago Red recently broke the 500 MPH barrier at Reno. It is of course a fully streamlined P-51D, with a Merlin that has a life span of about 10 hours.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe