@Eddiek, when someone like you don`t even smart enough to read, and just bark like a rabid dog when he doesn`t even know the Allison did use turbocharger, and then gets corrected as I you were, and as primitive as you are, I expect nothing else that he will keep barking even louder, and hope that using the magic word 'NAZI' will make him look less foolish. On the contrary!
Look how nice and compact the turbocharged Allison was :
Ideal for fighters, if you don`t concern yourself with a 6 meter long cowling !
@Mr. Finlandia effected friend, passoutty,
why is it so hard to get it into you thick skull that DB had increased boost during the war? Heh? You don`t only finlandia before posting, but also combine it with a sauna?
Say after me : 'DB increased boost during the development. My tunnelvision and bias had prevented me from getting a grip on that fact. Now I will attempt to pull my head out of my bellybutton to the sunlight and realize this.'
Now if you were more intelligent you`d have realized that the first time I posted it, but I have not yet given up to help you. I feel for retards/alcoholists, you know.
"If the main purpose is to increase power and not to improve its fuel economy, it is better to increase boost than to raise CR. In an example found in the book "Supercharging the Internal Combustion Engine" a naturally aspirated engine had its CR raised from 5 to 8:1. Brake Mean Efficient Pressure [=power. PL] increased 10%, specific fuel consumption decreased 18%, but the peak pressure that determines detonation limit and engine stresses inccreased by no less than 63%.
The same peak pressure rise was obtained by increasing the manifold pressure to 1.5 ata by supercharger. BMEP [=power] increased by 54% [FIFTY FOUR PER CENT]. Supercharging naturally absorbed some power, but its effect compared to such a great rise in BMEP was insignificant. Boosting did not affect fuel economy. So, if the main requirement was to get more power, it was more advantageous to keep CR low and have high boost than to increase CR. In fighters this was the way to get maximum power increase with lowest weight increase..." I will lend you a hand what Raunio says, as you are obviously too much effected right now to get the meaning of it.
ad 1, If you want to scr*w up fuel consumption, you are better off increasing boost only. This will lead to high fuel consumption with increased powers. That`s what RR did.
ad 2, You can increase engine effiency by increasing CR. This way
ad 3, The best way of course, is to simultaniously increase engine effiency (CR) and boost. This will lead you to high powers AND good fuel economy. That`s what DB did.
Now let`s see an example how Raunio`s thesis is best put into practice by DB, and failed to be grasped by RR.
Raunio says increasing CR by 60% (a rather extreme case) increased output by 10%, SFC decreased by 18%.
He also says that increasing boost yields almost linear increase in power, ie. 50% boost increase 54%
Increasing MAP only increases power; increasing CR slightl
Now what DB did in the 605 serieswas increasing CR from 7.5 to 8.5 (13%), and simultaniously increasing MAP from 1.42ata to 1.98ata (40%). These facts show clearly that what you are crying about all the time loudly, that DB only increased CR is just pure fiction and merely proves your ignorance in the subject.
Using Raunio`s example, this would mean increasing CR improved output by 2.5%, improved SFC by 4.5%, increased MAP yielded ca40% power increase. The combined raising of MAP and CR lead to total of ca 42.5% power increase, 4.5% better consumption.
And indeed, the DBs power output increased by 40%, whereas fuel consumption only increased by 35% percent.
In comparison, the Merlin 66 with simply raised MAP from 1.76ata to 2.05 ata (16%) raised power by only 15% (1680 HP to 1940), whereas feul consumption increased
TWICE the amount, by 31% from 150 gallon to 197 gallon.
These are the bare facts.
The above shows why DB was on the right way, and why RR was full with a bunch of short sighted conservative idiots, that couldn`t think in anything else but raising boost like yourself.
What Raunio only remotely mentioned is the effect of supercharging. If one goes with high MAP, this requires very strong supercharging. This means more power losses to :
a, Driving the higher performance supercharger, and we are speaking about serious amounts of power here.
b, Higher engine weight from the better supercharger
c, Higher boost pressures will lead the large losses of power below FTH due to thermal effiency loss unless a hydraulic/turboscharger is used.
d, High boost pressures will require an intercooler, which again just adds more weight, and additional drag in a form of an intercooler radiator that becomes neccesary to put on the plane.
Note : DB solved this problem much more simply, using the already existant MW booster to cool the charge between the stages. No extra drag, no extra weight!
DB did considerable experiments with intercooled and turbocharged engines, and ultimately found out that the extra equipment`s weight and drag associated with them simply eats up their extra power output and makes the whole idea just silly for fighters. RR never bothered to consider such factors. 'Increase boost, increase boost, anything else is irrevelant.' Yeah, look how they ended up.
BTW, just checked what the power curve in the JaPo 109K has. At e.g. 9 km it produced about 1100 hp. The Allison´s G-series G6L/R produced 1250 hp at the same altitude and 2250 hp at low altitude. ROFLOL! The Allison V1710-G6, a postwar engine out of which only 763 were produced, and which first saw service in 1948 in a handful of P-82 Twin Mustangs! Some comparison I`d say. You are truely desperate coming up with such lame comparisons.
Now what about the V 1710s during the war that couldn`t come over 1600 HP?
Lord, I enjoy nailing these coffin nails!Strange passion considering it`s you inside that coffin.
1350 HP at 9600 meter ?
1760 HP at 9000 meter ?
1950 HP at 11 000 meter ?
1200 HP at 11 000 meter ?
Belongs to what ata and what engines? DB 605 L, 1.75ata
DB 603 LA
DB 603N
DB 628, 1.42ata
i]LA and N was somewhere above 2ata, can`t find the exact source. The DB 628 was fitted to high alt recce 109s.[/i]
FYI, some Merlins were boosted over 2000 hp in 1939. Yep and some DBs over 2600 HP + in 1939.
As for high alt, I would think that P&W, P38's Allisons and Merlin 61 & 70 would be tough to beat. Say in comparison with the DB 628`s 1200 HP at 11 000meter, the Merlin 61 managed well... ca 800 HP according to the Merlin 61 power curves. 50% less power output. It`s roughly comparable to the 605 AS and D engines.
The Merlin 70 would be a better one I suppose, but still way behind this altitude output, unfortunately I dont have the curves for that one. So much for poor Gripen`s theory about the high altitude superiority of Allied engines... the poor guy.
Think of it, the Spitfire with a Merlin 61 has an operational ceiling of 43000 feet in 1942, - the Messer boys couldn't get up there untill what, 2 years later? By then you had the Mk VII with pressurised cockpit and extended wings and I think, a Merlin 70. The Bf 109G-1s operational ceiling, that appeared in May 1942 was 45 000 ft, as per the GL/A Ausrustung sheets of June 1942.
Which Spitfire could get up to 45k ft?
Gripen,
And what if the cooling needed for hydraulic coupling in the DB 605 would have been used to cool charge (intercooling) instead?The 'advantages' of such stupidity can be seen below :
Same engine weight, dimensions, same boost... BTW I never heard such an idiocy to replace a hydraulic coupling with a fixed gear s/c.
BTW, what makes your pair an especially pathethic phenomenon is that you keep kissing each others butt more than a g@y couple, yet you are utterly incapalbe of presenting anything that underlines your POV, utterly incapable of answering the questions I gave to you, and every time it happens you evade and switch the subject, making more silly claims which you again fail to back up.
