Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Read it again, I took that into consideration in my second post.
-
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.
-
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
-
No turboprop - needs to be a piston engine for the sound and the spirit of the thing. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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. :)
-
HMMMM.....Twin 600 cubic inch nitro burning supercharged hemis,three thousand H.P. each...of course you would need a 12,000 gal tank.
-
/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
Rare Bear develops something more than 4,000hp.
-
Consider for a moment the huge impact of having the global positioning system. :)
-
all we gotta do is add a type-r badge to one and already its 100 times faster and betterer
-
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.
-
is rare bear running and R2800, or a R4360?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
is rare bear running and R2800, or a R4360?
3350
-
PS Mr Shelton has been known to buzz around these parts, maybe he can add something to the discussion. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Reno is only about 5,000 feet. Altitude for best airspeed for an optimal piston fighter is on the order of 20,000 feet. There were piston engine airplanes flying in 1945 which could touch 500 mph.
To look at what can be done with props, take a look at the Tu-95. 570 mph. That's a huge bomber with ~10,000 mile range.
-
I remeber this topic coming up a few years ago. I think the general consensus was that power would be no problem, but harnessing that power (prop design) would be the problem.
I think with modern engine designs and fuel managment, we could probibly build engines making the same power as WWII designs. But at 1/2 to 1/3 the displacement and weight.
With other improvements in aircraft design it would be possible to build a figher the size of a p51, with the payload and armamant of a p47 and the range of a b17.
A pure fighter could probibly have low alt La7 performance to 30k and be smaller, lighter and have far more ammunition and range.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
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.
You couldn't load the Nitro powered eng correctly with a prop...
to many variables working in atmosphere .
Nitromethane works better the more load you put on it ... ( oh yea try 400-700 gals plus per min btw)
i'd be thinking in Titanium Rods , thermal coatings ,and perhaps hydraulic prop . hint hint
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
You couldn't load the Nitro powered eng correctly with a prop...
to many variables working in atmosphere .
Nitromethane works better the more load you put on it ... ( oh yea try 400-700 gals plus per min btw)
i'd be thinking in Titanium Rods , thermal coatings ,and perhaps hydraulic prop . hint hint
I left out the words "at idle" regarding fuel consumption. It would be possible to load an engine enough to use nitro, you just couldn't use anything over about 30%.
-
Didnt the hydroplane racers use allison engines into the late 80's. Must have been the best power to weight until they started using tubine engines.
-
True ..... I think i used to mix up to 42% outta dads barrel for my scale model 2 strokes ...
I would spend more time with the lighter alloys and improve the Hp to Weight ratio , and Aerodynamics
-
The Sabre VII in the Tempest was rated to 3000hp and in tests made 4000hp, and that was in '45 ;) (3850rpm btw)
-
Originally posted by firedome57
Didnt the hydroplane racers use allison engines into the late 80's. Must have been the best power to weight until they started using tubine engines.
In the early seventies, or late sixties maybe, one of the hot Merlin builders was looking for a way to keep them from flying apart and discovered that the Allison rods would fit the Merlin. Before that, the Merlin was a loser at Reno.
The Merlin was more commonly available and was used in most Unlimited Hydroplanes, with a few Allisons in the mix for awhile.
As a matter of fact, the last piston engine win by an Unlimited was last year.
-
A lot of those boats are actually running Griffons.
Which, incidentally, were derived directly from the R engine, which at one point held the land, air, and water speed records simultaneously.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
A lot of those boats are actually running Griffons.
Which, incidentally, were derived directly from the R engine, which at one point held the land, air, and water speed records simultaneously.
True, they eventually went to Griffons, but they ran the Merlins and the Allisons for years. And for the most part what they ARE running is turbines.
-
The Allison(1989) actually won a race after the Merlin(1988), in unlimited hydroplane racing. I found this link when reading up on the subject. The Griffon won into the next century.
http://www.hydroprop.com/hydros/history/q037.htm
-
Guys
Who has the best prop designs of the war?
You look at the late war US props and they are all 4 bladed with big paddle blades.
The Germans still only used three blades but where even widder...
What was better?
-
American props were prolly better. They had suared of tips which was better than the rounded tips of the german props.
As for three blades or four. Well the most efficient setup is a counterweighted single blade, the more blades you add the more they arodynamically interere with each other. However you need to transfer the power in some way so you need either more blades or bigger blades. For exaple rare bear has a three bladed prop made from big wide c130 prop blades.
The next model Bf109K the K14 fitted a new engine and a four blade prop - they made a tremendous performance increase prolly putting it into P51H performance category.
-
Hmm I did not know the K ran four blades.
What about like the -4 Corsair? it had four blades but rounded tips, and then ran the same prop from the -4 all the way to the -7, why did they not switch over to sqaure tips?
-
Rounded is relative. I think pointed or eliptical is a better term, german props were elliptical while late us props tended to be more square/rectangular shaped. So the corsair had squared off blades.
K4 had 3 balded prop. This new K14 had a 4 blade - a few K14 may or may not have been built, nobody is sure.
-
Ahh ok I get it now, the actual length of the prop is pretty sqaure is what you mean!
What was the andvatage to some of the brit designs that had five blades?
-
Just to transfer the power if the new engines. They also had the benefit of making the spit 14 handle like crap. :)
-
So the P-38 was stuck with crappy props the whole war... They never changed them on a production model right?
Interesting it still did so well.
-
Experimental P38s with new engines and more modern props had vastly better performance.
Here is a link from widewing's site.
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html
-
Yeah, I read all about the K in one of the books I have.
I think it is called P-38 lighting by Warren M Bodie?
He talks about the K and how it did not go into production cause of line delays and they only had one factory for the P-38.
What a killer plane that would have been....
Talk about a perk plane!
That is a fantastic book by the way, great read on the P-38, lots of info none of the other books have, even some speculation about what a P-38 with Merlins would have been like.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So the P-38 was stuck with crappy props the whole war... They never changed them on a production model right?
Interesting it still did so well.
Yes, the War Production Board and the USAAF denied Lockheed permission to use the Hamilton Standard props, because the P-38 was evidently so important to the war effort that any production stoppage of more than a few hours could not be tolerated.
The P-38 was to be second sourced from Consolidated Vultee here in Tennessee. Sadly, they were never able to make more than 113 of them. Oddly enough, Lockheed was required ot produce the B-17 under license from Boeing. This cut capacity for the P-38 in half. Why the War Production Board and the USAAF were so stupid as to not have Consolidated Vultee make the B-17, which they were better equipped to do, and let Lockheed make twice as many P-38s we'll never know.
Not only did the P-38 use the crappy Curtiss Electric props, but also the P-39, the P-40, and some P-47s. Several pilots quickly learned to grab a P-47 with a more reliable and more efficicient Hamilton Standard prop, because the Curtiss prop would get you killed.
Again, the War Production Board COULD have required Curtiss to manufacture the Hamilton Standard props under license, but they chose not to. Why they did not is another burning question. The USAAF was allowed to require certain parts be used regardless of whether they were suitable or not. They could also prevent manufacturers from installing upgrades as well.
That link to Widewing's website will only get you the story of the P-38K. Elsewhere on the site you'll be able to see dozens of stupid things the War Production Board and the USAAF did to the P-38, not to mention the total hack job they did on the P-39. By the way, they also prevented Allison from fitting better crank driven superchargers on the P-39 and P-40, and prohibited the use of turbochargers on those planes. They also prevented the use of the upgraded Allisons in the P-38 later in the war. The Allisons used in the P-82 twin Mustang were available but not used in the P-38. Remember that the P-82 had no turbochargers, but it had Allisons nearly as powerful as the turbocharged (compound supercharged) Allisons in the P-38.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Experimental P38s with new engines and more modern props had vastly better performance.
Here is a link from widewing's site.
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html
Yeah, note that the P-38K would have been available BEFORE the J model, meaning it would have been in Europe in the early fall of 1943. Nevermind the fact that the following J and L models would have been even better.
-
Captain Virgil Hilts
I have heard all that and it seems astounding.
I had not heard that the p-82 engines where available before the war end.
Imagine if you could go back and replace the guys on that board?
I read somewhere that GM told the airforce basicaly use the alison in the p=38 or we will stop making them or something to that effect? Do you think there was some high level back room deels going on?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah, I read all about the K in one of the books I have.
I think it is called P-38 lighting by Warren M Bodie?
He talks about the K and how it did not go into production cause of line delays and they only had one factory for the P-38.
What a killer plane that would have been....
Talk about a perk plane!
That is a fantastic book by the way, great read on the P-38, lots of info none of the other books have, even some speculation about what a P-38 with Merlins would have been like.
The Merlin would have REDUCED performance in the P-38, it was heavier and less reliable. High altitude performance and climb rate would have suffered greatly. The P-51 with the Allison was not a poor performer because of the Allison, but rather because of WHICH Allison it had.
Imagine the P-38 with the later four blade version of the Hamilton Standard props. And the engines held back and later used in the P-82, with turbochargers.
Imagine BOTH the P-39 AND the P-40 with the turbocharger AND the Hamilton Standard props.
Remember that after the war, the P-39, fitted with P-38 engines complete WITH the turbochargers, were some of the best race planes around.
And remember all of this and the Sherman tank the next time some one tells you "They'd have only supplied our fighting men with the very best weapons possible, so if it was replaced or phased out, it was inferior". Just so much Bravo Sierra.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Captain Virgil Hilts
I have heard all that and it seems astounding.
I had not heard that the p-82 engines where available before the war end.
Imagine if you could go back and replace the guys on that board?
I read somewhere that GM told the airforce basicaly use the alison in the p=38 or we will stop making them or something to that effect? Do you think there was some high level back room deels going on?
To find the truth about the Allisons, read "Vees for Victory, the story of the Allison V-1710 Aircraft Engine" and "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II".
Was there a huge bunch of politics going on behind the scenes in the War Production Board? You bet your bottom dollar on it.
-
With the engines from the P-82, would the P-38 have needed to the turboes? DIdnt the engine from the P-82 have 2 speed 2 stage superchargers like the Merlin XX?
Was the Navy not under the same board as athe army Aircorp?
Seems like Navy Aircraft did not have as many problems as the Army ones. Like no one had issues with the -4 having a 4 blade prop? They never used the curtis prop. (Well maybe the wildcat,)
-
Yep 2-speed 2-stage, although IIRC the 2nd stage was kind of a bulky add-on job, not as neat and integrated as on the 60 series Merlins.
I think it was basically the same motor as the one in the P-63.
-
CVH!
AWSOME!! I am ordering the Vees for Victory book right now!
I have the allied piston engines book by Gramah, hell I bought his HARDCORE book on just the r2800, good stuff.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
With the engines from the P-82, would the P-38 have needed to the turboes? DIdnt the engine from the P-82 have 2 speed 2 stage superchargers like the Merlin XX?
Was the Navy not under the same board as athe army Aircorp?
Seems like Navy Aircraft did not have as many problems as the Army ones. Like no one had issues with the -4 having a 4 blade prop? They never used the curtis prop. (Well maybe the wildcat,)
The turbochargers were necessary for the optimum high altitude performance. A crank driven supercharger, even a two speed two stage supercharger, can only be tuned for certain altitude ranges. It will be a killer at those altitudes, but weaker at others. Look at the Spitfire. There were Spitfire models made for specific altitudes. They not only had certain airframe atributes, but also specific Merlin engines tuned for a specific altitude range.
Yes, the Navy and Marines also operated under the War Production Board.
However, realize that the Navy and Marines were a whole different system. First, they had no liquid cooled V type engines, the Navy refused any liquid cooled engines, only accepting radial air cooled engines. Therefore they didn't have to deal with two types of props for the same type of aircraft (ie fighters), because they all had the same basic engine type. Remember that the Navy operated off of carriers at sea, and the Marines were attached to the Navy. Well, you can only store so many spare parts on a carrier, so you don't have the option to carry two or three types of props.
-
Imagine how badly the P-38 would have dominated the Japanses planes.
How many other planes like the P-38 K or the FW-187 are out there that would have been world beaters but never made it into production?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Imagine how badly the P-38 would have dominated the Japanses planes.
How many other planes like the P-38 K or the FW-187 that would have been world beaters but never made it into production?
Again, imagine the P-39 and P-40 with either the later Allison like the P-82 or with the turbocharged version like the P-38. Or both. That's just two more. Are there others? I'm reasonably sure.
-
Well a P-39 with the later Allison was called a P-63.
P-40 was a dated airframe with any engine. Mustang!
-
PS where the heck would you wedge a turbo into the P-40?
-
Funked!
Just hang the trurbo on the outside, slap a NOS sticker on it and the call it a P-40Type R!
Hmm wasnt the P47s turbo in the back of the fusalage?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
PS where the heck would you wedge a turbo into the P-40?
IIRC, the chief engineer for Curtiss had it worked out in late 39 or early 1940.
Yes, the P-40 was a somewhat dated airframe by the time the war was well underway. However, even underpowered and handicapped at high altitude, it performed admirably. A significant power increase combined with high altitude capability certainly would not have hurt it.
There was a whole lot more different about the P-63 compared to the P-39 than just the engine. And the P-39 SHOULD have been available WITH the turbocharger by 1940-41 AND seen the later improvements as well.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Funked!
Just hang the trurbo on the outside, slap a NOS sticker on it and the call it a P-40Type R!
Did you ever see the pathetic turbo version of the Fw 190? Total ghetto rig.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
IIRC, the chief engineer for Curtiss had it worked out in late 39 or early 1940.
Yes, the P-40 was a somewhat dated airframe by the time the war was well underway. However, even underpowered and handicapped at high altitude, it performed admirably. A significant power increase combined with high altitude capability certainly would not have hurt it.
There was a whole lot more different about the P-63 compared to the P-39 than just the engine. And the P-39 SHOULD have been available WITH the turbocharger by 1940-41 AND seen the later improvements as well.
Yeah I know the P-63 was different all over. But really it was no different from a P-39 than a P-51D was different from an A-36.
P-39 in 1941 with turbo would have been a great interceptor. Short legs, but it would have been a killer dogfighter.
-
Nah funked I never saw or read anything about a turboes FW 190, any links?
If not do you know of a book? I never mind buying a book!
-
CVH
Ordered Vees for victory from Amazon.... Now I just have to wait for it. Thanks man!
I can not wait!