« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 [20]   Go Down

Author Topic: WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov vs Jumo  (Read 29308 times)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #285 on: June 24, 2007, 07:57:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

of course my argumetation have changed, cause i look to the...


Please, save your words; if your argument fails you come back with another.

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

Interesting is that when Viking came with FTH´s, you came with the best available Merlin test regarding the FTH.


Those were the first ones with production engines in the site. Besides, maybe you should check Vikings argumentation first as well as your own.

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

But when i come with the static power, you say your prevoious stated engine is not nearly a Merlin70 and the Merlin70 was much more powerfull, while the plane performences of the P51B and the Spitfire HF´s show that this simply cant be.


Start a new thread on this. There is RR calculations on this in Harvey-Baileys book and these match well tested speeds and if I put the values to my spreadsheet I got similar results; the Cd0 I got is close to other data (there appear to be about 5% variation).

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

And you always claim that the DB´s dont reach their specs...


There is plenty of evidence of DBs not reaching claimed performance (just search the sources claimed in this thread)

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

Of course this explain how the heavy Bf...


Start a new thread if you want to talk about the planes.

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

But maybe also the P51B Speeds are without mach correction...


The used corrections of the Eglin Field and A&AEE P-51B tests are documented and the performance is close to the Wright field data.

BTW Start a new thread if you want to talk about the planes.

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

Of course its easy and usefull for your argumentation to wear blinders and to relay on the available engine datas, while we actually dont have any tested DB605 and Merlin70 power curve.


I've got several of these. Besides good estimates can be calculated simply from the MAP using the specs.

Quote
Originally posted by Knegel

To mix up the good FTH´s of the tested Spit´s, with the static power stats simply dont fit to the tested flight performences.


I don't see such thing here. Have you actually calculated something? If so, start a new thread.
Logged

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #286 on: June 25, 2007, 03:50:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen
There is RR calculations on this in Harvey-Baileys book...


Correction: The calculations are presented in "Rolls-Royce and the Mustang" by D. Birch.

Power curves (tested) for the Merlin 70 and many other Merlin developements can be found from an article "Developement of the Rolls-Royce Merlin from 1939 to 1945" by A. C. Lovesey published in "Aircraft Engineering" July 1946.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #287 on: June 25, 2007, 04:10:26 AM »
Knegel: absolute power shows better in ROC than top speed.
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #288 on: June 25, 2007, 08:35:32 AM »
BTW, I have a sheet to calculate weight and time to alt into NM per time unit. Used it to compare similar aircraft from actual tests.
The Spit and 109 are basically so similar, that it is a delight to compare them. Power being even more similar than weight. So, this might be useful, and I will mail the sheet to you if you like :)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #289 on: June 28, 2007, 03:47:35 AM »
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #290 on: June 28, 2007, 06:25:04 AM »
Only 1.4% difference between imperial and metric though...

-C+

PS. Why don't you start a new thread Gripen? One of your own with a topic you see fit and not going around telling people to start a new thread if they discuss something that you are not interested in.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2007, 06:47:34 AM by Charge »
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #291 on: June 28, 2007, 05:52:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge

PS. Why don't you start a new thread Gripen? One of your own with a topic you see fit and not going around telling people to start a new thread if they discuss something that you are not interested in.


Why should I start a new thread? I have tried to stay on the engines which is the subject of the thread. Some others have tried to pull the discussion off topic (drag, fuels etc.) when it appears that their original argument failed.

Regarding the ps/hp issue, if you look above, you can see that I have tried to use ps ratings for the DBs and hp ratings for the Merlins.
Logged

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #292 on: July 03, 2007, 08:47:00 AM »
"Some others have tried to pull the discussion off topic (drag, fuels etc.) when it appears that their original argument failed."

Fuel? You claimed that the fuel did not have anything to do with how German aeroengines were developed. It affected the weight and charging method and actually the lack of decent materials was one main the reason why e.g. turbos were not taken into use in German planes. Irrelevant? I don't think so and I don't remember anybody else claiming it irrelevant but you. Not your personal playground, BTW.

"Regarding the ps/hp issue, if you look above, you can see that I have tried to use ps ratings for the DBs and hp ratings for the Merlins."

My comment on that had absolutely nothing to do with YOU. It was an issue that I had completely forgotten and thought of bringing it to everybody that power was measured differently in "metric countries". My bad, but again not your personal playground.

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
WWII Inline engines: Daimler Benz vs Rolls Royce vs Allison vs Klimov
« Reply #293 on: July 03, 2007, 10:23:50 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge

Fuel? You claimed that the fuel did not have anything to do with how German aeroengines were developed.


Please don't put words to my mouth, when we were talking about the adjustment of the hydraulic coupling in the DBs and location of the throttle valve I just pointed out that the issues (operation of the barometric valve and the location of the throttle valve)  are there regardless the used fuel or the aerodynamics. Lets quote your posting (06-18-2007 01:45 PM) from above (my quoted text is in the parenthesis):

Quote
Originally posted by Charge

"Basicly large part of the advantages of the hydraulic coupling was lost due to unaccurate adjustment of the supercharger speed and location of the throttle valve."

Probably more because of worse fuel and unclean aerodynamics...


In your next post (06-19-2007 01:20 PM) you tried to turn the same issue to the fuels again.

Quote
Originally posted by Charge

My comment on that had absolutely nothing to do with YOU. It was an issue that I had completely forgotten and thought of bringing it to everybody that power was measured differently in "metric countries". My bad, but again not your personal playground.


I merely noted that I have tried to use original units and I did not see your note on ps/hp issue as an offense.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 [20]   Go Up
« previous next »