Wright R-1820-G5 Engine

[Megalodon]

[quote author=Wmaker link=topic=327730.msg4290834#msg4290834 date=1327613381


The fact that the R-1820 was intially introduced in 1933 doesn't mean it was the same engine that powered the Brewster or the FM-2 later for that matter.


So very true... The R-1820s fitted to our S-2s were rated at 1525 hp. Hang one of those on a Brewster and they'd have something to whine about!

R-1820-82WA different engine with wep

[quote author=Wmaker link=topic=327730.msg4290834#msg4290834 date=1327613381


The fact that the R-1820 was intially introduced in 1933 doesn't mean it was the same engine that powered the Brewster or the FM-2 later for that matter.


So very true... The R-1820s fitted to our S-2s were rated at 1525 hp. Hang one of those on a Brewster and they'd have something to whine about!

Were are talking about the R-1820-G5 civlian motor in the b-239 not the 105 or 205
65% of these engines made had 1000HP or less

R-1820-04
    700 hp (522 kW)
R-1820-1
    575 hp (429 kW)
R-1820-4
    770 hp (574 kW)
R-1820-19
    675 hp (503 kW)
R-1820-22
    950 hp (708 kW)
R-1820-25
    675 hp (503 kW) , 750 hp (559 kW), 775 hp (578 kW)
R-1820-32
    1,000 hp (750 kW)
XR-1820-32
    800 hp (596 kW)
R-1820-33
    775 hp (578 kW)
R-1820-34
    940 hp (701 kW) , 950 hp (708 kW)
R-1820-34A
    1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-40
    1,100 hp (820 kW), 1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-41
    850 hp (634 kW)
R-1820-45
    800 hp (596 kW) , 930 hp (694 kW)
R-1820-50
    850 hp (634 kW)
R-1820-52
    1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-53
    930 hp (694 kW), 1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-56
    1,200 hp (895 kW), 1,350 hp (1,007 kW)
R-1820-57
    1,060 hp (790 kW)
R-1820-60
    1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-62
    1,350 hp (1,007 kW)
R-1820-66
    1,200 hp (895 kW), 1,350 hp (1,007 kW)
R-1820-72W
    1,350 hp (1,007 kW) , 1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
R-1820-74W
    1,500 hp (1,118 kW)
R-1820-76A,B,C,D
    1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
R-1820-78
    700 hp (522 kW)
R-1820-80
    700 hp (522 kW), 1,535 hp (1,145 kW)
R-1820-82WA
    1,525 hp (1,137 kW)
R-1820-86
    1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
R-1820-97
    1,200 hp (895 kW), Fitted with turbosupercharger
R-1820-103
    1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
SGR-1820-F3
    710 hp (529 kW) , 720 hp (537 kW)
SGR-1820-F2
    720 hp (537 kW)
R-1820-F53
    770 hp (574 kW)
R-1820-F56
    790 hp (589 kW)
GR-1820-G2
    1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-G3
    840 hp (626 kW)
R-1820-G5
    950 hp (708 kW)
R-1820-G101
    1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G102
    775 hp (578 kW)
GR-1820-G102A
    1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G102A
    1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G102A
    1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G202A
    1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-G103
    1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-G105
    1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-G205A
    1,200 hp (895 kW)

BTW your info says calculated as well as estimated. Mind showing the rest of the document? that has the engine # on it.

Just curious,

[Wmaker]

What I read is that the 1000HP rating is only good for 5 minutes or so.  If the AH Brewster has a 1000HP engine, then maybe the need to have a "WEP".  Also, is that 200HP drop at 3,000 feet included.  All things I do not know, Wmaker, whats the story? 

Yes, the 1000hp setting has a 5 minute limit in real life. Before Brewster was introduced, I also fully expected that it would be restricted to 5mins as a "WEP" setting. The key here seems to be HTC's modelling principal. The setting in Brewster's own docs is called either max. military or take off rating. It is my understanding that if the setting is called "war emergency setting" for American planes and "notleistung" for German planes for example and so on, then it is time limited in the game. For example F4F-4 in the game is in the same situation as Brewster, its' max. setting is called Military/Take-off setting and it is also limited to 5 minutes in real life but is not time limited in the game.

And yes, Brewster's power drop with altitude is modelled just like the power curves of other planes. It's very evident when looking at the performance charts. The poor altitude performance is easily seen by the poor top speed at altitude and how sharply the climb rate drops off after 3000ft.

 

[dirtdart]

Is our current brewster rated at 1000HP continuous or only 800HP continuous? 

[Megalodon]

What I read is that the 1000HP rating is only good for 5 minutes or so.  If the AH Brewster has a 1000HP engine, then maybe the need to have a "WEP".  Also, is that 200HP drop at 3,000 feet included.  All things I do not know, Wmaker, whats the story?  

Reasons why a Brester kicked your butt:

#1:  You fought the Brewster on it's terms.  
#2:  You don't realize the Brester has a Drag C/D lower than many other Ac.
#3:  You need to work on SA and ACM.

If you hold the cards and are patient, the Brewster is easy to hit, aim for the wings, they come right off.  If you don't, then run for your life.  

A 239 did not kick my butt and I can give most 239's all they need in a 109.

This came about by WMaker talking down the Boomerang in the Boomerang thread. Basically saying that the Boomerang didn't belong in the game. His criteria for not including it in the game are, it must have shot down an enemy plane to be included, that it is not as good as the 239, and would be a waste of resources.  

So I thought I would point out what makes the 239 so awesome and that there were 5 times as many Boomerangs made as 239's.  That the plane that is so super had a civilian engine and was not fit for military environment that Theoretically, is Estimated to or is Calculated to have 850hp has 1000hp 100% of the time.

Have you ever seen an engineer be right?  

That is all,

[Megalodon]

So the reference to DC-3 using wrights is not a good point to use since Wrights were removed from them at an early stage in the development of the DC-3 family.

That is the point 

[Widewing]

R-1820-82WA different engine with wep

The R-1820-82W does not have a WEP setting (nor water injection). It's rated at 1525 hp Takeoff, 1425 hp MIL power and 1275 hp Normal power, all based upon 115/145 avgas. Trust me... I've got almost 2,000 hours pushing these engines through the sky.

I'd still like to hang one on a Brewster... Should easily out climb a T-28 (typically 4,000+ fpm with 1425 hp).

[dirtdart]

I inject the points on being shot down by a brewster, as being the common ground as to why folks get into the "uberness of the Brewster".  I am sincerely curious about which HP rating we see in the game, because I think if it were the correct HP rating in the 800 range, then we would not see brewsters matching (not slowing down considerably, all things considered) 109Ks in initial climb, CO E. 

[Megalodon]

The R-1820-82W does not have a WEP setting (nor water injection). It's rated at 1525 hp Takeoff, 1425 hp MIL power and 1275 hp Normal power, all based upon 115/145 avgas. Trust me... I've got almost 2,000 hours pushing these engines through the sky.

I'd still like to hang one on a Brewster... Should easily out climb a T-28 (typically 4,000+ fpm with 1425 hp).

you are correct my mistake,

You would break your wings off <Poke your eye out> <G>

[Megalodon]

I inject the points on being shot down by a brewster, as being the common ground as to why folks get into the "uberness of the Brewster".  I am sincerely curious about which HP rating we see in the game, because I think if it were the correct HP rating in the 800 range, then we would not see brewsters matching (not slowing down considerably, all things considered) 109Ks in initial climb, CO E. 

 I agree with you

[Wmaker]

Mind showing the rest of the document? that has the engine # on it.

To be quite honest, I don't think I'll bother. If you would have started this thread with an open mind and with an honest desire to learn something I might. But since you decided to go on a personal crusade against me just because I don't happen to agree with you on something, I don't have much desire to lift a finger really. I've already told you that the table comes from Brewster Corp's Specification document for the B239 and you know that the B239 was equipped with R-1820G-5. So please, try to put two and two together.

BTW your info says calculated as well as estimated.

Yes it does. People on this forum who have very little about the engineering aspect that's behind these planes usually tread the word "calculated" and seem to automatically assume that it means that the numbers don't correspond to real life and they also automatically think that they are optimistic when they could just as well be lower than what the real plane is capable of. For example, during the development of VL Pyörremyrsky fighter, it was found that the prototype was faster than what the initial calculations showed. As far as Brewster goes, the performance was verified by test flying four different B239s from the Finnish order, three were assembled and test flow in the US and BW-366 was test flown in Finland. As can be seen from the table I posted, the speed with continuous power (850hp) is 265mph at sea level. BW-366 had a measured top speed of 266mph at sea level with the same power setting. At the super charger's second critical altitude a speed of 298,3mph was achieved with BW-366 while the calculated speed in the specification document listed as 301mph. So the measuren in-flight speed performance matched Brewster Corp's calculations excellently.

Source: Pilot's Viewpoint II by Jukka Raunio

Is our current brewster rated at 1000HP continuous or only 800HP continuous?  

It is 1000hp continuous as it should be given how HTC models the power settings for all planes. The fact that it's 1000hp can be verified by looking at the altitude where the climb rate starts to drop (3000ft), the same altitude is listed as the limit to which the 1000hp can be obtained in the document I posted.

I inject the points on being shot down by a brewster, as being the common ground as to why folks get into the "uberness of the Brewster".  I am sincerely curious about which HP rating we see in the game, because I think if it were the correct HP rating in the 800 range, then we would not see brewsters matching (not slowing down considerably, all things considered) 109Ks in initial climb, CO E.  

It isn't even remotely matching the intial climb rate of a K-4. Not in game, nor in real life. The reason why people get this idea is the climb rate of a .50cal projectile and the initial climb rate of that one greatly exceeds the initial climb rate of any plane in AH. The correct HP rating for the Brewster is 1000hp as I've already demonstrated.

[Wmaker]

This came about by WMaker talking down the Boomerang in the Boomerang thread. Basically saying that the Boomerang didn't belong in the game. His criteria for not including it in the game are, it must have shot down an enemy plane to be included, that it is not as good as the 239, and would be a waste of resources.  

The above is utterly untrue as anyone who reads the Boomerang thread can see.

Here's the link to the page: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321264.60.html

The whole thing started because I questioned the use of HTC's rescourses on something that saw little use compared to the true work horse aircraft like Pe-2 and Ki-43. Megalodon obviously take my opinion and set off on this silly crusade against me.

[dirtdart]

Wmaker, I know the ROC are no where near each other.  I am illustrating the illusion that many have.  The Brewster simply bleeds E slower than the K4.  It would bleed E faster if it had less HP.  That is all.   I will try to that with the brewster today and see what happens. <S>

Just tried it.  ROC of Brewster decreases by 300 FPM at 3000ft. 

[Karnak]

Sounds like both the F4F and Brewster could use a WEP setting for their 5 minute limited "MIL" setting.  After all, that is all that WEP on Merlin powered aircraft is, just under a different label.

[Wmaker]

Sounds like both the F4F and Brewster could use a WEP setting for their 5 minute limited "MIL" setting.  After all, that is all that WEP on Merlin powered aircraft is, just under a different label.

Well that brings a new problem to the table IMO. As most planes have time limitations with their lower power settings aswell. It would need more or less a total rework. I'm fine with any system as long as it is consistent towards all aircraft.

[Wmaker]

I am illustrating the illusion that many have.  The Brewster simply bleeds E slower than the K4.  It would bleed E faster if it had less HP.  That is all.

I personally avoid using the term E-Bleed generally as it is a bit vague but generally the better power loading and the less drag an aircraft has the less E it loses over time and can generate it back faster. On the area I'm sure that the K-4 has a considerable advantage. I think it has more to do with the fact that Brewster, when following a K-4 in its rear hemisphere can simply cut a corner and gain angles on the K-4 and the .50s reach a long way. If the K-4 simply insists on staying above the Brewster and is patient there isn't much the Brewster can do about it.