The early Allison V1710s, as installed in the Curtiss P40, Bell P39 and the
original P51A, were single stage supercharged. Their critical altitude was in
the neighborhood of 14,500 ft. After which their performance fell off
rapidly. The Lockheed P38 Lightening had turbocharged V1710s that had
excellent high altitude performance.
But... Hotroders in both the USAAF and the Australian Air Force changed the
supercharger gear ratios in the field on their P40 aircraft to give 71 to 73
inches of manifold pressure at low altitudes. This boosted the nominal 1100hp
V1710 to over 1600hp! I have copies of Allison documents detailing this
practice. The factory boys were not happy at all, but in the field, you do
what you have to to survive.
Also, late in WW2 130/150 octane avgas became available and allowed the V1650
Merlin in the P51 and Spitfire to run at 72 inches manifold.
Terry Stetler
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Porter<mailto:portermd@zianet.com>
To: SHANE Ingate<mailto:hottr6@hotmail.com>
Cc: BillB@bnj.com<mailto:BillB@bnj.com> ;
tlizzard@msn.com<mailto:tlizzard@msn.com> ;
fot@autox.team.net<mailto:fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Fot] Header primary lengths
SHANE Ingate wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Supercharged piston engine aircraft had short pipes for the same
>> reason that drag motors do--to get the exhaust gases out of the way
>> as fast as possible. they weren't looking for a few inches of vacuum
>> at the exhaust port to help scavenge the engine. some supercharged
>> motors have exhaust pressures in excess of 500 psi, whereas
>> conventional engines might reach 70 psi at the valve and average 10
>> psi in the pipe.
>
>
> Bill, I beg to disagree. Super/turbo/super-turbocharging on military
> aircraft was to help them operate at their ceilings. There is not a
> lot of
> air at 35,000 feet and even with boost, they never performed as well
> as at sea-level. I think it was Michael who suggested that weight
> was the reason for the short exhaust stacks, but I do not buy into that
> 100%. If longer primaries bought more hp, then the extra weight of long
> primaries would be easily compensated for. Remember, these motors
> (including the water-cooled vees of Merlin and Allison) were only turning
> 2,500 rpm at fast cruise. Propellor blade design was a much greater
> factor in determining 1940s performance than primary length.
>
Yeah, quite true. But, the Merlin engines, at least, were operating with
a helluva lot of boost. Earlier versions of the Merlin were rated at
60" Hg above atmospheric. When they wanted more power late in the war,
they just upped the boost (in fact, the 622 series used on commercial
aircraft after the war was, I believe, producing even more power than in
Spitfires and Hurricanes--those mostly used the V1650-7, rated at max.
60" Hg, while the V-1650-9 and later engines were limited at 66" Hg, I
think). Sort of like drag cars--want more power, just crank up the
boost regulation, so the stack length could be kept short--pipe tuning
just wasn't necessary.
As for high/low altitude performance, that's kind of true, but is
case-specific. The Allison 1710 had some problems with high-altitude
performance early on, which I think was related to the turbocharger
characteristics. The Merlin, however, used a crank-driven, two-stage
supercharger, and was barometrically-compensated, so the engine could
not obtain full boost at low altitude. I've forgotten the exact
altitude, but at around 20-25,000 ft., the first-stage boost was shunted
to the second stage in series, which, practically speaking, gave the
engine equal or better performance at altitude.
Cheers.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking
distance....
_______________________________________________
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|