Turbo vs Supercharging in WW2 Airplanes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- I couldn't think of a good title for this video. It's about the road to turbosupercharging and comparisons with the multi stage mechancially driven superchargers typically used in US Navy fighters of the war.
This is a long and complex video, the first half or so is a little dry, but that background information is a part of the story.
If you are new to this channel, I suggest you watch some of my other videos first, unless you already have an understanding of manifold pressure, supercharger throttling and other technical details related to this subject. Here are two videos I suggest:
• Grumman Wildcat and FM-2
• P51 Mustang Manifold P...
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
Amid all the BS on the internet, Greg’s videos stand out like diamonds in a mud puddle. And very compact diamonds at that. Greg covers more material in 30 minutes that most internet videos could cover in 30 hours. Keep up the good work!
"Diamonds in a mud puddle"... That is brilliant, and so spot on. YOU are the gem Greg, thank you so much. I am an age pensioner and therefore cannot contribute a huge amount, but do you prefer Patreon or any other preference? I will cancel a couple of others that have had their turn!
😮😮😮t4😢 messes aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaæ serving g go
@@philipbougI’ve always heard the phrase “diamonds in shit” 😂
Fun fact: That big building in the foreground of the aerial photograph of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway? It's the Allison aircraft engine factory -- it's literally just across 16th street.
Oh, an Easter egg! I didn't even know it was there, cool.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles LLm
I'm not sure about that factory in the picture, one way or the other. I lived in Speedway (on 15th Street) and worked at Allison from 1980 to 1985. Allison Plant 1 was further down Main Street, which is in the lower left corner of the picture at 5:52 . When I lived there, the building occupying the space was a Union Carbide plant, but it wasn't the plant in the picture. Allison Plant 3 was down at the end of Main St, on 10th. That was a huge manufacturing plant. And about 10 miles away, close to the airport, was Allison Plant 5 that was even bigger. Plant 5 was one of those 6-week wonders that was built in 1942, where production started before the roof was even finished. Maybe that was Allison Plant 2 in the picture?
It actually came as a surprise to many engine designers that they gained power as they gained altitude with a turbo engine. All they wanted was to "equalise" the manifold pressure drop due to the lower air density, but didn't expect to actually get more power. I suspect some of those graphs were done after the testing revealed this and they finally understood what was happening.
50 times better than most contemporary TV documentaries! WW2 fighters are practically the pinnacle of evolution of propeller planes with big piston engines, and this documentary perfectly described so many interesting details about them, I loved it.
You’ve taught me I know nothing.
I count myself so lucky to have stumbled across your channel. I am learning so much that it is actually rather exciting. Huge thanks.
The youtube algorithm works, doesn't it
trevor: heartily agree!
This.
Yes I totally agree with you. He should giving lectures at a university he's that good to listen to. Totally opposite of boring!
I'd like to add my thumbs-up vote for these videos. Very informative, well-researched, and you have a good speaking voice. Keep up the good work, Greg!
(So good I clicked the Subscribe button for the first time in my life.)
I know I’m watching this 5 years late but I thought I’d just point out the auto brand I work for has been using electric supercharging successfully for a few years now. However, only within certain limitations. It’s on their highest performing cars and only acts as a super charger in high load low speed applications where the relatively large turbo isn’t doing much. In such an application, the electric supercharger will spin up within .5 seconds to max boost of 7 pounds for a max of 5 seconds. By this time the transmission has downshifted, the engine has spun up, and the big turbo is moving some serious air. At this point the electric supercharger is no longer needed and shuts down. This runs on a “48v” power system and actually works quite well. Unfortunately the reliability of the first gen 48v system was pretty bad for the first several years until the horrendous software and hardware issues were worked out. Fortunately the 2nd gen 48v system was much better and most of the electric superchargers were on the 2nd gen system. They just released an even newer system that deletes the electric supercharger altogether and moved to an electrified turbo charger. This means in low speed high load applications there’s a still 48v electric bolted to the turbo which can spin the turbo to high boost speeds even though the engine isn’t yet moving enough air. It works about as seamlessly as the electric supercharger, so it’s quite good. They claim that it can also function as an energy recovery system to recharge the 48v battery in certain applications. Love your technical videos, keep up the great work Greg!
I like the talk about any piston engines, but WW2 aircraft engines are the favourite. Love the work, like your style. Thank you
Some Internet Gold here.
Thanks Sheriff.
Ha ha youre here
Hey Sheriff. I enjoy your video's.
Sherriff i learnt dogfightimg from your vids
OK I admit it, I cried during this video. The first time Clostermann (Top French WW2 ace, most of them in Spitfire) saw a P-47 he thought they were useless (probably the first that landed in England...). But later he calls them Brutes. He didn't like Americans, but he was an aeronautical engineer, and was right, the Jug was a brute. It was designed that way, because at high altitude, the only thing that matters is power. Some aircraft could climb as high, but the P-47 could operate there.
A long lecture on supercharging of WW2 fighters? Just what I've been looking for since 1997.
That's an interesting thing to say. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, but I hope you liked the video, and watch more of my videos.
No sarcasm, the honest truth. All the books I could find at the library were insufficient
Thanks. The library doens't help much, but those NACA reports have a lot in them, and they are free downloads. If you have trouble deciphering them, you can always ask me, and I'll try to answer or if it's one a lot of people are curious about, I can work it into a video.
I would write a similiar comment. All this question I had thet I had to contempt with superflous answers. Great research work. Underaprecciated.
Simular .. it seams like the technological advanses in WWII.. and .. well actually mostly in the mid war period, was not fully realized to the public before... pretty much the 90-tys.
‘I may do a video on the Thunderbolt’. Nice foreshadowing and understatement.
It just shows how I didn't really have a solid plan. I certainly didn't think it would be an eight part series.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Epic, just epic!
First I was like: "What? Over 40 minutes?". But then time started flying.
One has to notice the picture of the Hispano Suiza engine, which shows how an engine mounted gun is fitted for being able to shoot through the propeller hub. 21:46
That's not a complete engine, as they were trying to display the central cannon.
The diesel engine in the Junkers 86 was also a two stroke in an inline configuration with opposing pistons and two crankshafts, a concept rarely used but still being refined and used today in specific applications often military. The plane was also used as a high altitude bomber until the allies adapted fighters for high altitude to be able to attack them.
The Dornier Do 217P 58000 ft ALL INLINE
Jesus, Greg, this is amazing work you've put up. I salute you, sir!
Hey, Greg! Just wanted to tell you how much I love your videos... thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks Thomas!
It is becoming more and more clear to me that the Thunderbolt was one hell of a fighter - -thanks for this post.
Just couldn't turn very well
A dinosaur with good proportions
with a cockpit big like a dance hall
@@davidvalter1936 It could turn just fine at high altitude. Later models (late model Ds and Ms) were faster than P-51s at altitude. At lower altitudes, they were not as maneuverable .
@@richardlahan7068 As long as you didn't need to fly too far!
As a car guy and WWII nerd, just wanna say this video was very enjoyable! I did have a couple of points though:
1) I realize this video is 6 years old, but electric superchargers are a thing now. Unfortunately though, they are almost always 48V systems since compressing air takes so much power, making them impractical for most ICE cars which run on 12V or rarely 24V systems. Anything which claims to be a sub 48V system is almost always a scam.
2) Probably wouldn’t have been used on WWII aircraft engines, but you seem to have missed the twin-screw supercharger. These are like the roots style but the two compressing rods have a corkscrew shape cut into them such that they intertwine. Instead of compressing air through the sides, twin screws compress air between the corkscrews and are more efficient and produce a hellava whine (just google “Hellcat Whine” lol - the car, not the naval fighter)
I didn't miss the twin screws. I have one on my 1985 Alfa Romeo Spider. However they have never been used on an aircraft and certainly not during the time period being discussed here.
Woah a 40 minute video? Christmas came early.
Anyone more that use this channel as relaxing background when working? #relaxing
This is the first of your videos I have watched, and I am very impressed by the level of knowledge and research. I had often wondered about turbo-superchargers, and why they were not more widely adopted during this period. Thanks so much for making these!
You have a gift sir. Easily understood even with a rudimentary background in engines. The time it must take you to
put one of these videos together so eloquently is only superseded by the quality of the end product I'm sure. Thank
you for caring immensely about what you consider a helpful and informative video for the rest of us!
AHHHHH P-47 i see you are a man of culture as well.
I get SO HYPE when you put up a new video! 45 minutes passes in what seems like 10 and I'm wishing there was an extra cut truly
That makes me happy. I was seriously worried I was making it too long with too much from NACA.
I give a thumbs up before the video even begins....
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles No not at all. A subject I have followed for many years. As far as interpreting the graphs you talk about,I do not think I would have picked up those points on my own.Cheers.
Please keep the WW2 aircraft content coming, every video made so far is an amazing watch. Looking forward to the P-47 specific video, and perhaps future in-depth videos pertaining to aircraft of non-US origin (I'm not complaining about US related content at all) keep up the great work!
Thanks. The P47 video has grown and is now coming in multiple parts. The next video will be the FW190.
Excellent, as usual, and especially for a non-engineer. My Dad flew F4U-4s during the last year of WW 2, but his combat tour in the Pacific was in summer/autumn 1944, in F6F-5s. Not as fast, not as sophisticated, but just as rugged (I have photos) as the P-47, and easily the most successful naval fighter aircraft of the war, so I'm waiting for a similarly thorough treatment (similar to the Wildcat and the Corsair) of the Hellcat.
I'll get to the Hellcat, it's an important fighter from a historical perspective.
Great video!!! Answered many questions I've always had. Thanks for taking the time to make this. Can't wait for all the future videos you hint at.
Love radial engines and thank you for your P-47 series my favorite WW II fighter.
Greg, thank you for this constant trickle of technical aviation videos (and the occasional very interesting car video)... You curate one of the most consistently interesting channels on the history of aviation, and I especially appreciate that you're going back to the primary sources where possible to provide the context and informed commentary along with it. Please keep it up!
Turbo supercharger developments eased the development of the turbojet.
Yes! John gets it.
I’m an old manual machinist, would have been awesome to make the prototypes of these turbochargers from prints to help help win the war. The technology from the 20s to the present is unbelievable on the aviation front. Thanks for the video.
Yeah, would have kept the allies away for longer.
I love wandering down the paths the various TH-cam videos expose you to.
The P-39 is just awesome. I am always amazed that I never heard of one for the first 40-odd years of my life, despite a resounding interest in aircraft.
The Rolls Royce Crecy sleeve valve “sprint” two stroke never got anywhere because the experienced engineers were 100% busy with Merlins & Griffons. But when it did run, the stroker turned out to be incredibly powerful AND very noisy. It cried out for a very big turbocharger to use all that exhaust energy. However RR had put little to no efforts into turbos. “Fortunately” for RR management, the turbo jet came on line faster than anyone expected. So the Crecy was cancelled.
I love the long detailed videos
Thanks. About 3/4 of the way through I started to think I should have made this one a lot shorter. I was worried that all the NACA stuff might be too much.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles no sir, please keep making videos the way you do. Your videos are unique and perfect for us fanatics. The huge in depth lectures you do are hugely interesting and totally unlike anything else on TH-cam. Keep up the great work, cheers!
the naca parts are pretty cool keep it up!
Wow, engineers must have breathed a sigh of relief when the comparatively simple jet engine came along. Just a couple of rows of blades, a compressor, and any old oil.....extra 100+ mph and could be built by labours in a shed !!!! (after resisting it, considering all their hard work on piston engines over the last 40 years) lol..........must of hurt!
It was a big leap forward. However in some applications the old piston engines still have the edge.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Which applications?
Rolls Royce with both Merlin and Griffon stuck with a two stage supercharger because their iterative design methods created a system which worked extremely well. Their blower was so good they used it on the Nene turbo jet used in many early jets.
I’m new to your channel I just want to say thank you!! It’s a breath of fresh air on the tube!! I have grown up around auto sport and I always look to aerospace for technology. I’m learning from WW2 aviation
Cant wait for that P-38 video, hands down my favourite WW2 aircraft. And as usual, a fantastic in-depth video. Always a pleasure to watch.
Love your channel, your research is very extensive and thorough. You must do a lot of time consuming searching for documents etc.
Stunningly informative as always. I have learned new things from this video, the details regarding Turbo's advantages over Superchargers is very illuminating in particular. As well as the pre-war swing back to Inline engines, I always thought aerodynamics were the primary culprit (although probably partial).
I look forward to the next Aeroplane video.
Nice vid. One thing I was interested to hear you NOT cover was the curious German experiment (and I think others might have tried it as well) of using a THIRD engine, not driving a prop at all, to drive the blowers for the other two. You take a weight penalty, of course, but those other two engines can then reach their theoretical maximum of output up to very high altitudes. IIRC this was considered an acceptable price to pay to get them out of the reasonable reach of interceptor fighters.
Some Do 217P had a pair of conventional DB603B engines and a central DB605T (which was turbocharged) to drive a compressor to supercharge the two main engines. Three prototypes wwere made and tested. Serivice celing was an impressive 53,000ft so the technqque worked. . It was mainly intended for phot reconisaance but could carry a small bomb load.
I always love your videos and the way you present them ! just "Geeking out" to this Tech talk : )
Great as always Sir.
A superb production; congratulations! Very informative and engaging, the work you do is outstanding. Thank you.
I appreciate you comments.
Hi Greg,
As an avid aviation enthusiast as well as a driven gearhead, these videos of yours are absolutely fantastic. Thank you for the effort you put into them and keep them coming.
At 29:12, you show the Jumo 207-D engine which, aside from being a diesel, is unusual for its opposed-piston design - six bored cylinders with a crank on top and a crank on bottom, and a total of twelve pistons in six pairs that oppose each other. Yes, this means two pistons sharing each cylinder! The crankshafts and their piston pairs were timed very closely to true opposition, but were just a little off to allow for air scavenging since it is a valveless ported two-stroke diesel. This is why forced induction is so important for this engine. We have similar engines about US nuclear submarines, but in the form of much larger Fairbanks-Morse units which have a roots blower driven by the upper crankshaft.
Yes! I saw the thumbnail and went nuts 👌
Another superb video Greg. Thanks! That Thud is a Beast.
That was an EXCELLENT video. Thank you for your hard work and time that went into it. I'm always excited to see you upload more aviation and engine videos. I enjoy hearing the summaries of the NACA reports and seeing their data as well as your own data points. I wonder what would have developed fighter wise as turbocharger packaging became more space efficient were it not for jet aircraft. I'm all sorts of excited for a P47 video (and maybe a P38 video?) I also enjoyed the long format video. Amazingly well done.
Some great videos. I love love love WWII engine tech stuff and it's really hard to find technical details about them. Appreciate you sharing the research you've done! Thanks! In depth techie stuff on the Jumo would be great!
All love to the Jug. Indeed an aircraft made for warfare not for showrooms and posters.
Fábio
I think you basically just quoted Kurt Tanks design doctrine for the 190. Which makes sense, admittedly, since they both made a departure from the standard fighter design dogma of the time
I love jugs too! ;)
Quite agree. The jug was a proper warbird.
@@zandvoort8616 Till they had to turn round and go back.
Rob Val, according to Greg they didn’t have to if they were allowed to use the belly tanks.
Great information and presentation once again Greg!
Regarding the aerodynamics of the P-47 and F4U, the majority of reliable sources that I can find for both aeroplanes gives the speed difference at 52" at sea level to be approximately 25 mph; 351 for the F4U (as you mentioned) and 325 for the P-47. This is consistent with their cruising ratings of 44" and 42" respectively (50 hp difference) where their respective speeds are 328 and 304. The difference isn't huge but is significant.
The Corsair reports are all over the place. However if you average them out and only use official tests of production planes the two are very close in speed at low altitude. For example in these two reports, the Corsair does 343@5900 (a bad spot for the Corsair) and the P47 353@5900. There is also a Jeff Ethell video somewhere in the comment section showing the two planes flying side by side and Ethell discusses this exact issue and comments that they are about the same at whatever manifold pressure he was running.
OH, those reports are: www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47B_41-5902_PHQ-M-19-1417-A.pdf and www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155-British.pdf The P47 one only goes down to 5000 feet, but I don't have time to dig up others, so I'll cover this in my next video, that is sea level speed of the P47.
Agreed, the Corsair reports are extremely messy with aircraft of various condition and loading tested in the same fashion as prototypes. The one you linked is quite a good one; I'd also recommend using the USN's ACP/SAC reports as those were used for operational planning and they match up near perfectly with pilot manuals.
Comparing the two aircraft at 5,900 ft is a case of unequal comparison as the P-47 is producing 2,000 hp here whilst the F4U (as you mentioned) in it's lower blower gear is only making 1,760 hp (the power chart in the linked F4U report isn't entirely accurate). Additionally, the P-47's performance is slightly on the optimistic side as it isn't fully loaded to operational condition and is ballasted with a rearward biased CGI, giving it a better flight attitude at high speed than standard. Regardless, if the speed is extrapolated to sea level to compare with the F4U's performance where both engines are pulling 2,000 hp, the P-47 from that same report is running at approximately 330 mph.
Anecdotal evidence is always fascinating but also requires consideration with a grain of salt. Warbirds nowadays are never loaded to their wartime conditions and it is impossible to properly compare air frames and engines which have so many hours behind them compared to production specification.
All things considered, it is rather marvellous how two aircraft of completely different design specifications but identical powerplant managed such high performance, a testament to how well both Republic and Chance-Vought did to squeeze the most out of their respective aeroplanes. It is also very interesting to compare Grumman's Hellcat which understandably lacked the performance edge of its cousins but made up for it in other areas.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. The problem is that there are no two perfect reports for comparison, and yes, the planes flying today are often totally different. They remove the armor and weapons, run different fuel, and in the case of the 47, usually remove the turbo! I do my best to distill the information down to something manageable, but in the case of a specific airplane's speed at a certain altitude, there will always be room for debate, at least with WW2 planes. My overall point here was that the F4U1 and P47B run at very similar speeds from sea level to 20,000 feet with the advantage see sawing back and forth a bit until the 47's turbo gives it too much of an advantage to for the Corsair to overcome.
The Brits had the superchargers removed from their P-38s, which I always thought was somewhat stupid, but maybe you've supplied an answer as to why. However, I think the real answer is that it really was pretty stupid and indicative of British arms procurement. The P-51 and some Spits used the Meredith effect through their radiators, which as far as I'm aware was never successfully applied to a radial engine, although attempted. Nothing to do with supercharging, but I'd thought I'd throw that in as an example of how attempts to use physics to best advantage, were made.
Almost everybody was using the Merideith effect, The British, Americans, Germans, Soviets, and I'm pretty sure the Italians and Japanese. For some reason people think it was unique to the P51, but the Hurricane had it way earlier. I'll cover the British P-38s another time, but yes, removing the turbosuperchargers ruined the planes.
A fascinating and informative video - thank you!
P-38 and P-47 videos! Please!
I hear you loud and clear Mitko, and am impressed by your model building.
Ta-152, Fw190 and Me-262 videos! Please!
The next German plane really has to be the 190A series. I have to cover that before the D9 and TA152. Although I do seriously look forward to covering the TA152.
Wow, I don't have words to express how great is this video. Yes please , P-38, P-47, Fw-190A and Dora 9, TA-152 and Me-262, I want them all. Greetings and thanks from Spain.
Greg, THANKING YOU VERY MUCH! (Caps on!)...let me buy you a coffee sometime...better still set yourself up a patreon page. Oh, I know your subject material is very 'niche' however, you'll attract your share of loyal devotees.
Very interesting, My first thought was that, Early exhaust driven turbo's were never gonna be as beneficial as the early superchargers (crank driven compressors) especially in a car, Simply because the compression was too mild in those early days. I live, I learn:)
Klimov, not Kilmov.
It is "Kee" 87 as Ki is a Latinization of a Katakana character for a phonetic syllable pronounced "ki" or "kee" which was an abbreviation of "Kitai" which means "aircraft". Didn't some Japanese aircraft use turbosuperchargers salvages from downed B-29s?
Great video, really explained the topic very well.
Thanks.
The P-47 was my favorite aircraft when I was little (and probably still is, especially the razorback variants), really looking forward to a video of yours on it. :D
Great video! Nice poem, the Thunderbolt was the Frank Buck of warplanes it brought ‘em back alive. Still I hope you find time to do P 38 & 47 videos.
Even with pistons hanging out
Turbosuperchaging... how nice to hear what something is REALLY called
Greg reduplicates my highschool year teacher's while keeping my attention and interest they could not. If my guidance counselor could see me now 😃🤣
Wade, that was a failure on the part of the education system. I had the same problem in school. The schools way of dealing with this was to blame the student.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes sir they would blame us and now adays they say it's A.D.D or a learning disability so they hop them all on pills instead of just getting them use to dealing with things that don't interest them as most of their life will incorporate this. Anyways love you channel and your wealth of knowledge, presentation and overall affinity for planes shines through. I definitely hope you don't stop making these and I was wondering would you ever consider maybe breaking down each servicemen's for lack of s better word job. Like one about the ball turret Gunner and what his flight would consist of.. Amount of rounds? Bullet proof glass? What was being fired at him. Heck you could make a whole episode about flak and how this is used and 2 what effect. I just think you do a great job really talking about all the little things that most narrators gloss over. Maybe some mini episodes. I'm sure your a busy man but run that through your brain butter and see if you that minght be something you could fancy...😃. I'm definitely a ww2 junkie and I'm all about the things you talk about which are the what's and how's of war. Appreciate the episodes have a great day.
My grandfather passed away in the 1970s. He worked all his life at Buick in Engineering. His father was Chief Chassis Engineer when the Buick company was first formed. I remember my Grandpa telling me that turbos were something that Buick really wanted to use but up until the 1950s they just didn't have the metals to resist the high temperatures for any period of time. This was less of an issue in aircraft because they had a much cooler and faster airflow to assist in cooling them but even then they did not have a long enough life to be practical in an auto engine. Superchargers where chosen in the early days because they were well-known and presented far less development costs that turbos did.
The Navy didn't use turbocharged engine aircraft because their missions didn't require the high altitude performance that the Army did in the ETO.
I am very happy to know that your channel is here - you're like the uncle that knows all the details of tech and engineering that caused different design details on all those famous warbirds, which made history. Your videos help bring the stories to life by explaining why many of the details are important, and why those details made a difference. Please keep up the great work!
Interesting Vid, I appreciate the inclusion of NACA documents; elevates your work from just opinion pieces.
You might have mentioned the "need" for at least a single stage of gear driven supercharging to ensure these large engine had proper intake mixtures. Many aviation engines "mostly inlines" had badly compromised intake paths that led to uneven cylinder mixtures. Having the carb pre supercharger allowed a compressed fuel/air mixture to be dispersed more evenly. German usage of fuel injection mitigated much of this.
You might consider the last gasp of piston engine/turbo/supercharger development to be the P&W of the B-36 C. It was going to use the R-4360-51VDT that essentially used compressed exhaust gasses as additional thrust by adding new fuel/air to the compressed and accelerated flow. VDT was also intended for the 'Rainbow' and a B-50 variant.
You mentioned the lack of German Turbo usage in WW2, Im sure I read something recently about them using some form of axial flow turbochargers, But i cant find my source. It might have been in relation to aviation engines in LSR cars.
Oh well I have pedantic enough for one day. Good work and many thanks.
Thanks Donald. I try to include NACA stuff, but of course I have to maintain a balance with other things. My next video is pretty heavy on NACA info. The B36 is a long way off on this channel, I haven't really even got to the B17 yet.
Donald, I rarely read of comments such as yours, and so thought of the following. I recall reading and will paraphrase a conversation between a German and an American aircraft engineer. The German said that direct injection made sure of even fuel allocation to the cylinders. The American replied "what about even air flow to the cylinders."
Gotta love The Juggernaut. It was a battle axe in the company of rapiers such as the Spitfire, Mustang, ME-109, A6M Zero. It could absorb amazing punishment and still get a pilot safely home. Not to mention the enormous punishment it could deliver with 8 Browning M-2 "Ma Deuce" .50 cals. Thanks for another great presentation. These lectures are not only very informative, they're always a pleasure to watch.
Just re-watched this and realized it was the precursor to your P-47 series - awesome. This bird needs more love, but perhaps I'm biased operating the only single-engined aircraft of WWII that was heavier LOL. Loveeee the 'bolt. If you could throw me the "keys" to any fighter in WWII, I'd take the bubble 47 100% of the time.
Hi Alex, yes, this video is a prequel to the P-47 series.
My Dad 2-15-1921 to 3-7-2019 spent most of his time in WWII as a C47 Hump Pilot, often mentioned B17s, B29s, P38s, "Zeros" vs P47s, F2G-1 "Super" Corsair, German Tanks, Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4. He was glade the Germans ran outta Gas and of course We watched Baa Baa Black Sheep a lot on what was then called TV. P47 is our favorite too :) ...Thank you for this!
The waste gate regulates turbo boost. The supercharger will always be on a fixed ratio. As air pressure thins the waste gate will allow the turbo to spin faster allowing for boost to be maintained up to a certain point until a turbo just can’t push more efficiently. Turbos are less effected by altitude vs a supercharger. All depends on the compressor map for any unit.
Hi Steve. Because of the way youtube sends me comments, I can't tell if this is a response to the video itself, or another comment. The gear driven supercharger can maintain boost up to a certain point via one of two commonly used methods, throttling, or a variable drive system. In other words, both the turbo, and the supercharger can maintain a given level of boost as the aircraft climbs as explained in the video.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles More of a open ended comment I suppose.
Youre an engine god
Wow, thank you.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles because of you, I focused much more on the internal modules and the aerodynamics of all the planes I’ve always studied, and it’s making me go deeper into every aspect, doing God’s work.
The B-24 was so complex and critical to fly with super high wing loading there were a lot of dangerous things to warn the pilot not to do
I want to thank you for the documentation you provided. I am a retired Army senior officer the saying that you either continue to learn or fade into oblivion. Your research is the best. Thanks
You do a Great Job ,Mr Greg. Excuse Me, for So Many comments, but it Would be FUN to Fly w/ You. I Must get a New Puter... TailWinds Dude!!!
THE BEST Channel EVER in terms of realistic historic warbirds
I know a lot of auto mechanics who think turbos are "free" output.
I really like this. It's good to find a source of real, good information about aircraft on TH-cam instead of the usual opinionated, misinformed and just plain wrong drivel on so many other channels.
I have read that the practical issue regarding the V-1710 and P-40 was that since there was a shortage of tungsten for turbochargers, that turbos were therefore reserved for bombers and all the Allison powered fighters got centrifugal blowers. The advantage the Merlin had in fighters even though a slightly smaller engine was that Rolls-Royce at the time was probably the highest technical group on the planet regarding efficient mechanical blowers. I also read that the designer of the P-40 maintained till he died that if the P-40 had been given the engine he designed it for, a Turbocharged V-1710, it would have been the best fighter of the war. Given what was done post war with the V-1710 and it's more robust lower end in air racing there may be validity to that idea. I don't know the truth to all of this but looking at design images of the two engines, I tend to believe him. Enjoyed the video.
Tungsten? or titanium? Titanium weighs 75% less than tungsten. Tungsten is ridiculously heavy, there's no need to put it on an airplane unless you needed its concentrated weight. Titanium's heat resistance (melts at 3000 F) is plenty for turbocharger applications, there's no need to go crazy and use tungsten (MP 6000 F)
Tungsten, as used in nickel-chromium-tungsten alloy steel for heat durability in turbochargers. There were apparently acquisition difficulties for tungsten. I believe at the time the best known sources for tungsten were Austria, Spain, Portugal, and I think the Congo. There were probably sources in the Far East too since the Japanese used nickel-chromium-tungsten steel in some of their turbos, but the proximity to war theaters would obviously hinder mining and smelting operations. Given limited sourcing, some requirement was bound to lose out and since "bomb Germany" was strategy one, engines like the V-1710 lost out since no bombers were designed around it. Since at the time Rolls-Royce was probably the worlds premier repository of efficient centrifugal blower design, I'd have had Hap Arnold tell them to spill the data or we go fight Japanese first.
We went to North American and asked them to build us P40's. Their answer was no, we can do better than that, and they did. If you are going to allow one designer his wish list, you'd better allow them all. Would'a, could'a, should'a don't mean squat.
@@jamesoliver6625 Sod that. We gave you too much for bugger-all as it was! :-)
As a young man working as a heavy equipment mechanic, I worked on some big ore haulers that were powered by big v16 diesel engines. They were turbo charged, intercooled and supercharged. Four exhaust driven turbo chargers pushed air into an intercooler and then the cooled air went through the belt driven supercharger which rammed the air into the cylinders. Those engines were rated at about 2200 horsies.
There is some impressive tech in the Diesel powered heavy machinery world. Thanks for your comment.
I'd like to know more about throddling losses in sentrifickle turbans. 😉
Excellent video as always! I do hope you get to the touch on the 190 series of planes in the future, the D9 is a absolute favorite.
The yellow #10 D-13 and the D-9 are the sexiest and meanest of the 190s. Just came along too little too late.
Up to a couple of years ago nobody would answer my question "how do airplanes get enough oxygen at altitude?" and INSTEAD of treating me like a dumbshite he replied to my question and a zillion pieces fell together. Ohhhhhhhhh, turbos, my mind is blown...
at 28:35: Someone might have mentioned this already, since I didn't read thru all the comments, but one very interesting german project was Blohm & Voss BV 155, which was one of the late war prototypes in 1945. And, as you said, it wasn't a combat aircraft, just a couple of prototypes were built and one flown before the end of the war. But it had both the supercharger and intercooled turbocharger. At least The Monogram has published a very good book on that one. It was supposed to be a extreme high altitude fighter(go higher than Ta-152), which it would have done, had the project started earlier.
Things said the most during this video: "That's a story for another time." "An entire video could be done on this subject." "We'll get back to that later." and "Let's move on."
And that's why I will never run out of content. I have to cut myself short all the time, and the are still really long by youtube standards.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Keep at it, I'm a bookworm first and foremost, but I can sit there like a sponge absorbing all this great content you put out.
One of the few TH-cam channels where the comments are typically worthwhile... In any case Professor Greg, could you discuss the pilot work load with both configurations, i.e. Thunderbolt vs Corsair. I’ve read many histories by pilots and don’t ever recall hearing them discuss this, beyond Col. Tibbets mentioning how the poor throttle settings on the B-17 could get the turbos surging (whatever that means).
For a future video could you discuss the armaments of fighters. Why the British stuck to .30 then jumped to 20 mm canon while the US stayed with .50 during the war and even in the F-86. I am learning a lot from you.
I will cover that in a future P-47 episode.
These are great videos, thank you. I’ve always wondered about just this issue.
If my vote counts, I’d love to see a P-47 video.
It counts, and that's happening.
That's fantastic, thank you!
Fantastic video, as always, Greg!
The only thing I am struggling to understand is why supercharged engines suffer more from throttling than turbo ones.
I tried to look it up but couldn't find it.
Apologies if it's a silly question.
Keep up the good work!
Throttling is a physical blockage. Pinch a straw shut and it's harder to suck through, or blow through. Turbo's don't need to close a throttle to reduce boost, they can run with the throttle fully open and regulate boost via turbocharger shaft speed.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you very much!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles "regulate boost via turbocharger shaft speed." by this, do you mean using a waste gate to reduce exhaust flow into the turbo?
The jugs are always a favorite of mine, a clear example of how you can afford to have less than ideal aerodynamics if you have a monstrous engine.
Yes, but I do want to stress that the Jug's wing was actually really aerodynamic at the time the plane came out, thus drag wasn't that bad.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes that's why I used less than ideal rather than just bad. On a similar issue, people often believe a radial engine have a horrible drag compared to liquid cooled one when the difference is often less than what people expect.
The radials eventually won out over the V-Types. I'll talk more about that soon.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I'm interested in hearing how you draw that conclusion. You will probably convince me, but for now I honestly don't see many radials these days down at the airport.
@@jaredneaves7007 I cannot comment on how the radials won, however I can point out that almost all propeller aircraft nowadays are turbo props. Meaning the propeller is driven by a gas turbine. This might be the reason you mistaken them as liquid cooled piston engines. Piston engines are de facto dead on modern propeller aircrafts.
yes i have been a fan of the Jug all my life and after i read The thunderbolt book I suspected there was a lie about the fighter escort range in the ETO. The second to last picture in your video wow how did that pilot land that ship covered in oil? I am also a fan of the corsair The prototype aircraft made a emergency landing at a golf course in Norwich CT which is my home town its nice to know which fighter was King and why Very kool channel
There was a brass bias since the top hats in US military aviation were all sure the bomber box was the way to fly. With proper fuel loads, i.e. drop tanks, the 47s and 38s both" could" fly to Berlin if need be. Look at the 38s in the Pacific theater. I guess if that had been allowed, then we wouldn't have the "life saver P-51". It wouldn't be needed. Think the American brass wanted the right to mfr the Merlin. Could Packard build an engine or wo
To be honest, mine was and still is the 40s and 39s. Always wanted to read an obscure paper on their performance with a P-38 setup. Shoulda coulda woulda
I think you have us geared up for the P47 video.
Excellent video!
Thanks!
Wow Greg, thank you so much for this educational video! I've been wondering for years now what people like my grandfather and father was talking all about around the dinner table at night! Growing up, all I ever heard was the wonderful 2 and 3 stage superchargers of the old piston plane kicking ass in WWII. Then there was the confusion of turbochargers mixed together with superchargers all working on different levels of altitude from ground level to dog fights! I say this about cars from the 1920-30s you had to be an engineer just to go for a drive in those old things! It's amazing the amount of technology gains between the 30s into the 40s though. Shit they even have a primitive auto pilot system in the B-17s which was absolutely unheard of for those days. I understand now the importance of the explosives kept on board some aircraft to prevent them from falling into enemy hands intact. Especially parts like the Nordon bomb sight, with the description in the hand book of how to destroy it with your .45 cal side arm. But really I thank you so very much for doing this video! It maybe a little dry for some to endure, but I found it very very fascinating. I can't wait to go through your other videos, we need this history preserved being the Greatest Generation is now all but dying off and with them the loss of so much knowledge of these aircraft and engines!
The number of times I've had people try to tell me that turbo's aren't superchargers is ridiculous.
Even other mechanics are ignorant.
I've run into that myself.
Keep it coming Greg. Analog technology is very neat - you can even understand it. And hats off to the people that created better planes and cars through say 1960. I wouldn't dismiss the great improvements in efficiency and safety in the last sixty years (and certainly not the power of "smart weapons") - but in a functional sense, how much better is a Boeing Dreamliner than a 707? The 707 flew nearly 60 years ago - sixty years before the 707 there weren't airplanes. Think about something like the Ford Cobra or the mid-60s Ferraris - how much neater is a modern super car? How much more practical is a 2018 Civic over a 1963 Dodge Dart?
I spend the summer in St. Paul. Every June there's a "Back to the 50s" festival where auto enthusiasts bring their cherry stock or elaborately modified rides from the 50s & 60s. (Some MGAs and Austin Healys show up too - my old honeys.) Guys of my generation (and even a lot of the gals that were touched by the car culture) can spend an hour or two identifying year and make. (I've got Chevys down pat: some of the mid-50s Fords fool me.) Can you imagine that happening two generations from now? "Look grandpa - a 2014 Civic!"
ASAIKThey fitted the turbo at a 90 degree angle because of compact form and shorter airflow. Can't remember if the 90° angle the air has to take was the better, smaller angle solution or worse, extra angle.
Greg, Could you shed some light on the both the Ventura and Hudson medium bombers of WW2? They look like an American B25 or similar so I think they were renamed American planes. They were apparently very effective in the right conditions but still could not outpace German fighters. Devastating low level rockets and small arms attacks were among their strong suits it seems but you don't hear much about them. Great site!
P-39 airacobra is a badass plane, turbo or no :)
I remember Kelly Johnson saying in his autobiography "Kelly", That the P-38's layout never seemed odd in the slightest to him. When he took the engines, cooling systems, turbo ducting, and supercharger boost ducting and lined them up in an aerodynamic way, it nearly stretched to the tail. So they just added a few feet of fuselage behind the assembly, and put the tail boom between them.
Very uneconomical when they could have approached the Brits to give them 2 stage 2 speed Super chargers
This video clears up some issues as to why the V1710 underperformed in the single engine fighter, why was it never fitted with a two stage mechanical supercharger in time to be competitive with the Merlin?
Great question Ted. Eventually they did set up a two stage system, but at that point never had a plane that was well set up for it. It was also a remote system and was bulky, but it worked and gave the P63 1800hp at high altitude.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles There is so much in this video to think about, you note the republic rainbow as the pinnacle of turbo-supercharged development. Would love to hear more about the R-4360, the VDT variant looks particularly interesting. Every time I walk around the B-36 on display at Wright-Patt I am in complete awe...