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!
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.
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?
@@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 .
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.
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’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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The best in depth WWII aircraft channel! The fact that you like performance automobiles is just gravy. I think that’s how a lot of us got into one or the other because of so much of automobile performance is just trickle down aircraft tech anyway. Great channel!
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.
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.
A co-worker of mine was a retired crew-chief from the USAF who had experience with the C-97 and other "recip's" in the cargo inventory in the Cold War era. He related times when he needed to keep all of the engines in "High-Blower" while landing and departing from some of the remote fields in Indo-China. It was a remarkable insight into one of the facets of the war in South-East Asia my father fought- A snapshot of people doing what they'd been trained to do......................
I've always loved the "Jug" and everything you've been saying about it in your videos has just cemented that feeling. Thanks so much for sharing Greg I just love your stuff and I especially love the poem.
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!
----- I DO LOVE to learn new things... The one thing I picked up from this video was that the famed Russian Klimov in-line powerplants that served the YAK line of successful fighters were developed from a Spanish engine design... Never knew that, and it's a cool thing... But this was a real fascinating video, indeed--and I don't know diddly-squat about aircraft engineering... Only a few basics... Also informative was the bit on the Curtiss P-37 fighter that never got into service--why it had the 'long-nosed' profile and the cockpit was set so far back (supercharger), just like on the 'Gee-Bee' racer of the 'thirties...I always wondered why the numerous Allison engines weren't given supercharging other than in the P-38 Lightning... Great stuff about the Bell P-39, the Hellcat & Corsair, too... Thanks for this great information...
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
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.
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.
I'm not sure if you have read much on the turbo charger development done on the BMW 801: "As just one result of the highest level of priority given to the successful 801 design's further development, a number of attempts were made to use turbochargers on the BMW 801 series as well. The first used a modified BMW 801D to create the BMW 801J, delivering 1,810 PS (1,785 hp, 1,331 kW) at takeoff and 1,500 hp (1,103 kW) at 12,200 m (40,000 ft), an altitude where the D was struggling to produce 630 hp (463 kW). The BMW 801E was likewise modified to create the BMW 801Q, delivering a superb 1,715 hp (1,261 kW) at 12,200 m (40,000 ft), power ratings no existing Allied radial engine of a similar displacement could match. The turbocharger was fitted to the top rear of the engine at a 30° forward tilt, and had hollow turbine blades. Not many of these engines ever entered production due to high costs, and the various high-altitude designs based on them were forced to turn to other engines, typically the Junkers Jumo 213."
notsureyou Thanks for your informative and detailed reply. German ingenuity in technology was not necessarily realized in the field of producing consumer goods.
Great channel. Thank you. There are several hybrid electric/exhaust turbine driven turbochargers under development by major manufacturers including BMW. Benefits include reducing turbo lag by driving the compressor stage electrically to compensate.
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!
“They were both about equal till 20,000’” - yeah, with the same engine, except the Thunderbolt had 8x .50 cal guns and twice the armor lol. I love re-visiting your P-47 series (I guess this even pre-dates that) - I honestly believe it’s become a phenomenon in the WWII aviation community (not just online, but for those of us who work on warbirds) - who could have known back when this was made? Great job - I kinda feel like you’ve resurrected the legacy of a plane that ALWAYS deserved more, but was constantly overshadowed by “sexier” planes that came to fruition far later in the war.
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
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.
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.
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!
Really excellent stuff, thank you. I have been studying the Merlin verses the DB601 and later derivatives. The main differences seem to be in approach, the Germans had some fantastic ideas like the liquid drive for the supercharger, the direct fuel injection and the inverted vee layout, but were hamstrung for materials and decent fuel. Rolls Royce stuck with what they knew and perfected it.
Excellent video! You covered a lot of information and evolution of turbochargers and superchargers without getting deeply mired down too in specifics. Keep up the efforts and I'm glad I found your channel!
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).
Having just watched #7 Firepower and still in lock down this seems like a good day to rewatch the entire playlist. Good job on discussing numerous design tradeoff aspects. Even if not building a plane the way designs trade getting this but losing that is just as relevant today.
Wow! I built all these aircraft as models as a kid in the '70's. I went on to maintain Tomcats and Hornets in the Navy. But I never really considered them from a performance perspective. All I cared about was ease of maintenance or cool factor. Very informative. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
I loved your analysis of forced induction aero engines. My Dad was a pre and post WW11 aero engineer and I was an Airforce pilot flying Supercharged radials. For the first time with your video I have found a realistic analysis of aircraft without emotion (apart from the usual aviator enthusiasm) and without pushing a particular POV.Many thanks.You, as a Yank, have an american view but that is fine. I will look for your video on the P51 (esp the Packard Merlin version). Aerodynamics (innovations) in my opinion also have a great role in aeroplane design. I note that the Spitfire wing, being so thin had by accident a very high mach number although a very expensive 'plane to make compared with the Hurricane. Still, I am only an ex pilot, not an engineer but I respect engineers. I also comment that the carbed Spit had limited inverted (negative g) performance compared with the injected 109s. (having flown a carbed ww11 aeroplane I can attest to the limited negative G issue, not that negative g is pleasant having done one neg G loop)
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.
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
You had me liking this video the moment you said "turbo-supercharger." It still amazes me how many don't understand that the term "supercharge" means what it says: to increase the charge in the cylinder beyond what could normally be attained. Everything else references the means of powering the compressor, whether it be a turbo/turbine, toothed belt, gear drive, direct drive, etc. - even if they aren't always stated in vernacular usage. (And yep, that means electric turbochargers can't exist - it's just an electric motor that could theoretically be attached to any style of supercharger, whether it be Rootes, centrifugal, etc.) Great video. Love the details for all us enginerds. :-)
This video dose not mention Sir Stanley Hooker the best super charger designer in the world eg p51 and modern jet engines built under licence in the us and harier and RB211
@@brucemcgeehan2847 Do you want a 4 hour or a 40 minute video? :-) Sir Stanley wouldn't mind; his autobiography is titled "Not Much of an Engineer". Modest chap!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles : Hi, Greg. Great videos. Good level of detail and fine presentation. I think the term "supercharger" originally meant "mechanically driven forced induction" because that's the only kind there was. Gas turbines are really hard to make, primarily from a material science standpoint. When good refractory metals, high-temperature lubricants and cooling techniques came along, it became necessary to distinguish between the two types. Thus "turbo-supercharger". It's a little clumsy having to use "supercharger" as both a general and a specific term. I've read a few articles in which the author refers to the mechanical types as "blowers" and the exhaust-driven variety as "turbos". Completely unambiguous, I think, and somehow more satisfying.
Great topic Greg! I've always wondered about the difference between these two. There's a wonderful article back in the now defunct "Wings" magazine, from around the year 2000 titled "The Art of Supercharging" that is very good too.
Another excellent video! I had not realized that the Corsair and the Jug shared basic engines, with different ways to boost them. That made for a great comparison of boosting types. Thanks again, and keep the videos coming!!
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.
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.
Great detail on an interesting topic. The turbo's advantage of not linking the vane's speed to the engine's crankshaft speed, is primarily realized because the vane speed is essentially governed by the back-pressure of the air it has compressed. So, if the ambient air pressure is low, the vanes spin at a faster speed until sufficient back-pressure imposes its limit.
Question: when mentioning throttling a geared supercharger, are you referring to the throttle within the pressure carb, or is there a butterfly valve that limits air entering the sc impeller? Also, I guess I don’t understand why superchargers ‘hate’ being throttled, could you touch on that or refer me to a presentation that explains that? Edit/add - I think after reading the text from the NACA document you used to present fig4 and 6 graphs (along w your explanations), I’ve a better grasp. Stil…
In a WW2 warplane engine the "carb" or whatever is being used is located upstream of the gear driven supercharger. Thus the butterfly valves on the carb itself restrict air going into the supercharger. Don't open them all the way, and you get less boost. It's really that simple.
@@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.
@@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.
Thanks I didn't think I would hang on for the full 42 min. but it was very informative. Now I truly understand why the P-47 was so big, I just visited the RAF Museum outside of London and the P-47 on display is fantastic. The RAF flew them in Burma as a replacement for the Hurricane in 1944. Keep up the great work.
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!
For those that are really into supercharging and turbocharging, I highly recommend the books "Supercharged! Design Testing and Installation of Supercharger Systems" and "Maximum Boost Designing Testing and Installing Turbocharger Systems" - both by Corky Bell. These are geared toward cars but also do a great job of explaining the concepts of how these systems work. I spent a lot of years in the modified GM 3800 community, mostly with supercharged (or turbocharged) versions of the L67 and L32. Fun "engineering" sidebar, I was the first to come up with the idea to drill into the lower part of the side of supercharger to run a line over to the valve cover, maintaining positive crankcase ventilation with an intercooler installed. Prior to that (and even now) most people just ran valve cover breathers, which is less than ideal. Also Eaton's TVS line of roots superchargers are very impressive with efficiency - but the drawbacks on aviation applications you mention would still clearly apply.
Those are good books, although I think mine is better ;) which is in the Patreon section and on Amazon. In regards to running CCV into the supercharger, why not just run it into the supercharger's inlet area just aft of the throttle? Or maybe that's what you are doing, I might be misunderstanding you. The TVS and latest Lysholms are very efficient. I have comparative charts for them along with the older 4th gen Roots types in my book.
True Confession: I have been a WWII warbird fanatic since the late 1950s. It occurred to me, in 2020, that there is less oxygen at high altitude so how do the airplanes compensate? and I asked Greg who, I imagine, in the middle of a turbosupercharging video saw my question, rolled his eyes and said the obvious, without sarcasm. Learning!
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!"
Your channel remains outstanding, Greg. I thoroughly enjoyed this longer format presentation. Yours is the most satiating channel I've discovered this year, your content bears a certain fullness. It's nice to know that all of the older folk with an appreciation for hand drawn diagrams, thick charts, and ancient technical studies haven't yet bit it, especially in light of the superficial engineering channel trend. Will you consider exploring further your curiosities for the logical evolution of the turbocharger; deleting the piston nonsense entirely and locating the combustion chamber between the compressor and turbine? I spent the formative years of my early career with the J79 and Allison 250, both items I'd love to see technical documents for again.
Thanks. I use the old drawings from NACA for two reasons. First they are original source materiel, second, my computer skills are limited, so I can't make fancy graphics. You correct about the relationship between the turbocharged piston engine and the turbine engine. If you add enough stages of supercharging, pretty soon, you don't need pistons, just add a turbine and some burner cans. That's over simplifying of course, but you get it.
You’ve taught me I know nothing.
‘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!
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 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!
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.
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’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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
Tremendous site. AND NO DAMNABLE ENDLESS ADS UP FRONT!
"I'll be back."
I like the talk about any piston engines, but WW2 aircraft engines are the favourite. Love the work, like your style. Thank you
Just the perfect level of detail - and hardly any stupid ads - thankyou
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.
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.
Some Internet Gold here.
Thanks Sheriff.
Ha ha youre here
Hey Sheriff. I enjoy your video's.
Sherriff i learnt dogfightimg from your vids
THE BEST Channel EVER in terms of realistic historic warbirds
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.
The best in depth WWII aircraft channel! The fact that you like performance automobiles is just gravy. I think that’s how a lot of us got into one or the other because of so much of automobile performance is just trickle down aircraft tech anyway. Great channel!
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.
I am often at a complete loss for words when it comes to the rapid advancement in performance technology in such a short period of time..just amazing!
The kinda sick thing is do you think that such advancements would have been accomplished if we weren't at war?
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.
Love these videos. No music, no drama, just technical information which appeals to gear heads of all stripes.
Hey, Greg! Just wanted to tell you how much I love your videos... thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks Thomas!
A co-worker of mine was a retired crew-chief from the USAF who had experience with the C-97 and other "recip's" in the cargo inventory in the Cold War era.
He related times when he needed to keep all of the engines in "High-Blower" while landing and departing from some of the remote fields in Indo-China.
It was a remarkable insight into one of the facets of the war in South-East Asia my father fought- A snapshot of people doing what they'd been trained to do......................
why HIGH blower? hi alt or hi boost?
Jesus, Greg, this is amazing work you've put up. I salute you, sir!
I've always loved the "Jug" and everything you've been saying about it in your videos has just cemented that feeling. Thanks so much for sharing Greg I just love your stuff and I especially love the poem.
Turbosuperchaging... how nice to hear what something is REALLY called
Great video, Greg. Good high level summary of supercharging as related to early efforts, F4, F6, Corsair, P-38, P-47 and P-51.
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!
----- I DO LOVE to learn new things... The one thing I picked up from this video was that the famed Russian Klimov in-line powerplants that served the YAK line of successful fighters were developed from a Spanish engine design... Never knew that, and it's a cool thing... But this was a real fascinating video, indeed--and I don't know diddly-squat about aircraft engineering... Only a few basics... Also informative was the bit on the Curtiss P-37 fighter that never got into service--why it had the 'long-nosed' profile and the cockpit was set so far back (supercharger), just like on the 'Gee-Bee' racer of the 'thirties...I always wondered why the numerous Allison engines weren't given supercharging other than in the P-38 Lightning... Great stuff about the Bell P-39, the Hellcat & Corsair, too... Thanks for this great information...
best WWII engine analysis I've watched.
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.
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.
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
Der Unterschied zwischen den beiden Formen der Anlage wird von diesem ausgezeichneten Video völlig und verständlich erklärt. Echt super!
Thanks notaire2, that's a high compliment.
I'm not sure if you have read much on the turbo charger development done on the BMW 801:
"As just one result of the highest level of priority given to the successful 801 design's further development, a number of attempts were made to use turbochargers on the BMW 801 series as well. The first used a modified BMW 801D to create the BMW 801J, delivering 1,810 PS (1,785 hp, 1,331 kW) at takeoff and 1,500 hp (1,103 kW) at 12,200 m (40,000 ft), an altitude where the D was struggling to produce 630 hp (463 kW). The BMW 801E was likewise modified to create the BMW 801Q, delivering a superb 1,715 hp (1,261 kW) at 12,200 m (40,000 ft), power ratings no existing Allied radial engine of a similar displacement could match.
The turbocharger was fitted to the top rear of the engine at a 30° forward tilt, and had hollow turbine blades.
Not many of these engines ever entered production due to high costs, and the various high-altitude designs based on them were forced to turn to other engines, typically the Junkers Jumo 213."
notsureyou Thanks for your informative and detailed reply. German ingenuity in technology was not necessarily realized in the field of producing consumer goods.
@@notaire2 Engineers are helpless when beholden to lunatics, and Germans seem more prone to 'Crazy Harry' than most.
+Steve Watson 'Crazy Harry' is sometimes called 'Deutsche Gründlichkeit' in negative meaning.
Great channel. Thank you.
There are several hybrid electric/exhaust turbine driven turbochargers under development by major manufacturers including BMW. Benefits include reducing turbo lag by driving the compressor stage electrically to compensate.
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!
“They were both about equal till 20,000’” - yeah, with the same engine, except the Thunderbolt had 8x .50 cal guns and twice the armor lol.
I love re-visiting your P-47 series (I guess this even pre-dates that) - I honestly believe it’s become a phenomenon in the WWII aviation community (not just online, but for those of us who work on warbirds) - who could have known back when this was made? Great job - I kinda feel like you’ve resurrected the legacy of a plane that ALWAYS deserved more, but was constantly overshadowed by “sexier” planes that came to fruition far later in the war.
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
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
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 turbo developers would be proud to see today’s automobiles! Sweet running and powerful little motors
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!
Nice picture of the Curtiss P-6 Hawk, a beautiful craft. A deep-dive into it would be pretty amazing.
Really excellent stuff, thank you. I have been studying the Merlin verses the DB601 and later derivatives. The main differences seem to be in approach, the Germans had some fantastic ideas like the liquid drive for the supercharger, the direct fuel injection and the inverted vee layout, but were hamstrung for materials and decent fuel. Rolls Royce stuck with what they knew and perfected it.
Finally a clear explanation of this supercharging thing, thanks.
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.
Excellent video! You covered a lot of information and evolution of turbochargers and superchargers without getting deeply mired down too in specifics. Keep up the efforts and I'm glad I found your channel!
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).
Having just watched #7 Firepower and still in lock down this seems like a good day to rewatch the entire playlist. Good job on discussing numerous design tradeoff aspects. Even if not building a plane the way designs trade getting this but losing that is just as relevant today.
Wow! I built all these aircraft as models as a kid in the '70's. I went on to maintain Tomcats and Hornets in the Navy. But I never really considered them from a performance perspective. All I cared about was ease of maintenance or cool factor. Very informative. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
I loved your analysis of forced induction aero engines. My Dad was a pre and post WW11 aero engineer and I was an Airforce pilot flying Supercharged radials. For the first time with your video I have found a realistic analysis of aircraft without emotion (apart from the usual aviator enthusiasm) and without pushing a particular POV.Many thanks.You, as a Yank, have an american view but that is fine. I will look for your video on the P51 (esp the Packard Merlin version).
Aerodynamics (innovations) in my opinion also have a great role in aeroplane design. I note that the Spitfire wing, being so thin had by accident a very high mach number although a very expensive 'plane to make compared with the Hurricane. Still, I am only an ex pilot, not an engineer but I respect engineers. I also comment that the carbed Spit had limited inverted (negative g) performance compared with the injected 109s. (having flown a carbed ww11 aeroplane I can attest to the limited negative G issue, not that negative g is pleasant having done one neg G loop)
Woah a 40 minute video? Christmas came early.
This is one of the most informative videos I've ever seen posted.
Anyone more that use this channel as relaxing background when working? #relaxing
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.
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.
One of the best deep dives I've run across!! Excellent data driven presentation!
You had me liking this video the moment you said "turbo-supercharger." It still amazes me how many don't understand that the term "supercharge" means what it says: to increase the charge in the cylinder beyond what could normally be attained. Everything else references the means of powering the compressor, whether it be a turbo/turbine, toothed belt, gear drive, direct drive, etc. - even if they aren't always stated in vernacular usage. (And yep, that means electric turbochargers can't exist - it's just an electric motor that could theoretically be attached to any style of supercharger, whether it be Rootes, centrifugal, etc.)
Great video. Love the details for all us enginerds. :-)
Good point. The word supercharger seems to be highly misunderstood.
This video dose not mention Sir Stanley Hooker the best super charger designer in the world eg p51 and modern jet engines built under licence in the us and harier and RB211
@@brucemcgeehan2847 Do you want a 4 hour or a 40 minute video? :-) Sir Stanley wouldn't mind; his autobiography is titled "Not Much of an Engineer". Modest chap!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles : Hi, Greg. Great videos. Good level of detail and fine presentation.
I think the term "supercharger" originally meant "mechanically driven forced induction" because that's the only kind there was. Gas turbines are really hard to make, primarily from a material science standpoint. When good refractory metals, high-temperature lubricants and cooling techniques came along, it became necessary to distinguish between the two types. Thus "turbo-supercharger".
It's a little clumsy having to use "supercharger" as both a general and a specific term. I've read a few articles in which the author refers to the mechanical types as "blowers" and the exhaust-driven variety as "turbos". Completely unambiguous, I think, and somehow more satisfying.
Great topic Greg! I've always wondered about the difference between these two. There's a wonderful article back in the now defunct "Wings" magazine, from around the year 2000 titled "The Art of Supercharging" that is very good too.
I was looking for this sort of information for a long long time.. Thank you very much for your effort.
Another excellent video! I had not realized that the Corsair and the Jug shared basic engines, with different ways to boost them. That made for a great comparison of boosting types. Thanks again, and keep the videos coming!!
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.
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!
These are by far the most informative and interesting videos I've found about wwII era planes. Thanks for all you put into these!
Thanks Nathan.
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.
Great detail on an interesting topic. The turbo's advantage of not linking the vane's speed to the engine's crankshaft speed, is primarily realized because the vane speed is essentially governed by the back-pressure of the air it has compressed. So, if the ambient air pressure is low, the vanes spin at a faster speed until sufficient back-pressure imposes its limit.
AHHHHH P-47 i see you are a man of culture as well.
Nice work, Greg. I’ll be rewatching this one several times to bake it all in.
Question: when mentioning throttling a geared supercharger, are you referring to the throttle within the pressure carb, or is there a butterfly valve that limits air entering the sc impeller? Also, I guess I don’t understand why superchargers ‘hate’ being throttled, could you touch on that or refer me to a presentation that explains that? Edit/add - I think after reading the text from the NACA document you used to present fig4 and 6 graphs (along w your explanations), I’ve a better grasp. Stil…
In a WW2 warplane engine the "carb" or whatever is being used is located upstream of the gear driven supercharger. Thus the butterfly valves on the carb itself restrict air going into the supercharger. Don't open them all the way, and you get less boost. It's really that simple.
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.
And so ended Cutiss attempts to build a turbocharged fighter. Love the picture by the way. Very subtle, I even got that one.
Thanks I didn't think I would hang on for the full 42 min. but it was very informative. Now I truly understand why the P-47 was so big, I just visited the RAF Museum outside of London and the P-47 on display is fantastic. The RAF flew them in Burma as a replacement for the Hurricane in 1944. Keep up the great work.
Great info here. You sir did a lot of research for these videos. I just happened to stumble across your channel and now I’m hooked!
Great pics and information. Thanks!
The first linked video is unavailable now. Anyway, I’ll check the second one to prepare as recommended, all just for the pleasure of it! Thanks Greg.
Hmm, I can't remember what video that was.
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!
For those that are really into supercharging and turbocharging, I highly recommend the books "Supercharged! Design Testing and Installation of Supercharger Systems" and "Maximum Boost Designing Testing and Installing Turbocharger Systems" - both by Corky Bell. These are geared toward cars but also do a great job of explaining the concepts of how these systems work. I spent a lot of years in the modified GM 3800 community, mostly with supercharged (or turbocharged) versions of the L67 and L32. Fun "engineering" sidebar, I was the first to come up with the idea to drill into the lower part of the side of supercharger to run a line over to the valve cover, maintaining positive crankcase ventilation with an intercooler installed. Prior to that (and even now) most people just ran valve cover breathers, which is less than ideal. Also Eaton's TVS line of roots superchargers are very impressive with efficiency - but the drawbacks on aviation applications you mention would still clearly apply.
Those are good books, although I think mine is better ;) which is in the Patreon section and on Amazon. In regards to running CCV into the supercharger, why not just run it into the supercharger's inlet area just aft of the throttle? Or maybe that's what you are doing, I might be misunderstanding you.
The TVS and latest Lysholms are very efficient. I have comparative charts for them along with the older 4th gen Roots types in my book.
Love the technical details I never heard anywhere else. And you have a cool name.
Recently discovered this channel and really enjoy/appreciate all the information taught here. I'm busy going back and catching up
Favorite channel! Keep going!
True Confession: I have been a WWII warbird fanatic since the late 1950s. It occurred to me, in 2020, that there is less oxygen at high altitude so how do the airplanes compensate? and I asked Greg who, I imagine, in the middle of a turbosupercharging video saw my question, rolled his eyes and said the obvious, without sarcasm. Learning!
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!"
This channel is awesome. P-47 is biggest and best. Now I have the info to argue with people on the internet. I think I found my first patreon.
I still.don't believe that videos like that exist
Very sharp knowledge
At last - some really well-informed and detailed commentary on WW2 aircraft. Yes - I will subscribe.
I always love your videos and the way you present them ! just "Geeking out" to this Tech talk : )
Great as always Sir.
Your channel remains outstanding, Greg. I thoroughly enjoyed this longer format presentation. Yours is the most satiating channel I've discovered this year, your content bears a certain fullness. It's nice to know that all of the older folk with an appreciation for hand drawn diagrams, thick charts, and ancient technical studies haven't yet bit it, especially in light of the superficial engineering channel trend.
Will you consider exploring further your curiosities for the logical evolution of the turbocharger; deleting the piston nonsense entirely and locating the combustion chamber between the compressor and turbine? I spent the formative years of my early career with the J79 and Allison 250, both items I'd love to see technical documents for again.
Thanks. I use the old drawings from NACA for two reasons. First they are original source materiel, second, my computer skills are limited, so I can't make fancy graphics. You correct about the relationship between the turbocharged piston engine and the turbine engine. If you add enough stages of supercharging, pretty soon, you don't need pistons, just add a turbine and some burner cans. That's over simplifying of course, but you get it.