Turbo vs Supercharging in WW2 Airplanes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 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...
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?
‘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!
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.
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.)
You’ve taught me I know nothing.
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.
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!
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.
Some Internet Gold here.
Thanks Sheriff.
Ha ha youre here
Hey Sheriff. I enjoy your video's.
Sherriff i learnt dogfightimg from your vids
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.
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
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.
Turbosuperchaging... how nice to hear what something is REALLY called
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.
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 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!
Just the perfect level of detail - and hardly any stupid ads - thankyou
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
Jesus, Greg, this is amazing work you've put up. I salute you, sir!
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?
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.
Hey, Greg! Just wanted to tell you how much I love your videos... thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks Thomas!
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.
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!
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!
Turbo supercharger developments eased the development of the turbojet.
Yes! John gets it.
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!
The turbo developers would be proud to see today’s automobiles! Sweet running and powerful little motors
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.
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
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.
Finally a clear explanation of this supercharging thing, thanks.
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.
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.
Yes! I saw the thumbnail and went nuts 👌
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.
I was looking for this sort of information for a long long time.. Thank you very much for your effort.
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!
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!
One of the best deep dives I've run across!! Excellent data driven presentation!
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.
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!
I still.don't believe that videos like that exist
Very sharp knowledge
This is one of the most informative videos I've ever seen posted.
Love the technical details I never heard anywhere else. And you have a cool name.
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)
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.
Recently discovered this channel and really enjoy/appreciate all the information taught here. I'm busy going back and catching up
What an amazing channel. So much information. Subbed,
And so ended Cutiss attempts to build a turbocharged fighter. Love the picture by the way. Very subtle, I even got that one.
Favorite channel! Keep going!
I always wondered why the Jug was so damn big! Now I know ~The Radial Fighter that went farther, rocked a Turbo Charger~ What a plane :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looking forward to that hour hour long video on the P-38 and P-47.
:)
You have some great videos. It's amazing that something so common in the German engineering of superchargers isn't documented, specifically, the 89 degree off set of superchargers,
I think it's documented somewhere, but it will probably take someone who speaks German to find it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Please do. I would like to know why this is the case.
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!"
Rolls Royce somehow managed to create a very efficient supercharger. Probably a lot of trial and error but they had some excellent engineers who were allowed to play around. The Merlin 61 two stage blower was that good it made it into the early turbo jets.
Another great video!
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!
It would be great if you would do a video about the Jumo 205 or diesel aircraft engines in general.
Btw nice video, keep it up :D.
Nice picture of the Curtiss P-6 Hawk, a beautiful craft. A deep-dive into it would be pretty amazing.
Great video, just great bro love it from start to end.
Cant wheit for new one 👍✌️🤘
That poem at the end is awesome!
I think so too, I'm not a poetry guy, but that one is great.
You provide some of the best esoteric aircraft info on the internet
At last - some really well-informed and detailed commentary on WW2 aircraft. Yes - I will subscribe.
This really hit home for me. Your explanation was very interesting and informative. Keep up the great work
One of the only channels I can watch a long vid with out clicking off
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.
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!
Excellent vid. Info I've never come across, and I appreciate you exposing, sharing and exploring all of it. Since the 47 is my favorite, I can't wait to view your next production. Thanks!
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.
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!!
Superb commentary, thank you. I'm learning so much.
The P-47 is truly one of the unsung heroes of the war. They may not have been bullet-proof, but they kept flying when they probably shouldn't have.
well 2400/2600 that were lost down low certainly did Not
Recent add to your channel, appreciate the in-depth assessments. Can't wait till you give the -38 the same treatment you gave -47. Thanks for the effort!
Love radial engines and thank you for your P-47 series my favorite WW II fighter.
Something to consider, the exhaust of a turbo is depleted of pressure. The supercharged engine exhaust has spare pressure and if directed to the rear provides significant thrust. At higher speed this is equivalent to a substantial amount of engine power. Look up "Lovesey Merlin" for the details as to why the Merlin wasn't turbocharged.
The jug was a min-max fighter designed only with boom and zoom tactics. It cant dogfight in a turning battle, but anything that is in it's sight will be destroyed.
Nice poem at the end
Thanks Greg, thoroughly enjoyed all of your videos thus far. Please post more. I am and have been for some time a great fan of the P47, a truly unsung hero of WW2 !!
I read today that the P38 had both turbochargers AND superchargers, I was never aware they had both. I came to watch this video to see if I could find further information on this issue and would really appreciate confirmation on this fact. Great videos BTW...
HI Matt, that is absolutely correct. The P-38 does indeed have a supercharger and a turbocharger for each engine. It's set up much the way the P-47 is, except of course it's packaged differently to fit into a different airplane.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles thank you Greg.
Brilliant Greg ! Well researched and presented. Makes me want my SAAB 900 Turbo back lol
Great explanation! I can't wait for your P-47 video.
*Nothing beats the sound of a supercharger winding up....added one to my Toyota truck....she's a sleeeeper that makes the full-sized guys cryy when they can't keep upp*
As a Thermodynamics/Mechanical Engineer, I have always saw the pure luxury of the radials as the durable ground strike tool.
The radials being air-cooled could be shot up & keep on fighting/getting the pilot back to a friendly base.
I recently read Robert Johnson's description of being shot to pieces in a thunderbolt while still an FNG & trying to bailout but his canopy had no glass left but was frozen in the closed position.
He could not get out with his parachute on thru the metal canopy frame which his early model P-47 had.
So he just point the plane W & prayed he would at least get to the channel.
An ME-109 come up while he was over on Belgium/Holland, flew at his wing a little while then went back & shot the 47 up with .30 cal mg.
He then come up several times, indicated his shock @ the 47 still flying & shot it up some more.
Robert later concluded that the 109 was winchester on 20mm cannon & only had the .30 cal mg left.
The 109 kept shooting him up till they were ~1/2 way over the channel & left since 109 was going to get jumped by England Air cover.
He finally got to a RAF base & made a perfect landing
Then he climb the metal opening in canopy & passed out. He had three mg bullets in his legs & multiple shrapnel wounds.
For the only time, he had forget his googles since they were broken & the new pair was not in proper kit. Therefore his eyes were in terrible shape from leaking hydraulic fluid & >200 mph wind stream.
I believe he ended up #2 in ETO kills just behind Gabby who had 26 ¹/². Gabby was supposed to be getting on a boat for the states & he got impatient so he went back to his squadron.
Being he commanded the squadron, he signed out a different P-47 with the new wide/longer paddle props.
He went on a one man "rodeo" as they called it trolling for Abbeville(sp) FW-190 yellow nose boys to come up & play.
Nobody came up so he went down & strafed an airfield but he broke the cardinal rule.
"Don't make a 2nd pass". In the 2nd pass the flak was thick & he tried to get lower for 2 reasons.
He was trying to flame up a 111 bomber plus get under the tower flak traverse angle but he hit the longer props therefore vibrating his plane to pieces.
He crashed @ end of runway & ended up in a Luftwaffe POW camp as the allied commander.
I believe he was LtCol or Col therefore was highest ranking allied prisoner.
All these words with my main point being the liquid cooled engines could take a hit in coolant system & the plane is history in short order.
Well that wuz frog frik,'n great! Thanks Greg!
Great video! It really helps explain the comparative advantage between different aircraft and the aircraft different nations. Thank you.
the b17 and b 24 led to the b29. that program cost 4 billion $ in 1940s money.the atomic bomb project cost 1 billion and produced 2 different systems . a uranium device and a plutonium device .. both were useless without a delivery system. the b29. but most miss the point . the us of the 1940s didnt make a atomic bomb. it made two
I am not sure I understand the connection, other than a turbocharged plane delivered the atomic bombs.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles yes the b29 could fly higher than fighters of the time. the p51s that flew escort for the b29s had a lower cruise speed than the b 29.. thats why we needed iwo jima.. which led to the f 82 twin mustang
Given the performance and limited bay size of the other WW2 heavy bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster and Halifax) none of them could carry either the Mk I (Little Boy) or Mk III (Fat Man) shape and be capable of surviving dropping the weapon.
It had to be xomething capable of carrying a 60" diameter 10,00 lb shape at 30,000' and at least 300 mph TAS.
Even then, Enola Gay and Bock's Car got bashed around quite a bit.
Yes, so? It won the war and leap frogged the world in war technology. Have you ever been to Hanford? A great lost location to make plutonium. It's mark on the face of Earth's survival is nothing compared to the use of fossil fuels. Oh and uranium was not refined there, where did you get suh a wierd idea? They made plutonium there for years. Uranium enrichment was a much different thing altogether.
oh get over yourself, it wasn't like they knew it was going to cause that much damage. And it not billions, but thanks for playing.
Electric driven turbo-compressors are used to pressurize the cabin of the Boeing 787, unfortunately scaling down the massive generator and amp load for GA aircraft or automotive applications is still in the future.
A superb production; congratulations! Very informative and engaging, the work you do is outstanding. Thank you.
I appreciate you comments.
Love your channel, your research is very extensive and thorough. You must do a lot of time consuming searching for documents etc.
Re: Electric Supercharging
Audi did end up using it in the SQ7 TDI, it runs off a 48v separate electrical system and is used to spool up the larger turbocharger in the motor. The motor itself is triple charged.
Hi Stephen, I'll admit I hadn't heard of that car. I guess I haven't been watching the $90,000 Diesel sedan market. This is something like what I was talking about, and what the Germans described in 1923, but it's only a momentary system used to spool the exhaust turbos, it's in the ball park, but not quite the same idea. Thanks for pointing it out though, they are getting closer.