Fastest Piston Engine Fighter of WWII?
Peter Evans
engined fighter of WW2, I have come across the following aircraft
which qualifies to the original question criteria as no mention of
mass production or full operational service were mentioned as
points on which the aircraft should conform:
Republic XP-72 - 490mph (789km/h) first flown in June 1944
beats (OK, only just! =%@)
North American P-51H - 487mph (783km/h) first flown in February 1945
Regards,
Peter
*********************************************
Aircrew - PBY-5A Consolidated Catalina VR-BPS
Plane Sailing Air Displays
Duxford - England
*********************************************
Bronze Member No66
The Focke-Wulf 189 Owl Restoration Society
*********************************************
Luftwaffe Enthusiast 1939-45
*********************************************
Kathleen Zurhellen
in World War II, but it was not the fastest piston-engined aircraft
to fly during the period 1939-45. This honor goes to the single
example of the Republic XP-47J, which with its 2800 horsepower
engine reached 503 mph in level flight in 1944.
--
KZ
Gavin Bailey
>On the back of the recent discussion regarding the fastest piston
>engined fighter of WW2, I have come across the following aircraft
>which qualifies to the original question criteria as no mention of
>mass production or full operational service were mentioned as
>points on which the aircraft should conform:
Actually the original postings clearly stated that the criteria included
actual operational service in some quantity.
Gavin Bailey
Oliver Ralph von Potthoff
Zurhellen <10252...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree
As far as it concerns piston driven fighters that actually saw action, then
fastest plane was Ta-152H1 which could actually quite easily outrun the any
P51 if flown at high altitude.
Regards
Oliver
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SiliconReality, Simulation and Entertainment Software
Oliver Ralph von Potthoff (plasm...@pop.spectraweb.ch)
phone ++41 31 931 1967
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrold Goldblatt
Only 10 TA-152H1 were built if they saw combat it was because the
airwar took place over their airspace. There was also a war in Pacific
and there is some evidence that the P-51H saw combat there. They were
certainly deployed in the Pacific. We are also talking about absolute
speed not speed at a specific altitude. The F-7F Tigercat, which flew
about as many combat sorties as any TA-152 variant was faster than any
piston airplane under 20,000 feet (445 mph). Fastest is fastest
clocked at altitude. The P-51H was the fastest piston fighter of World
War II.
V/R Jerry Goldblatt
Bill Miniscalco
plasm...@pop.spectraweb.ch (Oliver Ralph von Potthoff) wrote:
> In article <4jec77$amv$1...@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>, Kathleen
> Zurhellen <10252...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> > The P-51H was the fastest piston-engined aircraft to see service
> > in World War II, but it was not the fastest piston-engined aircraft
> > to fly during the period 1939-45. This honor goes to the single
> > example of the Republic XP-47J, which with its 2800 horsepower
> > engine reached 503 mph in level flight in 1944.
> >
> > --
> > KZ
>
> Sorry, but I disagree
> As far as it concerns piston driven fighters that actually saw action, then
> fastest plane was Ta-152H1 which could actually quite easily outrun the any
> P51 if flown at high altitude.
>
> Regards
>
> Oliver
The top speed for the Ta 152H-1 was 472 mi/hr at 41,000 ft with GM 1
(nitrous oxide) boost.
--Bill
kstone
>War II.
Before we get into a shooting war, maybe we should clarify.
How about...
1. Fastest single engine to see combat?
2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
3. Fastest single engine, under developement, to actually fly before VJ
Day?
4. Fastest Multi engine, under developement (etc.)?
5. Fastest of each to be developed after the war?
Maybe by countries?
Scott Stone
MetaJohn
>>5. Fastest of each to be developed after the war?
Which brings up another good question: Is the fastest Propeller driven a/c
powered by a) pistons or b) turbines?? Anyone know?
(LOGO under construction)
meta...@aol.com aka J Barker, Hi --> to NTC Great Lakes in 9-95
Iskandar Taib
MetaJohn <meta...@aol.com> wrote:
>Scott Stone wrote:
>>>5. Fastest of each to be developed after the war?
>Does he want to include the "mixed" power a/c such as the Ryan Fireball?
>Which brings up another good question: Is the fastest Propeller driven a/c
>powered by a) pistons or b) turbines?? Anyone know?
How fast was that turbine powered P-51 derivative? (What was it called
- the Piper PA-45 Defender or something of the sort.. someone had a
nice scale model of it at the recent Toledo show. I did a double take
when I saw the exhaust coming out the side of the cowling..)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Geoff Miller
meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn) writes:
> Which brings up another good question: Is the fastest Propeller
> driven a/c powered by a) pistons or b) turbines??
Turbines; it's the Tupolev Tu-95/Tu-142, at 545 mph max. While I
can't cite any sources off the top of my head, I've seen that figure
in a lot of places, and I've never run across any assertion that
another propeller-driven airplane is any faster.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
kstone
>Does he want to include the "mixed" power a/c such as the Ryan Fireball?
Ok, Sounds Good.
6. Fastest mixed propulsion to see service?
7. Fastest Turboprop to see service?
And the nominees are...
7. I would nominate the Westland Wyvern (sp?) but that is only as this is
the only I can think of off the top of my head. Please feel free to
change this.
Comments?
Scott Stone
MetaJohn
>1. Fastest single engine to see combat?
Lloyd Jones "U.S. Fighters", Aero Publishers, 1975 lists (p. 117) the
XP-47J, nicknamed the "Superman", with a P&W 2800-57 closely cowled and
force cooled by a fan, pared weight by 200 lbs over std P-47s, and a
larger supercharger as reaching 504 mph in level flight. He credits this
mod as being the first piston powered a/c to pass 500 mph on purpose. This
mod was to be used to intercept V-1s. The design was developed into the
XP-72 (p. 189) which was wrapped around a 3,500 hp. 28 cylinder R-4360-13
(ye gods !!) driving a 13-1/2 foot diameter Aero Products contra-prop.
Ultimate speed of this beast was never determined due to cancellation of
the order, but rapid acceleration to 490mph above 25,000 ft is stated.
Jones mentions the P-51H (p. 130) as the fastest production Mustang and
credits it with 487 mph @ 25,000 ft. He also mentions the grotesque
looking (pix on p. 118) XP-47H (p. 117) as having reached 490 mph but not
produced due to the failure of the Chrysler XIV-2220-1 16-cyl inverted Vee
liquid-cooled engine of 2,300 hp. (I shouldn't wonder at that.) Neither
the XP-54 "Swoose Goose", nor the XP-55 "Ascender" ever reached 400 mph
though both were designed for speeds of 500mph or so. The Lockheed XP-58
"Chain Lighning" reached only 436mph. Several other high speed
piston-propellor designs were never fully powered, abandoned, or failed to
deliver on their speed towards the end of the war.
>2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
Define - there were more than a few Multi-Engined a/c which drove a single
or a contra-rotating stack of propellers on a common axis (e.g. Typhoon
and Tempest with Griffon engines). So is it multi-axis fans or
multi-engine regardless of fans? At any rate the Grumman F7F-3 reached
435mph (p. 190 of Lloyd Jones, Us Naval Fighters, Aero Publishers, 1977),
but the Dornier Do-335 Pfiel (Arrow) was surely the fastest two engine two
propeller (in a push-pull arrangement) a/c of WWII with speeds of 474mph
being reliably reported (Bryan Philpott, "The Encyclopedia of German
Military Aircraft", Crescent Books, 1981, p.93. Had this a/c been
developed properly it should have passed 500 mph as well.
>3. Fastest single engine, under developement, to actually fly before VJ
Day?
XP-47J by far.
>4. Fastest Multi engine, under developement (etc.)? Again - Define -
there were more than one Multi-Engined a/c which drove a single or a
contra-rotating stack of propellers on a common axis. So is it multi-axis
fans or multi-engine regardless of fans?
>5. Fastest of each to be developed after the war?
The F-82B is listed with a top speed of 482mph at 25,100 feet by Jones (p.
210). Lockheed's XFV-1 VTOL was expected to reach 580 mph, and Convair's
XFY-1 "Pogo" VTO was slated to hit 610mph, although neither could overcome
enough of the problems related to the VTO concept top ever establish a
genuine top speed.
>6. Fastest mixed propulsion to see service?
Jones says, p. 221, "The performance characteristics of the XF-84H have
never been declassified, but it is reported to have been the fastest
propeller-driven plane in the world . . ." As far as I know none of the
mixed-power designs were ever really accepted into service, although the
Ryan Fireball XFR-1 was given a production run of 100 examples and
designated the FR-1. These were operated by VF-66 in March 1945 (Jones,
"US Naval Fighters", p. 217) in training for use against the Japanese Okha
suicide rocket-bomb, That model had a top speed of 404mph, the follow-on
XF2R-1 "Dark Shark" had a max speed ". . . over 500mph". Interestingly
the last Curtiss design was the XF-15C-1 "Stingaree" which achieved 469mph
at 25,000 ft. in evaluation (p. 224).
>7. Fastest Turboprop to see service?
Russian Tu-95 Bear whose contra-propellers are transonic at speed and
altitute. The audible noise is reportedly deafening, the ultrasonic shock
waves are inaudible can can induce nausea if they penetrate the body, and
like the dinosaurs of old ". . . the whole thing has gone on too long and
it was all a mistake anyway!"
Well those may not all be the4 definitive answers, but they are a
remarkable collection of a/c all in all. BTW the Japanese supposedly had a
few hot mods, water-methanol injection etc, to the Shinden or Raiden (or
both) fighter to enable it to a) climb to B-29 height, and b) catch and
pass the B-29 for a head on attack at the end of the war. These birds were
very near 490 mph class machines if the stories are true.
OK - I got my neck stuck out. Who else knows about this?
(Imagine a great LOGO here -->)
meta...@aol.com aka John Barker, Alive @ NTC Great Lakes
Dimitriy A. Levin
<kst...@mailhost.wyoming.com> wrote:
> >clocked at altitude. The P-51H was the fastest piston fighter of World
> >War II.
>
> Before we get into a shooting war, maybe we should clarify.
Good idea!
>
> How about...
>
> 1. Fastest single engine to see combat?
Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
water injection in the emergency power mode.
> 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
> 3. Fastest single engine, under developement, to actually fly before VJ
> Day?
North American P-82G Twin Mustang - allegedly topped out at 772 km/h
--
Dimitriy A. Levin
Smoky Hill Internet Club
dle...@stega.smoky.org
http://stega.smoky.org/~dlevin/
MetaJohn
dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) writes:
>> 1. Fastest single engine to see combat?
>
>Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
>water injection in the emergency power mode.
>
My source, (The Encyclopedia Of German Military Aircraft, Brian
Philpott, Crescent Books, 1981), which I will grant is not authoritative
in all matters, reports, p.103:
...Performance: maximum speed, 332 mph at sea level; cruising speed, 311
mph at 22,965 ft; . . .
no water injection was mentioned but that means little as water/methanol
injection was common practice (if hard on cylinders and pistons) for high
performance at that time. The Ta-152H didn't have to be much faster than
other fighters because its service ceiling at 48,550 ft, put it a mile or
more above everyone else anyway!
Furthermore, (From Bill Gunston's "Combat Aircraft Library: British
Fighters If WWII"), p 75 "With a wide track landing gear and a very
powerful two-stage Griffon engine the Spiteful . . . was the UK's fastest
piston-fighter at 494 mph (795km/h): it would have been simple to assemble
the airframe, engine and propeller differently to exceed 500 mph (805
km/h) by a substantial margin, but this good looking amchine never entered
service." Page 76, "The M.B.5 [Martin Baker] . . . easily reached 460 mph
(740 km/h) on its 2,340-hp (1746-kw) Griffon 83, driving a DH
contra-rotating propeller, but . . . was not put into production."
> 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
>
>Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
>Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
>structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
>
OK -- Philpott, p.138, gives it MPH at 540 mph @ 19,685 ft. (must be
converted from meters) -- but I thought this question was about propeller
a/c?!? If jets are counted the Heinkel He 280 wasn't much slower at 508
mph. And the British de Havilland Vampire [single Goblin engine] did enter
service just before the end of the war: it too had a max speed of 540 mph
(869 km/h), when the engine was developing full rated power (not often I
surmise).
OK - what else you got? Regards :->
Jens Håkon Brandal
snip
>The top speed for the Ta 152H-1 was 472 mi/hr at 41,000 ft with GM 1
>(nitrous oxide) boost.
>
>--Bill
The prototype DeHavilland Hornet reached 485 mph, and the production
version "only" made 473 mph. Sorry, I don't recall the altitudes.
Merlin rules the skies!
Jens
Pyry Lukkariniemi
> > 1. Fastest single engine to see combat?
>
> Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
> water injection in the emergency power mode.
water?...nitrous oxide i've read...:)>
> > 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
>
> Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
> Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
> structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
The Me 163 also had more than one motor...a prototype was clocked at
a little over 1000km/h...But can a Walther rocket motor be counted
as an engine?:)
>
> > 3. Fastest single engine, under developement, to actually fly before VJ
> > Day?
>
> North American P-82G Twin Mustang - allegedly topped out at 772 km/h
I always thought the P-82 being essentially 2 P-51s joined together it
would have had 2 engines...
greets,Pyry
Dimitriy A. Levin
>
> Turbines; it's the Tupolev Tu-95/Tu-142, at 545 mph max. While I
> can't cite any sources off the top of my head, I've seen that figure
> in a lot of places, and I've never run across any assertion that
> another propeller-driven airplane is any faster.
>
>
> Geoff
>
That's about right. According to my sources, Tu-20 (an earlier version of Tu-95)
topped out at 1000 km/h (625 mph). Of course, it is only logical to
expect a turboprop aircraft to be faster than a piston-engined one simply
because turboprops have significantly more power. For example, Tu-20 had
four NK-12M turboprop engines each of which was rated at 14790 shp! Thus,
Tu-20 has a total of 59160 shp which is a lot even for an aircraft with a
takeoff weight of 160 tons.
Frederic Bieger
>
> In article <dlevin-1904...@ii-109-lc-13.smoky.ccsd.k12.co.us>,
> dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) writes:
>
> >
> >Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
> >water injection in the emergency power mode.
> >
>
> Philpott, Crescent Books, 1981), which I will grant is not authoritative
> in all matters, reports, p.103:
> ...Performance: maximum speed, 332 mph at sea level; cruising speed, 311
> mph at 22,965 ft; . . .
> no water injection was mentioned but that means little as water/methanol
> injection was common practice (if hard on cylinders and pistons) for high
> performance at that time. The Ta-152H didn't have to be much faster than
> other fighters because its service ceiling at 48,550 ft, put it a mile or
> more above everyone else anyway!
Well, the water/methanol was common practice just for the very high
performance. My source (AERO , Marsh. Cavendish Int Ltd, 1985) claims a
top speed of 760 km/h at 12500 m for the TA 152 H-1 with MW-50 wat/meth
inj.
> Furthermore, (From Bill Gunston's "Combat Aircraft Library: British
> Fighters If WWII"), p 75 "With a wide track landing gear and a very
> powerful two-stage Griffon engine the Spiteful . . . was the UK's fastest
> piston-fighter at 494 mph (795km/h): it would have been simple to assemble
> the airframe, engine and propeller differently to exceed 500 mph (805
> km/h) by a substantial margin, but this good looking amchine never entered
> service." Page 76, "The M.B.5 [Martin Baker] . . . easily reached 460 mph
> (740 km/h) on its 2,340-hp (1746-kw) Griffon 83, driving a DH
> contra-rotating propeller, but . . . was not put into production."
>
> > 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
> >
> >Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
> >Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
> >structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
> >
> OK -- Philpott, p.138, gives it MPH at 540 mph @ 19,685 ft. (must be
> converted from meters) -- but I thought this question was about propeller
> a/c?!? If jets are counted the Heinkel He 280 wasn't much slower at 508
> mph.
Well, still the He 280 was underpowered
And the British de Havilland Vampire [single Goblin engine] did enter
> service just before the end of the war: it too had a max speed of 540 mph
> (869 km/h), when the engine was developing full rated power (not often I
> surmise).
>
> OK - what else you got? Regards :->
The Arado Ar 234 C-3 reached 855 km/h...ok it`s not an a/c..
>
> (Imagine a great LOGO here -->)
Well, since we have included some jets, why not do the next step to
rocket powered ones ?
I`d propose the Me 163 which reached 1004 km/h in october 2nd 1941
(common max speed 960 km/h)
I don`t know if maybe the japonese Yokusuka MXY 7 Ohka was faster..
Frederic
Andy Dingley
having written:
>can a Walther rocket motor be counted
>as an engine?:)
According to a common thread in rec.models.rockets, a solid fuel
rocket may be a motor, but a liquid fuelled rocket with moving parts
will always be an engine.
--
Andy Dingley din...@codesmth.demon.co.uk
"Cut the second act and the child's throat"
- Noel Coward, on seeing the young Bonnie Langford on stage
Kristan Roberge
> > 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
>
> Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
> Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
> structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
>
This as I recall being the excellent german recon plane that had a layout
like a Cessna Skymaster, two engines on the centerline, one pusher at the
tail and one puller on the nose. Major horsepower and thrust. for those
used to mph, 875kph is 546.875 mph, or about 475.5 knots.
Michael Toler
Muhahahaha, sorry but no.
The schwalbe was the jet fighter. Swept wings, twin Jumo engines,
4 30mm cannons.
(And I don't want to start that thread again, but I honestly believe
that if Galland had his way, and these were produced in numbers
earlier on, rather than following Hitlers request for an attack
bomber, the US would have had to stop daylight bombing. The could not
be intercepted once they got up to speed, and with a good airbase
cap provided by piston fighters, they would have been hard to catch
in their vulnerable stages.
JMHO. No flames.)
Ouch out
--
Michael "Ouch" Toler | Don Gaspard Du Lac
Dallas, Texas | Barrony of the Steppes, Ansteorra
Check out my new Web page (CK) at:
http://www.cris.com/~ouch01/ouch.shtml
MetaJohn
<fr...@stud.uni-sb.de> writes:
>I don`t know if maybe the japonese Yokusuka MXY 7 Ohka was faster..
>
Well the Ryan Fireball FR-1 had a limited production run of 100 to equip
VF-66 just to kill the Ohkas and it had a top speed on comined power of
404mph! But I just read that the Typhoon/Tempest were the preferred V-1
killers by the Brits and they were both slower than the faster Spitfire
mark!! And they were slower than the listed top speed of the V-1 as well!!
I gather that a tail chase was not the preferred tactic from that -- seems
that radar vector to a head on attack (?? - am I really saying this??)
with the massive fire power of the Typhoon/Tempest was the way they did
it? Henry -- Help me out anytime I drowning here!!
(Imagine a great LOGO here -->)
Ken Devlin
>In article <4l4gpb$1...@horn.wyoming.com>, kstone
><kst...@mailhost.wyoming.com> wrote:
>> >clocked at altitude. The P-51H was the fastest piston fighter of World
>> >War II.
>>
>> Before we get into a shooting war, maybe we should clarify.
>Good idea!
>>
>> How about...
>>
>> 1. Fastest single engine to see combat?
>Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
>water injection in the emergency power mode.
>
>> 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
>Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
>Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
>structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
>> 3. Fastest single engine, under developement, to actually fly before VJ
>> Day?
>North American P-82G Twin Mustang - allegedly topped out at 772 km/h
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but,... wasn't the Twin
Mustang a two(2), Twin, Engine aircraft????
kbd
MetaJohn
writes:
>I gather that a tail chase was not the preferred tactic from that --
seems
>that radar vector to a head on attack (?? - am I really saying this??)
>with the massive fire power of the Typhoon/Tempest was the way they did
>it? Henry -- Help me out anytime I drowning here!!
SCRATCH THAT - (sound of furious erasing) - wasn't the preferred tactic
the bit where one matched speed, siddled over and flipped with your wing
tip under its, the greasy black thing over to spin down into the ocean or
at least the country side? But that assumes you can "match" speed. I
remember reading that firing into them from astern was very nasty as that
tended to detonate the 1,300 lb plus warhead and fill the space ahead of
you with very effective "flak", which at 400 MPH and above was nearly
impossible to avoid. Must've been a very nasty business all in all. Even
worse for the PTO pilots intercepting the Ohkas was seeing the head-banded
scared-shitless but fanatical pilot sealed into his a/c cum funeral pyre
actively manuoevering the bomb while you were trying to draw a bead and
give him a hand with his last wish a bit prematurely! Ugh.
("Our children are fodder for work and war: If we really thought they were
precious resources we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
Steve Hix
:In article <317C33...@stud.uni-sb.de>, Frederic Bieger
:<fr...@stud.uni-sb.de> writes:
:
:>I don`t know if maybe the japonese Yokusuka MXY 7 Ohka was faster..
:>
: Well the Ryan Fireball FR-1 had a limited production run of 100 to equip
:VF-66 just to kill the Ohkas and it had a top speed on comined power of
:404mph! But I just read that the Typhoon/Tempest were the preferred V-1
:killers by the Brits and they were both slower than the faster Spitfire
:mark!!
At altitude, yes.
At low level, there was little that could run with the Tiffie.
And V-1 intercepts were run at low level.
:And they were slower than the listed top speed of the V-1 as well!!
In level flight...you can do a lot with a bit of height to trade of for more
speed.
:I gather that a tail chase was not the preferred tactic from that -- seems
:that radar vector to a head on attack (?? - am I really saying this??)
:with the massive fire power of the Typhoon/Tempest was the way they did
:it? Henry -- Help me out anytime I drowning here!!
Glub.
A recent issue of Air&Space (IIRC) had an article on the Typhoon, warts
and all. It discussed tactics of downing V-1's.
Maury Markowitz
<Pine.BSD.3.91.960422...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi>, Pyry
Lukkariniemi <lu...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi> wrote:
> > North American P-82G Twin Mustang - allegedly topped out at 772 km/h
> I always thought the P-82 being essentially 2 P-51s joined together it
> would have had 2 engines...
Nope, that's not allowed. The plane has only one wing, so effectively
each "Mustang" only has half the normal induced drag.
Maury
--
(from NewsWatcher)
Maury Markowitz
wrote:
> This as I recall being the excellent german recon plane that had a layout
> like a Cessna Skymaster, two engines on the centerline, one pusher at the
> tail and one puller on the nose. Major horsepower and thrust. for those
> used to mph, 875kph is 546.875 mph, or about 475.5 knots.
You are referring to the amazing Do 335 Pfiel. It's primary role was as
a bomber destroyer, one it should have been all too good at considering
it's armament of 4 30mm cannons and 2 20mm cannons, along with very good
loiter time.
Maury
--
(from NewsWatcher)
Pyry Lukkariniemi
> I don`t know if maybe the japonese Yokusuka MXY 7 Ohka was faster..
According to "Fighters adn bombers of WWII in colour"(the only source
i could get my hands on at the moment:)...The final dive speed reached
close to 966km/h...
Dimitriy A. Levin
> > water injection in the emergency power mode.
>
Actually, I think it was methanol-water mixure.
> I always thought the P-82 being essentially 2 P-51s joined together it
> would have had 2 engines...
I meant to put it under the best multi-engine.
--
Dimitriy A. Levin and the AirPage
Dimitriy A. Levin
Toler) wrote:
> : This as I recall being the excellent german recon plane that had a layout
> : like a Cessna Skymaster, two engines on the centerline, one pusher at the
> : tail and one puller on the nose. Major horsepower and thrust. for those
> : used to mph, 875kph is 546.875 mph, or about 475.5 knots.
It was Dornier Do-335 "Pfaltz" ("Arrow") and as far as I know it was about
50 km/h slower than what you said.
Nigel Wright
& Typhoon are faster than the Spitfire. This is why the Typhoon was
utilised for interceptions of hit & run FW190's.
Nigel.
Joe Hegedus
>
>Kristan Roberge (Krob...@magi.com) wrote:
>: dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) wrote:
>
>: > > 2. Fastest multi-engine to see combat?
>: > Messeschmitt Me-262A-1 Schwalbe - top speed of 875 km/h, although IIRC
>: > Schwalbe pilots were prohibited to exceed 800 km/h because of appparent
>: > structural failure of the airplane as well as handling problems.
>: This as I recall being the excellent german recon plane that had a layout
>: like a Cessna Skymaster, two engines on the centerline, one pusher at the
>: tail and one puller on the nose. Major horsepower and thrust. for those
>: used to mph, 875kph is 546.875 mph, or about 475.5 knots.
>
>
>The schwalbe was the jet fighter. Swept wings, twin Jumo engines,
>4 30mm cannons.
>
>(And I don't want to start that thread again, but I honestly believe
>that if Galland had his way, and these were produced in numbers
>earlier on, rather than following Hitlers request for an attack
>bomber, the US would have had to stop daylight bombing. The could not
>be intercepted once they got up to speed, and with a good airbase
>cap provided by piston fighters, they would have been hard to catch
>in their vulnerable stages.
> JMHO. No flames.)
>
>Ouch out
>--
>Michael "Ouch" Toler | Don Gaspard Du Lac
>Dallas, Texas | Barrony of the Steppes, Ansteorra
>Check out my new Web page (CK) at:
> http://www.cris.com/~ouch01/ouch.shtml
The twin engine push-me/pull-me was the Dornier 335. I believe it saw VERY
limited service late in the war as a recon bird, and was also one of the fastest
piston engine aircraft of the war. I think the fastest SINGLE engine overall
was still the XP-47J (even though it didn't see production, only one built) at
507 MPH. At least on this side of the pond.
Joe
Pyry Lukkariniemi
> > > Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
> > > water injection in the emergency power mode.
> >
> > water?...nitrous oxide i've read...:)>
>
> Actually, I think it was methanol-water mixure.
Other peoples opinions in this matter would be welcome(i suppose)...
>
> > I always thought the P-82 being essentially 2 P-51s joined together it
> > would have had 2 engines...
>
> I meant to put it under the best multi-engine.
Yeah,just being an annoying smartass
Pyry Lukkariniemi
> It was Dornier Do-335 "Pfaltz" ("Arrow") and as far as I know it was about
> 50 km/h slower than what you said.
>
though...
greets,
pyry
Joe Bednorz
mto...@bnr.ca (Michael Toler) wrote:
>(And I don't want to start that thread again, but I honestly believe
>that if Galland had his way, and these were produced in numbers
>earlier on, rather than following Hitlers request for an attack
>bomber, the US would have had to stop daylight bombing. The could not
>be intercepted once they got up to speed, and with a good airbase
>cap provided by piston fighters,
This is the crux of the problem, imho.
>they would have been hard to catch
>in their vulnerable stages.
> JMHO. No flames.)
Joe Bednorz The Lurking Horror
--------------------------------------------------------
"I take back every bad thing I ever said about the A-10.
I love them. They're saving our asses."
- Lt. General Horner
- Air Force Commander, Desert Storm
MetaJohn
In article
<Pine.BSD.3.91.960427070...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi>,
Pyry Lukkariniemi <lu...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi> writes:
>Dornier Do-335 "Pfaltz" ("Arrow")
Make that *Pfiel*, and you won't be Pfaltz.
>around 763km/h (474mph).I'm not very sure . . .
Exactamundo. Although there was a post which mentioned a PhotoRecce ship
hitting in excess of 500 mph in either German hands or by Allied pilots
immediately post war with no reference, as usual.
Daniel A. Brown (Bernardston ES 5c5e)
The Republic P-72 was an 3,000hp variant of the P-47. It never flew in combat
but it's unofficial top speed was 490 mph, possibly the fastest American
prop in WWII
-DAN
--
Daniel A. Brown dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu
Laughing Bear The White Rose
****************************************************************************
"Education is important only if it makes our children more humane" - Ginott
MetaJohn
In article <1996Apr27....@k12.oit.umass.edu>,
dbr...@k12.oit.umass.edu (Daniel A. Brown (Bernardston ES 5c5e)) writes:
>The Republic P-72 was an 3,000hp variant of the P-47. It never flew in
combat
>but it's unofficial top speed was 490 mph, possibly the fastest American
>prop in WWII
>
>-DAN
Dan -- you are forgetting the XP-47J. It passed 504mph, some sources say
507 to 511 actually (There is a bit of confusion about correcting to
groundspeed), in LEVEL flight! And this before VE day. The XP-72 was
further developement which accelerated faster -- remember the designs were
for V-1 tail-chases.
Sincerely,
harold shortt
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article
><Pine.BSD.3.91.960422...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi>, Pyry
>Lukkariniemi <lu...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi> wrote:
>> > North American P-82G Twin Mustang - allegedly topped out at 772 km/h
>> I always thought the P-82 being essentially 2 P-51s joined together it
>> would have had 2 engines...
> Nope, that's not allowed. The plane has only one wing, so effectively
>each "Mustang" only has half the normal induced drag.
>Maury
>--
>(from NewsWatcher)
Was'nt the De Haviland Hornet/Sea Hornet series of the mid 40s the
fastest piston engined fighter ever. It should at least win point for
beauty alone. Dornier's DO-335 Arrow's got to be right up there also.
Larry Doering
In article <dlevin-2404...@ii-109-lc-19.smoky.ccsd.k12.co.us>,
Dimitriy A. Levin <dle...@stega.smoky.org> wrote:
<In article <4lgvae$o...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>, mto...@bnr.ca (Michael
<Toler) wrote:
<
<> : This as I recall being the excellent german recon plane that had a layout
<> : like a Cessna Skymaster, two engines on the centerline, one pusher at the
<> : tail and one puller on the nose. Major horsepower and thrust. for those
<> : used to mph, 875kph is 546.875 mph, or about 475.5 knots.
<
<50 km/h slower than what you said.
"Pfiel" is the German word for "arrow" - the "Pfaltz" was a German WWI
biplane fighter.
Sorry, my uncontrollable German correction reflex kicked in there.
ljd
William Miniscalco
In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.96042...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi>,
Pyry Lukkariniemi <lu...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi> wrote:
> > > > Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
> > > > water injection in the emergency power mode.
> > >
> > > water?...nitrous oxide i've read...:)>
> >
> > Actually, I think it was methanol-water mixure.
>
> Other peoples opinions in this matter would be welcome(i suppose)...
The Ta-152 used both nitrous oxide and methanol/water. I believe the
methanol/water injection was to provide an increased "emergency war power"
boost. I seem to remember reading that the nitrous oxide (used in some
other aircraft as well) was intended as a source of additional oxygen for
combustion at very high altitudes. As such it performed the same role as
the supercharger but at altitudes where even the supercharger was no
longer providing sufficient oxygen. I don't know whether nitrous oxide
and methanol/water could be used simultaneously.
--Bill
Pyry Lukkariniemi
>
> >Dornier Do-335 "Pfaltz" ("Arrow")
btw....wasnt me who wrote that one
> Make that *Pfiel*, and you won't be Pfaltz.
>
Pfeil...
MetaJohn
In article <126176051...@ieaust.org.au>,
Bruce_J....@ieaust.org.au (Bruce J. Grayson) writes:
>The Jumo 213 A with a normal power of 1610 hp in high supercharger gear
ad
>8lbs boost pressere developed 1650 hp with water injection and 1670 hp
with
>MW 50.
>
>Greater increase in power could be obtained by increasing the boost
pressure
>from the 8lbs quoted above.
>
>
Yeah but what was MTBF [insert appropo engine life abbr.] engine life down
to? What was catastophic failure rate for crank, pitons, heads, cyl walls?
("Our children are fodder for work and war: If we really thought they were
precious we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
BILL WHITLOCK
In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.960427070330.6673B-
100...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi>, Pyry Lukkariniemi
<lu...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi> writes
>
>> > > Focke Wulf Ta-152H - peaked out at 755 km/h when the engine was using
>> > > water injection in the emergency power mode.
>> >
>> > water?...nitrous oxide i've read...:)>
>>
>> Actually, I think it was methanol-water mixure.
>
>Other peoples opinions in this matter would be welcome(i suppose)...
>
>>
>> > would have had 2 engines...
>>
>
>Yeah,just being an annoying smartass
>
>
--
Bill Whitlock,
Kent, England.
Harry Visser
Maury Markowitz (ma...@softarc.com) wrote:
: In article <4lgn40$r...@news.magi.com>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com>
: wrote:
: > This as I recall being the excellent german recon plane that had a layout
: > like a Cessna Skymaster, two engines on the centerline, one pusher at the
: > tail and one puller on the nose. Major horsepower and thrust. for those
: > used to mph, 875kph is 546.875 mph, or about 475.5 knots.
: You are referring to the amazing Do 335 Pfiel. It's primary role was as
: a bomber destroyer, one it should have been all too good at considering
: it's armament of 4 30mm cannons and 2 20mm cannons, along with very good
: loiter time.
: Maury
: --
: (from NewsWatcher)
Yes, it was very fast, it outran a Tempest V in level flight easily. See
The Big Show by Pierre Clostermann DFC.
h
--
___________________________________________________________________________
slugmail: | | Web: http://www.isgtec.com/
ISG Technologies Inc. | Harry Visser | faxmail: 905-672-2307
6509 Airport Rd. | | speakmail: 905-672-2100 X246
Mississauga, ONT L4V 1S7 | '48 FL |
Canada | '75 FXE |
Bruce J. Grayson
The Ta 152 H carried 18.6 Imperial gallons of GM1 (nitrous oxide) and 15.4 Imp
Gallons of MW 50 (methanol and water) as well as about 216 gallons of
benzene.
MW 50 stood for Methanol-Wasser 50%. There was also a MW 30 with 30% methyl
alcohol.
MW 50 had 49.5% v/v tap water, 0.5% v/v anti corrosion fluid (schutzol 39)
and 50 % methanol.
An ethanol water mixture could aslo be used.
Pure water injection was used on BMW 323 R and Junkers Jumo 213 A engines.
The Ta 152 H used Jumo 213 E engines.
Michael Trout
Joe Bednorz (bed...@mail.net-connect.net) writes:
>>that if Galland had his way, and these [Me 262s] were produced in
>>numbers earlier on, rather than following Hitlers request for an
>>attack bomber, the US would have had to stop daylight bombing. They
>>could not be intercepted once they got up to speed, and with a good
>>airbase cap provided by piston fighters,
> This is the crux of the problem, imho.
>>they would have been hard to catch in their vulnerable stages.
I thought this urban legend had been put to rest decades ago.
Green's WARPLANES OF THE THIRD REICH is one of many good
sources for this subject. It really didn't matter whether the
Me 262 was to be a fighter, a bomber, or a merry-go-round, the
Germans simply couldn't build enough Jumo jet engines anyway.
Despite the most frantic production efforts, the technology
and reliability of 1940s-era jet engines was still too much in
its infancy. When the war ended, hundreds of Me 262s were
stiing around on airfields waiting for non-existent jet engines.
Folks also often forget that it's kind of difficult to
operate aircraft--jets OR props--when Soviet T-34s are
driving all over the runways shooting up the place.
It's easy to blame a dead man--and the most evil person in
history, if you ask me--for every single military,
administrative, and economic blunder of the Third Reich.
--
################## cl...@freenet.carleton.ca ################
Michael D. Trout
New York State Talking Book and Braille Library
Albany, New York 12230
Dirk Lorek
Larry Doering wrote:
>
> <
> <It was Dornier Do-335 "Pfaltz" ("Arrow") and as far as I know it was about
> <50 km/h slower than what you said.
>
> "Pfiel" is the German word for "arrow" - the "Pfaltz" was a German WWI
> biplane fighter.
>
> Sorry, my uncontrollable German correction reflex kicked in there.
Ich think your reflex need ein correction. Das right designation fur the
Do 335 ist Pfeil.
Bruce J. Grayson
Re MW50 boost:
The increased power could be used for a maximum of 10 minutes at a time, with
5 minutes lapse between powere boost periods.
At this increased powere the spark plugs had a life of only 15 - 30 hours.
More facts:
With the Jumo 213 E engines, the GM1 system was used at an injection rate of
13.2 lb/minat 27000'
At 44,300 ft, the injection rate was 19.8lb/min.
MetaJohn
In article <318615...@pobox.com>, Dirk Lorek <DiL...@pobox.com>
writes:
>> "Pfiel" is the German word for "arrow" - the "Pfaltz" was a German WWI
>> biplane fighter.
>>
>> Sorry, my uncontrollable German correction reflex kicked in there.
>
>Ich think your reflex need ein correction. Das right designation fur the
>Do 335 ist Pfeil.
>
Denken sie Das? Sie haben rechts - PFEIL, und nichts Pfiel, stimpt
sein! Und spater, sie mussen seine Deutche Sprache Aufgaben schwerer
studieren!
Laberwohl meine lieber Freunde
Willis Shea Mashburn
Hey,
New to the net. Please explain a water injection engine. Thanks.
shea
Mississippi State Univ.
Willis Shea Mashburn
Hey,
I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
shea
Mississippi State Univ.
MetaJohn
In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.96050...@Isis.MsState.Edu>,
Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> writes:
> I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
Not much to explain. If a very small (titi) amount of water is injected
into the combustion chamber two things happen: 1) the water flash boils to
superheated steam at combustion + a few milliseconds -- this increases
the thrust of the expanding exhaust gases, and the force applied to the
now descending piston; 2) some of the water is dissociated or combines
chemically with other combustants increasing the scavenage of exhaust
gases. Oh - BTW your engine bearings, rings, valve seats, etc just lost
about 60% of their expected life, and if you make a wee bit, a wee bit
more you will cook-off the heads on a radial engine, blow the head
gasket(s), or hole a piston, or seize the engine. That's why water or
water/methanol injection is only done for a few minutes -- the Cyl Head
Temp Guage moves like a stop watch!!
MetaJohn
MetaJohn
MetaJohn
MetaJohn
MetaJohn
MetaJohn
MetaJohn
In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.96050...@Isis.MsState.Edu>,
Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> writes:
> I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
***Amended explaination
Not much to explain. If a very small (titi) amount of water is injected
into the combustion chamber two things happen: 1) the water flash boils to
superheated steam at combustion + a few milliseconds -- this increases
the thrust of the expanding exhaust gases, and the force applied to the
now descending piston; 2) some of the water is dissociated and/or combines
chemically with other combustants increasing the scavenge pressure of
exhaust gases. This second effect is more pronounced with Methanol or
Nitrous Oxide -- these provide additional oxidizer to the combustion
process, as well as increasing the gas pressure of combustion.
[Think of combustion as a phase transition from small vol of liquid
to much larger vol of gasses. The more of the large liquid molecules you
oxidize into smaller and much more numerous gas molecules, the more
complete and efficient the combustion, and the more power you extract from
the fuel. Now at some point you run into materials science head-on! Steel
and other metals are finite in strength, and they lose strength (and
dimensional stability) rapidly at high temps (and pressures). The limiting
factors are the amount of gas pressure you can contain without constant
component failures, and the celerity and volume of waste heat you can
transport away from the combustion chamber and other critical components.
--- turbo/fan jets make all of this a bunch easier with less complexity,
and without having to accelerate a piston down the cylinder, just to
decelerate it and bring it up again!]
Methanol is hygroscopic (wet) unless you take special storage,
transfer and handling steps there will always be some water in it. But
then water/methanol is probably better than water alone as there is more
oxidant/gas molecules available. I don't know too much about NO-2, except
that the exhaust gasses look redder the more you use (I think that is
right), and some engines have refrigerated coolant loops for use with
NO-2. The engine CHT is THE critical guage, and EGT is number 2 when any
of these go-fasters are used.
Oh - BTW your engine bearings, rings, valve seats, etc just lost
about 60% of their expected life, and if you make a wee bit, a wee bit
more you will cook-off the heads on a radial engine (sounds just like
hand-grenades going off under the hood, I am told), blow the head
gasket(s) on an in-line, opposed, Vee, etc liquid-cooled block, hole a
piston, bend/break the con-rod or crank, bend/break valve stems (that's
just one reason they filled them with sodium! get the heat flow out
quickly, but then the hollow is not as stong as steel either, it's always
a trade-off), or seize (overheat) the engine.
The steam is incredibly corrosive and can pit hardened steel in a way
you wouldn't believe in a short time. The effect like supercharging is to
stress the entire engine train just up to where things begin to let go.
Also the amount of waste heat rises dramatically, usually beyond the
ability of the coolant or airflow to carry it away effectively. That's why
Willis Shea Mashburn
Okay. I understand your concept. My thermodynamics classes spent some
time on engine efficiency when dealing with a classic two thermal
reservoir setup. What does this do to your superheated steam do to your
efficiency? Converting the water to steam would add to your vapor
pressure, but your initial Qh (heat from the initial explosion) would be
partially used up in the state change. Also, how close to a revesable
thermodynamic setup does this system come? Your classic pure steam engine
has like a 20% or so efficiency and your classic gas engine is not much
better. So I'm just curios how mixing media effects the heat ejection and
efficiency.
shea
MSU
Gord Beaman
meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.96050...@Isis.MsState.Edu>,
>Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> writes:
>> I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
>Not much to explain. If a very small (titi) amount of water is injected
>into the combustion chamber two things happen: 1) the water flash boils to
>superheated steam at combustion + a few milliseconds -- this increases
>the thrust of the expanding exhaust gases, and the force applied to the
>now descending piston; 2) some of the water is dissociated or combines
>chemically with other combustants increasing the scavenage of exhaust
>gases. Oh - BTW your engine bearings, rings, valve seats, etc just lost
>about 60% of their expected life, and if you make a wee bit, a wee bit
>more you will cook-off the heads on a radial engine, blow the head
>gasket(s), or hole a piston, or seize the engine. That's why water or
>water/methanol injection is only done for a few minutes -- the Cyl Head
>Temp Guage moves like a stop watch!!
John, I've seen your posts before and you for the most part seem to be
one of the more lucid/knowledgeable posters but you sure bombed on
this one!...water injection (ADI for Anti Detonant Injection)
certainly does'nt operate the way you described. Heres the lowdown,
on high power supercharged reciprocating aircraft engines.
The fuel/air charge is cooled below the detonation point by using a
very rich mixture, when ADI is injected to cool the fuel/air charge
the fuel mixture is leaned automatically by the 'derichment valve' to
near 'best power' and this is where the extra power comes from. This
operation is not nearly as detrimental to the engine as operating it
at 'dry power' because at dry power the fuel mixture is so rich that
you don't get efficient burning which tends to create uneven heating
of the cylinder heads which produces mechanical distortions etc.
I operated Wright R-3350-EA1 engines (on Argus Maritime Patrol
aircraft) as a Flight Engineer for 7 years or so (about 8,000 hours).
also the Wright R-3350-89A on the Fairchild C-119G and the Wright
R-3350-32W on the P2V-7 Neptune...they all used basically the same
system of ADI...
Now that explains recips...turbojets are another subject (and was
probably what the original question was about!!)
--
From Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada.
MetaJohn
*****about all those extra POSTS -- sorry, my service provider and PC
software/modem fumbled several times last night!! Moreover, it seems I
should've gone to bed anyway as my explaination was full for hot air! Read
these remarks sent to me by Gord Beaman [gbe...@atcon.com (Gord Beaman)]:
<<<John, I've seen your posts before and you for the most part seem to be
one of the more lucid/knowledgeable posters but you sure bombed on
this one!...water injection (ADI for Anti Detonant Injection)
certainly does'nt operate the way you described. Heres the lowdown,
on high power supercharged reciprocating aircraft engines.
The fuel/air charge is cooled below the detonation point by using a
very rich mixture, when ADI is injected to cool the fuel/air charge
the fuel mixture is leaned automatically by the 'derichment valve' to
near 'best power' and this is where the extra power comes from. This
operation is not nearly as detrimental to the engine as operating it
at 'dry power' because at dry power the fuel mixture is so rich that
you don't get efficient burning which tends to create uneven heating
of the cylinder heads which produces mechanical distortions etc.
I operated Wright R-3350-EA1 engines (on Argus Maritime Patrol
aircraft) as a Flight Engineer for 7 years or so (about 8,000 hours).
also the Wright R-3350-89A on the Fairchild C-119G and the Wright
R-3350-32W on the P2V-7 Neptune...they all used basically the same
system of ADI...
Now that explains recips...turbojets are another subject (and was
probably what the original question was about!!)
--
From Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada.>>>
Thanks for setting me, at least, straight. And I'll leave the engine tech
stuff to the experts anyway next ime!! Just put it in the air, Chief!
John Barker
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
On water injection on a recip. engine, while it also may do
interesting/good things for combustion, another part of the plan is to
precool the incoming air, which on most high performance engines has gone
through some sort of compressor, which increases the pressure/mass
of air, but also heats it up a bit. The water flash evaporates, cooling
the air/increasing its density and then on to combustion.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.960508...@ra.msstate.edu>,
through a compressor and could use something to improve the
density/pressure. On a surface vehicle application, an aftercooler
does the deed, but would be an extra weigh/volume/drag load on a fighter
so water injection is used instead.
Dimitriy A. Levin
In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.96050...@Isis.MsState.Edu>,
Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
> Hey,
> I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
>
> shea
> Mississippi State Univ.
Well, it's kind of like fuel injection in modern cars. In water injection,
water-methanol (methanol is methyl alcohol - highly flammable, highly
toxic) mixture is injected directly into the combustion chambers of the
engine. The advantage of this is dramatic (as much as 200 hp) increase in
engine power. The drawback is the need for an extra fuel tank to hold the
mixture and, most importantly, the sudden jump in the operating
temperature of the engine. That is the reason why water injection was used
only in the "emergency" mode (for instance, when Ta 152H had a bogey on
its tail it could go into emergency mode and simply outrun the enemy).
Howver, because of high operating temperatures the emergency mode was good
for only 15 minutes or so. After that, the engine overheated.
--
Dimitriy A. Levin, dle...@stega.smoky.org
Creator and maintainer of the AirPage
http://stega.smoky.org/~dlevin/
Matthew Saroff
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>In article <4mov1u$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn) wrote:
>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.96050...@Isis.MsState.Edu>,
>>Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> writes:
>>
>>> I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
>>
>>Not much to explain. If a very small (titi) amount of water is injected
>>into the combustion chamber two things happen: 1) the water flash boils to
>>superheated steam at combustion + a few milliseconds -- this increases
>>the thrust of the expanding exhaust gases, and the force applied to the
>>now descending piston; 2) some of the water is dissociated or combines
>>chemically with other combustants increasing the scavenage of exhaust
>>gases. Oh - BTW your engine bearings, rings, valve seats, etc just lost
>>about 60% of their expected life, and if you make a wee bit, a wee bit
>>more you will cook-off the heads on a radial engine, blow the head
>>gasket(s), or hole a piston, or seize the engine. That's why water or
>>water/methanol injection is only done for a few minutes -- the Cyl Head
>>Temp Guage moves like a stop watch!!
>>
>>
>>("Our children are fodder for work and war: If we really thought they were
>>precious we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
>>meta...@aol.com aka John Barker, Alive @ NTC Great Lakes
>Aren't you forgetting evaporation? The water evaporating cools the intake
>gases, thereby giving a denser charge in the cylinders.
Hi,
You guys are not quite right. Sequence is as follows:
1) Run as high an compression ratio as possible at stiochometric
conditions. Also have as much boost as possible. You get maximum power.
2) You get pre-ignition (pinging) from the heat of compression. Cylinder
head ends up in pilot's lap. Pilot is mad at you.
3) If you cool down the mixture, it will not pre-ignite. Spray water into
mixture. Everything cools down, pilot is happy.
When you add water to the mixture, you can go with more boost, and there is
no need to advance (or is it retard?) the timing (which reduces power) to
prevent pre-detonation.
If you up the boost, etc. without water injection, you bust the engine.
You can get part-way there by adding extra fuel to the mixture, and the
evaporating fuel will cool everything down, but the heat of vaporization
(the amount of heat that is absorbed to evaporate the stuff) is much (like
more than 10 times) greater than gasoline. To get the same amount of
cooling with fuel, you wouldn't have much air left in the cylinder, and you
would lose power from air starvation.
--
Matthew Saroff
Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to msa...@pobox.com
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
F. Janson
Pyry Lukkariniemi <lu...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi> wrote:
>>
>> >Dornier Do-335 "Pfaltz" ("Arrow")
>> ------
>btw....wasnt me who wrote that one
>> Make that *Pfiel*, and you won't be Pfaltz.
>>
>Pfeil...
>> >around 763km/h (474mph).I'm not very sure . . .
>>
The ultimate version of the Mustang was the P-51H, which was the
fastest Mustang variant to see service and one of the fastest (if not
the
fastest) piston-engined fighters to enter production during the Second
World War. [Note from the editor: The fastest was the P-47M.]
The P-51H was an outgrowth of the experimental XP-51F and G
lightweight Mustang projects of early 1944. Rather than commit the F
or G
versions to production, the USAAF decided instead to produce a version
powered by the uprated Packard Merlin V-1659-9 engine. This
engine had the Simmons automatic boost control for constant manifold
pressure maintenance and was equipped with a water injection system
which made it possible to overboost the engine to achieve war
emergency powers in excess of 2000 hp for brief periods. North
American
Aviation gave the project the company designation NA 126, and it was
ordered into production as the P-51H in June of 1944 even before
much of the initial design work was done.
Gord Beaman
msa...@pobox.com (Matthew Saroff) wrote:
>Hi,
> You guys are not quite right. Sequence is as follows:
<whole bunch of misinformation snipped>
>--
>Matthew Saroff
Matthew if what you wrote is what you really believe (or were you
joking?) then I think you should read up on the theory of operation of
high powered reciprocating engines because you have so many
misconceptions about them that it would be difficult to make you
understand how they actually work in this kind of forum, I'd need a
classroom with the proper training aids etc.
Gord Beaman
dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.96050...@Isis.MsState.Edu>,
>Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>> Hey,
>> I'm new to the net. Please explain a water injection engine.
>>
>> shea
>> Mississippi State Univ.
>Well, it's kind of like fuel injection in modern cars. In water injection,
>water-methanol (methanol is methyl alcohol - highly flammable, highly
>toxic) mixture is injected directly into the combustion chambers of the
>engine. The advantage of this is dramatic (as much as 200 hp) increase in
>engine power. The drawback is the need for an extra fuel tank to hold the
>mixture and, most importantly, the sudden jump in the operating
>temperature of the engine. That is the reason why water injection was used
>only in the "emergency" mode (for instance, when Ta 152H had a bogey on
>its tail it could go into emergency mode and simply outrun the enemy).
>Howver, because of high operating temperatures the emergency mode was good
>for only 15 minutes or so. After that, the engine overheated.
>--
>Dimitriy A. Levin, dle...@stega.smoky.org
>Creator and maintainer of the AirPage
>http://stega.smoky.org/~dlevin/
Wrong wrong wrong...good Lord, this MOST CERTAINLY is NOT how water
injection works...if you want to know how it works read one of my
above posts in this thread, I'm too tired to type it again...
Matthew Saroff
Willis Shea Mashburn <ws...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>Okay. I understand your concept. My thermodynamics classes spent some
>time on engine efficiency when dealing with a classic two thermal
>reservoir setup. What does this do to your superheated steam do to your
>efficiency? Converting the water to steam would add to your vapor
>pressure, but your initial Qh (heat from the initial explosion) would be
>partially used up in the state change. Also, how close to a revesable
>thermodynamic setup does this system come? Your classic pure steam engine
>has like a 20% or so efficiency and your classic gas engine is not much
>better. So I'm just curios how mixing media effects the heat ejection and
>efficiency.
Hi,
A classic steam engine (one with pistons) is around 5-10% efficient.
Internal combustion and steam TURBINES have roughly equivalent
efficiencies. You have to cool/dump a lot of energy overboard with piston
type steam engines.
It's one of the reasons that the steam locomotives are no longer used
Gord Beaman
While you're correct in saying that the ADI cools the incoming air,
this effect has almost no desireable properties because on this type
of engine the supercharger provides more than enough air to reach
maximum allowable manifold air pressure (MAP) at less than full
throttle. The only effect that the cooler denser air will have is that
you reach max M.A.P. at slightly less throttle opening than you would
have if the air were not cooled. And as you reach max MAP at about
three quarters of full throttle the cooling makes no difference.
This cooling effect is very beneficial to turbojet engines though
because the air intake to the engine is not reduced to control engine
power. (airwise you're at full throttle all the time).
Dmitriy Ayrapetov
Jay and Edie DeLoach <jand...@camalott.com> wrote:
>Michael Trout wrote:
>>
>> More trivia: What record held by the Po-2 was finally broken
>> by the Lockheed C-130 Hercules?
>>
>Most stuff hauled home after major shopping sprees in foreign countries...heh. Sorry.
>-J
>Herk Slave
Hi, was po-2 that fast that it is discussed as one of the fastest
piston engined planes ?
Dmitriy
Matthew Saroff
gbe...@atcon.com (Gord Beaman) wrote:
>Matthew if what you wrote is what you really believe (or were you
>joking?) then I think you should read up on the theory of operation of
>high powered reciprocating engines because you have so many
>misconceptions about them that it would be difficult to make you
>understand how they actually work in this kind of forum, I'd need a
>classroom with the proper training aids etc.
Hi,
I'd like to thank you for such an informative and helpful
response. This is of course why usenet is such a useful
repository of useful and helpful discourse. :p
For those of you who don't know what this is about, it was a
discussion about how water-injection (actually methanol-water on
the TA-152) is used to improve power under boost.
I will freely and fully admit that it's been a while, about 9
years, since I did my studies of various sorts of power cycles.
Since that time, most of my work has been with structures and
fabrication, thought right now I am working at Lockheed-Martin
Vought Systems (until 3 weeks ago Loral Vought) solving problems
with a French SAM (so I can claim that, "I are a rocket
scientist" ;-) ).
I will also say that my post was not particularly clear. It was
also a bit patronizing. My apologies.
My point is that water injection increases power on piston
engines by reducing the temperature of the mixture and preventing
pre-detonation (pinging). Severe pinging is like hitting the
inside of the engine with a hammer. Water injection serves as an
octane booster. Octane is not a measure of the power in the
fuel, it is a measure of how difficult it is to ignite. The
_HARDER_ to ignite, the harder
There was a brief article in Road and Track in the early 80's
about water injection. They took a small 90 hp engine with a
7.5:1 compression ratio and bumped the ratio to about 13:1 and
added water injection. They got about 120 horsepower. When they
pulled the water injection and used high octane racing fuel, they
got about 125 horse-power. It turned out that the water
increased pumping losses in the engine.
While only my memory verifies the above, I believe that there are
a fair number of people out there who can verify the dual octane
ratings of military AV Gas (like 115/130 octane) with the second
number signifying the octane rating with water injection.
The idea that water injection somehow makes a piston engine act
like a steam engine is wrong. If you inject water into the
intake manifold of a super charged engine (after the inter
cooler), you are still dealing with an air temperature in the 50C
temperature range. By the time that everything gets sucked into
the engine on the intake stroke, going by the hot intake valve
and picking up heat from the cylinder walls, etc, temperature of
the charge will be in the 100C (the temperature at which water
boils) range. It _WILL_ all evaporate in the compression stroke
before TDC is reached.
It can also cool the mixture by over 100 degrees. This means
that the (VERY) hot exhaust valve is less likely to cause the
mixture to prematurely explode (ping).
There are two basic ways to improve engine performance: putting
more fuel/air through the system, or increasing the compression
ratio.
I _ASSUME_ (note the word assume) that the way that power was
boosted in the TA-152 was by increasing engine RPMs. This would
increase the pressure off the blower (centrifugal blowers are NOT
linear, they are just more linear than axial ones), resulting in
hotter air going into the inter cooler, which cools less due to
less dwell time in the cooler, which gives a hotter mixture. The
engine will heat up, due to the fact that there is more waste
heat generated when power levels go up. Everything gets a _LOT_
hotter.
Heat and pressure cause pinging. The water injection reduces
this.
BTW, water is NOT injected directly into the combustion chamber
for water injection. It is injected into the intake manifold.
There is no space in the cylinder head of a 4-valve engine for
the injector, and besides this would require extremely complex
timing gear to get the timing for the injectors right. The only
production Otto-Cycle engine that I know that had direct
injection was the Mercedes Benz V-8 that was used on the 300SL
gull wing.
Also: while water is bad in a combustion chamber and can form
corrosive compounds, a hot engine and hot oil will not accumulate
water long enough for these compounds to form. This is why
people who do highway driving may need to change their oil less
frequently than people who do city driving. (Source Click &
Clack)