Wing mirrors on cars

Not so - a turbo is more efficient under certain conditions than an NA unit producing the same power.

I wonder how/if that affected the production of jet engines towards the end of the war.

Possibly down to it producing the same power at a lower rpm so less fictional and induction losses per unit hp.

It was te major engineering challenge that faced Frank Whittle: the idea for a jet was I think something he wrote up in 1925.

He took years to get funding and even longer to make a turbine that didnt disintegrate.

smller engine lower rpm = less frictional losses.

Why did you snip?

Wrong. Work done in compression within a cylinder is mostly recovered.

Are you suggesting that the move to small turbocharged car engines does not include the objective of improving fuel consumption?

It was a relevant reply to your words.

The discussion is about whether energy can be harvested from the exhaust in a productive way. So yes, at face value it seems it is possible to extract more work from the exhaust than the loss introduced between pistons and crank.

and Leonardo da Vinci designed a helicopter

By its very nature a turbo engine can be smaller so rather obviously have less friction etc losses.

But the same doesn't apply to a supercharged engine where the power for the supercharger is taken from the engine crank. So a turbo can be said to be getting 'free' power to some extent.

Then we gave it away to the yanks as part payment for their mercenaries helping us out.

A fairly successful one too.

Some entries for these aircraft say turbo but when the engines are also checked, they turn out to be pure supercharged. The P-38 appears to be the only one.

The German ones had a life expectancy measured in a few hours before being rebuilt. IIRC it was made worse because they were inline engines and ran at a higher temperature than the UK centrifugal ones.

Gas turbine engines predated Whittle and they had turbines in them.

That attitude really bothers me. I drew an aeroplane that worked under water yet I am not credited with designing this marvelous machine.

Da Vinci merely drew a helicopter (which wouldn't have carried a man) and he drew a tank so is credited with inventing that too.

Yes the original "Renaissance man", but he is credited with a lot more than he actually did.

Not that successful.

No. P47 is turbocharged. Just listen to it at an airshow Also P38

Merlins and most UK aircraft were supercharged. Also about half the US radials

Other US aircraft were turbocharged. Look at the references again. It was called 'turbosupercharging' then

Nobody likes to be wrong, but its a sign of maturitry if you can admit it.

Did he lie upside down painting ceilings or did he just tell others what to do? Working upside down deserves credit.

Did he lie upside down painting ceilings or did he just tell others what to do? Working upside down deserves credit.

My Golf Turbo diesel had a turbo which worked evenly from 2000 rpm upwards.

"Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp ... Variable-speed (in F8F-2, unified with throttle via AEC automatic engine control), single-stage single-speed centrifugal type supercharger"

There is a turbo variant - the type 73/77 - and out of over 15000 aircraft built only 700 are listed as using it.

The B-17 -

"Wright R-1820 Cyclone ... Nine-cylinder single-row supercharged air-cooled radial engine"

In the list of 40 or so variants, only two are turbocharged and these are not the most powerful.

However, when I look up the B-17 from another source, it is listed as having 1200hp engines, which happens to match the turbo versions.

Yes, I had agreed on that one. One comment is that "The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, since the exhaust was muffled by the turbo-superchargers." This is a suggestion of something unusual.

That is not the confusion.

So this thread has prompted me to look deeper. It is a sign of maturity to inform or correct without making comments like that.

Sistine chapel (the creation of Adam all that)? That was Michelangelo.

Do you even history bro?