Sure, but those engines are some way removed from your average 1.6 :) No doubt at max rpm your average car engine is sending multiple horse powers out the pipe as pressure and heat, but thats when you need the turbo the least. Its down low where not much is happening exhaust wise that they're most useful and its taken car manufacturers years to get them to work well at low rpm.
Indeed.
It isn't a myth.
The development for aircraft was turbo*compound*, not *charger*. Probably similar to the principles of double or triple expansion steam engines.
"generating 20 percent additional take-off power without increasing fuel consumption."
If 1943, probably got nowhere because they quickly developed it to make the reciprocating bits redundant.
It wouldn't bore me.
It is. None of the energy the turbo gets from the exhaust directly gives the engine any more power. Any extra shove the pressured air gives to the pistons on the intake offset by the pistons on the compression having to work harder to compress the greater volume of air. As I said , the extra energy due to turbo charging comes entirely from the fuel.
They're not turbo chargers so irrelevant.
No, its not
That is just ONE engine designed for commercial use.
"Turbochargers were first used in production aircraft engines such as the Napier Lioness[9] in the 1920s, although they were less common than engine-driven centrifugal superchargers. Ships and locomotives equipped with turbocharged diesel engines began appearing in the 1920s. Turbochargers were also used in aviation, most widely used by the United States. During World War II, notable examples of U.S. aircraft with turbochargers ? which included mass-produced ones designed by General Electric[10] for American aviation use ? include the B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, P-38 Lightning, and P-47 Thunderbolt. The technology was also used in experimental fittings by a number of other manufacturers, notably a variety of experimental inline engine-powered Focke-Wulf Fw 190 prototype models, with some developments for their design coming from the DVL, a predecessor of today's DLR agency, but the need for advanced high-temperature metals in the turbine, that were not readily available for production purposes during wartime, kept them out of widespread use."
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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.