Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by Relax » Sat May 30, 2020 10:25 pm | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
One day, you will be able to count to 2. I will wait for that day, patiently because if you bother to read my own link it will explain, vaguely. Not to mention the cutaway pictures of F version of Allison 1710 engines that were only put on P38's. What did that cutaway with nameplate show? The single stage impeller crank driven... Right from the USA's OWN US Airforce museum. Yea, I think the US AIRFORCE museum can get the engines right...
Or you could be bothered to go to an airshow and, oh I don't know, actually LOOK under the hood at the airplanes. A quarter of those warbirds usually have their bonnets open and crew are more than willing to talk. I am done. Unless maybe you can admit to how an aircraft engine in WWII actually works... Back to SL, Detweiler, OB, and SHitty Ego maniac leadership. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by tlb » Sat May 30, 2020 10:40 pm | |
tlb
Posts: 4438
|
https://www.456fis.org/ALLISSON_V-1710.htm I don't think that you read the very link that you provided. Down at the bottom it says the following:
|
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by Relax » Sun May 31, 2020 1:32 am | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Palm in face... Lets try something VERY simple:
What is a TURBO charger? = X What is a TURBO SUPER charger? = X + Y If you can't figure it out from here, I really can't help you. Now I really am done. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by tlb » Sun May 31, 2020 10:11 am | |
tlb
Posts: 4438
|
Let's see if I understand what you are now trying to say: that there was both a gear driven supercharger and an exhaust driven supercharger on the engine of the P-38. So your vociferous remarks about the exhaust driven supercharger were not intended to deny its existence, but to try to claim that the gear driven supercharger should receive equal status. So I have been responding to your words, but not to your intended message. One problem would still remain. This text is from the end of the second link that you provided (this criticism of the Allison is consistent with everything written aboit them):
The following is from GE Reports, available online:
So turbosupercharger was GE's trade name for what we would just call a turbocharger. |
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by Jonathan_S » Sun May 31, 2020 11:05 am | |
Jonathan_S
Posts: 8792
|
Um, no. The etymology doesn't work that way. The initial superchargers were all mechanically driven, but the term supercharging wasn't specifically linked with mechanical drive (as it is now) because there was nothing else to differentiate it from. The term basically applied to the whole concept of providing forced induction to aircraft engines. So when version forced induction were developed that were powered by exhaust gasses spinning a turbine the modifier "turbo" was hung on the front to differentiate these new type of supercharger (aircraft engine forced induction devices) from the existing ones. It was only later that this got shorted to turbocharger; and then with a separate term specific to exhaust driven forced induction the older term supercharger became reserved for non-exhaust (so mechanically) driven devices. (Though as an aside I'm not sure what you'd call it if you built a car with an electrically powered compressor for the engine - it's not mechanically linked, nor is it exhaust drive) So today if someone told you an engine was turbo supercharged you would probably expect it to have both a supercharger and a turbocharger (so a variant on the dual turbo concept; expect using a mechanical super-charger instead of a smaller faster spooling turbo to provide the initial boost). But back in WWII a turbo-supercharger was just the normal name for what today we'd call a turbocharger. Adding confusion to all this a number of US bomber designs, the P-38 and P-47 fighters, and a few additional prototypes (XP-37, XF6F-2, and the XF6F-4), did use this hybrid setup - with a mechanical supercharger for the first stage compression and a turbine driven turbo-supercharger for the second stage compression. But AFAIK there was no additional single term for this combination. |
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by Relax » Sun May 31, 2020 3:31 pm | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Yea, it does work that way. Hell, I even gave you guys pictures for use of your OWN EYES. Good grief, until 2 seconds ago neither of you even knew what a turbosupercharger was and now you are "experts"
Heck, you guys could just LOOK at a P38 and note that the turbo charger is several METERS behind the engine, just as it is in the rear fuselage of the P47! Good grief. http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/supercha.htm for the P47 cutaway of the turbo. If you wish to see the engine built in first stage supercharger mechanically driven on 100% of every P&W R2800 ever built, just as on every single Allison V1710 ever built, you can open your eyes and look at ANY r-2800 cut away. Exact same thing as I showed previously on the P38's Allison V1710F version. Here is one suchhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Cross_Section_of_a_Pratt_and_Whitney_R2800_Double_Wasp.JPG By the way, that is a single stage 2 speed supercharger mechanically driven with the extra RAM pressure provided by the turbo charger in the aft fuselage just as was done on the P38. Why they are called TurboSUPERchargers. The Turbo charger is in addition to the supercharger. The jokes on cars today are done for LOW altitude applications. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by tlb » Sun May 31, 2020 4:52 pm | |
tlb
Posts: 4438
|
Let's recapitilate; this started because because I wrote:
This technically incorrect, because the engine has both supercharged and turbocharged elements. But it does correctly lay the problem on the turbocharger for the difficulties encountered at high altitude in winter over in Europe. As the text about the P-39 points out:
Now you did state the following:
At this point I was at fault for not recognizing that you were telling me that the P-38 had both. But you are incorrect about the name turbosupercharger, because it is the name that General Electric applied to what we would call a turbocharger. From the GE Reports webpage:
|
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by Maldorian » Sun May 31, 2020 5:16 pm | |
Maldorian
Posts: 251
|
What has your Turbocharger conversation to do with the topic?
|
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by tlb » Sun May 31, 2020 5:34 pm | |
tlb
Posts: 4438
|
How naive, to expect everyone to march in lockstep on the topic. Why didn't you ask what the execution of Beatrice had to do with the topic? Digressions are common on just about every thread. This one began with the following post: Then an example was presented of the air war over Germany and tally ho - we were off and quarreling. Another case of free association. |
Top |
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)? | |
---|---|
by Sigs » Sun May 31, 2020 7:36 pm | |
Sigs
Posts: 1485
|
Huge difference, their whole job was to be part of their respective nations nuclear deterrent, literally their job was to nuke their targets if war broke out. They existed to make sure that the other side could not launch a first strike and wipe out their respective nations ability to retaliate. But they were also scouting different systems, how long before the MA figured that North of 50% of the RHN is missing and it would be more like 70% of the frontline SD(P)'s are missing? And how long can the RHN keep such a high % of their forces concentrated and their front(s) exposed? Chances are that with resumption of hostilities, shortly thereafter 8th Fleet started scouting as many systems as they can and they try force the RHN to reveal their Ambush Fleets. How long can they scout and not figure out that the RoH is virtually exposed aside form a handful of systems and how long before they figure out that something is going on? They might not be able to do much about it but then there are only a few targets for a force of several hundred SD(P)'s The WHOLE point of Candice was the RHN to BEAT one of the MA's offensives and THEN retaliate and crush one of their systems. How exactly do they accomplish that if they strip the RoH of defences? How do they do that if they gut the Ambush Fleets? How does Candice work if 8th Fleet comes into a system, crushes the pitiful picket made up of obsolete SD's, destroys the industry and leaves? With forward deployment of forces for Beatrice they weakened themselves at the time they had to be strongest so that they can execute Candice, no RHN defensive victory=no Candice. But the MA is actively scouting dozens of systems, trying to trip the ambush fleets and leave the RHN guessing. I would venture a guess that they are actively scouting major bases as well, so the problem is that someone(scouts, ONI) might notice that something like 70% of the SD(P)'s have disappeared from the front and inner systems, exactly how many Alliance targets are there that require several hundred SD(P)'s? |
Top |