![enginehistory.org Forum Index](templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif) |
enginehistory.org Aircraft Engine Historical Society Members' Bulletin Board
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
rwahlgren
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 Posts: 323
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
dpennings
Joined: 10 Dec 2016 Posts: 48
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 04:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Impressive presentation, I’m going to by the book... It is really very well researched. I’m sure, it was the last chance to talk with people which were really witnessing the development. It’s the first time, that I read about the issues with the C3 fuel and exhaust valves. I’m impressed with the detailed work and technical analysis.
The only thing I don’t really believe it the theses, that GB won the horsepower race because of better organisation. It’s true, that Göhring wasn’t as good in organizing and management as Speer who turned out to be a genius in organizing war time production, but unlike the incredible huge variety of German aircraft design, the engine development was sound.
To win the war, Germany needed to build more planes and tanks than they had resources for. They were often introduced to early from a technical stand point, but to late from a strategic stand point. Making more realistic production plans, would have meant, to accept that the war was lost. There wasn’t much room for better organised development, if boundary conditions change fast and unexpected (e.g. fuel quality). Of course it was a failure not to test the low Nickel exhaust valves, but very likely their were good reasons for that, like a lack of fuel and engineers. If a factory has to send all their draftsmen to the front (and probably also many engineers), a lot of knowledge is being lost and so the test cell operators might be unaware of such changes. This can be described of bad organisation, but it’s like trying covering up with a blanked which is too small.
Great Britain was never short of supply so it is little wonder that they didn’t face the same problems. If the organisation was really better is questionable if this text is true:
http://enginehistory.org/Piston/Rolls-Royce/RHM/RHM.shtml
In Germany, the planes were flown by hardly educated pilots (there wasn’t enough fuel…) and for operation wasn’t enough fuel either. There were by far more losses of tanks, because of fuel shortages and technical problems than by enemy fire.
About direct fuel injection and water methanol injection:
This not only offered better fuel economy, but also negative G-load capabilities which turned out to be very beneficial. Also, it led to the development of the “Kommandogerät” because unlike a carburettor, an injection system has no self-regulating properties at all.
A carburettor has the advantages of a cooled compression in the charger, but German planes could achieve this also with the water/methanol injection upstream of the supercharger.
In times of fuel shortages and low octane numbers and a lack of high temperature materials, the water-methanol injection proved to a very successful way of being competitive.
It should be mentioned, that Germany finally succeeded the horse power race by the introduction of the Me262… |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|