 | 
11-04-2007, 01:22 PM
|
#121 | | Banned
Join Date: May 2007 Location: Lisbon
Posts: 36
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet  Thats fine. Explain why then.
Ofcourse "Allison Sucks..." is going to get people wound up because in all actuallity it does not suck.
No one here said that it was the best engine of the war. Anyone that would say that does not know anything about them. However just saying they suck is rather stupid, you should explain why and then people might understand where you are coming from. | Really the allison don't sucks, it is a very good "ground attack engine" but his performance to hight altitude leaves very much to be desired, and i think that he was quickly outdated because this reason. | 
|  | |
11-04-2007, 01:46 PM
|
#122 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,514
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Neto lool realy ? what you think you are ?? you think that for be moderator of this forum you can insult me ??people here have to express ideas like they want. if you don't like the idea at least sow some respect for the others.
by the way, your theories are extremely americans,you defend allways the americans aircrafts why?? you need read more about the others cultures it is going to do well  . | How about this @sshole - you don't like it here LEAVE or better yet I could expedite your departure...
Read some of my post and you'll find I'm far from being American biased with regards to aircraft (if that's what you're implying) - can I help it if you're a freaking nitwit and 80 percent of your recent posts don't make any f#*king sense!?!?
My only warning - stop being an idiot or you're out of here - compreenda o @sshole!!!!!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" 
Last edited by FLYBOYJ : 11-04-2007 at 01:54 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 02:35 PM
|
#123 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,227
Country: | Yeah, look up some history on the V-1710, even with just the standard supercharger configuration it could be configured for up to 23,000 ft crit. altitude. The main problem was the design lacked the capibillity for a 2-stage or 2-speed supercharger so it was a problem for aircraft that could not use turbochargers. This was due to the USAAC deciding that the engine should be used for low altitude, and if additional high-alt performance was needed a turbocharger would be added.
And we might have seen some turbocharged single-engine V-1710 fighters (like the original P-39 design) if it wasn't another USAAC decision that the US was involnerable to high altitude attack due to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and so fighters were to focus primarily on low altitude strike capibillities. They were prooven wrong at Pearl...
The Merlins had the same poor altitude performance (or almost so) untill the Merlin-61 with 2-stage supercharger. When some P-40s had their allisons replaced with merlins (standard single supercharger) performance did not improve much. Eventually Allison saw the need to incorporate a 2-stage supercharger in their design and added a auxiliary supercharger (as a rudementary 2-stage, though it lacked the 2-speed gearbox and coolers of the Merlins) to the engine. Water injection was also later added. This was used in the P-63 which had markedly improved altitude performance and ceiling over the P-39. (that model was the Allison V-1710-117 rated at 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection)
Even earlier versions had power uprated so even with the inadequate supercharger smaller fighters (like the P-39) would have enough power at altitude even with the drop-off past the critical zone. ( 1325 hp Allison V-1710-47 uprated from the original 1150 hp) Such was seen in the XP-76 (a redesign of the P-39 originaly the P-39E using the Contenetal V-1430 "Hyper" engine). Though Bell added a 2-stage supercharger. It seemed to work and performance was almost up to the turbocharged version of the XP-39, a series was ordered in 1942 but later canceled so Bell could manufacture B-29s. So we'll never know how the P-76 would have done...
see: Bell XP-76 and Bell XP-39E Airacobra
Even though Wikipedia isn't the best resourse, its still more accurate than you've been. There's a good overview on the history of the V-1710 here: Allison V-1710 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by kool kitty89 : 11-04-2007 at 03:03 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 02:44 PM
|
#124 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,514
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89 Yeah, look up some history on the V-1017, even with just the standard supercharger configuration it could be configured for up to 23,000 ft crit. altitude. The main problem was the design lacked the capibillity for a 2-stage or 2-speed supercharger so it was a problem for aircraft that could not use turbochargers. This was due to the USAAC deciding that the engine should be used for low altitude, and if additional high-alt performance was needed a turbocharger would be added.
The Merlins had the same poor altitude performance (or almost so) untill the Merlin-61 with 2-stage supercharger. When some P-40s had their allisons replaced with merlins (standard single supercharger) performance did not improve much. Eventually Allison saw the need to incorporate a 2-stage supercharger in their design and added a suplemental supercharger (as a rudementary 2-stage) to the engine. Water injection was also later added. This was used in the P-63 which had markedly improved altitude performance and ceiling over the P-39. (that model was rated at 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection) | OUTSTANDING! 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-04-2007, 02:45 PM
|
#125 | | Banned
Join Date: May 2007 Location: Lisbon
Posts: 36
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ How about this @sshole - you don't like it here LEAVE or better yet I could expedite your departure...
Read some of my post and you'll find I'm far from being American biased with regards to aircraft (if that's what you're implying) - can I help it if you're a freaking nitwit and 80 percent of your recent posts don't make any f#*king sense!?!?
My only warning - stop being an idiot or you're out of here - compreenda o @sshole!!!!! | I AM GAY!
Last edited by FLYBOYJ : 11-04-2007 at 03:29 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 02:46 PM
|
#126 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,514
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Neto I AM GAY! | Goodbye d!ckhead - it's obvious you're in the lower part of the European gene pool!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"
Last edited by FLYBOYJ : 11-04-2007 at 03:28 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 03:12 PM
|
#127 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,173
Country:  | I saw that coming!
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
11-04-2007, 03:23 PM
|
#128 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,227
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme I believe in general layout only Holibar, otherwise a completely new Petter design for a new specification, F.4/40, with emphasis on "high altitude capabilities". Tenders prepared were the General Aircraft G.A.L.46, the Hawker P.1004, and the Westland Welkin. But the requirement was revised later as F.7/41, calling for a;
"single-seat fighter able to operate at great heights and in all parts of the world. Armament was to consist of 6 20mm. Hispano cannon with normal ammunition 120rpg and 150rpg per gun. A pressure cabin was mandatory, the machine was to provide a steady gun platform, the view all round for the pilot was to be good-particularly to the rear, and, although designed as a single seater, provision was to be made for an observer or for A.I. radar for the pilot's use only. Minimum top speed required was 415mph at 33,000ft and service ceiling demanded was to be over 42,000ft with a pair of Merlin 61s for power".
Two prototypes eventually emerged to conform to F.7/41. The Vickers Type 432 and the Westland P.14 Welkin Mk.1.
This was the G.A.L.46 design for the original specification. | The original design looks nice though, maby of the callibur of the Hornet, only available before the war's end... Looks cool too! Would have been more use than the final version of the Welkin.
Looks more like the Gloster F.9/37 than the Whirlwind though.
Last edited by kool kitty89 : 11-04-2007 at 04:26 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 03:38 PM
|
#129 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,227
Country: | Wow, first "the su-47 is gangsta" now this guy (Neto), you guys are cleaning up today...
Thanks for the complement FBJ.  Of and nice edit. LOL
Last edited by kool kitty89 : 11-04-2007 at 03:41 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 04:09 PM
|
#130 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 2,567
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ Goodbye d!ckhead - it's obvious you're in the lower part of the European gene pool! | "I'm gay" means he's happy, isn't it ? 
So then I'm glad that he's happy to be banned, suits him.  on you moderators
__________________ 
"I'm no hero. Soldiers on the ground, they are heroes. In an aircraft you can always evade the bullets."
-Jan Linzel, Dutch fighter pilot | |
| | |
11-04-2007, 04:27 PM
|
#131 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,227
Country: | You do know FBJ edited it to say that right?  | |
| | |
11-04-2007, 04:32 PM
|
#132 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,514
Country: | Thanks guys - we don't mind novices but its hard to allow stupidity here...
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-04-2007, 04:53 PM
|
#133 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,227
Country: | Especially arrogant stupidity! | |
| | |
11-04-2007, 05:09 PM
|
#134 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 7,036
Country: | Its amazing how you can tell when someone is headed to "Banned Heaven"!
That looks amazing, Kool, any idea what the armament would've been ?
__________________ 
"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!"
Last edited by Njaco : 11-04-2007 at 05:12 PM.
| |
| | |
11-04-2007, 11:40 PM
|
#135 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,227
Country: | The Gloster F.9/37 was mentioned earlier (FBJ had it on the comparisons chart on pg 5) It was to be armmed with 4x 20mm cannons. Performance was similar to the Whirlwind.
The one below is the initial version of what became the Welkin, before it was redesigned for the altered specifications for high-altitude use. I think it had 6x 20mm cannons. I think it looks verru cool Had it been persued in the original form, it might have been like the Hornet... Graeme should know more about this.
Last edited by kool kitty89 : 11-05-2007 at 12:00 AM.
| |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM. | |
