Supercharged Centauro???

[Tomchri]

Just a supercharger comment   Had plans last year of a Kvakker H2 for pleasure in Germany and.  But started reading, H2 forums,, WHAT.  That engine is in need of a roper plate. You can't keep on full throttle, her intake air gets way to hot. Shoud have been born with an inter cooler,,,  WHAT.   But I enoy the singing of a Supercharger,, it even feels good saying.  IPA time.

Cheers Tom.

[Pressureangle]

13 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

What makes you think a fights going to start, but since you mentioned it. I know pete had in his mind the context of modified automotive/motorcycle engines here but because I'm a front bottom I'll remind him anyway that without the Supercharged/turbocharger spark ignition engine we'd all be speaking German now, lol. Mind you without it there probably wouldn't have been WW2 to start with. The supercharged spark engine was fitted to aircraft, tanks, patrol boats plus probably other stuff I can't recall.

Ciao  

My hyperbole and sarcasm is always lost.

[Chuck]

On 10/20/2021 at 11:49 PM, pete roper said:

Forced induction on spark ignited engines is a first class ticket to misery on steroids! 

I dunno. Back when I first married Dorcia, I found a 68 Mustang GT lurking under a bunch of crap out in the garage. It didn't have an engine, though. Being more than a hot rodder than an antiquer in the 70s, I decided to turbocharge a Cleveland 351 for it. Lighter than the factory big block by a fair amount and the car handled better because of it. Primitive ignition retard under boost with alcohol/water injected into the carb. 

It was freakin awesome..

[LowRyter]

e

e

``\x\x

 

jj``ll..

[Chuck]

 

3 minutes ago, LowRyter said:

e

e

``\x\x

 

jj``ll..

Well, it that's how you feel about it..

[Pressureangle]

3 hours ago, Pressureangle said:

My hyperbole and sarcasm is always lost.

Not to take a ridiculous side trip, but I can't think of a single WWII tank that was boosted. Aircraft usually, Messerschmitt's variable supercharger was a decade ahead of everyone else's. 

[GuzziMoto]

While I like and respect Pete, I guess on the subject of forced induction we will have to disagree.

I do agree that forced induction can take additional engineering to get right. But it is still simply a matter of adding the right amount of fuel to the air going into the engine, then lighting it off. Not everyone wants more power, but I am rarely in a situation where I would turn down more power. I usually find more power to make things more enjoyable. Not always the best thing, but it usually makes me smile.

And I would say that superchargers almost played a part in WW2 coming out the other way, the germans were good at it and that gave them a major advantage that we had to catch up with.

[Weegie]

1 hour ago, GuzziMoto said:

And I would say that superchargers almost played a part in WW2 coming out the other way, the germans were good at it and that gave them a major advantage that we had to catch up with.

 

[LowRyter]

5 hours ago, Chuck said:

 

Well, it that's how you feel about it..

Computer bit the dust.  I found a demonstrator at Office Depot.  Hardly any new computers in stores now.  Order and wait a week.

[Lucky Phil]

8 hours ago, Pressureangle said:

Not to take a ridiculous side trip, but I can't think of a single WWII tank that was boosted. Aircraft usually, Messerschmitt's variable supercharger was a decade ahead of everyone else's. 

Yes you're right. I was thinking of the Meteor engine but that was sans supercharger. As for the Messerschmitts supercharger being better well as Greg points out in his excellent video (along with all his other stuff which is great) their "drive" was superior but holistically their supercharger system wasn't necessarily. 

Ciao 

[Weegie]

On 10/23/2021 at 1:11 AM, Lucky Phil said:

Yes you're right. I was thinking of the Meteor engine but that was sans supercharger. As for the Messerschmitts supercharger being better well as Greg points out in his excellent video (along with all his other stuff which is great) their "drive" was superior but holistically their supercharger system wasn't necessarily. 

Ciao 

Thought you might have been Phil, have you read the RR Heritage book on about the Meteor?

Interesting read in many ways, as I remember it turned in the other direction to the Merlin, although thinking about it the Merlin did have "tractor" versions for some aircraft.

RR opened up the tolerances on many parts so components which were scrap for the Merlin could be recycled and used in the Meteor. Hives offered it to the Millitary effectively free, the price they paid for each engine was what it cost RR to build one. The British army procurement did their level best to reject it, preferring WWI based aero designs. It started to gain traction (sorry) when they threw one into a tank and completed back to back trials. Of course it wiped the floor with the exisitng engines that the millitary had been using up until that point.

Those of us of a certain age might remember John Dodds Merlin engined Rolls Royce which had a big splash in motoring mags many many years ago, I remember rumors that it was in fact a Meteor engine, but the details are all a bit scetchy

Off topic again!!!

 

On the supercharger design, Hooker mentioned that having a carb prior to the supercharger resulted in the charge being cooler as it entered the cylinders by a significant amount, I can't remember the exact number, due to evap cooling of the mixture as opposed to straight air being compressed as was the case with the DB 601 and later variants

[Lucky Phil]

3 hours ago, Weegie said:

Thought you might have been Phil, have you read the RR Heritage book on about the Meteor?

Interesting read in many ways, as I remember it turned in the other direction to the Merlin, although thinking about it the Merlin did have "tractor" versions for some aircraft.

RR opened up the tolerances on many parts so components which were scrap for the Merlin could be recycled and used in the Meteor. Hives offered it to the Millitary effectively free, the price they paid for each engine was what it cost RR to build one. The British army procurement did their level best to reject it, preferring WWI based aero designs. It all but it started to gain traction (sorry) when they threw one into a tank and completed back to back trials. Of course it wiped the floor with the exisitng engines that the millitary had been using up until that point.

Those of us of a certain age might remember John Dodds Merlin engined Rolls Royce which had a big slash in motoring mags many many years ago, I remember rumors that it was in fact a Meteor engine, but the details are all a bit scetchy

Off topic again!!!

 

On the supercharger design, Hooker mentioned that having a carb prior to the supercharger resulted in the charge being cooler as it entered the cylinders by a significant amount, I can't rememeber the exact number, due to the evap cooling due to the mixture as opposed to straight air being compressed as was the case with the DB 601 and later variants

Yes that's true John along with the exhaust gas velocity which was calculated to be the equivalent of 150 hp from memory. The Germans also used to calculate the exhaust velocity and convert to a HP number as well. Hives did a deal with the head or Rover to do the overhaul of the Meteor engine in exchange for the contract to build the whittle gas turbine which the war department in their wisdom had given Rover the contract to build. They did the deal over dinner at "the club" RR gave Rover the factory and overhaul business and RR got the jet engine to build and develop. 

Ciao 

[Pressureangle]

On 10/22/2021 at 8:11 PM, Lucky Phil said:

Yes you're right. I was thinking of the Meteor engine but that was sans supercharger. As for the Messerschmitts supercharger being better well as Greg points out in his excellent video (along with all his other stuff which is great) their "drive" was superior but holistically their supercharger system wasn't necessarily. 

Ciao 

Since when did the Germans constrain complexity to utility? 

[Lucky Phil]

5 hours ago, Pressureangle said:

Since when did the Germans constrain complexity to utility? 

I read in the book " Not much of an engineer" By Stanley Hooker a massive name in RR the classic line from Hives who ran RR during the war when he first had a meeting with Frank Whittle to discuss RR building Whittles jet engine. Whittle said to him that his jet engine was a "simple Engine" to which Hives replied, "Don't worry we'll engineer the simplicity out of it" lol. Classic and true to this day. I've worked on American, European/American and English RR turbo props and high bypass jets and RR always seem to do it the complex way. 

Ciao

[Weegie]

In the RR Heritage line there is a book by Phillip Ruffles on RR's ventures into producing their Turbofan engines and detailing the history.

It's a dry read unless you're VERY geeky.

My take was RR were overconfident to say the very least the early engines were a disaster.

Shocking to read how bad the early engines were and how badly RR let down their clients.

To RR's credit though they didn't leave their customers high and dry but continued doggedly to sort out the problems, however it was an unmitigated mess and took a very long time to produce a good working engine

Hooker and many of the old hands were drafted back in to help sort it out, as mentioned in "Not Much of an Engineer" alongwith the Government intervention.

I never worked on RR engines, but the GE LM engines, Land and Marine, an aero engine usually driving a generator (but not always) were bad enough.

I never did get to grips with the variable bleed valves, IGVs and stator scheduling on the compressor.

It might not be rocket science but it comes bloody close.

John