Radial engine vs inline engine

radials were more rugged and more powerful but were larger and required air cooling

File: P-36 Hawk.jpg (52KB, 700x340px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 700x340px

>>33156737
Inline/v engines were a stupid meme. Water-cooled engines have no place on an airplane.

>>33156806
Why not? Worked pretty well for the Spitfire/Mustang.

>>33156737
Radials where easier to maintain temps with weaker metals. More air cooling the better! Unfortunately this has a negative drag component but if you have 2,000HP and a prop the size of your house who gives a fuck..... I guess. Now inline engines became more popular when metals became stronger and more resistant to heat. You can see examples of this in the B17. the first B17 was an inline design but was A. More expensive B. Untested technology for such a large aircraft (reduced MGTOW) C. Terrible over heating issues D. reliability in the field (most mechanics at the time where use to radial design and found them to be easier. Now the B29 is on the opposite end of that spectrum. Radial engines where having major heating issues at higher altitudes... due to sveral rows of cylinders in a row and density of the air being thinner.

>>33156876
>the first B17 was an inline design
Not quite. Early on in it's development, Boeing tested the XB-38, a B-17 with Allison engines, should it's wright engines become unavailable due to demand. The B-17 from the start has been designed with radial engines.

And as for the B-29, it's engines were a bitch because the early Wasp Majors were pieces of shit that randomly caught on fire.

>>33156876
Radial engines have several other issues as well, that radials would correct over time.
With a radial it was hard to A. control the flow of oil to portions of the engine (thus getting very uneven CHTs), during certain phases of flight and type engine designed. B. Exhaust systems where extremely complex in design. I highly encourage you to look at that closely if you get the chance. C. lets not forget the odd number of cylinders lol (doesn't really matter thought) D. Radial engines towards the end of the war and shortly after where becoming massive.... to big in fact. We see this issue with the Corsair and B-36. Both aircraft having designs that made it difficult for the pilot (or flight engineers) to fly/manage.

>>33156915
Thank you anon son I could not remember the designation for the allison based design.

Yes this is partially correct for the B-29. But once again I default to my original statement. Those engines in particular where having heating issues do to the enviorment the aircraft was in.... At high altitudes engine temps could not be managed at all.

>>33156963
>At high altitudes engine temps could not be managed at all.
Works fine if you attach a fuckmassive turbosupercharger setup, ala P-47.

Admittedly a fair bit less feasible setup on a strategic bomber.

>>33156943
so going to inline engines later on was more common because it was also easier to manage from a crews standpoint.

>>33156980
well turbos and super chargers don't help with engine cooling. They are there for boosting engine performance at altitude. Infact a turbocharger or supercharger will increase temps in the induction system.... this is why we have turbine inlet temps and out let temps to monitor...

>>33157006
>They are there for boosting engine performance at altitude.
Yes, which in turn increases the speed at altitude, which increases the airflow through the radiator, which in turn helps cool down the engine more.

It's a roundabout way, but it works.

>>33157013
radiator? you trolling me? these aren't water cooled they are air cooled. We have to remember density of the air decreases as we climb in altitude. So yes you are correct in saying we are going faster. But there is less air molecules per given space in order to carry away heat. We see this issue all the time. If I climb in altitude with a piston driven aircraft, it will actually increase in operating temps. Best way to cool it down is to drop a metric fuck ton of fuel into the engine.

File: IMG_1977-Edit.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Sorry nerded out it is my job

>>33156869
Liquid cooling adds a shitload of weight and complexity. Sure, you get a bit of streamlining and 10-20 MPH out of it, but it's not worth it if it means your turn and climb rates go to shit.

>>33157039
The P-47 had a water injection system m8, as well as radiators.

But in this case I did mean the intercooler, not the radiator. The reason the P-47 operates so well at high alt vs other radials is the sheer amount of shit getting pumped into it - air, oil, water, fuel. The entire fuselage is dominated by the turbo/supercharger system.

>>33157075
>10-20 MPH out of it

>The P-51H used the new V-1650-9 engine, a version of the Merlin that included Simmons automatic supercharger boost control with water injection, allowing War Emergency Power as high as 2,218 hp (1,500 kW)

Water injection allowed inline engines to reach an insane level of pressure late in their design.

>>33156915
>it's engines were a bitch because the early Wasp Majors were pieces of shit that randomly caught on fire.
Careful now... you're a bit mixed up with your facts there. The Wasps were fine. It was the Cyclones that had reliability problems.

>>33157102
Oh I agree with you. The P-47 isn't water cooled its injection. For short duration's of use.

>>33157129
>Wasp Majors

>lthough mechanically reliable in flight, it developed an unenviable reputation for in-flight fires, particularly in its Boeing Stratocruiser application, and in addition the Wasp Major was maintenance-intensive. Improper starting technique could foul all 56 spark plugs; requiring hours to clean or replace.

>>33157129
>The Wasps were fine. It was the Cyclones that had reliability problems.
*On the B-29

The Wasps definitely had a reputation for catching on fire, though.

>>33157128
This guy gets it.

It's all still way over complex
My favorite quote "as soon as you put a prop on it, you over complicate it"

File: A-1 Skyraider flyby.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>33156986
>>33156943
Radials remained in service long after they stopped using inlines.
>Sea Fury
>Skyraider
>C-1, E-1, S-2
>La-7/9/11
>Fuckin' all kinds of Yaks and Nanchang rip-offs

>>33157128
>anon thinks 2,218 hp is a lot
Wasp Majors could get over 4,000 hp without water injection.

File: Rare Bear.jpg (52KB, 800x490px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x490px

>>33157128
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over my world records.

>>33157222

Trips

>R-4360-51 VDT - "Variable Discharge Turbine" 4,300 hp (3,210 kW). Intended for B-36C. Used on Boeing YB-50C Superfortress. 2-Power recovery turbines.

>>33157208
>It's all still way over complex
Oh fuck yeah, but at the time the only alternatives were equally as complex radial supercharger setups or jet engines, which were absolute ass in their fledgling state. That didn't continue for long though, which is why prop development got dropped so quickly in favour of the rapidly advancing jets.

>>33157222
The wasp major also weighed OVER A TON more than the Merlin engine in the P-51H.

File: p47TS.jpg (92KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x720px

>>33156943
>exhaust systems were complex
Take a look at the turbo supercharger on the P47

>>33156737
Double Wasp > Merlin

>>33157240

>Engine displacement was 4,362.50 cu in (71.489 L), hence the model designation. Initial models developed 3,000 hp (2,240 kW), and later models 3,500 hp, but one model delivered 4,300 hp (3200 kW) using two large turbochargers in addition to the supercharger. Engines weighed 3,482 to 3,870 lb (1,579 to 1,755 kg), giving a power-to-weight ratio of 1.11 hp/lb (1.83 kW/kg).

>>33157213
Well this is trueish... In combat roles you see radials lasting well into vietnam. The skyraider of course. Non Com interceptors where still stationed through out the states with the National guard. I think Oregon still had P51s until late 60s? I wanna say.

>>33157241

Can someone explain the operation of this exhaust system to a dullard please?

>>33157213
Plus once again cheaper metals more commonly found in radial designs so chines and russian built planes had radials until well today

>>33157235
>>33157222
>weighed over a ton more
>extremely mechanically complex
>prone to spontaneous combustion if even the slightest error was made in their operation
>require shitloads of maintenance

I mean the Wasp Major was nice and all, but completely incomparable to the Merlin. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a suped up Honda and mocking the Honda for being slower.

>>33157265
Exhaust gas spins a turbine.
Which is connected to another turbine
this turbine compresses air into the induction system
Allowing for better performance

>>33157265
A turbocharger powers a supercharger that forces a fuckton of air into the engine, so as to facilitate higher engine pressures due to a higher oxygen density with which to combust fuel with.

>>33157240
>>33157268
The Wasp Major is the extreme example. Even the Double Wasp is much better than any RR or Allison ever touched pre-gas turbine.

>>33157265
There is also a super charger geared off of the engine to spin a turbine. compressing air before it goes into the induction system as well.

File: P-38 cutaway.jpg (637KB, 2500x1759px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 2500x1759px

>>33157241
Not like the P-38 was much better off. Turbos required assloads of plumbing, no matter what they were mated to.

>>33156876
They tended to burn oil to keep themselves lubed and cool, used to go up with a mate that flew DC3s for a charter company and the going rate was about a gallon of oil per hour through the engines.
Controlling them is basically fucking madness of levers and settings, they have a constant prop speed in rpm, you've got your engine speed rpm, manifold pressure to monitor and a mixture control lever as well to make sure it doesn't lean out or run too rich. If they ran the engine past 2800rpm it basically blows up and shits itself in big metal chunks.
I didn't think the latter was very amusing, despite being a qualified parachutist

>>33157297
The oil system on the P-38 was it's major bitch of a problem.

It actually had relatively simple turbo/supercharges found from local auto stores at the time.... I shit you not. They are General Motors something.

>>33157265
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKTSCXRjcmQ

>>33157293
The Double Wasp is incapable of competing with the Merlin at high altitudes though, unless you cram a whole lot of shit into it like in the P-47

>>33157267
>cheaper metals more commonly found in radial designs
No. Just... no. Air-cooled radials run hotter than liquid-cooled inlines. A water-cooled potmetal engine is a lot easier to pull off than an air-cooled one.

>>33157314
the sang holds true for all piston engines
"you should run out of fuel before you run out of oil, expect 1 quart an hour for inlines and closer to a gallon an hour for radials."

File: aye.png (9KB, 429x431px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 429x431px

>>33157289
>>33157295
>>33157322

Thanks Anons.

>>33157318
The turbos are GE, same as the P-47 and B-17. They were NOT automotive.

The Allison engine itself, on the other hand, THAT was a GM product...

Aside from the technical standpoints posted, what I've heard was that some countries simply produced better inlines than they produced radials, and went with what worked

>>33157330
you're missing my point... Of course a water cooled engine will run cooler than air cooled. But it is an airplane and water weighs a fuck ton so you don't see planes with water cooled engines...

>>33157347
B-17 turbos are not automotive I know they are fucking massive lol. I was mistaken, was told that P-38 where mostly GM parts

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 12.18.37 AM.png (489KB, 692x679px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 692x679px

>>33157265
>Engine farts exhaust into pipe
>Exhaust spins pinwheel at end of pipe
>Pinwheel spins fan
>Fan pushes air into the engine harder
>Engine uses extra air to breathe better up high
>Engine makes more power and bigger farts
>Repeat
There's also an intercooler and wastegate in there somewhere, but that's not important.

>>33157388
>was told that P-38 where mostly GM parts
The engines, yes. Basically a truck engine on steroids. If you're ever in a museum with both engines in there, compare the Allison with the Merlin/Packard - the difference in complexity is staggering.

But the turbos... no. High-temp nickel superalloys... that was fancy shit back in the '40s, even as rickety as they look and sound and feel.

>>33157039
Maybe he meant oil cooler? Plenty of air cooled radials have them, and are functionally the same except oil flowing through it instead of coolant/water.

>>33157428
thanks senpai
>>33157460
maybe, most piston planes have them. sorta essential once you go over 200hp.....

>>33157337

Ok, I'm dumb - I understand radials chewing up a fuck ton of oil, but why/how inlines? You take an automotive big block v8 and it aint gonna chew up oil at anywhere near that rate.
As stated, I'm dumb, can an Anon enlighten me?

>>33157399

Thanks dubs.

>>33157498
>You take an automotive big block v8
Okay, now scale it up to a V12 with upwards of 30 Litres of displacement producing nearly 2,000 hp

>>33157498
It all about cooling. Look at your operating temps for your V8 (liquid cooled). Then look at your temps on inline (aircooled Piston) aircraft. The V8 runs much cooler and doesnt burn oil. Radials just shit oil everywhere and I mean everywhere

>>33157498
Quite a lot of it has to do with the engines being sleeve valved and your car engines tend to be poppet-type
Thing with the sleeve valve is that its basically using oil as a sealant along the piston stroke and a coolant on those contact surfaces, plus a lot of those engines are upwards of 1200-2000hp, so mechanically they're just using a whole other scale of oil and fuel consumption

File: DpQ9YJl.png (21KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 700x700px

>>33157522
>The V8 runs much cooler and doesnt burn oil

all engines burn SOME oil. a little blowby is inevitable in piston engines. however, the amount burned is so negligible you wouldn't notice, assuming oil changes happen.

>>33157190
>56 sparkplugs

What

>>33157039
>We have to remember density of the air decreases as we climb in altitude.
Yep
>So yes you are correct in saying we are going faster. But there is less air molecules per given space in order to carry away heat.
Buuuuuuut there is more "space" going through the engine per second.

Also for an NA engine, or a supercharged engine above its critical altitude, the lower air density also affects the amount of induced airmass, and thus the amount of combusted A/F mixture and amount of power and amount of waste heat you have to get rid of to begin with. It kinda cancels out. Also air is cooler up high, so there's that.

I fly piston airplanes and - while none of them are turbo or pressurized - I can say that, on a hot day, temps stay a lot cooler at 12,000' and full throttle than at sea level and 75% power.

>>33157849
Aircraft run dual mags for redundancy.
>2 plugs per cylinder
>7 cylinders per row
>4 rows
>....
56 plugs.

File: patsy.png (630KB, 781x592px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 781x592px

>>33157518
>>33157522
>>33157580

Cheers Anons.

>>33157905
Thats only 48. Regardless i never knew engines for aircrafts were that complex. I mean i have a rough understanding of how jets work but havent studied prop planes. Prop planes are still sexy.

I think id enjoy being a fighter pilot in WWII

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-01 at 12.57.49 AM.png (9KB, 72x83px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 72x83px

>>33158105
>/k/ in charge of math

>>33156737
Aerospace engineer here. The most significant difference is that an inline engine is thinner than a radial one and when you want the aircraft to be as aerodynamic as possible, the only way to go is inline, see ME BF109, Spitfire, Mustang. The FW190 used a radial engine for the A-8 variant at 1250kW and a inline 1287kW for the D-9, resulting in an increase in speed of about 20mph. The same could be said of centrifugal compressors jet engines and axial compressors engines. The first iteration of jet fighters used centrifugal, from an engineering point of view, the centrifugal compressor is better, you get more compression for the same no. of stages with a centrifugal than an axial. But when you need to streamline the plane, axial is the way to go, width is an important factor. maybe i'll make a thread you answer more questions regarding my field of work.

>>33158164
who needs aerodynamics when you have thrust

>>33158180
I see we have a Jeremy Clarkson here, MOOAAAR POWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHH

>>33158164
I thought centrifugal compressors were just easier to manufacture, being more resistant to FOD and allowing looser tolerances, the 262 had axial compressors and engine lifetime of 20 hours because manufacturing was what it was

do centrifugal compressor turbofans even exist?

>>33158195
To be fair, that really was the motto of aircraft design in the 50s and 60s. Just look at the F-104, or EE Lightning - they aren't planes, they're rockets with wings (barely) attached.

>>33158119
2x7=14
14*x=56

God dammit im too drunk for math. Youre right, my b.

>>33158198
The F4 was a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics
Phantom a fast.

Mechanically speaking, which is more efficient?

>>33158227
Depends on what you mean by efficient

>>33158164
>Aerospace engineer here
Is it worth it?

currently in uni to become an aerospace engineer

>>33158196
actually the impeller is a pain to manufacture. Centrifugal compressors are simpler, less parts. FOD resistance is relative, there is no such thing as looser tolerances in aerospace...actually the 262 engine had a lifetime of 20 hours because of a lack of materials, see the chinese knockoffs of russian engines, the copied them dimension wise...but they couldn't quite match the materials used so we get engines that last half or even less as much than their russian counterparts.
>do centrifugal compressor turbofans even exist?
As far a i know, no. But there could be some out there. But in my opinion that's the stupidest thing you could do for a turbofan.
>>33158198
What is an interceptor?
That wasn't the motto of aircraft design in the 50s and 60s. Aerospace engineers are among the smartest people you can meet (modesty intensifies) when designing a plane you are given a list of things it needs to do. In those cases:
>we need a plane to intercept russki bombers, must reach a height of 33000 ft in 2 minutes
>hmmm, bombers are not that manuvereble, so it doesn't need to dogfight hence the F-104.
The fact that they use it for things it was not designed for, is not the engineers problem.

>>33158264
Do you like math?
>yes
Go for it
>no
Better pick something else.
Money wise, i can't complain. Kinda takes a toll on dating/family when you get home from work you don't really feel like doing anything but sleep. BTW i work in R&D, i'm pretty sure, that friends of mine who work in airports and stuff have more free time.

>>33158227
A centrifugal compressor uses less mechanical work to power and has less inertia, so going from min throttle to max will take less. Quicker response.

>>33158287
>when designing a plane you are given a list of things it needs to do

That's the point, though - at that moment in time, design philosophy was that the faster you go, the less chance you have of getting hit. Take the Thunderchief - it's supposed to be a traditional fighter-bomber role, yet at top speed it pushes Mach 2 so as to penetrate an enemies defences and drop a nuke before they even know you're there. The ultimate culmination of this school of thought being the SR-71, whose defence against enemy fire was to go faster and higher that what they could reach.

>>33158340
>before they even know you're there...
So i take it outrun radio waves. The russians could see you before you penetrated their airspace, the SR-71 was partly this, because if the could see it from very far away, the could launch missile barrages at it, but it had a low radar profile. The FASTAAAAH design philosophy was stupid and still is for a military aircraft. It needs to be fast, agile and stealthy. A object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an external force. The SR-71 had a huge turn radius, because mach 3+
I agree with what you are saying, it's just that the brass back then was full of dumbasses

File: Pratt JT15D cutaway.jpg (42KB, 299x165px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 299x165px

>>33158164
...And yet a radial still holds the all-time world speed record for a piston-powered aircraft.
>>33158180
Yeah baby
>>33158196
>I thought centrifugal compressors were just easier to manufacture
Yeah... considering a single centrifugal stage can do the work of several axial stages, AND has fewer blades than a single axial stage... yeah, it's a shitload simpler to manufacture. BUT on top of the excessive diameter, centrifugals don't stack/compound very neatly.
>do centrifugal compressor turbofans even exist?
Now that you mention it, I don't believe so. It's curious, 'cause with recent-ish generations of high-bypass airliner turbofans, with ever-larger and slower-turning fan sections and LP spools, at some point you'd think a large-diameter, slow-turning centrifugal stage would start to make sense again (at least one, anyways - like they often do with turboprops; several axials followed by a final centrifugal stage). Hell, just look at the Rolls Royce Trent, and the cartoonishly-large diameter that the LP turbine balloons to. Surely they could find the space for a centrifugal stage somewhere between there and the fan.
>>33158227
Centrifugal at lower Reynolds numbers. At larger scales it's a push.
>>33158295
>BTW i work in R&D
Can you get me a job?


Wait... WAIT I FOUND ONE: http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/jt15d
Why would they even bother having two spools with a design like this? They've got to have comparable operating RPM....

>>33158375
>The FASTAAAAH design philosophy was stupid and still is for a military aircraft.

It didn't need to be faster than radio waves, just faster than how long it took them to get lock and fire from SAM sites or scramble interceptors. It's a simple theory that worked for decades, and was still working pretty fine during the 50s and 60s, where missile technology was still spotty and SAM sites couldn't be hidden so easily. Of course that's assuming you don't assign Thunderchief squads with the suicide mission of flying fast and low to blow up SAM batteries (Which the USAAF did, of course).

After the defence systems began to out-pace what speed could run from, that's when stealth became a larger factor. The F-117 operated under pretty much the same penetrating strategy as the Thunderchief, except instead of relying on speed to drop bombs faster than defence systems can react, it relied on not being seen by radar at all.

>>33158397
>And yet a radial still holds the all-time world speed record for a piston-powered aircraft.
It's honestly up to debate what the hell is even powering Rare Bear at this point. It could be literal black magic for all we know.

Sure as shit ain't the Double Wasp it was born with.

File: Rare Bear F8F Bearcat.jpg (357KB, 1155x769px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1155x769px

>>33158409
>Sure as shit ain't the Double Wasp it was born with.
Well you're right about that. What makes Rare Bear Rare Bear is the monstrous Wright Cyclone they transplanted into it from a Skyraider.

Well, and the tight cowl and clipped wings and chopped canopy and boiloff oil cooler and everything else, but.... mostly the engine.

>>33158435
Does it even still have the Cyclone? If so, I doubt it's even recognizable as one at this point.

That thing truly is like a monster that's wearing the skin of a F8F.

>>33158119
>>33158219
I truly love this Place sometimes

>>33158198
"Even a brick can fly if you give it enough thrust"

File: Rare Bear engine.jpg (75KB, 736x543px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 736x543px

>>33158443
Looks about right to me. I'm sure there's some magic they work on it, but from the sound of things most of the power just comes from running high-octane race gas and pushing more manifold pressure than most men would dare. All these engines are supercharged and making TONS of boost at these low altitudes, so the only thing keeping them from blowing themselves to bits is restraint with the throttle lever and an eye on the gauges.

>>33158463
I wonder if the Bearcats original pressure gauge even had enough inches of mercury to indicate the level of boost it must be running.

It would probably quite literally crack the gauge, I've heard of P-40s doing the same when novice pilots slammed the throttle on them.

>>33158397
>...And yet a radial still holds the all-time world speed record for a piston-powered aircraft.
Because nobody cares anymore, piston power is a thing of the past, had it been an inline engine, i'm sure it would have been faster.
>Yeah... considering a single centrifugal stage can do the work of several axial stages, AND has fewer blades than a single axial stage... yeah, it's a shitload simpler to manufacture. BUT on top of the excessive diameter, centrifugals don't stack/compound very neatly.
Have you seen the manufacturing process of centrifugal impellers? For the same compression ration yeah centrifugal is simpler, but stage for stage the axial is simpler. Plus, given the fact that the impeller is one piece, if you brake a blade you throw away the entire thing. And simpler to manufacture, maybe your run of the mill centrifugal compressors, when you're talking a 20/25:1 compression ration, it's a real pain.
>Wait... WAIT I FOUND ONE:http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/jt15d
Holy shit. Low bypass turbofan, and a very puny one at that.
>Can you get me a job?
I'm an engineer, i don't work in HR. No, i'm not comfortable leaving the safety of anonymity on the internet.

>>33158498
>Because nobody cares anymore, piston power is a thing of the past, had it been an inline engine, i'm sure it would have been faster.
Someone doesn't know about the Reno air races apparently, or the kind of money people in the races throw at their planes.

>>33158405
>it relied on not being seen by radar at all
Who is Zoltan Dani...

>>33158504
Is it piston engines only?

>>33158490
>I wonder if the Bearcats original pressure gauge even had enough inches of mercury to indicate the level of boost it must be running.
I think it's safe to say hell no to that one.
IIRC 60 inches was a typical redline for a supercharged warbird on 130 octane. Some of these racers run well over 100 inches.

>>33158525
The class that the Rare Bear participates in is, and is populated almost exclusively by suped up WW2 warbirds. There are a variety of different classes though, biplanes, jets, sport etc.

The sport class is probably the most expensive, due to the aircraft being completely custom made and there being some real rich motherfuckers out there.

>>33158519
Aye, and the only reason he could hit the F-117 was because when the bomb bay doors opened, it was momentarily visible on radar. This wouldn't have been a problem, if it weren't for the fact that F-117s were sent on the exact same flight paths multiple times, making it easy for a particularly clever SAM operator to predict where it would become visible on radar. Safe to say USAF didn't make that mistake again.

>>33158498
>Because nobody cares anymore, piston power is a thing of the past, had it been an inline engine, i'm sure it would have been faster.
That exact airplane still races against inlines at Reno, and consistently places top 3.
>For the same compression ration yeah centrifugal is simpler, but stage for stage the axial is simpler.
Stage-for-stage, MAYBE. Even then, axials DO generally have far more numerous blades (which were individually-machined back in the day), AND a stator of almost identical complexity. But for a given OPR it's no question that centrifugals are significantly less complex.
>Plus, given the fact that the impeller is one piece, if you brake a blade you throw away the entire thing.
And YET the industry still increasingly favors unitary blisks, even for axials, for the sake of simpler and less costly maintenance.
>Holy shit. Low bypass turbofan, and a very puny one at that.
Technically that's a high-bypass engine.
>>33158525
Yes, most classes at Reno are pistons only. There is a jet class (usually consisting of nothing but L-39s), but I don't think there are any classes for turboprops.

>>33158608
>but I don't think there are any classes for turboprops.
Shit, would a competitive turboprop scene even exist? There weren't many aircraft designed with both turboprops and speed in mind, and the ones that were generally shook themselves to pieces in the prototype stage.

>>33158617
With the reliability of a turbine, I bet experimental homebuilders would be on that like flies on shit. Hell, there are already contenders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqZOuATiZeU

>>33158656
NXT competes/has competed in the sport class of the reno air race, so maybe there already have been turboprops in it before?

Also holy fuck that is a tiny thing to generate 1000hp from. And fucking loud.

>>33158608
>That exact airplane still races against inlines at Reno, and consistently places top 3.
I don't know about that, i'll take your word on it, never cared much for piston engines.
>Stage-for-stage, MAYBE. Even then, axials DO generally have far more numerous blades (which were individually-machined back in the day), AND a stator of almost identical complexity. But for a given OPR it's no question that centrifugals are significantly less complex.
I admit i'm a bit biased, then stuff we work with, and build prototypes are very complex.
>And YET the industry still increasingly favors unitary blisks, even for axials, for the sake of simpler and less costly maintenance.
Yup i know, we build a prototype a couple of years back, made it from titanium, very hard (no pun intended) to manufacture.
>Technically that's a high-bypass engine.
You're right, my bad, just looked at a picture at first, now i looked up the specs.

>>33158180
That's the thinking that got us the Phantom.
It's a know fact that if you put a large enough engine on anything it'll fly. The Phantom needed *two*.

>>33158669
>NXT competes/has competed in the sport class of the reno air race, so maybe there already have been turboprops in it before?
NXT is normally piston-powered.

There's a turbine-powered Thunder Mustang out there too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-p_bJ81G0g
No doubt you'd see other sport-class homebuilts (Lancair IVs, Glasairs) with turbine conversions before long too.

>Also holy fuck that is a tiny thing to generate 1000hp from.
That's aircraft turbines for you. Doesn't take much - unless you want more efficiency, that is.

File: 359284main_EC68-2101_full.jpg (832KB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 3000x2250px

>>33158695
>two

>>33158656
>imagine two of these on an A-10
>BRRRRRR to deliver your BRRRRRTTT

>>33158519
>relies on stealth to avoid detection and destruction
>stealth fails and it gets detected and destroyed
This reinforces his point.

>>33158708
Hypersanic bomber
>got 2 go FAST

File: Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 11.10.05 AM.png (148KB, 1107x699px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1107x699px

>>33158728
>>33158519
>>33158551
Did the F-117 even have an RWR?
It's pretty clear that the military has revised their approach to "stealth" considerably... judging by the ample ECM systems on the F-22 and F-35, it's safe to say that it's no longer purely about remaining undetected anymore, so much as just foiling attempts to track and engage you. It's a much more comprehensive and flexible approach. Low RCS is useful for a lot more than just pretending you don't exist.

>>33158743
I'd doubt it didn't have a RWR, however the radar coming from the SAM site was likely deemed "safe" - it had done this dozens of times before, after all. More likely that the warning receiver wasn't able to say "Hey, bomb bay doors open, you're now way more noticeable".

And as for stealth, the F-117 was the first and likely the last aircraft that was capable of going "all or nothing" with it's stealth. Like how the first ironclads were completely impervious to any damage - it only ever happens once. Then everyone gets smart about it.

>>33157265
It makes more power via witchcraft.

>>33158196
Most turboprop planes use centrifugal compressors in their engines, it's basically the same thing since the propeller is nothing more than a really big fan.

>>33158733
Kek

nice with some insightfull treads here as well

File: Ni3AWru_.png (292KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 512x512px

>>33158733