Quote:
Originally Posted by T}{OR
I am not so sure what this last supercharger is for.
|
It's for supercharging the engine! (sarcasm) Well, really, if there wasn't a supercharger, the engine would probably put out considerably less power. The only reason why such large engines have internal superchargers is because otherwise, they would need to be even bigger. Without it, there would be less air turning the turbo, and it would provide less boost. I'm not aware of any WW2 aircraft having only a turbosupercharger without a normal, crankshaft driven one.
If this sounds stupid, it could be because it's way past midnight here too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T}{OR
|
Yes, exactly! I read that article, just used the Dobrynin as an example as even a bit more complex than R-3350 TC. Napier Nomad is another case, you simply cannot describe that one (atleast thefirst version) without a picture or two.
You have to remember that the first turboprops and turbojets were considerably less fuel efficient than the turbo-compounds, and for the same power, while the TC probably weighed twice (or more) as much, it still burned much less fuel. That's why Canadair Argus changed to R-3350 TC from Bristol Proteus, and why the big piston airliners (Starliner, DC-7) soldiered on for so long. It was the weight and complexity that killed them, and the more advanced (two-spool) or larger (Kuznetsov NK-12!) turboprops in development.