Quote:
Originally Posted by TomcatViP
Intersesting reading.
At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.
Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).
Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.
This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.
Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone
I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.
Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !
|
Perhaps you are looking for conspiracies that aren’t there? Have a closer look at Hooker, Reed and Yarker's
The Performance of a Supercharged Aero Engine, first published in March 1941. I believe you are barking up the wrong tree
See attached for an example of calculated versus tested & measured engine power.
Also see Bailey's
The Merlin in Perspective first published in 1983 by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust. Bailey worked for Rolls for over 40 years and has some knowledge of the subject.
See relevant pages attached.