Radial vs in-line engines

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is from The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) library database and is from a presentation at an engineering conference. It is from the only modern design analysis on the P-51 Mustang and was done with an eye on improvements for one of the Reno racers. That being said, I got my copy directly from the author and can give you one if you like.

yes please!

[Crumpp]

Certainly. Send me a PM with your email and I will get you a copy.

You do realize it contradicts almost everything you posted in your last post about the P51.

Particularly:

they took a great deal of care in the design of the radiator system on the P-51

It surely was an efficient and revolutionary system

Supersonic aerodynamics and compressibility were still pretty new and not well understood at the time the P51's radiator was designed. Therefore, they did not correctly slope the intake for normal shock formation. The slope was too steep and separation occurred.

That means high drag. This is confirmed in both later NACA wind tunnel testing and RAE flight testing. It is highly unlikely the P-51 series achieved any of its designers goals of laminar flow or Meredith effect. Interesting enough, the B-24 with the Davis wing in a complete accident of fate, did achieve laminar flow!

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Certainly. Send me a PM with your email and I will get you a copy.

You do realize it contradicts almost everything you posted in your last post about the P51.

Particularly:

Supersonic aerodynamics and compressibility were still pretty new and not well understood at the time the P51's radiator was designed. Therefore, they did not correctly slope the intake for normal shock formation. The slope was too steep and separation occurred.

That means high drag. This is confirmed in both later NACA wind tunnel testing and RAE flight testing. It is highly unlikely the P-51 series achieved any of its designers goals of laminar flow or Meredith effect. Interesting enough, the B-24 with the Davis wing in a complete accident of fate, did achieve laminar flow!

Hang on, why you're taking supersonic aerodynamics and compressibility into the equation? No plane of the era was designed to operate at such speeds.

My point was that if compared to other radiators of the era, the Mustang one was by far the more aerodynamically efficient, and surely superior to radial engines.

So you're now telling me that the Mustang wing is not a laminar design?

[Crumpp]

You had a chance to read through the report?

[Crumpp]

why you're taking supersonic aerodynamics and compressibility into the equation?

Well, that is what the report is talking about, Sternjager. Let me know when you have read through it.

Understand too, just because the flow is supersonic does not mean the aircraft is supersonic.....

My point was that if compared to other radiators of the era, the Mustang one was by far the more aerodynamically efficient, and surely superior to radial engines.

On the whole, the Mustang radiator is not so aerodynamically efficient. The duct design is poor at best.

So you're now telling me that the Mustang wing is not a laminar design?

No, I said the Mustang did not achieve laminar flow. That is not the same thing as "designed for laminar flow."

It was designed for laminar flow just as it was designed to achieve the Meredith effect, neither of which occurred.

[Crumpp]

Hang on, why you're taking supersonic aerodynamics and compressibility into the equation?

Ok, I gave you the report and a few days to digest it. Now lets explain it so you can get a grip on what is going on with the P51 radiator system.

First let's talk a second about supersonic aerodynamics. Just because the airplane is going subsonic does not mean the LOCAL mach number is not supersonic.

How does that happen? Well basic physics explains it very well. I am sure you are familiar with a venturi. If we take a given diameter pipe filled with gas at a constant mass flow and suddenly decrease the diameter, what happens to the velocity of the gas traveling thru the pipe?

Answer is the velocity of the gas increases!! It goes faster. Look at the design of the P51 radiator system and you will see this in the flow interaction with the oil cooler intake.

That is what happens in the P-51 ducting. The air enters the intake and very quickly encounters the oil cooler intake just before the radiator element expansion chamber. The volume is smaller because of the oil cooler intake so the velocity of the air flow increases.

At some point, it increase enough to go supersonic. Whenever we have supersonic flow at the local mach number a normal shock will form. A normal shock has specific characteristics. At the point of the shock, a "wall" of air will form. In front of the normal shock is supersonic flow and behind this "wall of air" is a flow reversal followed by subsonic flow. This flow reversal is essential a vacuum at the boundary layer which is why it is called suction.

This suction dynamically increase the amount of pressure drag. The effect is our aircraft slows down as the drag dramatically increases. The airplane slows down....

Once it slows down to subsonic flow, the shock will disappear. Our thrust available has not changed so the aircraft will immediately accelerate as the pressure drag has dramatically decreased. Once it accelerates enough to create a local supersonic flow our normal shock will reform and the cycle starts all over again.

This cycle happens rather quickly and the pilot will perceive it as a "rumbling" noise in the ducts of the intake as the airplane accelerates/decelerates rapidly in a very short time period.

How did this happen? How could the designers at NAA make such a mistake?

Well we just did not understand normal shock formation at the time.

Today we know it is all about the angle of the shock. The relationship is fixed to velocity at the sine of the normal shock is equal to the reciprocal of the local mach number. We also know that in any corner, oblique shocks are formed further dissipating our available energy.

They did not know that then however and were just beginning to understand compressibility and normal shock formation.

Got it now?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Sleeve valves? No thank you

The Sabre was a bit of a trouble child, and considering the sheer weight and size of the thing, you could probably compare it to a radial more than an inline.

Salute

By 1944, the Sabre had overcome its teething problems, and was a reliable performer while producing 2600 hp from 36.5 liters, and that was without a fairly primitive supercharger. With an updated supercharger, it produced unheard of amounts of horsepower in later models, 3500 in the initial Sabre VII, out just after the war, and up to 5500 hp in the final generation Sabre VII engine which did not go into production.

It got its performance from higher rpms allowed by smaller piston and shorter stroke, sleeve valves, (which breathe better) and better volumetric efficiency from the H block design.

If piston engines driving props had remained the cutting edge of aircraft propulsion, then the H block engine would have been in the forefront, but because Jet turbines were obviously superior, the Sabre was discarded, and the simpler but more reliable Radials were kept in production as propulsion for 2nd line aircraft.

[TomcatViP]

5500HP in a 36.5L eng in 1944 (=150HP/L) ?!!!

I think your typing outran your thoughts Buzz

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

5500HP in a 36.5L eng in 1944 (=150HP/L) ?!!!

I think your typing outran your thoughts Buzz

Some info

[TomcatViP]

Thx Alpha. Always a nice idea to put back on the table the very basis.