![]() |
|
Technical threads All discussions about technical issues |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The Sabre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre was a 2,000 hp inline.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
in terms of power per cylinder the v12s easily beat the 14 and 18 cylinder radials.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Mike Nixon can give you a quote... Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It generates thrust in some cases.. as a Mustang driver I'm sure you heard of the Meredith Effect
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
The real difference in the Merlin is made by valve springs, better coolant connectors, oil feed improvements to the cam, better bearings/races and some good machine work on the heads, just to name a few. In the case of the Merlin, there are specific upgrades to improve reliability that are highly recommended if you want the motor to last. Those upgrades overcome the shortcomings of the design. Last edited by Crumpp; 11-08-2011 at 03:22 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Meredith effect on the Mustang.
![]() Only the RAE bought into the thrust production theory. Both the NACA and the RLM disagreed. Understand that of the three, it was the RAE that was trailing in aerodynamics. The British engines were good, probably the best of all the combatants but their aerodynamic sciences was behind the other major combatants. That is why you have RAE claims for things like Mach .98 dives out of the Spitfire that later get retracted as they discovered the static port placement was completely wrong for any degree of accurate speed measurement in the transonic realm. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
As you know, they took a great deal of care in the design of the radiator system on the P-51: the radiator intake is detached from the fuselage to avoid turbulent airflow from the fuselage, and the radiator exhaust port could be opened/shut automatically so that it wouldn't bother the pilot. It surely was an efficient and revolutionary system, which allowed for a better performance with a very low drag coefficient (if compared to others) because of its design. Its clever aerodynamics, light weight and reliability made for a superb system compared to the conventional turbo supercharged radials. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|