Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:36 PM
lane lane is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Obviously the RAF was comfortable enough to test it at 12,500 feet on 9-6-39 Merlin III serial number 7491 mounted on Spitfire N3171 up +10.55lbs using 87 Octane fuel.
You've got that all scrambled. N3171 hadn't even flown yet on 9-6-39. The power figures on the engine Inspection and Test Certificate come from "test bed conditions", either at RR, RAE or the dynamometer at AAEE, i.e. the engine wasn't even mounted in an airframe and the engine surely wasn't running at 12,500 feet without an airframe.
  #192  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:07 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

N3171 Ia 413 EA MIII

FF 10-11-39
27MU 13-11-39
AMDP 16-11-39
AAEE 19-3-40 comparison perf trials (Rotol constant-speed prop) with K9793 (2-blade fixed pitch)
CFS 24-2-40 ? for compilation of pilot's notes
ECFS Hullavington 13-6-42
SOC 18-8-45
  #193  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:12 PM
41Sqn_Banks 41Sqn_Banks is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 644
Default

By the way. The altitude of 12,250 feet that was chosen for the power curve is the altitude used for rated/international rating. This is probably the FTH for climb rating, the RPM is lower than on "All out", thus the FTH is lower under this condition.

Here are some examples for Merlin II/III:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/L...ertificate.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k...ertificate.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n...ertificate.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k...ertificate.jpg

There is another for Merlin III, but this is probably a prototype or conversion for Merlin XII.


Despite the use of 100 octane fuel the power curve is only done up to +10.6. However +12 or even more boost is possible without detonation. This pretty much spoils the idea that the values from the power curve have anything to do with the physically possible maximum.

How would they measure the engine power during flying anyway? It's likely that these were either calculated values from bench tests at sea level and even if boost above the regular engine limits were used it was under a controlled condition and certainly for very short periods.
  #194  
Old 05-17-2012, 12:54 AM
camber camber is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lane View Post
You've got that all scrambled. N3171 hadn't even flown yet on 9-6-39. The power figures on the engine Inspection and Test Certificate come from "test bed conditions", either at RR, RAE or the dynamometer at AAEE, i.e. the engine wasn't even mounted in an airframe and the engine surely wasn't running at 12,500 feet without an airframe.
Didn't you see the pic of the RAE Anson with the Merlin mounting on the top

I got a bit confused by the height reference...but of course these are test bed figures.

I would be interested in the test bed setup. For the Merlin hooked to a dynamometer setup, there would be a variable load (allowing rpm setting for any throttle etc. setting) with bhp measurement. To simulate altitude, the supercharger intake could be connected to a chamber of correct maintained underpressure. Then height and rpm could be set and boost/bhp measured.

But to know the real setup would require the actual protocol and equipment used here, which is not in these reports. I would be interested in whether a test run Merlin III could handle +10.5psi boost on the bench (even briefly)with 87 octane without predetonation reducing power, but couldn't these be calculated values in the reports anyway? (actual tests at SL, but corrected for particular FTH etc)
  #195  
Old 05-17-2012, 01:16 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwiatek View Post
Yep it is also interesting
Are the SPITFIRE FMs at UP 3.0 RC4 yours?

Last edited by Ernst; 05-17-2012 at 01:23 AM.
  #196  
Old 05-17-2012, 01:42 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
The power figures on the engine Inspection and Test Certificate come from "test bed conditions", either at RR, RAE or the dynamometer at AAEE, i.e. the engine wasn't even mounted in an airframe and the engine surely wasn't running at 12,500 feet without an airframe.
Sure it was running at 12,500 feet on an altitude test stand.
  #197  
Old 05-17-2012, 01:47 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
I checked the June 1941 edition. It doesn't contain any general statement that aircraft or engine limitations are allowed to be exceeded. It does however explicitly state that the over-ride for the boost control of "an engine normally rated for [...] 87 otane fuel" "may be used only if 100 octane fuel is in the tanks."

Let's see the whole publication because they do not match at all. Either the warning about 100 Octane is a technical update added at a later time or it is not from the same document.

The 1937 Training Manual makes no such distinction about 100 Octane fuel.
  #198  
Old 05-17-2012, 05:02 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
It also shows maximum boost at emergency power at 12,500ft as +10.55lbs at 3000 rpm for the Merlin III when you use boost override or pull the tit on 87 Octane.

Absolutely NOTHING to do with the use of 100 Octane fuel.
Actually the modifications to the boost control cut out had not yet been instigated in June 1939; the modifications to the boost control cut-out were needed before the engine could reach +12 lbs boost. This is full power test proving that the engine was strong enough to withstand high boost pressures, and that relatively high pressures could be achieved on 87 Octane fuel. Once again this is a pre-war document which proves nothing germain to Crumpp's "case".

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ap1590b.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ol-cut-out.jpg

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-17-2012 at 05:07 AM.
  #199  
Old 05-17-2012, 05:06 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Let's see the whole publication because they do not match at all. Either the warning about 100 Octane is a technical update added at a later time or it is not from the same document.

The 1937 Training Manual makes no such distinction about 100 Octane fuel.
Yup and let's see your 1937 Training manual and the context in which it mentions boost over-ride, because so far we've seen nothing of it, just your description.

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-17-2012 at 05:11 AM.
  #200  
Old 05-17-2012, 05:10 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Obviously the RAF was comfortable enough to test it at 12,500 feet on 9-6-39 Merlin III serial number 7491 mounted on Spitfire N3171 up +10.55lbs using 87 Octane fuel.
And how the heck can an aircraft which was built in November 1939 manage to fly engine tests in June 1939?

http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p003.htm
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.