Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[JtD]

If you want to compare today's F1 engines with older technology, you should compare it with older F1 engines, not aircraft engines. Turbocharged these managed up to about 500 hp from 3 litres displacement in 1939, considerably more than contemporary aircraft engines. Naturally aspirated they were at about 50 hp per litre, today were at about 300.

[MaxGunz]

Why? Formula racing is a very different sport just from the 60's let alone the 30's, not just in the cars but the monnnnney poured into it. Is anyone winning with cars built in old barns in the last 20-30 years?

I've seen the Austrian air-rifle that Lewis and Clark took across the American continent and back. It's nothing as good as an M-1 yet I wouldn't be gauche enough to call it crude. The thing was very fine even for today. And look at those really old musical instruments that didn't have MIDI or pickups of any kind.. crude?

Crude AC engines were the radials they used in early WWI.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

All in all I wish my car got the mileage this silly thread got

[MaxGunz]

Us that's worked in tool and die, precision machining for years, after years of design school down to materials and strengths wouldn't know a thing about any of that. We're just tools I guess. But for who I don't have the foggiest.

I'll just drag my knuckles along out of this now that the mud has started to fly.

[Crumpp]

piston engine from the 1940's were crude

The designers from the 1940's knew more about high powered piston engine aircraft design and engines than we do today.

Nobody is building 2000 hp (+) piston engine powered aircraft today.


Computer controls, chemical engineering, and materials science have allowed us to build to better engines in some respects today. As far as engine knowledge and engineering, a mechanical engineer from the 1940's would just have to learn today's design tools but there is not any new knowledge we could teach him. We could learn from his experience however!!

[kimosabi]

Yeah rights and wrongs all over the place. Sorry if I offended you MaxGunz, but I am done here and it is how I roll. Too happy inside to jump back on this. Got some good news today and I'll be dancing with polar bears soon. Yoohooo!

Crumpp, some I agree with and some I don't. I'll leave it at that. Hugz and kizzes.

*edit* Nearmiss, I was expecting a counter-attack. It's just that I was done here. Still am lol. Hugz, No kizz for you.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The designers from the 1940's knew more about high powered piston engine aircraft design and engines than we do today.

Nobody is building 2000 hp (+) piston engine powered aircraft today.


Computer controls, chemical engineering, and materials science have allowed us to build to better engines in some respects today. As far as engine knowledge and engineering, a mechanical engineer from the 1940's would just have to learn today's design tools but there is not any new knowledge we could teach him. We could learn from his experience however!!

Back around 1970 my father took me to see a co-worker who had built a VW-engine powered airplane in his barn. I was told that they ran lower revs with extra-heavy pistons (he showed a regular VW piston and a special 2x as heavy piston) because as he put it, you don't want the engine to seize up there. The extra weight was for extra inertia -- I was told -- to help keep the piston moving.

Was that just something special to VW engines used in small GA AC?

Perhaps 40 years ago is just ancient history. What differences do more modern regular AC IC engines have from ground car engines?

[Crumpp]

Was that just something special to VW engines used in small GA AC?

I have never heard that. I always thought the larger pistons were to increase displacement to increase power.

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/arti...owerplants.asp