Fighting for Horsepower: WW2 Aircraft Engines w/ Eng. Calum Douglas
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 ноя 2024
- Get 10% of Mortons books with 'MAH10' directly at
www.mortonsboo... -
Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz...
Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
Big thank you to Calum for joining me! You can pick up his must-read book and all other Mortons books for a cheerful discount using my exclusive code 'MAH10' directly at www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/view/productCode/15057/book-the-secret-horsepower-race-western-front-fighter-engine-development
I just bought the book using this link and discount code. Thank you.
Recently purchased this book and it was a fantastic read! Kudos to Calum for producing such a comprehensive writeup on piston engines in WW2.
The most revelatory study of WWII engine and aircraft development I have ever read.The implications of this book extend beyond the technical and extend into management of innovation, organizational behavior, and societal competition. This book deserves far more attention.
This is a fantastic book. We often hear about issues like 100 octane gasoline, research, and how great the Merlin engine was, but this book really helps explain things. Well worth seeking out.
Thank you for posting my question regarding propellers, speed of rotation, limits of speed. I totally understand the answer presented and appreciate the research that went into it. Great presentation. Engineers of the past really had to deal physics.
I'd recommend you have a look at the channel "Greg's Automobiles and Aviation", he has a lot of great videos about WWII aircraft and engines, delving deep into why the answer to the question of 'which was the fastest aircraft?'' inevitably gets the answer 'where and at what altitude?', as well as presenting the performance of specific aircraft in great detail. The Thunderbolt series really gives a good foundation for understanding the various challenges that needed to be solved.
Calum's book is simply superb. This was a very good Q&A, glad to have watched and taken part.
Great stuff! I follow Calum professionally and also have the pleasure to have grabbed a signed copy when it first went to print a couple of years ago.
Nice to see you do such a large-format edition together 👍
You have written an outstanding volume on aviation piston engines! Absolutely love it!
Thank you Chris and Calum . We appreciate you very much .
Superb way to spend 2 hours, really fascinating talk. Thank you Calum and Chris.
This is one of the most interesting videos on the internet for the moment. A real gem, very wide in it's coverage, it even open some eyes for me regarding the British approach to World War 2 development of electronics. Not sure about that, but it would make sense as to how they developed post-war versus the USA for example. Anyways, besides the point!
Thanks for the upload!
Thomas
Top notch talk, please do it again!
One of best books ever on WWII, on any topic. Thank you Calum for the work to publish it.
Calum just to say what an amazing book. I bought it last year after it was recommended by Ian Slater at Typhoon Legacy Co. Ltd. A magnificent achievement and definitive. Great photographs and paper quality. Thanks.
Thank you gentlemen for a very interesting session.
Amazing book and so detailed it is hard going so it needs more than a single read. One of the top books on my eclectic bookshelf.
Fantastic session. A treasure of content.
I don't think I've ever watched a RUclips video for 2:28 before. Excellent.
As always Calum come out with some revealing information. One which hit me was that Germany was doing R&D on lots on unrelated war points, while the British (and assuming the US) would only do it if it was war related. As Germany was on the defensive after Moscow, being starved of resources because of the Royal Navy blockade, I find this amazing. It showed, as German advancements in aircraft was slow in the war. They bled the 109 dry in keeping it on. It was by 1945 completely outclassed.
Compare that to what the British were introducing. The Tempest, upgraded Typhoon, proper reliable jet planes, even the Spiteful the Spitfire replacement, the small Mosquito the Hornet, Hawker Fury. The last two were in R&D during WW2 but introduced into service just after.
Thank you. Good to see you flying high!
I bought the book and refer to it regularly. Amazing.
Great book! Thank you for writing it.
Absolutely brilliant insights. Great subject which is not much talked about.
Awesome presentation!
I purchased the super charger development book as well, despite the price, and have learnt a lot. yes it is highly technical but it was well written and Calum's work is more than a simple translation. The new book has modern comparisons and explanations making the original work relevant to current designs. I highly recommend it.
@MilitaryAviationHistory, Thanks for hosting a very informative session I have purchased Calums excellent Book and watched most of his very insightful videos. I recall reading somewhere, perhaps in Stanley Hookers excellent book that the BMW 801 achieved comparative performance to the merlin with a displacement of 41.8 Litres compared to the Merlins 27Ltrs . This brings to mind what might be covered in another session ie the comparative qualities of the most prominent engines in terms of Power to Weight, Power to displacement and specific fuel consumption, e.g the DB 605 @35.7 Ltrs Jumo 211,@ 35 Ltrs and BMW 801 @41.8 Ltrs have significant displacement advantages over the Merlin and yet have fundamentally similar performance, on the face of it the Merlin would be outstanding on these parameters, hopefully another session could cover this ?
Please do go down the rabbit hole, we all enjoy it sooo much 😃
My father was a mechanical engineer across the transition from paper drafting to CAD in his industry. The difference was immense. I suspect that it would have been far more valuable to aircraft manufacturers than to engine designers because of the sheer number of unrelated bits of the airplane that had to go somewhere. Being able to see interference problems of the landing gear hydraulics and the electrical system in real time is huge. There were so many cases where parts simply didn't fit where they were originally planned. The alternative was to leave extra volume as a safety margin. If you can getnrid of that, the entire aircraft is far more efficient.
I just love how some countries cannot speak certain sounds, not an insult I think it’s cute. Together = Togedder. Love this channel
Enjoying your book thus far. Think we know some of the same people..
This I have been awaiting for so long!
Very interesting talk. I learned a lot. I am especially gratefull for the confirmation of a theory that I heared and held myself for quite some time on peopel trying to look busy so as not to be send to the front. Some Tank projects and late war planing for enourmous production numbers can only be explained with stuff like that in mind.
Sad that the Video has comparatively few klicks.
Something to add regarding the shortage of Japanese Oil. In 1942, about 42% of the Crude oil production from their overseas conquests reached Japan, in 1943 that dropped to 15%, in 1944 5%, and in the entire year of 1945 not a SINGLE DROP of Oil reached Japanese soil. Mostly due in part to American submarines.
I wonder if Callum could comment on the British aero engine manufacturers that seem to have completely lost their way regarding high powered air cooled engines in the 1930-40s' notably Metropolitan Vickers?
Aparrt from it sounding like a lecture from a Bronchial Ward that was very very engrossing!! 🙂
I was really sick at the time, but we had spent so long planning it I didn't want to cancel.
@@CalumDouglas Y'done good and I trust you recovered?
21:24 the US Navy preferred radials for maintenance reasons, and for durability. Some radials had returned from combat with pistons shot away, and over water this is important. Just like they now claim to only want twin engine aircraft (despite having fielded a heck of a lot of single engine jets).
Japan had a problem with the workforce available after years of war in China, making the long crankshaft for the v12.
The Nakajima Homare was an interesting compact radial getting some pretty competitive HP out of a relatively small engine by virtue of high compression and high rpm (pretty standard manifold pressure) but at the cost of engine longevity. We practically blueprinted and rebuilt a Ki 84 just to see what made it tick. That wasn't typical practice...
.
The mid '60s AA/FD quarter mile dragster team: Skinner, Jobe and Sorokin (the Surfers) got away with running 97 percent Nitro because Tom Jobe was the only guy in the game that did research on the fuel everybody else was mixing with alcohol. Nitro by itself is powerful but more a more gradual transition past top dead center. They mixed it with 3 percent toluene for better starting in cold wet environments without triggering early detonation., They kept a stock 34 degrees timing on the magneto and low 7.5 to 1 compression. Not only were they consistent winners in the toughest top fuel region of southern California. They got nearly 400 runs out of their '57-'58 392 Chrysler Hemis using stock forged crankshafts and forged aftermarket rods and pistons. They capped the mains with 4140 stock but no lower end girdle was used after the first motor.
. The detonation at top dead center is hard on parts and they got past that . . . so to speak. Winners of the '66 Bakersfield fuel Championships in a field of 64 qualifiers out of over 100 entrees.
2:09:55 About this question-I think it might actually be more interesting to bring some of these people *forward* to today. I would love to see folks like Fedden, Ricardo and their German counterparts with 3D printed fabrication, CNC machining and modern materials science. Most of these people never got to work with plastics in any significant manner, to put things in perspective.
Ninja'd. Callum brings this up a few minutes later.
What Callum brings up about modern engineers struggling if they were sent to the past is more of a reflection on the hyper specialization of modern engineers and the projects they work on. The reason that we look back at engineers and scientists in the past with awe is, in part, the fact that they were capable of going through the initial design sketches all the way to the low scale production.
Today, it's just not really possible to have such a wide breadth of responsibility on a project, as if you have that much authority, you're most likely no longer in an engineering job, you've become a manager. Again, not faulting today's engineers, fact is that times have changed, and people working on today's Merlins have had to change as well.
really enjoyed this thanks
If youve ever dug up a pine stump , and it smells very rich with pine tar , hold a flame to it and it will light on fire like gas . You can make fuel through a still or distillary .
A very informative video.
Actually when talking about propulsion vs airspeed a turboprop really isn't that different from a piston prop combo. The correct progression is prop, turbofan, turbojet, turbo-ramjet, ramjet, and scramjet. The reason that US Navy went with radials was reliability. At the time the only US liquid-cooled engine and with the lack of pressurized cooling the radiator drag was very high. The Army Air Corp was also really getting into the strategic bombing doctrine. US engine manufacturers really put a lot of effort into the radials for the Navy, bombers, and airliners. Since they were common they became very popular with racers so between the air racers and the work of NACA the US solved a lot of the drag problems. So the US developed light, powerful, and very reliable radial engines.
Its amazing what we know now compared to the technology from 1941 in metals and metalurgy . Like if you can somehow forge or cast steel in 0 gravity , you come up with super steel .
Great book!
Always amazes me to see something like 6.7k views but less than 500 likes. Do not the likes make a difference in the algorithm? I would think many, perhaps most, viewers appreciated this but cannot be bothered to grant the tiny boon of giving a like. Thank you both for an interesting Q&A.
I love how Calum just dismisses octane ratings because they sort of conflict with his pet explanation about why the Germans weren't getting more power out of a larger sized engine. I think he's a bit peeved about Greg's video on German fuels.
If it's a stupid topic or measurement, why were ALL of the warring powers striving for higher octane fuels? If German octane measurements were comparable to allied measurements, why were the Germans using water-methanol and nitrous to gain similar performance that 130/150 octane fuels gave allied aero engines?
You seem to have missed his point. Higher "octane" fuels were very desirable, but a single "octane" number is like presenting a single horsepower number for an engine. The reality is far more complicated.
And as he points out, the Germans were carrying out far more detailed studies of the fuels across conditions, not relying on benchmark tests.
@ethanmckinney203 Fair point. But one must concede that benchmark testing DOES tell you something about the comparable resistance to knock under similar operating conditions. In two engines of comparable compression and boost, 150 octane fuel is going to resist engine knock far better than 90 octane fuels. And I point out that in real world use, the British flew the Spitfire in the Battle of France using roughly 87 octane fuel which led to certain performance deficits compared to the Bf 109, so much so that German evaluations of the Spitfire in France dismissed it as inferior to their own 109's. By the time of the Battle of Britain large amounts of 100 octane fuel had been shipped from the US and stockpiled along with British native production. This enabled increased performance in the Merlin engine, adding between 100 and 200 hp. When the Germans encountered the Spit with the increased power, they received a rather nasty shock. Most of that power increase was enabled by use of the higher octane fuel.
@@charlespolk5221 That's entirely true, and doesn't contradict anything that Calum says.
The point is that the German synthetic fuels are so fundamentally different that trying to use the “motor octane number” to compare them is problematic .
I just don't understand how the high-altitude performance of the Napier Sabre was "a disappointment" since the manifold pressures the supercharger was asble to produce were well known much before the engine had ever flown in an actual aircraft
Propellers going supersonic is not about HP, it's about RPM, Diameter, Tip Speed, etc. And a number of aircraft fly with supersonic propellers, most famous of which is the Tu-95 bomber.
Making an airplane go supersonic using a propeller is the trick, and I too believe it is possible. But making a propeller itself spin supersonic is actually very easy. Most propeller noise is actually a result of the tips getting near or exceeding supersonic.
"But making a propeller itself spin supersonic is actually very easy"
...have you ever read any of the technical papers on the Thunderscreech development ?
Obviously not.
@@CalumDouglas Many aircraft fly with their propellers going supersonic. The Tu-95 for example. High speed propellers is the primary cause of "noise" for those on the ground in propeller driven aircraft. The propeller of the T-6 Texan, for example, is nearly supersonic at its maximum cruising speed, and that is using only 550HP. Hell a whip exceeds mach 1 on far less horsepower. An F4U propeller could go WELL beyond supersonic at 2600rpm.
There is a difference between the PROP going supersonic, and the AIRPLANE going supersonic.
The Thunderscreech was a ridiculously stupid attempt to solve that problem by the way. But as you point out, the Thunderscreech also used/achieved a supersonic propeller.
nothing I said was untrue or inaccurate.
@@SoloRenegade - So, thats a no like I suspected.
@@CalumDouglas and you still haven't pointed out what I said that was wrong.
Do you even know why the Thunderscreech was a stupid idea in regards to trying to take the aircraft supersonic? You admitted you're not an aerospace and aerodynamics guy, well I am. Doesn't take a genius to see the biggest obvious flaw of the Thunderscreech. Is there any particular technical papers you'd like me to review? I'd be more than happy to check them. But I'm not sure what it is you think I'll find that disproves anything I said.
Also, my original comment was SOLELY about PROPELLERS, learn to read. Stop acting like a petulant child. Stay on topic. Prove me wrong that propellers haven't been going supersonic for many decades. Show me some proof.
Griffith and Whittle were right. The Axial concept offered higher performance, but the centrifugal was easier to get right. Did that actually matter? In the Korean War the MiG-15 used a centrifugal, and the F-86 an axial. Both had similar thrust.
Thanks!
Thanks, Glen!
The TA 152 H used a not particularly hi tech three valve Jumo engine with a three stage supercharger. It was probably the fastest prop plane even at almost 50,000 feet. The fact that the war ended early is irrelevant. The limitation at this point is that the propellor can’t go any quicker. The German jets made prop planes irrelevant before the war ended. Callum’s book is a tour de force btw, a must buy.
Ta 152h used a two-stage three-speed supercharger. There was no three-stage supercharger ever used by any nation afaik
I agree with your comment regarding the Jet engine superseding prop planes with the exception of carrier borne aircraft which boxed on with prop fighters for a few years after the war for reasons which are well covered elsewhere.
You do know that in-service, the Ta.152 never achieved its supposed development performances. And it never flew at the higher altitudes.
*Brilliant!*
Griffith was very wrong: even small modern aircraft and cruise missiles are equipped with centrifugal compressors. Griffith's first turbojet is small.
TFE1040 is an example of a modern centrifugal stage engine.
At one point I think during the battle of Britain,,, the British were running short on metal . Like tin , aluminum, iron ,,,
I have a question I hope someone can answer. I have heard, and I can't remember where, that there was a difference in durability between the Packard made Merlin engines and the Rolls Royce made engines. It, IIRC, had something to do with metal alloys used in the engines or perhaps with the tolerances of particular parts. This was from a documentary I watched maybe 10 or 15 years ago. And, of course, this may be misinformation that I gullibly picked up. But if anyone knows the answer to this I'd appreciate knowing. Thanks in advance.
I remember seeing a documentary called War Factories. A guy pointed out that the RR engines were individually fitted whereas the Packard engines used blueprints that had been translated into easily mass produced components. US factories had easy access to a stable supply chain of quality controlled materials. I think the writer of the piece implied the quality control at RR was inferior. Maybe that's a reason.
@@stuarthart3370 Hi Stuart, thanks for your reply. It has been so long since I saw the program that it is honestly hard to remember. But it may have been something to do with valve and head quality, maybe something to do with with proprietary, patented processes that Packard could take advantage of that Rolls Royce could not. I _do_ remember them saying that the Packard Merlins would have their crankshafts bent and ruined whenever a Mustang crash landed because the P-51s had metal propellers while Spitfires had wooden props. The metal props would not immediately break off and thus put so much stress on the crank that it bent. The Spit's would break into a zillion pieces and you could just pull the engine from the wreck and pop it into another Spit and off you go! And again, I actually wonder if the crank would be the part ruined from the stress or if it would be whatever connected the prop to the engine? Good grief, eh? 🙄🤷♂😏
@Todd Sauve I find it hard to believe any engine would just be transplanted directly into another airframe after a prop strike
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I imagine they would look it over to see if it had a hole through the oil pan.
If I remember correctly an average Packard would be slightly higher performance but if a Rolls Royce was built by a skilled technician it would have the higher performance due to the improved indervidual fitting of parts
On the fuel octane comparison I would point out that high octane fuel produces more heat so the engine has to be designed to use it, simply putting high octane fuel in a normal engine wont produce that much more power due to running too hot, but if you have the cooling to accommodate it you do get more power. So for example the British liquid cooled designs and the US designs which had massive radiators (and even experienced freezing issues) would see the benefit, the German engines which were already running too hot wouldnt and that would be reflected in the German testing.
No, high octane fuel gives off the same BTU's per amount burned as low octane does, it does not burn hotter nor does it give off more energy per the amount burned, it simply has a higher resistance to burning which allows more timing, leaner mixtures and higher amounts of boost before knock/detonation is achieved.
It's not a "more powerful fuel" as many people incorrectly believe, just putting higher octane fuel in an engine itself won't make any more power than low octane without tuning the engine to a higher state, ie more timing advance/higher boost levels.
@@dukecraig2402 Because it is less likely to be ignited by residual heat but only by the sparkplug it allows tuning to a leaner air mixture to be used giving more engine power for the same amount of fuel giving a better ratio of mechanical power to heat inefficiency. The cycle itself isnt hotter.
However the engine is hotter because as the engine now has a higher RPM through more mechanical efficiency by simply adding octane fuel then unless its detuned by reducing fuel it will be running faster with more ignition cycles per minute producing more heat, meaning more heat for the engine cooling system to have to deal with. In car terms an engine might be running normally with a max range of 6-7000 RPM but the fuel allows the same displacement engine to operate at 8-10,000 RPM however the engine has to be adapted to operate the higher RPM as well or it will fail.
@@watcherzero5256 No mate, you've got no idea what you're talking about.
25:50 American engineers: "Let me at it."
Hi book is really great! Prob best aviation book i have bought in years (decades?)
Fascinating video to this average yob non geek guy who bashes rocks together to giggle at any sparks that may happen. 🤠
Superb
The peer review process itself is suffering from a problem currently. This is largely due to the very pressures that Mr Douglas spoke of, an inherent flaw of the system, which calls in question the entirety of the process of peer review, and whether it can indeed continue in its present form. The difficulty is that one's peers must read each paper presented and is not a paid situation. The grumblings in academia have been increasing growing for partly that reason. Today's papers are increasingly complex in terms of references to the peer reviews of others work, which means to review anothers paper, may involve a very large train of papers must be read along with the author's original paper, to set the proposition into its context. Hench the work load on academics is increasingly untenable. Fewer and fewer academicians in science are willing to give away large slices of their time for free, while detracting from their own work. It would seem that this is not a trend which is likely to improve, so other methods need to be found to achieve this process. The faster that we grow in scientific endeavours, the worse this is likely to become, and so, it becomes hard to imagine at what point the entire peer review edifice will completely collapse, so close are we to that very thing now.
Peer review is junk, and should be banned. None of Einsteins stuff was "peer reviewed", its turned into a method of either securing the status quo, or stealing peoples ideas by rejecting papers as worthless then doing your own paper using the ideas.
I would very much dissagree with the offhanded rejection of the octane irrelevancies in WW2 fuel. From a technical perspective in a laboratory, maybe the top fuels had similarities but in actual use the german c3 was clearly inferior to the better western allied types. Perhaps the author is too limited in other countries airforces of that period to provide a real answer. However, It was a very interesting discussion for sure and I'll look forward to reading the book when I can.
Calum isn't rejecting Octane ratings outright, he is highlighting that the measurements of Octane ratings are not compatible and therefore it is not a sound metric of comparison.
I would suggest you read the book. Everything is explained in great depth, usually using the German`s own WW2 technical reports.
Cool to see :)
P47n was fast enough thank Martin Caiden. From a sci-fi novel hero’s in hell.
awesome book, i have it
The Good:
- Great to have a book on this subject.
- Great research
- Fascinating historical context and data.
- Great insights into the human and engineering/technical issues
- Impressive how good the achievements of these era of engines were.
- Kudos to Callum for writing this book (passion project)
The Bad:
- Callum is an engineer - not a writer.
- He couldn't get the proper editing support he or the book needed.
- So there are many grammar/spelling errors.
- And he repeats himself far too much, the writing could have been so much tighter/better.
- I am deeply disappointed that large professional publishing houses are too blind to have given this book the support it needed and deserved.
Conclusion:
- Even with all these faults, read (and buy the book - I did), it is a seminal and fascinating work that pulls together so many strands you never even knew existed, or than you thought you needed to know...
@barry scott Does listing what you don't like, meet the need you needed met today? If you endorse the book, what is the value to you of the negative?
I most certainly am a writer "Barry" and the book has been universally praised for its writing enabling non technical people to understand it. So, your comment here is frankly nonsense, I note you provide not a single example. Unsurprisingly
When Japan started the war in 1941 ,,, if I'm not mistaken the Japanese were buying scrap iron from America until they declared war.
Not quite that late, I think probably around a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US government responded to the Japanese aggression in China by freezing financial assets and stopping sales of oil, scrap iron and other strategic materials
Was there any interest in 2 stroke engines for aircraft use ...
Yes, Look up Rolls-Royce Crecy. I think Junkers had diesel engines during the war that were used in very high altitude photo-recon planes. Most likely two stroke just because of the power density advantage of twice as many power strokes/revolution. There are some modern two stroke diesel aero engines as well. See DeltaHawk engine
@@jimrankin2583 Ahh ...... sleeve valve ... I must admit I was thinking of more conventional 2 stroke .., ie oil in fuel crank case driven static by-pass ports ... In a way the complexity of sleeve valve almost adds as much weight as the conventional valve gear ... OK double the number of firing for RPM .., but the weight advantage was lost by the complex valve gear ...
@@jimrankin2583 Thank you ...
Thanks for your historical and great ability to segregate the Dictator from the innovative! German engineering has been far and above most of what the rest of the world should try to catch up with. I knew that back in the '70's
Who am I but a person of a history buff
2:15:00 I totally agree. I am an engineer and teach engineering to others. and I struggle to get people to comprehend how smart people in the first half of the 20th century were. pinnacle of human intelligence. I was fortunate to have been old enough to lived without modern tech, and forced to learn things the old way, and while I never got as good as the engineers of old, I understand why they did what they did the way they did, and understand the value of doing things the way they did.
But don't forget how labor intensive a lot of this stuff was back then. Labor was far cheaper back then. Today many engineers have to do all their own drawings and documentation themselves, while also doing research and testing, and data processing. Where as in the past a single engineer might have 25 drafters assigned to him. And the number of skills and technologies they had to master was far less, enabling them to better master their fundamental skills. Modern engineers are not afforded that luxury, unfortunately. Also, the work ethic was far better back then, and people worked harder (more efficiently as well), and were better motivated. Education was far better back then too. One only need look at older textbooks and training videos from the 1950s to see that.
People overvalue computer technology in solving problems, but computers also do enable a level of performance that engineers of old never would have achieved. But most things don't require that level of performance, efficiency, nor optimization. After a certain point the return on investment becomes minimal, and additional time and effort spent optimizing a solution is not worth it for what little you gain in return. Computers can better enable such gains. But this also results in less durable designs as well.
2:06:00 I totally agree that parts were interchangeable, and I've never seen anyone claim otherwise. But parts interchangeability =/= identical. There is still room for changes to be made to either improve manufacturability, mass producibility, performance, etc. while still remaining 100% interchangeable. Everything I've heard is that Packard did things to better mass produce their engines compared to Rolls Royce, and possibly even improve performance slightly. That does not mean the parts didn't work on a Rolls Royce engine.
"everything I`ve heard" = I saw it on a forum once.
I think pine root oil is turpentine
Definitely a 1.5 × playback video.
2.5x
It's Sunday. Take a deep breath, relax and slow down.
Why downed alliet airplanes didn`t increased metals to make airplanes? Hundres tons of it.
They did
The allies didn’t want to even send strategic material over in the form of drop tanks. So there were compressed paper tanks used. Aircraft losses over occupied territory were an unavoidable consequence of offensive operations.
F1 turbo-compound engines: don't worry, the next regulations will lose the -compound and drop to bog-standard 37%, in the name of "spectacle"
Yes its really stupid isnt it. :(
2:07:00 the UK was short on Merlins throughout the war, affecting the development of various aircraft (companies that wanted to gain access a Merlin but couldn't get them allocated). if they could mass produce them well enough, this would not have been an issue. And when the Mustang came along, there was no way the UK was going to meet that demand.
168,000 Merlins were made in WW2. Britain made 113,780 of them.
@@CalumDouglas And Packard sent many of the 58k engine they made to England to put in their airplanes. Not to mention the number of US aircraft given to the British during the war. And many British airplane designs weren't able to use Merlins due to the shortage of engines.
the number produced means nothing regarding the shortage.
@@SoloRenegade - That makes so little sense I`m having to sit with my head in my hands.
@@CalumDouglas What about it doesn't make sense? This is not difficult.
A number of British aircraft designers wanted to use Merlins in their aircraft, but couldn't as the gov prioritized them for the spitfires and other primary aircraft already in mass production. If they had surplus engines, they wouldn't have done that. But regardless how many were made in WW2, the British had a shortage of engines throughout the war and thus those airframes had to use alternative engines in their designs. Even the US had shortages and certain aircraft weren't allowed to try a Packard Merlin in their airframes.
And if there was no shortage of engines, why did the British need Merlins from Packard at all?
You're conflating a total number of engines built over the course of the ENTIRE war to mean there was enough to go around at any given point in the war.
does this make sense to you? or do I need to find a way to dumb it down even more?
I think you just have a personal issue at this point. You're reacting like a child to all my comments. You haven't disproven a single thing I've said. You've misconstrued or misunderstood pretty much every initial comment I've made now. You really need to learn to take a chill pill, learn how to deal with criticism. Show some class. There is and old lesson I've been taught since I was a child. "Don't roll in the mud with a pig, you'll only get dirty and he'll enjoy it." If you see me as the pig, then don't engage. Learn to not take things so personally. Stop charging in so aggressively, and instead learn how to have a civil discussion about something. Someone like myself is all about truth. If you are right, and can prove me wrong, I will change my stance on that particular issue. I can be swayed. But only if you can make a coherent and valid argument that proves my stance is incorrect given the information we both have at that time. So instead of making rude comments with no substance, try making a LOGICAL and well REASONED argument using FACTS.
Umm no I posted the manufacturing figures and you have totally lost your marbles.
On the topic of fuel injection this comes off as RAF apologist. To suggest that the Brits had a prototype fuel injection system in the '30s and then claim it to be analogous in both mechanical design and refinement to the Mercedes direct injection system is simply delusional.
If you had the idea and did not develop the technology you are not on equal technical footing with your competition.
"On the topic of fuel injection this comes off as RAF apologist."
Why, I said it was a disastrous decision.
"To suggest that the Brits had a prototype fuel injection system in the '30s"
Its not a suggestion, its in the archive files.
"and then claim it to be analogous in both mechanical design and refinement to the Mercedes direct injection system is simply delusional."
Video timestamp where that "exact" claim was made > ??
"If you had the idea and did not develop the technology you are not on equal technical footing with your competition."
No, that choice is at the level of upper management and CEO level, its a management error, not an engineering science failure.
the physics of a carburetor of fuel injection is not that complicated. It blows my mind a guy who wrote a well regarded book on aircraft development doesn't understand how carburetors and fuel injection works... Understanding the finer engineering design details of any given fuel delivery system is not important (what spring they used, the exact position of a port, the specific shape of a valve, etc.), but understanding the basic theory of operation and operating principles behind how they work is rather important and not that difficult.
I`m not talking about the simplistic level of Bernoulli's equation, I`m talking about the physics of everything happening in the carburettor, if you think that's simple I can promise you, that means you have never read any scientific papers on carburettor design. It gets extremely complicated because the air density changes but the fuel density does not, correcting for this is immensely complex, and in fact, nobody ever did manage it. All the corrections and the behaviour of the fuel are extremely complex, the control available for fuel injection actually simplifies the control problem significantly. But by all means just throw around insults as you please.
@@CalumDouglas "It gets extremely complicated because the air density changes but the fuel density does not, correcting for this is immensely complex, and in fact, nobody ever did manage it."
they certainly managed to control the fuel air mixture just fine, one way or another (FW190, mixture knobs...). And of course, electronics changes that nowadays.
But the fact is, just because they didn't understand something back then (and there was a LOT they didn't know), or because they didn't have time to figure it out, doesn't mean it couldn't be understood or solved.
In designing machines for war and mass production, technical mastery takes a back seat to getting something that works.
But automatic control of a carburetor has nothing to do with understanding how a carburetor works. They are separate devices and technologies. The basics of a carburetor are very simple. And I don't care about, nor was I commenting on, automating the mixture knob. I'm perfectly capable of managing it myself (and quite well I might add). I have talked to engineers at various engine manufacturers specifically about how I operate their engines mixture settings (and they've backed me up on my technique). And I've talked to former Rolls Royce mechanics and other engineers who work on the WW2 engines specifically. I'm saying what I say out of experience in dealing with various issues, and a myriad of debates I've had (and won) on such issues.
There is also a lost art of engineering that works very well at solving problems. NASA used to use it (not anymore, haven't used it for many decades), they used it to design the SR-71, I have used it many times. And when a problem needs to be solved, we find a way. But nobody really needed to solve automatic mixture control. A manual knob was simpler and already existed.
I am fortunate to view this as a professional pilot, combat veteran (including testing prototype equipment in combat, as well as designing some of our own, and developing new tactics), and an engineer. So I know when the engineers are going too far off into the weeds and losing sight of what is required and desired by the guys fighting and dying on the battlefield.
I understand these are not the same fuel systems and carburetors that are in a typical civilian aircraft, but the basic concepts are rather simple, even if the problem to be solved wasn't as easy at the time. It came down to lack of time, money, necessity, etc. A hell of a lot of things that are highly regarded today were just made "good enough" in WW2 and the average person has no idea they could have done better. But that's the problem with engineering. It's never finished. But at some point you have to call it good enough and push it out to production. As an ME myself, I design on 1-2yr development cycles for cutting edge technology. I once delivered a cutting edge device, from concept drawing to delivered for launch, for NASA, in 4 months (including all of the testing, ours and NASA's). We work at a pace that leaves most other industries stunned. And that device went into space, and it exceeded everyone's wildest expectations, including NASA's. And I now hold numerous firsts and world records in outer space, with a device everyone told us would fail (including NASA). And NASA even admitted it would have taken them multiple years and over 20 engineers to do what I did in 4months (there was only one of me, the rest of the team was software, safety, technical writer, etc. less than 10 total people on the team). We had our own doubts too, but we never let that stop us. We thought only of success. I've made a name for myself in engineering by solving problems quickly, that others claimed couldn't be solved, many times over. It's one of my natural gifts. I also have a thing for teaching, and have proven extremely successful at teaching math (including calculus), history, engineering, theoretical physics, aerodynamics, and flight instructing. I've been offered multiple teaching jobs as a result, and did teach for a time. but my methods, while highly effective, are unconventional and schools don't like that. Students love my methods. I follow with Feynman, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it. And I've proven I can teach calculus to 6th graders, algebra to 2nd graders, and theoretical physics concepts to high school kids. Even hovering a helicopter I can teach to anyone in minutes, because it's actually very easy (my fellow CFI's get mad when I say that, but they've never proven me wrong).
something you could learn from veterans is to not take things so personally. If you can't take criticism, then don't put yourself out there to be criticized. You should know as an engineer yourself, that if your work is beyond scrutiny and criticism, then it's not science. And I have every right to criticize things you say.
@@SoloRenegade Well I`m glad you cleared that up with that entirely plausible and believable response listing your achievements.
@@CalumDouglas you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but it's all true. Not one thing I said was a lie. My life has been a strange and interesting one, and people such as yourself are always hurt (jealous?) when they learn my story. They get very defensive and hostile. They seem to think my life story is offensive to them for some reason.... I didn't earn the nickname "Spock" in the Army for no reason. I'm extremely logical, and they are emotional. and I can separate my emotions from logic while discussing things. I seek truth and knowledge, they seek to prove superiority over one another.
my point was to say that what you see as extremely difficult to impossible, I see as a challenge. And when I take a challenge, I rarely fail, because if I take a challenge, it's because I have good reason to believe it can be solved. And, I have a better understanding of how engineers in WW2 solved certain complex problems than modern engineers do (it's a technique I find myself teaching to new engineers still in college, and older experienced engineers alike, and not all engineers are good at it, especially younger engineers).
but this all started with you getting emotionally charged over my response to a statement you made, and you misunderstood what I said. The issue people have with me is that I tend to be more precise with my words than they are. They will swap out words with what I actually said, and think they are interchangeable, when they are not, as it changes the meaning.
Ummm… it wasn’t a secret.
It was at the time nitwit, most of the documents I used to research the book have either SECRET or even MOST SECRET written on, which was the highest classification possible at the time.
Ridiculous book.
Very interesting.
Awful print.
Not pleasant to try to read.
Odd. I thought it was just fine.
@@Ensign_Cthulhuyou are not 62 years old with strong reading glasses - I suspect
@@davewolfy2906 an e-book might be the better option for you then?
@@alexanderstohr625 or, he could use better print.
I like books, my age is a giveaway.
I am a bit of a Cisco techie, so, not an entire Luddite
@@davewolfy2906 Calum won't have influence on the print, that lies with the editors and publishers