sea-level engine vs. altitude engine

[Crump]

 

Note the FAA definition does not care how the power was achieved!

 

 

 

 

The FAA does care and clearly outlines the power conditions at sea level and altitude under 14 CFR Part 33.  Like all your questions, that has already been posted in this thread so please stop with the personal attacks and spamming of the thread.

 

 

ABC was a requirement by law for an altitude rated engine

 

 

 

As Allison explains in their overhaul manual, the law of physics dictates an ABC is a requirement for an altitude engine.  In order to build an engine that is capable of producing more or the same manifold pressure at redline at altitude, the price is the ability to destroy itself at sea level.

 

If slapping a supercharger on an engine and telling a pilot don't exceed this rating on take off was enough, why would an ABC even be a requirement for anything??

[NZTyphoon]

 

 

It does not say anything about Military Power.  It says the power is rated at altitude. 

 

 

-35 identical to E4 Takeoff power = 1,150 hp @ 3,000 rpm. Military Rated Power = 1,150 hp @ 3,000 rpm @ 12,000 ft

 

You keep posting 1943/44/45 data as proof that a 1941 engine was the same. 

Here we see the differences in the ratings allowed for the V-1710-81 engine when equipped with an automatic manifold pressure regulator. 

 

 

Power production at WEP when equipped with automatic manifold pressure regulator:

 

 

Without the automatic manifold pressure regulator, the Allison V-1710-81 is a sea level engine according to 14 CFR Part 1.1.  The take off engine setting is not reproducible above sea level and the engine will not independently maintain manifold pressure with an increase in altitude. Clearly a sea level engine....

 

With the automatic manifold pressure regulator, the Allison V-1710-81 meest the 14 CFR Part 1.1 definition of an altitude engine.  The engine can produce a manifold pressure higher than the take off power setting resulting in higher horsepower at altitude than sea level, and the engine can independently maintain manifold pressure with an increase in altitude.  Clearly an altitude engine.....

 

 Not forgetting that the -81 was always equipped with ABC...

[Crump]

Where is there any mention of military law and conventions defining engine ratings

 

Sure there is NzTyphoon.  The very first convention in 1919 agreed upon a common airworthiness standard for all convention signers.

 

No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof.

 

The special agreement will contain some sort of assurance the aircraft meets the airworthiness specifications required by convention.  Part 33 which defines the power settings is.....

 

 

14 CFR 33 - AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

 

The FAA does care and clearly outlines the power conditions at sea level and altitude under 14 CFR Part 33.

Interesting..

 

Here are the FAA definitions

 

14 CFR 1.1, FAA, Regulatory on SEA-LEVEL Engine

Sea level engine means a reciprocating aircraft engine having a rated takeoff power that is producible only at sea level.

 

 

14 CFR 1.1, FAA, Regulatory on ALTITUDE Engine

Altitude engine means a reciprocating aircraft engine having a rated takeoff power that is producible from sea level to an established higher altitude.

 

Note the definition of an altitude engines makes no mention of an automatic boot control being required..

 

The definition only says the rated take-off power must be producible at higher altitudes..

 

 

 

Be it producible due to the pilot adjusting the throttle manually

 

OR

 

By some device doing it automatically..

 

It does not mater!

 

All that maters is if the engine can produce the rated takeoff power at higher altitudes

PS can you tell us how you were able to interpret the BMW power charts correctly, yet were un-able to interpret the Allison charts!

[Crump]

It does not say anything about Military Power. It says the power is rated at altitude.

 

I was talking about the definition of a sea level engine and altitude engine.

 

 

-35 identical to E4 Takeoff power = 1,150 hp @ 3,000 rpm. Military Rated Power = 1,150 hp @ 3,000 rpm @ 12,000 ft

 

Not in the RAF P-400.  The topic is not whether or nor Allison improved their superchargers or if the United States had altitude engines in the P-39.  We did and the USAAF pilots who were subjected to the P-400's the RAF gave us back recognized a huge difference between the P-39 and the P-400.

 

 

It does not change the fact, the engine ratings of the 1941 P-400 as tested by the RAF are sea level engines.

 

 

 

 

Stop changing the topic to whatever suits your argument.  The discussion is the P-400 as tested by the RAF.

 

It is not international convention, it is not 1943/44/45 Allison engines, and it is not automatic boost controls.

 

Look at the approved ratings above and they do not meet any definition of an altitude engine.  The engines as tested by the RAF is clearly a sea level engine.

 

There is nothing to discuss about 1943/44/45 engines or  any model of Allison engines in United States service.

 

 

14 CFR Part 1.1

 

 

Sea level engine means a reciprocating aircraft engine having a rated takeoff power that is producible only at sea level.

 

 

 

Takeoff power:

(1) With respect to reciprocating engines, means the brake horsepower that is developed under standard sea level conditions, and under the maximum conditions of crankshaft rotational speed and engine manifold pressure approved for the normal takeoff, and limited in continuous use to the period of time shown in the approved engine specification; and

 

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1&idno=14

[NZTyphoon]

Sure there is NzTyphoon.  The very first convention in 1919 agreed upon a common airworthiness standard for all convention signers.

 

No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof.

 

 

The special agreement will contain some sort of assurance the aircraft meets the airworthiness specifications required by convention.  Part 33 which defines the power settings is.....

 

So why is Crump quoting from the 1944 Chicago convention pretending it comes from 1919?  "No state aircraft..." is from paragraph © of Article 3 defining state and civil aircraft

 

Article 3 - Civil and state aircraft

(a) This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft.

(b ) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft.

(c )  No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Edited February 4, 2013 by NZTyphoon

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

-35 identical to E4 Takeoff power = 1,150 hp @ 3,000 rpm. Military Rated Power = 1,150 hp @ 3,000 rpm @ 12,000 ft

Bingo!

 

And the -35 is the same motor installed in the RAF version from the AH573 testing!

 

Here is a test of a P-39C done in 1939 that also has a -35 motor

 

 

And if you look on the right hand size you will notice the following..

 

 

Which confirms the vales in table you provided..

 

As we all know, the RAF decided to perfom the climb at 2600 RPM instead of 3000 RPM.

 

Why? We may never know

 

All we do know is that difference in test metods does not change the motor in anyway shape or form

 

Thus the V-1710-35 (E4) in the P-39 and Airacobra/P-400 is an altitude engine

[Crump]

 

All that maters is if the engine can produce the rated takeoff power at higher altitudes

 

 

OMG!!  Tagert and I agree.

 

YES, all that matters is whether or not the engine can produce rated take off power under the maximum crankshaft rotational speed and engine manifold pressure approved for normal take off!!

 

 

Added the ratings of the P-400

Edited February 4, 2013 by Crump

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Finally!

 

Glad you now see it my way!

 

Better late than never!

[Crump]

Here is a test of a P-39C done in 1939 that also has a -35 motor

 

Bell aircraft corporation and NOT the British.

 

What does Bells data have to do with the British P-400 test's?

 

 

These are the reports on the P-400 as recieved by the RAF that I know of....

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/Airacobra_Handling_Trials.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/AH573.pdf

 

The P-400 had a sea level engine by any definition. 

 

 

STICK to the TOPIC Please.  It is the P-400 and not the P-39C or any other United States aircraft.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Crump

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Bell aircraft corporation and NOT the British.

 

What does Bells data have to do with the British P-400 test's?

 

Bell made the aircraft for the British

 

And allison made the V-1710-35 that was used in both the P-39 and P-400

 

Hope that helps!

 

So why is Crump quoting from the 1944 Chicago convention pretending it comes from 1919? "No state aircraft..." is from paragraph © of Article 3 defining state and civil aircraft

 

Article 3 - Civil and state aircraft

(a) This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft.

(b ) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft.

(c ) No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

 

Agreed

 

As with most of what Crump has provided thus far as proof..

 

Upon closer inspection

 

It disproves what he is saying and proves what we are saying!

 

A good example of that being the V-1710-33 chart Crump provided

 

Where Crump said that chart is proof the V-1710 engines are sea-level engines!

 

Where Crump incorrectly said the power decreases with an increase in altitude

 

When, upon closer inspection..

 

The power actually increases with an increase in altitude

 

Up to the critical alt!

 

Thus by definition

 

The V-1710-35 used in the P-39C and the Airacobra/P-400s is an altitude engine

 

Edited February 4, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[NZTyphoon]

As we all know, the RAF decided to perfom the climb at 2600 RPM instead of 3000 RPM.

 

Why? We may never know

 

According to the report AH573 crashed before testing was completed, so the RAE was probably running each test flight at different settings. Had they tested at full Hg and rpm this set of figures would have shown 3000 rpm. Another P-400, AH589 was sent but had engine trouble so AH701 completed the tests.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

so the RAE was probably running each test flight at different settings. Had they tested at full Hg and rpm this set of figures would have shown 3000 rpm.

Sounds reasonable..

 

Truth be told we may never know why the RAF performed the test at 2600 RPM instead of 3000 RPM

 

All we know for sure is both the P-39C and Airacobra/P-400s had the same power plants

 

And based on the P-39C testing the V-1710-35 qualifies as an altitude engine

 

Therefore the power plant in the P-400 qualifies as an altitude engine

 

The only way it would NOT is if you belive as Crump does that Allison made two different versions of the -35 engine..

 

Which nothing Crump has provided thus far comes close to supporting that claim.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[Crump]

NzTyphoons says:

 

Crump has ignored the 1948 Northrop Aeronautical Institute book which stipulates that to convert a sea-level rated engine to an altitude rated all that's needed is a higher blower gearing and some sort of boost control device - the book did not stipulate Automatic Boost Control was required. The latter is desirable because it is one less thing to worry about when in combat, but ABC is not absolutely needed.

 

 

NzTyphoon says:

 

the book did not stipulate Automatic Boost Control was required.

 

<_<

 

NzTyphoon...a boost control device is automatic boost control.

 

Listen, start a new thread or PM me and I will be glad to give you a primer on aviation law.  In 1919 everybody agreed on common airworthiness standards and that does include state aircraft.  The big issue was the definition of "aircraft" was not clear.  Some nations said only aerial vehicles which produce lift were subject to the convention airworthiness standards.  Bouyancy vehicles were not subject according to some signatores.  That is why you had big gas bags full of explosive gases crossing the Atlantic to blow up over Lakehurst NJ.

 

 

 

Isn't that the third time you have posted that same thing Tagert?

 

or is it the fourth?

 

 

According to the report AH573 crashed before testing was completed, so the RAE was probably running each test flight at different settings. Had they tested at full Hg and rpm this set of figures would have shown 3000 rpm. Another P-400, AH589 was sent but had engine trouble so AH701 completed the tests.

 

 

 

Why would they run the test's at three different engine ratings???

 

The engine ratings the aircraft were approved are listed in the report.  That is all three aircraft had the same engine limits.  Those limits were not made up by the RAF, they were given to them by Allison.

 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Quick Question Crump

 

You are asking us to belive Allison made two different versions of the V-1710-35 (E4) motor..

 

What do you think you have that supports that claim of yours?

 

Thanks in advance!

[NZTyphoon]

STICK to the TOPIC Please.  It is the P-400 and not the P-39C or any other United States aircraft.

Exactly, it is not about misquoting the 1944 Chicago Convention on Civil aircraft, or the performance of the V-1710-81, or post war definitions of a sea level or altitude engine, WEP or anything of a similar nature. Nor does it have anything to do with automatic boost control.

 

Was the V-1710-E4, fitted to the P-400 and identical to the V-1710-35 fitted to the P-39C, able to generate take-off power up to its rated altitude?

 

 

Definitely. So now that that's settled time to move on.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Those limits were not made up by the RAF, they were given to them by Allison.

Are you assuming the limitations were from Allison?

 

Or do you have some proof stating Allison gave different limitations to the RAF and USAAF?

 

[Crump]

Are you assuming the limitations were from Allison?

 

 

Where do you think they came from?  Are you presenting the theory the RAF just made them up?

 

 

Was the V-1710-E4, fitted to the P-400 able to generate take-off power up to its rated altitude?

 

 

The answer would be NO, according to the British test's, NzTyphoon; it was not capable of generating rated take off power as listed up to altitude.  It was a sea level engine.

 

[Crump]

post war definitions of a sea level or altitude engine,

 

So what do you want to use as the definition of a sea level engine vs altitude engine?

 

How about an engine that goes up in the air is an altitude engine and one that stays at sea level is a sea level engine!

 

 

 

The 14 CFR Part 1.1 definition exist's for this very reason.  It defines the criteria an engine must meet in order to be distinguished as a sea level or an altitude engine.  It is not artbitrary or vague.  That is why it is part of the Aviation authority and IAW Aviation Convention.  This subject comes up because you seem to want to work around it as it does not fit some artbitrary and vague criteria set by the manufacturer.  If the manufacturers where not making an issue of it, a clarification on the definition would not be required.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Where do you think they came from? Are you presenting the theory the RAF just made them up?

No I am simply pointing out they could be self (RAF) imposed limitations..

 

As NZTyphoon pointed out, the RAF was having issues with the P-39/P-400s..

 

Thus it is not uncommon for a testing group to impose more strict limitations..

 

Note it says

 

AH573

3.2 The limitations for the Allison V-1710.E.4. Engine obtaining at the time of the test where

 

Note 'at the time of the test'

 

Which is key in that it implies the limitations at the time of the writing of the document, which was after the test, were different!

 

Therefore it really doesn't mater if it was from Allison, or self imposed by the RAF

 

All we know for sure is..

 

The USAAF testing of the P-39C, which has the same V-1710-35 (E4) motor

 

Qualifies as an altitude engines!

 

And since the Airacobra/P-400 has the same engine!

 

It too qualifies as an altitude engine!

 

That is to say just because there was a more strict limit in place at the time of the test..

 

That does not equate to saying Allison made two different versions of the V-1710-35 (E4)!!

 

Like you would have us belive

 

Hope that helps!

Edited February 4, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

PS

Still waiting on an answer to this question, i.e.

Crump are you asking us to belive Allison made two different versions of the V-1710-35 (E4) motor?

 

If so, what do you have or think you have that supports that claim?

 

Thanks in advance!

[MiloMorai]

If one looks at British testing of British a/c, one will find that 2600rpm is used for climb testing and 3000rpm for speed testing.

Edited February 4, 2013 by MiloMorai

[Bearcat]

You keep calling this guy out by name ..  Enough .. Locking..