Jump to content

Soviet Test of captured JG 54 Fw 190A-4 -Video


AX2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Crump can LOL all he likes that was not the question, nor was it the answer he has given previously:

A standard propeller shaft did not exist for anybody regarding aircraft.  Each propeller must meet very specific engineering requirements for the application.  That is just the physics.

 

Of course there were standard propeller shafts, all of which used standard SAE spline measurements:

 

SAE number spline is not a standard shaft, LOL.

 So naturally  SAE did not publish E-25 "General Standards For Aerospace And Propulsion Systems between 1941 and with revisions to 4 Jan 2013 because it was a waste of time, because no-one used the SAE standards:

 

http://standards.sae.org/as41f/

 

and neither did other organisations

 

http://www.kiwiprops.co.nz/cms/index.php/resources-general/sae-shaft-standards.

 

And, of course, there were no standard propeller shafts, meaning that it was impossible for NAA to fit Hamilton Standard or Aeroproducts propeller units to the Packard V-1650 without having to change the propeller shaft.

 

http://www.enginehistory.org/gwhitecol.shtml

 

US engine manufacturers use standardized propeller shaft spline sizes. Higher horsepower engines (those over 1,000 hp) have what???

Edited by NZTyphoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Propeller

 

The Wirraway was fitted with a 10 foot diameter De Havilland ADH2 constant speed propeller. The design for this propeller was licensed from Hamilton Standard, and the version fitted to the Wirraway corresponds to the Hamilton Standard 3D40 constant speed hub with 6101A-3 forged aluminium blades. The part numbers for these items provide the following descriptions:

 

3D40 hub description:

3 = 3 blades

D = Blade shank size "D"

40 = SAE #40 prop shaft spline size

Pitch range of this hub = 20?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of course there were standard propeller shafts, all of which used standard SAE spline measurements:

 

 

 

No there were not.  You confuse compatibility with a standard.  It is ok, you are not licensed to work on an airplane nor have have you ever done such a thing as change a propeller or resurect an extinct engine propeller shaft.  You confuse a standard spline with a "standard shaft".  Some propeller shafts are splined and the splines are standard.

 

The number of splines, diameter, and length is not standard!!

 

What does it mean to be standard?

 

If you go look at the radiator hoses on any airplane they use AN or MS STANDARD fittings.  

 

All the fluid lines use standard fittings.  Does not matter if they carry oil, hydraulic fluid, avgas, or glycol.

 

 

 

NAS - National Aeronautical Standard Fittings and Plugs

 

 

http://www.aerospacefittings.com/nas-series.php

Edited by Crump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So naturally SAE did not publish E-25 "General Standards For Aerospace And Propulsion Systems between 1941 and with revisions to 4 Jan 2013 because it was a waste of time, because no-one used the SAE standards:

 

 

 

 

I see what is going on.

 

You have confused propeller mounting compatibility with a having a standard propeller shaft.

 

Everyone has standards for the dimensions required to mount a propeller otherwise you could not have compatible propellers.  Otherwise propeller manufacturers would be making propellers and hoping they could find an engine to mount it.  That is common sense and one of things discussed at the Paris Convention of 1916. 

 

The propeller shaft is not part of the propeller, it is an engine part.  Just because the Merlin used an SAE 50 spline propeller shaft does not mean you can stick it on a R-2800 engine.  You cannot. 

 

There was no such thing as a standard propeller shaft.   Common mounting dimensions for propellers was something that was common by the 1920's in all convention signers.

 

 

The SAE standard addresses the spline size, length of propeller nut thread and the type of oil transfer connection for hydraulic propellers.

 

saepropellershaft.jpg

 

 

 

 

Yes, there was a standard for mounting dimensions for propellers in every major nation in world war II.  The reason you cannot mount a Junkers Propeller for a VDM is the Junkers is hydraulic and the VDM electric.

 

 

Edited by Crump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't allowed to engage boost with the 2nd charger gear. If you did nonetheless, you would most likely damage the engine. The handbook says it's prohibited because of the risk of detonation.

At high speed, the full throttle altitude of the first charger gear with WEP was at around 1750m, without WEP at around 3250m. This means you'd be getting the full benefit of WEP up to 1750m, but some benefit up to 3250m. At lower speeds these altitudes would be somewhat lower because of less ram, about 800m and 2000m at zero speed.

What grade of avgas was generally used by the Soviets in 1942-43?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw this. I have an inbox full of messages relating to members of this thread and others just like it.

You guys just keep winding each other up then reporting each other to me and BC.

It's a waste of time and just succeeds in *%#ing people off and poisoning the atmosphere.

 

 

If I get any more problems relating to this kind of topic I'm just going to lock them or delete them as soon as they start since they merely cause trouble for moderators and generally shed very little light on the topics in question. I know I previously said that this type of thread can happen in a forum like this, but as things currently stand, I'm perfectly willing to reverse that position.

 

I see little point in allowing feuds to develop on a forum of people sharing a common interest- that is not why we come here.

 

 

 

 

Just as a reminder:

Back up any claim you make with clear evidence ideally indicating the specific section.

Respond clearly and fully to evidence that refutes your claims, rather than just tossing off a one liner or changing topic.

Focus on the main issues rather than distracting trivial issues.

Acknowledge when you are mistaken.

Be civil.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The modern Soviet engines, such as the M-82 or the M-105, used 95 octane fuel.

 

Thanks for that. From what I've read there wasn't much wrong with the quality of the Soviet fuels - after all they had access to some major, high quality oil fields; when there were problems it was more to do with poor maintenance and storage.

 

In that connection, and drifting OT a bit, but I found this interesting account of how, until 1944, the Allies sent 100 Octane fuel in 5 gallon cans (this in connection with the R-2600s of the B-25s) :

 

 

They burned only 100-octane fuel, which until 1944 was delivered by sea from the USA in 5-gallon cans! Imagine what kind of difficulties were experienced by our support personnel during the refueling of this aircraft from cans, especially in winter conditions.

 

Plus some of the maintenance difficulties caused by the self-sealing fuel cells

 

 

We also had many problems with the rubber fuel and oil cells, which were made from several layers of rubber with varying physical characteristics. The manufacturer had calculated that if a projectile or shell fragment penetrated a fuel cell, the middle layer of raw rubber would swell upon contact with the gasoline or oil and seal up the hole. However, with the onset of sharply falling temperature of the surrounding air, which happened frequently in our part of the world, the inner layer of the fuel and oil cells began to crack, and under the influence of the gasoline (and oil) the rubber in the middle layer ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lend-Lease's oil component

Over the years the Lend-Lease program was in effect, the total volume of just the high-octane aviation gasoline supplied by the Allies to the USSR was 1,197,587 tons, of which 558,428 tons had octane numbers higher than 99

.

It is very clear that the Allies' delivery of octane-boosting additives for preparing high-octane aviation gasolines for the Soviet air forces, and for raising the octane number of automotive gasolines, was no less important. A total of 834,427 tons of these were delivered, of which 732,295 tons came from the United States, and 102,132 tons came from the British refinery in Abadan, Iran.

 

It should also be mentioned that U.S. oil deliveries included 267,088 tons of automotive gasoline; 16,870 tons of kerosene; 287,262 tons of fuel oil; 111,676 tons of lubricating oil; 5,769 tons of paraffin; 4,788 tons of chemical additives; and 999 tons of other products.

 

An agreement to supply complete sets of U.S. refinery equipment to the USSR, and to extend technical assistance in setting them up, signed under the terms of the July 11, 1942 intergovernmental agreement between the USSR and the United States and the Second (Washington) Protocol, was an important element of Lend-Lease. The company of E.B. Badger & Sons, the contract with which was registered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Bureau of Material and Technical Assistance under the heading DA-TPS 17000, Requisition R-4200, was chosen to execute the project's engineering. The total cost of the refinery equipment delivered under Lend-Lease was $43,138,000.

 

It should be emphasized that in addition to petroleum products and refining equipment, Lend-Lease's oil component included deliveries of drilling rigs and other oilfield equipment: casings; tubings; portable collapsible pipelines; instrumentation devices; and tanker ships, tank cars, and tank trucks.

 

Under Lend-Lease, the United States supplied $9,230,000 worth of drilling equipment; 222,107 tons of pipeline of various types and dimensions; 892 short tons of pumping rods; and $9,040,000 worth of welding equipment and 4,030 metric tons of welding electrodes. A large number of different instruments and devices were supplied to the USSR, as is evident from their total cost of $6,902,000.

 

Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR officially ended on May 12, 1945. From that day until the Red Army crossed the Manchurian border, cargo was delivered under the Special Program of 17 October and the so-called Molotov-Mikoyan List appended to it. The maximum amount of military and civilian goods the United States and Britain could allocate to the Soviet Union was delivered under the terms of these agreements.

 

The Pipeline Agreement of October 15, 1945, extending the Lend-Lease protocols, was of great importance to the USSR's shattered economy. This $222,000,000 agreement also considerably influenced the development of Russia's oil and gas industry.

 

http://www.oilru.com/or/43/900/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Milo, some interesting info; from the same article:

 

From June to the end of October 1941, $92,000,000 worth of strategic goods were delivered from the United States to the Soviet Union, including payment for deliveries of aviation gasoline. In the first part of the war, before Lend-Lease was extended to the USSR, these deliveries totaled 156,335 short tons, of which 25,185 tons were more than 99 octane aviation gasoline; 130,729 tons were 87-99 octane aviation gasoline; and 421 tons were less than 87 octane aviation gasoline.

 

From the German side it looks as though invading the Soviet Union to help secure oil supplies didn't really pay off: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

 

 

At the outbreak of the war, Germany???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...