Crump Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 You were pointing out that if you were comparing installed weights of both the R-2800 and BMW801 and set it into relation with max. continuous power, the BMW had a better power/weight ratio, opposing other views expressed in this topic. To illustrate this, you picked one of the heaviest R-2800 installation, took off a couple of hp from it's power and cherry picked a power figure for the BMW. So now the point being made by others would be that if you make a reasonable comparison, the BMW801 isn't better in this regard than the R-2800. Cherry picked?? You mean the data from the manufacturer? Or do you mean the other participants use of dry weight vs installed weight? I am sorry but installed weight vs installed weight is the only legitimate method of comparison. My comparison is installed weight to installed weight. Using installed weight highlights the other nations decision not to pursue turbochargers in single engine fighter installations. That nicely illustrates the engineering limitations that the the United States accepted at a performance cost to their designs. As for the non-turbocharged installations we must examine each to its own. I agree the numbers come out roughly the same with little to chose between the non-turbocharged installations. The R-2800 has 300 cubic inches more displacement so that it is hardly remarkable.
MiloMorai Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 BMW 801 HB C u D 1942 http://www.scribd.com/doc/193682161/BMW-801-HB-C-u-D-1942
NZTyphoon Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 My comparison is installed weight to installed weight. Using installed weight highlights the other nations decision not to pursue turbochargers in single engine fighter installations. That nicely illustrates the engineering limitations that the the United States accepted at a performance cost to their designs. As for the non-turbocharged installations we must examine each to its own. I agree the numbers come out roughly the same with little to chose between the non-turbocharged installations. The R-2800 has 300 cubic inches more displacement so that it is hardly remarkable. Trust Crump to hijack a thread on the Fw 190A-8 handbook in order to "prove" that only the U.S accepted turbochargers on their fighters, at a performance cost, and then go on to make direct comparisons between a turbocharged P&W R-2800 and a non-turbocharged BMW 801 to further reinforce a "point" about power to weight ratios. Crump knows full well that other nations actively pursued the use of turbochargers in single engine fighters but were unable to complete development, not because they chose not to but because they did not have enough time, or the right materials, to finalise the projects; as per usual, however, because Crump wants to be always and forever right about everything, he will continue to insist that only the U.S was prepared to pursue turbocharger technology. And so it will go on, ad nausea...
Crump Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Trust Crump to hijack a thread on the Fw 190A-8 handbook in order to "prove" that only the U.S accepted turbochargers on their fighters, at a performance cost, and then go on to make direct comparisons between a turbocharged P&W R-2800 and a non-turbocharged BMW 801 to further reinforce a "point" about power to weight ratios. Crump knows full well that other nations actively pursued the use of turbochargers in single engine fighters but were unable to complete development, not because they chose not to but because they did not have enough time, or the right materials, to finalise the projects; as per usual, however, because Crump wants to be always and forever right about everything, he will continue to insist that only the U.S was prepared to pursue turbocharger technology. And so it will go on, ad nausea... What a whine. Be an adult and recognize you participate in the discussions too. It was not Crumpp who made the original false claims about the engineering superiority of the R-2800 in this FW-190 thread nor was it Crumpp who made similar false claims about the superiority of a United States turbocharger technology. Try expanding your horizons NZTyphoon beyond the pulp history channel presentations. If you are going to make such claims, be prepared to have those claims examined and discussed.
MiloMorai Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Even late in the war, March 1945, BV was making repairs and changes to the BV155 V1 and trying to complete the BV155 V2. In March 1945, the BV155 V1 was scheduled to log at least 10 hours of flight time with a further 15 hours in April 1945. Flights to 14-16km altitude were to be made. Even the BV155 V2 was scheduled to have 10 hours of flight time in April 1945. Hardly this nonsense Crump is spouting that Germany was no longer pursuing turbocharging in single engined fighters. 1
Recommended Posts