Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Quoted
But take a look here: http://members.xoom.alice.it/_XOOM/mc72/mc72.htm and you'll see it's closer to 4m.
That is the same internal view I have, just that mine is larger and a lot more clear in the book I have. The engine finishes just forwards of the aft float pylon. The AS.5 was an extremely compact engine, its only 680mm high with 4.5sq ft frontal area.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The contra-rotating props, however, are more of a stretch, as no production designs used them until 1945 or later.
Was that because of the war interfering, though, or were there other reasons?
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 5th 2008, 5:56pm)
Quoted
No, it doesn't: the engine itself may end at the aft float pylon, but the supercharger and the carburetors clearly extend past the pylon and end just before the cockpit.
Quoted
And yet adding a ventral turret and replacing 2 8mm MG with 12.7mm MG was considered totally unrealistic.
Quoted
I assume the reason for going to a flat 12 is so the next generation can go to an H layout
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 4th 2008, 1:09pm)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Mar 4th 2008, 8:00pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Exellent Power/weight ratio comes from the AS.6 engine itself which managed 1.51hp/lb, quite an achievement. This has been reduced by 33%, which is quite a lot. The improvement compared to other engines is because the power is generated at low level, there is far less power loss from the supercharger so the engine itself can produce more power. At a similar altitude that other single stage engines are supercharged to, it produces 2140hp which gives a power/weight of 0.88hp/lb which is quite normal for the period.
Quoted
No petrol engines using direct fuel injection, but plenty of diesels. The method was considered for the AS.6 when they were having bad carburation problems but these were solved another way. Direct fuel injection is a more complete solution to the problem.
Quoted
Quoted
I assume the reason for going to a flat 12 is so the next generation can go to an H layout
Not at all, because of the problems gearing all the shafts together. Developing this engine to 1943/44 Merlin levels of power gives over 4000hp. Increasing this to over 8000hp would give massive problems converting it into thrust. The flat layout just gives more space to work with because of the bottom mounted supercharger. I also wanted to mount a gun firing through the propeller axis which would be impossible if the V-24 layout was retained.
A picture of the engine on a test rig. (actually its a Fiat A.38, V-16 inverted Vee with bottom mounted supercharger and contra-rotating props from 1939)
Some bits and pieces of information here.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 5th 2008, 8:08pm)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Desertfox" (Mar 5th 2008, 6:37pm)
Quoted
even based on a historical regular service engine in the proper time frame.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Mar 5th 2008, 9:07pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'm not sure what the problem is?
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Mar 6th 2008, 3:41am)
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH