Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: XC-35  (Read 47627 times)

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2011, 09:55:16 PM »

It looks as if while the civvie engines would include a T (if turbocharged) the military designations wouldn't.  Civilian TSC4-G16:9 is military R-1830-43.

If the -43 is partly what reflects the turbo (I don't know that it is), then the XR-1340-43 designation seems in line with that convention...here's a doc in the meanwhile:

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/PWdesignations.pdf
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2011, 10:16:13 PM »

From Part Number Explanations at enginehistory.org:

Stromberg Model : NA-Y9E-2   
Part No.:  P/W# 22115   
Engine Application:  R-1340-43   
Date:  1937   
Notes:  Army carb, No self prime, Idle cutoff, Manual mixture control

Also lists specs for S3H1.

www.enginehistory.org/Carbs/CarbApps_05.xls



 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: XC-35
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2011, 10:23:18 PM »

It looks as if while the civvie engines would include a T (if turbocharged) the military designations wouldn't.  Civilian TSC4-G16:9 is military R-1830-43.

If the -43 is partly what reflects the turbo (I don't know that it is), then the XR-1340-43 designation seems in line with that convention...here's a doc in the meanwhile:

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/PWdesignations.pdf
-----------------------------------

Why do you think TSC4-G is the civilian designation of the R-1340-43? The "-G" indicates a geared engine while the -43 engine was direct drive.

gl
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2011, 10:26:33 PM »

Why do you think TSC4-G is the civilian designation of the R-1340-43? The "-G" indicates a geared engine while the -43 engine was direct drive.

Civilian TSC4-G16:9 is military R-1830-43 (acc. to http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/PWdesignations.pdf - but I haven't looked up additional sources to confirm this.)
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: XC-35
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2011, 10:44:51 PM »

Why do you think TSC4-G is the civilian designation of the R-1340-43? The "-G" indicates a geared engine while the -43 engine was direct drive.

Civilian TSC4-G16:9 is military R-1830-43 (acc. to http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/PWdesignations.pdf - but I haven't looked up additional sources to confirm this.)
--------------------------

You read that too quickly. It refers to the R-1830-43  Twin Wasp not the R-1340 -43 Wasp. The 16:9 indicates the gear ratio.  The Twin Wasp has 14 cylinders arranged in two banks of 7 while the Wasp had a single bank of 9 cylinders.

The correct civilian designation for the R-1340-43 is T5H1, T-five-H-one. See attached. In this case the "T" by itself does not mean turbocharged it means "sea level rated." "TS"  means turbocharged. It is clear that the XC-35 had added turbochargers but these were not part of the engines themselves but were an experimental installation upstream of the engine air intakes.

gl

gl
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 10:59:41 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2011, 10:48:23 PM »

My first post (Reply #16 above) comparing civilian/mil designations refers to the 1830.  But I followed it with a post about 1340 (Reply #17), which might have led to the confusion...since the 1830-43s civvie designation indicated a turbo, I was wondering whether the Army's -43 designation in general indicated turbo, and therefore whether 1340-43 (like 1830-43) was turbo.  Sorry for the convolutions...
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 10:54:14 PM by Sheila Shigley »
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2011, 10:51:52 PM »

Some gleanings on turbo issues of that timeframe:

Dr. Sanford A. Moss (1872 – 1946) made the turbocharger practical, advanced the cause of gas turbines, and ended his long career by pressurizing civilian airliners.

While his work on turbochargers would earn him a Collier Trophy, Moss had a deep affection for gear-driven superchargers...the turbocharger gives better performance at high altitude [but] few people wanted to fly above 20,000 ft…[which] was both uncomfortable and dangerous for the aviator. Use of the turbo-supercharger has been limited to a few experimental ships and the most advanced Army planes. And though the Air Corps engineers worked eagerly with Dr. Moss to develop the turbo-supercharger, it never seems to him that the tactical units made adequate use of its possibilities.

In 1937 Moss and his crew adapted the turbocharger to the YB-17, then considered obsolete. Within a year, the bugs had been worked out and the bomber flew faster than most pursuit planes. The turbocharger also made high-altitude strategic bombing possible.

As early as1931, NACA engineers recognized the superiority of the turbocharger at altitude As Oscar W. Schey wrote,
“[F]or altitudes of up to 20,000 feet, when ideal methods of control are employed, there is very little difference in superchargers from the point of view of net engine power, while for critical altitudes of over 20,000 feet an engine develops more power when equipped with an exhaust turbosupercharger than with any other type.

http://enginehistory.org/Piston/InterWarSCdev/InterWarSCdev.shtml
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 10:54:50 PM by Sheila Shigley »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: XC-35
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2011, 11:06:26 PM »

Some gleanings on turbo issues of that timeframe:

Dr. Sanford A. Moss (1872 – 1946) made the turbocharger practical, advanced the cause of gas turbines, and ended his long career by pressurizing civilian airliners.

While his work on turbochargers would earn him a Collier Trophy, Moss had a deep affection for gear-driven superchargers...the turbocharger gives better performance at high altitude [but] few people wanted to fly above 20,000 ft…[which] was both uncomfortable and dangerous for the aviator. Use of the turbo-supercharger has been limited to a few experimental ships and the most advanced Army planes. And though the Air Corps engineers worked eagerly with Dr. Moss to develop the turbo-supercharger, it never seems to him that the tactical units made adequate use of its possibilities.

In 1937 Moss and his crew adapted the turbocharger to the YB-17, then considered obsolete. Within a year, the bugs had been worked out and the bomber flew faster than most pursuit planes. The turbocharger also made high-altitude strategic bombing possible.

As early as1931, NACA engineers recognized the superiority of the turbocharger at altitude As Oscar W. Schey wrote,
“[F]or altitudes of up to 20,000 feet, when ideal methods of control are employed, there is very little difference in superchargers from the point of view of net engine power, while for critical altitudes of over 20,000 feet an engine develops more power when equipped with an exhaust turbosupercharger than with any other type.

http://enginehistory.org/Piston/InterWarSCdev/InterWarSCdev.shtml
--------------------------------
That may be true but most fighters in WW2 such as the P-51 had geared superchargers. The only fighter with a turbocharger that comes immediately to mind is the P-38.

gl
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2011, 07:30:20 AM »

Civilian TSC4-G16:9 is military R-1830-43

Thanks very much for this, Gary - I hadn't seen your last edit!
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: XC-35
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2011, 08:50:35 AM »

All,
Whatis the point of this thread?  It has been reliably established that NR16020 had the same R1340 S3H1 engines on it when it disappeared as when it was delivered in July 1936. There were no turbochargers.
The XC-35, while an interesting airplane (I've crawled around inside it.) and its engines are not relevant to the subject of this forum.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3007
Re: XC-35
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2011, 09:15:09 AM »

What is the point of this thread?

Sheila is trying to defend the credibility of Wayne Green's claim that Bob Wemple installed extra-powerful engines and larger gas tanks in NR16020 so that it could be used to spy on Truk and still arrive in the vicinity of Howland as if it had made a direct flight from Lae.

As part of her defense, she has found out what kind of more powerful engines existed in 1937--they were installed in the XC-35.

Quote
It has been reliably established that NR16020 had the same R1340 S3H1 engines on it when it disappeared as when it was delivered in July 1936. There were no turbochargers.

The XC-35, while an interesting airplane (I've crawled around inside it.) and its engines are not relevant to the subject of this forum.

For what it's worth--and it may not be much, I grant you--the interior and exterior pictures of the XC-35 help to show pretty conclusively that NR16020 was not equipped for pressurized, high-altitude flight.  Of course, for those who accept documents from the period in question as evidence already knew that the aircraft had a service ceiling of 10,000 feet.  The demonstration that "NR16020 was not an XC-35" may be useful for stamping out some hallucinations about what the government would, could, or should have done in 1937.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: XC-35
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2011, 11:19:00 AM »

What is the point of this thread?

Sheila is trying to defend the credibility of Wayne Green's claim that Bob Wemple installed extra-powerful engines and larger gas tanks in NR16020 so that it could be used to spy on Truk and still arrive in the vicinity of Howland as if it had made a direct flight from Lae.

As part of her defense, she has found out what kind of more powerful engines existed in 1937--they were installed in the XC-35.

Quote
It has been reliably established that NR16020 had the same R1340 S3H1 engines on it when it disappeared as when it was delivered in July 1936. There were no turbochargers.

The XC-35, while an interesting airplane (I've crawled around inside it.) and its engines are not relevant to the subject of this forum.

For what it's worth--and it may not be much, I grant you--the interior and exterior pictures of the XC-35 help to show pretty conclusively that NR16020 was not equipped for pressurized, high-altitude flight.  Of course, for those who accept documents from the period in question as evidence already knew that the aircraft had a service ceiling of 10,000 feet.  The demonstration that "NR16020 was not an XC-35" may be useful for stamping out some hallucinations about what the government would, could, or should have done in 1937.
-------------------------------------

But the R-1340-43 wasn't more powerful than the S3H1 it was limited to the same 550 hp continuous and it did not even put out as much power as the S3H1 for takeoff since this was also limited to 550 hp while the S3H1 put out 600 hp for takeoff.

See the documents I already uploaded on this.

gl
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: XC-35
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2011, 12:29:47 PM »

Stupid question time fro me AGAIN :) but wouldn't the engines look different if they were changed so making any argument invalid?

p.s. I don't know an aircraft engine from my rear end  ;D
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: XC-35
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2011, 01:24:13 PM »

What is the point of this thread?

Sheila is trying to defend the credibility of Wayne Green's claim that Bob Wemple installed extra-powerful engines and larger gas tanks in NR16020 so that it could be used to spy on Truk and still arrive in the vicinity of Howland as if it had made a direct flight from Lae.

As part of her defense, she has found out what kind of more powerful engines existed in 1937--they were installed in the XC-35.

Quote
It has been reliably established that NR16020 had the same R1340 S3H1 engines on it when it disappeared as when it was delivered in July 1936. There were no turbochargers.

The XC-35, while an interesting airplane (I've crawled around inside it.) and its engines are not relevant to the subject of this forum.

For what it's worth--and it may not be much, I grant you--the interior and exterior pictures of the XC-35 help to show pretty conclusively that NR16020 was not equipped for pressurized, high-altitude flight.  Of course, for those who accept documents from the period in question as evidence already knew that the aircraft had a service ceiling of 10,000 feet.  The demonstration that "NR16020 was not an XC-35" may be useful for stamping out some hallucinations about what the government would, could, or should have done in 1937.
-------------------------------------

But the R-1340-43 wasn't more powerful than the S3H1 it was limited to the same 550 hp continuous and it did not even put out as much power as the S3H1 for takeoff since this was also limited to 550 hp while the S3H1 put out 600 hp for takeoff.

See the documents I already uploaded on this.

gl
----------------------------------

And the engine itself had only a geared supercharger, the installation on the XC-35 provided the turbocharger.
See attached Air Force document.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 01:29:03 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Sheila Shigley

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: XC-35
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2011, 01:47:17 PM »

All,
Whatis the point of this thread?  It has been reliably established that NR16020 had the same R1340 S3H1 engines on it when it disappeared as when it was delivered in July 1936. There were no turbochargers.
The XC-35, while an interesting airplane (I've crawled around inside it.) and its engines are not relevant to the subject of this forum.

My thought was that since XC-35 and 10-E were concurrent, and the same designer(s) worked on both, that studying aspects of one may reveal details of the other.  It's even possible that notes/data on the XC-35 could directly mention the 10-E. I just feel that after many obviously-relevant sources of info have been exhausted, sometimes digging into possibly-relevant sources can turn up something new.  Kind of like not being able to find Bob Wemple until searching for Miss Philadelphia, lol.

While there were significant differences to each project, it was after all the same airframe and both models shared the goal of endurance, and were to fly within weeks of each other.  It's possible that notes/discussions of endurance tweaks on one airframe could shed light on whether or not those tweaks may have been tried on the other - if it weren't the same designer, I wouldn't consider it nearly so possible.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 02:21:43 PM by Sheila Shigley »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP