I've thought of that too. That a TC engine is like a turboprop with the cylinders serving as the combustion chambers. Of course it's not an exact comparison from an engineering viewpoint. But rather it's illustrating how turbines are more efficient at using the combustion energy and showing where the future is heading toward.
I've thought of that too. That a TC engine is like a turboprop with the cylinders serving as the combustion chambers. Of course it's not an exact comparison from an engineering viewpoint. But rather it's illustrating how turbines are more efficient at using the combustion energy and showing where the future is heading toward.
You're quoting me drastically out of context. (Do you work for the failing New York Times?I agree that the modern "all wing" approach to aerodynamics in racing is horrible but I still found this declaration hilariously ironic in a thread primarily concerned with aircraft
)I've wondered just how far you could take that. Would it be possible to make the turbo/PRT combination so potent, you could turn the piston section into a "starter motor", & derive nearly all the power from the turbine? (Yeah, impractical for a/c, given jets, but it might circumvent USAC's turbine-choking, or -banning...)
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
You're quoting me drastically out of context. (Do you work for the failing New York Times?
I've wondered just how far you could take that. Would it be possible to make the turbo/PRT combination so potent, you could turn the piston section into a "starter motor", & derive nearly all the power from the turbine? (Yeah, impractical for a/c, given jets, but it might circumvent USAC's turbine-choking, or -banning...)
Nonstarter.
Short answer... At some point the piston engine acts as both dead weight and as a choke-out for clean path air flow through what should be a pure turbine design. That is as true for race-cars as it is for boats and aircraft.
Gentlemen,
The last couple of pages of this thread are priceless! Some random responses to points raised. As a kid and young adult growing up in Trenton New Jersey (AAA dirt track sprint cars and Langhorne Pennsylvania for Championship-Indy-cars) Memorial day was the most exciting of the year listening to the INDY radio network. Korean War ANG Federalization brought me to Wright Patterson AFB in time for the 1952 500. Was there in the garage area. Watched the Cummins Diesel qualification set a new track record, and Chet Miller later surpass it in a Novi. And so on through the next couple of years, defederized and covering some college expenses via the Sprints (prior to USAC) as a part owner, then satisfied ex-owner.
All this being said, I find it hard to work up any interest in Buy-A-Ride racing, at Indianapolis where endless rules result in one car and perhaps two permitted engine designs- or Formula One which is nearly as bad. Maybe, if no wings were allowed... Nah!
Check out the Allison B-29 discussion in "Top aircraft never built" Also the Napier Nomad and Rolls Royce Crecy
Dynasoar
The last couple of pages of this thread are priceless! Some random responses to points raised. As a kid and young adult growing up in Trenton New Jersey (AAA dirt track sprint cars and Langhorne Pennsylvania for Championship-Indy-cars) Memorial day was the most exciting of the year listening to the INDY radio network. Korean War ANG Federalization brought me to Wright Patterson AFB in time for the 1952 500. Was there in the garage area. Watched the Cummins Diesel qualification set a new track record, and Chet Miller later surpass it in a Novi. And so on through the next couple of years, defederized and covering some college expenses via the Sprints (prior to USAC) as a part owner, then satisfied ex-owner.
All this being said, I find it hard to work up any interest in Buy-A-Ride racing, at Indianapolis where endless rules result in one car and perhaps two permitted engine designs- or Formula One which is nearly as bad. Maybe, if no wings were allowed... Nah!
Check out the Allison B-29 discussion in "Top aircraft never built" Also the Napier Nomad and Rolls Royce Crecy
Dynasoar
Dynasoar, I am prone to agree with re: modern Formula (including Indy) racing. The regs and Forumlas are too restrictive, stifling innovation and limiting creativity. I mean there is no real variety within a series anymore. Sure, you get different manufacturers but they all build the same thing. There was a time when the entire engine architectures were different, allowing each man'f to focus on what they do best and still leave room for occassional surprise (look at that year at Indy when a turbine car almost won, '68?; or Mazda's four-rotor 787B in LMP class endurance rancing during the early '90').
Re present day serious automobile racing. As I've observed many times, -If I had known how potentially huge the returns in big-time auto racing would become when I was released from active AF duty, I might not have gone for an engineering degree, but taken advantage of full time racing in one capacity or another. I left WPAFB with a roll of blueprints (they were blue in those days) of a W-12 racing engine incorporating three off the shelf Meyer-Drake midget cylinder blocks mounted on a common crankcase, turning a Hirth style fabricated crankshaft (crank suggested and designed by a couple of German civilian engineers) each of the four crank throws assembled around three relatively narrow.one-piece connecting rods. Could have been a short-stroke 183" supercharged, or unblown 270 with a longer stroke crank. Sold the design, but looks like the funds to actually build the engine may have wound up in a telescope in Hawaii.
I would love to see greatly relaxed rules for speedway racing, but with performance potentially favoring designing to the limits of the rules (no nonsensical RPM limits for example), money available would determine results. One possibility would be to establish a system where a race winning car could be claimed for a fixed price. This would limit investment to some reasonable predetermined maximum. Safety aspects should still be taken into account, but certainly, if we're racing automobiles, no wings.
Dynasoar
I would love to see greatly relaxed rules for speedway racing, but with performance potentially favoring designing to the limits of the rules (no nonsensical RPM limits for example), money available would determine results. One possibility would be to establish a system where a race winning car could be claimed for a fixed price. This would limit investment to some reasonable predetermined maximum. Safety aspects should still be taken into account, but certainly, if we're racing automobiles, no wings.
Dynasoar
Thread highjack alert.
Derek Gardner is a genius. (Sad to say, it created brake cooling trouble.)
Of course, there are other approaches:
So why can't USAC or FIA "weight break" the cars: if piston cars are max 3 liter, rotaries are max 1.5 (or 1.45)? (For turbines, somewhere around 12.5 in² looks right.) Or put a fuel economy limit on everybody, which leaves rotaries at a disadvantage, AIUI?
And wings? IMO, ban them & limit performance with displacement caps, rim width caps, & minimum weights. Disallowing automaker involvement would be good. Banning sponsorships might help, but looks a non-starter. (Not permitting it in the first place would've been a good idea.) This has the benefit of keeping cars looking like the gorgeous Lotus 25 & 33.
I love it.
Derek Gardner is a genius. (Sad to say, it created brake cooling trouble.)Of course, there are other approaches:
I entirely agree. USAC choked down the turbines to the point they were uncompetitive, rather than just to the point they were about even. And NHRA, after a rotary kept winning against cars two (lb:hp) categories lighter, simply eliminated the class.
So why can't USAC or FIA "weight break" the cars: if piston cars are max 3 liter, rotaries are max 1.5 (or 1.45)? (For turbines, somewhere around 12.5 in² looks right.) Or put a fuel economy limit on everybody, which leaves rotaries at a disadvantage, AIUI?
And wings? IMO, ban them & limit performance with displacement caps, rim width caps, & minimum weights. Disallowing automaker involvement would be good. Banning sponsorships might help, but looks a non-starter. (Not permitting it in the first place would've been a good idea.) This has the benefit of keeping cars looking like the gorgeous Lotus 25 & 33.
Last edited:
In 1934 "Grand Prix" racing, (before Formula I) had a simple maximum weight rule and produced some of the most memorable racing in history. I would propose returning to this, with maximum overall dimensions, no wings, specified fuel type and a safety approved standard driver capsule for safety. With compulsory claiming of winning cars at a previously established price. Note that there are no engine type or displacement limits proposed. Availability of appropriate tires might be an issue, but certainly no compulsory tire changes or pit stops.
Racing anyone?
Dynasoar
Racing anyone?
Dynasoar
marathag
Banned
In some ways, the best way to limit racing speeds, is to limit tires, no changes except in endurance runs, and then with what is carried, no pitstops.
If you have to run on hard tires that have to last 500 miles in place of multiple changes of gummy slicks, you won't need the high HP and high speed restrictions: it's built into the tires
It won't work. This was the era of the insanely fast rear-engined Auto Unions, on skinny tires. The minimum weight was intended to limit performance; it didn't.
I'd endorse a "pump fuel" rule. IDK about compulsory claiming; by who? Does that include all electronics & software? How do designers keep anything in-house, then? Who's going to finance a racing team on that basis, these days?
That's headed in the right direction, but IMO you still also need fuel capacity limits (to hold down insane hp or boost), or displacement limits, & preferably both. You also need rim-width limits, IMO (say, 10in?); power you can't put on the road is power there's no point in producing: an 18"-wide rim, even on very hard tires, will grab really well...
Also, bear in mind, the races aren't 500mi, they're nearer 200. (The principle is right, tho.) It might take a spec tire, or limits on softness; running an entire race should not be a recipe for blowouts.
And don't forget, it's likely body aero will add grip, even with no wings (or skirts) at all, so the displacement or fuel burn caps will probably be needed to help cope with that.
Can I suggest using another thread for this subject?
Last edited:
phx1138 says:
The whole concept is to reduce the insane costs associated with serious racing. Obviously no entrant would invest more in a racecar than the claiming price. Who would finance a racing team on this basis? probably far more than do so today.
Your new topic in play already. Thanks for starting it.
Dynasoar
The whole concept is to reduce the insane costs associated with serious racing. Obviously no entrant would invest more in a racecar than the claiming price. Who would finance a racing team on this basis? probably far more than do so today.
Your new topic in play already. Thanks for starting it.
Dynasoar
Thank you for this. I was going to do the same yesterday but got distracted and never got around to it.Can I suggest using another thread for this subject?
Back to the primary topic of this thread: the butterflies are really going to make an impact in the next chapter. Some of it may not even really be for the better--depending on how you look at it--but the situations have evolved enough where I think I can satisfy certain conditions necessary to lead to a specific event in the PTO which never happened but which us AH folks have oft-discussed. There may be some increase in loss of life over OTL in certain quarters and it will be an area that I am not going to delve into in detail as part of this TL. Instead, the actions covered will simply move the pieces in a such a way that another engagement will take place ITTL, off-screen, but which may have lasting effects.
Wow! Thanks! I didn't even notice and never imagined we would get here. It is as much a testament to the incredible active conversation between everyone else as it is to any skill of mine.Congratulations on passing the 100,000 view mark. There must be something about this story that keeps them reading.
marathag
Banned
Low level racing, IMCA has motor claim rules.
Racing is about Ego and Money. Money is secondary to winning, so yeah, there are people with $10,000 motors in Late Model IMCA. Cost of doing business, just like buying tires. If you're winning, yeah, you motor will probably get claimed, not the guys at the back of the pack. They will be the one getting a sweet motor, that might help them move up in the Rankings
Hey everyone, you know I love our little diversions and I always encourage open discussion in this thread; but @phx1138 has graciously set up a thread dedicated to discussing a wingless F1 and I think we can move most of our current Motorsport conversation over there.
Just trying to get this thread back on the proper rails, so to speak
Thanks!
Just trying to get this thread back on the proper rails, so to speak
Thanks!
No thanks necessary. I've raised the issue before, & I think the attention on this thread has already gotten the latest try more replies in one day than the old one got before it closed for inactivity.Thank you for this. I was going to do the same yesterday but got distracted and never got around to it.
So, thanks for the opportunity. I notice, you also raised a matter I'd never considered, so I hope you can find time to keep an eye on it. (Yeah, I don't care if you ever sleep.)I'm bating my breath now. (Is that a word?
)And congrats on the 100K views. That's bigtime, for sure.
Next chapter is in progress, about 2000 words so far. I am currently planning out a series of eight combat patrols split between four groups (only one of which will be detailed in the narrative). I need to know exactly where each one is at any point to determine what they may find/see during their patrols given what is known about enemy movements during the period in question. In addition, there will be at least one--possibly two--night patrols in the narrative. For the daylight patrols, we will spend some time with Bong and Lynch and possibly see MacDonald and McGuire as well. There is also a MacArthur, Kenney, and Kinkaid cameo and possibly a Halsey cameo.
I'm sure you have guessed by now exactly where/when the action is occurring and may even have an inkling as to what is going to change from OTL. Fear not, I will not divert the narrative to action not directly related to the P-38 groups.
I'm sure you have guessed by now exactly where/when the action is occurring and may even have an inkling as to what is going to change from OTL. Fear not, I will not divert the narrative to action not directly related to the P-38 groups.
Recap of P-38 Modifications to Date (Autumn 1944)
Just an update: Next chapter is going through some re-writes and will likely be delayed by the upcoming holiday (US Thanksgiving) and other happenings in life (Civil Air Patrol Search and Rescue Exercise and Gov't Emergency Services training, etc.). I would expect it no later than 11/29. It is looking rather long, so I am thinking of splitting it into two parts although it should be nowhere near as long as the 3 1/2 part "Another Thursday" (which I still hold up as the fulcrum of the TL) and certainly not as nail-biting (sorry).
In an effort to spark some discussion (honestly, the more discussion going on here it seems the more motivated I am to set aside time to write) and to remind everyone where we are currently at in P-38 development, here is a list of all of the modifications made to date ITTL (model/date of modification in [Green Brackets] ):
Airframe/Systems Problems
Cheers!
E
In an effort to spark some discussion (honestly, the more discussion going on here it seems the more motivated I am to set aside time to write) and to remind everyone where we are currently at in P-38 development, here is a list of all of the modifications made to date ITTL (model/date of modification in [Green Brackets] ):
Airframe/Systems Problems
- Limited dive speed due to Compressibility effect
- Implement NACA recommended .2c chord extension on center wing [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Move coolant and oil radiator to center wing LE for improved balance and aerodynamics [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Extend Gondola trailing edge by 3 feet [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Redesign canopy to increase its Critical Mach number [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Install electric Dive Recovery Flaps [P-38H-20 (modified), P-38J/K (factory) Spring '44]
- Poor pilot visibility and egress due to the design of the five piece greenhouse canopy
- Install a three part sliding canopy [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Install a two piece sliding Bubble canopy [P-38J/K Spring ‘44]
- Insufficient charge cooling due to intercooler design
- Install chin mounted core-type intercoolers [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Forward windshield does not allow installation of large gunsights
- Redesign windshield to increase available space [P-38F-1-LO Spring ‘42]
- Removal of separate Armored Glass, integration into forward windscreen [P-38F-1-LO Spring '42]
- Further improvement with late models [P-38J/K Spring ‘44]
- More to come
- Extra Internal Fuel
- 55 US Gal. LE Tanks [P-38G Summer ‘42]
- Reduced to 45 US Gal. LE Tanks [P-38J/K Spring '44]
- Cockpit Heat/Ventilation
- Heat Exchanger off of Coolant Radiators (as P-39) [P-38H-1-LO Spring ‘43]
- Fuel Management
- Install Electric Tank Selector system [P-38H-10-LO Summer ‘43]
- Better fuel level indication/warning [P-38H-10-LO Summer ‘43]
- Electric Fuses cannot be replaced in flight
- Replace fuses with pilot-accessible breaker box [P-38H-5-LO Spring ‘43]
- Engine Controls are complicated to adjust in emergencies
- New unified engine control unit (power, rpm, props, and mixture) [P-38J/K Summer ‘44]
- Engine starters are difficult to use and only allow single engine starts
- Replace manual fuel primer pump with automated electric primer [P-38H-10-LO Summer ‘43]
- Unify the Energize/Mesh switches so there is one per engine [P-38H-10-LO Summer ‘43]
- Yoke limits cockpit space and blocks view of some instruments/main switch panel
- Install single control stick [P-38J/K Spring '44]
- Turbo’s are prone to overspeed and failure
- Automatic turbo rpm governor [P-38G-15 Late ‘42]
- Slow Initial Roll Rate, heavy control surfaces
- Install Hydraulically boosted ailerons [P-38H-20 (Modification), P-38H-25 (factory) Winter/Spring ‘44]
- Carburetor Air Temperature Regulation
- Pressure switch on vacuum line for CAT gauge which opens/closes shutters automatically [P-38H-1-LO Spring ‘43]
- Add forward shutter with a second switch to close at lower CAT temps [P-38H-18-LO Late ‘43]
- Automatic Oil Temp Regulation
- Pressure switch on vacuum line for Oil Temp Gauge with opens/closes shutters automatically [P-38H-1-LO Spring ‘43]
- Automatic Coolant Temp Regulation
- Pressure switch on vacuum line for Coolant Temp Gauge with opens/closes shutters automatically [P-38H-1-LO Spring ‘43]
- Maneuver Flaps
- 8 degree down, maneuver setting [P-38F-5-LO Late Spring ‘42]
- Propeller Efficiency
- 4-Blade High-Activity Curtis Electric [P-38J Summer ‘44]
- 4-Blade High-Activity Aeroprop [P-38K Late Spring '44]
- Single Generator
- Add second generator on RH engine. [P-38G-1-LO Late Summer ‘42]
- Battery Heat
- Move battery to rear compartment near the radios [P-38H-20 Jan ‘44]
- Limited Manifold Absolute Pressure
- Water-Alcohol Injection [P-38J/K Summer ‘44]
- Tanks ahead of main spar of inboard outer wing panel
- Water-Alcohol Injection [P-38J/K Summer ‘44]
- Limited External Store Load
- Up-rated under-wing pylons for 300 gal tanks / 2000# bombs [P38G-5-LO Fall ‘42]
- Outer wing mounts for 260# each [P38H-25 Spring '44]
- More to come
- Weight Savings
- Simplified Canopy [P-38J/K Spring '44]
- Reduction of Turbo armor [P-38J/K Spring '44]
- Slightly Reduced structure in booms (no longer needed after removal of the rads and battery) [P-38J/K Spring '44]
- Overall volume of Production
- Vultee (VN): Ordered Spring ’43 after Consolidated Merger (Convair). In tooling up, it is determined they wouldn’t be able to meet demand, so they are first given Swordfish to develop two-seat TP-38’s [Beginning Production Autumn '43]
- Bell (BE): Give up P-63 [Beginning P-38 Production Autumn '43]
- P-39N Order 42-19241/19445 (205) kept in place
- P-39Q-10-BE Order 42-21251/22245 (995) kept in place
- P-63 Order: 42-68861/70860 (2000) re-allocated to P-39
- P-63 Order: 43-10893/12092 (1200) re-allocated to P-38
- P-63 Order: 44-4001/5100 (1100) re-allocated to P-38 (if needed)
- Production of alternate models
- TP-38 [TP-38H-10-VN Autumn '43]
- P-38(NF)
- Single-Seat w/ AN/APS-6 [modified P-38H as P-38L Winter '43/'44]
- Two-Seat w/ SCR-720A [modified TP-38H as P-38M Late Summer '44]
- Single-Seat w/ AN/APS-6 [modified P-38J as P-38N Autumn '44]
- More to come
- Production of Allison Engines
- Cancellation of P-63 permits increased capacity for P-38 [Summer '43]
- Lack of suitable training aircraft
- Proper two-seat, dual control variant [TP-38H-10-VN Autumn '43]
- Proper Engine Out Training
- Single engine practice / confidence building as standard training [Autumn '43]
- Proper Engine Loss on Take-Off procedures [Developed Autumn '43, added to P-38 RTUs Winter '43/'44, standardized in P-38J/K Pilot's Manual Summer '44]
- Combat Doctrine Development / Training
- Rotate experienced pilots to Transitioning units for tactical dissemination [Late Summer '43]
- Include P-38 in Tactical Training Schools in England [Winter/Spring '44]
- Establish Tactical Training Schools in Australia (later New Guinea, Solomons, etc) [Summer '44]
Cheers!
E