Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 67 guests

How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by Relax   » Sat May 30, 2020 10:25 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3106
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

One day, you will be able to count to 2. I will wait for that day, patiently because if you bother to read my own link it will explain, vaguely. Not to mention the cutaway pictures of F version of Allison 1710 engines that were only put on P38's. What did that cutaway with nameplate show? The single stage impeller crank driven... Right from the USA's OWN US Airforce museum. Yea, I think the US AIRFORCE museum can get the engines right...

Or you could be bothered to go to an airshow and, oh I don't know, actually LOOK under the hood at the airplanes. A quarter of those warbirds usually have their bonnets open and crew are more than willing to talk.

I am done. Unless maybe you can admit to how an aircraft engine in WWII actually works...

Back to SL, Detweiler, OB, and SHitty Ego maniac leadership.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by tlb   » Sat May 30, 2020 10:40 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Relax wrote:One day, you will be able to count to 2. I will wait for that day, patiently because if you bother to read my own link it will explain, vaguely. Not to mention the cutaway pictures of F version of Allison 1710 engines that were only put on P38's. What did that cutaway with nameplate show? The single stage impeller crank driven... Right from the USA's OWN US Airforce museum. Yea, I think the US AIRFORCE museum can get the engines right...

Or you could be bothered to go to an airshow and, oh I don't know, actually LOOK under the hood at the airplanes. A quarter of those warbirds usually have their bonnets open and crew are more than willing to talk.

I am done. Unless maybe you can admit to how an aircraft engine in WWII actually works...

Back to SL, Detweiler, OB, and SHitty Ego maniac leadership.

https://www.456fis.org/ALLISSON_V-1710.htm
I don't think that you read the very link that you provided. Down at the bottom it says the following:
P-38 Lightning (Lockheed)

The P-38 Lighting was one of the major fighters of WWII. The big twin-engined fighter, designed by Kelly Johnson (of later Skunk Works fame) and Hall Hibbard, featured twin-booms, tricycle landing gear, and boosted controls. The Allison engines were turbocharged and were "handed" -- the right engine rotating the opposite direction of the left -- to reduce rotational inertia effects. Two stress-skin monocoque booms supported thin engine nacelles, with the engine located immediately behind the propeller and the supercharger further aft. The booms were connected at the front by a central section of the wing, which also supported the central fuselage nacelle which housed the cockpit, and at the rear by a horizontal stabilizer. The main structural member of the cantilevered mid-mounted wing was a box-spar with front and rear shear members tied together with corrugated and flat sheet stock which made the whole assembly very strong and stiff. The wing included a slotted "Fowler" flap to enhance low speed operation, and later models featured mid-chord maneuvering flap located between the engine and fuselage nacelles.

For each engine, the exhaust was collected in a "Y"-shaped manifold which combined the two engine exhaust manifolds into a single pipe which was routed above the wing to a General Electric type-B turbocharger located behind the wing at the top of the Nacelle. The turbocharger and exhaust pipe were exposed to the slipstream to facilitate cooling, and the compressed intake charge was intercooled in early models by ducting through the leading edge of the wings and in later models by air-to-air intercooler mounted under the engine. The planes cockpit and other vital area's were protected by armor, and the plane had a single 20mm cannon and four 0.50in machine guns in the central fuselage nose, the plane could also a bomb load of 4,000 lbs under the wings.

First flight for the XP-38 occurred in 1939, and by the end of the war 10,036 P-39's had seen service in all the theatres of WWII, including the Europe, North Africa, Pacific, and China-Burma-India. In some theatres, like Europe, pilots struggled to cope with the low temperatures due to inadequate cockpit heaters and very low (-60° F) temperatures, while in others like the Pacific the Lightning was perfect for the mission.

For the first high-performance airplane developed by Lockheed, the P-38 was very successful. The P-38J had a gross weight of 21,600, used 2 V-1710-89/-91 engines producing a combined total of 2,850 hp. These engines could propel the airplane to 414 mph with a range of 2,260 miles using external tanks.
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by Relax   » Sun May 31, 2020 1:32 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3106
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Palm in face... Lets try something VERY simple:
What is a TURBO charger? = X
What is a TURBO SUPER charger? = X + Y
:roll:
If you can't figure it out from here, I really can't help you.
Now I really am done.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by tlb   » Sun May 31, 2020 10:11 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Relax wrote:Palm in face... Lets try something VERY simple:
What is a TURBO charger? = X
What is a TURBO SUPER charger? = X + Y
:roll:
If you can't figure it out from here, I really can't help you.
Now I really am done.

Let's see if I understand what you are now trying to say: that there was both a gear driven supercharger and an exhaust driven supercharger on the engine of the P-38. So your vociferous remarks about the exhaust driven supercharger were not intended to deny its existence, but to try to claim that the gear driven supercharger should receive equal status. So I have been responding to your words, but not to your intended message.

One problem would still remain. This text is from the end of the second link that you provided (this criticism of the Allison is consistent with everything written aboit them):
P-39 Airacobra (Bell)

The P-39 was an unconventional aircraft from fledgling Bell Aircraft Company. Developed from 1937-1939, the most unusual feature of the airplane was the placement of the V-1710 engine amidships behind the cockpit. This location was chosen to make room for a huge 37-mm aircraft cannon in the nose firing through the propeller capable of firing 15 or 20 rounds. This plane also used the "tricycle" landing gear for the first time on a U.S. fighter -- a configuration dictated by the engine location. Allison developed the "E" series of engines to accommodate the engine location -- the power section was adopted from the "F" series, with propeller reduction gear removed and a crankshaft-driven shaft passing under the cockpit to a remote gear-reduction unit with a hollow passage for the cannon through the center of the propeller shaft.

The prototype plane was equipped with a GE turbosupercharger and exhibited good altitude performance. Performance was good enough to earn a pre-production order of 12 airplanes. Problems with the GE turbosuperchargers (especially turbocharger boost control) led to their deletion from the Airacobra -- without the turbosuperchargers the single-stage Allisons were unable to deliver adequate altitude performance so their mission was hanged to low-altitude interceptor. It became apparent that the early enthusiasm would not be achieved by the design, but France and Britain were desperate for any kind of interceptor with both governments placing substantial orders. France was occupied by Germany before their planes could be delivered, as a result Britain received these planes, too. The British were bitterly disappointed in the planes performance, abandoning them after just four missions over occupied France. Britain shipped most of the planes to the Soviet Union, where they were successfully used for low-level air support on the Eastern front, and were particularly successful as tank-busters because of the cannon. The remaining British planes were shipped to Australia.

Ultimately, the Soviets received almost half of the P-39's manufactured (4,773 of 9,585 produced). The P-39 also played a significant role for the U.S. in the Pacific, where alongside P-40's the Airacobra bore the brunt of the Japanese onslaught at the time of Pearl Harbor. Production ended in 1943 so the factory could focus on P-63 production. The plane was quickly withdrawn from service at the end of WWII.


The following is from GE Reports, available online:
Air Born: How A Secret World War I Project Launched GE’s Aviation Business

Moss built a turbosupercharger that used the hot exhaust coming from the aircraft engine to spin a radial turbine of his design and squeeze the air entering the engine, making it as dense as air close to the ground and helping the plane recover its lost power.

In 1918, when he tested the device at 14,000 feet on top of Pikes Peak in Colorado, the engine delivered 352 horsepower, performing as it would close to the ground. This was also the moment GE entered the aviation business.

The first plane powered by a turbosupercharged Liberty engine was a Le Pere biplane. It took off for the first time on July 12, 1919, and later scored a record of reaching 137 mph at 18,400 feet, compared with 90 mph without a supercharger. Planes equipped with Moss’ design went on to set several world altitude records.

But WWI wasn’t the last time Moss’ engineering prowess helped fight the enemy. In 1937, as Hitler’s power was growing, GE received a large order from the Army Air Corps to build turbosuperchargers for Boeing B-17 and Consolidated B-24 bombers, P-38 fighter planes, Republic P-47 Thunderbolts and other planes. GE opened a dedicated supercharger department in Lynn, Massachusetts. In 1939, Moss even proposed to build one of the first turboprop engines. In 1976, he was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame.

So turbosupercharger was GE's trade name for what we would just call a turbocharger.
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sun May 31, 2020 11:05 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8303
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Relax wrote:Palm in face... Lets try something VERY simple:
What is a TURBO charger? = X
What is a TURBO SUPER charger? = X + Y
:roll:
If you can't figure it out from here, I really can't help you.
Now I really am done.
Um, no. The etymology doesn't work that way.

The initial superchargers were all mechanically driven, but the term supercharging wasn't specifically linked with mechanical drive (as it is now) because there was nothing else to differentiate it from. The term basically applied to the whole concept of providing forced induction to aircraft engines. So when version forced induction were developed that were powered by exhaust gasses spinning a turbine the modifier "turbo" was hung on the front to differentiate these new type of supercharger (aircraft engine forced induction devices) from the existing ones.

It was only later that this got shorted to turbocharger; and then with a separate term specific to exhaust driven forced induction the older term supercharger became reserved for non-exhaust (so mechanically) driven devices. (Though as an aside I'm not sure what you'd call it if you built a car with an electrically powered compressor for the engine - it's not mechanically linked, nor is it exhaust drive)


So today if someone told you an engine was turbo supercharged you would probably expect it to have both a supercharger and a turbocharger (so a variant on the dual turbo concept; expect using a mechanical super-charger instead of a smaller faster spooling turbo to provide the initial boost). But back in WWII a turbo-supercharger was just the normal name for what today we'd call a turbocharger.

Adding confusion to all this a number of US bomber designs, the P-38 and P-47 fighters, and a few additional prototypes (XP-37, XF6F-2, and the XF6F-4), did use this hybrid setup - with a mechanical supercharger for the first stage compression and a turbine driven turbo-supercharger for the second stage compression. But AFAIK there was no additional single term for this combination.
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by Relax   » Sun May 31, 2020 3:31 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3106
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Yea, it does work that way. Hell, I even gave you guys pictures for use of your OWN EYES. Good grief, until 2 seconds ago neither of you even knew what a turbosupercharger was and now you are "experts" :roll:

Heck, you guys could just LOOK at a P38 and note that the turbo charger is several METERS behind the engine, just as it is in the rear fuselage of the P47! Good grief. http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/supercha.htm for the P47 cutaway of the turbo. If you wish to see the engine built in first stage supercharger mechanically driven on 100% of every P&W R2800 ever built, just as on every single Allison V1710 ever built, you can open your eyes and look at ANY r-2800 cut away. Exact same thing as I showed previously on the P38's Allison V1710F version. Here is one suchhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Cross_Section_of_a_Pratt_and_Whitney_R2800_Double_Wasp.JPG By the way, that is a single stage 2 speed supercharger mechanically driven with the extra RAM pressure provided by the turbo charger in the aft fuselage just as was done on the P38.

Why they are called TurboSUPERchargers. The Turbo charger is in addition to the supercharger. The jokes on cars today are done for LOW altitude applications.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by tlb   » Sun May 31, 2020 4:52 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Let's recapitilate; this started because because I wrote:
The problem for the P-38 in Europe was that it was turbocharged, instead of supercharged; with the resultant loss of performance at high altitude.

This technically incorrect, because the engine has both supercharged and turbocharged elements. But it does correctly lay the problem on the turbocharger for the difficulties encountered at high altitude in winter over in Europe. As the text about the P-39 points out:
without the turbosuperchargers the single-stage Allisons were unable to deliver adequate altitude performance so their mission was hanged to low-altitude interceptor.


Now you did state the following:
There is not one single engine in WWII that I am aware of that was not supercharged via the engine crankcase on its first stage. Not one. Several engines were also TURBOcharged, but only on their 2nd stage. Every single engine falls off at altitude. Turbocharged is superior at all altitudes, as it collects waste heat, quite superior at HIGH altitude in theory, but requires a large volume to do right(why P47 looks how it looks and why B17/B24/B29/B25 etc all look as they do with their large engine nacelles compared to Brit Bombers.


At this point I was at fault for not recognizing that you were telling me that the P-38 had both.

But you are incorrect about the name turbosupercharger, because it is the name that General Electric applied to what we would call a turbocharger. From the GE Reports webpage:
Air Born: How A Secret World War I Project Launched GE’s Aviation Business

Moss built a turbosupercharger that used the hot exhaust coming from the aircraft engine to spin a radial turbine of his design and squeeze the air entering the engine, making it as dense as air close to the ground and helping the plane recover its lost power.
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by Maldorian   » Sun May 31, 2020 5:16 pm

Maldorian
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 am

What has your Turbocharger conversation to do with the topic?
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by tlb   » Sun May 31, 2020 5:34 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Maldorian wrote:What has your Turbocharger conversation to do with the topic?

How naive, to expect everyone to march in lockstep on the topic. Why didn't you ask what the execution of Beatrice had to do with the topic? Digressions are common on just about every thread. This one began with the following post:
kzt wrote:The leadership is so invested in their plan and so wrapped in their twisted world it's hard to tell how this was supposed to work. It's like:
1) We steal underwear
2) umm...
3) Profit!

Or, to quote a comment one drill sgt once made to me, "Have you noticed it's awful dark and smelly? Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass!"
Then an example was presented of the air war over Germany and tally ho - we were off and quarreling. Another case of free association.
Top
Re: How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?
Post by Sigs   » Sun May 31, 2020 7:36 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm

kzt wrote:Does the fact that the US and USSR constantly deployed numerous nuclear missile armed subs that individually could 20 major cities imply that they only did that because they intended to use them to attack?

Huge difference, their whole job was to be part of their respective nations nuclear deterrent, literally their job was to nuke their targets if war broke out. They existed to make sure that the other side could not launch a first strike and wipe out their respective nations ability to retaliate.

The RHN was massively stronger than the alliance and basically suffered no serious damage from 8th fleet, as 8th fleet was only able to attack minor, lightly defended systems.
But they were also scouting different systems, how long before the MA figured that North of 50% of the RHN is missing and it would be more like 70% of the frontline SD(P)'s are missing? And how long can the RHN keep such a high % of their forces concentrated and their front(s) exposed?

Chances are that with resumption of hostilities, shortly thereafter 8th Fleet started scouting as many systems as they can and they try force the RHN to reveal their Ambush Fleets. How long can they scout and not figure out that the RoH is virtually exposed aside form a handful of systems and how long before they figure out that something is going on? They might not be able to do much about it but then there are only a few targets for a force of several hundred SD(P)'s

So sure, they could attack whenever and where ever they wanted and the RMN was restricted to pinprick attacks against their weakest systems. Until Lovat, when the whole situation changed.
The WHOLE point of Candice was the RHN to BEAT one of the MA's offensives and THEN retaliate and crush one of their systems. How exactly do they accomplish that if they strip the RoH of defences? How do they do that if they gut the Ambush Fleets? How does Candice work if 8th Fleet comes into a system, crushes the pitiful picket made up of obsolete SD's, destroys the industry and leaves? With forward deployment of forces for Beatrice they weakened themselves at the time they had to be strongest so that they can execute Candice, no RHN defensive victory=no Candice.

So sure, they could move half their forces off somewhere and nobody will notice that they are not launching large-scale offensive or massive attacks because they hadn't launched any large-scale offensives (after the initial attacks) in quite a while.
But the MA is actively scouting dozens of systems, trying to trip the ambush fleets and leave the RHN guessing. I would venture a guess that they are actively scouting major bases as well, so the problem is that someone(scouts, ONI) might notice that something like 70% of the SD(P)'s have disappeared from the front and inner systems, exactly how many Alliance targets are there that require several hundred SD(P)'s?
Top

Return to Honorverse