were there any really unique differences between the major engines?
Radial engines:
All American radials apear the same except for displacement and number of cylinders.
The Centaurus has sleeve valves and at least one British radial series had 4 valve heads.
The Japanese HA-45 had direct injection
The inline engines all apear more or less the same. V-type (of some sort) over head cam(s) 4 Valve heads.
I’d still love to see a Centaurus hung off the front of a KI-84
NASA could be moved to the Civil Aviation Board (CAB) except for the fact that Ronald Reagan disbanded the CAB.
The Fox network, just like Fox News is on crack. “Fair and Balanced”…more like failry unbalanced.
Ok don’t laugh at the analogy but I have a 26′ sailboat with a Yamaha 9.9 HP outboard. When I turn the engine too much to port the prop would happily chew in to the rudder. (Don’t ask how this is possible…trust me, it happens to every owner of this boat)
Anyway, I fitted a “prop guard” which is essentially a Kort Nozzle. It’s just a stainless steel ring that completely encircles the prop. Mine fits very tightly and there is very little clearance between the prop and the ring. It does its job, in that it completely protects the spinning prop from contacting something it shouldn’t. It also provided an unreal increase in low speed thrust. This engine was never a dog and always had good low speed torque but with this “Kort nozzle” the power went up dramatically and fuel consumption dropped. I can attain hull speed, about 6 knots or so, at 1/3 throttle; before it was 2/3rds to attain the same speed.
When new you could order my sailboat with either an outboard engine or an inboard 9.9hp diesel. I chose the outboard model because it was faster under sail (certainly it couldn’t be because the diesel cost $8,000 more). There is a diesel model in my boat club (I guess he didn’t care about sailing speed or had an extra eight grand). When motoring the diesel owner always just walked away from me on acceleration to hull speed. That is no longer the case. I bury him and we’re both pretty sure that under cruise I’m using less fuel than his diesel. If this wasn’t on a hull that is pretty much limited to 6 or 7 knots, I’m sure as speed increased we’d see a reversal of this performance.
Ok, not sure anyone cares but thought I would share.
When you say Turbo-Electric is “slower”. Why is it slower? Is it because of reduced efficiency? Or because you can’t push that much power through an electric motor?
Turbo-Electric is converting mechanical energy to electric current, then back to mechanical. So there is a higher loss of energy than direct mechanical connection.
Turbo-Electric seems like such a natural system for nuclear subs. You would only need a single drive system and no additional generators. Right now, a nuclear sub needs mechanical propulsion and a generator set and an emergency electric motor. If it were turbo-electric I would think you could do with a single system that provides propulsion and all electric power.
Maybe that only makes sense when the military requirement of speed and stealth are taken out of the equation.
Wow, thanks for that in depth explanation. I knew it was a British invention but could find no description. I kept thinking it was some sort of water jet, like a jet ski. But it would seem to be more related to a Kort nozzle. I would have thought, like a Kort nozzle, that the associated shroud would cause increased drag and reduce the maximum speed. I have heard that, on ships anyway, there is a shoud called a “speed nozzle” that is pretty much a Kort nozzle but the shroud was more foil shaped and did not signifigantly increase drag and thus maximum speed was not affected.