Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
For the gearheads:
If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a "supercharger" by definition :-) And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts. Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A NEW Design :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On 2015-06-22, John B wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a "supercharger" by definition :-) And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts. Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A NEW Design :-) John B. I have a forklift with a 2 stroke detroit engine with a roots blower. They need to be supercharged, because of the nature of two stroke diesel. i |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:29:44 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David Nothing like experience to instill confidence. An "experienced" engine statistically has a lower chance of failure than a freshly rebuilt one. |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a "supercharger" by definition :-) Pfhhht. g And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts. Ohhhh, yeah. That one disappeared in a hurry, didn't it? I had forgotten all about that one. Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A NEW Design :-) I'd like to drive one, just to see how it feels. -- Ed Huntress |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 20:46:28 -0500, Ignoramus11174
wrote: On 2015-06-22, John B wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a "supercharger" by definition :-) And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts. Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A NEW Design :-) John B. I have a forklift with a 2 stroke detroit engine with a roots blower. They need to be supercharged, because of the nature of two stroke diesel. i I should let John explain that, but the blower on a two-stroke diesel is not there to supercharge the engine. Basically, it's just there to "blow" air into the cylinders, at normal atmospheric pressure, because the engine can't aspirate itself without the blower. This is inherent in the engine design. But, as he hinted, in can do a little supercharging while it's at it. It's first a matter of port timing. -- Ed Huntress |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. A fellow NYer built a "Pro-Street" J-2000. Had 2 blowers and twin turbochargers. Plus nitrous and injection for the extra fuel required. http://www.stanceiseverything.com/20...pontiac-j2000/ -- Steve W. |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
... On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than 4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119 components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only VFR below pressurization altitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar -jsw |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On 22/06/15 04:39, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0700, John B. wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a "supercharger" by definition :-) Pfhhht. g And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts. Ohhhh, yeah. That one disappeared in a hurry, didn't it? I had forgotten all about that one. I've heard they had some problem but it's still around as an option AFAIK. Nissan did this on the Micra Superturbo back in 1988, and Lancia in the Delta S4 but that wasn't really a production car. Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A NEW Design :-) I'd like to drive one, just to see how it feels. |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:09:37 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. So they turned her into a cranky old bitch in the morning, did they? It probably cut out 75% of the maintenance, though, so I'll bet it was a mixed blessing. I remember the difference between my old 302 Ford engines. The '68 Ranch Wagon had a 2bbl carb and the F-150 had an EFI system. The performance difference was astounding. The EFI added what felt like 100hp and gave it instant performance from startup to shutdown. That little carb was a darling compared to Holleys and Rottenchesters, but it still wanted some time in the morning to warm up. I certainly don't miss carbureted engine tune-ups, lemme tell ya. Especially interim and post-SMOG engines from CA. I built a special bending tool for choke pulloff rods to be able to adjust them better for cold performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm That engine sounds like a flaming bitch in any config. "Altogether, the R-3350 went through tens of thousands of design changes during its early development." -- Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. --Frederick Douglass |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:09:37 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw I hate to tell you but the article you reference is a bunch of bull. The first B-29's, if I am not mistaken, were equipped with carbureted engines and the change to fuel injection was a move to increase power and reliability. The B-29's were equipped with twin turbos and an internal supercharger and with the waste-gates open you could get about 30" at full throttle stationary on the ground at just a bit over sea level. The engines ran perfectly well in summer temperatures on the ground in Japan during the Korean "Police Action" and in fact the cowl flaps were partially closed at take off as full open cowl flaps would over cool the engine on take off as well as adding drag. No pilot or flight engineer would have even considered doing a mag check on take off roll. Take off was with the turbo waste gates partially closed so manifold pressure was probably 10 or 15" over 30 inches and God only knows what switching off half the spark plugs would do. In addition the brakes on a B-29 were famously poor and if you had a bad mag check aborting while on takeoff roll with a bomb load and max fuel aboard would result in running off the end of the runway. Not a recommended practice although exactly that did happen at Yokota AB in about 1952 or maybe 53 for exactly that reason. An engine backfired on take off roll and an inexperienced pilot pulled the throttles back. The airplane went through the fence, sheered the landing gear off, the center wing fuel tank ruptured and it caught fire. With a full load of bombs aboard. The compound engines that they talk about were a later version of the R-3350 and added three small power recovery turbines to the engine. Not used on the B-29 but were used on at least one version of the Lockheed Constellation. I did talk to some of the mechanics that maintained those airplanes and they cursed the engines but none of them had worked on the B-29 :-) How do I know all this? Because I worked on the things for nearly 5 years both at Randolph Field in Texas and Yokota AB in Japan during the Korean set to and after that was settled in a reconnaissance squadron at the same base. -- cheers, John B. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:39:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0700, John B. wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a "supercharger" by definition :-) Pfhhht. g And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts. Ohhhh, yeah. That one disappeared in a hurry, didn't it? I had forgotten all about that one. Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A NEW Design :-) I'd like to drive one, just to see how it feels. Sometimes the "cutting edge" cuts both ways :-) I had a friend that bought one of the first Wankel engine Mazda cars imported into Thailand..... A year later he replaced the rotary with a piston engine :-) He told me that he had it done at the Mazda shop and it was literally a "drop in". Although that was likely an engine-transmission package drop in. (Years later he died of alcoholism but I'm not sure if the Mazda or the woman he married caused that :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. snip For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get the idea Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the vehicle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure... -- Leon Fisk Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b Remove no.spam for email |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:27:33 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. A fellow NYer built a "Pro-Street" J-2000. Had 2 blowers and twin turbochargers. Plus nitrous and injection for the extra fuel required. http://www.stanceiseverything.com/20...pontiac-j2000/ I always enjoy wretched excess, especially when it's chromed and nicely polished. g My two favorites over the years were a small-block Chevy-powered unicycle, which I saw at a Miami hot rod show in 1963, and Jay Leno's tank-engined car, which I actually got to fondle when I was out there last year: http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/05/...no-tankcar.jpg (Although I spent more time fondling his Grand Prix Bugattis from the 1920s and 1930s.) -- Ed Huntress |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:16:04 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400 Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. snip For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get the idea Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the vehicle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure... Oh, that's great. And because it's on a smart phone, nothing can ever go wrong...go wrong...go wrong... -- Ed Huntress |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:22:14 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:16:04 -0400, Leon Fisk wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400 Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. snip For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get the idea Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the vehicle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure... Oh, that's great. And because it's on a smart phone, nothing can ever go wrong...go wrong...go wrong... I'm a gizmo person, so I really like what that can do. Can you imagine hooking up a trailer with that gizmo, cool! But it's going to be hacked. Only question is what will the hacker command the vehicle to do? -- Leon Fisk Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b Remove no.spam for email |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:34:15 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:22:14 -0400 Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:16:04 -0400, Leon Fisk wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400 Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. snip For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get the idea Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the vehicle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure... Oh, that's great. And because it's on a smart phone, nothing can ever go wrong...go wrong...go wrong... I'm a gizmo person, so I really like what that can do. Can you imagine hooking up a trailer with that gizmo, cool! But it's going to be hacked. Only question is what will the hacker command the vehicle to do? Hackers sometimes have vivid imaginations. -- Ed Huntress |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:06:25 +0700, John B. wrote:
Sometimes the "cutting edge" cuts both ways :-) When I was a design engineer working for da man, we called it "bleeding edge". We generally tried to contain enthusiasms for too many really innovative features in a product: too few and you didn't move forward fast enough; too many and your shiny new product never got off the production floor, or it spent all of it's life in service. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g -- Ed Huntress |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On 6/22/2015 10:16 AM, Leon Fisk wrote:
.... Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the vehicle? ... That's a great example of adding a feature because we CAN, whether or not we SHOULD. The engineers are having too much say. Remember when Land Rover meant minimal features and maximum reliability? Such that it was THE safari vehicle. Bob |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g -- Ed Huntress |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g Only one push rod per valve. In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-) The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time ago :-) I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750 Kw @ 900 RPM. Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so they could run in the other direction :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g Only one push rod per valve. In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-) The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time ago :-) I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750 Kw @ 900 RPM. You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-) Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so they could run in the other direction :-) The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference now is the electronics. I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned (was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is, unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first *close* up. Sheesh. -- Ed Huntress |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On 6/22/2015 6:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message ... On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than 4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119 components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only VFR below pressurization altitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar -jsw When my Dad's B-29 ditched, it had 1 functional engine. B-29s couldn't fly on 1, they just descended slowly. http://www.444thbg.org/birchjohn.htm David |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g Only one push rod per valve. In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-) The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time ago :-) I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750 Kw @ 900 RPM. You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-) As I did when I said "back in their day" :-) Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so they could run in the other direction :-) The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference now is the electronics. Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software updated". I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned (was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is, unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first *close* up. Sheesh. I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated. I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their secret :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:26:12 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g Only one push rod per valve. In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-) The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time ago :-) I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750 Kw @ 900 RPM. You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-) As I did when I said "back in their day" :-) Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so they could run in the other direction :-) The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference now is the electronics. Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software updated". I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned (was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is, unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first *close* up. Sheesh. I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated. I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their secret :-) There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce. A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of the time and averaging them. d8-) Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were run again until the next part broke. And so on. -- Ed Huntress |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:53:12 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 6/22/2015 6:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote: "David R. Birch" wrote in message ... On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than 4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119 components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only VFR below pressurization altitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar -jsw When my Dad's B-29 ditched, it had 1 functional engine. B-29s couldn't fly on 1, they just descended slowly. http://www.444thbg.org/birchjohn.htm David Well, the article said that they ran out of gas :-) From the date I am assuming that your father would have been flying the earlier carbureted models and I never saw one of those. By the time I worked on them they were all injected and probably the last version to have been made. Certainly the engine failures that I read about were pretty well cured as I don't remember an excessive number of engine changes for that sort of airplane although I d remember that an engine change, working 10 - 12 hour days was a several day job. and anything that you did on the engine was difficult to get to. -- cheers, John B. |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On 6/23/2015 7:43 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:53:12 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 6/22/2015 6:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote: "David R. Birch" wrote in message ... On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than 4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119 components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only VFR below pressurization altitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar -jsw When my Dad's B-29 ditched, it had 1 functional engine. B-29s couldn't fly on 1, they just descended slowly. http://www.444thbg.org/birchjohn.htm David Well, the article said that they ran out of gas :-) Basically, yes. They were told POW camp where they dropped the supplies was in a valley, but when they entered the valley, the camp was right underneath, so they had to make another run for the drop. The camp was already near the limit of range for the B-29, so they were low on gas. Then when one engine went, they had problems transferring fuel to the remaining engines. From the date I am assuming that your father would have been flying the earlier carbureted models and I never saw one of those. By the time I worked on them they were all injected and probably the last version to have been made. Certainly the engine failures that I read about were pretty well cured as I don't remember an excessive number of engine changes for that sort of airplane although I d remember that an engine change, working 10 - 12 hour days was a several day job. and anything that you did on the engine was difficult to get to. The 444th Bomber Group had been operating out of India but as airfields opened up in the Pacific, they were transferred to Tinian, which is where my Dad joined them. They also got new B-29s shortly after that. David |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:37:37 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:26:12 +0700, John B. wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g Only one push rod per valve. In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-) The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time ago :-) I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750 Kw @ 900 RPM. You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-) As I did when I said "back in their day" :-) Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so they could run in the other direction :-) The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference now is the electronics. Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software updated". I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned (was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is, unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first *close* up. Sheesh. I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated. I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their secret :-) There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce. A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of the time and averaging them. d8-) Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were run again until the next part broke. And so on. And you end up with a low RPM relatively low compression ratio, six cylinder engine :-) Sort of like my old Chevy :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:43:27 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:37:37 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:26:12 +0700, John B. wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B. wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: For the gearheads: If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger. This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews. Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to repair... The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter 4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque. It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as much thought to maintenance and repair. -- Ed Huntress Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-) And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the 1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and 18 pushrods. g I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per cylinder :-) But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-) So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g Only one push rod per valve. In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-) The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time ago :-) I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750 Kw @ 900 RPM. You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-) As I did when I said "back in their day" :-) Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so they could run in the other direction :-) The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference now is the electronics. Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software updated". I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned (was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is, unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first *close* up. Sheesh. I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated. I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their secret :-) There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce. A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of the time and averaging them. d8-) Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were run again until the next part broke. And so on. And you end up with a low RPM relatively low compression ratio, six cylinder engine :-) Sort of like my old Chevy :-) Sort of. Except that it isn't a Chevy. And your Chevy wasn't a Rolls-Royce. d8-) In those days, and even up to today, Rolls-Royce was conservative in concept, but superlative in execution. -- Ed Huntress |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:43:27 +0700, John B. wrote: ........................ I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated. I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their secret :-) There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce. A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of the time and averaging them. d8-) Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were run again until the next part broke. And so on. And you end up with a low RPM relatively low compression ratio, six cylinder engine :-) Sort of like my old Chevy :-) Sort of. Except that it isn't a Chevy. And your Chevy wasn't a Rolls-Royce. d8-) In those days, and even up to today, Rolls-Royce was conservative in concept, but superlative in execution. -- Ed Huntress RR developed the Merlin by strengthening whatever broke too: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-...in-engine.html "...Rolls-Royce introduced an ambitious reliability-improvement programme to fix the problems. This consisted of taking random engines from the end of assembly line and running them continuously at full power until they failed. Each was then dismantled to find out which part had failed, and that part was redesigned to be stronger. After two years of this programme the Merlin had matured into one of the most reliable aero engines in the world, and could sustain eight-hour combat missions with no problems." -jsw |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Volvo's supercharger + turbocharger
My sister got on a 4 engine plane in the south Pacific in 62 maybe.
The plane got just about half way to Hawaii and lost both engines on one side. They turned around and came back home. Let everyone go home when a phone number was available. Six hours later every one loaded up and flew to Hawaii and from there to Oakland. Tough trip. Just under 24 hours one way. 11 1/2 and 11. Boeing had to make a long range jet to get anyone out or back faster. 727 Long. We had a 0.7 mile long runway. Martin On 6/22/2015 7:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:12:36 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:29:44 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote: This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high performance. http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm -jsw When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range. When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved they were reliable. David Nothing like experience to instill confidence. An "experienced" engine statistically has a lower chance of failure than a freshly rebuilt one. Indeed. Could you imagine the conditions their old wrenches experienced on a Pacific island back then? Heat, humidity, blowing dust, etc. I doubt we newer wrenches would have liked them at all, and I applaud the job they did. -- Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. --Frederick Douglass |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Volvo gear changing | UK diy | |||
Volvo parts | UK diy | |||
volvo s40 acceleration and wastegate modification video | Home Repair | |||
Bosch PSB 14.4V-i Cordless Impact Drill with Turbocharger. | UK diy | |||
supercharger question.... | Metalworking |