Welcome to MacForumz.com!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

An addition to our recent engine discussions

 
   Macintosh computer (Home) -> Flight-Sim RSS
Next:  More on the Iraqi MiGs  
Author Message
Harro de Jong1

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 34



(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:59 am
Post subject: An addition to our recent engine discussions
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>games>flight-sim (more info?)

We talked about turbochargers, superchargers and turbocompound engines.
You'll be pleased to know that I've found an engine that uses all three
(!). It's the Napier Nomad. I haven't found a really good description
online, but I do have a magazine article about it. I'll scan a drawing
tomorrow.

The Nomad 1 is a 12-cylinder, two-stroke diesel that drives one
propeller of a counterrotating combo. Its exhaust contains an
afterburner (!), and a turbine.
That turbine drives a compressor [1], plus the second propeller.
The engine's crankshaft also drives a supercharger (located after the
compressor [1] and an intercooler.
Oh, and the engine had bypass ducts around the intercooler, afterburner,
and half the stages of the exhaust turbine, so you could drive the
engine in numerous configurations.

< http://www.chrishodgetrucks.co.uk/pixww/2002Wroughton23.jpg>
< http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Nomad>

Alas, it never reached production.



And now for the 'random trivia' section:
- About 10% of a Merlin's power was actually thrust from the exhaust
pipes.
- RR once designed an engine that was supposed to generate 30% of its
power this way (the Crecy). It wasn't successful - using that energy to
drive a turbocharger proved to produce more power. And less noise: the
Crecy opened its exhaust valves very early, while the fuel mixture was
still burning. During tests, the engine could be heard 25 km from the
workshop. In comparison, a Griffon was quiet.
- The Lycoming XR-7755 (a 36-cilinder, 127-litre, 5000-bhp radial) was
even louder than the Crecy. Concrete walls around the test bench
actually crumbled under the noise.
- The turbo-compound version of the Wright R-3350 used 20% less fuel to
produce 700 bhp more.
- < http://www.nasm.edu/features/qtvr/uhc/artifacts.htm>
--
Harro de Jong

 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael Emrys

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 393



(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:59 am
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

in article 1fzln66.15t7s9olpa1f0N%hcdejong@zzz.wanadoo.nl.invalid, Harro de
Jong at hcdejong.TakeThisOut@zzz.wanadoo.nl.invalid wrote on 8/12/03 1:59 PM:

 > Alas, it never reached production.

Napier sort of has a history of producing complicated designs that don't
work too well, don't they? Although this one takes the cake, I believe.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->

 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Harro de Jong

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 20



(Msg. 3) Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 12:01 pm
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

hcdejong.TakeThisOut@zzz.wanadoo.nl.invalid (Harro de Jong) wrote in
<1fzln66.15t7s9olpa1f0N%hcdejong@zzz.wanadoo.nl.invalid>:

 >I haven't found a really good description
 >online, but I do have a magazine article about it. I'll scan a drawing
 >tomorrow.
 >

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/hcdejong/Nomad.html>
--
Harro de Jong<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael Emrys

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 393



(Msg. 4) Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 12:01 pm
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

in article 93D7772E6hcdejongwanadoooonli.DeleteThis@194.134.193.23, Harro de Jong at
hcdejong.DeleteThis@nospam.wanadoo.nl.invalid wrote on 8/14/03 2:01 AM:

 > hcdejong.DeleteThis@zzz.wanadoo.nl.invalid (Harro de Jong) wrote in
 > <1fzln66.15t7s9olpa1f0N%hcdejong@zzz.wanadoo.nl.invalid>:
 >
  >> I haven't found a really good description
  >> online, but I do have a magazine article about it. I'll scan a drawing
  >> tomorrow.
  >>
 >
 > <http://home.wanadoo.nl/hcdejong/Nomad.html>

Woohoo!

" It was rather hard to get it to run well..."

Why does this not surprise me? That's a real Rube Goldberg device, almost
funny in its complexity. It looks to me like their designers had too much
spare time.

When was this built? Were turbojets already in production?

Thanks for bringing this up, Harro. I had never heard of this oddity before.
It ought to have won some kind of prize, but just what I don't know.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Harro de Jong

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 20



(Msg. 5) Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:41 pm
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

emrys DeleteThis @olypen.com (Michael Emrys) wrote in
<BB60D59A.153A6%emrys@olypen.com>:

 >" It was rather hard to get it to run well..."
 >
 >Why does this not surprise me? That's a real Rube Goldberg device,
 >almost funny in its complexity. It looks to me like their designers had
 >too much spare time.
 >
 >When was this built? Were turbojets already in production?

The Nomad 1 prototype ran in 1950, the Nomad 2 project was closed down in
1955.

It had one desirable feature: it was very fuel-efficient. Probably the most
efficient airborne piston engine until then. Its specific fuel consumption
is low even by today's standards.
Napier tried to sell it by telling airlines that an aircraft with 4 Nomads
would be able to cross the Atlantic in one go, while a similar-sized
aircraft with turbojets would have to refuel on Newfoundland. Boeing et al
responded by making their aircraft a lot bigger (so the aircraft could
carry enough fuel to make it without refueling anyway).

--
Harro de Jong<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael Emrys

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 393



(Msg. 6) Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:41 pm
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

in article 93D79A389hcdejongwanadoooonli.DeleteThis@194.134.193.23, Harro de Jong at
hcdejong.DeleteThis@nospam.wanadoo.nl.invalid wrote on 8/14/03 6:41 AM:

 > Boeing et al responded by making their aircraft a lot bigger...

It's the American way.

;-)

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Harro de Jong

External


Since: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 20



(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 4:15 pm
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

emrys.TakeThisOut@olypen.com (Michael Emrys) wrote in <BB60EED6.153B3%
emrys.TakeThisOut@olypen.com>:

 >in article 93D79A389hcdejongwanadoooonli.TakeThisOut@194.134.193.23, Harro de Jong at
 >hcdejong@nospam.wanadoo.nl.invalid wrote on 8/14/03 6:41 AM:
 >
  >> Boeing et al responded by making their aircraft a lot bigger...
 >
 >It's the American way.

Heh. It also helped that turbojets scaled up a bit better than piston
engines...

--
Harro de Jong<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Charles Kooy

External


Since: Jul 19, 2003
Posts: 29



(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:47 am
Post subject: Re: An addition to our recent engine discussions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Michael Emrys <emrys DeleteThis @olypen.com> wrote:

 > in article 93D79A389hcdejongwanadoooonli DeleteThis @194.134.193.23, Harro de Jong at
 > hcdejong DeleteThis @nospam.wanadoo.nl.invalid wrote on 8/14/03 6:41 AM:
 >
  > > Boeing et al responded by making their aircraft a lot bigger...
 >
 > It's the American way.

And proof that, despite Detroit's insistence to the contrary, Americans
*can* build things that are big yet can still turn within a reasonable
amount of space :)

--
__________________________________________________________
| Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.euro.cauce.org/" target="_blank">http://www.euro.cauce.org/</a> |<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: An addition to our recent engine discussions 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Macintosh computer (Home) -> Flight-Sim All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]