Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Nieuport 28.C1


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#121 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:00

Quote: "The Nieuport 28 design was an adaptation of the concept of the lightly built, highly maneuverable rotary engined fighter typified by the Nieuport 17 to the more demanding conditions of the times."

Ekhm…

And as far as I remember, whenever in aviation a fighter is described as 'highly manouverable', it means it was at best in the turning fight.

 

Not necessarily, because the the thing WW1 scouts were the worst at was rolling.  Anything that could roll well was also called "maneuverable."


  • 0

#122 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 21 April 2015 - 13:05

This implies that you consider the monosoupape with it's partial stroke a "smaller displacement" engine (less de facto cubic) than the two valve variant using full stroke (as they have all about similar compression ratio)? I'm asking that because the amout of fuel you add is just dependent on the amout of air the enigne "pumps". You cannot change really the fuel/air mixture too much. Lean/rich mixture is a subtle change in mixture.

 

If you lost 50% of the stroke that way and that would translate into 50% less de-facto displacement of the engine you get 50% of the power. I serouisly doubt they'd happily made a monosoupape arrangement at that performance penalty.

You are starting to get the picture but not quite, when at full RPM,(1300) it could produce the 160 HP maybe, but I seriously doubt that too. The real problem with the engine is lacking of torque.  


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#123 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 21 April 2015 - 19:22

The real problem with the engine is lacking of torque.  

 

How do you mean it is lacking torque? They have almost identical rpm (+-10% or so), which means that if the engine had "less torque" it als would have less horsepower. It doesn't matter how the engine works, if they have similar horsepower at the same rpm, they have identical torque. Or do you question the power ratings in general?


  • 0

#124 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 21 April 2015 - 20:58

How do you mean it is lacking torque? They have almost identical rpm (+-10% or so), which means that if the engine had "less torque" it als would have less horsepower. It doesn't matter how the engine works, if they have similar horsepower at the same rpm, they have identical torque. Or do you question the power ratings in general?

Now you got it. But you can have a engine with high horse power and very little torque, and a engine with high torque and little horse power.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#125 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 21 April 2015 - 21:23

But you can have a engine with high horse power and very little torque, and a engine with high torque and little horse power.

 

But the engine with high horsepower with little torque had high rpm and vice versa. But all rotary engines had libe 1200 rpm. They all had to deliver the same torque at this same rpm to get the same power output...


  • 0

#126 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 21 April 2015 - 21:39

Well I guess you don't get it, I'm questioning the rated horse power of the Gnome 9n. After all manufactures have been known to lie about their products.   


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#127 Plank

Plank
  • Posts: 2835
  • LocationNew Zealand.

Posted 22 April 2015 - 00:42

Bench test.


  • 0

-

Captured again!

 


#128 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:04

Well I guess you don't get it, I'm questioning the rated horse power of the Gnome 9n. After all manufactures have been known to lie about their products.   

 

They are not lying about that, they "rate" their engines at certain levels. Get a muscle car from the 60's or 70's, put them on a ramp and be astonished what you get vs. what is "rated". ;)


  • 0

#129 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 22 April 2015 - 14:50

Okay lets look at this in a different way.

The Le Rhone 9j is a 110 HP engine, it has 916.41 cubic in. displacement

The Gnome 9n is a 160 HP engine, it has 962.08 cubic in. displacement

 

The Gnome has 105% more cubic inches but it has 145% more HP???? where is the magic?


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#130 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 22 April 2015 - 15:43

The Gnome has 105% more cubic inches but it has 145% more HP???? where is the magic?

 

Let's at least get the syntax right: The Gnome has 5% more cubic inches but it has 45% more HP

 

The fact is that we are not comparing like with like, in that both engines had completely different induction systems, with perhaps that of the Gnome yielding a far higher volumetric efficiency.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#131 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 22 April 2015 - 15:51

Let's at least get the syntax right: The Gnome has 5% more cubic inches but it has 45% more HP

 

The fact is that we are not comparing like with like, in that both engines had completely different induction systems, with perhaps that of the Gnome yielding a far higher volumetric efficiency.

Okay I did make a mistake on %, could you explain how the Gnome would have a higher volumetric efficiency considering it's induction and power system.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#132 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 22 April 2015 - 17:12

Okay I did make a mistake on %, could you explain how the Gnome would have a higher volumetric efficiency considering it's induction and power system.

 

It was only speculating that transferring mixture via ports direct from the crankcase and supplementing its volume with a momentary re-opening of the exhaust valve, could well be more efficient than passing it all through one overhead valve after having drawn it to the cylinder head.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#133 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 22 April 2015 - 17:21

Ben take a look at 2 stroke vs 4 stroke engines, the 4 stroke is more efficient.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#134 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 22 April 2015 - 18:10

Ben take a look at 2 stroke vs 4 stroke engines, the 4 stroke is more efficient.

 

That is an entirely separate, unrelated point and I do not see that it contradicts my assertion.

 

Are you referring to fuel-efficiency or specific output?


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#135 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 22 April 2015 - 18:26

Ben do you know how the Gnome 9n works, if you do then you will see the comparison be-twine the 2 and 4 stroke engines. 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#136 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 22 April 2015 - 22:21

Ben do you know how the Gnome 9n works, if you do then you will see the comparison be-twine the 2 and 4 stroke engines. 

 

I thought that I had in effect described its operation. The only similarity is in the use of transfer ports, while the monosoupape does not have a piston-controlled exhaust port that is obliged to open too early and close too late for optimal operation and allows about a third of the mixture to escape unburned.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#137 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 22 April 2015 - 22:37

This has turned to M I. One question, if the monosoupape engine was so efficient at making H P why is NOT in use in some form today?

 

I'm done! this is like trying to tell a blind man about the color red.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#138 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 23 April 2015 - 00:27

This has turned to M I. One question, if the monosoupape engine was so efficient at making H P why is NOT in use in some form today?

 

 

 

Nobody is saying that it was extraordinarily efficient and it's difficult to tell how if implemented today it would compare to current engines. One practical drawback I envisage would be its need to use a silencing exhaust system, compromising its ability to breathe partially via the exhaust valve.

 

 

I'm done! this is like trying to tell a blind man about the color red.

 

 

Since I joined this conversation, I haven't seen you trying to explain anything directly.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#139 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 23 April 2015 - 01:16

What do you want explained?


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#140 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 23 April 2015 - 01:56

What do you want explained?

 

Nothing at all; However you seem to be getting frustrated by not being able to make yourself understood.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#141 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 23 April 2015 - 11:46

What do you want explained?

 

I wouldn't mind either if you were clearer about what you really are going for.


  • 0

#142 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 23 April 2015 - 12:42

I wouldn't mind either if you were clearer about what you really are going for.

I'm questioning the rated horse power of the Gnome 9n. And so would anyone else if the knew any thing about engines and how they work.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#143 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 23 April 2015 - 12:56

I'm questioning the rated horse power of the Gnome 9n.

 

In that case I suggest that you offer a clear rationale for so doing.  Simply comparing it to its contemporaries won't do it.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#144 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 23 April 2015 - 13:03

Ben what else would you compare it to, as it is it's magic at producing HP compared to its contemporaries. Give me a standard. 

I'm beginning to think all y'all want to do is argue, you don't want to think.  


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#145 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 23 April 2015 - 13:33

I'm questioning the rated horse power of the Gnome 9n. And so would anyone else if the knew any thing about engines and how they work.

 

The actual horsepower should match the prop used on the N.28. Do you know diameter and pitch, and same say for a Camel? E.g. if they used similar props at similar rpm, they produced the same power...


  • 0

#146 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 23 April 2015 - 13:38

Grasping at straws? the prop has nothing to do with engine HP, engine HP and torque and RPM determine prop diameter and pitch.  


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#147 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 23 April 2015 - 14:00

Grasping at straws? the prop has nothing to do with engine HP, engine HP and torque and RPM determine prop diameter and pitch.  

 

If you know the rpm at wich the engine ran at full power, then it's more than a straw.


  • 0

#148 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 23 April 2015 - 14:10

Okay you win and I want to apologize to all that took place in this discussion, I had totally forgot about the Gnome's turbo encapsulation,( that's where the extra HP comes from) good day and good bye. 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#149 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 23 April 2015 - 14:17

Ben what else would you compare it to, as it is it's magic at producing HP compared to its contemporaries. Give me a standard. 

 

 

That is just the point: You don't compare it to anything because comparison is utterly meaningless. If you have doubts about the output of an engine, then you must offer a reasoned scientific argument to support them. 

To save you repeating yourself, you have already highlighted the disparity in claimed power relative to capacity compared to another engine, which in itself proves nothing as there easily could be other factors at work.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#150 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 23 April 2015 - 15:30

Okay you win and I want to apologize to all that took place in this discussion, I had totally forgot about the Gnome's turbo encapsulation,( that's where the extra HP comes from) good day and good bye. 

 

What is wrong here? Torque x rpm equals HP. If you crank the same prop faster, you have more power. If you crank a larger or coarser pitched prop at the same rpm, you have more power. Thus, used prop size shoud give you an indication on the power output of an engine. What is that with the turbo? I never challenged your belief, that the Gmome is weaker than advertised. But I just like that confirmed with futher evidence as well as to have an indication to what extent it could be underperforming as you say. I don't mean to insult anyone, I just like to think an argument (your argument here, for that matter) through and be shown who much you are right. I'm not here telling you how things are, I like to know from you. At the risk of sounding daft, I try to think your argument through so I understand it. Not trying to offend you...

 

Z


  • 0

#151 Plank

Plank
  • Posts: 2835
  • LocationNew Zealand.

Posted 23 April 2015 - 19:07

So sad.

 

All it needs is a better effing engine.

 

it flies like the wind

it can actually turn pretty darn well. (a bit wide but hey you can turn to face the guy tailing you...)

It just runs out of puff half way round and the controls die. (almost but not quite pointing at the DR1 that is chugging after me...)

 

I have managed to fly rings around a few pilots now, but cannot bring the guns to bear. (just a bit more, more, m o r e...  oh dash it all)

 

Take it out and fly it full tilt through a forest or town, no other plane comes close to it's agility.

 

If this plane could climb at a fair rate and turn fast at it's ok turn radius it would destroy all.

 

It is almost modern in the way it flies.

 

It is amazing.

 

in fact BUZZING enemy planes at their air field is my new thing. I get a kick out of it.

 

And getting away is really really really hard. I enjoy the challenge.

 

the N.28 is brilliant. the engine. sigh. does not do it justice. (or the FM is crap)

 

N.28: "turn and burn".

 

Plank out.

 

Ps. While the enemy are warming up their planes I am all ready flying like the blazes over the mud, very fast and very very low.

      One could get ideas....


  • 0

-

Captured again!

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users