Republic Nightbolt Mk-I

[PR19_Kit]

I looked in my model and the space was empty 

Which is why there's enough space for the crew chief etc. 

[Flyer]

Very good

[zenrat]

Oh ! , that's horrible , I like it .

Second that.

[NARSES2]

That works  really well 

[zenrat]

Anyone fancy building one with an American Turret?

[Weaver]

That must have involved some 'interesting' re-routing of all the turbocharger/intercooler ducting, mind you...

I looked in my model and the space was empty 

TomZ

That probably explains why your model doesn't fly so well too...

[NARSES2]

Anyone fancy building one with an American Turret?

Maybe a ball turret underneath ? 

Can I ask a daft question ? Having no mechanical knowledge what so ever could you take all the supercharger gubbins out of the back of a Thunderbolt still allowing it to work/fly ? Or would you need to re-engine it ?

[Old Wombat]

You'd not be far off having an aircraft with performance similar to that of a Defiant (even sans turret) or, worse, a Battle.

[NARSES2]

You'd not be far off having an aircraft with performance similar to that of a Defiant (even sans turret) or, worse, a Battle.

Cheers mate.

So all that "stuff" isn't essential, but offers a vast improvement. I've often wondered.

[Snowtrooper]

Are all the turbo bits in the P-47 really needed for sheer horsepower, or are they there more for maintaining high-altitude performance?

For example, Hellcat and Corsair also had the R-2800 engine but only used the built-in supercharger, it yielded about the same amount of horsepower as the turbocharged version but without all of the bulky and heavy bits. Of course, they had a lower critical altitude than the T-Bolt, which reached maximum performance 9000 metres/30000 feet and outperformed just about every piston-engined plane even above that (Hellcat and Corsair reached peak performance at about 6km/20000ft). The German bombers flew at lower altitudes than the Americans anyway (except for the occasional Ju 86P), so wouldn't the supercharged engine have been enough?

[kitnut617]

I would say Tom has got it right by using the 'razor-back' for his project. There would be just enough room I think for the turret. Mind you, you wouldn't have to provide heating for the gunner   

[PR19_Kit]

I always thought it odd that the T'Bolt's turbo was MILES away from the engine, but then they were on the P-38 too, whereas the B-17 and B-24 had them very 'close coupled'.

I can't compare it with anything designed in the UK as we never used turbos over here, not as far as I know anyway.

[kitnut617]

I always thought it odd that the T'Bolt's turbo was MILES away from the engine, but then they were on the P-38 too, whereas the B-17 and B-24 had them very 'close coupled'.

I can't compare it with anything designed in the UK as we never used turbos over here, not as far as I know anyway.

Not used operationally, but the Wellington Mk.V had turbos in addition to the single stage supercharger.

[Weaver]

I always thought it odd that the T'Bolt's turbo was MILES away from the engine, but then they were on the P-38 too, whereas the B-17 and B-24 had them very 'close coupled'.

I can't compare it with anything designed in the UK as we never used turbos over here, not as far as I know anyway.

If you did that on a car you'd get horrible turbo lag, but that isn't so much of an issue for aircraft.

[zenrat]

I've seen cars (conventional front engine - rear drive) with a turbo at the back under the boot.  Can't remember where or why.  Because of lag it'd have to be an application where the engine was running at sustained rpm.  Salt lakes racer maybe?

The use of a mechanically driven supercharger and an exhaust driven supercharger (turbocharger) on the same engine is not something i'm aware of in the car world.  Although i'm sure it must have been tried.
It has been done on truck engines.  Detroit Diesel built two strokes with both.