Republic Thunderbolt, non-turbo
- Thread starter Just Leo
- Start date
A lot depends of if the non turbo ones are supercharged. The R-2800 started out with a single speed two speed supercharger @ 1500 hp. The B series bumped this to 2000 hp with up to 2250 WEP depending on the model. The B series also saw the introduction of the GE turbo at 2000 hp. The turbo model engines seen to of had a pretty stable power rating 2000 hp at 25000 ft versus 1800 for supercharged models. I would think with more work on the supercharger it would of been possible to match the turbo model for output. Going to a two speed, two stage supercharger is one likely option. Air Corp policy pre war was for turbo supercharging. This one reason the Allison never really had the potential it had realized. Then the Air Corps reserved turbo use for bomber types the Allison was stuck with the single speed single stage supercharger. The only fighter A/C to get turbos in any amount were the P-38 and the P-47.
As to appearance the fuselage most likely would not be as deep due to the lack of the ducting to the turbo which ran from the chin to below and behind the pilot where the turbo was. Can it enter series production. Sure and I suspect it would be very effective at low altitude in ground attack operations.
GEs experience in building turbos is the reason the USAAC turned the jet production over to them after getting an engine and drawings from the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-2800_Double_Wasp#Military
As to appearance the fuselage most likely would not be as deep due to the lack of the ducting to the turbo which ran from the chin to below and behind the pilot where the turbo was. Can it enter series production. Sure and I suspect it would be very effective at low altitude in ground attack operations.
GEs experience in building turbos is the reason the USAAC turned the jet production over to them after getting an engine and drawings from the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-2800_Double_Wasp#Military
Last edited:
How much weight would be saved by losing the turbocharger installation? Would it be possible also to lower the drag if the fuselage was slimmer because it no longer contained the turbo?
If nothing else. would think the non-turbo version would be cheaper.
If nothing else. would think the non-turbo version would be cheaper.
At least 1,000 lbs would be eliminated, and the degree of slimmification would depend on whether some of the lower fuselage previously used for ducting and aerodynamic purification is employed for additional fuel storage. The resulting aircraft would also be cheaper and easier to build in quantity. As it was, the Jug was built in great quantity at two Republic factories, plus Curtiss, which built less, poorly. As it was, the Air Corps wanted a high altitude machine with stellar performance at 40,000 ft, but the pressurized version, as per P-38, was built and forgotten.
Sometimes I wonder if part of the solution to high high latitude performance instead of the turbo is to simply use a small secondary power plant as the Germans did on that recon plane they had. The Brits had the same idea with the proposed high altitude Lancaster. But what size engine would be needed to power the compressor. Face it that's what the turbo is basically
If HZ Anlage / Master/Slave was a solution to the problem of high altitude, Chadwick would have proceeded past a brochure, the Soviets would have a working prototype, and the Germans would have introduced an example into service. In any event, such a solution used on a single-engine fighter would be problematic. As it was, the Soviets used plain old turbo-charged P-47s as high altitude intercepters to defend against the high altitude German aircraft that never came.