Date:         Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:30:59 -0400
Reply-To:     Angus Gordon <agordon@BRIGHT.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Angus Gordon <agordon@BRIGHT.NET>
Subject:      Re: Supercharger
In-Reply-To:  <39CD5A1A.1A62E69D@hiwaay.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

>Was just looking at this discourse on superchargers/supercharging and it
>reminded of asupercharged  engine I ran into in my aviation days. It was found
>on the Lockheed (as I remember) ?Super-Constellation, which had four engines.
>The engine designation was a Pratt&Whitney R-3350-T. This engine was a
>monster. It was an assembly of 4 banks or 9 cylinders each, bolted together
>to  a common crankshaft. The exhaust system was a stainless steel collector
>system that ran together forming three common exhaust point. At those points
>were located 3 turbines driving superchargers for the fuel induction system.
>Having these three "Turbosuperchargers" resulted in a 33% power recovery from


Sorry for the non-Vanagon content, but it bothers me to see misinformation
like this. The Constellation uses the Wright R-3350 engine which has 2 rows
of 9 cylinders. The exhaust turbines mentioned are called Power Recovery
Turbines, and are actually coupled via fluid drive back to the crankshaft
to extract horsepower from the exhaust. I don't know the percentage
involved but would guess they might supply up to about 20% of the available
power.

Ever wonder what percentage of information from the internet is correct?


================================
Angus Gordon                       '89 Carat
Delta, Ohio                            '86 Syncro