Talk:Schneider Trophy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

"They shared the streamlined shape and low drag liquid cooled engine that was only later succeeded by the 'brutal' air-cooled radial engines of other WW II fighters." - What's this about? Which WW2 fighters had air-cooled radial engines? -- Hotlorp

Quite a few, actually. Start with:

• Brewster Buffalo
• CAC Boomerang
• Grumman Wildcat
• Grumman Hellcat
• Vought Corsair
• Republic Lancer
• Republic Thunderbolt
• FW-190A
• Bristol Beaufighter

And no doubt lots of others that don't come to mind as readily. On the other hand, that sentence you quoted seems a bit weird, just the same. It needs to be tidied up - particularly as neither the British nor the Italians were keen on radial engines for single seaters. Tannin

Thanks! Perhaps the "was succeeded by" needs to be somehow replaced by "succeeded", since the best engine of WW2 was undoubtedly the Merlin, which outperformed the radial fighters mentioned above. -- Hotlorp

Damn! I just wrote a new last para myself.

The Supermarine and Macchi Schneider Trophy aircraft were both important aircraft in the sense that a great deal of what was learned from their development would later appear in mass-produced fighter aircraft, notably the Spitfire. It would be a mistake, however, to regard the S6B as a Spitfire prototype: it was a different airframe with a different engine, and employed several techniques (such as using the metal surfaces of the wings as radiators) which were wholly impractical for a combat aircraft.

Compare with yours, Hotlorp:

The race was very significant in advancing aeroplane design, particular in the fields of aerodynamics and engine design, and would show its results in the best fighters of WW2. The streamlined shape and the low drag, liquid-cooled engine are obvious in the British Supermarine Spitfire, the American P-51 Mustang and the Italian Macchi C202 Folgore, planes which comprehensively outperformed those built with 'brutal' air-cooled radial engines.

Both have something to be said for them, and perhaps they should be combined.

Do we need to mention radials at all here? I'd take issue with the claim that liquid-cooled fighters outperformed radial-engined ones. Consider the FW190A, which easily out-performed the Spitfire for a year or so until the Mk. 9 came along (and the FW would have appeared some years earlier than it did if the Germans had not been prejudiced against it because of that radial engine), or the Corsair and the Hawker Fury, both of which can lay serious claim to the title of "fastest piston-engined fighter ever made", and both of which remained in production long after the war was over.

You know much more about this than I do - I incorporated the radial stuff, since it was in the para I replaced. Feel free to hack mine about. -- Hotlorp

Actually, I think there is room for a really interesting article on this subject. It could be called "fastest piston-engined fighters" or something like that, and discuss the ones I've just mentioned, plus the Spitfire, Tempest, Mustang, Lightning, and any others that seem relevant. If you (or any other contributor) wants to start one, I'd be happy to join in. Tannin

"By contrast, during the later years of actual conflict, new high power radial engines powered such aircraft as the American P-47 Thunderbolt, F6F Hellcat, and F4U Corsair. These aircraft, in spite of the larger frontal area required by the radial engine type could offer performance comparable or even better than some liquid cooled engines."

Maybe in America, with its near-unlimited resources.

Thus to some extent, as the practical speed limits of propellor aircraft were reached, brute force could prove as important as streamlining.

No it couldn't. P-47 Thunderbolt, F6F Hellcat, and F4U Corsair: these planes were nowhere near as capable as fighter aircraft as the likes of the Spitfire and Mustang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.51.69 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it could. With the use of a new propeller, called paddle bladed by some, the P-47 could out climb the Spitfire. See "Thunderbolt" by Robert S. Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.1.218 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

1929 results table

Tadpolefarmer, I admire your effort on coming up with such a good looking table and a good link, and I expect that you are working on more, but as it is the table simply isn't an acceptable part of the article (it will end up WP:TOOLONG), and in case you are intending to come up with one for every race it will eventually need a separate article (Schneider Trophy race results is my suggestion), so I'm hiding the table for the time being. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

new record

I'm far from being an aircraft buff but some years ago I seem to recall that a claim was made, using a specially modified German aircraft, that the speed record for piston engined aircraft quoted in the article had been exceeded.

does anybody else have any details?AT Kunene (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about 10–15 years later. It would be remarkable if aircraft weren't faster by this point. Also aircraft of the Schneider era were seaplanes, thus carrying enormous draggy floats. An aircraft of the same era, built to a land-based version of the same broad design, could have been faster. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

radial engines

I was told by a veteran who'd served in the Pacific campaign that radial engines were superior to in line engines particularly for maintenance.

A radial engine could be rapidly removed from an airframe either for complete renewal or maintenance in the covered conditions of a hanger. In line engines had usually to be maintained in the aircraft and frequently out on an airfield if the hanger was crowded.AT Kunene (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuel

High performance piston engined aircraft required high octane fuel which was always expensive to produce and difficult to store. The better piston engine aircraft would be popular with banana republics while there were still mountains of WW2 spares and fuel available.

These were bound to be obsoleted by jet aircraft not only because these were faster etc but could also burn much lower grade, cheaper and far more readily available fuels, such as kerosine. AT Kunene (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Schneider Winners

First of all, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, to the formatting, the protocols and the etiquette so bear with me. I'm a representative of the Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association who host the Schneider competition each year (this year, 2013 on Alderney [1]. I've endeavoured to update the table with correct information i.e. 2 years cancelled through fatality and weather, and last year's winner, David Moorman. I don't understand why my edits should be reverted or the reference to "in perpetuity aspect" of 1931. Andy, can you help me out here? Petechilcott (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What is it?

The heading paragraph just tells me what not to confuse it with and who won it, but not what the thing is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.102.242 (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Location, location...

Well, where is it now? In the Science Museum or at RAFC Cranwell? The introduction says both places and unless it shares qualities of Merlin, the wizard, it cannot be in two places at the same time.

The trophy itself

An article devoted to the trophy should at least have a full section devoted to trophy object itself.

• Dimensions: is it a big beer-stein or a small water-softener?
• Is there a handle on the back side, or more lions with rings?
• Who made it? (Obviously a work of art such as this has a jeweler's pedigree.)

Contribution to Technological Advancements

Schneider Trophy 10:24, 29 August 2019‎ Andy Dingley talk contribs‎ 22,716 bytes -1,750‎ rv - unsourced, sources used are vague and don't cover the specific claims made. I can't think offhand of any turbocharged Schneider entries and although hugely influential on fuel chemistry and valve cooling, there was no direct influence on supercharger design or their metallurgy undothank Tags: Undo PHP7

Andy Dingley. You removed my entry on Contribution to Technological Advancements. The contribution to Aircraft engine development and aircraft design from air races in general and specifically the highly prized international Schneider Trophy is widely acknowledged and not in dispute.

You are mistaken if you say there weren't any turbocharged Schneider racers. The Rolls Royce R was specifically developed for the Schneider races and was most certainly Supercharged and was the envy of other nations. The later Fiat AS.6 in the Macchi 72 was also supercharged.

Road vehicles could carry the extra weight of a bigger normally aspirated engine easily but planes where much more sensitive to additional weight and this is why they were a much bigger impetus with aircraft engine development and the why the Schneider race was where the extra performance was most vital.

I believe this is a valid entry in this page. I could be more correct in stating that by the late 1920's the aircraft where the effort was spent in supercharging had an obvious clear advantage over the opposition. Other competitors were making compressors for their fuel systems but they were too unreliable. Rolls Royce were the first to perfect this technology. In the run-up to the second WW aircraft engine manufacturers put great effort into supercharging because the Schneider Trophy winner had made clear it was the future.

The book "Schneider-Trophy-Races" by Ralph-Barker [1977] deals in depth with supercharging efforts by Rolls Royce and the catch-up played by the other main countries in also developing the metallurgy for the compressor blades to survive in a supercharger. The same technology essential to jet engine turbine blades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If you have detail on the race being influential on fuel chemistry and valve cooling then it deserves listing here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• "there weren't any turbocharged Schneider racers. "

Which were?

This has been added twice, 2018 2019 and both times I've reverted, for much the same reasons.

"Aircraft designers for these races came to realize that increasing the engine capacity to increase power did not necessarily bring an increase in speed because the the larger engines required larger airframes. A more efficient approach was to substantially increase power output through turbocharging and later supercharging engines. Increasing the volume of air ingested a smaller engine could achieve substantially greater power output. In the 1920's the compressor blades of the superchargers were subjected to high stresses that went beyond the limits of available metals and it was the Schneider Trophy and Bendix racing which spurred on the development of new alloys from breakthroughs made in the field of metallurgy and to make these compressors practical and reliable. [2] [3] "

"The advances in metallurgy and supercharging that were so important in World War 2 aircraft, were in part the result this racing prize.[4] "

This is the sort of handwave which has always been the bane of (British, at least) reporting of the Schneider Trophy. As a kid I had any number of books describing the Supermarine S6 as "Spitfires on floats" and explaining how the Battle of Britain was won by racing around Calshot a decade earlier, in a race that Germany somehow hadn't noticed.

So what are the specific points in this added text?

• " increasing the engine capacity to increase power did not necessarily bring an increase in speed "

Tell that to the Macchi M.C.72. Or for that matter, the Rolls-Royce R. The R replaced the Napier Lion for 1929 because Rolls-Royce were offering it to Mitchell because they wanted to upstage Napier and also because it was bigger. Napier at this point realised that their ten year old Lion was at the limits of its development and they were going to have to clean-slate things with the Dagger (eventually leading to the Sabre). They were both supercharged, and the slight power increase of the R over the Lion (1500 vs 1350 bhp) hardly reflected their doubled capacity.

• "increase power output through turbocharging and later supercharging engines."

So where's the turbocharger in the Schneider?

By a quirk of fate, and the search for maintaining performance at altitude rather than maximum performance at sea level, there had been experiments with turbocharged aircraft engines for about a decade by now (Some high-altitude zeppelins, for one), i.e. before mechanically-driven supercharging became widespread. However the development path was still for mechanical supercharging first and turbocharging would take several years after this before it was viable (and it was outside the scope of the Schneider). For another thing, the Schneider was raced at seal level, not altitude. Mechanically-driven centrifugal superchargers had become standard for high-performance aircraft engines by now. The Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar (1925) was the leader here, at least for having a geared drive, even if its "starfish" impeller design was rudimentary (The Napier Lion was the best, showing Napier's lead in centrifugal blowers at this time).

• " In the 1920's the compressor blades of the superchargers were subjected to high stresses"

When are we talking? Because supercharging didn't appear in the Schneider until the late 1920s (Was the Short Crusader with a Bristol Mercury the first to be supercharged?) and it was Armstrong Siddeley who had really solved the metallurgy issues a couple of years earlier. Both of these used Hiduminium alloys, developed originally for pistons and largely funded by John Siddeley, before its use for the Schneider.

• " it was the Schneider Trophy and Bendix racing which spurred on the development of new alloys from breakthroughs made in the field of metallurgy "

Which alloy? Which breakthrough was driven by the Schneider (or the Bendix)? Hiduminium? No. Brightray? No. Birmabright? No. Hastelloy? No. Stellite? No. Vitallium? No. Nimonic? no.

What advances really could be claimed for the Schneider's influence? There are a few: evaporative cooling finally being abandoned as unworkable, that's one! The use of glycol as a coolant, and system pressurisation, there are some others. Sodium-cooled exhaust valves too. Then probably the biggest of the lot, the fuel chemistry and octane boosting which won the 1931 race for Britain.

This addition is all handwaving and it doesn't hold up. It's not borne out by the sources you cite, and they're not the most convincing of sources either. The fact is that the Schneider didn't have anything like as much influence as is though, because it stopped after 1931. It didn't revolutionise R-R's work on supercharging – Hooker didn't start work until 1938. The Spitfire's tapered main spar wasn't invented until the Spitfire. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley. Ok I concede you know embarrassingly more about this topic than I do. I appreciate the detailed reply and now I understand this a lot better. I was clearly swung by the British centric book by Ralph Barker and other material which seems to have the same slant. Basically you are saying that in broader terms this air race did not have a marked impact on technological advances in aviation and that these would have happened at the same pace without the drive to win this prize. Is that correct? That being the case this may warrant a section (with the points you eloquently have set out here) correcting what may be quite a widely held misconception created and perpetuated over the decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)