Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Manifold Pressure Question

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
A Squared said:
I can't think of a single WWII aircraft which had Turbocompound (PRT) engines. The Turbocompound engines were a later development. I believe that the only production Turbocompound engine was the R-3350 (the R-3350's on the B-29 were not turbocompound) The R-3350TC powered post war, pre-jet era aircraft such as the C-119, Super constellation, DC-7, P2V Neptune. Allison developed a turbocompound version of the V-1710 The V-1710 TC was intended to be used in a version of the Bell Kingcobra, which was cancelled. Pratt & Whitney developed aversions of the R-4360 which was sometimes referred to as a turbocompound, although it was actually using a varaable nozzle on the turbocharger to maximize jet thrust from the exhaust. THis enginewas to be used in the B-50C and b-36C. Both models were cancelled before production. Avbug can chime in here if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the KC-97 ever had the Turbocompound version of the 4360 installed.

Yes, the C-97/B-377 and B-50 had the R-4360. It had a straightforward single speed geared supercharger AND a turbo-supercharger which we did not bring on line until we had climbed to the critical altitude for the geared supercharger...about 7500 feet. Since the turbo supercharger also supplied cabin pressueization, we were unpressurized below 7500 ft. There was no aircycle machine or vapor cycle cooling so it got warm in the cabin at low altitude in warm ambient conditions...like the South Pacific.

The R-3350 was the only turbocompunded engine I was ever aware of and was used on the airplanes you mentioned plus a large Martin twin flying boat, the name of which just slips my mind at the moment

I think the mention of WW2 machines may be confused with the turbo-superchargers of that era, maybe.

~DC
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong, but I could have sworn that I saw a B-17 and a B-24 wiht PRTs. Thunderbird and Dimond Lil to be precise.

The B-29 and Connie definately did.
 
OK... it took a long time to read through this thread over a couple days due to a lot of ahhh...let call it disagreement. But God help us...lets get back to the original question and better yet lets expand on it a wee bit. (If Av-bug and DC-8 could both provide a short simple explanation...and hopefully they'll be in agreement)...I'll copy and paste it into my CFI notes.

#1. During a run-up, why does manifold pressure increases when RPM is dropped...
and (let see if yall agree )

#2 Why at cruise does manifold pressure rise when you increase the throttle but don't touch the prop lever and...

#3. At crusie power (not low power like in a run-up)... if you reduce rpm by pulling back on the prop lever does manifold pressure still rise?

#4. And I can't help it but I'd like to know if you agree on why during low rpms on the ground does the throttle control RPM and manifold pressure. With props full forward we are able to add the throttle and increase the RPM to approx 17-18 hundred RPM... but at higher throttle settings RPM is controlled by the prop / governor.

MUCOS GRACIAS
 
If I may: (Flame suit on)
#1. During a run-up, why does manifold pressure increases when RPM is dropped...
-Less 'sucking' by the engine because RPMs have decreased so the engine can't take as much air IN.
#2 Why at cruise does manifold pressure rise when you increase the throttle but don't touch the prop lever?
-Less restriction to 'sucking' by the engine because the butterfly's opening up and allowing more air IN.
#3. At crusie power (not low power like in a run-up)... if you reduce rpm by pulling back on the prop lever does manifold pressure still rise?
-Yes. (IF the throttle plate is not all the way open already)
#4. And I can't help it but I'd like to know if you agree on why during low rpms on the ground does the throttle control RPM and manifold pressure. With props full forward we are able to add the throttle and increase the RPM to approx 17-18 hundred RPM... but at higher throttle settings RPM is controlled by the prop / governor.
-The governor can only do so much. After it's reached its low-pitch (high-RPM) stop, it can't control the RPM anymore. The amount of power the engine's putting out does. As to manifold pressure, the answer's the same as #2. The throttle still varies how much air is available to the engine, and how hard the engine has to 'suck' to get it. (throttle plate position in the intake tract)

(Flame suit off)
 
Last edited:
First a brief review.

The downgoing piston creats a vacum and sucks in air.

The closed throttle plate closes most of the intake off, and only allows a small amount of air to pass.

This results in a low pressure inside the intake manifold.

MAP is basicly a throttle position indicator. "your throttle is 1/2 open because you have 21" MAP" This information combined with how fast the engine is turning allows you to determine how much power is being produced. Example: 2500 RPM and 25" MAP equals 85% power.



Bernoulli said:
#1. During a run-up, why does manifold pressure increases when RPM is dropped...

The drop in RPMs results in less suction, so the pressure risses inside the intake manifold.

#2 Why at cruise does manifold pressure rise when you increase the throttle but don't touch the prop lever and...

By opening the throttle you are allowing more air to enter the engine. At wide open throttle (WOT) there is effectively no restriction, therefore MAP is the same as atsmopheric pressure.

#3. At crusie power (not low power like in a run-up)... if you reduce rpm by pulling back on the prop lever does manifold pressure still rise?

At WOT there would not be any change in MAP, BUT actual power produced by the engine would drop with RPMs. The engine is takeing the same amount of air/fuel for each revolution, but it is takeing fewer "breaths".

#4. And I can't help it but I'd like to know if you agree on why during low rpms on the ground does the throttle control RPM and manifold pressure. With props full forward we are able to add the throttle and increase the RPM to approx 17-18 hundred RPM... but at higher throttle settings RPM is controlled by the prop / governor.

When taxing at low power settings, the governer is well underspeed and the prop baldes are at their flat pitch limit. Therfore if you add some throttle (say 1500 RPM) the engine speeds up untill the governer comes into play (at 2500 RPM).

If you want, you can experiment with this.

AT LOW POWER ONLY!!!! Proceed at your own risk.

Try taxing with the prop controll all the way out to the low RPM/coarse pitch limit. When you increase throttle you may see the governor come into play at 1500 RPM or so.

Be VERY!!! carefull doing this as it can put a huge load on the prop. The governor will maintain 1500 RPM even at full throttle, which can be very bad for the prop.
 
Bernoulli said:
OK... it took a long time to read through this thread over a couple days due to a lot of ahhh...let call it disagreement. But God help us...lets get back to the original question and better yet lets expand on it a wee bit. (If Av-bug and DC-8 could both provide a short simple explanation...and hopefully they'll be in agreement)...I'll copy and paste it into my CFI notes.

#1. During a run-up, why does manifold pressure increases when RPM is dropped...
and (let see if yall agree )

When you do a run-up, you typically dont have the throttle at full power, so the throttle plate is restricting the airflow. So as the ambient pressure is trying to push air into the manifold as the piston goes down it can't get the entire cylinder volume past the throttle plate and you end up with a lower MP reading.

Now when you pull the prop lever back for a prop check you slow the piston down and the ambient pressure has more "time" to push air into the manifold and the MP reading rises.

#2 Why at cruise does manifold pressure rise when you increase the throttle but don't touch the prop lever and...

Same reason as above as to why you have a lower than ambient MP reading while doing a run-up. When you open the throttle you reduce the restriction caused by the throttle plate and ambient pressure can push into the manifold more easily and pressure goes up. Notice that (in non turboed) engines MP is never higher than ambient other wise the air would be flowing out of the manifold. Also try it with the throttle full open and then pull the props back 200 or 300 RPM you wont see any rise in MP, save a small amount that is just recovery from the other restriction in the manifold (filter, friction, bends, etc.)

#3. At crusie power (not low power like in a run-up)... if you reduce rpm by pulling back on the prop lever does manifold pressure still rise?

Yes, as long as the throttle is not full open. If the throttle is full open you are already getting as much "air pressure" from ambient pressure as you can into the manifold.

#4. And I can't help it but I'd like to know if you agree on why during low rpms on the ground does the throttle control RPM and manifold pressure. With props full forward we are able to add the throttle and increase the RPM to approx 17-18 hundred RPM... but at higher throttle settings RPM is controlled by the prop / governor.

Again the governor has high and low pitch stops. So with the prop lever full forward the governor is trying to maintain 2700 RPM (depending on a/c model). When the prop hits the low pitch stops and you keep pulling the throttle back, restricting airflow, reducing fuel flow and thus reducing power, the airload on the prop starts to slow the engine down since the blade can't "flatten out" anymore.

Just the opposite for why you dont go over 2700 RPM (usually) with full throttle, the high pitch stops of the prop are set to maintain 2700 RPM at full throttle at sea level on a standard day plus or minus some fudge
factor.
Chec the above statement, now I cant remember how it is actually set up, since I recall on more than one occaision takeing off with an OAT of negative 20 and Altimeter of 30.??. So that doesnt quiet hold water.

If you could theoretically turbocharge that engine you could get the prop over 2700 RPM because the high pitch stops would not let the prop twist anymore to a higher angle of attack and with the increase in air mass into the engine, it would have enough power to "overspeed" the prop.

Don't confuse that with the slight overspeed(s) you get when you go from low power settings to high power settings, or low RPM settings to high RPM settings, rapidly in flight. That is just the governonr not being able to increase blade angle quick enough to maintain the "set" RPM.

MUCOS GRACIAS

Gern pretty much answered it all, I'll just add mine so you have more than one way to describe it.

Just to clarify, my "strong" stance on this came from the fact I had actually done an experiment in college to prove my theory. We took an engine that was used as a display model and hooked an electric motor to the crankshaft and varied the voltage to the motor to vary the speed. We sealed up the cylinder with the MP gauge on it and getting about 400 to 600 RPM out of the motor we could show the rise and fall of MP with engine speed without touching the throttle plate. The problem was, and no one else picked up on it either, is that with the changing mass of air due to throttle plate restriction, that through the whole velocity pressure rise and fall theory out the window, since bernoullis law depends on constant mass and constant energy. All it is, is an equation to show the conservation of energy laws, but since the mass was being changed that equation doesnt work.

Now you could hook up a MP gauge in front of the throttle plate and you would get small changes in MP due to velocity but not nearly the changes you see downstream of the throttle plate. A two inch increase in MP equates to descending 2000 feet, why that obvious error never donned on me. I dont know, but if all you have to do to get more power out of your engine is to slow the prop down and voila you got 2000 feet of altitude back, we would all be running around at 900 RPM, just doesnt add up, and why it took me 6 years to figure it out, well Im just blonde I guess.
 
Last edited:
DC8 Flyer said:
The problem was, and no one else picked up on it either, is that with the changing mass of air due to throttle plate restriction, that through the whole velocity pressure rise and fall theory out the window, since bernoullis law depends on constant mass and constant energy. All it is, is an equation to show the conservation of energy laws, but since the mass was being changed that equation doesnt work.

That, plus Bernoulli's law relates fluid velocity to static pressure, while the MP we deal with is total pressure (or absolute pressure, or stagnation pressure, whatever you wanna call it), which also stays constant :)
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong, but I could have sworn that I saw a B-17 and a B-24 wiht PRTs. Thunderbird and Dimond Lil to be precise.

The B-29 and Connie definately did.

The R-1820 and R-1830 didn't use or have in the design a power recovery turbine. Each did use a supercharger with a two stage blower, and a turbocharger was used as part of the exhaust system.

The B-29 used PRT's for some installations, but not all.

Technically "Diamond Lil" isn't a B-24, but a converted LB-30.
 
USMCmech said:
I may be wrong, but I could have sworn that I saw a B-17 and a B-24 wiht PRTs. Thunderbird and Dimond Lil to be precise.

The B-29 and Connie definately did.

Hey, I'll check with Randy Sohn later today about the B-29. He is the guy that brought "Fi-Fi" out of China Lake originally and is the final authority on B-29s. The Constellations started out with R-2600s in the smallest model, the C-69 and I think 049s. As they stretched the airplane to the 749, 1049 and 1649 they went to the 3350s and finally the 3350 turbo-compond in the biggest Constellations.

The B-24 and B-17 surely did not have PRTs. Are you sure you are not confusing them with the turbo-superchargers. They both had them. PRTs are not even visible unless the cowling is off, they are very integral with the engine crankcase at the accessory section. Your remark that they are removed or wired off is consistent with the turbosuperchargers. "Fi-Fi" still has them but they are not normally used. They keep the grossweight low and avoid maintenance.

Later
~DC

~DC
 
Donsa320 said:
The B-24 and B-17 surely did not have PRTs. Are you sure you are not confusing them with the turbo-superchargers. They both had them. PRTs are not even visible unless the cowling is off, they are very integral with the engine crankcase at the accessory section. Your remark that they are removed or wired off is consistent with the turbosuperchargers. "Fi-Fi" still has them but they are not normally used. They keep the grossweight low and avoid maintenance.

Ah, I was mistaken. I saw the turbo on the bottom of the cowling and thought that was a PRT.

You learn something new every day.
 
This from Randy Sohn re; PRTs on a B-29


no, never, they jsu tahd the plain ole 3350 with eitehr carbs and later fuel inecjections, latest figure for ovrhaul a 3350 is now 150M
best, randy

Some times Randy types like Stephen Hawkins speaks but I believe him. :)
~DC
 
USMCmech said:
I may be wrong, but I could have sworn that I saw a B-17 and a B-24 wiht PRTs. Thunderbird and Dimond Lil to be precise.

The B-29 and Connie definately did.

I've worked on Thunderbird, N900RW, for five years, and I can assure you that the R-1820-97 does not have power recovery turbines. They are Aireasearch turbo chargers, and they are functional. The Connie did not, but the Super Connie did.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom