Timeline for Are WWII turbochargers reliable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26, 2019 at 10:33 | comment | added | Hobbes | Early turbojet engines (which also have turbines running in hot exhaust gases) were very unreliable and had short lifetimes (on the order of 10 hours between rebuilds for early Me-262, IIRC), so expecting something similar for turbochargers is not unreasonable. | |
| Jan 25, 2019 at 9:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAviation/status/1088723286282903552 | ||
| Jan 25, 2019 at 4:03 | history | edited | Vikki |
Tagging.
|
|
| Jan 21, 2019 at 3:40 | history | edited | Meatball Princess | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 20, 2019 at 23:55 | answer | added | John K | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 20:40 | comment | added | Rainer P. | Note that many WWII turbochargers didn't have automatic waste gates. Pilot error could damage the turbocharger and/or engine. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 20:10 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | If you add more parts, you add more opportunities for failure. Also, raising the pressure level increases loads on most parts of an engine. So yes, adding a turbocharger, even a modern one, will certainly lower reliability. Supercharging is less efficient, but much less complex than turbocharging an engine. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 18:08 | history | edited | Meatball Princess | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 236 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2019 at 18:01 | history | asked | Meatball Princess | CC BY-SA 4.0 |