Timeline for Why don't piston engines require as heat resistant materials as jet engines?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2020 at 12:19 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @RobertDiGiovanni: Yes, good point. Especially the turbo-compound engines look thermodynamically like jets with a discontinuous combustion process. However, super- or turbocharging rarely went above 1.5:1 (at sea level), on engines which sported 8:1or less initially. Near the engine's critical altitude this could reach 8:1, but total pressure and cylinder wall heating was still restricted. | |
| Aug 15, 2020 at 10:26 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Aug 15, 2020 at 6:34 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Aug 15, 2020 at 6:05 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 775 characters in body
|
| Aug 15, 2020 at 0:00 | comment | added | Robert DiGiovanni | Though we have wandered a bit from "why don't piston engines require as heat resistant materials as jet engines" to "much better to build them with heat resistant materials, and make them turbines", this has been very informative. Would you consider including the turbo compresser in piston engines when comparing with jets? I have read that jets get 1:50 "at the top of their climb, going to cruise" (in much thinner air). How would this compare with a supercharged piston engine? | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 19:30 | history | answered | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |