Also Truboprop is diffrent the Trubofan which is a jet engine.
This isn’t a turboprop but a radial engine with turbo-compound attachment. That doesn’t make it a turboprop. Both radial and turboprop are completely different designs and don’t share commons.
Wright Duplex Cyclone is fundamentally a radial engine due to having cylinders and moving pistons on the crankshaft that perform internal combustion. It has a turbo-compound attachment that simply recovers energy from the exhaust gases and feeds directly into the output shaft to increase the total power delivered by the engine.
On the other hand, the turboprop engine doesn’t have cylinders and moving pistons on the crankshaft. It’s replaced by a compressor that combusts the incoming air through the engine. It doesn’t recover the exhaust gases.
3 Likes
What? I can’t tell what you’re saying with your broken english.
Fine tell me how an internal combustion engine that drive a crank shaft that then drives a propeller that then is angled at about 15 degrees to pull air to cause forward moment so that it can gain the speed to cause the air pressure on top of the wing to be less then the air under the wing therefore causing lift is the same as a engine that uses hot gases to spin a turbine that is then cause the host cause while still using combustion mind you to use the hot gases as thrust is the same as the pervious engine called Prop engine and the latter a Turbofan jet engine.
…You’re the one making that claim?
Okay here was my thought process with that because both where setup in a circular formation I thought there was not much of a change there for a Turboprop could look more like a radial engine which both need a circular piece to act as the turbine so I though the Curtiss just had a really big one to get more power out of it at the cost of fuel also technicalities yes the Wright super cyclone is a turbo-charges prop engine.
Technically, yes, but there is a difference between a turbocharger and a turbo-compound system that I’d like to add.
A turbo-compound engine has an exhaust-driven turbine mechanically connected to the engine’s crankshaft. This recovers energy from the exhaust gases and directly converts it into additional power for the engine, resulting in improved fuel efficiency and greater overall power output.
On the other hand, a turbocharger uses an exhaust-driven turbine to power a compressor that forces more air into the engine’s intake. While this increases the volume of air and more fuel burned, it outputs more power indirectly, rather than converting exhaust energy directly into mechanical power.
In short, the turbo-compound system directly adds to the engine’s power output by harnessing exhaust energy, while the turbocharger primarily enhances the engine’s performance by compressing more intake air.
Therefore, I would classify the Wright Duplex Cyclone as a turbo-compound radial engine.
I should mention and clarify that the turbo-compound system was never implemented in the XP-62’s engine. Instead, the turbo-compound system for the Wright Duplex Cyclone was developed and utilized in civilian airliners after World War II.
That’s irrelevant. A turboprop MUST have a jet engine, and a radial piston engine can’t.
1 Like
…just another plane ugly as hell.
No offense, but even the Swiss EKW C-36 is a real beauty compared to this thing.
I don’t understand you guys - the US offers so much visually attractive aircraft - and you manage to dig out the exact opposite.
Ofc i voted no. Not only from an aesthetic pov - the plane itself is neither a milestone nor interesting from a technical / engineering perspective.
Biw:
There was a reason why the USAAF had no “real” high alt fighters with wing mounted cannons. Try to find combat reports of low altitude “P-51 Cannonstangs” in US service - their license built 20 mm sucked; the Brits replaced those US built cannons in their deliveries with local production…
Because it’s cool. Also plenty of good lookers like the XP-40Qs have been suggested already.
1 Like
No offense taken. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and what you said doesn’t affect me in the slightest. I’d like to point out that nearly all US fighters and interceptors from the WWII era have already been suggested. The XP-62, however, hasn’t been brought up on this forum yet, which is why I’m making this suggestion. Personally, I enjoy researching and suggesting US aircraft regardless of whether they are subjectively considered visually appealing or not. :)
Exactly. There are plenty of visually appealing US aircraft already listed in the pinned List of Previously Suggested Ideas - USA Aircraft post. I’ve already suggested the XP-40Q-2A Warhawk.
If you’re looking for more visually attractive US aircraft, here are some other suggestions I’ve made that you might find interesting:
- P-40N-5 Warhawk
- FM-2 Wildcat
- P-51B-5 w/ Malcolm Hood
- FG-3 Corsair
- P-63D Kingcobra
- F8F-2 Bearcat
- Boeing XF8B-1
- Curtiss XP-46
- Curtiss XP-60E
- Curtiss YP-60E
- Northrop XP-61E
- XP-67 Moonbat
…and many more. You can find a full list on the pinned post.
That said, if you still don’t find these appealing or interesting, even from a technical or engineering perspective, that’s totally fine. At the end of the day, it’s all a matter of personal opinion.
2 Likes