intercooler leak noise
intercooler leak noise Related Articles
Leaked: Check out the 2020 (G30) BMW 5 Series facelift in M Sport trim
Yet another leak after the BMW iX3.
Is synthetic engine oil bad for older cars?
And the topic of leaks mainly concerns the seals of your engine.Not you.Q: What causes the leak?
Leaked: 2022 Honda Civic FE to retain the same 1.5L VTEC Turbo
of the leaked Chinese-spec Civic variantsHowever, following last week’s Chinese-spec variants leak
Tom's tunes 2020 Toyota GR Supra and Toyota Century
The Supra gets a new turbo, intercooler and an ECU tweak among other mods to bump the power up from 335
How quiet and comfortable is the 2021 Perodua Ativa?
NVH stands for Noise, Vibration, and Harshness – a term we use to interpret the refinement of a
Owner Review: From touge monster to highway cruiser - My Volkswagen Golf GTI MK6
Oil leak and Coolant is normal for any car above 5 years as the rubber or casket become harden so do
Check these four fluids before you drive
If you see the levels dropping, best get it checked out by a professional - it could be a leak somewhere.That
Man saves total stranger’s Mazda RX-7 from getting swept away in a flood
a safer location.It was later learned that the RX-7 was left in the casino parking lot because of a leak
Spyshot: Daihatsu Thor seen in Malaysia, what is it doing here?
we gathered, the cooler mounted on the front of this particular Daihatsu Thor is more likely to an intercooler
Top Rank: What is the quietest C-seg SUV on sale in Malaysia?
Mitsubishi Outlander 2.0L Speed (km/h) Noise level (dB) 0 (with A/C on) 45.5 60
Used car shopping: 6 tips for checking the engine
It could be a head gasket leak.5. Let the engine idle1,500 rpm is a high engine idling speed.
The Daihatsu Rocky is more expensive than the Toyota Raize, why?
The cooler mounted on the front of this particular Daihatsu Thor is likely an intercooler for a turbocharged
Spied: Kia Sonet testing ahead of global debut
autonetmagz.com, we could see that the Sonet’s overall proportions and camouflage is akin to this leak
Used car buying guide: ZC21 Suzuki Swift – Which variant to get, what to look out for
life-threatening, the Suzuki Swift’s steering rack has a nasty habit of developing an annoying knocking noise
China's Geely Binyue (Proton X50) now comes with selectable exhaust noise modes
Leaked: Patent images of next gen 2022 Honda Civic Sedan
Following yesterday’s leak of the new generation 2022 Honda Civic Hatchback, we now have images
Here’s how to correctly inflate your tyres
tyre pressure drops significantly every 2 weeks, it might be a sign that your tyres have a potential leak
The all-new 2020 Nissan Almera’s engine has something lifted from the R35 GT-R!
, the all-new Nissan Almera also features an electronic wastegate that reduces turbo lag and an air intercooler
Spied: 2020 Volkswagen Tiguan facelift coming soon?
Simply put - why would a company CEO purposely leak out a model way before the physical model is out
Deal breakers: Honda CR-V – love its practicality and fuel economy, not its cabin noise
At 110 km/h we measured the CR-V’s cabin’s noise level at 70 dB, versus the Proton X70 (CBU
intercooler leak noise Post Review
Diesel Racer - Hissing noise.... intercooler leak?: Has anyone experienced a hissing noise from the fr.. http://bit.ly/6iUI81
intercooler leak noise Q&A Review
Do you think putting an electric turbo and intercooler in a computer would work?
Well it won't really because a electric turbo is basically a fan which will blow air with a lot of noise. Instead use a cooler master or corsair or noctua fans for air flow, these fans are designed for computer cooling at low noise. As far as intercooler is concerned it is designed to cool the compressed air, it won't make a difference if you pass the air through this before it enters the computer because you are basically pushing ambient temp. Air which is in your room, if you don't use the intercooler still you will be pushing the same temp. Air which is in your room. Now if you are thinking if you can modify the intercooler for water loop purposes it may work, but their is more danger of leaking, rusting and galvanic corrosion as the intercooler is not designed for that. You will be much better off with a watercooler from the mentioned brands above.
Who had the advantage in the Battle of Britain?
Some fine general answers here, so I’ll just mainly focus on one element in this crucial battle, and kick the living’ crap outta the piss-poor, but still legendary Messerschmidt Bf 109. I won’t go into it’s abysmally poor fuel-carrying capabilities allowing them only a few minutes of fight time at full War Emergency Power, (WEP) an American term, not German, BTW, over the combat zones, that dumped so many precious and well trained, (some since Spain in ‘36) German pilots in the Channel or British POW camps…which alone won the BoB for England. Or how it was hampered in the Battle of Britain escorting German medium bombers by the foolish combat restrictions, not it’s fault… But I will share a couple of insights from my 25 years as a professional military artist where I worked in the WWII Aircraft/AFV world that might be interesting or fun and personally knew a top Spitfire and a top 109 pilot who flew in the BoB: BUT, DISCLAIMER: If you are a huge Bf 109 fan, you might want to move on or stick your fingers in your ears and make Daimler Benz noises: (Above: Here come the negative waves about the Bf 109:) (Above: The #1 killer in military aviation history., but… ) If we are talking air to air victories, then it isn’t even close, the Bf 109 was the greatest killer in history: “The Bf 109 was credited with more aerial kills than any other aircraft.”-Wiki “Moreover, the ubiquitous Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.”-Historynet. The Messerschmidt Bf 109, flying for many different airforces from 1936 and soldiering on till the mid-1960’s, with a possible tally some (not myself) say might reach as high as 50,000 Allied aircraft destroyed. Very doubtful. But the numbers must be quite high. How high is very difficult to say as numbers vary widely just as accurate Luftwaffe losses also vary from different sources and the Soviet Union/Russia has always been very evasive about any kind if WWII loses, men or equipment. Food for thought though: just the top three German aces of WWII, Hartmann, 352 kills, Barkhorn, 301 and Rall, 275, who I personally was friends with, had a combined score of 928 kills… Just these three German aviators… And… “It is relatively certain that (at least) 2,500 German fighter pilots attained ace status, having achieved at least 5 aerial victories.”-Wiki 50,000? It’s possible, I guess, but no one I ever met in my 25 years in the business ever really knew for sure, and I think a much more reasonable 20,000+, but who really knows…. Here’s one interesting resource some might want to look at: But that it shot down more aircraft does that make it the “greatest” fighter aircraft in history? Many criteria decide that and the Bf 109’s huge list of negatives does NOT point toward that lofty ranking, in my mind, not even close. Many constantly sing its praises, and its service was spectacular, but here’s a couple of insights I learned from working in the WWII aircraft/AFV world as a professional military Arts for 25 years, to play “Devil’s Advocate”: The BF 109 was designed in the early ‘30’s and was very advanced for its time, but had some extreme design flaws, and I’m not even talking about it’s terribly low fuel capacity everyone knows about, (demonstrated so graphically in the Battle of Britain,) it’s inability to carry any kind of a significant bomb load, making it a terrible ground-attack aircraft, or with it’s small fuselage that made it a poor photo-recon ship, and hard to keep upgrading, (the G model had so many sheetmetal blisters it was nicknamed “the bulge,) and its atrocious low-speed handling under 250kph, (made significantly worse if you added any extra weight: bombs, drop tanks). RANT: The most important element of a great fighter aircraft is, of course, a well trained, motivated, hunter in the cockpit. And for the aircraft, itself, Versatility is *the* key, something the 109 had none of. Single mission speciality was fine for bombers and cargo planes but fighters needed to be ready to perform well at a number of different tasks, chiefly but in no specific order: #1. Ground attack, #2. Photo recon, #3. Air to air, #4. Bomber Escort capabilities. For instance the P-47, greatest fighter in the ETO and likely the entire war could do it all: with its 8 .50s with 3400 rds and 2.4 ton bomb/rocket capacity, (2.4 Xs that of a more vulnerable/fragile water-cooled P-51,) and ruggedness made it the best ground attack aircraft of WWII, it’s huge fuselage to carry many and different cameras for a great photo recon, a great air superiority fighter that broke the back of the Luftwaffe and its “experten” pilots a full year before the P-51’s arrived in any numbers, and with it’s turbo-supercharged engine, the US’s greatest high altitude fighter, best diver of the war with it's electric dive brakes, tied with the FW 190 for best roller, (no, it could not turn with a 109, but the Hollywood images of the traditional “dogfight’ were NOT the preferred tactic after the BoB and the initial battles in the Far East with the Japanese Zeros. Hit and run ambush from height, energy, zoom and boom tactics were, and in that the P-47 excelled.) As Günther Rall and Erich Hartmann always taught, “Never Dogfight! If you find yourself dogfighting, you have made a major mistake!” Fastest piston powered aircraft by war’s end, made in the most numbers of any US fighter, best survivability per mission of the war, the exceptionally low rate of 0.7 per cent per mission, THE most important factor, as it’s rugged, air-cooled engine got the pilots home better than any other aircraft in WWII, and with drop tanks as good or better than the P-51 at escort missions. By war’s end the P-47N model was the premier escort fighter, with new wings, massive gas tanks, an autopilot, rear-warning radar and a cockpit like a Cadillac it could escort the B-29’s on the long missions to Japan and back. And it flew over 746,000 combat sorties, more missions than the P-51, P-40, and P-38…wait for it…*combined!* As a professional military artist I heard all the horror stories connected to this German aircraft from some of the best aviators in history including 109 pilots and Allied testers. Not name-dropping, I swear, but I personally knew “Corky” Meyer, Grumman and the US’s greatest civilian test pilot, Jeffrey Quill, THE top test pilot for the Spitfire, and Günther Rall, #3 ace of all time and others I never knew as friends but who were there and shared insights about its strength and weaknesses, in this answer/case some of the latter: (Above: For starters, just about the worst cockpit in aviation history.) The 109 had a horribly small and low cockpit. I once got to sit in a 109 *E*mile at Doug Champlin’s fighter museum in Arizona and it was like crouching in an Altoid box. Its tiny, low space made visibility terrible. That so many German aviators did so well in an aircraft clearly inferior to the FW190, is a bit of a mystery to me. One of the most important factors in combat is visibility. The vast majority of pilots never even see the guy who shoots them down. A lot of the game is keeping your eyes peeled, sweeping back and forth for targets, and making sure no one gets the jump on you. A lot of air combat comes down to a few crucial elements: see before being seen, kill before the enemy realizes he is dead, do NOT engage in any turning contests, keep your “energy’”(speed/momentum) up, protect your wingman, and, most importantly, come home alive. Not only was it low, uncomfortable, and at that time of the BoB, poorly heated at best and claustrophobic, it also confirmed what I had heard from another friend, Jeffrey Quill, the Spitfire’s top test pilot from ’38-on, after taking over from “Mutt” Summers, that the tiny cockpit confined the force that pilots could apply on the controls, with obvious effects on the 109’s flight performance. RAF testing in '46 revealed that under some conditions, the force its pilots could exert on the 109’s control column was only 40% of what they could equally apply in a Spitfire. In the time when hydraulically-boosted controls weren’t readily available, this was a major deficiency. The Spit’s two-step rudder pedals also permitted the pilot to lift his feet up during high-G maneuvering, delaying the onset of blackout. Unfortunately for the German pilots the 109 didn’t have those pedals. This was a major issue in the Battle if Britain, and an advantage to the Brits to offshoot the Spitfires’s famous carburettor problem. vs the 109’s superior fuel-injection. (Briefly, when the Spitfire went nose-down to begin a dive, the resulting ,negative G force, manoeuvre would flood the engine's ,carburettor,, causing the engine to stall. Check out the simple but brilliant fix here: Below some good images/models showing the terrible cockpit: The “bubble” canopies of the P-51 and the P-47, for instance, allowed pilots to sit in spacious, high, luxurious, well-heated, comfortable cockpits with maximum visibility as opposed to the Bf 109 where the pilot sat in a cramped, low, chilly, tiny cockpit, with miserable visibility. (Above: Cramped, low, cold.) When it comes too the two opposing engines, the Daimler Benz 601 and the Rolls Royce Merlin, both V-12 water-cooled designs, (although the DB 601 was inverted. A couple of reasons for this, to improve visibility of the already horrible cockpit, the inverted V made it more aerodynamic/slippery, for ease of maintenance access, [for example, changing the spark plugs on a 109 was a breeze, as the German ground crewman doesn't have to climb on a ladder, but can just stand on the ground,] less exhaust noise from the lower exhaust stacks, and inverted engines have a little bit less wear because upon start up, the cylinders have a bit better lubrication. This is because gravity causes oil to settle in the cylinder walls.) And as both were water-cooled, both were too fragile for combat duty, but I’m going to be mean and just pick on the DB engine: Its Daimler-Benz DB601/5 engines inverted V-12s were masterpieces of design and manufacture, but were the *worst* type of engine for actual combat. Like the Allison or Rolls Royce Merlins they were water-cooled and incredibly fragile; Just like your home car: if there was the tiniest leak/hit on any of its vulnerable radiators, (unfortunately exposed in it’s lower wing surfaces, although not quite as bad as the P-51’s huge belly scoop,) water jackets, pumps and hoses, it quickly expelled the coolant, the close tolerances would get *real* close and with a disconcerting CLANG the engine would seize up, turning your beautiful, graceful 109, P-51 or P-40 into a brick. (Give me a Pratt & Whitney R2800 air-cooled, radial engine with almost twice the HP of a Merlin that can literally have two complete cylinders shot away and *still* get me home, not dropped in The Channel or a POW camp, any day.) (Above: Daimler Benz DB 605- incredibly gorgeous, technically advanced…fragile as tissue paper. One tiny splinter of steel the size of a fingernail clipping, “golden BB”, anywhere in the water-cooling system and it’s ..,Farewell and adieu to you,, ,Spanish Ladies,…”) The technically advanced Bf 109’s DB 601/5 engines were designed to be removed as a one-piece unit from the firewall forward for ease of maintenance, *but* also because sometimes to ship back to Daimler and its factory techs/mechanics as the engine was very sophisticated and advanced, with very tight tolerances, not always a good thing, and on occasion the average, 19 year old, gum smackin’ German ground crews couldn’t do all the necessary work themselves in the field. The much simpler air-cooled BMW 801s (not to mention the P&W R2800s) were significantly easier to work on for the average crew member in combat conditions. But worst of all…and hang on to your hats, if you haven't heard about this…approximately 33,984 Bf 109s were built in total, more than any other fighter in WWII, in continuous manufacture from 1936–1945… …and possibly 33%, almost 11,000, crashed on mostly landings and takeoffs, but some taxiing, due to its insanely narrow landing gear geometry, with its gear and motors placed, not widely on its wings, but in its belly. (The Spitfire has a similar placement but a bit more forgiving geometry.) Most were not “totalled,” of course, being repaired to fly (and crash) again, but it killed or wounded thousand of precious young German pilots, lost not in combat, but often in training or landing accidents. The main repair issue was not just the gear but the engine damage when the prop “face-planted,” locked on the revving engine and ripped it’s internals apart. (For perspective: A Bf 109 approaches at 120 mph, and lands at about 105–110 mph. Ever been in a car crash at 110 mph? The harness safety system/padded dash/”airbags” of a 1941 Bf 109 were not quite as good as your family car in 2021, esp. if it flips. Thousands of pilots died or were injured.) Some say this is a myth, (“Butbutbut Joe “Nobody” Jones on Youtube says this is a lie!” Riiiiight.) Consider this: when some of the top German aces of all time, actual Messerschmidt factory designers and THE top two Allied test pilots of all time all say the same thing, it’s worth a bit more than a consideration, in my opinion. Both “Corky” Meyer and Capt Eric Brown published the story and as far as I know, nobody’s refuted it officially. “When the old dog growls, its best to look out the window.”-Old Norwegian proverb. Many claim this is an insane figure, but also for consideration of the German Engineering Philosophy: “If its worth designing, It’s worth OVER or UNDER designing.” About 60% of all Tiger tanks, perhaps 800 of the 1347 made, one of the biggest lemons of this or any war, were conveniently and courteously destroyed…by their own crews, because of their terrible initial design, horrible fuel consumption and basic engine/suspension/final drive unreliability…so maybe its not so crazy. Pray your enemy builds some of their main battle systems so poorly designed that they destroy themselves 33% and 60% of the time! “Corky” Meyer, Grumman’s top test pilot, who brought in the Hell/Bear/Tigercats and many of their jets, (bio below,) our greatest civilian test pilot who did THE workup baseline testing/comparison of all Allied fighters ((AMAZING reading!) and some Axis ones, first chosen to test the captured Zero, and later CEO and president of Grumman American, published in 2003 in his “Flight Journal”: “...11,000 of the 33,000 (109s) built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents...Chief aerodynamicist for the the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket fighter, (itself not exactly a paragon of safety and wisdom,) Josef Hubert (advising/working for Grumman after the war on their new jets)....told me that Willy Messerschmitt had adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109’s performance by adding the drag-producing wing-surface bumps and fairings that would have been necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry. This would have reduced its accident rate to within expected military-fighter ranges and made it a world standard!” -2003 August, Flight Journal, “The Best WWII Fighter” by “Corky” Meyer. (Above: In addition to its horrible gear geometry, the gear itself was built quite spindly and thin and apparently out of the same “Waterford crystal” the Tiger and Panther’s final drive gears were manufactured from ;-) (Above: Insane mathematics needlessly cost the lives and health of thousands of young German pilots.) And…Meyer sites a letter in 1980 written by Colonel Johannes “Macki” Steinhoff, 176 victories, #23 ace of all time, who mostly flew the 109 and then 262s and like Rall, was actually one of the very few who flew/survived the entire war, 1939–45, but terribly wounded, and with his face severely burned.: “He sent me a long letter relating that I should be sure of the absolute vertical alignment of the tailwheel; he also wrote that its inherently weak brakes should be in excellent condition because in WWII, the Luftwaffe lost 11,000 out of 33,000 Bf 109s to takeoff and landing accidents. Steinhoff directly attributed this terrible record to the bad geometry of the plane’s very unstable, splayed-out, narrow landing-gear configuration. In his letter, he said twice that if a German mechanic who really knew the Bf 109 wasn’t handy, I should *not* get into the cockpit.”-2000 Winter, Flight Journal Special Edition WWII Fighters, “The Bf 109′s Real Enemy Was Itself.”- by “Corky” Meyer Bf 109s always had a tendency to pull left, and the pilots, esp green ones, always had to be attentive for a burst of wind, bumps in the field, and esp. a surge of torque from the engine, (esp. the later more powerful 605s DB/DC engines with mods,) etc. and you better effin’ keep your foot right over the left pedal, covered and ready. Landings were much more difficult, esp. with fatigue, wounds, low fuel, etc. I talked with Mr. Rall, who adored his 109, about the narrow gear. He hesitated then: “…Very problematic, especially for young pilots without the necessary muscle-memory training.” This issue was also brought up once at Oshkosh when he gave one if the big tent talks. (Above: ,Günther Rall. “,During World War II Rall was credited with the destruction of 275 enemy aircraft in 621 combat missions. He was shot down five times and wounded on three occasions. Rall claimed all of his victories in a ,Messerschmitt Bf 109,.” -Wiki. I had the good fortune to meet him at the EAA FlyIn at Oshkosh one year when he was selling his ‘Flight Journal’ in the booth adjacent to mine where I was selling my art. We kept in contact until his death and he was a treasure trove of first hand experiences for me from the Battle of Britain, to Barbarossa, to Stalingrad and Kursk to Defence of the Rhine to what it was like being being shot down five times to meeting Hitler. Amazing man, and a true gentleman who fought from Day 1 in 1939 and yet somehow still survived, then worked for years training NATO pilots to fight the Soviets and won the respect and even deep friendship of this former adversaries. I asked him about flying in the Battle of Britain and the how he would rate the different pilots he faced and flew with. Not surprisingly he rated the initial German “experten” pilots with so much combat experience as the best, but their quality fell drastically from attrition esp against the Allies in ’43-mid ‘44, so that by D-Day the Germans were quite green with little fuel to train them. He rated the British pilots as the best of the Allies, also with the most combat experience, fighting since ‘39, the Americans a close second and the Soviets third. (above: Check out the tiny vs the wide stance form first the poorly designed Bf 109 above and then, below the magnificent Fw 190:) And then, from Eric Brown, THE top test pilot of all time who test flew a number of different 109 Marks… “,Captain, Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, ,CBE,, ,DSC,, ,AFC,, ,Hon FRAeS,, ,RN,[1], (21 January 1919 – 21 February 2016) was a Scottish ,Royal Navy,officer and ,test pilot, who flew 487 types of aircraft, more than anyone else in history.”-Wiki “But the Bf 109’s deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most…I felt certain, too, that the landing gear’s being slightly splayed outward aggravated the ground-looping tendency and contributed to the excessive tire wear and bursts. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn’t show any ground-looping propensities.” Brown went on to explain that high accident rates in 1939 resulted in a tailwheel lock being added to later models.-1999 December, Flight Journal, “Combat Warrior, The Historical View” by Captain Eric Brown, likely the best test pilot in history. (Bio below.) (Above: “Can you say: “Ground Loop?” I thought ‘cha could.”-Mr. Rodgers.) The 109 was a busy little “sports car,” a “race horse” that took expertise to fly it to its max, something many Luftwaffe pilots could do initially, flying all the way back to Spain learning all it’s little intricacies and tricks, but in their defeat at the Battle of Britain those wonderful ‘experten,’ ended up in the Channel or in English POW camps. Later models automated more functions, but it was still hard to fly well without vast expertise and practice, something the sometimes only 50-hour-trained German boys would never get, who became fodder for the experienced Allied aviators. Early models had a hard time keeping engine temp at the optimum, and early 109 pilots had to have been busier than one-armed paper hangers flying, fighting, adjusting radiator doors, etc. This was a complicated aircraft that reality needed to be *flown!* and the terrible toll of experienced pilots just got worse and s=worse as the war progressed. Another reason German should have phased it out and focused/built the much better, much easier to fly FW 190 series. One of the problems with the 109s was the constant upgrades necessary to try and keep this old aircraft even a bit competitive to the Allied fighters. Every aircraft was precious andl had to be kept flying. There were often so many different “M”odels, modifications, upgrades, etc, on a single field the ground crews couldn’t keep up with the staggering array of parts, factory bulletins, improvements, new parts, new maintenance routines, let alone the constant regular day-to-day maintenance to simply keep their crates in the air, let alone keep up with the factory upgrades. And the quality of the field maintenance suffered, not even counting the entire engines that had to be sent back to the factory for the most intricate work, and not even counting the continued deterioration of the German railroad system, likely German’s greatest weapon in WWII, that was being systematically destroyed, and unable to keep up with the constant stream of parts necessary to keep them all flying, competitively or not. *Above: “Let me tell ya, Willy, its the power plant of the future: It runs on peat moss!”) Not insignificantly, the quality of the German synthetic fuel and lubricants kept dropping in the successful Allied bombing efforts against it, not the Bf 109’s fault, but the significantly tighter tolerances of the water-cooled DB engines was majorly effected, but quite not so much as the looser mechanical tolerances of the far superior BMW 801 air-cooled engines. The BF 109 was an outstanding aircraft but starting with the battles against the Spitfires, and as the war progressed, it suffered one great, almost insurmountable, weakness compared to the British and American aircraft it battled against: it was significantly slower. The DB 601, esp., was just never able to run at the higher horsepower levels that the Allies could. And there are many reasons for this: from supercharger gearing to intake manifold pressures to octane ratings to levels of tuning and too many more to get into on this broad answer. Most of it’s combat advantages and subtleties were lost to the new batch of poorly trained pilots that were being fielded. From mid 1944 on, the Bf 109’s in any configuration or variant, increasingly became fast moving “fawns” to the Spitfires, P-51s and P-47 “wolves.” The final “K” 109 models were, as a testament to some brilliant German engineering, for a change, much faster, but still came too late in the game and again were in the hands of third-rate pilots/boys. A major part of this speed deficiency, besides the Allied advantages in fuel octane allowing significant higher manifold pressures, was it’s supercharger: a brilliant 2-stage supercharger (perhaps the greatest advantage over the significantly better Fw 190 giving better performance at higher altitude until the FW 190D models,) which, as good as it was, couldn’t compete with the P-47’s huge turbo-supercharged R2800 and the P-51’s DUAL superchargers. The 109’s DB 605 engine was significantly bigger in displacement (32%) than the Rolls Royce Packard-built Merlin, but the P-51s had two superchargers attached: one feeding the engine and one feeding the other supercharger. And there were two main version of the Merlin 1650: the -7 version was geared so its supercharger drive speed would be optimal at War Emergency Power (WEP)with 130 octane fuel qt 6200 feet with the supercharger in low speed and at 19,300 feet in high speed. (The -7 is the Merlin typically quoted for HP numbers.) This version was not optimal for escorting high altitude bombers at 25,000 feet so another Merlin version, the -3 which had different supercharger drive ratios which changed the shaft speed. The -3 engine actually has less power overall but gives it more power at 17,000 feet and 28,800 feet at high speed. And the 109 G’s starts running out of steam at 18,800 feet that’s a huge advantage for the P-51. The -3 has 1720 HP won 120 octane fuel vs 1595 for the -7 but its a question of where that power is *available.* Laymen sometimes just look at raw data, who’s got the most, biggest, etc. but don't understand the practical application of the numbers and their often subtle nuances in real life performance. When I was drag racing motorcycles, for instance, you don't just look at sheer horsepower, but the transmission/clutch, quality of the tires and skill of the rider. Too much horsepower and sometimes you can’t “get it to the road”, an you waste it spinning your tires. Many P-51’s were retrofitted with the -3 supercharger kits giving less overall HP but more where they needed it at high altitudes. Another big issue was that the P-51s Merlin had an aftercooler, a liquid to air heat exchanger that cools the hot air coming out if the superchargers, similar to modern liquid to air intercoolers found on high performance cars today. The after cooler adds power into ways: first it increases the density of the charge by cooling it, and second, it reduces the tendency to knock allowing greater manifold pressure. So the 109 did NOT have dual stage superchargers, the first feeding the engine and the second feeding the first supercharger. And it did NOT have an aftercooler. (Here’s where Willy Messerschmidt additionally screwed up on the initial design: by designing it a such a little “racehorse,” the size of the 109 was so small, the fuselage was so tight, it had very little room for the modifications it needed to stay competitive from 1936 -1945. Folks not in the know deride the huge P-47 for its huge size not understanding the incredible advantages of the bigger fighter beyond the fact that enemy projectiles had to travel through significant amounts of steel to hit anything vital: it had room inside for significantly more ammo, cameras and to continue to upgrade it as the war and technology progresses. (Above: A huge reason the P-47 had the best survival rate of any aircraft in WWII: its size and strength.) Add to that the Allies 130 octane fuel vs the German’s 95 and there is a huge advantage in speed of 40–60 mph. It is also a testament this time to German engineering that the D 605 was even as close to the the Merlin as it was, but also remembering it did have 32% more displacement. And then near mid 1944, the Allies/ fuel octane jumped up to and became standard at 150, another significant advantage. Was this significant? A P-51 that had run at 67 inches manifold pressure at WEP on 130 octane could now run at 75 inches on 150 octane. (A note on War Emergency Power: its a throttle setting. At full throttle the P-51, for instance is running at 61 inches of manifold pressure, but if the pilot needs an extra burst of power… (Above: P-51 throttle.) (Above: P-51 throttle.) …he pushes the throttle forward hard, it will break a “stop wire” and go farther forward and deliver either 67 or 75 inches of manifold pressure depending on which setup/fuel which gave the pilot 5 minutes at WEP. After debriefing each pilot had to log the minutes under WEP and after 50 hours of WEP the engine was removed, and disassembled looking for signs of extra wear. (The P-47′s incredibly tough air-cooled R2800 engines could run much longer and harder on WEP and with significantly less wear.) Also WEP did nothing for Allied fighters below 5000 feet. At higher altitude, however the increase in HP was between 100–150 HP. additionally the P-51’s Merlin also could rev higher that the 109s DB 605, 3000 rpm vs 2700 rpm. There trick for fighting a P-51/P-47 was to fight it at less than 20,000 feet, and the German pilots were taught to bring the fight down to lower levels if possible where it was more agile…but the P-51 and esp the P-47 were better divers, so that was tricky also as the German pilots were steadily getting greener and the U.S. pilots were getting better. The Germans were also in a terrible disadvantage in the quality of their fuel, much of it synthetic. Allied aircraftT used 100/130 octane avgas vs their 87 octane. A must-read is about Eugene Houdry and Alex Golden Oblad, two unsung heroes of the battle of Britain and WWII itself, and their work on a chemical catalyst process for the Sun Oil Company, now Sunoco, which converted almost useless crude oil/sludge into 100-octane fuel that America gave England to replace the standard European 87 octane fuel just before the Battle of Britain and helped increased the Spitfire's speed by 25 mph at sea level by 34 mph at 10,000 feet, a not inconsiderable advantage against the 109s. Connected to my paragraph above about the significant speed deficiency of the 109 to esp p-47s and P-51s, being more and more on the defensive as the war progressed, for example, the German ground crew’s ability to specifically fine-tune and optimise the 109’s manifold pressures to a specific altitude for maximum power was lost to the “REactive/defensive” position vs the allied “ACTion”/offensive moves, where the British and American ground crews were able to fine-tune their Spitfires, P-51 and P-47s for maximum power knowing at approximately what altitude their pilots would be flying their missions at. The 100/130 avgas allowed the US planes to run “hotter” manifold pressures, and have considerable power/speed advantages. This one-down position of the Luftwaffe, esp. the 109s, was another distinct disadvantage. The Germans kept trying to replace the 109 but without success. Why they didn't gear their entire production capabilities towards the far superior and newer Fw190 series that was far easier to upgrade then the tired-out 109 is testimony more to Willy Messerschmidt’s good status with Hitler than the aircraft’s basic abilities, now stale, and their poor long-range strategic manufacturing planning, also reflected in the incredibly poor but horribly expensive “performance” of the Tiger (and then to a bit lesser extent with the Panther tank) series and how they were insanely committed to it for years with vast amounts of wasted resources, (i.e. massive “Sunk Cost Mentality”: “Hey, We’ve already put this much wasted effort and a zillion Reichsmarks into these sweaty turkeys, we can’t quit now!”) again connected to Hitler’s hard-on for “super-weapons”, gigantic artillery pieces, ridiculous Maus AFVs, resource stealing V-Weapons, and a never-ending array of amazing but unbuildable aircraft, stunning designs beyond their time, but impractical in the very limited time/resources/alloys/fuel that a losing Germany was facing. Endless expensive mechanical manifestations of the “Get Rich Quick Scheme-Miracle War Winning Zuper-Veapons!” As Dr. Phil would have said, “How’s that workin’ for you?” BIG EDIT: In the hands of an “experten” who knew and could utilise its abilities and quirk and deal with its weaknesses, it was a true killer, a “racehorse,” but as those pilots and their expertise died, so did its effectiveness. The only way the Germans could increase the G models to compete with the allies they *had* to increase the manifold pressures and created the MW (methanol-water) 50 system which is a methanol-water injection system, using a 22.5 gallon tank (85 liter) behind the cockpit and running a line to to the engine, ridiculously simple, and with it the G14 model could run 51 inches of manifold pressure making 1775 Hp, up 300 hp of the older G6 Models, running 42.5 inches of manifold pressure, giving the G14 a top speed of 413 mph, (and a high altitude version the G14 As, which had it’s supercharger optimised for fighting up high, with a top speed of 422 mph.) It could be used for 30 minutes total, only ten minutes at a time, with a 3 minute cool-down period between each. Again not as fast as the P-51Ds but at least the Mustangs could not so easily escape the fight at will against the slower G4s. That the K model was so fast was a true burst of engineering brilliance from the German designers/engineers, esp with the MW 50 methanol-water injection that was incredibly simple, but wasted on the green pilots. Maybe 500 K’s were made, about half were destroyed before they even flew, and the K4 was the best of them all, 2000 hp, 452 mph the only one that was a bit faster than a P-51D, (447–425 mph) but in the hands of a rare surviving expert, was very dangerous. It was pretty hopeless for the Germans by that time. Part of the increased speed was the very limited amounts of the new C3 fuel with 100 octane rating (vs their usual B4 synthetic fuel with 87 octane, which, BTW, with the MW system on the G14s, raise the octane of the 87 fuel to 100, just by itself from the anti-knock function of the water.) But here's the thing, the Germans *had* the technology for the MW 50 system back in 1940, but never utilised it! Imagine if they had used it on the old E models in the Battle of Britain in 1940 (and the Fw190s set up in 1941), increasing the 109’s HP by an extra 200–300, it could have made things very tough for the British. So if the 109, magnificent in the ‘30’s, ran out of steam in the ‘40’s, how could it have shot down more enemy aircraft than any other design? Because it was made in greater numbers than any other fighter of WWII and it’s pilots were initial simply the best. Even when it couldn’t compete head to head with the Spitfires, P-51s and P-47s there were still some German “experten” flying. As they rapidly were killed, the 109 started killing so many of its own green pilots in landing/take-off accidents due to the terrible gear geometry, and at the hands of the cadre of great new allied pilots. Thanks for reading my rant. Big thanks to ‘Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles’ on Youtube. Bios and more info/photos just below: BTW, If you're interested, here’s some of my art from a long dead website including art of Hartmann’s last 109K.
Any ideas what might cause a whistling sound and loss of power in an Audi A3 1.9 TDI?
Turbo, or dump valve failing most likely. Has the default settings been altered? Raised turbo pressure can cause a rupture that makes the noise louder as the pressure builds up when the turbo spools up, hence the loss of power. Check all fittings, and also the turbo itself. The intercooler could also be the cause but less likely. Don’t drive the car at all preferably, or at least stay below 2500 rpm (diesel rpm redline is usually lower than gasoline car rpm’s 4500 vs 6500) as the turbo effect comes around a third or halfway towards redline, so staying under is a must if it leaks pressure. Buy a diagnostic tool and get it checked or take it to the repair shop before you have a complete turbo spool failure on your hands. Naturally aspirated is the way to go, or compressor if you insist on giving your engine breathing help :)
Why does my supercharger hiss and not whine?
Right, as said in the comments above, I’d have a gander on the interwebz. I’m back now, and as such, the commodore does have a clear whiney sound when it spins up on boost, which is going to be drowned out by an air leak. An airleak, even a small one is coming out at greater pressure than atmospheric so it is going to hiss or whistle. You want to look at the possibility of an airhose leak first, and then if all the hoses are okay, you may have a manifold d leak, or a structural leak. You need soap bubbles my friend if it is a small leak, as it will take ages to find if it is one of those tiny little hissy noises; I don’t know how much hissing it is making. If it’s making enough hissing to drown out the whining sound, which isn’t that loud anyway, then I’ll put loney on the dingo’s nose that it’ll be the main tube that comes off the ‘charger and feeds the engine with the pressurised air. If you have an intercooler on it, it may be one of those pipes. If it really isn’t a tube, then you’ll be looking to see if the gasket between the blower and the manifold hasn’t blown out. A big leak will show up in the performance of the car. Under load, the air is hot as it comes out of the blower, I can’t remember how hot, but if you are looking for leaks under boost conditions you might want to watch out for that, I used to build and repair and test industrial roots blowers and the air leaks could get quite warm. Which is why you might want to use bubblz! Let us know if you find it, with this advice alone, if not we’ll have to think about other stuff, like the seals on the blower itself, front and back. You should be able to even see those as there will be some kind of marking on the car where the dust has either accumulated, or been blown away, kind of like oil in a turbo leak that sprays out in one place, giving you a better clue. Have fun.
HOME