I don't have any dates for these usages.
Edit: that p-47 powertrain is an absolute beast!
A Veyron engine puts out about half the HP using 17% of the displacement on worse gas. You can't even buy 130 octane gas anymore. The Veyron is a notorious fuel hog, but it has nothing on a twin Wasp radial.
That being said, modern metallurgy really revolutionized ICEs. Followed by computerized control.
This whole discussion makes me think what would a modern maxed out aircraft piston engine be like!
At least, that's what I found in brief investigations long ago when I was interested in the idea of a wankel rotary powered plane.
https://youtu.be/EyPvpdy4dgg?t=117
IIRC, piston speed was an issue in how fast these engines could run, as, for given RPM, the piston speed is proportional to the stroke. And, for reliability and the corresponding safety reasons, aero engines are more conservatively designed than most car engines.
Putting car engines into recreational aircraft has been popular over the years, but never really 'took off', with high failure rates from being run at consistent power levels way past their design goals. The best conversions are high displacement naturally aspirated engines that end up looking remarkably like the existing Lycoming/Continental aviation engine installations.
Not at 45,000’ altitude it doesn’t.
And that Veyron engine won’t be too happy running at 80+% of its rated power level for more than a few minutes at a time.
This is the part that a lot of people are unware of when it comes to engine power ratings --- aviation engines are designed to run at their rated power continuously, while most passenger car engines aren't. Even comparing a truck engine with the latter has people confused at why the power numbers seem so small both absolutely and relative to displacement. A 9L engine in a truck used for pulling semitrailers may make "only" 330HP, but it can do that continuously, and indeed will spend the majority of its life at or close to full throttle.
Towards the end of the war the Allies were using 115/145 in fighters for even more oomph.
As for fuel consumption, those WWII piston engines actually were quite efficient, look up BSFC numbers if interested. Fuel load and range were critical issues. It took many decades, energy crises and computer control for car engines to catch up.
> "turbine supercharger", whether driven by the crankshaft or by the exhaust.
made it sound like there's "crankshaft-driven turbine superchargers", which I stumbled over.
If you look at super chargers they're all some kind of pump driven by the mechanical energy directly from the crank. If this pump was a turbine, then you'd have a crankshaft driven turbine super charger.
So this is half of a modern turbocharger (the compressor) being driven by the crank rather than the exhaust gasses.
That's incorrect, a turbocharger has one turbine, and its driving counterpart is the impeller. That impeller/compressor is never referred to as a turbine. Turbines can only ever extract work from a fluid.
Superchargers as well as turbochargers also don't have pumps, those are machines for which the working medium is incompressible (water, ...; density is not a function of pressure, in "engineering precision"). If it is compressible, it's a compressor: it affects not only an increase in pressure but also in density.
A fan also works on compressible media but is only supposed to impose some velocity. For this, it necessarily also increases the medium's pressure, but to a low degree, such that (IIRC) changes in density are negligible.
Never is a strong word though and there are such things as turbine pumps which are not true turbines[0]. As far as I can tell they've never been used for engine applications.
Regarding pumps they operate on a fluid, of which air is definitely classed as. [1]
[0] https://www.globalspec.com/learnmore/flow_transfer_control/p...
But I'm posting this to say thank you, I was completely unaware of this detail. In my mind, and likely in GP's mind, the term pump was characterized by the piston principle, not by the medium. And I realize now that the "pumps for air" incorrectness is much less common in English than in German (my home language).
Apparently in engineering German the distinction is exactly the same as in English, but it's completely absent from common usage. German never even adopted a verb for high pressure inflation that is not derived from pump. Other than that, the terms pump and Pumpe are extremely similar in English and in German, which is unlikely due to common Germanic roots but because of something much more recent. I suspect nautical terminology which must have been a strong language unifier before navies became a key element of national separation.
This means there are not two distinct binary categories of pump or compressor that these things can be neatly classified as. This is compounded a little as fluids are often erroneously thought of as only incompressible fluids like water without realising it's a much bigger category.
Due to my brainfart regarding turbines, I assumed the GP had misunderstood the mechanism of action so I used the simpler word pump to explain. It is not incorrect to describe the action of a turbocharger as pumping more air into the cylinder, especially in my native dialect of English.
Agurk has a point as well.
All I know and was saying that in my field (engineering thermodynamics... in some sense the field on this topic), people feel very strongly about "compressor -> compressible fluid" and "pump -> incompressible fluid" (and the "fan" stuff).
A crankshaft driven supercharger doesn't need a turbine (a device that extracts power from a fluid), only an impeller (the opposite).