Engine technology free-for-all

[wuzak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLRLhZJsCh4

Sounds pretty good.

[J.A.W.]

& for those who like checking out dyno charts, here is a line-up of classic early `70s 'super' bikes..

http://www.kawtriple.com/mraxl/articles ... bikes2.htm

[J.A.W.]

Triple DCOE Webers on Hemi 6 really.. ..ah.. ..suck.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmLOB6TeiVA

[gruntguru]

Problems were mostly about execution rather than the H-16 concept.

[J.A.W.]

Problems were mostly about execution rather than the H-16 concept.

If by 'execution' G-G - you mean certain operatives involved might have been more motivated to get it working well..
..with the prospect of 'execution' for failure - per Stalin, then you're quite likely correct..

Seems neither of the BRM 16cyl F1 - mechanical marvels - actually achieved their paper promise..
Too fat, fickle, fiddly, & fettle hungry, AFAIR..

[gruntguru]

Just trying to separate the design flaws (especially camshaft drives) from the H16 layout Per-se.

[J.A.W.]

Fair enough G-G, seems there was an inordinate amount of 're-inventing the wheel' going on,
rather than adopting proven solutions - which were readily available.. ..NIH syndrome?
& harmonic issues do often come in to play - too, including the BRM H16.

Another example.. .. the 120`triple bank Napier Lion mill worked well,
but adding another bank to form an X configuration never seemed to..

Multiples of 3 seem compatible in many combinations - but 4 - not so much..

[J.A.W.]

Re: the R-R Vulture X-24..
Pretty sure the AirMin/MAP made the cancellation call.. ..although R-R knew it needed the chop..
Certainly the heavy duty work in hauling big bombers off the deck at max take-off weight was the Vulture big-end killer,
& as you correctly point out Wuzak, the Tornado did not punish its Vulture as much..

Maybe R-R did the sums & figured there was more 'commercial viability' in making/selling 2 Merlins for 1 Vulture..
& were prepared to try & outflank the loss of engine production for Tornados by pushing Griffon Spits..

[wuzak]

No, it was Rolls-Royce, in particular Earnest Hives, that wanted the Vulture cancelled. They also wanted the Peregrine, Exe and Crecy cancelled, but theAir Minstry insisted they continue with the Crecy.

The main outstanding issue with the Vulture was the connecting rod set-up - master and slave rods, like a radial. This was weak and needed redesign and development. That was time and effort that RR could ill-afford during the early years of WW2.

Development of all Rolls-Royce engines, bar the Merlin, was suspended during the Battle of Britain. Even the Griffon.

FWIW, the Vulture managed 2500hp on the test bed before it was cancelled in 1941.

[wuzak]

And the Vulture wasn't the last X engine that Rolls did. In 1944 they developed the Pennine, with a view to the post war transport market. It was air cooled, sleeve valved and made 2800hp from 2800ci (ie the same as the ultimate war time developments of the R-2800).

[J.A.W.]

AirMin & MAP were obviously sufficiently unimpressed with the Vulture ( & every other R-R X-mill effort)
to sanction their cancellation, & in-fact none of R-R's unconventional engines made the cut..
.. regardless of any academic ex-post-facto announcements of ultimate technical success..
.. which were perhaps/likely produced by R-R as face-saving P-R hype..

Real pity about the Crecy though, its chances really were cruelled by the gas-turbine, like all hi-po piston aero-mills..

[TurboLag]

The Lotus 43 an the BRM H16.

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/ ... 7vf7wu.jpg

What's with the presence of oil on the two lower exhausts?

Drive shaft seals maybe?

[J.A.W.]

The Lotus 43 an the BRM H16.

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/ ... 7vf7wu.jpg

What's with the presence of oil on the two lower exhausts?

Drive shaft seals maybe?

Sure looks like something flung out of the trans.. ..& wonder how much went down on the track?

[gruntguru]

This final piston design built by R-R, a real aero-monstrosity - burned petrol at 342 imp gal/hr at take off rating..
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00626.html

Thanks JAW. The article mentions Corliss Valve as a means of intake throttling. More efficient than a butterfly valve. Do you have any good links/diagrams describing the Corliss Valve as an ICE throttle. (I did find many references to variable cutoff steam engines.)

The article makes me wonder about the point of RR attempting to build a better Sabre. I know competition is good, but surely the war effort would have been enhanced if RR could have put all their effort into Merlin and Griffon while assisting Napier with supercharger design and airscrew availability. (Same goes for Bristol and sleeves). What a beast the Sabre might have been with 2 stage SC, contra-rotating prop and accelerated development to the state of reliability it eventually enjoyed.

[J.A.W.]

Yeah G-G, it sure does look like a case of "can't beat 'em - join 'em".. ..as for better, if by bigger.. no it was not better..
& again R-R stuck with their simplistic conservative approach, missing the subtle sophistications which the Sabre used,
I.E. the crankshaft coupling spur gear/simultaneous firing harmonics pitfall - was avoided in the superficially similar Napier.

The Sabre ran so smoothly that the later marks deleted the full crankshaft counterbalance set up..
.. whereas the Eagle required crank harmonics-quelling add-ons.

Sorry - I don't have any specifics on the reasons for choice of Corliss throttle in this machine ..
.. perhaps there is something on the matter in R-R heritage archives? A Hooker innovation?
Member Wuzak seems to have a fair sort of data set on R-R stuff, perhaps he knows?

There were unfulfilled plans for Chrysler corp to build Sabres to fit Bell made Hawkers at one stage,
& no doubt those Mopar production engineers would've sorted out a viable mill, & likely fit a turbo, too.