# WI The Rolls Royce Vulture is a success



## fastmongrel (Aug 10, 2011)

We probably all know the story of the RR Vulture and the fact that it was initially unreliable and was discontinued just as RR were getting the problems sorted. Rolls-Royce Vulture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the Vulture had been successful from the beginning or RR had the time and resources to throw at it and develop it with cylinders heads and superchargers like the Merlin could it have been a major engine in WWII. Just by doing some sums on the back of an envelope a 42 litre Vulture giving the same power per litre as a Merlin 60 series is going to give approx 2,300hp in 1943.

I like the idea of squadrons of Hawker Tornadoes Hawker Tornado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaand there reliable Vulture 60 engines blasting there way across Europe. High altitude versions operating as long range fighters and low level fighter/bombers with cropped impellors tearing up the German army. The Avro Manchester Avro Manchester - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia could be the RAFs premiere twin engine daylight medium bomber and long range coastal command aircraft. The Lancaster (similar in size to the real life Lincoln) with its 4 high altitude Vultures would be a difficult target for a LW night fighter to catch.

Okay forget about the above stream of fantasy  how could a reliable and powerful Vulture help the allies what aircraft could have used a 2,000 to 2,300hp X 24 engine. I am thinking anything that used a PW 2800 wouldnt be too much of a problem and obviously anything that used a Napier Sabre.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2011)

An interesting idea, which has been touched on in other threads.

I calculate that a Vulture with the same Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) as a Merlin XX on 100 octane fuel (ie 1480hp @ 3000rpm) would make 2210hp @ 2250 rpm (max permissable rpm of the Vulture in operations). If we then allow the maximum design rpm of 3200 rpm we have 2480hp - RRHT tells me that the Vulture was tested at 2500hp several times before it was cancelled.

So, 2500hp may have been possible in 1942 - providing that engine could remain reliable.

A two stage Merlin 76 series was rated at 1710hp @ 3000rpm at full throttle height using PN130 fuel. This is about 1943/1944. Plugging the BMEP from that into the Vulture results in 2865hp @ 3200 rpm.

In late 1943 a Merlin 66 with PN150 fuel was capable of 2000hp @ 3000rpm @ 2000ft. That equates to 3350hp @ 3200rpm in the Vulture.

In late 1944/early 1945 the RM.17SM was rated at 2200hp @ 3000rpm, this equating to 3690hp @ 3200rpm in the Vulture.

Now, if RR were getting 2500hp from the Vulture in 1942, they may have considered increasing the bore to the same as the Merlin. This would raise the engine from 2592cid/42.47l to 3023cid/49.54l. With the increased capacity and using the BMEP from the Merlin 76 would give 3345hp, the BMEP from the 66 would give 3910hp, and with the rated BMEP of the RM.17SM and the increased bore the power would be 4300hp! All at 3200rpm.

This all theorises that the BMEPs could be achieved in the Vulture, and that it would be reliable under those circumstances. As the Vulture used the same combustion chamber shape as all but the earliest of the Merlins, one would assume that the boost pressures and compression ratios required for these performances would be possible in the Vulture.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2011)

As for where a reliable Vulture could have been used, I think anywhere that a big radial was used. The only problem would be where the CoG is moved too far forward, due to the extra length of the Vulture compared with the radial.

If we are saying reliability had been achieved earlier the Vulture may have been used for the Wellington. Though it would be twice the power of the existing engine, so may have been too powerful for the airframe.

One that stands out as a candidate is the Short Stirling. The Vulture as it was historically was more powerful than the Hercules II in the Stirling (even at its reduced ratings), and may have helped with the low ceiling of the aircraft.

So, anything fitted with a Hercules could be considered. Or a P&W R-2800, Wright R-2600 or R-3350. Th eVulture was smaller in diameter than each of those, so it would fit up to the same bulkhead. If a QEC was made using an annular radiator, and containing all oil coolers, air intakes, etc, it could be a bolt up fit.

I also imagine that if the Vulture was reliable and successful by 1941 it may have been considered as an alternative for the R-3350 in the B-29. It certainly would have matched the R-3350 for takeoff power by then, if not for altitude capability (without a turbo). Enter the 60-series Vulture....


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2011)

FWIW, a muture Vulture late in the war could have been comapred to the R-4360 used in the F2G and after the war in the B-50. By 1944 3000hp should have been well within the capability of the Vulture, probably more. This is the same power that the R-4360 in the F2G had. The Vulture was also about 9in shorter, smaller in diameter, and some 1400lbs lighter (so of which would be used for teh cooling system). The Vulture would have had a new reduction (epicyclic) gear system if it had continued, saving a further 150-200lbs.


----------



## davebender (Aug 11, 2011)

The RR Vulture engine might have been perfected but I think your time frame for 2,300 reliable hp is optimistic. 

In any case I think it would come down to a competition between the RR Vulture and the similiarly powerful Napier Sabre engine. Only one of these engines would enter mass production during WWII.


----------



## Tartle (Aug 11, 2011)

The problem with the Sabre was its unreliability that made the Vulture look incredibly good! Seriously, Rod Banks talks of the cost of the Sabre being 4 to 5 times the cost of a merlin per hp. (And Bristol Hercules being twice 'Merli' per hp). The Vulture was almost there, in terms of integrity when it was cancelled to relaese resources for the Merlin; also the Manchester was turning out to be not a good idea as single-engined performance was not adequate, so the 4-engines were inevitable. Another way of approaching potential performance of Vulture is to assume all the technology going into the Merlin and Griffon (and back into Merlins) is put into the Vulture ... we could then plot a curve that ratio'd the power and power/weight to derive target performance for the Vulture.. maybe I'll do that later on...


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 11, 2011)

davebender said:


> The RR Vulture engine might have been perfected but I think your time frame for 2,300 reliable hp is optimistic.
> 
> In any case I think it would come down to a competition between the RR Vulture and the similiarly powerful Napier Sabre engine. Only one of these engines would enter mass production during WWII.



I got to 2,300 hp simply by dividing 1,500 by 27 and multiplying by 42. The Merlin 60 series engines were reliably giving 1,500 hp approx by mid 42 so I think a 42 liter 2,300 hp Vulture using the same technology as the Merlin is doable 6 months or so later.

What got me thinking of the Vulture was a thread on different engines for the B 29. The idea that came to me whilst out on my mountain bike was what if the RAF saw the B 29 specs in early 41 and decided they liked it but didnt like the R3350 engines and wanted an equivalent British engine. In this timeline Bristol are struggling to produce enough Hercules and the tempremental Sabre has been canned because the Vulture has been such a success. Rolls Royce use the experience to build a super Vulture (a bit like they used Merlin experience on the Griffon) with 24 Merlin sized cylinders and a 3 stage blower to give 54 litres of high altitude engine. Maybe the USAAF would use a Packard super Vulture on there B29 follow up because of the problems of the big Wright engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2011)

When comparing some of these engines, especially for bomber use, you might want to compare the cruise power or 30min/1 hour ratings vs the 5 min or WEP power settings. or take-off power vs WEP settings. 

The P&W R-2800 in it's bomber versions single stage two speed supercharger was good for a mere 2000hp for take off but it was good for 1450hp at 13,000ft until the fuel ran out, it wasn't economical or a normal "cruise" setting but the engine would do it. 
A Centaurus MK IV was good for 1850hp at 14,250 ft for 30 minutes or so. 

While the air-cooled radials didn't have the peak power of the liquid cooled engines the difference between the the take-off power and max continuous and cruise power settings was some what less than the drop in power for the liquid cooled engines. 

It could also take one to two years (or more?) to switch engines in a major aircraft program. BY the time you know you are having troubles and they WON'T be fixed quickly. The production lines are in place and material allocations have been made. A new installation has to made and tested (so you know you are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire) and then both the engine factory and the aircraft factory have to retool, or another airframe with lower priority has it's engines 'borrowed' and so on.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2011)

davebender said:


> The RR Vulture engine might have been perfected but I think your time frame for 2,300 reliable hp is optimistic.
> 
> In any case I think it would come down to a competition between the RR Vulture and the similiarly powerful Napier Sabre engine. Only one of these engines would enter mass production during WWII.



I don't think so.

The Vulture's problems were almost completely sorted by 1941. The cancellation came due to needing to put the resources into other projects - chiefly the Merlin and Griffon.

In 1941 the Vulture V was rated for takeoff at about 1800hp at 2850rpm with +6psi boost. The boost was kept low, and the rpm reduced due to reliability concerns. With the reliability fixed the rpm could be taken back up to the design maximum of 3200rpm, and RR could add more boost. By 1941 the Merlin had already gone to +12psi, and in 1942 the 60 series were cleared for +15 and then +18 by 1943. This was only possible with testing and strengthening of components to cope. If the Vulture had continued then it would have gone through teh same development cycle, resources permitting.

If the Vulture was being used in several production types, instead of just the Manchester, the consideration to discontinue it would have been more difficult.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> I got to 2,300 hp simply by dividing 1,500 by 27 and multiplying by 42. The Merlin 60 series engines were reliably giving 1,500 hp approx by mid 42 so I think a 42 liter 2,300 hp Vulture using the same technology as the Merlin is doable 6 months or so later.



While using hp/l is ok, I think using BMEP is better. That can also account for differences in rpm as well as capacity. The Merlin XX was rated at 1480hp @ 3000rpm by then, which equates to, as I have said above, 2480hp @ 3200rpm for the Vulture. And we know this is in the ball park as to what is possible by 1942, as the Vulture had tested to 2500hp by the time of its cancellation. The XX, like the Vulture at that time, was a single stage two speed supercharged engine.





fastmongrel said:


> What got me thinking of the Vulture was a thread on different engines for the B 29. The idea that came to me whilst out on my mountain bike was what if the RAF saw the B 29 specs in early 41 and decided they liked it but didnt like the R3350 engines and wanted an equivalent British engine. In this timeline Bristol are struggling to produce enough Hercules and the tempremental Sabre has been canned because the Vulture has been such a success. Rolls Royce use the experience to build a super Vulture (a bit like they used Merlin experience on the Griffon) with 24 Merlin sized cylinders and a 3 stage blower to give 54 litres of high altitude engine. Maybe the USAAF would use a Packard super Vulture on there B29 follow up because of the problems of the big Wright engine.



It would be logical for the RAF to desire to use one of their own engines, and they did tend to favour liquid cooled engines. If they had been brought on board the B-29 development in 1941 the engines they would have considered possible would be a developed version of the Vulture, the Sabre, which still held for them great promise, and the Bristol Centaurus. The Bristol Hercules would have been considered underpowered for the duty. 

I don't think a Vulture with bore and stroke the same as the Merlin would have been designed - as it would grow the size of the engine, and the extra capacity would not really be necessary. I could see the Merlin bore being used, as the bore spacing between the Vulture and Merlin were nearly the same. That would give 5.4in bore x 5.5in stroke for 3023cid/49.54l. That should give more than enough power.

I also wonder if RR's objections to turbochargers would be suspended for such a project. Two B-seroes turbochargers would be required, as they were for the B-29, or a single C-series would suffice.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> When comparing some of these engines, especially for bomber use, you might want to compare the cruise power or 30min/1 hour ratings vs the 5 min or WEP power settings. or take-off power vs WEP settings.



True, but we don't always have those numbers for comparison.




Shortround6 said:


> The P&W R-2800 in it's bomber versions single stage two speed supercharger was good for a mere 2000hp for take off but it was good for 1450hp at 13,000ft until the fuel ran out, it wasn't economical or a normal "cruise" setting but the engine would do it.
> A Centaurus MK IV was good for 1850hp at 14,250 ft for 30 minutes or so.



These are for normal supercharged engines. What would they be for turbocharged engines? The R-3350s in the B-29 had it sea level ratings all the way up to 25k-30k ft. A Centaurus, for example, would surely have more power at altitude in a turbocharged appliation due to teh supercharger not having to work as hard. Maybe closer to 2000hp?




Shortround6 said:


> While the air-cooled radials didn't have the peak power of the liquid cooled engines the difference between the the take-off power and max continuous and cruise power settings was some what less than the drop in power for the liquid cooled engines.



Look at the Allison V-1710 111/113 used for the P-38L. According to _Vees for Victory_ takeoff power was 1500hp, WEP was 1600hp and military power (which would be a 30 minute rating) was 1425hp.

Another chart shows, for a P-40/P-40B/P-40C with a V-1719-33 take-off power of 1040hp, military rating of 1040hp @14,300ft, normal rated power 930hp @ 2600rpm @ 12,800ft, max cruising power (75% of normal) of 697hp @ 2280rpm @ 12,800ft, and preferred cruisng power of either 60% or 67% or normal power (568hp or 623hp).

How does that compare with the air cooled engines?

Take-off power is as important, or maybe more so, than cruise power. It is the difference between taking off comfortably or not. 

If we size or liquid cooled engine to give the required cruise power we can then expect that the takeoff and maximum power will be much more than the air-cooled engine.




Shortround6 said:


> It could also take one to two years (or more?) to switch engines in a major aircraft program. BY the time you know you are having troubles and they WON'T be fixed quickly. The production lines are in place and material allocations have been made. A new installation has to made and tested (so you know you are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire) and then both the engine factory and the aircraft factory have to retool, or another airframe with lower priority has it's engines 'borrowed' and so on.



Fastmongrel was suggesting that the British be involved in the B-29 program from early on (1941). In that situation the alternative British engines have QECs designed around them and are throughly tested before they are sent to the US for installation of the RAF B-29 prototypes (1943). It also must be noted that the R-3350 installation could be unbolted and the V-3420 bolted up in its place. The airframe was not altered in any way. A similar situation could have been engineered for a Vulture/Sabre/Centaurus version.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 12, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I also wonder if RR's objections to turbochargers would be suspended for such a project. Two B-seroes turbochargers would be required, as they were for the B-29, or a single C-series would suffice.



I thought RR preferred supercharging for fighters but had turbo charging in mind for high altitude bombers. Prototypes were built but RR never had the resources nor the demand from the RAF to take the project any further. I dont think RR had any particular objection to the turbo they just thought a well designed engine driven blower could do most things needed. Possibly more a "we know engine blowers so lets stick with what we know for the timebeing"


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 12, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Fastmongrel was suggesting that the British be involved in the B-29 program from early on (1941). In that situation the alternative British engines have QECs designed around them and are throughly tested before they are sent to the US for installation of the RAF B-29 prototypes (1943). It also must be noted that the R-3350 installation could be unbolted and the V-3420 bolted up in its place. The airframe was not altered in any way. A similar situation could have been engineered for a Vulture/Sabre/Centaurus version.



Exactly my thoughts though I didnt realise the B 29 could have a V-3420 bolted in place I thought it was a different model that had the V engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2011)

[


wuzak said:


> True, but we don't always have those numbers for comparison.



perhaps not easily available but some of the numbers are available. 





wuzak said:


> These are for normal supercharged engines. What would they be for turbocharged engines? The R-3350s in the B-29 had it sea level ratings all the way up to 25k-30k ft. A Centaurus, for example, would surely have more power at altitude in a turbocharged appliation due to teh supercharger not having to work as hard. Maybe closer to 2000hp?



Use the low blower rating instead of high blower. 1600hp for a R-2800, 2000hp for a R-3350, 2095hp for a Centaurus IV, later ones did better. 





wuzak said:


> Look at the Allison V-1710 111/113 used for the P-38L. According to _Vees for Victory_ takeoff power was 1500hp, WEP was 1600hp and military power (which would be a 30 minute rating) was 1425hp.




See. this for a page from the flight manual.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38SEFC.gif

1100hp for max continuous, no time limit, like the American radial power figures I gave. 


wuzak said:


> Another chart shows, for a P-40/P-40B/P-40C with a V-1719-33 take-off power of 1040hp, military rating of 1040hp @14,300ft, normal rated power 930hp @ 2600rpm @ 12,800ft, max cruising power (75% of normal) of 697hp @ 2280rpm @ 12,800ft, and preferred cruisng power of either 60% or 67% or normal power (568hp or 623hp).
> 
> How does that compare with the air cooled engines?



http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-17/17SEFC.pdf

Take off 1200hp, military the same, 1000hp Max continuous (normal rated) and 750hp max cruise. 

I would note that while the take of power of the Allison went up 44% between those two models and the max combat power went up 54% (granted the early engine didn't have a WEP rating) the max continuous or normal rating only went up 7.5%.

A Merlin 130 was rated at 1645hp for take off using 18lbs of boost, it was rated at 1830hp military at 20lbs of boost using 100/130 fuel and 2020hp using 25lbs boost and 100/150 fuel. "normal" rating was 1410hp and max cruise was 1250hp. all hp ratings are in low gear. 

A Centaurus V was rated at 2500hp for take off using 8.5lbs of boost. 2520hp max or military at 2700rpm at 1000ft, 2,150hp normal at 2400rpm at 3,000ft and 1725hp cruising at 2400rpm at 9000ft. Granted this engine might be a bit late for this time period. 





wuzak said:


> Take-off power is as important, or maybe more so, than cruise power. It is the difference between taking off comfortably or not.



True but in many of these "what ifs" the comparisons are made on take off power or max power and not all engines offered the same cruise or climb power as a percentage of their take-off power or max power.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> I thought RR preferred supercharging for fighters but had turbo charging in mind for high altitude bombers. Prototypes were built but RR never had the resources nor the demand from the RAF to take the project any further. I dont think RR had any particular objection to the turbo they just thought a well designed engine driven blower could do most things needed. Possibly more a "we know engine blowers so lets stick with what we know for the timebeing"



Rolls-Royce also liked the idea of using the thrust from the exhaust which is very hard to do with a turbo charged engine. It is pretty much one or the other.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Exactly my thoughts though I didnt realise the B 29 could have a V-3420 bolted in place I thought it was a different model that had the V engine.



It was designated XB-39. The V-3420 was mounted in a QEC module designed by Fisher Body Division (GM) to fit to a firewall designed for the R-3350. The V-3420 program was delayed over the years due to cancellations and reinstatements, some difficulty in getting approved for flight status, and then Fisher's eforts were diverted to the XP-75. The QEC module was designed around a new GE supercharger, which had a two stage compressor allowing a critical altitude of 40,000ft, but when testing they were unreliable. And they also would not be in production in time for the B-29 program. The V-3420s fitted to the XB-39 were, therefore, altitude rated units. The XB-39 was nearly 50mph faster than the B-29.

The V-3420 QEC had all oil and engine coolant radiators fitted, so no modifications to the airframe were necessary.

In contrast, the XB-38, a modified B-17E, required leading edge radiators to be installed in the wing leading edge, meaning a far bigger changeover problem.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> [
> 
> perhaps not easily available but some of the numbers are available.
> 
> ...




The fuel ratings PN115/150 is for lean/rich mixtures. If I understand it correctly, air cooled engines could only run rich, whereas liquid cooled engines could run lean as well. This may explain the ability of the, generally, smaller liquid cooled engines to have maximum powers as much as or greater than the radials.

Now, if we size a liquid cooled replacement for the R-3350s based on cruise powers I we would certainly have the bonus of much higher tak-off and maximum powers. I would also say that it would not require a 3350 cubic inch liquid cooled engine to do this, and something about 2500-2800 cubic inches, like the Vulture, should be about right.

There is also the effect the changeover has on drag.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The fuel ratings PN115/150 is for lean/rich mixtures. If I understand it correctly, air cooled engines could only run rich, whereas liquid cooled engines could run lean as well. This may explain the ability of the, generally, smaller liquid cooled engines to have maximum powers as much as or greater than the radials.



Air cooled engines were perfectly capable of running lean in cruise settings. The liquid cooled engines needed to run rich for the higher power settings just like the aircooled engines, please look at the charts provided. 

The Allison was good for 795hp max cruise with lean mixture. The ability of the smaller liquid cooled engines to have maximum powers as much as or greater than the radials, had to do with the liquid cooling both providing a more uniform cooling preventing hot spots and detonation and with the coolant providing a heat sink of sorts. You had to heat all the coolant and cooling system up to a certain point before the engine would would over heat. The aircooled engine just had the cooling fins and would over heat much quicker. At rich mixture settings some of the fuel was being used as a coolant and was not being burned.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 12, 2011)

The more hp you make the more heat a engine produces. Liquid coolant is more efficient at removing heat than air. Liquid cooled engines can make more hp for their displacement because they can remove the excess heat from the combustion chamber area, better than a air cooled engine.

You lean out a mixture for economy, not power. A aircooled engine can be leaned out too, but since a lean mixture runs hotter, it may be limited in how lean it can go by it's ability to cool.


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2011)

I don't think that works. 

Increasing hp places more stress on bearings, pistons, valves, lubrication system, cooling system etc. Increase hp enough and the old technology is no longer adequate. You need to develop new technology just as Daimler-Benz had to when the DB601 / DB605 engine was pushed to 1,475 hp. RR engineers will develop technical solutions but that will take time and money.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2011)

What new "technology" did Daimler-Benz use or develop in the DB 605? New materials in the bearings? a new type of bearing? New coolant? New oil?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 12, 2011)

It was the succession of con-rod bolt failures, in service, plus the decision to go for 4 Merlins in the Lancaster, that did for the Vulture; the problems were nowhere near being solved (according to Rubbra, that is.)
Edgar


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 12, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It was the succession of con-rod bolt failures, in service, plus the decision to go for 4 Merlins in the Lancaster, that did for the Vulture; the problems were nowhere near being solved (according to Rubbra, that is.)
> Edgar



From the bits and pieces I have read about the Vulture (not a great deal out there) it seems that the RR engineers had worked out the problems, had a solution and werent too far off getting the engine working at full power. According to Bill Gunston World Aero Engines 2nd edition p143 in march 41 the Vulture was rated for takeoff at 2,100 hp using 100 octane and 9lbs of boost (no rpm given). 

However the Manchester was to be cancelled in favour of the Lancaster and Ernest Hives cancelled any further development work at the same time deciding his engineers could be working on other engines with a future. In fact Hives had wanted to cancel work on anything other than the Merlin and Griffon in Aug 1940.

I might be taking a leap but it seems as if the con rod failures and associated maximum rpm restrictions might have been solved by march 41. 

RR had another X engine the Rolls-Royce Exe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which seems to have been totally trouble free so RR must have known something about X engines.


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2011)

Sounds like a sensible solution to me. IMO the Luftwaffe made a serious mistake by not pushing development and production of the DB603 engine. The RAF made a a similiar mistake by not pushing development of the RR Griffon engine. Instead both nations poured a lot of money into the development of 24 cylinder monster motors.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2011)

davebender said:


> Sounds like a sensible solution to me. IMO the Luftwaffe made a serious mistake by not pushing development and production of the DB603 engine. The RAF made a a similiar mistake by not pushing development of the RR Griffon engine. Instead both nations poured a lot of money into the development of 24 cylinder monster motors.



*Monster Motors*

The DB603 may have been suitable to replace the DB601 or the DB605, but not the DB604. The DB604 was more powerful (except for the later 2 stage DB603N), only slightly larger in capacity and a few hundred pounds heavier than the DB603. 

The DB604 was also as powerful as the DB606, but significantly lighter in weight. The DB606 was coupled DB601s, they also built coupled DB605s (the 610) and DB603s (DB613). They were also developing the DB609 (the V16 version of the DB603) which was heavier, larger in capacity and had the same power as the DB604, and was cancelled a year later than the DB604 was.

Basically DB had a lot more going on than RR, and if they could have streamlined things a bit then they may have been able to continue with the DB604. 

The DB604 could potentially have been fitted to most of the aircraft which the DB603 was, and aircraft like the He219 could have benfitted. The DB604 would probably also be fitted to the same bulkhead as the BMW 801 - which would have enabled a DB604 powered Fw190. It may have also been the best engine choice for the Me264. It may even have worked well in the He177.

I have not seen any indication as to whether the DB604 was reliable or not, or for what reason it was cancelled.

As far as RR goes, I wonder if the Griffon was not able to be fitted to the Spitfire if that would have been cancelled. The Griffon was requested by the FAA, but we know that they usually took a back seat to the RAF.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2011)

davebender said:


> I don't think that works.
> 
> Increasing hp places more stress on bearings, pistons, valves, lubrication system, cooling system etc. Increase hp enough and the old technology is no longer adequate. You need to develop new technology just as Daimler-Benz had to when the DB601 / DB605 engine was pushed to 1,475 hp. RR engineers will develop technical solutions but that will take time and money.



The Vulture was very much detuned to the power it was rated at. The Vulture V was rated at 1780hp @ 2850rpm with +6psi boost according to Rolls-Royce Vulture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Merlin went from +6psi boost and 1030hp to +12psi boost and 1300hp just by changing the supercharger gearing and using the new PN100 fuel (5 minutes only). Later Merlins with some more modifications were cleared for +18psi boost in emergencies.

The point being, that the Vulture basically had the same combustion chamber shape as the Merlin, so the added boost would not be a problem from a detonation or combustion point of view. The Vulture was designed for more power than it was giving, so the components, largely, were strong enough for the added duty.

The only question is how does the big end of the master rod cope. And depending who you read, that was solved, or nearly so, at the time of cancellation.

I again, repeat that RRHT confirmed to me that the Vulture ran on test at 2500hp several times. IIRC Lumsden states that one engine was run to 3000hp, but RRHT could not confirm that.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> RR had another X engine the Rolls-Royce Exe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which seems to have been totally trouble free so RR must have known something about X engines.



The Exe was a small capacity engine - similar in capacity to the Kestrel/Peregrine, but with 24 cylinders. The later Pennine also used master and slave rods, was just under 2800 cubic inches and was rated at around 2800hp @ 3500rpm. That only operated on the test bench, unfortunately, so we can't be sure what issues it may have had. I am sure that the lessons learned with the Vulture were applied to teh Pennine, though.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 12, 2011)

I read where they didn't use silver in the main bearings and the oil passages were to small caused much of the grief it was a poor engine in a worse aircraft


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I read where they didn't use silver in the main bearings and the oil passages were to small caused much of the grief it was a poor engine in a worse aircraft



Manchester wasnt a worse aircraft after all it was basically the same fuselage that became the Lancaster. The squadrons had a lot of problems but they all seem to have been caused by engines and not enough power for 1 engine out flying. Fix the Vultures reliability problems let it run at the designed rpm and boost and the Manchesters problems mostly go away.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Manchester wasnt a worse aircraft after all it was basically the same fuselage that became the Lancaster. The squadrons had a lot of problems but they all seem to have been caused by engines and not enough power for 1 engine out flying. Fix the Vultures reliability problems let it run at the designed rpm and boost and the Manchesters problems mostly go away.


Britain gave up on the manchester because it was crap from a previous thread 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...n-give-up-avro-manchester-bomber-28512-4.html
quoted from Mike Lewis DFC CD one of the first Manchester pilots 207 Sqn quoting about Manchester 1A "the mid upper turret on the Manchester never did function properly. When rotated it set up a disconcerting vibration in the airframe. The AirMinistry finally circulated aletter permitting the squadrons and Avro to remove the turret if desired . I always had the mid upper removed from my aircraft removed from my aircraft giving me an extra 10 mph and improving single engine performance immenesly `` Mike Lewis did 2 tours on Manchesters 
1) the heated flying suits had individual outlets for each piece of clothing in other words each glove had its own receptacle
2) to rectify this they pumped hat air from oil cooler into aircraft but with only one outlet at the radio operators position it was so hot the RO couldn't remain in position so it was blocked off by crews
3)the feathering solinoid for the prop was faulty and frequently changed the pitch of the prop witthout prompts
4)the high pressure hydraulic system was junk with no "olives" on the joints which would frequently blow , paper washers on the engineers panel would also fail 
5) Getting bombays open " The designers had thought of this one. Holes bored in the lower side of the bombay actuatorswere were filled with plugs connected to a steel cable running to the front of the bombbayinside the nose section. pulling this wirewthdrew the plugs from the hydraulic jacksand the oil drained by gravity. The bombays sagged enoug for the slipstream to catch them and whip them fully open. We would drop our bombs but would have to fly remainder of mission with bomb doors open
6) although designed to carry a 4000lb bomb the bomb had yet to be designed and the bomb was to big so they cut open the bombay and the bomb doors were modified with bungee cords so the doors would close
7) This pilot reported that one would get exhausted after flying 3 circuits


----------



## davebender (Aug 13, 2011)

Most of those problems have little to do with Manchester engines. They needed to be fixed for the Lancaster also.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 13, 2011)

davebender said:


> Sounds like a sensible solution to me. IMO the Luftwaffe made a serious mistake by not pushing development and production of the DB603 engine. The RAF made a a similiar mistake by not pushing development of the RR Griffon engine. Instead both nations poured a lot of money into the development of 24 cylinder monster motors.


The RAF had nothing, whatsoever, to do with engine development; it was all down to the manufacturers, since, being privately owned, if the engine wasn't good enough, the Air Ministry wouldn't buy it.
Rolls-Royce, at first, couldn't see a use for the Griffon, although the first one was tested in 1933; by 1939 they'd changed their minds, and the Griffon I was running in the Experimental dept. Far from the FAA taking a back seat to the RAF, they got the Griffon, first, in the Firefly; however Rolls-royce were not happy with the layout, so redesigned it into the Griffon III, which went into the Spitfire XII. 
Camm wanted to produce a Griffon-powered Hurricane, but the necessary redesign was so complex, he was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon and Tempest. 
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2011)

Even if the Vulture was fixed, or could be fixed, Twin engine heavy bombers were thought to be a bad idea. Losing one engine doesn't just drop the power in half, it sets up an asymmetrical power situation. A number of 4 engine bombers made it home on two engines, the real problems occurred if they lost both engines on the same side. The aileron and rudder trim needed to keep the plane level and pointed straight, or least to fly a straight course severely increased the drag over an engine out on each side. This was often the difference between making back or not.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Britain gave up on the manchester because it was crap from a previous thread
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...n-give-up-avro-manchester-bomber-28512-4.html
> quoted from Mike Lewis DFC CD one of the first Manchester pilots 207 Sqn quoting about Manchester 1A "the mid upper turret on the Manchester never did function properly. When rotated it set up a disconcerting vibration in the airframe. The AirMinistry finally circulated aletter permitting the squadrons and Avro to remove the turret if desired . I always had the mid upper removed from my aircraft removed from my aircraft giving me an extra 10 mph and improving single engine performance immenesly `` Mike Lewis did 2 tours on Manchesters
> 1) the heated flying suits had individual outlets for each piece of clothing in other words each glove had its own receptacle
> ...



Not saying Mike Lewis is wrong but name me one aircraft that was perfect in its initail version. After all the Manchester Mk IA was pretty much an early Lancaster Mk I apart from the wings, engines and turrets. I have heard rumours the Lanc was quite useful though I never trust wikipedia


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Not saying Mike Lewis is wrong but name me one aircraft that was perfect in its initail version. After all the Manchester Mk IA was pretty much an early Lancaster Mk I apart from the wings, engines and turrets. I have heard rumours the Lanc was quite useful though I never trust wikipedia


The feathering of props and random times would be somewhat unsettling , and wings and engines would certainly be high amongst top things to worry about , the fuelage amongst the least and the Lanc wasn't without faults ask pilots anout the shimmy from the tail wheel


----------



## Milosh (Aug 13, 2011)

What WW2 a/c was absolutely 100% perfect in every way?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 13, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> The RAF had nothing, whatsoever, to do with engine development; it was all down to the manufacturers, since, being privately owned, if the engine wasn't good enough, the Air Ministry wouldn't buy it.



The Air Ministry would contract with the engine suppliers to develop engines according to some requirements. Occasionally engine manufacturers would make a private venture engine (ie like the PV12, Fairey's attempts at getting in the engine business). Without Air Ministry funding/backing it was difficult to develop an engine. In the case of the Vulture the Air Ministry had funded and backed it since 1935, and it was not their decision to cancel it - that came from Rolls Royce, and was ratified by the Air Ministry. The reason wasn't that the Vulture's problems were unsolvable, but a resource allocation issue. (At the same time RR were working on the Crecy under orders from the Air Ministry, though Hives wanted to stop that as well.)





Edgar Brooks said:


> Rolls-Royce, at first, couldn't see a use for the Griffon, although the first one was tested in 1933; by 1939 they'd changed their minds, and the Griffon I was running in the Experimental dept. Far from the FAA taking a back seat to the RAF, they got the Griffon, first, in the Firefly; however Rolls-royce were not happy with the layout, so redesigned it into the Griffon III, which went into the Spitfire XII.
> Camm wanted to produce a Griffon-powered Hurricane, but the necessary redesign was so complex, he was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon and Tempest.



The 1933 Griffon was a detuned version of the R, which was a hotted up version of the Buzzard. As such its basis was old and would have limited development potential by WW2.

The 1939 Griffon was a response to a request from the FAA for a more powerful/larger engine than the Merlin. It had nothing in common with the Buzzard/R and the 1933 Griffon except bore and stroke. During the early development a member of the Air Ministry suggested fitting a Griffon to the Spitfire. Joe Smith of Supermarines drew up a proposal around that, which was taken to Rolls Royce. For the engine to fit in the Spitfire some features needed to be redesigned, which resulted in a more compact layout. It was the need to fit the Griffon in the Spitfire which led to the Griffon being redesigned, this mostly involving the layout of the accesories.

The Spitfire MkIV flew 1 month before the Firefly I (November 27 vs December 22 1941), and the Spitfire MkXII enetered service in October 1942, while the production Firefly I was delivered in March 1943, but did not become operational until July 1943. It woudl appear that slightly more Griffon Spitfires were built durng WW2 than Fireflies.


----------



## davebender (Aug 13, 2011)

If you have only one major customer then that customer has a great deal of influence over your business. Otherwise the RAF will purchase engines elsewhere.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2011)

Milosh said:


> What WW2 a/c was absolutely 100% perfect in every way?


What WW2 aircraft was as bad as the Manchester , the reason the Lanc tail shimmied is that iy lacked a locking tail wheel which was common on Brit A/C it saved money , as did other basic items like deicing equipmemt . IIRC there was an issue on prop feathering possibly a lack of a resovoir


----------



## wuzak (Aug 13, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Even if the Vulture was fixed, or could be fixed, Twin engine heavy bombers were thought to be a bad idea. Losing one engine doesn't just drop the power in half, it sets up an asymmetrical power situation. A number of 4 engine bombers made it home on two engines, the real problems occurred if they lost both engines on the same side. The aileron and rudder trim needed to keep the plane level and pointed straight, or least to fly a straight course severely increased the drag over an engine out on each side. This was often the difference between making back or not.



This is true. The original concept for twin engined bombers like the Manchester (it was not considered a heavy bomber, but a medium bomber - the Short Stirling and Supermarine 317 were considered heavies) was that the use of two powerful engines would be more efficient due to less drag than four smaller engines. Which is true, but it didn't work out that way - partly because of the problems with the Vulture, and it not being powerful enough for single engine duty.

Compare with the Mosquito. A much smaller and lighter twin, which didn't give much away in power. Single engine performance was more than acceptable.

George Volkert wrote a document titled_A Memorandum on Bombing Policy and its Influence on design_ in 1937, which included specifications for a high speed unarmed bomber based on the P.13/36 requirement (which led to the Manchester and Halifax). It was a twin Vulture aircraft with a predicted maximum speed of 380mph, and a bomb load maximum of 7000lbs. I wonder how it would have fared had it continued to the prototype stage.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 13, 2011)

Comparative specs of Volkert's high speed bomber and the winning P.13/36 aircraft.


```
HP HSB             Manchester I          HP HP.56
Span           88'6"/27.0m          90'1"/27.5m         85'0"/25.9m
Length         71'6"/21.8m         68'10"/21.0m         66'6"/20.3m
Wing Area     988ft²/91.9m²       1131ft²/105.2m²      975ft²/90.7m²
Max weight  36,500lb/11,162kg    50,000lb/22,680kg   39,000lb/17,690kmh
Engines        2 x Vulture          2 x vulture         2 x Vulture
Max Speed     380mph/611km/h       265mph/426kmh       320mph/515kmh
```

The HP.56 would be redesigned as the 4 engined HP.57 Halifax.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2011)

wuzak said:


> This is true. The original concept for twin engined bombers like the Manchester (it was not considered a heavy bomber, but a medium bomber - the Short Stirling and Supermarine 317 were considered heavies) was that the use of two powerful engines would be more efficient due to less drag than four smaller engines. Which is true, but it didn't work out that way - partly because of the problems with the Vulture, and it not being powerful enough for single engine duty.
> 
> Compare with the Mosquito. A much smaller and lighter twin, which didn't give much away in power. Single engine performance was more than acceptable.



The Whitley was often referred to as a heavy bomber and the Vickers Warwick first flew with Vultures. 

Definitions or classifications changed with time but a 40-50,000lb bomber in 1939/40 was a heavy bomber.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 14, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> What WW2 aircraft was as bad as the Manchester , the reason the Lanc tail shimmied is that iy lacked a locking tail wheel which was common on Brit A/C it saved money , as did other basic items like deicing equipmemt . IIRC there was an issue on prop feathering possibly a lack of a resovoir



He 177, B-29, SB2C, Barracuda for starters


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> What WW2 aircraft was as bad as the Manchester



Dozens and dozens of aircraft with a good few that made the Manc seem like a wonder plane.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 14, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Dozens and dozens of aircraft with a good few that made the Manc seem like a wonder plane.


Ok you convinced me it was a wonder aircraft compared to many. And Bader was a wonderful tastician and Harris and Broadhurst liked Colonials . But in all seriousness the aircraft had major flaws can you imagine the prop feathering and unfeathering while carrying a full load it would certainly be disconcerting . The thing had a rubbish Hydraulic system poor engines the list goes on


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> From the bits and pieces I have read about the Vulture (not a great deal out there) it seems that the RR engineers had worked out the problems, had a solution and werent too far off getting the engine working at full power. According to Bill Gunston World Aero Engines 2nd edition p143 in march 41 the Vulture was rated for takeoff at 2,100 hp using 100 octane and 9lbs of boost (no rpm given).



RRHT gave me the following numbers:

Vulture II - takeoff power 1800hp @ 3200rpm, +6psi boost - max 3 minutes
Vulture IV/V - takeoff power 1955hp @ 3200rpm, +9psi boost - max 3 minutes

They also gave me some operating limits for all marks:
Max climb - 30 minutes at 2850rpm, +6psi boost (also max one engine out for Manchester)
Cruise in auto weak - continuous at 2600rpm, +2psi boost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 17, 2011)

wuzak said:


> RRHT gave me the following numbers:
> 
> Vulture II - takeoff power 1800hp @ 3200rpm, +6psi boost - max 3 minutes
> Vulture IV/V - takeoff power 1955hp @ 3200rpm, +9psi boost - max 3 minutes
> ...



RRHT are the chaps who would know, perhaps the 2,100hp figure given by Gunston was a development engine. Still its obvious that there was a lot of potential in the design and it wasnt as some believe fundamentally flawed.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> RRHT are the chaps who would know, perhaps the 2,100hp figure given by Gunston was a development engine. Still its obvious that there was a lot of potential in the design and it wasnt as some believe fundamentally flawed.



The Mks IV and V were described as "fighter" engines, btw. The V was fitted to the Tornado prototype.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2011)

From what I can figure, using rudimentary calcs, the 30 minute limit for the Vulture was around 1500-1600hp, and the continuous cruise 1100-1200hp.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 12, 2011)

Looking at the development of the Merlin makes for an interesting comparison.

The Merlin II with 87 octane fuel had a maximum power of 1030hp @ 3000rpm and 5500ft altitude.

The Merlin III with 100 octane fuel managed 1310hp @ 3000rpm and 9000ft altitude.

Skip forwarrd to the post war 620 series engines - with two speed two stage compressors.

The Merlin 620 was rated at 1175hp continuous cruising power (I would presume the maximum continuous) at 2650rpm at "medium" altitudes. The maximum emergency power was 1795hp @ 3000rpm, +20psi boost.

Figures from Rolls-Royce Merlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in 6 or 7 years the Merlin went from a maximum boost of +6psi (+9psi with 100 octane fuel) and 1030hp maximum for short periods to +9psi and 1175hp continuous power.

With a few years' development the 30 minute limit of 2850rpm and +6psi for the Vulture may have become the maximum continuous.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2011)

Some more info on the Vulture from the RRHT:

The full throttle heights for the Vulture were 4000ft in Moderate Supercharge (MS) gear and 13,500ft in Full Supercharge (FS) gear.

Vulture II 
(MS gear): 
Max t/o (SL) - 1800bhp, 3200rpm, 6lb boost, 162gph; 
Max climb - 1700bhp, 2850rpm, 6lb boost, 142.5gph; 
Max cruise - 1480bhp, 2600rpm, 5lb boost, 0.61 pt/bhp/hr
(FS gear): 
Max climb - 1455bhp, 2850rpm, 6lb boost, 134.5gph; 
Max cruise - 1290bhp, 2600rpm, 5lb boost, 0.66 pt/bhp/hr

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 20, 2011)

Tried drawing a B 29 with Vulture engines using autocad and photoshop but it just wont work probably need tomopauks skills.

I am slowly working on an alternative history of the Boeing Washington in RAF service with the improved turbocharged Vulture engine. So far its Dec 44 No 617 and No 9 squadrons are training with there Stabilised Automatic Bomb Sight equipped Washington Mk1 bombers. Very soon tallboys and Grand Slams are going to be dropping from great heights and doing some very nasty things to German concrete.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2011)

I bought a GA drawing of the Vulture from RRHT. Hopefully it arrives soon.

Something like that would give you some better ideas on how to unstall it, I think.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 20, 2011)

I think its more my incompetence with the software thats the problem. Bought a 2nd hand copy of Autocad but no instructions with the disc which doesnt help


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2011)

Do you have a n autocad file of the B-29 to start with?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2011)

What style radiator are you going to use?

A system like the Avro Manchester?

http://www.myhobbylinks.com/images/3V-A19-MANCHESTER.jpg
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/9/1681948.jpg

A Chin radiator like the Tornado?
http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac6/Hawker Tornado.jpg
http://de.valka.cz/files/hawker_tornado.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/tornado/tornado-7.jpg

Or a more remote installation like the Tornado prototype had originally?
http://s43.radikal.ru/i101/1002/5d/ce87c0108d05.jpg

Perhaps an annualr radiator, similar to what was trailed on the Typhoon
http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/photos/full/16220_11703.jpg
The Hawker Tempest Page

Maybe a German style annualr radiator, like the Fw190D?
http://www.scaleworkshop.com/gallery/images/fw190d9jv44cw_22_old.jpg
http://www.deadlybirds.com.br/pt/alemanha/avioes/fw_view/focke-wulf_fw190-1.jpg

A semi-annular radiator like the Shackleton
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/SAAF-Avro_Shackleton-002.jpg
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2008-2/24/11030.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/SAAF-Avro_Shackleton-003.jpg

Could use a radiator location like the inlet for teh intercoolers and turbos on the B-50, which I suppose would be similar to the Manchester.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/3/9/1162933.jpg
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/boeing_b-50_1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Boeing_B-50_USAF.jpg

I guess the chin radiator would end up looking like the XB-39
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Prototype/xb39.JPG
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Larkins/2972.jpg
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/McMahan/3319L.jpg


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 21, 2011)

I have been using the cowling and radiator off the Tornado thinking it looks very similar to the Merlin power egg. The theme of my alternative B 29/Washington Mk1 is that the RAF actually ask Boeing to build a big bomber using the ideas of Barnes Wallis in 1940. Boeing had started work on the B29 so offered the RAF a lightly modified B29 with a quick engine change nacelle and RAF radios and other equipment. The RAF orders 500 off the drawing board and with the money Boeing take on more staff in 1940 and start working at full speed to get the Washington flying. The USAAC gets its order in as real life and gets the lions share of production but the B29 rolls off the production line early enough for the RAF to use them for precision daylight bombing in Europe. 

Dont know if I have the nerve to make the super Vulture the engine for the US models that might get me sent to Guantanamo Bay


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 21, 2011)

Yes I think the work was already done for me but didnt realise. This is almost how I imagined the Washington looking like just a slightly more pronounced chin radiator like a Merlin power egg. Though the Shackleton radiators have got me thinking.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

Is it me or are the nacelles of the B-29 and, subsequently, the XB-39 huge?

The lower intake on the B-29 feeds air to the intercoolers, oil coolers and the turbos.

My personal preference would be to have the intake for the radiators closer to the rear - as in the B-50. The scoops would be similar to the P-51 and the B-50, in that there would be a boundary layer separator.











The radiator outlet would probably be to each side of the nacelle, probably involving the turbo and wastegate exhausts too.

As best I can figure from dodgy 3 view drawings is that the nacelle on the Manchester is around 50-52in in diameter. The nacelle on the B-29 is somewhat larger at its maximum, but I think that the bulkhead where the QEC module fits is smaller. The V-3420 is shallower (by about 8 inches), but wider than the Vulture (by 20 inches).

The single stage 2 speed Vulture is 10in longer than the R-3350, but 12in shorter than the V-3420 and 8in shorter than the R-4360. I would consider keepping the 2 speed drive and engaging that if flying above the critical altitude of the turbos. Using a pair of high altitude B-series turbos, as the B-29 did, should give a critical altitude of 30,000ft.

Once the Vulture QEC is designed I would give the turbos over to RR's gas turbine department, which includes Hooker, to see if they could be improved.

Initial testing of the QEC on the newly reliable Vultures in late 1941 give a maximum cruising of 1500hp, max climb of 1700hp and takeoff and war emergency of 2000hp. Testing at t/o rating of 2500hp is complete in mid 1942, this giving a maximum continuous of 1800hp for high speed cruise, and 1400hp for lean cruise. A set of the are then sent to Boeing for installation on the XB-29B (the British/Rolls-Royce version).

Further development of the Vulture has takeoff power up to 2800hp by the time the first production B-29Bs arrive in the UK. After the initial batch the bombers are flown over as B-29As with the Wright engines fitted, which are then replaced by Rolls-Royce with the Vulture QECs and other British equipment fitted. It is late 1944 before enough Washington IIs make it to the UK to form an operational squadron.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> When comparing some of these engines, especially for bomber use, you might want to compare the cruise power or 30min/1 hour ratings vs the 5 min or WEP power settings. or take-off power vs WEP settings.
> 
> The P&W R-2800 in it's bomber versions single stage two speed supercharger was good for a mere 2000hp for take off but it was good for 1450hp at 13,000ft until the fuel ran out, it wasn't economical or a normal "cruise" setting but the engine would do it.
> A Centaurus MK IV was good for 1850hp at 14,250 ft for 30 minutes or so.
> ...





wuzak said:


> Some more info on the Vulture from the RRHT:
> 
> The full throttle heights for the Vulture were 4000ft in Moderate Supercharge (MS) gear and 13,500ft in Full Supercharge (FS) gear.
> 
> ...



So, the Vulture wasn't too far off in its detuned state?

160hp down for max continuous rating at 13,000ft (FTH FS gear 13,500) comapred with an R-2800, and 400hp on 30 minute rating comapred with the Centaurus IV (what year was that, btw?).


----------



## wuzak (Oct 4, 2011)

I have received an installation drawing of the Vulture II/IV, complete with a number of dimensions.

Scaling from the drawing I found that the Vulture would fit inside a 48" circle - some 4-5" smaller in diameter than a P&W R-2800/R-4360 and 8-9" smaller than a Wright R-1820/R-2600/R-3350 or a Bristol Hercules/Centaurus.

So the Vulture would easily fit up to a bulkhead designed for one of those radials, with space to spare. The downside is that it is longer than all, except the R-4360.

Feeding the exhausts back to the twin turbos, as in the proposed British B-29 version, may be an interesting proposition, as it would have to negotiate the engine mountings and the two speed drive wheel case. Perhaps a single speed drive would provide less impediment to the routing of exhausts.

The drawing also seems to indicate that the Vulture had one piece block/heads - like Merlins post Ramp Head to the changeover to two piece block/heads around 1942.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 10, 2011)

A Vulture powered Corsair







IIRC the R-2800 in the Corsair was angled to allow the pilot a better view over the nose. Is that correct?

With the Vulture that isn't necessary.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Tried drawing a B 29 with Vulture engines using autocad and photoshop but it just wont work probably need tomopauks skills.
> 
> I am slowly working on an alternative history of the Boeing Washington in RAF service with the improved turbocharged Vulture engine. So far its Dec 44 No 617 and No 9 squadrons are training with there Stabilised Automatic Bomb Sight equipped Washington Mk1 bombers. Very soon tallboys and Grand Slams are going to be dropping from great heights and doing some very nasty things to German concrete.



How's the alternative history going fastmongrel?

RT over at The Great Planes Forum posted some pics of the Blackburn B-20 which show how I would do the installation of a Vulture in a B-29. No space for turbos and intercoolers, but that could be fixed by making the scoop larger, and having the turbos either side.

The Vulture installation would be much sleeker than the V-3420 option, but it depends on the size of the bulkhead. I think the bulkhead of the B-29 would be small enough that the Vulture could be installed without an oversized nacelle.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2011)

This is a fascinating thread;



Milosh said:


> What WW2 a/c was absolutely 100% perfect in every way?



I'm with Milosh on this one. Despite its many flaws, the Manchester's airframe was the heart of the success of the Lancaster; it was easily manufactured, extremely robust and its capacious bomb bay was not lengthened in the Lanc. As for the issues mentioned that the Manchester suffered, as others have alluded to, these _could_ have been considered 'teething troubles'; the fact that many of them were resolved with the Lancaster shows that they would have been so on the Manchester, or "Man'ster" for short - this from a Mancunian mate I had in the UK.

The early Nash and Thomson mid upper turret of the Manchester was a source of trouble, but was later changed on the Mk.III and had little to do with the airframe. A faulty feathering mechanism has nothing whatsoever to do with airframe design either. The props of the Lanc were licence built Ham Std 'Hydromatic' props by de Havilland - not sure about the Manchester, but I'm thinking the same propeller. I can't remember how exactly the feathering worked on these props (I've worked on them), but I vaguely remember something about electrical issues, which the Manchester had in spades. One interesting fact about it was that it was the first RAF bomber with a dedicated flight engineer's position. 

One aircraft that is often over looked as to just how bad it was on entry into service, and was a contemporary of the Manchester was the Handley Page Halifax. A very poor design that entailed quite a number of fundamental design changes as well as a powerplant change before it could truly have been considered rid of its many vices. Perhaps the biggest was its nasty tendency to become uncontrollable owing to rudder over balance. Test pilots and RAF personnel lost their lives as a result of this unfortunate design flaw. This was not rectified until the "D" shaped fins of the Hali Mk.III. Its undercarriage required redesign, it was also too heavy, underpowered and very drag inducing, therefore too slow and unable to meet its performance criteria and the A&AEE requested that a severe drag reduction program be undertaken before it entered service. Most of these issues were not overcome until the Hali III.

The Manchester's issues were almost small fry by comparison, but because of the Halifax' combat record, its design flaws have almost been forgotten with the passage of time. Interesting that George Volkert expended effort into examining ideal bomber designs when his production aircraft, the H.P.57 was such a dog.

Back to the Vulture powered B-29!


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> How's the alternative history going fastmongrel?



Hi wuzak unfortunately it has had to go back to the manufacturers for a complete redesign. Gone back to 1940 and the original British request for a big bomber to be built in the USA. I think the only way the RAF is going to get B 29s is if the Convair B 32 is earlier into service and a much better aircraft than in real life, this takes pressure off Boeing allowing more time to get the Vulture installation sorted. Also I think for RAF service it might be better if the Ministry finds the money for a new factory for Boeing possibly just over the border in Canada.

Nice pics of the Vulture installation there very neat.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2011)

Hamilton Standard Hydromatic props used a hydraulically actuatted cam which achieves the desired picth control. Not sure if the propellor governorn had any electrics involved. 

Howard Hughes' testing accident in the XF-11 occurred because a leaking seal caused one of the props to reverse pitch.

The Curtiss propellor system used an electrical motor attached to an epicyclic gearbox to drive the pitch adjustment. I believe these had to use brushes to transmit power to the motor inside the hub.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Hi wuzak unfortunately it has had to go back to the manufacturers for a complete redesign. Gone back to 1940 and the original British request for a big bomber to be built in the USA. I think the only way the RAF is going to get B 29s is if the Convair B 32 is earlier into service and a much better aircraft than in real life, this takes pressure off Boeing allowing more time to get the Vulture installation sorted. Also I think for RAF service it might be better if the Ministry finds the money for a new factory for Boeing possibly just over the border in Canada.



I think that the Vulture installation would be relatively easy if the engine systems were developed as QECs. So it would be a matter of unplugging the Wright QEC and replacing it with the Vulture QEC.

Production wasn't a problem with the B-29. Sorting out the systems were. 

They had a centre for fixing aircraft coming off the production line. I believe it was called the Battle of Kansas.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2011)

I tried to match the Vulture installation from the Blackburn B20 to the Boeing B-29 and discovered that Vulture module is so much smaller than the Boeing nacelle. The Blackburn Nacelle is much more tightly cowled than even for the Tornado. 

On this picture the front of the Blackburn Nacelle seems almost square - that's teh clearence over the front of the cam covers.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l23/chris7421/B-20002.jpg


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Hamilton Standard Hydromatic props used a hydraulically actuatted cam which achieves the desired picth control. Not sure if the propellor governorn had any electrics involved.



No, the governor didn't, but the oil pumps were electrically actuated, though. As you stated, the hydromatic props used differential oil pressure against a piston attached to a moving cam, which altered the blade angle.

To feather the props, a button was pressed in the cockpit, which was held down by a coil until the prop had feathered. Simultaneously a solenoid relay switched power to the feathering motor and electric oil pump fro the a/c battery. Oli was pumped from a separate reservoir to the governor, where the pressure build-up would open a transfer valve, which would shut out the governor, then pass through the distributor valve in the hub and act against the inside of the piston to change the blade angle. ( I had to look this up.)

I've never worked on a Curtiss electric prop, but brushes and slip rings certainly make sense.

Interestingly, Alec Harvey-Bailey in the book Rolls Royce- The pursuit of excellence offers this:

"The Vulture, not a Royce design, was a 24 cyliner x engine based on Kestrel bore and stroke. Investigations showed that there had been master rod bolt failures, allowing the flailing assembly to almost cut the engine in half and in some cases to prevent feathering of the propeller."

The following is probably of interest too:

"The problem of the x layout is how to get four pistons to drive one crankpin. On the Eagle XVI, Royce had chosen two pairs of fork and blade rods, running side by side, but the Vulture had a master rod and three articulated rods on one big end. This was to keep the engine short and light. There was one articulated rod on the master rod and two articulated rods on the big end cap. To accommodate this arrangement the split line for the big end had to be angled to the master rod.

There was so little space that Royce's practise of using long ductile nickel steel bolts, which could be tightened to plastic deformation, was abandoned. The assembly was held together by two longish bolts and two very short bolts, which had to be made in high brinell nickel chrome steel. In such bolts the elastic limit and yield point are very close and in the case of the short bolts the permissable extension was very small and had to be precisely controlled.

Primary failure occurred in the short bolts. Because the rod and cap were located by both saw tooth serrations and fitting bolts, there was a quarrel between the two causing stepping of the bolts at the joint face. There had been problems in tightening the short bolts, which had caused variations in tension. The two factors led to the bolts breaking, but it was found also that at the t/off rpm of 3,000, the bolt loadings were imprudently high.

The issue was tackled by re-working the engines. This included new bolts of a slightly easier fit, concentrating location in the serrations and to avoid stepping during assembly. The bolt tightening operation was revised and meticulously followed. Cyril Lovesey pointed out that at 3,000 rpm plus 6 lb boost at t/off, the engine was running throttled and the same power could be achieved by raising the boost to plus 9 lb and reducing the rpm to 2850. This gave much more conservative bolt loadings. Operations were restarted with an engine life of 80 hours, rising to 120 hours as reliability proved satisfactory.

This dealt with the immediate problem, but Hives was faced with a much bigger decision - what toi do with the engine. The Vultures would only be useful if its power development could continue, but this would entail a new master rod design as well as other changes to cope with various problems, which were also present; a major task in the context of the vast Merlin programme.

...The Manchester had great potential and the answer lay in installing four Merlins..." "...Hives took the decision, which was accepted by the ministry, to stop the Vulture." 

I fear this might have been covered in another thread...


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2011)

Thanks for that Nuuumannn.

I believe one iteration of the master rod had a pin on one side and two bolts on the other.

RR weren't completely scared off the X layout by the Vulture - as evidenced by the Pennine that was designed a few years later, which also used a master and slave rod arrangement. That was also capable of revving to 3500rpm and making 2800hp from 2800 cubic inches.

I would suggest that had a reworking of the Vulture gone forward after 1941 they may have chosen to redo the crankcase to fit Merlin 2 piece blocks and heads. The bore spacing was different enough that the crankcase would need a reworking. They could maintain the Vulture's stroke of 5.5in to give around 3000 cubic inches capacity, or downsize to a 5in stroke and roughly 2750ci (Pennine used Merlin bore size with 5.08in stroke).

Not sure how the Pennine had the master rod. A few of the WW2 radials used single piece master rods and built up cranks (P&W R-2800, Wright R-2600, R-3350). Could possibly have been done for the Vulture - at the cost of crankshaft strength.


----------



## vanir (Nov 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> In 1941 the Vulture V was rated for takeoff at about 1800hp at 2850rpm with +6psi boost. The boost was kept low, and the rpm reduced due to reliability concerns. With the reliability fixed the rpm could be taken back up to the design maximum of 3200rpm, and RR could add more boost. By 1941 the Merlin had already gone to +12psi, and in 1942 the 60 series were cleared for +15 and then +18 by 1943. This was only possible with testing and strengthening of components to cope. If the Vulture had continued then it would have gone through teh same development cycle, resources permitting.



You're right, other engines will go through the same development process but the logic is intrinsically flawed by used a V12 base on a V24 as any kind of measure of what it's going to act like. You have a completely different engine with different dynamics. Just the dynamics for an inverted vee changes a little. A radial performs differently again (lot of horsepower from that stubby, jiggling crankshaft).

They have very different dynamics. The napier is closer to how the X24 is going to behave, it's a flat 24, like the way a Jag 12 is a better indication of how a Porsche flat 12 is going to behave on the track than a Porsche flat 6 even though the 12 is literally two 3.0 flat 6s bolted end to end. It doesn't act like it, it acts like a 12 and gives you the same troubles as a 12, not a 6.

Take the same measuring philosophy, the starfire 4 is a blue 6 with two cylinders chopped off. People turbo both. The 4 actually has a better piston/rod kit than the 6 so a lot of people swap them over. But you can still put 12psi boost on the stock 6 and won't manage more than 8psi on the 4. And calculating any hp relationship between the engines is going to be all over the place. The same timing changes will yield entirely different results. You don't set up a starfire 4 the same way as a blue 6 even if you're doing the same mods or have the same expectations. The motor just won't, they're different motors.

Napier is going to tell you what a cross vee is going to act like. A DB601 doesn't tell you what a DB610 acts like. A flat 24 is closer to an x24 than a v12.

It's all superfluous anyway, the Centaurus was the Vulture alternative (napier more a shared commitment). It found its way into production alongside the napier. Why the vulture again?


----------



## vanir (Nov 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> A Vulture powered Corsair
> 
> View attachment 180251
> 
> ...



No it was designed with a "close fitted cowl" for this effect although the main concern was streamlining, achieved by putting the oil coolers in the wing roots. That would be the main reason the Corsair cowl looks comparatively slender. The problem was the prototype had the fuel tank behind the cockpit and the navy wanted it ahead of the cockpit. When it was all moved around it wound up with the rearward cockpit and long nose. The fix was by adding a raisable pilot seat like Grummans, birdcage corsairs don't have this.

Many aircraft in WW2 did have a nose down attitude in level flight, but this was for wing incidence during take off under heavy loading, not pilot view. Placement of the cockpit was usually about pilot view, and for the Corsair this was dictated by navy requirements rather than design preference.
The thrust line on a Corsair might very well be slightly downward, if so it would most likely be related to carrier launch performance with a heavily loaded plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I believe one iteration of the master rod had a pin on one side and two bolts on the other.
> 
> I would suggest that had a reworking of the Vulture gone forward after 1941 they may have chosen to redo the crankcase to fit Merlin 2 piece blocks and heads. The bore spacing was different enough that the crankcase would need a reworking. They could maintain the Vulture's stroke of 5.5in to give around 3000 cubic inches capacity, or downsize to a 5in stroke and roughly 2750ci (Pennine used Merlin bore size with 5.08in stroke).



Some sources claim the Vulture already used a bore spacing that would allow the use of Merlin pistons in a later development. But if you are having troubles with the connecting rods and crankshaft increasing the area of the pistons ( and the force transmitted) by 16.6% may not be a good idea. 

Not sure how the Pennine had the master rod. A few of the WW2 radials used single piece master rods and built up cranks (P&W R-2800, Wright R-2600, R-3350). Could possibly have been done for the Vulture - at the cost of crankshaft strength.[/QUOTE]

V-12 and X-24 crankshafts are long and "whippy", even a two row radial has a very short crankshaft. A two row radial can be made in 3 pieces, a V-12/X-24 would have to be in 7 pieces. Hirth did it on some air cooled V-12s but such a crankshaft is very expensive to make.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 9, 2011)

The Vulture bore spacing was 6.1 inches. The Merlin bore spacing was 6.075 inches. The Kestrel and Peregrine were 5.625 inches.

So yes, theoreticaly the Vulture could have used a Merlin bore.

However, if the Merlin blocks and heads were used the number of unique components for the Vulture would be considerably less.


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2011)

Me I would have put Vulture R/D money into the EXE engine.I would look at saving lbs and ad more boost.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 9, 2011)

I don't know that too much weight could have been saved in the EXE.

Adding boost would have raised the power, no doubt, but may have required stronger reduction gear, which would add weight. I think the Exe would have benefitted from an epicyclic reduction gear to bring the prop shaft back to the cranklshaft centreline.

The problem for the Exe was that it was too small in capacity (1350ci) for too much development. The projected performance of the Exe was to be about 1500hp - not sure what boost would have been required for that. Still, that is impressive for an aircooled engine in terms of power to capacity.

The logical development for the Exe was the 2800ci Pennine, with around 2800hp and 2850lb of weight. But that came somewhat later.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2011)

The EXE really does not look like a good idea. The Peregrine was 21.2 liters while the EXE was 22.1 liters. Granted the EXE revs much higher but it weighs 400lbs more (granted it is air cooled) , uses twice as many pistons con rods and it uses sleeve valves. A VERY expensive engine to make. 
It used an 8 to 1 compression ratio which may have given very good fuel economy although it would probably have to have been lowered in order to use much more boost. While the small cylinders do promote good cooling A Hercules XVI used a 7:1 compression ratio and about 8.5lbs of boost on 100/130 fuel. 

Power figure for the EXE is for take-off. Max power at 5000ft and 15,000ft are given at 3800rpm instead of 4200rpm and using 3.5lbs of boost. Max climb power (30 minutes) is at 3600rpm and 3.5lbs boost. It did use a two speed supercharger which helped low altitude power quite a bit. 1100hp at 5,000ft at 3800rpm and 3.5lbs boost vs 950hp at 15,000ft same conditions. Peregrine could manage 885hp at 15,000ft. EXE offered 7.3% more power while using 4.2% more displacement. Now maybe the Peregrine did have more development than the EXE but the EXE was going to need several more years of development to be a production engine at any power level (sleeve valves weren't quite ready yet before 1940-41).


----------



## johnbr (Nov 11, 2011)

I found this on the net today.Hope you all like it.Rolls Royce Vulture engine


----------



## wuzak (Nov 12, 2011)

johnbr said:


> I found this on the net today.Hope you all like it.Rolls Royce Vulture engine


 
That looks like the Exe to me.

Separate cylinders. Lower exhaust outlets, exhaust manifolds rather than ejector exhausts.

Plugs in the top of the heads.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2011)

Yep, I'd say the same. The Vulture had monobloc cylinder casings like the Merlin et al; these are clearly individual sleeve valve cylinder pots as on the Exe. 

A little background. It was originally intended for the Fairey Barracuda and performed well in the Battle test bed, but consumed unusually large amounts of oil. First flown 30/11/38. 1,150 hp @ 4,200 rpm 24 cylinder 90 deg X layout, air cooled, sleeve valve. Bore/stroke 4.2 x 4.0 in, Vol 1,348 cu in (22.1 lt), two speed, single stage supercharged. Info from Lumsden; British piston engines and their aircraft.

Neat picture, John.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 12, 2011)

It's suprising a 2 stroke engine didn't enter service. Rolls-Royce did have to 2 stroke sleeve valve crecy in development but this would have been much easier if well understood poppet valves were used instead. With the poppets being intake types there would be no cooling issue. The challenge with these engines is getting a mixture near the spark plug suitable for ignition; a prechamber is the usual solution.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 12, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> It's suprising a 2 stroke engine didn't enter service. Rolls-Royce did have to 2 stroke sleeve valve crecy in development but this would have been much easier if well understood poppet valves were used instead. With the poppets being intake types there would be no cooling issue. The challenge with these engines is getting a mixture near the spark plug suitable for ignition; a prechamber is the usual solution.



A lot of 2 strokes don't have valves at all. Most motorcycle 2 strokes, for instance, had the air-fuel mixture enter the crankcase before getting transferred to the combustion chamber via a transfer port. The piston performed the function of valves.

For the Crecy the air was pumped directly into the cylinder, excess air being used to scavenge the exhaust gases. Fuel was directly injected into the top of the cylinder, with the chamber shape specifically designed to give a stratified charge allowing for a weak mixture but rich in the location of the spark plugs.

Sleeve valves worked wel in the Crecy. The main issue was piston cooling, as at the same rpm there was half as much time between combustion events as on a conventional engine.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 12, 2011)

I think valved 2 strokes are common in the heavy diesel market, ensures better scavenging. Of course Ralph Sarich's Orbital engine company developed a succesfull 2 stroke with an adjustable side port. The engine while technically successfull and very clean had found only a few markets eg marine outbouards where 4 stroke can be a pain to maintain. The compressed air fuel injection system has been very succesfull however due to its abillity create a stratified charge which is important to ignite two stroke mixtures. Modern electronics and sensors make getting a good mixture much easier. Two stroke is still a good idea if done in a sophisticated way. Crecy might have found a market but for the gas turbine.


----------



## johnbr (Nov 12, 2011)

It do's look Like the EXE. here is zoom in.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 13, 2011)

Doesnt matter if its not a Vulture its still a cracking photo. Nice find johnbr.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> I think valved 2 strokes are common in the heavy diesel market, ensures better scavenging. Of course *Ralph Sarich's* Orbital engine company developed a succesfull 2 stroke with an adjustable side port. The engine while technically successfull and very clean had found only a few markets eg marine outbouards where 4 stroke can be a pain to maintain. The compressed air fuel injection system has been very succesfull however due to its abillity create a stratified charge which is important to ignite two stroke mixtures. Modern electronics and sensors make getting a good mixture much easier. Two stroke is still a good idea if done in a sophisticated way. Crecy might have found a market but for the gas turbine.



Man's parents were born perhaps 50 miles from where I reside now


----------



## johnbr (Nov 13, 2011)

Thanks


----------



## wuzak (Dec 10, 2011)

Found another potential recipient for a successful Vulture.

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/mcdonnel_xp-67.gif

If my scaling is correct the Vulture should fit up to the XP-67's firewall, but it would be tight.

Now, when fitted to the XP-67 (and XP-49) the Continental IV-1430s made an estimated 1050hp, compared to the 1600hp they were supposed to make.

From memory the XP-67 maximum speed was 405mph. If it got the full 1600hp from the IV-1430s (something the V-1710 would have been more than capable of at the time) the max speed would have been pushed out beyond 450-460mph.

A successful Vulture would have easily been capable of 2000hp (it was in 1941), which would give the XP-67 an estimated top speed of around 500mph. By 1943/44 when the XP-67 was testing the Vulture probably would have been cleared for 2500hp. That would mean a top speed of over 500mph.

Of course the Vulture is substantially heavier than either the IV-1430 or the V-1710, which would result in speeds less than those estimated.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 26, 2012)

Just looking at some pictures of the R-4360 when I came upon this:

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-4360/Image61.jpg

The interesting part for me is the master rod in the upper left of the pucture with the pins for the slave rods next to it. Note the holes in the pins allowing the rod cap bolts to pass through.

One wonders if Rolls-Royce considered doing this for the Vulture. One of the failures was the cap bolts being necessarily shorter, not allowing Rolls-Royce to get the amount of pre-tension on the bolts that they would otherwise aim for.


----------



## johnbr (Jun 2, 2012)

Found this


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2012)

Hi John,

Nice cutaway.

It is, of course, by Lyndon Jones.


----------



## johnbr (Jun 2, 2012)

He dos very good work.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2012)

Yes he does.

Do you have his book of cutaways? It is recommended.

On the Vulture, it is quite a compact form. Future versions would have lost, maybe, 200lbs by going to an epicyclic reduction gear. It would also have greatly benefitted from Rolls-Royce's supercharger development at around the time it was cancelled. Pity they could not continue with it.


----------



## Matt (Aug 22, 2014)

wuzak said:


> I have received an installation drawing of the Vulture II/IV, complete with a number of dimensions.



Mr Wuzak, this is my first post so apologies for the debut post being of a begging nature, but you wouldn't happen to still have those installation drawings readily available would you? I could contact RR at Derby but I was hoping you might still have them knocking about and might save me the trouble!
Many thanks
Matt


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2014)

Matt said:


> Mr Wuzak, this is my first post so apologies for the debut post being of a begging nature, but you wouldn't happen to still have those installation drawings readily available would you? I could contact RR at Derby but I was hoping you might still have them knocking about and might save me the trouble!
> Many thanks
> Matt



Yes, I still have them. I haven't scanned the whole drawing, though.

Here is part of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 23, 2014)

This makes me realise I need to find the pile of scribbled notes and make a start on my what if timeline for the Washington MkI with Vultures


----------



## Matt (Aug 23, 2014)

Wonderful! Thank you. You don't happen to have the front view scanned though do you? I just need to design a What-if cowling, so this is great for the exhaust stubs but the frontal area is also a concern.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2014)

Matt said:


> Wonderful! Thank you. You don't happen to have the front view scanned though do you? I just need to design a What-if cowling, so this is great for the exhaust stubs but the frontal area is also a concern.



No, I don't at the moment.

I can scan it at work on Monday. They have a bigger (A3) scaner there.


----------



## Matt (Aug 24, 2014)

That would be amazing Wuzak, it would really help me out!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 24, 2014)

Hope this works.

Scanned files of the Vulture installation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt (Aug 25, 2014)

That's fantastic, thank you Wuzak, you just saved me a ton of time and my cowlings can be that much more accurate now!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 25, 2014)

You're welcome.


----------

