Shortround6
Major General
I an not saying that few weren't used for racing purposes. When the only real alternative is a Napier Lion a modified Buzzard might not look to bad.
Allison V-1710 vs. H.S. 12: another what if
- Thread starter Clay_Allison
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I an not saying that few weren't used for racing purposes. When the only real alternative is a Napier Lion a modified Buzzard might not look to bad.
Shortround6
Major General
Car factories were ill suited to making aircraft engines. Most, if not ALL, of the aircraft engines made in both England and the U.S. by car companies were made in new, purpose built factories that were run/managed and in part staffed by car executives, engineers and workers.
While some techniques could be applied (sometimes with large benefit) the actual physical plant wasn't much use.
An Allison powered He-100 would have been a total joke. The He-100 had a single 20mm MG/ff through the prop hub that may or may not have worked very well, it sure didn't work that well in 109E's that tried it. there is no chance of using such a weapon on the Allison without a total redesign of the whole engine. The only other guns were a pair of 7.9mm MG in the wing roots. Hardly a useful armament in 1940. With it's small wing is there any more room for more than perhaps another pair of 7.9mm MGs, one each out board of the landing gear?
- Thread starter
- #23
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
That could get awkward.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
No more awkward then GM selling trucks to the German Army. Or Daimler selling armored cars to the British Army. Or Bofors (a Krupp subsidiary) selling 40mm AA guns to almost everyone. Or Ford establishing tank production plants in Stalin's Soviet Union.
If Allison cannot sell aircraft engines in the USA then they move production to where business opportunities are better. Heck GM could sell the Allison V-12 engine division to someone like BMW, complete with all the production tooling. Take what you can get rather then continue to operate the aircraft engine division at a financial loss in the USA.
If Allison cannot sell aircraft engines in the USA then they move production to where business opportunities are better. Heck GM could sell the Allison V-12 engine division to someone like BMW, complete with all the production tooling. Take what you can get rather then continue to operate the aircraft engine division at a financial loss in the USA.
- Thread starter
- #25
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I see where you are going with it and we weren't technically at war when Allison really needed the money.
The only real problem I see with moving it to Germany is competition. Would the Allison have really been perceived as better than the Jumo 211?
France on the other hand had constant issues with the Hispano engines (ironically the subject of my what if) one of the French aircraft designers could have decided to put an Allison engine in their plane.
Also the Italians really didn't have a decent home grown engine for their fine airframe designs. If the Macchi C.200 and/or Fiat G.50 had been designed around the V-1710 to begin with, rather than having to wait until the DB 601 became available in 1941 to have a first class fighter plane.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 513
- Apr 23, 2007
Sorry to divert the thread but I mentioned that the DB-601 used roller bearings (and that Kawasaki had had problems in copying them) to an acquaintance who was interested in motor racing and he replied that roller bearings were standard in motor racing because they were better if you suddenly increased power as at the race start. Did the use of roller bearings reflect that DB were not making aero engines in 1933 but were involved in motor racing?
Shortround6
Major General
GM, in the form of Opal, did sell trucks to the German army, but they weren't American model trucks.
How much conection did the British Daimler company have with the German Daimler company or Daimler-Benz?
Bofors was Krupp subsidiary???
"During this period Krupp purchased a one-third share of Bofors. Krupp engineers started the process of updating the Bofors factories to use modern equipment and metallurgy, but the 40 mm project was kept secret. Nevertheless, many sources claim that the 40 mm design was in fact adapted from a Krupp weapon. However the only German weapon of similar caliber (and role) was the 3.7 cm FlaK 43, made by Rheinmetall; it appears that historians[who?] have connected the development of the Bofors 40 mm and German 37 mm weapons without any supporting evidence. It should be pointed out these two weapons are quite different from each other and share few, if any, features."
OK. it is wikipedia but do you have any other sources?
Krupp part owner and not a majority stock holder.
The Allison engine was developed under government contract which meant that the Government owned the rights to the Allison engine. Alison needed government permission just to export the engine let alone sell or transfer the whole operation to another country. Allison (and GM) had to agree to forgive the 900,000 dollars owed to them by the Army in return for permission to export engines to the French and British.
Just what time period are you talking about here?
The Allison doesn't pass a type test until the spring of 1937 an so isn't really a salable product until then or after. While P&W might not have gotten much flack about licensing the Hornet in the very early 30s the political climate was changing by the late 30s with Sept of 1938 (Munich crisis) being about the absolute last end for any possibility of transferring government controlled technology to Germany.
And why would the Germans even want the Allison? not that it was a bad engine but if they are short of DB and Junkers V-12s wouldn't it make more sense to build another factory to make more of one or the other rather than introduce a 3rd type of V-12 with all the attendant problems of training and spare parts supply?
By the way, there was no real production tooling until 1939-40. Not in the sense of producing hundreds of engines per month. Or in early 1939 of even producing a few dozen engines a month.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
DB600. RLM approval during 1936.
Jumo211. RLM approval during 1937.
The Allison V-1710 doesn't need to be superior to the DB601 and Jumo211 as there were not enough of either engine model until about 1941. It just needs to be superior to second string engines like the Jumo210 and BMW132. I expect Heinkel would be thrilled to have Allison V-1710 engines for the He-100. Foclke Wulf would feel the same way if Allison V-1710 engines are available for the Fw-187.
- Thread starter
- #29
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
As Shortround pointed out, the V-1710 was designed under military contract and could not be exported without government permission.
Shortround6
Major General
The development of plain bearings is quite long with sudden jumps in performance. They are also quite demanding in both the quality and quantity of lubricant they are supplied with. Certain alloys work very well with some oils but certain additives (like zinc) used in trace amounts for good reason (anti-scuffing) combine chemically with certain bearing materials (like silver) to form corrosion of the bearing so that modern cars can't use silver alloy plain bearings using modern oils.
Ball or roller bearings use much less oil pressure and while they may require very clean oil ( in regards to particles/dirt) they might be more tolerant of trace elements in the oil.
At times engineers have favored on over the other for various reasons. In certain countries it may also have to do with the suppliers. Most aircraft engine companies did not make their own bearings but bought them from independent suppliers. If a country had a large number of suppliers and a tradition of using Ball/roller bearings that is what they used. If they had a industrial base of good plain bearings then those might predominate a countries engines. There will always be some cross over as nether type is suitable for ALL applications.
For political reasons it has to be before Munich but it can also happen sooner than the spring of 1937. Me109 fighters with DB 601 engines did not enter production until the end of 1938 with the result of some units still operating the D-Model with the 680hp Jumo engine.
The V-1710 failed the (american) type test repeatedly but each time a few hours short of the magic 150 hour mark. The LW might think: "Well, not perfect but way better than the Jumo and the remaining problems can be fixed with some time and money." And the LW was not short of money to spend.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
He has also pointed out the Government is behind in their payments. GM could sue for the right to sell the money losing V-1710 engine design.
And why should't the American Government allow the Allison V-1710 design to be sold, to cover the debt? It's obvious the American military did not want to purchase the engine during the mid 1930s.
Shortround6
Major General
Again, why build a factory to build a third type of engine when you could build a factory to make one of the 2 existing types of engines and solve your shortage problem that way, with much less trouble in spare parts, mechanic training and such.
- Thread starter
- #34
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Yeah, Junkers and Daimler already have factories. If you need more engine production, you have BMW build more of one or the other engine under license.
Shortround6
Major General
Why is it obvious?
The Army may have wanted the engine, in fact with the Army telling manufactures that submissions to certain requirements HAD to use the Allison engines it certainly seems like they wanted the engine.
Getting congress to cough up the money for large production numbers was quite different than just "what the Army wanted".
The order in the Spring of 1939 for the P-40s and the Allison engines was, by far, the largest aircraft purchase since the end of WW I by the US Military.
By the time GM sued, and won, the war might have been over.
GM would have had an alternative to a lawsuit. They could tell the government that due to the mounting losses due to no domestic orders they will pull the plug on the V-1710 unless they are allowed to offer the engine on the international market(France, Italy, Germany).
- Thread starter
- #37
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Perhaps the Army couldn't order more engines because the P-40 (and other V-1710 platforms) didn't exist yet.
Shortround6
Major General
You are quite right. The airframes to use the engines didn't exist in other than prototype form.
Even the Airacuda doesn't show up in numbers until 1940:
YFM-1 Airacuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Thread starter
- #39
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I'm shocked the Airacuda was ever built at all. I hope if someone offered me that I would laugh at them, call bullsh!t and set the blueprints on fire in front of them.
Mirror imaging I guess. "We have heavy bombers, so must they, so we must have cannon armed interceptors."
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
