Bristol Taurus fighter engine mods? (4 Viewers)

[Bretoal2]

Alvis gets a little too much credit for the Pelides engine. Air Ministry maybe should get some blame for not at least giving a few more orders?
It is hard to tell.
The Pelides was sort of an anglicized Gnome Rhone 14N engine. At best they used British standard bolts, nuts and threads.
Without trying to make an Alvis version of the 14 R there was little room for growth.
Alcides was a planned version of the GR 18L engine and without a redesign using a central bearing it was not going anywhere.
The Maeonides Major was pretty much a GR 14M under license. I have no Idea if they ever built one or how far drawings got (anglicizing it).
Alvis plant was greatly expanded during the war and did a lot of good work repairing/overhauling other engines.

Getting Fedden to abandon the 4 valve head was also going to be a problem. Most of the advantages of the 4 valve head had disappeared during the 30s with better 2 valve arrangements. Getting him to admit that might be the problem.
I am talking about air cooled aircraft engines here and not 4 valve heads in general.

The Alvis version of the 14M was not the Maeonides Major, but simply the Maeonides.

However, in late 1936, Alvis developed a 9-cylinder engine derived from the Maeonides—initially known as the 9ars—which underwent a slow development process leading up to the outbreak of war. By the time of the Liberation, the engine—now re-named Alvis Leonides and producing between 540 and 650 hp—enjoyed commercial success, notably earning a strong reputation through its use in Westland Sikorsky S-51 and Westland Dragonfly helicopters. Leonides production did not cease until 1966, thirty years after Alvis had acquired the Gnome-Rhône license.

In 1951, the British manufacturer developed the Leonides Major from the Leonides; this 14-cylinder version returned to the original 14M configuration while differing significantly from its distant ancestor—particularly regarding the valve train. Delivering 875 hp, it too was used primarily in helicopters. Ironically, SNECMA (Gnome-Rhône successor) was at one point in negotiations to acquire the license for the Leonides Major, but the deal was cancelled in favor of the Bristol Hercules.

 

[Bretoal2]

The Kinsei and Kasei were both original designs. The M-85 was a licensed GN 14K

Not at all.

We have right here an analysis of the Kinsei (unfortunately somewhat damaged) conducted by US engineers.

The key words appear at the very beginning of the report : "The group responsible for the design did a very ingenious job of combining what they apparently believed to be the most desirable features of a number of foreign manufacture - proved features all. These features are built into a composite design of the sort that has to work the first time - and probably did."

Knowledgeable members of this forum will immediately recognize that the design of many components is borrowed from Gnome et Rhône (cooling fins, valve angles, valve train), Pratt & Whitney (reduction gear, central crankshaft bearing), and Wright (supercharger, main crankcase).

As well as numerous other details borrowed from these three engine manufacturers—companies from which Mitsubishi held all the licenses and whose models it had even manufactured.

M

Thread 'Japanese Kinsei Engine'

Sep 19, 2026

Juts in case it has not been posted yet, here is the article based on the WW2 tear down of the Japanese engine.

• MIflyer
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Engines

 

[Jugman]

Ummm, no, it looks more like an Armstrong-Siddeley design. No surprising sense they had a produced a number of their designs previously. Regardless of superficial appearances the kinsei and Kasei were unique designs. No foreign design shares their principle characteristics or combination of design features. Frankly you could make a stronger claim that the BMW 801 was a copy of Wright technology and that would be still be total bs.

 

[Bretoal2]

Ummm, no, it looks more like an Armstrong-Siddeley design. No surprising sense they had a produced a number of their designs previously. Regardless of superficial appearances the kinsei and Kasei were unique designs. No foreign design shares their principle characteristics or combination of design features. Frankly you could make a stronger claim that the BMW 801 was a copy of Wright technology and that would be still be total bs.

The analysis writes "a number of foreign manufacturers..."

It is also worth noting that, in the years leading up to the war, Armstrong-Siddeley had largely slipped to the status of a secondary manufacturer; market leadership remained with the three engine makers I mentioned—plus Bristol, of course. However, in the 1930s, Gnome & Rhône possessed much of that fourth manufacturer's conventional technology (conventional, i.e. excluding sleeve-valve designs) and offered the advantage (for Japan) of operating according to metric standards.

That said, eighty-four years later, it is difficult for us to know more than the people who dismantled this engine back in 1942. We can only speculate on the question: at what point does a mix of copies cease to be a copy itself?