Continental XI-1430 Hyper engine sucking resources from V-1710

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GregP said:
Met people who worked there in WWII and just after.
Click to expand...

So trusting 70-75 year old memories on things that happened 85-90 years ago?


GregP said:
When Rolls Royce got Allison bearings in the mid-1920's, it was a sale, not a license. The license came later, at the insistence of the US government.
Click to expand...

You, of course, have evidence if this? Not just hearsay?

I am making an inference from the evidence presented in Vees for Victory. The man from the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust did the same. But he has also passed my enquiry on to another researcher, one based in Indianapolis.



I asked the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust. They are researchers and archivists.

The information was given free of charge. I didn't have to pay for it.

Also, you are a long way from proving the information from RRHT wrong.


GregP said:
You were though Joe's shop. People visit just to see Allisons. It shouldn't be too big a push to believe former employees come to see a run. They do, really. And they don't corroborate what Rolls said to you.
Click to expand...

Did they have first hand knowledge of the licence agreement? Did they attend negotiations?

Were they board members?

Or were they fitters, machinists, inspectors? Did they even work in the bearing factory?



The US government paid for the development of the steel backed bearings. Directly at first, and indirectly through the Liberty modernisation program.

I doubt very much that in the mid 1920s Rolls-Royce would have been that significant as a customer for Allison. Apart from the Liberty program, Allison was supplying the US aero engine industry - Wright, Pratt Whitney, Packard. They also supplied Hispano-Suiza in France. I would suggest that the first two named would have been Allison's biggest customers, as their engines dominated the civilian market, at least in the US.

Note that in the early 1930s Allison had developed the bearings to be suitable for automobile engines, thus increasing the potential size of their market substantially.



Allison was expanding to meet its market. Which wasn't huge in the late 1920s Rolls-Royce orders may have required further expansion and capital expenditure. The risk is that these customers find a better way of making the bearings (I believe Allison had a patent for the manufacture, not the steel backed idea), and drop Allison as a supplier. Then Allison may have more capital equipment than is required to meet demand. Rolls-Royce would be no exception.

Licence production is a benefit to Allison as they get profits without extra capital expenditure.

Rolls-Royce could probably afford to pay more in royalties than the normal profit margin for Allison because there is no freight involved. So Allison makes more money and the bearings cost less to Rolls-Royce.
 
It was all a dastardly plan by Rolls Royce to corner the Tractor pulling market in the late 20th and early 21stC. It was a long term plan and it required a lot of foresight in 192? but now the evil RR Galactic Empire has finally crushed the plucky Rebel Allison Alliance. Finally after 90 years RR can give up making thousands of multi million pound Jet engines and concentrate on making V12 aero engine bearings for the 10 people a year that need them.

 
Let's not forget that Allison was owned by General Motors from 1929.

Rolls-Royce may have been a large company in the aero engine field, General Motors was just a very large company.

GM had lobbyists in Washington DC - they managed to get Congress to approve the use of tetra-ethyl lead as a octane booster, even though it was a known carcinogen. Later they effectively blocked moves to have P-38s powered by Merlins.

So it would seem a little odd that they would let Rolls-Royce "bully" an unfavorable licence deal from Allison.
 
Wuzak,

Rolls Royce's only "under the table" effort was to ask for a License and be told no. Then they asked the UK Government to ask the US Government for it. The coercion came from within our own side, not from Rolls Royce; they had no way to force Allison to do anything.

Allison did NOT want to share. They wanted to market a superior bearing, and design / supply engines. They were not allowed to do as they desired according to former employees.

Take it or leave it. I don't care any further. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. It was just another case of government interference in private business. The government still does it today. They claim anything done under government contract as government property, even if proprietary technology is used in the design.

If I were in business, I would refuse to do business with any governement unless I had a specific contract that granted me the right to control any proprietary technology or products used in anything made for them under contract with me, regardless of any other provisions or government regulations. That is, the contract with me would supercede any and all other provisions or regulations specifically.

That would probably mean they'd decline to do business with me unless I had the only game in town for some product, but at least my business would be my own. It goes without saying that if I went into business, it would be aimed at the civil market, not defense ... at least at the start. You never know where development will take you.
 
Shortround6 said:
Gee, I wonder how the guys at Allison felt about being given the production contracts for the J-33 and J-35 jet engines instead of General Electric. Sure sounds like the government was out to screw Allison.
Click to expand...
Shame Allison wasn't given the license for the J36 (Goblin), Allis Chalmers seemed to make a mess with that. That and Allison might have even had advantages over GE in terms of centrifugal compressor development. (though GE copied RR/Hooker's compressor design used in Whittle's engines, I'm not sure how Halford's Goblin compressor design compared)



This is a very serious consideration to make. Even memory errors aside, there's a great many rumors that spread through employees (engineers included) that grow and shift and end up rather far from the bare fact and truth of the matter.

There's a good deal of history in the technical field where success/failure (and bureaucratic/government meddling or shortsightedness) gets blamed, or one part over the other, or animosity/unfavorable terms claimed when there really were none at all. Often the only way to clear up this misinformation is hard documents, invoices, minutes, etc from the original negotiations themselves.

It happens in the aviation industry, the automotive industry, electronics, software, pretty much anywhere in the corporate world has historical examples paralleling these sorts of mistakes, be it honest or dishonest in origin, or far more commonly: both.


All that said, a specific date for when Rolls was granted the license could clear up a lot of this contending information.
 
GregP said:
The date doesn't change the coercion and good luck getting any government to admit any wrongdoing. People won't even admit it when they're caught in the act.
Click to expand...

You haven't clearly explained why the coercion would be necessary. That is, you haven't explained why Allison would say no to a licencing deal with Rolls-Royce. Or what the downside is.

Let me say again, the royalties from Rolls-Royce would, most likely, be comparable to any profits that Allison could make by making and selling the bearings themselves.

Also, the date does very much matter. As your conspiracy theory revolves around the US Government pressuring Allison to do a deal at the behest of the UK government and Rolls-Royce, the timing can add or take away from your argument.

For instance, if the licence deal was done in 1938, the urgency of the British situation is obvious. They are tooling up for war, and need every advantage they can get.

If the date is 1928 then there is no impending war, and very little urgency in re-arming.
 
Wayne,

I am not and was not an employee of Allison Engines. It is VERY clear to me that selling a better bearing is more profitable than licensing one to another company. I wasn't there and have zero interest in debating with you on it. The people involved say it was a forced license and the entire world can accept it or not ... mox nix to me. Do NOT care ... good luck with it.
 
In 1929 GM took over Allison and at the same time were building new factories in Britain for its Vauxhall cars and Bedford trucks marques. If the timing is right the RR bearing deal might have been a sweetener to the British government to smooth the deal. At the time US firms were investing heavily in Britain and there was a lot of concern about Britains high tech industries going to foreign ownership.
 
Hi Shortround,

The government wasn't out to screw Allison at all.

They simply had their own agenda which had nothing to do with Allison one way or another. Having Allies with better weapons, or better engines, is better than not from the government's point of view back then, and is still probably true today. I would be surprised if they cared very much whether Allison survived or folded, though they DID let the contract to develop the V-1710 in 1929. It was in the works for at least two years before that. The government held enough purchase orders with Allison from about 1925 - 1926 onward to have a huge say in day-to-day operations and business since losing the contract would almost certainly have closed the doors for Allison Engineering.

If I implied that Allison was singled out for maltreatment, it was unintended. The political machine just rolled along doing what it did for it's own reasons, and it still does ... it was just politics as usual, and small businesses are toying with a big player when they do business with a government. All governments are very wealthy compared with a struggling small business. Bad consequences for Allison were just "fallout."

I don't lament the license to Rolls Royce. I lament that Allison was forced to help a wealthier foreign rival and was at the same time denied supercharger technology from that foreign rival. Rolls Royce was allowed to prosper with great bearings and Allison was never allowed to share any knowledge in return.

That is not through any questionable actions of Rolls Royce. They did what any good company would do, and I like Rolls Royce as a company for their innovative approach to new products. I fault our own government for not asking the UK government to share supercharger technology with our engine companies. But ... I wasn't around to vote back then and it doesn't much matter today anyway.

So, no bitterness here. Just looking at what went on behind the scenes. There will ALWAYS be behind-the-scenes deals, betrayal, and genuine friendly help. Anyone who thinks awarding defense contracts isn't a political fight and, in the end, a political deal, doesn't understand how the world works. It would be good if planes were bought on mission merit and performance rather than which district gets the revenue.
 
Last edited:
Profitability would hinge entirely on the specifics of the licensing agreement. Now, that said, it's ALSO certainly possible that the goverment(s) and/or GM, among other entities apart from (but with coercion ability over) Allison managed to swing a less profitable and/or less constrictive (to RR) licensing agreement, but that's not the same thing.

Still, it's certainly possible that several steps in the events are lost/missed entirely, like potential offers/counter-offers for licensing from Allison that were too unfavorable for RR to accept.

And aside from money, there's potential concerns over security and leaking trade secrets to others (intentionally or not). International patent law is a mess at best, and useless at worst in cases of leaked/reverse engineered designs ending up produced in countries with little/no interest in abiding by international law. (imagine if there'd been more mutual exchange between GE and Rolls Royce, and the latter ended up with access to the J35 prototypes and/or plans or experimental data ... and then the soviets ended up with that as well as the Nene and Derwent; though I suppose that wouldn't really be much/any worse than if the Soviers had access to Metrovick's turbojet/fan engines)
 

This seems to suggest that you believe Rolls-Royce were able to make Allison style bearings for free. I very much doubt that to be the case, as it is likely, almost certain, that a royalty was paid for each bearing made.

Similarly, under the licence agreement with Rolls-Royce Packard would pay a royalty for each Merlin they built. Though once the US joined the war that royalty may have been waived.

Rolls-Royce also had a manufacturing licence with Farman for the two speed supercharger drive. And would have paid a royalty for each one of them they made.

As to the superchargers, Allison presented their concept of a 2 stage V-1710 to the USAAC in 1938. ie before work had begun on the 2 stage Merlin. It would seem that the modularity of the V-1710 was to be continued with the 2 stage system, with a bolt-on auxiliary supercharger. The supercharger and accessory sections of the V-1710 were designed with this layout in mind.

Given that the production of the two stage V-1710 started not much later than Merlin 61 production in the UK it is hard to see that Allison would be asking for the Merlin design. It would mean throwing away years of work, starting again and putting the production of 2 stage engines further behind.

Also, the Merlin 61 2 stage supercharger unit was substantially larger (12" first stage) than the single stage compressor on the V-1710 (9.5"). This may have had implications for the disposition of accessories at the rear end of the engine.

There was more to the success of the Rolls-Royce 2 stage system than the two compressor wheels being fitted to the same shaft. One was the liquid:air intercooler - hardly a proprietary technology, and also used on some early versions of the V-1710 2 stage unit. The intercooler was dropped from the production 2 stage models as it allowed the engine proper to be the same as, or very close to, the ones used in turbocharged applications.

Another was the design of the supercharger impeller and the volute. This was the result of Hooker's work with the Merlin XX. The improvements made with the XX were equally applied to the 61, and were based on improvements to the formulae used for supercharger design. I am not certain, but I believe that Hooker would have published that information.

Certainly Wright, Pratt Whitney and Allison improved their superchargers once they began designing their own, rather than subcontracting that to General Electric.

The Auxiliary stage supercharger for teh V-1710-47 (first of the 2 stagers) was 12.1875". ie bigger than the Merlin's (originally 11.5", then 12"). What would have been required is to match the two impeller sizes. But Allison was using the auxiliary stage differently then Rolls-Royce were.

Having the integral two stage supercharger would also have required a multiple speed drive, or VSD, for the supercharger. Allison didn't have a single production V-1710 with multi-speed integral supercharger. It wasn't a priority with the coupling to turbochargers, nor with the auxiliary supercharged models, which used a VSD.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and Flight Global published this in 1942:

rolls-royce merlin | 1942 | 2610 | Flight Archive

Surely would have given Allison engineers some ideas?


I have seen similar calls for Rolls-Royce to share their 2 stage design with Napier for the Sabre. That misses the point that Napier were designing a 2 stage 3 speed supercharger, which was dropped because it distracted from doing what was necessary to make the Sabre a reliable and powerful engine.

Bristol build a two stage engine years before Rolls-Royce did.

Pratt Whitney had a production 2 stage engine before the Merlin 61 entered production.

btw, there seems to have been 6 or 7 variants of the V-1710 with two speed supercharger drive. About 17 of these engines were made.
 
I don't think Rolls Royce got the bearing license for free, but I am pretty sure it cost them less to purchase a license than to purchase bearings, so it was profit Allison profit lost.

You should stop trying to put words in my mouth, I never even intimated they got anything for free. If you want to think they got something for free, say it, but don't tell me it's what I think.

You seem to batting something about above. Spit it out.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
I don't think Rolls Royce got the bearing license for free, but I an pretty sure it cost them less to purchase a license than to purchase bearings, so it was profit Allison profit lost.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it cost Rolls-Royce less to make the bearings in the UK than to buy them from Allison.

Suppose it cost the same for Rolls-Royce to make the bearings as it did Allison.

On top of Rolls-Royce's manufacturing cost is the royalty they pay Allison.

Let's suppose that royalty is equal to the profit margin. So Allison is still getting the same money, and the price is the same ex-factory for bearings made by Rolls-Royce and bearings bought from Allison. But the bearings have to be shipped from the USA to the UK, which costs some. Whether Allison paid for the shipping and then charged Rolls-Royce, or Rolls-Royce paid for it themselves, that is an additional cost.

Basically I am saying that even though bearings cost less for Rolls-Royce to make under licence, it does not necessarily mean a loss of profit for Allison.
 
Your reasoning above is sound. I am not privy to the business agreements between Allison and Rolls Royce, so I can't argue it either way and was not trying to generate past revenue stream numbers on paper.

The point I was making, for the last time, is that former employees ... who were there ... said that nobody in Allison wanted to license anything and would not have done so if not coerced into doing it. If that is not interfereing in free trade, I don't know what is. That's why I'd be ultra careful in a small company putting too many eggs in one basket. You might have one customer when you start out, but the best tactic is to get as many customers and products as possible so no single one can't control you.

I was in the miliatary and civil electronics business for 33 years and at one plant, we shipped 150,000+ boards per month. But ... and this is a big one ... 90,000+ went to one customer. So when THEY wanted something, everyone else suffered because they inevitably got it, whatever it was they wanted. I think Allison was in the same boat and weren't free to pursue and develop their business due to government contracts that were taking up most of the engineering time.

For all I know, Rolls Royce might have also been in a similar situation though, from their sale of automobiles and other items, perhaps to a greatly lesser degree. If so, they pursued GOOD business practices and diversified products as well as customers. Nothing wrong with that at all.
 

But didn't the Curtiss P-40F/L Kittyhawk use the Packard V-1650-1, a 2-speed supercharged unit?
A multi-speed V-1710 would have been useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Allison v-1710 Engine Life
2 3
Replies
54
Views
7K
BiffF15
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
ThomasP
T
G
How were V-1 kills scored for pilots?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Frog
F
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
1K
wuzak
W