If no P-51, how would the P-40 have evolved?

[oldcrowcv63]

Gotta love this forum! when one knowledgable poster meets another we all benefit from the interaction.

 

[krieghund]

Ok talking about the P-39 gets emotional sometimes..as well as how history has defaced the V-1710..how ever let's deal "With just the facts Mam"

I have included two NACA reports that deal with NACA drag reduction on various aircraft including the XP-39. Also included is a graph showing the anticipated speeds thru improvements and the original speeds tested prior to installing a low altitude rated V-1710. For those that love to crunch numbers please enjoy..........

And also the part about its maligned history I include an excerpt from Alfred Price's book "Fighter Aircraft" where he gives the V-1710 a scathing review....normally he does a good job of aviation history...so I don't know.......

 

[tomo pauk]

So Mr. Price flatly states that V-1710 was proven as unreliable in service? I cannot think what he thinks of Sabre, R-3350, VK-106/107/108, Jumo 222, Homare, BMW-801 etc.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, BobR, if I may:

...
This is from a book written on the collapse of Curtiss as an aircraft company. Get the book--: Curtiss-Wright. The only American manufacturer capable of immediately meeting the demands of the Allied aviation programs of 1938-43, the corporation concentrated on the quantity production of aircraft that were soon obsolete in light of the rapid pace of technological change. Instead of cross-licensing designs and subcontracting other producers for component parts, the corporation overextended its managerial and engineering resources to expand its own production facilities.
Consequently, when Curtiss-Wright attempted to introduce new designs, such as the C-46 transport or the R-3350 radial engine, there were significant developmental problems. Curtiss-Wright's promise of untested technologies in large quantities and the failure to deliver them resulted in a considerable loss of prestige and the scrutiny of congressional investigators.

If I'm reading this right, the C-W company is to blame for the demise of the C-W company.

The P-60 started as an improved P-40 but turned into a pathetic malaise of untested engines, cancelled engines etc.
The YP-60E did not fly till mid 1944, while the Q, which out performed any model of the 60, including the E which was not a bad plane but was not needed, was flying already by mid 1943.
I do not have the book here and cannot find it on the net but if I remember correctly it was Curtiss management that killed the Q, not the Army Air Corp.
they could have been producing the much improved Q bbefore the beggining of 1944 instead of producing a still poorly engined N model. Hell they could have simply put the Q engine into the N and had improvement.

The P-60 got only tested true engines.
The airframe had it's problems: it was too large heavy for the V-12s, while the R-2800 engined P-60 were unable to offer anything over P-47 (half of weaponry, less fuel, slower).

The original XP-39 was built with a V-1710 augmented by a Type B-5 turbosupercharger as specified by Fighter Projects Officer Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey and his colleague Gordon P. Saville. Numerous changes were made to the design during a period of time when Kelsey's attention was focused elsewhere, and Bell engineers, NACA aerodynamicists and the substitute fighter project officer determined that dropping the turbocharger would be among the drag reduction measures indicated by borderline wind tunnel test results; an unnecessary step, according to aviation engineer and historian Warren M. Bodie. The production P-39 was thus stuck with poor high-altitude performance and proved unsuitable for the air war in Western Europe which was largely conducted at high altitudes. The P-39 was rejected by the British, but used by the U.S. in the Mediterranean and the early Pacific air war, as well as shipped to the Soviet Union in large numbers under the Lend Lease program. The Soviets wer e able to make good use of P-39s because of its excellent maneuverability and because the air war on the Eastern Front in Europe was primarily short ranged, tactical, and conducted at lower altitudes. In the P-39, Soviet pilots scored the highest number of individual kills made on any American, or British fighter type.

Mr. Bodie knows a great deal about planes, but NACA beats him in their business fair square. As shown in the chart posted above.
For the XP-39 - I'm the fan of the plane. USAAF has had two choices: wait for Bell to finally deliver the promised high performance fighter (after the AIrabonita and XP-39 failing to meet the promised), or to have Bell really producing something usable, even if it's limited. They opted for later - with P-38, P-43, plus forthcoming Seversky/Republic designs, they reckoned they have the 20000+ ft altitude covered.

The P-40, which also had only the single-stage, single-speed-supercharged V-1710, had similar problems with high-altitude performance.

True.

The P-38 was the only fighter to make it into combat during World War II with turbosupercharged V-1710s. The operating conditions of the Western European air war – flying for long hours in intensely cold weather at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) – revealed several problems with the turbosupercharged V-1710. These had a poor manifold fuel-air distribution and poor temperature regulation of the turbosupercharger air, which resulted in frequent engine failures (detonation occurred in certain cylinders as the result of persistent uneven fuel-air mixture across the cylinders caused by the poor manifold design). The turbosupercharger had additional problems with getting stuck in the freezing air in either high or low boost mode; the high boost mode could cause detonation in the engine, while the low boost mode would be manifested as power loss in one engine, resulting in sudden fishtailing in flight. These problems were aggravated by suboptimal engine management techniques taught to many pilots duri ng the first part of WWII, including a cruise setting that involves running the engine at a high RPM and low manifold pressure with a rich mixture. These settings can contribute to overcooling of the engine, fuel condensation problems, accelerated mechanical wear, and the likelihood of components binding or "freezing up." Details of the failure patterns were described in a report by General Doolittle to General Spatz in January 1944.

There is no 'high boost' or 'low boost' mode. The boost can be adjusted, within certain limit. The high boost was unable to cause detonation in engine, it was a consequence of a too high boost. The P-38H and earlier models were having definitely boost limits vs. the P-38J/-L, mostly due to the different intercoolers.
The pilots operating the P-38J, when operating the engine at the low MAP/high RPM were likely to 'kill' the engine, since the air/fuel mixture would over-cool in such a regime, the plane flying high. I agree that the intake manifold was a problematic item, it was changed by Allison, from second half of 1943.
You can note that P-38H and earlier models were unlikely to over-cool the air/fuel mixture, they were having just the opposite problems. Too high a carburetor temperature was there the issue, since the inter-coolers were unable to properly cool the air-fuel mixture, was the hurdle for the increase of boost level (less boost, less power).

 

[rinkol]

The document on the drag cleanup tests is really interesting. One gets insights into how much room there is for refinements.

 

[RpR]

Oh boy, where to start.

All quite true but it has little bearing on the P-40 or a turbo P-40.


.

The quote attributed to this statement has EVERYTHING to do with the P-40.

I do not have the book, I read it quiet some years back, but the attitude of the quote you reject is the very attitude that affected ALLCurtiss dealings including why the Q was not produced.
The reason the P-40 was not advanced was not because of the Army or government, it was inside stupidity among Curtiss money crunchers.

There is a new book that is said to be a good deal better than any older one. At least from one review I read, althought it was said it still does not give all of the details of how Curtiss snatched defeat from victory.
------------------
The P-53, which was intended to be an improved P-40 was contracted in Oct. of 1940 and was supposed to have the Continental 1430 and a laminar flow wing. Two months later the Army changed its mind starting the P-60 debacle, which during, Curtiss was still pumping out barely improved P-40s.
Government/Army, you pick the term you prefer, can and do change contracts in the blink of an eye continually; whereas Curtiss had GREAT influence in its dealings with G/A and could have affected contract/production decisions easily.
The quote you said had no influence on the P-40 indicates Curtiss insiders made the decisions that affected what went on inside Curtiss, not the G/A.

The engine in the yp-37 which flew in June 1939 was extremely unreliable, which is one reason the single stage P-40 was chosen after NACA tests had eventually got the xP-40 up to 366mph in Dec. 1939.

I wonder, with the comment on turbo-charged planes, if he did not mean the various two-stage super-charged engines that flew.

 

[N4521U]

Gate guards and beer cans.....
you guys make my head hurt.

 

[RpR]

Hi, BobR, if I may:



If I'm reading this right, the C-W company is to blame for the demise of the C-W company. From all I have read.

The P-60 got only tested true engines.
The airframe had it's problems: it was too large heavy for the V-12s, while the R-2800 engined P-60 were unable to offer anything over P-47 (half of weaponry, less fuel, slower).

.

The P-60, before all the a,b,c etc. numbers were added, was supposed to have the -75 Allison with two different types of exhaust driven super-chargers and the sixteen cylinder Chrysler engine (this is all after the cancellation of the Continental powered P-53).
In the mean time after they decided against the Chrysler it was decided to put a R-2800 in and while this was going on some one decided to put a Merlin 61 in.

While this was going on some one decided to use contra-rotating props on the R-2800 but there was concern on the availability of this, so a regular R-2800 was put in.

Back to go-- the Allison powered A model first flew in Nov. of '42, while the C and first version of the E first flew in early '43.

To condense a soap-opera, while the C through variations of E were flying, finding chassis changes necessary for non-contra version, the Q was being developed, tested and flown and had performance that exceeded the P-60 of any sort, even with the standard lousy landing-gear set-up that one test pilot said should be changed.--- (Which oddly was one thing that the Dutch wanted changed on the CW-21s they ordered and C-W had no trouble changing was the rear-ward retracting landing-gear. The change to inward retracting added 18mph to top speed despite adding weight.
The originals had the same landing gear set-up as the P-40; therefore, while CW-21 originals were shipped to China in early 1940, the changed B models were also shipped in early 1940, which means the change was quick and easy.)

The P-60 was sent to elimination Army tests and was found lacking, so Curtiss finally ended up producing several hundred P-47G models which due to delays in prod. never left the states.

The should have made the Q.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-60, before all the a,b,c etc. numbers were added, was supposed to have the -75 Allison with two different types of exhaust driven super-chargers and the sixteen cylinder Chrysler engine (this is all after the cancellation of the Continental powered P-53).

The P-60 (version with turbo V-1710) seem to me as the most balanced one. Unfortunately, someone (Curtiss? USAAF?) decided to go with brand new engine-turbo combo (V-1710-75 + Type B-14 turbo), instead of going with off-the-shelf models. You do loose 100 HP, but you have the powerplant that actually works.

In the mean time after they decided against the Chrysler it was decided to put a R-2800 in and while this was going on some one decided to put a Merlin 61 in.
While this was going on some one decided to use contra-rotating props on the R-2800 but there was concern on the availability of this, so a regular R-2800 was put in.

Who is the 'someone' that decided that two stage Merlin is to be installed? Who is the 'someone' that decided that a contra-rotating prop is to be installed? That version actually flew. The regular R-2800 was powering both versions, regular contra-rotating prop ones.

Back to go-- the Allison powered A model first flew in Nov. of '42, while the C and first version of the E first flew in early '43.

IIRC the Allison version flew without turbo?

To condense a soap-opera, while the C through variations of E were flying, finding chassis changes necessary for non-contra version, the Q was being developed, tested and flown and had performance that exceeded the P-60 of any sort, even with the standard lousy landing-gear set-up that one test pilot said should be changed.

The Q means the two stage V-1710 is installed. Production 2 stage V-1710 were not the same as one powering the Q-3, the model making 420 mph. Instead of 1700 HP at 26000 ft at 3200 rpm, the two stage V-1710s in production from mid 1943 to mid 1944 were capable for 1150 HP at 22500 ft at 3000 RPM. So we're looking at a 380 mph P-40Q in 1944? Should we ditch the 2 HMGs and wing tips to make it go 390 mph? It still fails very much far behind the P-51B and P-47D.
The XP-40Q-3 was delivered to the AAF in early 1945. A full year ago the in-service AAF fighters were making 20 mph more, while featuring other benefits as well. The P-51 with 1700 HP at 26000 ft would be making like 470 mph?

--- (Which oddly was one thing that the Dutch wanted changed on the CW-21s they ordered and C-W had no trouble changing was the rear-ward retracting landing-gear. The change to inward retracting added 18mph to top speed despite adding weight.
The originals had the same landing gear set-up as the P-40; therefore, while CW-21 originals were shipped to China in early 1940, the changed B models were also shipped in early 1940, which means the change was quick and easy.)

Oddly enough, I like the CW-21 very much. It's U/C fairings were much bulkier than those of P-40, so the efford paid off.
The P-40 going to inward retracting U/C would include cutting two of three main spars, and that does not look like a healthy thing to do.

The P-60 was sent to elimination Army tests and was found lacking, so Curtiss finally ended up producing several hundred P-47G models which due to delays in prod. never left the states.

The story of P-47G is another sorry one. Republic made the factory from gound up in Evansville and start rolling the P-47s there as hot rolls by 1943, workers there were green as grass. Curtiss was unable to match that effort with a trained manpower.

The should have made the Q.

They should have produced P-47s in a proper way.

 

[Shortround6]

The quote attributed to this statement has EVERYTHING to do with the P-40.

I do not have the book, I read it quiet some years back, but the attitude of the quote you reject is the very attitude that affected ALLCurtiss dealings including why the Q was not produced.
The reason the P-40 was not advanced was not because of the Army or government, it was inside stupidity among Curtiss money crunchers.

The quote speaks to a general attitude but the specifics leave a lot to be desired. C-46 was originally designed in 1937, first flight in 1940 and production in 1941, it had darn little to do with with the P-36/P-40, considering it was designed/ built at the Curtiss ST. Louis Plant while the P-36/P-40 work was going on in Buffalo NY. The R-3350 work was going on in Patterson NJ. It a different self-contained division. The Company's attitude affected Production of both aircraft and engines by sub contractors but had very little to do with stifling designs, of which Curtiss perhaps tried too many. The Army (the Customer) was not interested in the P-40 in the long term. It was only buying the P-40 to make up numbers while newer/better planes were designed and built. As soon as those newer/better aircraft reached mass production Curtiss production would stop or be shifted. Slapping band-aids on the P-40 wasn't going to save it and Curtiss either knew it or should have known it. The Army (and Navy) over reached in many of their specifications but if Curtiss didn't try to meet the specifications they wouldn't have even gotten a prototype contract.

Part of Curtiss's problem is that many of their prototypes failed to meet the specifications or performance guarantees in the contracts.

The P-53, which was intended to be an improved P-40 was contracted in Oct. of 1940 and was supposed to have the Continental 1430 and a laminar flow wing. Two months later the Army changed its mind starting the P-60 debacle, which during, Curtiss was still pumping out barely improved P-40s.
Government/Army, you pick the term you prefer, can and do change contracts in the blink of an eye continually; whereas Curtiss had GREAT influence in its dealings with G/A and could have affected contract/production decisions easily.
The quote you said had no influence on the P-40 indicates Curtiss insiders made the decisions that affected what went on inside Curtiss, not the G/A.

The Army had sunk over a Million dollars in the Continental 1430 (it was Army designed, Continental just built parts and assemblies to Army Specs) and the Army thought it was better than the Allison. Laminar flow wings were the "in thing". You couldn't have a 1940/41 fighter without them. Turns out they didn't really work all that well but no (or few) designs would be accepted that didn't have them. Army may have spec-ed the 8 gun armament which didn't help. P-47 armament in a 1300-1500hp fighter was going to be a problem ( and a reason the wing went to 275 sq ft?). Curtiss could either accept the spec as written and try for the contract or tell the Army that 8 guns were out of the question and four was a much better idea and try to convince the Army they were right. Army was trying to think 2-3 years down the road. What might be NEEDED without KNOWING what the enemy would actually have in 2-3 years.

 

[RpR]

The P-60 (version with turbo V-1710) seem to me as the most balanced one. Unfortunately, someone (Curtiss? USAAF?) decided to go with brand new engine-turbo combo (V-1710-75 + Type B-14 turbo), instead of going with off-the-shelf models. You do loose 100 HP, but you have the power plant that actually works.

They tried two versions of exhaust driven (turbo) blowers on the P-60. The A had the above and the B had one from Wright.



Who is the 'someone' that decided that two stage Merlin is to be installed? Who is the 'someone' that decided that a contra-rotating prop is to be installed? That version actually flew. The regular R-2800 was powering both versions, regular contra-rotating prop ones.

If I knew that I would tell you. Both R-2800 versions flew.
The B flew but it was modified to take the standard 2800 as the first E and they found they needed chassis mods.
It gets confusing as to what was what or became what and I an not even going to try to straighten that out here.



The Q means the two stage V-1710 is installed. Production 2 stage V-1710 were not the same as one powering the Q-3, the model making 420 mph. Instead of 1700 HP at 26000 ft at 3200 rpm, the two stage V-1710s in production from mid 1943 to mid 1944 were capable for 1150 HP at 22500 ft at 3000 RPM. So we're looking at a 380 mph P-40Q in 1944? Should we ditch the 2 HMGs and wing tips to make it go 390 mph? It still fails very much far behind the P-51B and P-47D.
The XP-40Q-3 was delivered to the AAF in early 1945. A full year ago the in-service AAF fighters were making 20 mph more, while featuring other benefits as well. The P-51 with 1700 HP at 26000 ft would be making like 470 mph?

Tthere were NO 1,150 hp Allison two-stage engines.
All 1,150hp engines were single stage.
The high horse power Q was flying already in mid-1943.




Oddly enough, I like the CW-21 very much. It's U/C fairings were much bulkier than those of P-40, so the efford paid off.
The P-40 going to inward retracting U/C would include cutting two of three main spars, and that does not look like a healthy thing to do.

The Q already had air intakes where the standard did not in its laminar wings. I doubt the landing gear switch would have been much of a problem.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40Q_42-9987_Eng-47-1660-A.pdf---Here is a test pilots report on one of the Qs.

``

 

[Shortround6]

I believe they PLANNED to try two versions of exhaust driven (turbo) blowers on the P-60. The A had the above and the B had one from Wright. The P-60A suffered a fire while ground taxiing and the exhaust system ans super charger were removed before flying. The P-60B was never completed. It was used to build one of the later versions.

"All two-stage blown Allisons were at least 1,450-- there were NO 1,150 hp Allison two-stage engines."

No, they were not. The Majority of the early 2 stage engines were 1325 for take-off and "rated" at 1150hp at altitude.

"All 1,150hp engines were single stage." Depends on which rating and what altitude, Allison gave a take-off rating (which varied) and an "altitude" rating which was often 1150hp. The altitude at which the 1150hp was obtained varied with the engine model. WEP ratings are different.

"The high horse power Q was flying already in mid-1943."

Depends on what you mean by "Mid" and with which engine. First two "Q"s were converted from other models and one of them first flew with a single stage engine. the first two planes flew with several different engines as part of the development program.

 

[RpR]

I believe they PLANNED to try two versions of exhaust driven (turbo) blowers on the P-60. The A had the above and the B had one from Wright. The P-60A suffered a fire while ground taxiing and the exhaust system ans super charger were removed before flying. The P-60B was never completed. It was used to build one of the later versions.

"All two-stage blown Allisons were at least 1,450-- there were NO 1,150 hp Allison two-stage engines."

No, they were not. The Majority of the early 2 stage engines were 1325 for take-off and "rated" at 1150hp at altitude.

"All 1,150hp engines were single stage." Depends on which rating and what altitude, Allison gave a take-off rating (which varied) and an "altitude" rating which was often 1150hp. The altitude at which the 1150hp was obtained varied with the engine model. WEP ratings are different.

"The high horse power Q was flying already in mid-1943."

Depends on what you mean by "Mid" and with which engine. First two "Q"s were converted from other models and one of them first flew with a single stage engine. the first two planes flew with several different engines as part of the development program.

I edited the power as I realized I was wrong but you read before I did.
The single stage engines, used in the P-40 topped out a 1,150 at combat setting.(Although one chart puts it a little higher if I remember corrrectly)
The engine in the Q from the test I pasted was 1,325 at take-off; nominal 1,150; 1,500 combat setting.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, BoBR,

They tried two versions of exhaust driven (turbo) blowers on the P-60. The A had the above and the B had one from Wright.

Thanks for the tidbit about the planned B version. Unfortunately, it seem that neither turbo P-60 never took off.

If I knew that I would tell you. Both R-2800 versions flew.
The B flew but it was modified to take the standard 2800 as the first E and they found they needed chassis mods.
It gets confusing as to what was what or became what and I an not even going to try to straighten that out here.

Okay, no problem

(tomo pauk: the two stage V-1710s in production from mid 1943 to mid 1944 were capable for 1150 HP at 22500 ft at 3000 RPM.)

Tthere were NO 1,150 hp Allison two-stage engines.
All 1,150hp engines were single stage.
The high horse power Q was flying already in mid-1943.

All V-1710s, ww2 production, with an auxiliary, mechanically driven supercharger stage, were rated at 1150 HP, military power. I'm not talking about take off power, but the power at altitude. The E-11 was rated with 1150 HP at 22400-22500 ft, the E-21 developed 1150 at 25000 ft, etc. They were much better than single stage ones (1125 HP at ~15000 ft), but also less capable than Packard Merlin. It took to 1945 for Allison to start producing the two stage V-1710s that were capable matching Merlin output.
The war emergency power was being achieved under the full throttle altitude for the military power, not above.
I'll cover the supposed high power Q further down.

The P-40 going to inward retracting U/C would include cutting two of three main spars, and that does not look like a healthy thing to do.

The Q already had air intakes where the standard did not in its laminar wings. I doubt the landing gear switch would have been much of a problem.

One thing is to cut a tunnel in the middle of the spar, tunnel feeding the cooler, another thing is to 'amputate two of three main spars and pray the wing won't break in mid air. The XP-40Q having a laminar flow wing is a neat urban myth - the Qs started their life as the modified Ns, and those were surely non-laminar wing birds. We can also take a look at what speed was achieved on what power. 1700 HP @ 26000ft was needed for 420 mph, for the Q-3. The unloved P-63 was making 415 mph at 1200 HP, with a laminar wing being of cca 20% greater area than the wing of the Q-3. So either the Qs have had about the same wing as the other P-40s (my bet), or that Curtiss 'laminar flow wing' was the worst that ever flew.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-47-1660-A.pdf---Here is a test pilots report on one of the Qs.

Thanks for the link.
You can read that the engine powering that Q was the F-27 (or V-1710-101), the engine capable for 1150 HP at 22400 ft, military, or 1500 HP at 6000 ft, war emergency power. The F-28 (V-1710-121) was the "1700 HP @ 26000 ft" machine, and it will take some time for Allison to produce the prototype of it, let alone to start making them in quantity needed for costumer's needs.

 

[RpR]

On the P-40 and the laminar flow wing-- in this article book sample--which is extremely long-- go to pages 899 to 904 for the brief incomplete part on the P-40.

The Wind and Beyond: A Documentary Journey Into the History of Aerodynamics ... - National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Google Books

The E-G series had interchangeable parts where the D and earlier had interchangeable parts but between the D and E parts were not interchangeable so outside of the actual blower production, set-up was no issue as the E series was in production before WWII as was the F series.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it tells nothing about the real application of the laminar flow wing for P-40s..

As for this (by the E, G, F etc, I take it you mean the V-1710E, V-1710G etc):

The E-G series had interchangeable parts where the D and earlier had interchangeable parts but between the D and E parts were not interchangeable so outside of the actual blower production, set-up was no issue as the E series was in production before WWII as was the F series.

If it's not too much of a trouble for you, could you please elaborate a bit?

 

[Shortround6]

If you are referring the the Allison engine you are both right and wrong.

Allison often designed new parts so that they would fit in old engines. It does NOT mean that you could take an old engine (say a 1941 model F) and run it at 1944 power levels just because you had better fuel available. If you refitted the old engine with NEW parts which did interchange you might be able to use higher power.

Crankshafts started "plain" and then were shot peened and then were both shot peened and nitrided and finally the late model E,F, and Gs got the new heavier 12 counter weight crankshaft. Later engines got new piston rings, new valve springs and many other new parts, all (or almost all?) of which could be used to overhaul an old engine. I believe the basic block was also beefed up at least once after the E F were first in production.

Getting a 1425-1600hp Allison was a lot more than just slapping a 2nd stage on the supercharger.

An early 1150hp E/F was using about 100 hp in friction and about another 100hp to drive the supercharger so it was making about 1350-1400 in the cylinders. A late model two stage engine making 1600 hp + at WEP could be making 150-200hp in friction ( tighter rings, stronger valve springs, wider gears, etc) and 200-300hp to drive the superchargers for 1950-2100hp in the cylinders.

What is amazing is that the overhaul life actually went up as the loads in the engine went up by around 50%.

 

[RpR]

Didn't know this one was posted, erased.

 

[RpR]

The E and later series engines were a redesign that shared few components with the earlier engines, which is more or less what you said I guess.

In abstract one could use as an analogy the mk IV and mk V big-block Chevys which were basically from the same basic design but do not, to cannot, share many components.

 

[bobbysocks]

no you cant take an old engine ( for the most part ) and run higher octane fuel ( for the most part ). a few steps up may be with in the tolerances of the design but with several steps in the upgrade in octane they would to make a lot of adjustments. besides better material for the valves, pistons, etc. they would have to find ways to improve coolant circulation through water jackets, oil flow and lubrication. the compression ratio could be adjusted and pistons domed and/or cylinder heads shaved. they may have to port the intakes and beef up connecting rods, wrist pins, main bearing/cam bearing journals to withstand the increased stress. take that stock big block chevy... put some 110 octane aviation fuel in the tank and floor it. its going to scream like a banshee for about 1/4 mile then disintegrate....i know this for a fact. at the very least you are going to throw a connecting rod but there will be damage to the other internal componets as well. take that stock big block and rebuild it with better grade components....do a lot of machine work on the block, heads and intake, etc...and it will operate with that fuel....however your duration between rebuilds will be reduced considerabily.