Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There is a 'right' way to have an engine and a 'wrong' way.
Inversion is the wrong way.
There is a story that R-R went as far as making a full sized mock-up of an inverted V-12 which a group of visiting German engineers were allowed to see.Btw, some consideration was mad by Rolls-Royce in making the PV-12/Merlin an inverted V12, but the idea was rejected, IIRC, by the RAF and/or the airframe manufacturers.
Arguments?
I don't think that the DB 601, 605, 603 and Jumo 211 and 213 were outclased from RR engines.
Of the Allison we didn't need to talk that this engine could outclass any german engine of the same timeline.
So please some arguments and no phrases.
There is a story that R-R went as far as making a full sized mock-up of an inverted V-12 which a group of visiting German engineers were allowed to see.
Truth or fiction?
always been curious as to how you prevent oil collecting in the skirts of the pistons on an inverted V engine?
GGGGermans at Rolls Royce? Good lord. I hope they checked the spanners afterwards. You can never tell with these types.
The United States had the experimental Continental IV-1430 inverted V12 engine under development, with a higher power-to-weight ratio than any of the initial versions of the German WW II inverted V12s, but was never developed to production status, with only 23 examples of the Continental inverted V12 ever being built.
So, why was that I wonder?
Cheers
John
Too many changes, not enough money and questionable design practices.
Continental was often acting as a contract shop for an Army design team, making bits and pieces and performing tests for a number of years. Literally, While both the displacement changed and the planned configuration ( it was originally a flat 12, the better to be mounted inside wings) only single cylinder test rigs were built for a number of years. Design work started in the very early 30s but a complete 12 cylinder engine was only run in 1939 or 40 I believe? This obviously pushed the timing even later than the Allison. The questionable design was that it used individual cylinders instead of cylinder blocks which made for a longer engine than needed and a less rigid engine than an engine using cylinder blocks. Power was to be achieved using high rpm and high boost.
I'm not arguing, I'm stating an engineering fact. The piston engine was not designed to run upside down.
Oil control being one reason.
If inversion was so brilliant why has no major manufacturer followed suit?
Do inverted V's offer better (more rigid) platform for mounting nose armaments ...?
MM
I'm not arguing, I'm stating an engineering fact. The piston engine was not designed to run upside down.
Oil control being one reason.
If inversion was so brilliant why has no major manufacturer followed suit?