Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What was the cost to manufacture the Allison V-12 vs the Merlin V-12?
I heard the Merlin used almost twice as many parts, compared to the Allison?
Here's what the Fedden Mission had to say about production of the V-1710There are parts and there are parts.
Both are V-12s with 4 valves per cylinder.
The Merlin used quite a number of screws/nuts/washers to hold valve covers and other things on and perhaps more fasteners to hold some of the internal parts in place.
It does take more time to deal with all the extra fasteners but using the total number of "parts" to try to compare cost is rather bogus.
How many machine operations to make each crankshaft could be similar or way different depending on the machinery available.
deleted.There are parts and there are parts.
Both are V-12s with 4 valves per cylinder.
The Merlin used quite a number of screws/nuts/washers to hold valve covers and other things on and perhaps more fasteners to hold some of the internal parts in place.
It does take more time to deal with all the extra fasteners but using the total number of "parts" to try to compare cost is rather bogus.
How many machine operations to make each crankshaft could be similar or way different depending on the machinery available.
I just assumed the Merlin was dual overhead cam, but never thought to check that fact out.Hi Todd,
Second, why would you believe the Merlin was a double overhead cam? Download a pdf manual from this forum and check it out to be sure.
The British system used boost pressure above standard sea level pressure.
It is usually indicated by the plus (+) or minus (-) sign in front of the boost number. +16psi boost is 30.7psi absolute pressure.
So the MAp of +16psi is ~62.5inHg.
I say non-turbo operation because today (my experience), almost all Allisons are operated without the turbochargers. If you think it might be hard to find parts for an Allison V-1710, try finding parts for an 85-year old turbocharger! If you needed high-altitude performance, the Merlin was your better choice for WWII. If you were flying in the PTO or Med, either one would do fine. The Allison cost was less to manufacture and overhaul, but it wasn't really a factor for military operations since the units didn't pay for aircraft ... they operated them. The Merlin used slightly more fuel than the Allison but that, too, was of little consequence because they had enough fuel for operations.
Something like 8 or 9 months out of the year depending which part of the gigantic front line you are talking about, there was often a fairly low cloud ceiling which prevented high flying planes from seeing the battlefield or lower flying aircraft.
So clear skies over Moscow year round?
In point of fact, the Curtiss XP-37 was both supercharged and turbosupercharged, but they only made 14 of them.