Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought the construction of the engine was paid for by the government? I remember in WWII there were entire factories that were totally owned by the government...Continental did not want to spend Continental money on building the engine.
I didn't factor that in...There was a vast difference it what the government would spend during the 1930s and what it would spend in 1940.
How much money was spent to design the engine and how much was spent to build it? Because as I understand it as it was run the Army designed the engine and Continental built it...If the army contracted for a single cylinder test engine to perform (complete) certain tests, that is what they paid for, a complete test. Even though they designed it should anything happen during the test (like a broken connecting rod) it was up to Continental to build the replacement part/s, rebuild the engine, and re-run any part of the tests not checked off as completed before the part/s broke before the Army would pay any money.
Tracking down design cost would be difficult as the design work was done by either serving officers or civilian workers at Wright field who may or may not have been working on other projects at this time. Or who started there and left. How much time they spent in a given year on the Hyper project in addition to other duties would be a bit hard to work out.How much money was spent to design the engine and how much was spent to build it? Because as I understand it as it was run the Army designed the engine and Continental built it...
I'm mostly interested in what cost more: Coming up with the design or building the design?Tracking down design cost would be difficult as the design work was done by either serving officers or civilian workers at Wright field who may or may not have been working on other projects at this time.
I never would have thought thatPlease note that the high power aircraft engines of the late 30s weighed less per HP than F1 racing car or Indy racing car engines.
I never would have thought that
Wasn't the design equipped with two stages of turbocharging?Trying for 1hp per cubic in and doing it using commonly available gasoline and getting the engine to last for several hundred hours, even at a reduced rating was a very large challenge.
Still, if you were to guesstimate: Which would cost more, designing or building? I'd figure building would be way more expensive...
Good pointIf you engineering staff (officers and civilians) at Wright Field are being paid anyway, regardless of which project/s they are working on, dabbling with the Hyper engine may not cost that much out of pocket, or is hidden among other projects.
Why didn't they just go from 2-cylinder tests, to 4-6 cylinder tests, and from there to 6-12 cylinder prototypes?Please note they did not assemble a 12 cylinder version of the engine until 1939. all the "test" engines up until then were one or two cylinder engines.
And the hyper was a prototype...Building a prototype would be quite expensive. Possibly more expensive than the design.
Why didn't they sweeten the pot by proposing a production contract?But building production engines is much cheaper.
Good point
Why didn't they just go from 2-cylinder tests, to 4-6 cylinder tests, and from there to 6-12 cylinder prototypes?
Why didn't they sweeten the pot by proposing a production contract?
So, the idea was to see if the engine could make the specified horsepower? How many different prototypes did they build before they bit the bullet?The two cylinder test rig told you how the combustion was going work in the cylinder, they told you about the valves and valve train. they told you about the pistons, piston rings and connecting rods.
If I recall they did that because they didn't think the strength could be taken otherwise...If they had paid for a complete engine they might have figured out out using a seperate cylinder engine was NOT the way to go much sooner.
So the problem was financial issues and also the fact that they kept making engine design changes?two problems
1 there was no money. Allison delivered 7 engine in 1937 and 12 in 1938, that is not even "production" in normal terms.
2. what were they proposing to build? Flat q2, V-12, inverted V-12? Until you have a complete engine go through a type test there is little sense proposing production contracts as you don't know what might have to be changed as a result of the test. The Army was probably dangling the idea of a production contract but nobody knew in what year it would come to pass and that is a lousy way to run a business.
So, the idea was to see if the engine could make the specified horsepower? How many different prototypes did they build before they bit the bullet?
If I recall they did that because they didn't think the strength could be taken otherwise...
Good point
Why didn't they just go from 2-cylinder tests, to 4-6 cylinder tests, and from there to 6-12 cylinder prototypes?
Other than how it was screwed up mostly. Frankly, had they just stuck to a V-cylinder they would have saved themselves a lot of grief because at least they're using the same basic shape.Most engine histories don't spend much time on the hyper engine
Makes sense, if I was building something in my garage I'd have done the same (admittedly my house doesn't have a garage, so...)Since this was also a shoestring operation the would sometimes rebuild a test engine using only such new parts as they were interested in testing. One "engine" may have been rebuilt several times.
Interesting.Enbloc engines are actually stronger than separate cylinders. They are also shorter (less room needed between cylinders) which makes for shorter, stronger crankshafts.