V-16 inline engine: pros cons?

[davebender]

I agree. The V-16 could probably be made to work but so could the more advanced German V-24s.

However IMO Junkers should have been the only V-24 engine project which received funding. That would allow Daimler-Benz to complete the DB603 V-12, giving Germany an interim engine between the DB601 and Jumo222.

 

[Rivet]

Wilfred Briggs was the expatriate Raf researcher who developed the Series 60 V-8 for Cadillac in order to replace Cadillac's massive V-16 effort. Briggs suggested an X-Block configuration for those of 16 cylinder proclivities. This configuration is probably good advice no matter where in the airframe one might want to bolt the powerplant. Regards

 

[johnbr]

I read that Daimler benz was working on a H24 over 4000hp at 2850 rev/min and 89-litres made one H16 of 2000hp it had 33.2 litres capacity bore 140mm stoke 125mm compression was7.5 rev/min 3500 rated height in km 8.5 on the Db 604 they were hoping to get 4200hp at3000rev/min on the db 609 the hight altitude verion the db 629 was 3000hp at 49'000ft 2650hp at 59,000ft.

 

[davebender]

Daimler-Benz in the Third Reich - Google Books

Daimler Benz had a lot of aircraft engine projects, most of which received few resources. Once the war started the DB605 V12 appears to be the only aircraft engine they were enthusiastic about. It was their pride and joy. It was also a huge cash cow.

 

[Shortround6]

What is wrong with cash cows?

They are what fund the next generation of engines. Short production runs of expensive engines don't fund further R&D.

No company had the resources to fund or even work on, if the funding was there, large numbers of projects at the same time. No one company had the engineers or even draftsmen to work on 6 to 12 different engines at the same time without drawing out the development process so long most of them would be obsolete by they time they were done.

 

[davebender]

Nothing in this case. The DB605 was a great WWII era aircraft engine.

There appears to have been a difference of opinion between RLM and Daimler-Benz. RLM wanted larger aircraft engines. Daimler-Benz thought the DB605 series worthy of additional development. Daimler-Benz won the argument. That's why Germany had 1,800hp DB605ASM engines in mass production during 1944 and 2,000hp DB605D engines in mass production during 1945 while development and production of the DB603 series engine proceeded very slowly.

 

[Readie]

Translation from US English please chaps

What is a 'cash cow' ?
Something that Texans milk?

Ta
John

 

[davebender]

A cash cow is a business or product line which produces a lot of profit.

For example, the Windows operating system is a cash cow for Microsoft Corporation. The F-16 fighter has been a cash cow for General Dynamics over the past 30 years.

 

[Milosh]

I agree. The V-16 could probably be made to work but so could the more advanced German V-24s.

However IMO Junkers should have been the only V-24 engine project which received funding. That would allow Daimler-Benz to complete the DB603 V-12, giving Germany an interim engine between the DB601 and Jumo222.

If the V-16 was a problem child, I hate to think what a V24 would be.

 

[Milosh]

Nothing in this case. The DB605 was a great WWII era aircraft engine.

There appears to have been a difference of opinion between RLM and Daimler-Benz. RLM wanted larger aircraft engines. Daimler-Benz thought the DB605 series worthy of additional development. Daimler-Benz won the argument. That's why Germany had 1,800hp DB605ASM engines in mass production during 1944 and 2,000hp DB605D engines in mass production during 1945 while development and production of the DB603 series engine proceeded very slowly.

The only DB605D engine (DB605DC) that put out 2000HP was the ones that were supposedly boosted to 1.98ata. There was less than 150 109K-4s in the 4 Gruppen authorized to use the 1.98ata boost. Hardly mass production.

 

[Shortround6]

Why is it that just about every prototype or experimental engine had ALL of problems SOLVED just as it was canceled???

And engines in large scale production struggled with small power increases and overhaul life times???

 

[wuzak]

If the V-16 was a problem child, I hate to think what a V24 would be.

I think the Junkers engine to which he is referring is the Jumo 222, which had 6 banks of 4 cylinders around a central crankshaft. The DB604 had 4 banks of 6 cylinders in an X arrangement, also around a central crankshaft. Neither were V24s.

The FIAT AS6 is considered a V24, but basically consisted of two AS5 V12s bolted end to end. Though only one accesories section was used, mounted to the rear engine, both cranks operated independently. As the rear engine had the supercharger, etc, it was started first, and drove the front prop, while the front engine drove teh rear prop in the reverse direction. It was a very long engine.

 

[Rivet]

"Why is it that just about every prototype or experimental engine had ALL of problems SOLVED just as it was canceled??? "

One development seems to have relegated much of the internal combustion development of the 1940's to an historical footnote, Shortround- that of the constant flow (Jet) engine. The Rolls-Royce Cressy development might have been quite an engine. Could you cite other observations of developers having to watch all their hard work pulled?

"The only DB605D engine (DB605DC) that put out 2000HP was the ones that were supposedly boosted to 1.98ata. There was less than 150 109K-4s in the 4 Gruppen authorized to use the 1.98ata boost. Hardly mass production. "
Milosh


Given the conditions in Augsburg, as well as the rest of Hitler's little experiment, 150 K's built stands as a testimony to effort. The wood components were delivered by Horse-drawn Beet wagons.

Regards

 

[Shortround6]

I was being a bit sarcastic. It seems that while not every engine was ready to go when it was canceled a fair number of them "claim" to have been ready when short sighted management or government agency pulled the plug. While the Jumo 222 is an extreme example with over 200 built but still not really ready to go due to changing requirements and changing dimensions for other programs to be put forward as ready for production with only one or two examples built seems like a triumph of optimism.

Even the P&W R-2800 didn't have a trouble free start and had at least 4 test rigs ( at least one of which was a 9 cylinder rig) before the first test engine even ran. Or see how many engines R-R went through to get to the first "good" Merlin.

 

[wuzak]

I was being a bit sarcastic. It seems that while not every engine was ready to go when it was canceled a fair number of them "claim" to have been ready when short sighted management or government agency pulled the plug. While the Jumo 222 is an extreme example with over 200 built but still not really ready to go due to changing requirements and changing dimensions for other programs to be put forward as ready for production with only one or two examples built seems like a triumph of optimism.

Even the P&W R-2800 didn't have a trouble free start and had at least 4 test rigs ( at least one of which was a 9 cylinder rig) before the first test engine even ran. Or see how many engines R-R went through to get to the first "good" Merlin.

In the case of the Rolls-Royce Vulture it was a metter of Rolls-Royce asking for the engine to be dropped so as to concentrate their efforts on the Merlin and Griffon. That is not to say they didn't develop other engines - they made the Crecy, Eagle 22, Pennine an dvarious jet engines. But at the time of cancellation the Vulture was only being used for one aircraft - the Manchester, which was shown to be better with 4 Merlins - and one potential aircraft - the Tornado.

Projects such as the Crecy didn't have the necessary resources spent on them to move them along quickly.

 

[Shortround6]

The Vulture was also flown in the Blackburn B-20 Fling boat and the first Vickers Warwick. Rolls-Royce never tried to put four cylinders on one crankthrow again.

A lot of "what ifs" seem to based on these prototype engines. There are reasons many of them stayed prototypes. The Wright Tornado did pass a type test but any realistic look at it should have killed it on the drawing board. Just because it is possible to build something doesn't mean it should be built.

 

[wuzak]

The Vulture was also flown in the Blackburn B-20 Fling boat and the first Vickers Warwick.

The Blackburn didn't go any further, and I wasn't aware of the Warwick.

Rolls-Royce never tried to put four cylinders on one crankthrow again.

Ah, but they did. They designed and built the Pennine after the Vulture was cancelled - it had four cylinders hanging off each crank throw, and seemd to be quite successful in the prototype stages. It was to be a post war transport engine. The gas turbine killed that project, though.

A lot of "what ifs" seem to based on these prototype engines. There are reasons many of them stayed prototypes. The Wright Tornado did pass a type test but any realistic look at it should have killed it on the drawing board. Just because it is possible to build something doesn't mean it should be built.

The Vulture was more than a prototype. It was in production, albeit before it should have been.

 

[Mustang nut]

I think the vulture and others were overtaken by events. They were for the next generation of fighters and bombers which actually were the last generation.

The vulture was supposed to produce over 2000HP however improvements in other engines meant merlins and griffons (and others) were producing that before the end 1944. An engine failure on a manchester was like a twin engine failure on a lancaster. The saving in weight and drag wasnt worth the added complexity and unreliability. Then of course jets came along.

 

[Shortround6]

The Vulture was more than a prototype. It was in production, albeit before it should have been.

That is sort of my point.

How long did it take to "fix" the Vulture AFTER it passed a type test?

How long did it take to "Fix" the after it passed a type test?

How long did it take to "Fix" the R-3350?

The Allison passed a type test in 1937 and production engines in 1939-40 had to be de-rated and reworked by the factory for an extra 50-100hp.

The Wright Tornado passed a type test but it looks like a disaster waiting to happen. Its 42 cylinders were made up of three 14 cylinder modules. While the cylinder blocks were continuous front to back the crankshaft was not. Gears brought the power out to 7 layshafts which passed between the cylinder banks to bring the power to the front of the engine where they were all geared together to drive the propeller.

http://www.weakforcepress.com/TornadoWP800.jpg

The green is the power transmission.

While adding cylinders or an extra bank of cylinders sounds easy, we who have the luxury of hindsight can see that it was not as easy as it seemed. When worked stopped on the Tornado they had 1,631 hours of running time divided by 6 engines plus 1,200hours on two 14 cylinder engines and 130 hours on a 6 cylinder test bank.

The P&W R-2800 had 3,500 hours before it passed a type test (on the "A" series engine) and the R-4360 had 15,000 ground hours on 23 engines. And it used R-2800 cylinders. 4 rows of seven instead of two rows of nine.

As for the Pennine, Rolls built the Eagle why?

 

[Shortround6]

I think the vulture and others were overtaken by events. They were for the next generation of fighters and bombers which actually were the last generation.

The vulture was supposed to produce over 2000HP however improvements in other engines meant merlins and griffons (and others) were producing that before the end 1944. An engine failure on a manchester was like a twin engine failure on a lancaster. The saving in weight and drag wasnt worth the added complexity and unreliability. Then of course jets came along.

There is little doubt that the "BIG" twin heavy bomber was a bad idea for the very reason you state. However the Merlin was a 27 liter engine, the Griffon a 36 liter engine and the Vulture was a 42.5 liter engine. With it's smaller cylinders, in theory the Vulture should have been able to turn more rpm. With any given fuel the Vulture should have been able to develop much more power than the other two. All things being equal, which they obviously were not.