Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It would probably be pretty hard to perform routine maintenance on it in a tank. Imagine trying to get at those lower cylinders .
 
tyrodtom said:
It would probably be pretty hard to perform routine maintenance on it in a tank. Imagine trying to get at those lower cylinders .
Click to expand...
True. Similar to the 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 Multibank (five banks of inline-6 cylinder engines) used on the M4A4 Sherman. I expect the engine was lifted out for service of the hard to each bits.
 
Admiral Beez said:
True. Similar to the 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 Multibank (five banks of inline-6 cylinder engines) used on the M4A4 Sherman. I expect the engine was lifted out for service of the hard to each bits.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the Chrysler engine was any harder to service than any other put into the M4. All had to be pulled to get to the lower oily bits.

Continental R-975 radial in M4/M4A. Air cooled so less oily bits to worry about.




GM 6046 "twin" diesel in the M4A2 & M10


Ford GAA in the M4A3 & M10A1 & M36



Chrysler Multibank in the M4A4. Fitting this engine required an 11" stretch of the engine compartment, heavier suspension with bogies spaced further apart.



All the alternatives to the Continental (derived from the Wright built aircraft engine) came about because of lack of industrial capacity to build enough for both aircraft & tanks in 1941/42. At that point the US Army standardised on the Continental powered versions. Early testing found the M4A4 to be "unsuitable" with maintenance being considered an issue. So the M4A4 was not released for overseas service by the US Army. They did use some 1,600 for training in the USA. Production ceased in Sept 1943.

From late 1942 the M4A4 was delivered as Lend Lease to Britain, with another 274 going to re-equip French armoured units in North Africa in spring 1943. From late 1943 the US training tanks were remanufactured to the latest standards and delivered to Britain in 1944.

Chrysler made modifications to its engines to improve reliability and supplied teams of engineers from Jan 1943 to visit Britain & the Middle East to train maintenance personnel and drivers. As a result Britain (and other users supplied from those deliveries) does not seem to have encountered the problems that were encountered in early testing by the US Army. Regular careful maintenance seems to have been key. The M4A4 Sherman V became the most numerous version delivered to Britain (eventually 7,167 of the 7,499 built) seeing service from NWE, through, Italy, the Middle East to India & Burma and even into China (supplied from British stocks).

Worth noting that the Ford GAA also had its reliability problems in the early days. So the 1,690 M4A3 built by Ford to Sept 1943 were also retained in the USA for training. That gave Ford the opportunity to iron out the bugs. It's advantage was that it was the most powerful of the above engines. Eventually some of these were remanufactured and supplied to combat units in 1945.

Ford then supplied GAA engines to other tank builders when M4A3 production was restarted in Feb 1944. These began to reach the front line in July 1944 to replace tanks lost in Normandy.

The US Army also didn't like the diesel powered M4A2, using it only for training Stateside. So it became another Lend Lease tank with some also going to the USMC.
 
The Soviets:
M-5, M-17 - tanks
AM-34 (GAM-34) - torpedo boats
M-11 - planing airboats
 
I have read on tank development that the Kestrel was also considered but, it was out of production and rapidly became too weak in ground type derate. I believe the Merlin was suitable because it was powerful even with no boost and, particularly in the early stages, it offered useful recycling of non-airworthy components, that rapidly reached epidemic proportions in 1940.
You would think that the Lion would fit-in but, I think it just missed the boat (apart from the Boat types!) as the Merlin/Meteor slotted-in. Funny though, the Sea-lion kept most of the RR types out of boats at that time and, the Napier derivatives of the JuMo 205 powered Boats and Trains into the 21st century, without license payments. War Booty!

Eng
 
But the Chrysler had a lot fewer oily bits to leak, adjust, or replace.
30 cylinders made from 5 six cylinder flatheads.
No rockers arm covers to leak because there was no rocker arms, or pushrods.
Spark plugs right on top of each head, so even the bottom plugs could be reached without having to fit your hand around several other parts in your way.

But it had to be the heaviest, and largest of all the other choices, efficiency wasn't it's strength.
 
Some of the inter-war Vickers tanks and derivatives - the Vickers Light Tank/Medium Mk I, Vickers Medium D, Vickers Dragon, and Birch Gun, as well the Vickers 6-tons sold to Poland - used modified Armstrong Siddeley aircraft 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder engines (I think both were derivatives of the Puma). The tank engine variants were rated at 80-90 BHP and so would probably not be applicable to the WWII.
 
Engineman said:
I have read on tank development that the Kestrel was also considered but, it was out of production and rapidly became too weak in ground type derate.
Click to expand...
It was too weak because of a pie in the sky requirement. They wanted a powerplant that would give a power to weight ratio of 20hp per ton (600 hp for a 30 ton tank). Very forward thinking, except they didn't really have a transmission to go with it (They modified the transmission from the Churchill) and they didn't have a suspension system that would work at high speed either. It wasn't until Jan 1943 that first Merlin powered production tanks were handed over to the British Army.

Engineman said:
I believe the Merlin was suitable because it was powerful even with no boost and, particularly in the early stages, it offered useful recycling of non-airworthy components, that rapidly reached epidemic proportions in 1940.
Click to expand...
What production was considered necessary in 1940 was far cry from what was needed in 1943/44. Granted there was a high number of non-airworthy components available, but enough for ALL British cruiser tank production? Lets remember that they built 1771 Covenanters with bespoke flat twelve engines and around 5300 Crusaders with the Liberty, part because the Covenanter was a spectacular fail. For RR being able to sell non-airworthy parts for higher than scrap value was certainly a business bonus but it may not have been a good idea as far as war production goes. If you want 5-10,000 tank engines you can't rely on non spec aircraft parts. And while tank crews need less training than air crew they don't grow on trees either.
Engineman said:
You would think that the Lion would fit-in but, I think it just missed the boat (apart from the Boat types!) as the Merlin/Meteor slotted-in.
Click to expand...
The Lion was wide, very wide.

That said a de-rated Lion might have been a better bet than the Liberty. It was kept for boat use because, while lower powered, there weren't enough Merlins to go around and there weren't enough American engines (Hall-Scott) to go around either.
Given the use of the retrospectroscope perhaps a V-8 lion of around 300hp would have been a useful engine in smaller armored vehicles?

Engineman said:
Funny though, the Sea-lion kept most of the RR types out of boats at that time and,
Click to expand...
Again, not enough Merlins in the 1930s and 1940.
And the Sea-lion may have been competitive with a Sea Kestrel.
In 1938 a 70ft Vosper MTB was just under 36 tons on trials. in 1939 it was just under 40 tons and in 1940 it was just under 47 tons. From 1942-44 it varied from 44.5 to 48.8 tons.
The Merlin didn't make enough power for the faster boats after around 1940.

Engine sizes

Kestrel...................21 liters
Lion........................24 liters
Liberty...................27 liters*
Merlin....................27 liters
Packard boat......40.8 liters

* in a tank it was limited to 1500rpm (?)
Boats are much more interested in long term power, even an MTB is NOT interested in 5 min power. They want 30 minute or 1 hour ratings and cruise power is often higher than cruise in an airplane.

Now for small AFV the British had used RR 6 cylinder car engine in the early 1930s light tanks but this was replaced by the Meadows 6 cylinder.
RR didn't have anything small than the Kestrel in production in 1930s and chopping up a Kestrel into 6 cylinder or 8 cylinder pieces apparently didn't interest them at the time.
The RR Meteorite was late war and post war engine.

As far as non RR engines go, I don't think so. Only Napier and RR were making liquid cooled aero engines in 1930s and the few low powered air cooled engines had problems.
Air cooled aircraft engines are not intended for idling for long periods at slow speeds (ground running).
There were ground engines around the world but they probably had a much different amount of cylinder fins to power produced to keep them cool.
You can use an aircraft engine in a tank obviously, see US M3 Stuart and M-4 Sherman, but you need a good aid duct system and fan/s.
 
There is no doubt that the Rover Meteor was a good thing but one should also note that Liberty engined tanks were still in use up to the end of the war such as Crusader gun tractors towing 17 Pounders, Crusader AA tanks and, whilst replaced mostly by Cromwells, they gave adequate, if slower, performance.

The Liberty suffered from being an expensive design using outdated methods and from being pushed too far with less than perfect ancillaries but still could do the job albeit slower and with less torque.

The Rover Meteor replaced it for very good reasons but it does not mean that it was totally useless.

I did look up de Havilland's Gypsy Twelve but clearly that was too underpowered, heavy and it's bulk made worse by achieving effective air cooling.

Possibly the design and engineering staff of Armstrong Siddely was the only aero engine manufacturer with spare time if they were moved off their aero engine design work which led to nothing useful. But the only aero production engine they had in hand was the Tiger radial. Perhaps, in a tank, the Tiger could have been fitted like the Americans did with radial air cooled engines?
 
yulzari said:
Perhaps, in a tank, the Tiger could have been fitted like the Americans did with radial air cooled engines?
Click to expand...
What have you got against the British soldiers?

in 1938 the RAF banned the Whitleys with Tiger engines from flying over water. Granted the tanks are already on the ground but trying to use an already unreliable engine in a tank is just begging for trouble on bent knees and folded hands.

The idea is to get a better engine than used historically, not another exercise in making do and persevering with crap equipment. The Liberty was bad enough.
 
I have proposed this frequently on other sites.

There was a chance:

In 1937 Martel had located a surplus stock of such engines belonging to the RAF: the 12 cylinder Napier Lion type X1A which had its cylinders arranged in three banks of four. Tests by MEE indicated an output of 465 bhp at 2,500 RPM, although it would not run well on service type Grade III petrol (65 Octane gasoline) without modification; in any case it was turned down by the Army as a possible waste of money.
_Mechanised Force_ by Fletcher page 125

The Liberty with near standard automotive breaker point distributors could be adjusted easier for retarding/advancing the spark timing than the Magneto setup on the Lion. Sad thing was, the USA supplied the UK with fuel no lower in octant than 80, anyway, and fuel concerns wouldn't been an issue.

RAF was willing to give the Army the existing stock of engines and spares, too. Instead, the bought the surplus Liberties at the price Lord Nuffield set.

Lion
Displacement: 1,461.6 in³ (23.9 L)
Length: 57.5 in (1460 mm)
Width: 42.0 in (1067 mm)
Height: 43.5 in (1105 mm)
Dry weight: 960 lb (435 kg)
CR 5.5:1 465hp@2500rpm

For comparison

Wright R-975 C4 (Tank)
Displacement: 974 in³
Length Length 53inch (deeper for clutch flywheel and fan than aircraft)
Diameter 45 inch
Weight 675 pounds
80 octane 6.3:1CR 420hp@2200 rpm

While the Lion was wide, not as much as the above Radial, and far less that the side by side twin mounting used with the GM Diesel in the M4 and the Lelands in the Matilda II, at 59 and 58 inches wide, respectively
 
Problem for the British until Lend Lease kick in was that the British were trying to fit British engines into British tanks and while the actual widths were not much different the US was sticking the suspensions on the outside of the hull inside the tracks. The British cruisers had their Christie springs in-between an inner hull and outer hull. which restricted the width of the engine compartment.
Being able to pull heads (or cylinder blocks) nearly vertical is also an advantage over the Lion.
 

The Meteor was not that far forward thinking, it just fitted nicely into the timescale that large WW2 tanks developed it seems to me. The availability of Merlin spare/unusable parts built-up hugely in the War. Remember that there were whole UK factories stripping and rebuilding new Packard Merlins to the later modification states and many of those thousands of parts were suitable for the Meteor.

Superficially, the history of AFV engines seems to be one of underperformance. Here, I say that the Meteor broke that mould and did great service. Certainly, developing a "V-8 Lion"
or similar that was anything useful would likely have missed the War and then, it would have been too small and a shot in the dark.

No, the Meteor was a brilliant move that is probably under appreciated.

Eng
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
Replies
19
Views
307
Nick Beale
A
Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
6K
DDonSS3
D
Short Brothers flying boat conversion to land based transport?
Replies
4
Views
500
chris ballance
A
Could WW2 carrier aircraft use a ski jump?
Replies
13
Views
2K
don4331
D
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
944
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register