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

[marathag]

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.

Any engine in a British tank not called Liberty had to be pulled for major rework like that

Liberty in Crusader, flanked by tankage

showing fill caps
Width of Liberty, 27 inches, Lion 42"
view from fighting compartment

So liquid tanks need to be relocated, though engine being shorter frees up volume, as well as space under the cylinder banks is there

 

[Shortround6]

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

The timing doesn't line up well.
They were working on the early cruisers in 1936-38 and the A 13/Cruiser III was in production in early/mid 1939. In fact prototypes were built in 1937. Decision for the Liberty dates from 1936-37?
Well before there were thousands of Merlin parts floating around.

The Staff requirement for a 20hp per ton engine (600hp for 30 ton tons) was not based on much in the way of testing, except perhaps for a few prototype Christies?
40mph in a 30 ton tank turned out to be not as useful as they thought. Broken tanks and broken crewmen.
It did provide pretty spritely performance in the 39 ton (short ton) Comet in 1944/45 and the Centurion certainly needed the power, But that was 1945/46 and not 1939-41.

Germans might have loved a 16 liter V-8 instead of their 11.9-12 liter V-12s in the MK III & IV.

I am having a hard time believing that turning a W-12 into a V-8 is that much harder than turning a V-12 into a V-8 (Meteorite) or the Ford V-8 from their abortive V-12 aircraft engine.
It took Ford almost 4 years to go from design to reliable service use but they only had drawings in 1940. Napier had over 15 years of experience with the Lion including racing versions. Granted the chief designer was now working for RR.

Granted it doesn't have the future potential but the Liberty V-12 didn't any future potential either.
The Kestrel may have been the best potential option but the chances of anyone getting a license to produce it was very, very small in the 1930s.

 

[Engineman]

The timing doesn't line up well.
They were working on the early cruisers in 1936-38 and the A 13/Cruiser III was in production in early/mid 1939. In fact prototypes were built in 1937. Decision for the Liberty dates from 1936-37?
Well before there were thousands of Merlin parts floating around.

The Staff requirement for a 20hp per ton engine (600hp for 30 ton tons) was not based on much in the way of testing, except perhaps for a few prototype Christies?
40mph in a 30 ton tank turned out to be not as useful as they thought. Broken tanks and broken crewmen.
It did provide pretty spritely performance in the 39 ton (short ton) Comet in 1944/45 and the Centurion certainly needed the power, But that was 1945/46 and not 1939-41.

Germans might have loved a 16 liter V-8 instead of their 11.9-12 liter V-12s in the MK III & IV.

I am having a hard time believing that turning a W-12 into a V-8 is that much harder than turning a V-12 into a V-8 (Meteorite) or the Ford V-8 from their abortive V-12 aircraft engine.
It took Ford almost 4 years to go from design to reliable service use but they only had drawings in 1940. Napier had over 15 years of experience with the Lion including racing versions. Granted the chief designer was now working for RR.

Granted it doesn't have the future potential but the Liberty V-12 didn't any future potential either.
The Kestrel may have been the best potential option but the chances of anyone getting a license to produce it was very, very small in the 1930s.

Well, to my general interest of WW2 Tanks level, our British developments were, at best, underpowered until the Merlin / Meteor. It looks as though this was primarily a fault of
design and development, the Army powers that be simply did not develop the powerplants of their future AFV's in time. It was fortunate that the Meteor came along. The timing was
very good, considering that the Army had years to improve their technology but failed miserably. The Army effectively relied on First World War aero engine material until they were desperate.

If you think it was easy to develop the Ford V-8, I think that was a slow progress, and it was a new engine with the Worlds biggest engine company. Also, a "Lion based V-8" is a pipe dream that would have taken at least 5 years and probably make about 300hp. The Meteorite was effectively post War and not powerful. The Kestrel would have been too small in 1940, it was long out of production and it was a very expensive low-volume production engine that would have cost more than the Tank.

Eng

 

[yulzari]

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 am not advocating using either the Nuffield Liberty nor yetthe Armstrong Siddeley Tiger. Only pointing out that the Nuffield Liberty was not a totally incapable tank engine and that Armstrong Siddeley had a wasted asset of a design and engineering team whose engines made no effective contribution to the war despite having some very skilled staff and that they might have been better used in making a (fixed) Tiger tank engine than chasing their dog series experimental aero engines.

The Tiger, as a 2 row radial, had a built in weakness of only a 2 bearing crankshaft but, in a tank, it does not get the stresses of supercharger pressures and rpm can be held within practical limits that the 2 bearing crankshaft can manage reliably. Weight is less of a concern in a tank than an aeroplane so possibly redesigning it with a central bearing is also feasible. Pool petrol made rpm less of need.

 

[MiTasol]

I would have to dissagree with the suggestion that Armstrong Siddeley had a wasted asset of a design and engineering team whose engines made no effective contribution to the war.

Thousands of Cheetah engines powered numerous aircraft and the Cheetah was the first engine in the world to be approved for a 1200 hour overhaul life. Both those factors make the Armstrong Siddeley design team an important factor in the eventual success of the allies against the axis.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not advocating using either the Nuffield Liberty nor yetthe Armstrong Siddeley Tiger. Only pointing out that the Nuffield Liberty was not a totally incapable tank engine and that Armstrong Siddeley had a wasted asset of a design and engineering team whose engines made no effective contribution to the war despite having some very skilled staff and that they might have been better used in making a (fixed) Tiger tank engine than chasing their dog series experimental aero engines.

The Tiger, as a 2 row radial, had a built in weakness of only a 2 bearing crankshaft but, in a tank, it does not get the stresses of supercharger pressures and rpm can be held within practical limits that the 2 bearing crankshaft can manage reliably. Weight is less of a concern in a tank than an aeroplane so possibly redesigning it with a central bearing is also feasible. Pool petrol made rpm less of need.

The Tiger was overkill. A 32.7 liter 14 cylinder radial was not needed in any British tank until you get the Centurion. You could have powered a Sherman with just one row of the Tiger.
Tigers had few other problems aside from the lack of center bearing. Like keeping the oil inside the engine.
The manufacturing side kept fairly busy making 7 cylinder Cheetah engines for Avro Ansons and Airspeed Oxfords.

The British seemed to have had few problems with several bespoke tank engines, like the Bedford twin six and the two Meadows Flat 12s. Both of which were a waste of time.

 

[Elan Vital]

Development of more optimized British tank engines happened...but not before 1939-41. These were the 300-350 hp diesels in development at Leyland, Harland and Wolff, Vauxhall, with the Leyland being intended as a straight replacement for the Liberty in the Crusader. While these engines had merit compared to what came before - in practice same power density due to the petrol engines being based on low performance bus blocks while the diesels were at least more developped, but with the benfits of diesels - they were far too late as 350 hp was no longer cutting it. Their real value would have been if they could put in production in 1939/40 at the latest for the likes of the Matilda II, Churchill and early Cruisers.

As far as petrol goes, at the end of the day if the British really want something high power they have no choice but to pay for manufacture out of the control of the Air Ministry, be they Meteorized aircraft or boat engines or some special development (allegedly Meadows had been tasked with a 450hp for the A16 Heavy Cruiser). The British simply didn't allocate enough ressources for tank development in the 30s.
The British told the French who came to see an A20 mockup in 1940 that they wanted to uprate their 350 hp engine to 450 hp, but obviously the Bedford Twin-Six retained its 325-350hp the entire war. The likes of the Meadows and Bedford Flat 12s would probably have been more convenient to use if made in 90 or 60° V12 form (narrower and easier to access), and the twin engine setups like on Matilda II would have benefitted from being developped into a proper V12 ala 12V-71 (hell a V12 version of the AEC 190 of the Valentine would have been worthwhile), but these truck petrol/diesel blocks needed more thorough redesign for truly high outputs, and some were just too small anyway.

 

[Engineman]

Pipe Dreams!
The British Army and the fighting vehicle specialists could not develop suitable large engines before WW2. The only real success at 600hp was the Meteor, and RR did that in their spare time!
There is no merit in suggesting major redesigns of various other aero engines, like putting 3rd bearings in a two-row radial or making a W-12 into a smaller V-8 etc. Those major redesigns are notorious for failure and protracted development where they were tried.
The Merlin / Meteor adaptation worked because it was a good powerful design by 1941, that was powerful without supercharge at lower rpm, was adapted by simple changes that only destressed the core components, was already a basically reliable engine and came at a economic price by virtue of initially using high-precision parts that were virtually free as cast-offs from aero engine production or reclamation. Beyond that, it was a reasonable size and weight for it's power.
My mind boggles at the thought of redesigned twin-row radials etc, especially as these were engines already effectively out of production.

Eng

 

[ThomasP]

I say again, for the UK the best alternative at the start of the war was an adaptation of the Lion (or Sea Lion) rated for tank use. It would have had reasonable power (400-450 BHP with a CR of between 5:1 and 5.5:1 on pool petrol), good torque (~1200 lb-ft), and a long proven record of reliability in its existing applications.

Heaven forbid the UK tank designers might have to design the chassis around the engine to any degree. (It would have fit easily enough in the Churchill at least, as well as the Cromwell/Centaur/etc and later.)

 

[Engineman]

I say again, for the UK the best alternative at the start of the war was an adaptation of the Lion (or Sea Lion) rated for tank use. It would have had reasonable power (400-450 BHP with a CR of between 5:1 and 5.5:1 on pool petrol), good torque (~1200 lb-ft), and a long proven record of reliability in its existing applications.

Heaven forbid the UK tank designers might have to design the chassis around the engine to any degree. (It would have fit easily enough in the Churchill at least, as well as the Cromwell/Centaur/etc and later.)

I agree that in the late 1930's, a derivative of the basic Lion would probably have made a good 400hp AFV engine for early WW2 tanks. I guess that, as you say, the status quo at that time was not able to accept the changes to tank design and the cost of the engines would have been high.

Eng

 

[Shortround6]

I agree that in the late 1930's, a derivative of the basic Lion would probably have made a good 400hp AFV engine for early WW2 tanks. I guess that, as you say, the status quo at that time was not able to accept the changes to tank design and the cost of the engines would have been high.

Eng

We are talking about two different time periods after all.
The Meteor was the best choice for 1942-43 and beyond.
Something else besides the Liberty might have been better for 1938.
Let alone that Meadow's engine in the Covenanter.

A problem with using aircraft engines for tanks is that it sucks up aircraft engine production.
Even the US could not afford that. The Engines used in the Grant and Sherman were engines for trainers and even the US needed the engines for trainers more than they needed them for tanks. A Chrysler five bank tank engine is useless in a trainer aircraft.

 

[Zmauky]

Aircraft engines in tanks,
hmm somehow I've always had the thought that if the Jumo 205 could be persuaded to work turned 90 degrees horizontally (and somehow I think the original idea was that it could lie flat on the wing of the plane) that would be the perfect engine for Tiger and Panther tanks.
And let's not forget the Napier Deltric from the ships is actually 3x Jumo 205 stacked in a triangle. So it could probably work on its side.

 

[bf109xxl]

I've always had the thought that if the Jumo 205 could be persuaded to work turned 90 degrees horizontally (and somehow I think the original idea was that it could lie flat on the wing of the plane) that would be the perfect engine for Tiger and Panther tanks.

That was done by the Soviets a little later:

 

[Zmauky]

That was done by the Soviets a little later:

, oh yes at the time when I was under and inside those iron boxes, there were only V-12 engine examples of T-34, T-72, M-84. This (is it a T-64?) was not there . And I didn't know that they also changed the engines on them, along with everything else.

 

[bf109xxl]

This (is it a T-64?) was not there .

Development of the 5TD began sometime in 1953. Its ancestor was the Jumo 205. And the T-72 was a "simplified T-64" with a V12. There was also a hybrid - a modification of the T-72 with the 5TDF.

 

[Zmauky]

Yes, I have the feeling more and more that the Jumo diesel engines series has been unfairly neglected.

 

[yulzari]

The Tiger was overkill. A 32.7 liter 14 cylinder radial was not needed in any British tank until you get the Centurion. You could have powered a Sherman with just one row of the Tiger.
Tigers had few other problems aside from the lack of center bearing. Like keeping the oil inside the engine.
The manufacturing side kept fairly busy making 7 cylinder Cheetah engines for Avro Ansons and Airspeed Oxfords.

The British seemed to have had few problems with several bespoke tank engines, like the Bedford twin six and the two Meadows Flat 12s. Both of which were a waste of time.

So you either build a 'Centurion' around the Tiger or cut the Tiger in half for a 'Sherman'.

My whole point is that Armstrong Siddeley had the staff and facilities to develop and make engines but spent their time on the unused dog series of radials. If Meadows could churn out workable flat12 engines Armstrong Siddeley certainly could churn out workable radials. Like the Meadows' and Bedfords the issue was the tanks wrapped around them not the power units themselves.

Myself I would go down the Meteor road but the thread is non RR aero engines for the task.

 

[bf109xxl]

Yes, I have the feeling more and more that the Jumo diesel engines series has been unfairly neglected.

Perhaps, but the 5TDF engine had serious problems - for example, it had great difficulty starting in cold weather. I wonder whether this was a feature of the engine scheme or just a flaw of the Soviet engineers. But according to the recollections of tankers from the Group of Soviet troops in Germany, during sudden exercises, 1-2 tanks in a company could be started in the standard way, which required pouring hot coolant into the cooling system. The other tanks were then started by towing. I don't know the story of the Jumo 205 very well, but I have heard that it was not considered particularly reliable. It would be too risky to use an engine with such shortcomings in tanks under war conditions.

 

[MIflyer]

My mind boggles at the thought of redesigned twin-row radials etc, especially as these were engines already effectively out of production.

I understand that postwar some Bristol radials were used as engines in busses.

 

[Elan Vital]

Aircraft engines in tanks,
hmm somehow I've always had the thought that if the Jumo 205 could be persuaded to work turned 90 degrees horizontally (and somehow I think the original idea was that it could lie flat on the wing of the plane) that would be the perfect engine for Tiger and Panther tanks.
And let's not forget the Napier Deltric from the ships is actually 3x Jumo 205 stacked in a triangle. So it could probably work on its side.

The more problematic obstacle to the Jumo 205 in WW2 is that 2-stroke opposed piston engines inherently have greater scavenging and thermal constraints than conventionnal 4-stroke engines. They work best when the transmission has excellent torque coverage, ideally hydromechanical types. WW2 transmissions are purely mechanical so the Jumo would face much the same constraints as the 5TD did in T-64 and the L60 in Chieftain...but probably worse. 1930's and WW2 tank designers simply didn't and couldn't put in the effort to make this work when there were simpler and in practice better solutions.