What was the problem with the allison engine?

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

billswagger said:
The other reason, Packard had begun building better engines in the US and so much of the production was shifting toward their use instead of the Allison.
Click to expand...

Packard began building Merlins because Rolls-Royce needed help with production to supply the British industry. Initially there was no plan to use Merlins for US aircraft. Most Packard Merlins ended up in British aircraft.


billswagger said:
Why would Allison (General Electric) care, they still make a grip on the gov't contract selling the engines.
Click to expand...

Allison was owned by General Motors, not General Electric.
 
Göring has never said something like this..On the contarary R-R engines in Battle of Britain were prone to fail easily due to carburrator stall..ME-109 had fuel injection, and had to just climb to escape from a Spitfire. The Spitfire could only compete with the ME 109 after the introduction of 100 octane fuel from America. The Spitfire wasn´t particularly better. The 109´s biggest enemy was it´s lack of range when flying to England. Luftwaffe pilots worried more about lack of fuel than Spitfires as they had no more than 12 minutes in British airspace a huge disadvantage. I met a former Luftwaffe pilot many many years ago,he said that ME-109 would have beaten Spitfires easily had the war had taken place on a neutral airspace !
 
Readie said:
If we English had only the Allison I would be speaking German.
The Merlin is more than just another aero engine it represents our identity.
Cheers
John
Click to expand...

ME-109 had fuel injection, and had to just climb to escape from a spitfire. The spitfire could only compete with the ME 109 after the introduction of 100octane fuel from America and Browning machine guns made in the US The Spitfire wasn´t particularly better , the R-R Merlin engines were extremely unreliable during Battle of Britain and were prone to failure due to carburator stall . The 109´s biggest enemy was it´s lack of range when flying to England. The pilots worried more about lack of fuel than spitfires as they had only 12 minutes time in english airspace !
I met a 90 years old German Luftwaffe pilot many years ago who said that ME 109 would have beaten Spitfires easily had the war had taken place in a neutral airspace under equal conditions. Merlin didnt save Britain in WW2,it was German's decision to postpone the invasion in order to allocate more resources for the USSR invasion..Had they put pressure another week or so, RAF would throw the towel ,luckily Germans were not aware of this !
 
If I remember correctly, the problem that the merlin had was with negative g loading on the carb. So that would mean going inverted for example. I do not recall the carb having any problem when climbing?
 
The spitfire could only compete with the ME 109 after the introduction of 100octane fuel from America....... etal
Click to expand...

Oh dear, someone who doesn't know the facts.
 
renegate326 said:
The spitfire could only compete with the ME 109 after the introduction of 100octane fuel from America and Browning machine guns made in the US
Click to expand...

Spitfires used US made Brownings in the BoB?

AFAIK, they only had US made Brownings on some (most?) XIVs, some IX/XVIs. And then only two per plane - as a backup weapon. The primary weapon being the 0mm Hispano MK II cannon (Mk V in the 20-series Spitfires).


renegate326 said:
the R-R Merlin engines were extremely unreliable during Battle of Britain and were prone to failure due to carburator stall
Click to expand...

The engine would cut out under negative G because of fuel starvation. That means they couldn't just push over into a dive.

But cutting out becuae of fuel starvation is a different thing to unreliability. Not sure, but I would think the engine would restart once the fuel supply was restored.



Luftwaffe weren't fighting the entire RAF in the BoB.
 

Climbing wasn't the problem with the Merlin, negative 'G' was in a push over, until it was sorted out. No one has ever claimed that the Spit I was better than the 109E both were very well matched with different advantages and disadvantages. As for the 100 octane it certainly helped but wasn't the be all and end all, the CSP was equally advantageous.

It was German's decision to postpone the invasion in order to allocate more resources for the USSR invasion. Had they put pressure another week or so, RAF would throw the towel ,luckily Germans were not aware of this
Click to expand...
If you really think this is the case I suggest you read any one of the hundreds of books on the BOB and you might learn something.

In brief the Luftwaffe totally failed in their bid to dominate the skies, they were out of ideas, planes and most importantly pilots.
 
I've been reading this thread with some interest. As some of you may know, I worked in a shop specializing in Allison overhauls for a year and a half. Let's look at a real-life comparison of 2-stage engines.

1942: Brits were flying the Spitfire IX was flying with a Merlin 61 with 1,560 HP in low gear and 1,370 HP in high gear. The P-63 was flying an Allison V-1710-93. 1,825 HP max and 1,180 HP mil. Advantage Allison at max power and Merlin at mil power.

1943: The Brits were flying the Spitfire XIV with a Merlin 266 with 1,705 HP max and 1,580 HP mil. The P-63 was flying with an Allison V-1710-117 making 1,800 HP max and 1,100 mil. Same advantage to each. The P-51B/C was flying a Merlin V-1650-3 at 1,600 HP max and 1,330 mil.

1944. The P-51D/K were flying a V-1650-7 at 1,720 HP max and 1,505 mil. The P-51J was flying an Allison V-1710-119 at 1,900 HO max and 1,200 Hp mil. Same advantage to each.

Late war: The P-51H was flying with a V-1650-9 at 1,830 HP max at sea level and 1,400 mil at 13,750 feet. The P-82 was flying with an Allison V-1710-143 at 2,250 Hp max at sea level and 1,700 HP at 21,000 feet, ands 1,250 Hp mil at 32,7010 feet.

From the real-life numbers, the 2-stage engines seem pretty comparable with the advantage going to Allison at high power and mostly the Merlin at mil power, but switching to the Allison both places late in the war.

I would fly behind either anytime, and really have no real preference except I am MUCH more familiar with the Allison, having worked on overhauling them for some time. Nothing against the Merlin. It was and remains a fine engine, whether of British or US manufacture. I have NO data that show the American or British versions had significantly different times between overhaul from one another.

So was and IS the Allison a very good engine.

Both were 250 - 450 hour engines between overhauls during the war. Today, Allisons last longer if operated by the book, but both give good service for the money. Neither owner would be dissatisfied, but the Allison owner would spend less money. Neither are high-altitude engines today and neither ever get to max power since the gasoline they use today isn't of the 120+ octane variety.

Both very good powerplants and the Merlin certainly earned it's laurels in WWII as a first-class engine. In my view, the Allison also earned a good reputation, being employed in generally lower performance airframes and the government never funded an integral 2-stage supercharger, so teh aux-stage unit was a cobbled-together stopgap. In the field, however, the Allison held a tune better and was tougher. Altogeter a pretty even exchange with the Merlin being the engine that got most of the glory.

Bravo Rolls-Royce and thanks to Allison. We needed you both.
 
Last edited:

Not at 20,000ft+ Greg. V-1650s using 150 octane were just over 2000hp.

Spitfire XIV used a R-R Griffon engine not a PM 266 which powered late war production Spitfires, ie the Mk XVI
 
Yup it WAS the XVI, not the XIV ... typo, thanks!

The dash numbers I quoted are close ... the Merlin 266 made 1,720 HP, not 1705 ... my fault.

Yes there were a few Merlin over 2,000 hp, not the dash numbers I quoted.

The entire point is the two engines were quite comparable in both single and two-stage variants. The US government declined an integral 2-stage Allison development at least twice and the two-speed part also needed funding, but Allison was funded to produce the engine dash numbers specified in the contracts, not for new developments. No funding equals no new devlopments in small firms, and Allison WAS a small firm. They exhausted their internal funding the development of the V-1710 to start with and were scrambling to ramp up for production. They made it with little to spare. New machining equipment was and is expensive.

The USAAC specified the turbo for mhigh altitudes, not Allison. Left to their own devices, I don't know which boost type they would have gone with, but the funds for it were apparently not there at the time. No funding equals no new product development, even today.
 
I've been reading this thread with some interest. As some of you may know, I worked in a shop specializing in Allison overhauls for a year and a half. Let's look at a real-life comparison of 2-stage engines.
Click to expand...

OK, Lets do that.

1942: Brits were flying the Spitfire IX was flying with a Merlin 61 with 1,560 HP in low gear and 1,370 HP in high gear. The P-63 was flying an Allison V-1710-93. 1,825 HP max and 1,180 HP mil. Advantage Allison at max power and Merlin at mil power.
Click to expand...

"XP-63A flew for the first time on April 26, 1943" that is with the Allison V-1710-93 First flight of an XP-63 with an Allison V-1710-47 was December 7, 1942.


Late war: The P-51H was flying with a V-1650-9 at 1,830 HP max at sea level and 1,400 mil at 13,750 feet. The P-82 was flying with an Allison V-1710-143 at 2,250 Hp max at sea level and 1,700 HP at 21,000 feet, ands 1,250 Hp mil at 32,7010 feet.
Click to expand...

Late war? late indeed, first flight of an Allison powered P-82 was February 17, 1947. "At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines."

The Allison does get short shrift many times that it in no way deserves. The Allison company, it's engineers and workers ( and GM) deserve much more credit for it's development and manufacture than is usually given them.
 

At no point were the RAF a week away from defeat. On the morning of the 7 September, hours before the Luftwaffe switched the bulk of their attack to London, the heads of Fighter Command held a meeting to discuss their strategy to hold out for the next few months. There was no talk of imminent collapse.

It was the Luftwaffe who faced defeat, although they didn't know it. The Luftwaffe began their main campaign on 13 August. Serviceable, operational aircraft on that date:

Jagdgeschwader (single engined fighters) - 853
Zerstörergeschwader (twin engined fighters) - 189
Kampfgeschwader (bombers) - 1,008
Sturzkampfgeschwader (dive bombers) - 286

RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes - 579
Blenheims, Gladiators and Defiants - 99

On 7 September the Luftwaffe switched to attacks on London. Strength on that date:

Jagdgeschwader (single engined fighters) - 658
Zerstörergeschwader (twin engined fighters) - 112
Kampfgeschwader (bombers) - 798
Sturzkampfgeschwader (dive bombers) - 133

RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes - 621
Blenheims, Gladiators and Defiants - 73

As you can see, in the 4 weeks the Luftwaffe concentrated attacks on the RAF, Luftwaffe strength fell, RAF strength increased slightly.

At no point were the Luftwaffe "winning". The Luftwaffe were incapable of carrying on the battle in the way they fought in August and early September, which is one of the main reasons they switched to attacks on London.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Mustang with the early Merlins
Replies
10
Views
528
Shortround6
S
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
10K
mikewint
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
744
Jabberwocky
J
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
Menu
Log in
Register