WW2 without V-1710: options for the Allies?

[GregP]

Both the Allison and Merlin have fork and blade rods. The blade rods have two bolts, but the same bearing is held in palce by the fork rods, which has 4 bolts. It is essentially a 6-bolt main cap retention. The Allison rods are VERY strong and can withstand 3,850 HP and more. They make that every year at Reno where the two front-running P-51's use composite engines that started life as Merlins and are running Allison rods among other modifications. The Merlin rods won't take quite the same horsepower, but are VERY strong when compared with any stock automotive engine.

I know the NHRA Top Fuel dragsters are pushing 8,500 HP ... but it's only for about 4 - 5 seconds. Try making these engine live for even 30 minutes and you'll never get it done. And they aren't anywhere near stock engine parts. The rods in Strega and Voodoo are stock Allison G-6 rods.

If you are sticking to 2,400 HP and less, the stock Merlin rods are just fine. They might take a bit more, but you'd be pushing them hard if you do it.

 

[wuzak]

On the taps and dies it is often mentioned as a big problem but surely manufacture is just a case of altering the machinery that cuts and grinds the taps and dies. Whitworth threads arent so far off Unified threads as many mechanics have found to there cost.

While they may be similar TPI and of the same basic diameters, the big difference between Whitworth and Unified Threads is the angle of the thread. The Unified Thread has an included angle of 60° (as does metric) compared to 55° for Whitworth. BA threads have an angle of 47.5°. So production of tools and dies requires new sets of grinding wheels.

Also, while automatic machines can spit out machined screws quickly - we had one that made BA screws - it is not the only way to make screws and bolts. They can be rolled - but I'm not sure when that first started. These also require dies of the correct form.

 

[RCAFson]

Please look at it again. Ford had NO existing facilities for aircraft engine production. You do NOT build aluminium 1650 cu in V-12s that weigh 1300lbs in plants that built 221-239 cubic in cast iron V-8s that weighed 400-500lbs.
Ford of England was building Merlin's using the standard British projection drawings which would have to be redone for Ford of America just like Packard had to redo them. ( Changing the order of projection used in the drawings confuses and causes mistakes in already trained machinists). Ford of England is either already using or or has ready access to Whitworth taps, dies and gauges, British fine thread taps, dies and gauges, British course thread and British pipe thread. Unless England sends tons of tooling to America Ford of America is going to have to either make this stuff themselves or find subcontractors to make it just like Packard did.
Packard started work in less than 30 days after Fords initial agreement. Where does the 3 1/2 month delay come from?
Please look again. It took Ford just about 14 months to build a New facility and deliver more than few engines. It took Packard about 18 months to do the same thing with much less help. ( R-R did send two engineers, one if not both who died after several years of exhausting work). Ford could rely on P&W for much more support, and a much easier time of getting subcontractors to supply small parts to normal american standards.
Ford may have had more workers, more engineers and more money than Packard but Ford had NO experience in building aircraft engines. Packards was about 10 years old. Packard was tooling up to build 2500 cu in V-12 torpedo boat engines ( based on their last aircraft engine). Packard went on to be ranked 14th out of all American companies in value of war production so it wasn't exactly a small job shop.

To build aircraft engines you also need test cells. Rooms were each and every production engine is run for several hours to check performance and do initial break in before being torn down, inspected and reassembled. Which means every test cell needs test instruments, dynamometers, cooling systems or fans for air-cooled engines.

In 1942 Packard built more engines that Ford did (by about 850 engines) but Fords engines( being larger and with more cylinders) had more total HP.

I would also note that Ford while building 4 engine bombers instead of single engine fighters just barley managed 600 planes a Month for a few months in 1944 and not the 1000 planes a day (30,000 planes a month?) he claimed he could make

I would also note that at some point in 1940 Allison was short about 800 machine tools to fill just completed factory space despite having an A1A priority rating. Structural steel was being rationed in 1940. There may have been limits as to how fast some facotires could be built and equipped no matter how large the parent organization.

12 months lost production is totally ridiculous. It would mean a NEW factory hitting Spring of 1942 production levels in the Spring of 1941, 6-9 months after breaking ground or signing the deal. NOBODY was anywhere near that fast.

Please see : http://www.enginehistory.org/References/WWII Eng Production.pdf

What this article does not say is how big some of these factories were or how much they were expanded. The Ford R-2800 plant was tripled in size by mid 1944 from the original plant that started making engines in late 1941.

You state that Ford started work on the R-2800 in Aug/Sept (I used the Sept date for the 3.5 month figure) and Packard on June 27 1940, so Packard/Merlin had a 2-3 month lead over Ford/R2800 yet look at the production figures:

In the first 6 months of production, Ford built 947 R2800s versus only 636 Packard Merlins despite the two month Packard Lead. Push Ford's R2800 plant back two months and they then produce another 989 engines or 1936 R2800s versus only 636 P.Merlins when both start on the roughly the same date - this shows the disaster to Allied and Commonwealth fighter production caused by Ford's reneging on the deal. Of course at the same time as this is going on Ford's engineers are able to completely redesign the Merlin as the V1650 GG Aero Engine which shows the depth of Ford's resources in both the design and production departments.

 

[GregP]

This is starting to be funny. You can "what if" history to death. It was what it was, and Ford made his choice and could not be made to do otherwise. This is the USA, not the Soviet Union.

I think Shortround is right, the delay was minimal, but nobody can say exactly what it cost as the resources were available when they were available, and not before. Even if it cost 2 - 3 months, we probably would not have gotten places overseas much sooner anyway. If we are talking 1 - 3 months of delay, what possible difference can it have made?

The bombing campaign started when it started, and would not have been moved up unless EVERYTHING was ready. I haven't seen any proof as yet that the Allied campaign was lagging because of lack of US Merlin production, and that is what delayed things.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Sorry, my eyes glossed over reading all the posts on this topic. Somehow, I came away from this fantasizing that if the Allison V-12 didn't make the cut, there may have been Wright R2600 P-36's running around at some point. Droooool.

 

[wuzak]

Sorry, my eyes glossed over reading all the posts on this topic. Somehow, I came away from this fantasizing that if the Allison V-12 didn't make the cut, there may have been Wright R2600 P-36's running around at some point. Droooool.

Would that have been any better than the R-1830 P-36?

Sure, there is more power but there is also a lot more weight and a larger frontal area.

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry, my eyes glossed over reading all the posts on this topic. Somehow, I came away from this fantasizing that if the Allison V-12 didn't make the cut, there may have been Wright R2600 P-36's running around at some point. Droooool.

Not to mention trying to fit a prop about 1 ft larger in diameter which means longer landing gear which means.................

 

[stona]

Not to mention trying to fit a prop about 1 ft larger in diameter which means longer landing gear which means.................

........as always, things are easier to write than do.

Cheers

Steve

 

[m37b1]

I agree, it is intriguing. But lets look at it objectively and not like either a press agent or Ford fanatic.

4 valve pent roof combustion chambers date back to at least the 1913 Peugeot Grand Prix car if not even earlier. A number of race cars and WW I aero engines used 4 valve heads with angled chambers so it was not a "new" idea in the 1930s and any engine designer worthy of the job description was aware of them. Like many items or details they have both advantages and disadvantages.

Harry Miller designed at least two "aircraft" engines that never flew. One never made it off paper, and the other ( a straight 8 ) for use in the Tucker XP-47 ( same Tucker as the post war car) had component parts built that were used a in a few post war racers, while similar to the "normal" Miller/Offenhauser design it was different in detail and NOT just two Offenhauser engines place nose to tail.

While intriguing they were of no practical value.

I am not anti-Ford. The tales of the Continental IV-1430 and the Lycoming O-1230 (both chronically under funded for much of their lives) should also point out the problems with thinking you can design, develop and build aircraft engines in months instead of years. If you could bring an new engine from drawing board to production in 3 years or under you were doing a great job. It often took longer and that is by aircraft engine companies with experience in aircraft engine design. I would note that both Continental and Lycoming not only built small aircraft engines but built car, bus, truck and marine power plants for a variety of customers in the 1930s. They were not small shops specializing in one or two low production engines. They were smart enough not to sink too much company money into the US Army designed "hyper" engines though. I would note again that the proposed power output of the Ford engine was well into the hyper range.

Reason for detailing the head/chamber design was to point out plug location. A big deal when detonation is a key factor in determining performance potential. It is probable that this engine would not have been ready any sooner than the GAA Tank V8 was. Dec 41- Jan 42. So that would put the Ford out of the running for this exercise. Maybe I should have chimed in on the "What if no US built Merlins" Thread.

Any how, I'm in the final legal phase of securing loan of the Ford V12 Tank engine GAC, for tear down and study. A photo essay will be published in a magazine that I write for. However, if anyone here is interested, I can present it in much greater detail after published.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Hey, this is a fantasy, don't throw facts and reality in the way!!!! As a hot rodder, first you put the big engine in, then you figure out all the other stuff. How about a nice thick cord prop, stretch the diameter to as much as can be handled. Put the P-40K airframe behind it with the larger fin area.

Which if that happend, then when the British asks North American to produce the airplane, and North American counters, we have a R2600 P-51A. Yum.

Sorry, ranting.

 

[RCAFson]

I found this on the web:

In article ,

(RON) writes:
Reading a book,Wheels for the World by Douglas Brinkley, Henry Ford, his
company. In it he states that the British government approached Bill
Knudsen with "a dire order for production of the Rolls-Royce Merlin
engine" in 1940.
The Ford Motor Company had previouslr accepted a contract to build
Rolls-Royce engines for French warplanes. The contract never came to
fruition due to the fall of France in June 1940. Henry Ford refused to
buld the engine,"we are not doing business with the British government
or any other government".
Alvin Macauley,president of Packard Motor Company, agreed with Knudsens
request to build the engine.
I always thought that Packard was chosen because of their expertise in
building fine engines. Evidently not?

The story's a little on the complicated side.
Let's not forget that there were Ford affiliates in France and Britain
before the War. In late 1939, the French Ford affiliate was
approached by the French Government to undertake prosuction of Merlin
Engines. The U.S. Ford headquarters dispatched an engineering team to
France to assist with evaluating the production potential. Due to a
number of factors (Production Engineering and design difficulties in
the basic Merlin, and the inability, for a variety of reasons for
French Industry in general to get off the dime) they weren't able to
produce any engines. At about the same time, The Air Ministry
approached British Ford to second-source Merlins. This, in fact, was
done, after much grunting and swearing. (Rolls really didn't know much
about mass production, and the Merlin required a lot of work to build
on a high volume basis.) At about the same time, the British
Purchasing Comission approached Edsel Ford (Henry's son, a pilot an
aviation enthusiast) about producing the Merlin in the U.S. This was
agreed, and Rolls sent copies of the Merlin drawings to
Dearborn. (This wasn't a minor matter. There are a lot of parts in a
Merlin, and duplicating drawings was done by hand.) When old Henry
Ford found out about the agreement, he basically passed down an edict
that Ford would not build anything for a foreign government. (Henry
Ford was a strange combination of organizational insight,
pig-ignorance, and some of the nastiest sides of U.S. Midwestern
values of the time. It's really hard to say if his decision was based
on his affinity for Hitler, an earnest desire to keep the U.S. out of
a European conflict - He'd humiliated himself during the First World
Wat by single-handedly attempting to end it with a shipload of
platitudes. Then too, the fact that it would **** off Roosevelt if he
didn't take the contract probably didn't hurt, either)
Note that this did not preclude British, French,
Australian, or, for that matter, German Ford subsidiaries fron taking
contracts from their governments. This killed the deal, although Ford
was willing to build engines under U.S. contract - this was before
Lend-Lease. Ford decided to proceed with the design of their own 12
cylinder inline aircraft engine. In the event, this was never built,
but the block was cut down to 8 cylinders, and the supercharger
removed, and it became the basis of the Ford GAA engine used in M4A3
and M26 tanks.

The British still were casting about for offshore Merlin production.
Packard, which had an excellent reputation for manufacturing quality
and engineering, and a track record in building large aircraft
engines,(The built a series of big V-12s in the 1920s, derivatives of
which were used through WW 2 to power PT boats) stepped forward, and
convinced Rolls that they could take on the job. Rolls, in fact,
ended up learning wuite a bit about production line design, and
production engineering from Packard, and a number of Merlin
improvements (2-piece engine blocks, improved supercharger drives,
improved bearing technologies, and injection carburetors were Packard
improvements.


A good source, if you can find it, is "The Merlin at War", by the
Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.

--
Pete Stickney
Ford Merlin Engines? - AviationBanter

So Ford's involvement did begin in 1939 and Ford engineers had had previous experience with the Merlin, both in terms of design and production; thus Ford USA was ideally situated to begin production of the Merlin under license.

 

[Shortround6]

Not really, Ford of France had a look and a few Ford of America engineers helped them look. Now you have the reverse problem, trying to turn the British drawings ( and thread sizes) into metric drawings and measurements. Now the American engineers go back to America with what? No computers so ALL drawings are done by hand and there were thousands ( if not tens of thousands) of drawings involved so the American engineers would have needed numbers of crates to get any number of any short of drawings back to the US. There is no fax, etc. The actual drawings (or hand made copies or photographs) had to be physically shipped even from Ford of England.

There is also some dispute about the two piece cylinder blocks. Some people say Packard designed them and others say Rolls-Royce did. Packard, because they were tooling up a new production facility was in a better position to start producing the 2 piece cylinder blocks since there was NO existing tooling to change over and no delay or loss of production like would have occurred in the English plants making the Merlin at the time.

And having a few engineers who looked at the Merlin in terms of French production may or may not help you when planning American production. My father was a production engineer for Colt in 1960s and 70s and not only worked on the US Colt production but helped set up factories in Korea and the Philippines to make M-16s. They often had to design different jigs and fixtures because the two oriental factories not only used different machinery than the home plant but different machinery from each other due to different monthly production goals and different goals (future production) after the initial rifle contracts were completed.
Not sure what Ford of France had for production machinery or what they planned to buy to equip production line vs what Ford of America had available. Please remember that many lathes (for example) that could handle a small V-8 car crankshaft would be entirely too small to handle 5-6 foot long V-12 aircraft engine crankshaft. Casting cast iron is a different skill than casting aluminium.

 

[GregP]

The people most familiar with casting aluminum back then, other than engine companies, were washing machine and sewing machine makers. Many aluminum parts for WWII engines were cast by Singer and Maytag. Singer was familiar with precision machining of steel,too, and made many precision parts for engines and weapons in WWII. Even Tiffany Jewelers in Mew York City got into war material produciton. They made the gold-plated amuinum disks used in late war throat microphones for interplane chat in B-17's and B-24's.

So it wasn't just the British that diversified production of war material, the US did it, too.

 

[m37b1]

I found this on the web:



So Ford's involvement did begin in 1939 and Ford engineers had had previous experience with the Merlin, both in terms of design and production; thus Ford USA was ideally situated to begin production of the Merlin under license.

This makes a lot of sense. If we ignore the V-1650 GG V-12 aero-engine and just look at the GAA V-8 tank engine. This would explain how this high-tech engine was ready for production in Dec 41/Jan 42. I doubt Ford could have come up with this design form a clean sheet. This would point to inspiration from an existing design.

Just a guess. The Merlin inspired the GG which in turn, inspired the GAA.

If, (and this is a big if) The Henry Ford Museum can provide the test parameters used in the GG, I will attempt to reproduce them with my dyno run of the GAC Tank V-12.

 

[GregP]

Good luck!

When we tried something as simple as getting some prop pitch specs for a WWII 6-bladed club propeller from Hamilton Standard, we were told "These data were produced for and at the request of the US Army Air Force. Since you are not the USAAF, the data will not be transmitted in any fashion to you. They are the property of the USAAF."

Explaining to them that the USAAF was no longer in existence and the USAF didn't care (we even included a letter from the USAF to that effect on official USAF letterhead to that effect) in the least did not do any good and they simply ignored us going forward. We came up with our opwn pitch data and now use that prop to break in just-overhauled Allisons. It was easier than we thought. We simply chose a pitch and ran the Allison at break-in power, noted the rpm possible, and adjusted until we achieved the desitred rpm. That pitch works for all Allison model at break-in and results in rapid piston ring seating.

The companies these days are more worried about potential laibility if the restored equipment breaks in a test they can be shown to have helped with than they are about preserving a historic piece of equipment in running condition.

 

[Shortround6]

Running an engine at part RPM ( even 90%) or so solves a few problems and ripping the supercharger off solves a whole bunch more. Lowering the average pressure in the cylinders to a third ( or less) or what they were expecting from the airplane engine (for the GAA) certainly makes things a whole lot easier.

Chrysler started work on their IV-16 2200cubic engine in the summer of 1940, it didn't fly until the summer of 1945.

P&W started work on both the R-2800 "C" series engine and the R-4360 (used R-2800 cylinders) in 1940. The R-2800 "C" series doesn't see combat use until the fall of 1944 and a short History of the R-4360 is here.

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-4360/R-4360History.pdf

 

[m37b1]

Running an engine at part RPM ( even 90%) or so solves a few problems and ripping the supercharger off solves a whole bunch more. Lowering the average pressure in the cylinders to a third ( or less) or what they were expecting from the airplane engine (for the GAA) certainly makes things a whole lot easier.

Chrysler started work on their IV-16 2200cubic engine in the summer of 1940, it didn't fly until the summer of 1945.

P&W started work on both the R-2800 "C" series engine and the R-4360 (used R-2800 cylinders) in 1940. The R-2800 "C" series doesn't see combat use until the fall of 1944 and a short History of the R-4360 is here.

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-4360/R-4360History.pdf

Understood. However, If I can get the test data. I'll add manifold pressure, using an external source to equal that used in the original tests. Of course this will only be done if tear down inspection and rebuild provides confidence in the mechanical integrity of the test engine.

BTW - Nice write up on the R4360! Love that engine!

 

[m37b1]

Good luck!

When we tried something as simple as getting some prop pitch specs for a WWII 6-bladed club propeller from Hamilton Standard, we were told "These data were produced for and at the request of the US Army Air Force. Since you are not the USAAF, the data will not be transmitted in any fashion to you. They are the property of the USAAF."

Explaining to them that the USAAF was no longer in existence and the USAF didn't care (we even included a letter from the USAF to that effect on official USAF letterhead to that effect) in the least did not do any good and they simply ignored us going forward. We came up with our opwn pitch data and now use that prop to break in just-overhauled Allisons. It was easier than we thought. We simply chose a pitch and ran the Allison at break-in power, noted the rpm possible, and adjusted until we achieved the desitred rpm. That pitch works for all Allison model at break-in and results in rapid piston ring seating.

The companies these days are more worried about potential laibility if the restored equipment breaks in a test they can be shown to have helped with than they are about preserving a historic piece of equipment in running condition.

Ran into the same problem with Lockheed in obtaining the blueprints for the P-38. It took some time, but they finally sent them.

 

[ohogain]

I only joined yesterday, and I haven't taken the time yet to go through all the posts on this thread, so I apologize in advance if I cover some ground already covered.

I agree with others that the US would not have adopted a foreign engine.

The USAAC dropped its support for the Curtiss V-1570 in 1932. I think it is reasonable to assume that if the Allison V-1710 had not come along Curtiss would have developed a new engine as they did when the D-12 came to the end of its functional development.

Even if Curtiss hadn't, as has been posted by many others in this thread, there were other manufacturers, such as Lycoming and Continental, that were already building aircraft engines that would have been more than willing to develop a new generation of engines back in the early 1930s that would have been fully developed by the beginning of WW2.

As it was, both Continental and Lycoming began development of hyper-engines under Army direction in the early 1930s. Continental built the O-1430 in 1938 and successfully tested it in 1939, which would have been too late for any production of any of the V-engined US aircraft (P-38, P-39, P-40, etc.). Likewise, Lycoming's O-1230 first flew in 1940.

Packard's last aircraft engine that I can find prior to the V-1650 Merlin was the experimental 5A-2500 of 1930 rated at 1500 hp. While the xA-2500 was an "old" engine dating back to 1924, it is possible that Packard may have continued development of aircraft engines if Allison had not emerged.

The emphasis on the hyper engine by the US Army greatly hampered the development of water-cooled in-line aircraft engines, in my opinion. The Army began working on the development of hyper-engines in 1932, the same year that they cut the funding of the Curtiss V-1570. The Allison V-1710, which flew in 1930, before the Army switched to researching hyper-engines, was the last US design of water-cooled in-line engine prior to WW2.

 

[Shortround6]

The trouble was financing development. Few companies were willing to design and develop an engine purely on speculation without some idea or prospect of sizable orders. In the US only the army was interested in liquid cooled engines for most of the 1930s and the Army wasn't buying very many airplanes per year. This resulted in the "gap" in liquid cooled engine development.
The Army alone was not responsible for Curtiss dropping development of the V-1570, Curtiss had merged with Wright and found itself with 2 engine divisions competing against each other. The only real competition was P&W and Packard and Packard, in numbers produced, was pretty much small potatoes. The Navy's decision not to use anymore liquid cooled engines pretty much ended Packard's primary market. The death of Packard's head designer after the diesel diversion along with the depression pretty much finished off Packard during the early and mid 30s. Curtiss-Wright didn't think it was very profitable to compete with itself and bailed out of the liquid cooled business as the airlines weren't interested in liquid cooled engines and they were a bigger market than the Military.
Military contracts during the 30s were much different than today. Contracts spelled out each step and payment was only made upon successful completion of a test or task, and even then payment could be late (sometimes very late). If a test engine broke before the test was finished the Army (or Navy) not only didn't pay for repairs but didn't pay anything until the engine was repaired and completed the required test. During the depression this meant few companies were willing to get involved in development of large complicated engines just for the army.

The Allison did NOT fly in 1930, It first flew on Dec 14th, 1936 in a converted Consolidated A-11.