Monthly Archives: January 2017

Vought V-173 Flying Pancake (Zimmer’s Skimmer)

By William Pearce

In the early 1930s, Charles H. Zimmerman became determined to design a low-aspect ratio, flying wing aircraft with a discoidal planform. The wing would have a short span and make up the aircraft’s fuselage. Zimmerman believed that large, slow-rotating propellers placed at the tips of the aircraft’s wings would cancel out wingtip vortices, provide uniform airflow over the entire aircraft, and effectively increase the aircraft’s span. In addition, the propellers would provide continuous airflow over the aircraft’s control surfaces even at very low forward velocities. The propellers were counter-rotating; viewed from the rear, the left propeller turned counterclockwise and the right propeller turned clockwise. The envisioned aircraft would be able to execute short takeoffs and landings, maintain control at very low speeds, and have a high top speed. Zimmerman’s ultimate goal was a high-speed aircraft that could ascend and descend vertically and could hover.

Drawings from Charles Zimmerman’s 1935 patent showing his low-aspect ratio, flying wing aircraft. Note the three occupants lying in a prone position. The aircraft’s layout was very similar to the Vought V-173. The power transfer shaft (22) can been seen connecting the two propeller shafts.

While working at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), Zimmerman won a design competition in 1933 for a light, general aviation aircraft. However, his low-aspect ratio design was deemed too radical to be built. Undeterred, Zimmerman designed a three-place aircraft in which the occupants lay in a prone position. Zimmerman called this aircraft the Aeromobile. The aircraft’s propellers were forced to rotate at the same speed via a power cross shaft that linked the engine’s propeller shafts together. Each engine could be disconnected from its respective propeller shaft in the event of an engine failure. The power cross shaft would distribute power from the functioning engine to both propellers.

To test his theories, Zimmerman and some friends built a small proof-of-concept aircraft based on the three-place design. The aircraft had a short 7 ft (2.1 m) wingspan and was powered by two 25 hp (19 kW), horizontal, two-cylinder Cleone engines. Despite several attempts, the aircraft was unable to takeoff. The difficulties were caused by an inability to synchronize the propellers, as the power cross shaft was omitted due to the aircraft’s small size.

Zimmerman-proof-of-concept-test-aircraft

The proof-of-concept aircraft built to test Zimmerman’s theories. This image illustrates the aircraft’s 7 ft (2.1 m) wingspan. Due to trouble with synchronizing the engines/propellers, the aircraft was not flown.

Following the unsuccessful trials of small aircraft, Zimmerman took a step back and turned to models. By 1936, he had a rubber band-powered scale model with a 20 in (508 mm) wingspan routinely making successful flights. Others at NACA reviewed Zimmerman’s work and encouraged him to seek financial backing from the aviation industry to further develop his designs—as an individual, his efforts to interest the US Armed Forces had not been successful. Zimmerman found support from Vought Aircraft and was hired on to continue his work in 1937.

Again, the radical nature of Zimmerman’s designs made the establishment question their worth. The US Army Air Corps turned down various proposals, but the US Navy could not overlook the fact that a short wingspan fighter with a short takeoff distance, a very low landing speed, and a high top speed would be ideal for carrier operations. In fact, such an aircraft could operate from just about any large ship. In 1938, the Navy funded the Vought V-162, which was a large model to further test Zimmerman’s ideas. The model was powered by electric motors and took two people to operate. The model sufficiently demonstrated Zimmerman’s design, and the Navy contracted Vought to build a full-size test aircraft on 4 May 1940. The aircraft was designated V-173 by Vought and was given Bureau Number (BuNo) 02978 by the Navy.

The Vought V-173 in the Langley wind tunnel. Note the forward rake on the two-blade propellers. The rake (or cone angle) was adjustable, and three-blade propellers of the same type were soon fitted to the aircraft. (Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory / NASA image)

The airframe of the Vought V-173 was made mostly of wood, but the forward cockpit structure and propeller nacelles were made of aluminum. The front part of the fuselage back to the middle of the cockpit was covered with wood, and the rest of the aircraft was fabric-covered. Originally, the pilot was to lie in a prone position, but this was changed to a more conventional, upright seat. The lower leading edge of the aircraft had glazed panels to improve visibility from the cockpit while the V-173 was on the ground. Cockpit entry was via a hatch under the aircraft, but the canopy also slid back. Housed in the aircraft’s fuselage were two 80 hp (60 kW) Continental C-75 engines. Most sources list the engines as Continental A-80s, but C-75s were actually installed in the aircraft. The 80 hp (60 kW) rating was achieved through the use of fuel injection. The C-75 was a flat, four-cylinder, air-cooled engine that displaced 188 cu in (3.1 L). One engine was on each side of the cockpit. The engines were started by pulling a handle through an access panel under the aircraft. Each engine had a cooling fan attached to its output shaft, and engine cooling air was brought in through inlets in the aircraft’s leading edge. The air exited via flaps in the upper fuselage.

Via shafts and right angle drives, the engines powered two 16 ft 6 in (5.06 m), three-blade, wooden propellers at around .167 times engine speed. The variable-pitch propellers turned around 450 rpm at maximum power (2,700 engine rpm) and around 415 rpm at cruise power (2,500 engine rpm). The individual blades could articulate (flap) automatically to compensate for side gusts and uneven loading. The blades were hinged inside the propeller hub in which hydraulic dampers limited their articulation. The rake (or coning) angle of the blades could be adjusted on the ground. This moved the tips of the blades either forward or aft relative to the propeller hub.

Underside view of the V-173 shows the windows in the aircraft’s leading edge. The hinge line for the control surfaces between the tails can just be seen near the aircraft’s trailing edge. The surfaces were omitted when the aircraft first flew, but stabilizing flaps were later installed in their place. (Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory / NASA image)

A power cross shaft that ran just behind the cockpit connected the engine gearboxes. The cross shaft ensured that power was delivered equally between the two propellers, and it also synchronized propeller rpm. A failed engine would automatically declutch from the propeller drive system, and the remaining engine would power both propellers. The left engine was started first and then clutched to the propeller drive system. The right engine was then started and automatically clutched to the propeller drive system after it came up to speed.

Under the V-173 were two very long fixed main gear legs that supported the aircraft at a 22.25 degree angle while it sat on the ground. At the rear of the aircraft were two vertical stabilizers. Attached to each side of the V-173 was a horizontal stabilizer with a surface that acted as both an aileron and an elevator (ailavator or ailevator). The ailavators were not part of the initial V-173 design (and were not on the V-162 model), but early model tests indicated that the flight controls were needed.

View of the V-173 on an early test flight that shows no stabilizing flaps between the tails. Note the deflection angle of the ailavator; the V-173 always flew at a nose-high angle because it was underpowered.

The V-173 had a wingspan of 23 ft 4 in (7.1 m) but was about 34 ft 9 in (10.6 m) wide from ailavator to ailavator. The aircraft was 26 ft 8 in (8.1 m) long and 12 ft 11 (3.9 m) in tall. The V-173 could take off in 200 ft (61 m) with no headwind, and it could lift right off the ground with virtually no roll in a 30 mph (48 km/h) headwind. The aircraft’s top speed was 138 mph (222 mph), and cruising speed was 75 mph (121 km/h). With normal prevailing winds, the V-173 would routinely take off in 20 ft (6 m) and land at 15 mph (24 km/h). The aircraft had an empty weight of 2,670 lb (1,211 kg) and a normal weight of 3,050 lb (1,383 kg). The V-173 only carried 20 gallons (76 L) of fuel in two 10 gallon (38 L) tanks.

In November and December 1941, the V-173 was tested in NACA’s Langley wind tunnel in Hampton, Virginia. The aircraft had its original two-blade propellers, but these were found to be insufficient and were replaced by three-blade units shortly after the tests. Two small control surfaces that made up the trailing edge of the aircraft were present between the tails. However, these were removed before the V-173’s first flight. The Navy was encouraged enough by the wind tunnel tests that they asked Vought to prepare a proposal for a fighter version of the aircraft, which eventually became the Vought XF5U-1.

The V-173 is shown with redesigned ailavators and the stabilizing flaps installed. The cooling air exit flaps can be seen near the cockpit. The two ports forward of each cooling air exit flap were for engine exhaust.

After an extended period of taxi tests, the V-173’s first flight took place on 23 November 1942 at Bridgeport Airport (now Sikorsky Memorial Airport) in Stratford, Connecticut, with Vought test pilot Boone T. Guyton at the controls. Guyton found the aircraft’s controls extremely heavy and thought that he might need to make a forced landing. Fortunately, He had enough control to make a large circuit and land the aircraft after 13 minutes of flight. Adjustments to the propellers were made, and the ailavators were redesigned as all-moving control surfaces with servo tabs. These changes improved aircraft control, but landing the V-173 was still difficult. As it approached the ground, air would get trapped under the aircraft and force the tail up. Subsequently, the nose of the aircraft would drop, causing the V-173 to rapidly descend the last few feet. The aircraft would hit the runway harder than intended and bounce back into the air. After about 40 flights, the two stabilizing flaps were added between the aircraft’s tails. The flaps were larger than the control surfaces tested in the wind tunnel, and they were separated by the tailwheel. When the aircraft was near the ground, air loads acted on spring-loaded struts to automatically deflect the stabilizing flaps up and allow air to escape from under the aircraft.

A number of different pilots, including Charles Lindberg, flew the V-173. Over its flight career, the aircraft did experience a few difficult landings that resulted in minor damage. The most serious issue occurred on 3 June 1943 when Vought-pilot Richard Burroughs made an emergency landing on Lordship Beach, Connecticut. Vapor lock had caused fuel starvation and subsequent engine failure. Immediately after touchdown, Burroughs flipped the V-173 onto its back to avoid hitting a sunbather. No one was injured, and the aircraft was not seriously damaged.

The V-173 undergoing an engine run. The engine cooling air intakes can be seen in the aircraft’s leading edge. The canopy is open, and the cockpit access hatch on the aircraft’s underside is also open. Note that the stabilizing flaps are deflected up and that streamlined fairings have been fitted to cover the wheels.

Overall, the V-173 flew as expected, but it was not entirely like a conventional aircraft. The V-173 was underpowered, and there were unresolved vibration issues caused by the propeller gearboxes and drive shafts. The aircraft made around 190 flights and accumulated 131 hours of flight time.

The V-173 made its last flight on 31 March 1947. The Navy kept the aircraft in storage at Norfolk Naval Air Station, Virginia for a number of years and gave it to the National Air and Space Museum in September 1960. The V-173 was stored at the Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland until 2003, when it was moved to Vought’s Grand Prairie facility near Dallas, Texas for restoration by the Vought Aircraft Heritage Foundation. Restoration was completed in February 2012, and the aircraft was loaned to Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas, where it is currently on display.

Zimmerman’s aircraft were given several nicknames during their development: Zimmer’s Skimmer, Flying Flapjack, and Flying Pancake. Test pilot Guyton said that the V-173 could fly under perfect control while maintaining a 45 degree nose-up angle with full power and full aft stick. During the flight test program, the pilots were not able to make the V-173 stall completely or enter a spin. The aircraft rapidly decelerated in sharp turns, and this could prove advantageous in getting on an opponent’s tail during a dogfight. But if the shot were missed, the aircraft could be at a disadvantage because of its decreased speed. The V-173 proved the viability of Zimmerman’s low-aspect ratio, flying wing aircraft concept, provided much information on how to refine the design, and directly contributed to the Vought XF5U-1.

Painstakingly restored by volunteers, the V-173 is currently on display in the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas. The aircraft is on loan from the National Air and Space Museum until at least 2022. (Frontiers of Flight Museum image)

Sources:
– Chance Vought V-173 and XF5U-1 Flying Pancakes by Art Schoeni and Steve Ginter (1992)
– Aeroplanes Vought 1917–1977 by Gerard P. Morgan (1978)
– “Aircraft” US patent 2,108,093 by Charles H. Zimmerman (applied 30 April 1935)
– “The Flying Flapjack” by Gilbert Paust Mechanix Illustrated (May 1947)
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSkVC9bC_Mg
– http://www.vought.org/products/html/v-173.html
– http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/restoration-vought-v-173-7990846/?all
– https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Charles_H._Zimmerman
– http://www.flightmuseum.com/exhibits/aircraft-3/aircraft-3/
– Correspondence with Bruce Bleakley, Director of the Frontiers of Flight Museum

FIAT A.38, A.40, and A.44 Aircraft Engines

5 Replies

By William Pearce

In the early 1930s, Italy was a world leader in aviation and had developed both liquid-cooled and air-cooled engines. In 1933, the Italian Air Ministry decided to focus on air-cooled radial engines, and the development of liquid-cooled inline engines was essentially abandoned. By 1939, the shortsightedness of this decision became clear as most premiere frontline fighters from Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union, and the United States were powered by liquid-cooled engines. As a result, the Ministero dell’Aeronautica (Italian Air Ministry) began to encourage the development of liquid-cooled engines.

The FIAT A.38 RC15-45 was a 2,118 cu in (34.7 L) inverted V-16. The supercharger was mounted between the cylinder banks to decrease the engine’s length. Note the magnetos and contra-rotating propeller shafts.

In 1939, the Italian Air Ministry asked FIAT to design a new aircraft engine to power the next generation of Italian fighter aircraft. FIAT engineers Antonio Fessia and Carlo Bona began designing the new engine, designated A.38. The A.38 was initially an upright V-16 engine closely based on the FIAT AS.8, which was originally designed to set speed records. While the AS.8 had individual cylinders, the A.38 used two cast cylinder blocks.

After the initial upright engine design, the Italian Air Ministry was inspired by the German Daimler-Benz 600 series of inverted V-12s and requested the A.38’s configuration be changed to an inverted engine. Fessia completely redesigned the A.38, leaving very little in common with the AS.8. The AS.8 engine was a 45 degree V-16 with a 5.51 in (140 mm) bore and stroke, and by 1940, the A.38 had become an inverted, 90 degree V-16 with a 5.43 in (138 mm) bore and a 5.71 in (145 mm) stroke.

The A.38’s 16-cylinder arrangement was selected to maximize the engine’s power output while keeping its cylinder size and supercharger boost within known and reliable limits. However, a V-16 engine is very long, and its crankshaft is subject to torsional vibrations. To keep the engine’s length as short as possible, Fessia used a 90 degree cylinder bank arrangement and positioned the supercharger horizontally between the cylinder banks. This resulted in a rather complex supercharger drive.

The AC.38 in a test cell. The supercharger arrangement greatly increased the engine’s otherwise small frontal area. The 1,200 hp (895 kW) engine could have sufficed with a single-rotation propeller, but the contra-rotating unit would eliminate asymmetrical torque.

The A.38 was of all-aluminum construction with two detachable monobloc cylinder blocks. Each cylinder bank had eight cylinders, and each cylinder had two inlet and two exhaust valves. The valves were actuated by dual overhead (underhead in this case) camshafts that were driven by a single vertical shaft from the front of the engine. Two spark plugs were installed in each cylinder, and the spark plugs for each cylinder bank were fired by two magnetos driven at the front of the engine. The A.38 had a compression ratio of 7 to 1.

The engine had contra-rotating propeller shafts that were driven at .514 engine speed. Between the cylinder banks were the carburetor, supercharger, intake manifolds, and water pump. There were plans to use fuel injection, but this was never completed. The single-stage supercharger had two-speeds that gave critical altitudes of 4,931 ft (1,500 m) and 14,764 ft (4,500 m). The supercharger was powered by a shaft driven from the front of the engine and situated in the Vee between the cylinders. This shaft also drove the oil and water pumps. The supercharger’s outlet was at the center of the engine, and the air was fed into four manifolds, each serving four cylinders.

The engine was officially designated A.38 RC15-45: “RC” for Riduttore de giri (gear reduction) and Compressore (supercharged), and 15/45 for the altitudes (in hectometers) at which maximum power was obtained. The A.38 had a 5.43 in (138 mm) bore, a 5.71 in (145 mm) stroke, and a displacement of 2,118 cu in (34.7 L). The engine produced 1,200 hp (895 kW) at 2,800 rpm at 4,931 ft (1,500 m) and 14,764 ft (4,500 m). The 1,200 hp (895 kW) output was not normally enough to justify the use of contra-rotating propellers, but a photo of the engine in a test cell and a drawing of the FIAT G.55 fighter powered by the A.38 show propellers with just two-blades. It would appear that contra-rotating propellers were used more to eliminate asymmetrical torque than to compensate for exceeding the capabilities of a single-rotation propeller. The engine weighed 1,698 lb (770 kg).

The FIAT G.55 fighter was originally designed to use the A.38 engine with contra-rotating propellers (top), but the aircraft was redesigned once the switch to a single-rotation propeller (bottom) was made. Delays with the A.38 led to the Daimler-Benz DB 605 being installed in the G.55.

Three A.38 engines were ordered, but it is not clear if all were built. The A.38 underwent tests in 1941 and was able to achieved 1,300 hp (969 kW), but even more power was desired. Some developmental changes to the engine included switching to a single-rotation propeller shaft. Trouble was experienced with the engine’s crankshaft and supercharger drive, and despite multiple attempts, the engine failed to pass airworthy certification tests. Fessia continued to work on the engine into 1942, but the Italian Air Ministry had already obtained licenses to produce Daimler-Benz engines and was no longer interested in the A.38—FIAT would build the DB 605 as the RA 1050 Tifone (Typhoon). It is interesting to note that the AS.8 had proven itself reliable and probably would have been a faster and better starting point for Fessia than an all-new engine design.

A number of aircraft designs were made to accommodate the A.38 engine. The only design that was actually built was the G.55. The G.55 was originally planned to be powered by the A.38 turning contra-rotating propellers, but the design was later altered for a single-rotation, three-blade propeller. In late 1941, it became obvious that the G.55 airframe would be completed before the A.38 engine was cleared for flight tests. As a result, a change to the DB 605 engine was initiated. First flown on 30 April 1942, the G.55 arguably became the best Italian fighter of World War II. Due to the state of the Italian aircraft industry in wartime, the G.55 was never made in sufficient numbers to have any impact on the conflict.

The FIAT A.40 was a 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) X-24 that had the same bore and stroke as the A.38. Although two A.40 engines were built, they were never tested because of shifting priorities during World War II. Note the cannon installed in the upper Vee on the side view drawing.

In 1940, Fessia tasked Dante Giacosa to create a new engine to compete with the A.38 and produce 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) at 8,202 ft (2,500 m). Instead of the V-16 layout, Giacosa turned to an X-24 configuration with four six-cylinder banks positioned 90 degrees from each other. The X-24 engine was designated A.40 RC20-60, and it used the same 5.43 in (138 mm) bore and 5.71 in (145 mm) stroke as the A.38. The A.40 engine had a single crankshaft and used one master connecting rod with three articulated connecting rods for each row of cylinders. The induction manifold was installed in the Vee between the lower cylinder banks and fed the two-speed supercharger mounted at the rear of the engine. The A.40 used a fuel injection system that Giacosa and his team had designed. The gear reduction unit raised the single-rotation propeller shaft, which enabled a 20 mm or 37 mm cannon to be fitted in the Vee between the upper cylinder banks and to fire through the propeller hub. The A.40 displaced 3,176 cu in (52.1 L), and an output of 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) was expected at 6,562 ft (2,000 m) and 26,247 ft (6,000 m). Reportedly, two A.40 engines were built in 1943, but Italy’s surrender prevented the engines from ever being tested. No information has been found on the disposition of any A.38 or A.40 engines.

While Fessia was working on the A.38, he also designed a more powerful engine. There is some evidence that suggests the engine was originally designated A.42 and used four A.38 cylinder blocks in an H-32 configuration. However, the engine was redesigned and redesignated A.44 RC15-45. The FIAT A.44 was comprised of two V-16 engines stacked together to form an X configuration. The V-16 engine sections were independent of each other, and each section powered half of the A.44’s contra-rotating propeller at a .429 reduction. A.38 cylinder blocks, pistons, and crankshafts were used, but the V-16 engine sections had a wider bank angle of 135 degrees. The X-32 engine displaced 4,235 cu in (69.4 L) and was forecasted to produce 2,400 hp (1,790 kW) at 2,800 rpm and a maximum of 2,800 hp (2,088 kW) at 2,950 rpm. The engine was estimated to weigh 3,307 lb (1,500 kg), and the design progressed through 1942. While FIAT designed a few aircraft to be powered by the A.44, like the CR.44 fighter/bomber and the BR.44 torpedo bomber, the engine failed to gain the support of the Italian Air Ministry and was never built.

The FIAT CR.44 fighter/bomber was planned around the 2,400 hp (1,790 kW) FIAT A.44 engine. The A.44 X-32 engine was essentially two V-16 engines mounted together. The A.44 engine would have shared most parts with the A.38, except the crankcase. Neither the A.44 nor the CR.44 were built.

Sources:
– Aeronuatica Militare Museo Storico Catalogo Motori by Oscar Marchi (1980)
– Ali D’Italia Fiat G 55 by Piero Vergnano and Gregory Alegi (1998)
– Forty Years of Design with Fiat by Dante Giacosa (1979)
– “Fantasmi di aerie e motori Fiat dal 1935 al 1945 (prime parte)” by Giovanni Masino; Ali Antiche 106 (2011)
– “Fantasmi di aerie e motori Fiat dal 1935 al 1945 (seconda parte)” by Giovanni Masino; Ali Antiche 108 (2012)
– http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=14405.0
– http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6520.0/all.html