Category Archives: Aircraft Engines

Mitsubishi-Ha-43-NASM-TF

Mitsubishi [Ha-43] (A20 / Ha-211 / MK9) Aircraft Engine

By William Pearce

In 1916, the Internal Combustion Engine Section, Machinery Works (Nainenki-ka Zokisho) of the Mitsubishi Shipbuilding Company Ltd (Mitsubishi Zosen KK) was formed to build aircraft engines. A number of licenses to build engines in Japan were acquired from various European engine manufacturers. Initially, the engines were of the Vee type. The aircraft engine works was renamed Mitsubishi Aircraft Company Ltd (Mitsubishi Hokuki KK) in 1928. In the late 1920s, licenses were acquired to produce the five-cylinder Armstrong Siddeley Mongoose and the nine-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet air-cooled radial engines.

Mitsubishi-Ha-43-front-and-left

Front and side views of the Mitsubishi [Ha-43] (A/20 / Ha-211 / MK9). The engine performed well but was underdeveloped. Its development and production were slowed by bombing raids and materiel shortages. The engine powered two of Japan’s best next-generation fighters, the A7M2 and Ki-83. While the aircraft were excellent, the war was already lost.

In 1929, Mitsubishi built the first aircraft engine of its own design. Carrying the Mitsubishi designation A1, the engine was a two-row, 14-cylinder, air-cooled radial of 700 hp (522 kW). This engine was followed in 1930 by the A2, a 320 hp (237 kW) nine-cylinder radial. A larger 600 hp (477 kW) nine-cylinder engine, the A3, was also built the same year. None of these early engines were particularly successful, and only a small number were built: one A1, 14 A2s, and one A3. However, Mitsubishi learned many valuable lessons that it applied to its next engine, the A4 Kinsei.

The two-row, 14-cylinder A4 was developed in 1932 and was initially rated at 650 hp (485 kW). The A4 had a 5.51 in (140 mm) bore, a 5.91 in (150 mm) stroke, and a total displacement of 1,973 cu in (32.33 L). In 1934, Mitsubishi consolidated its subsidiaries and became Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd (Mitsubishi Jukogyo KK). Also in 1934, an upgraded version of the A4 engine was developed as the 830 hp (619 kW) A8 Kinsei. The Kinsei was under continual development through World War II, and numerous versions of the engine were produced. Ultimately, the last variants were capable of 1,500 hp (1,119 kW), and production of all Kinsei engines totaled approximately 15,325 units.

In mid-1941, Mitsubishi began work on an 18-cylinder engine that carried the company designation A20. The engine was intended to be lightweight and produce 2,200 hp (1,641 kW). The A20 design was developed from the Kinsei, although the 18-cylinder A20 really only shared its bore and stroke with the 14-cylinder engine—it is not even clear if the pistons were interchangeable. The team at Mitsubishi designing the A20 engine were Kazuo Sasaki—main engine section; Kazuo Inoue, Ding Kakuda, and Mitsukuni Kada—supercharger and auxiliary equipment; Katsukawa Kurokawa—propeller gear reduction; Shigeta Aso—engine cooling; Shuichi Sugihara—fuel injection system, and Shin Nakano—turbosupercharger. The A20 eventually carried the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) designation Ha-211, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) designation MK9, and the joint designation [Ha-43]. For simplicity, the joint designation will primarily be used. However, few sources agree on the engine’s various sub-type designations, and there is some doubt regarding their accuracy.

Tachikawa-Ki-94-I-mockup

The mockup of the Tachikawa Ki-94-I illustrated the aircraft unorthodox configuration. With its two [Ha-43] engines, the fighter had an estimated top speed of 485 mph (781 km/h). However, its complexity led to its cancellation and the pursuit of a more conventional design.

The Mitsubishi [Ha-43] had two rows of nine cylinders mounted to an aluminum crankcase. The crankcase was formed by three sections. Each section was split vertically through the centerline of a cylinder row, with the middle section split between both the front and rear cylinder rows. Each crankshaft section contained a main bearing to support the built-up, three-piece crankshaft. An additional main bearing was contained in the front accessory drive. The cylinders were made up of a steel barrel screwed and shrunk into a cast aluminum head. Each cylinder had one intake valve and one sodium-cooled exhaust valve. The valves were actuated by separate rockers and pushrods. Unlike the Kinsei engine, the [Ha-43] did not have all of its pushrods at the front of the engine. The [Ha-43] had a front cam ring that drove the pushrods for the front cylinders, and a rear cam ring that did the same for the rear cylinders. When viewed from the rear, the cylinder’s intake port was on the right side, and the exhaust port was on the left. Sheet metal baffles attached to the cylinder head helped direct the flow of cooling air through the cylinder’s fins. Cylinder numbering proceeded clockwise around the engine when viewed from the rear. The vertical cylinder atop the second row was No. 1 Rear, and the inverted cylinder under the front row was No. 1 Front.

At the front of the engine was the propeller gear reduction and the magneto drive. Planetary gear reduction turned the propeller shaft clockwise at .472 times crankshaft speed. Each of the two magnetos mounted atop the gear reduction fired one of the two spark plugs mounted in each cylinder. One spark plug was located on the front side of the cylinder and the other was on the rear side. A 14-blade cooling fan was driven by the propeller shaft and mounted in front of the gear reduction. Not all [Ha-43] engines had a cooling fan. At the rear of the engine was an accessory and supercharger section. The single-stage, two-speed, centrifugal supercharger was mechanically driven by the crankshaft. Individual intake runners extended from the supercharger housing to each cylinder. The intake and exhaust from the front cylinders passed between the rear cylinders, with the exhaust running above the intake runners. The supercharger’s inlet was directly behind the second row of cylinder. Behind the inlet was a fuel distribution pump that directed fuel to an injector installed by the inlet port of each cylinder.

The 18-cylinder [Ha-43] had a 5.51 in (140 mm) bore a 5.91 in (150 mm) stroke, and displaced 2,536 cu in (41.56 L). The basic engine with its 7.0 to 1 compression ratio and single-stage, two-speed supercharger produced 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) at 2,900 rpm and 10.1 psi (.69 bar) of boost for takeoff. Military power was 2,050 hp (1,527 kW) at 3,281 ft (1,000 m) in low gear and 1,820 hp (1,357 kW) at 21,654 ft (6,600 m) in high gear. Both power ratings were produced at 2,800 rpm and 8.1 psi (.56 bar) of boost. Anti-detonation (water) injection was available, but it is not clear at what point it was used—most likely for military power and above. The engine was 48 in (1.23 m) in diameter, 82 in (2.09 m) long, and weighed 2,161 lb (980 kg).

Tachikawa-Ki-74

The high-altitude Tachikawa Ki-74 was built around a pressure cabin for high-altitude flight. The aircraft most likely has [Ha-43] engines with a 14-blade cooling fan. The [Ha-42] engine had a 10-blade cooling fan. The exhaust from the turbosupercharger can be seen on the right side of the image.

[Ha-43] design work was completed in October 1941. The first engine was built at the Mitsubishi No. 2 Engine Works (Mitsubishi Dai Ni Hatsudoki Seisakusho), which was located in Nagoya and developed experimental engines, and was finished in February 1942. As the [Ha-43] was being tested, Mitsubishi proposed in April 1942 to use the engine for its new A7M fighter. The first [Ha-43] engine for the IJA was completed in August 1942. In September 1942, the IJN selected the 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) Nakajima [Ha-45] engine for the A7M1 and many of its other high-powered fighter projects under development. This setback inevitably slowed development of the [Ha-43]. At the time, there were no applications for the engine, with the IJA feeling it was too powerful and the IJN selecting the Nakajima engine. Two more [Ha-43] engines, one each for the IJA and IJN were completed in November 1942.

Mitsubishi continued development at a slow pace, hampered in part by difficulties with designing turbine wheels for the engine’s remote turbosupercharger. It was not until June 1943 that the [Ha-43] passed operational tests and began to be selected for installation on several aircraft types and not just projects. The first [Ha-43]-powered aircraft to fly was the third prototype of the Tachikawa Ki-70. The Ki-70 was a twin-engine reconnaissance aircraft with a glazed nose and twin tails. Originally powered by two 1,900 hp (1,417 kW) Mitsubishi [Ha-42] engines, the aircraft’s performance was lacking, and the third prototype was built with two turbosupercharged [Ha-43] 12 (IJA Ha-211-IRu) engines. The [Ha-43] 12 produced 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) for takeoff; 1,930 hp (1,439 kW) at 16,404 ft (5,000 m); and 1,750 hp (1,305 kW) at 31,170 ft (9,500 m). First flying in late 1943, the [Ha-43] 12-powered aircraft still underperformed, and the engines were unreliable. Development of the Ki-70 was abandoned.

Mitsubishi-A7M2-Reppu-Ha-43

The Mitsubishi A7M2 Reppu (Strong Gale) with its [Ha-43] 11 engine did not have a cooling fan like the A7M1. As a result, the cowling was redesigned with a larger opening and scoops for the engine intake (top) and oil cooler (lower). Note that the individual exhaust stacks were grouped together, mostly in pairs.

In 1943, Tachikawa designed the tandem-engine, twin-boom Ki-94-I (originally Ki-94) fighter powered by two [Ha-43] 12 (IJA Ha-211-IRu) engines. The cockpit was positioned between the two engines, which were mounted in a push-pull configuration in the short fuselage that sat atop the aircraft’s wing. The front and rear engines both turned four-blade propellers. The front propeller was 10 ft 10 in (3.3 m) in diameter, and the rear was 11 ft 2 in (3.4 m) in diameter. After a mockup was inspected in October 1943, the design was judged to be too unorthodox and complex. This resulted in a complete redesign to a more conventional single engine aircraft, the Ki-84-II, which was powered by a 2,400 hp (1,790 kW) Nakajima [Ha-44] engine.

In early 1944, two [Ha-43] 12 (IJA Ha-211-I) engines were installed in the Tachikawa Ki-74, a pressurized, high-altitude, long-range reconnaissance bomber with a conventional taildragger layout. With only the mechanical two-speed supercharger, the [Ha-43] 12 produced 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) for takeoff; 2,020 hp (1,506 kW) at 3,281 ft (1,000 m) in low gear; and 1,800 hp (1,342 kW) at 16,404 ft (5,000 m) in high gear. The Ki-74 made its first flight in March 1944, and turbosupercharged [Ha-43] 12 (IJA Ha-211-IRu) engines were installed in the second and third prototypes. The turbosupercharger was located behind the engine on the outer side of the nacelle and improved the aircraft’s performance at altitude. However, the [Ha-43] engines were still under development and suffered from reliability and vibration issues. Subsequent Ki-74 aircraft used larger and less-powerful Mitsubishi [Ha-42] engines.

Mitsubishi-Ki-83-Ha-43

Like the A7M2, the Mitsubishi Ki-83 also did not use a cooling fan on its [Ha-43] engine. However, the Ki-83 did have a turbosupercharger which helped it achieve its very impressive performance of at least 438 mph (705 km/h) at 29,530 ft (9,000 m). Note the sheet-metal baffles on the cylinder heads.

In the summer of 1944, Mitsubishi was given permission to install a [Ha-43] 11 (IJN MK9A, similar to the [Ha-43] 12) engine in an A7M1 airframe, creating the A7M2. The Mitsubishi A7M Reppu (Strong Gale) was a carrier-based fighter intended to replace the A6M Zero. The A7M1 prototypes had underperformed with the 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) Nakajima [Ha-45] engine selected by the IJN. The [Ha-43]’s installation in the A7M2 was conventional, and the aircraft made its first flight on 13 October 1944. Performance met expectations, and the A7M2 was ordered into production. Subsequently, manufacturing of the [Ha-43] started to ramp up, with 13 engines being built in March 1945. The following month, [Ha-43] 11 production was sanctioned at the Mitsubishi No. 4 Engine Works (Mitsubishi Yon Hatsudoki Seisakusho) in Nagoya. On 1 May 1945, Mitsubishi No. 18 Engine Works (Mitsubishi Dai Juhachi Hatsudoki Seisakusho) was established in Fukui city to build [Ha-43] 11 engines for the IJN, while the No. 4 Engine Works would build engines for the IJA. As events played out, only seven or eight A7M2s were built by the end of the war, the No. 18 Engine Works never produced a complete engine, and bombing raids prevented the March 1945 [Ha-43] production numbers from ever being eclipsed.

Further developments of the A7M were planned, such as the A7M3 powered by a [Ha-43] 31 (IJN MK9C) engine with a single-stage, three-speed mechanical supercharger. The [Ha-43] 31 produced 2,250 hp (1,678 kW) for takeoff; 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) at 5,906 ft (1,800 m) in low gear; 1,800 hp (1,342 kW) at 16,404 ft (5,000 m) in medium gear; and 1,660 hp (1,238 kW) at 28,543 ft (8,700 m) in high gear. The three-speed supercharger added about 5.4 in (138 mm) to the engine’s length and 88 lb (40 kg) to the engine’s weight, increasing the respective totals to 87 in (2.22 m) and 2,249 lb (1,020 kg). The A7M3-J would incorporate the [Ha-43] 11 engine with a turbosupercharger installed under the cockpit to produce 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) for takeoff; 2,130 hp (1,588 kW) at 22,310 ft (6,800 m); and 1,920 hp (1,432 kW) at 33,793 ft (10,300 m). While the A7M2 did not have a cooling fan, one was used in the A7M3 and A7M3-J designs.

Mitsubishi-Ki-83-turbo

The turbosupercharger installed in the Ki-83’s left engine nacelle. The large duct on the right was for the exhaust after it passed through the turbosupercharger. The outlet at the end of the nacelle was from the wastegate. Both were positioned to provided additional thrust. The Ki-83 had a ceiling of 41,535 ft (12,660 m).

In the fall of 1944, two [Ha-43] 12 (IJA Ha-211-IRu) engines were installed in the Mitsubishi Ki-83. The Ki-83 was a twin-engine heavy fighter with a conventional taildragger layout. A turbosupercharger was placed in the rear of each engine nacelle. Fresh air would enter the turbocharger near the rear of the nacelle on the outboard side, be compressed, and then flow to the engine through an air box in the upper nacelle. The engine’s exhaust was expelled from the turbocharger on the inboard side of the nacelle, and a wastegate was positioned at the end of the nacelle. The exhaust arrangement provided some additional thrust. Each engine turned an 11 ft 6 in (3.5 m) diameter, four-blade propeller. The Ki-83 made its first flight on 18 November 1944, but with the main focus on single-engine interceptors, only one was built before the Japanese surrender.

In April 1945, a [Ha-43] 42 (IJN MK9D) was installed in the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden (Magnificent Lightning), an unconventional pusher fighter with a canard layout. The [Ha-43] 42 had two-stage supercharging, with the first stage made up by a pair of transversely-mounted centrifugal impellers, one on each side of the engine. The shaft of these impellers was joined to the engine by a continuously variable coupling. The output from each of the first stage impellers joined together as they fed the normal, two-speed supercharger mounted to the rear of the engine and geared to the crankshaft. The [Ha-43] 42 produced 2,030 hp (1,514 kW) at 2,900 rpm with 9.7 psi (.67 bar) of boost for takeoff. Military power at 2,800 rpm and 5.8 psi (.40 bar) of boost was 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) at 6,562 ft (2,000 m) in low gear and 1,660 hp (1,238 kW) at 27,559 ft (8,400 m) in high gear. An extension shaft approximately 29.5 in (750 mm) long extended back from the engine to a remote propeller reduction gear box. The gear reduction turned the 11 ft 2 in (3.40 m), six-blade propeller at .412 times crankshaft speed and also drove a 12-blade cooling fan that was 2 ft 11 in (900 mm) in diameter.

Kyushu-J7W1-Shinden-Ha-43-42-engine

The [Ha-43] 42 (IJN MK9D) installed in the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden, pictured while the aircraft was in storage at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s Paul E. Garber facility. The front of the aircraft is on the left. One of the two transversely-mounted, first-stage superchargers can be seen left of the engine, and the ducts from both superchargers can be seen joining together as they feed the mechanically-driven supercharger at the rear of the engine. Note that the exhaust stacks are flowing toward the front of the engine (rear of the aircraft).

Since the engine was mounted with the propeller shaft toward the rear of the aircraft, it incorporated new cylinders with the exhaust port on the side opposite of the intake port. The intake port faced toward the supercharger (front of the aircraft), and the exhaust port faced toward the propeller (rear of the aircraft). The engine’s individual exhaust pipes were used to help the flow of air through the cowling and oil coolers. After flowing through the oil cooler on each side of the aircraft, air was mixed with the exhaust from four cylinders and ejected out a slit on the side of the fuselage just before the spinner. The ejector exhaust helped draw air through the oil coolers. The same was true for the exhaust from the lower six cylinders, which was ducted into an augmenter that helped draw cooling air through the engine cowling and out an outlet under the spinner. The exhaust from the remaining four cylinders, which were located on the top of the engine, exited via two outlets arranged atop the cowling to generate thrust.

The J7W1 made its first flight on 3 August 1945. The third J7W1 was planned to have a [Ha-43] 43 engine that used a single impeller for its first-stage, continuously variable supercharger and produced an additional 130 hp (97 kW) for takeoff. Production J7W1 aircraft would be powered by a 2,250 hp (1,678 kW) [Ha-43] 51 engine with a single-stage, three-speed, mechanical supercharger replacing the two-stage setup with the continuously variable first stage. The engine would turn a four-blade propeller, 11 ft 6 in or 11 ft 10 in (3.5 m or 3.6 m) in diameter. However, only the first J7W1 was completed by war’s end.

Mitsubishi-Ha-43-NASM-TF

The [Ha-43] 11 engine with cooling fan in storage as part of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s collection. Note the rust on the steel cylinder barrels. The spark plug wires are disconnected and desiccant plugs have been installed to help preserve the engine. (Tom Fey image)

In January 1945, construction commenced on the Mansyu Ki-98 (or Manshu Ki-98), a twin-boom pusher fighter with tricycle undercarriage. A single, turbosupercharged [Ha-43] 12 (IJA Ha-211-IRu) engine turning an 11 ft 10 in (3.6 m) four-blade propeller would power the aircraft. With the exception of the turbosupercharger, the installation was similar to that of the J7W1 with an extension shaft and remote propeller gear reduction. The prototype was ready for assembly when it was destroyed in August 1945 to prevent its capture by Soviet forces.

In addition to the aircraft listed above, the [Ha-43] was selected to power a number of aircraft projects that were not built. Plans were initiated to use the [Ha-43] to repower a number of different production aircraft that used the 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) Nakajima [Ha-45]. However, none of these retrofit redesigns were carried out before the end of the war. From 1942 to 1945, the production run of the [Ha-43] amounted to only 77 engines, and it was not fully developed by the end of the war.

At least three [Ha-43] engine survive, and all three are held by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. One engine does not have a cooling fan and is probably a [Ha-43] 11 for a A7M2. The second engine is a [Ha-43] 11 with a cooling fan. The third engine is a [Ha-43] 42 still installed in the J7W1 prototype. All of the engines are in storage and not on display.

Mitsubishi-Ha-43-NASM-no-fan

The fanless [Ha-43] 11 engine held by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. The fuel distribution pump with its 18 lines can be seen atop the rear of the engine. The small-diameter lines appear to be made of copper.

Sources:
Japanese Aero-Engines 1910 – 1945 by Mike Goodwin and Peter Starkings (2017)
Japanese Secret Projects by Edwin M. Dyer III (2009)
Japanese Secret Projects 2 by Edwin M. Dyer III (2014)
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by René J. Francillon (1979/2000)
The History of Mitsubishi Aero-Engines 1915–1945 by Matsuoka Hisamitsu and Nakanishi Masayoshi (2005)
– “Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD” The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Corporation Report No. I (June 1947)
– “Design Details of the Mitsubishi Kinsei Engine” by W. G. Ovens, Aviation (August 1942)
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-brief-history-of-mitsubishi-mk9-or-ha-43.21030/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mitsubishi-a7m-%C2%AB-reppu-%C2%BB-sam.7230/

Continental-XI-1430-right-front

Continental XI-1430 Aircraft Engine

By William Pearce

In 1932, the Army Air Corps (AAC) contracted the Continental Motors Company to develop a high-performance (Hyper) cylinder that would produce 1 hp per cu in (.7 kW per 16 cc). Based on promising test results, an order was placed for a 1,000 hp (746 kW), 12-cylinder O-1430 aircraft engine. The AAC had stipulated that the engine needed to be a horizontally opposed (flat) configuration and use individual cylinders. Lengthy delays were encountered with development of the Hyper No. 2 cylinder, and the situation was made worse by Continental’s financial state. Continental did not fund much of the project, and each change and every purchase was sent to the AAC for contractual approval.

Continental-XI-1430-right-front

The Continental XI-1430 was a compact, high-performance aircraft engine capable of producing an impressive amount of power but also suffered from reliability issues. The mounting pads on the front accessory case, below the nose case, were for the starter and generator.

The O-1430 was finally completed and run in 1938. While it did meet the 1,000 hp (746 kW) goal, the six years of development rendered the engine obsolete. The Allison V-1710 and the Rolls-Royce Merlin had already passed the 1,000 hp (746 kW) mark years previously. However, the AAC and Continental believed that the engine could be reworked to produce 1,600 hp (1,193 kW). In 1939, the AAC requested that Continental use the O-1430 as the basis for an inverted Vee engine designated XI-1430. Especially early on, the engine was also referred to as the XIV-1430 or IV-1430. The XI-1430 would keep the basic individual cylinders of the O-1430, but the cooling requirement was changed from 300° F (149° C) to 250° F (121° C). The Vee configuration (even if inverted) and 250° F (121° C) coolant were preferred by Continental from the start. To speed development of the engine, Continental agreed to put at least $250,000 of its own money toward the project and was willing to proceed based on verbal agreements with the AAC rather than waiting for changes to be specified in writing.

In 1940, Continental Motors Company created a subsidiary known as Continental Aviation and Engineering Corporation to develop aircraft engines of over 500 hp (373 kW). Most of the XI-1430 development was done under the Continental Aviation and Engineering Corporation. The XI-1430 was essentially a new engine with perhaps just the pistons, connecting rods, and a few other parts being interchangeable with the earlier O-1430.

The XI-1430 had a one-piece aluminum crankcase. The crankshaft was supported by seven main bearings and secured to the crankcase by bearing caps. A cover plate sealed the top of the inverted crankcase. Two banks of six individual cylinders were secured to the crankcase via studs. The cylinder banks had an included angle of 60 degrees. The pistons were attached to the crankshaft via fork-and-blade connecting rods. When viewed from the rear, the blade rods served the left bank, and the fork rods served the right bank.

Continental-XI-1430-9-clockwise-geartrain

The gear train of a clockwise-turning (right-handed) XI-1430-9. Unlike with the O-1430 in which a few gears could be swapped for clockwise vs counterclockwise rotation, the XI-1430 had a different gear train that incorporated various idler gears for counterclockwise rotation.

The cylinders used the same bore and stroke as the Hyper No. 2 test cylinder and the O-1430. While their design was similar to the previous applications, the XI-1430’s cylinders had been further refined. Each cylinder was made up of a forged steel barrel screwed and shrunk into a forged aluminum cylinder head. The new cylinder head was more compact than that used previously. A steel water jacket surrounded the cylinder barrel and was secured to the cylinder head. Two spark plugs were installed in each cylinder, with one by the intake port and the other by the exhaust port. The cylinder had a single intake valve and a single sodium-cooled exhaust valve. Both valves were actuated by a single overhead camshaft located in a housing that bolted atop all the cylinders of a given bank. Each camshaft was driven through bevel gears by a nearly-horizontal shaft at the front of the engine. Various accessories were driven from the rear of the camshaft.

An updraft Stromberg injection carburetor was positioned at the extreme rear of the XI-1430 engine. It fed air and fuel into the single-speed, single-stage supercharger, which was mounted to the rear of the engine. The supercharger impeller was 10.5 in (267 mm) in diameter and turned at 5.928 times crankshaft speed. The supercharger drive case also powered various pumps: oil, water, vacuum, and hydraulic. An intake manifold led from the bottom of the supercharger and extended through the inverted Vee of the engine. Short individual runners branched off the manifold and supplied the air and fuel mixture to each cylinder.

An accessory drive case was mounted to the front of the engine. Driven from the accessory case were the starter, generator, an oil pump, and a single dual-magneto. The magneto was mounted on the upper front of the accessory drive case and fired the two spark plugs in each cylinder. The accessory drive case also housed the spur gears that made up part of the XI-1430’s propeller gear reduction. Mounted to the front of the accessory drive was a nose case that contained a bevel planetary gear reduction that drove the propeller shaft. The speed of the crankshaft was partly reduced via the spur gears in the accessory drive case, then further reduced via the planetary gears in the nose case. This two-stage gear reduction was probably adopted to keep the XI-1430’s frontal area to a minimum and possibly to extended the nose of the engine for a more streamlined installation. Depending on the engine model, the final speed of the propeller shaft was .360, .385, or .439 crankshaft speed.

Continental-XI-1430-front-and-rear

Front and rear views of the XI-1430 illustrate the engine’s rather compact configuration. On the front of the engine, the housings for the camshaft drives can just be seen between the accessory drive and the circular covers on the cylinder banks. Note the size of the supercharger housing on the rear view.

The Continental XI-1430 had a 5.5 in (140 mm) bore and a 5.0 in (127 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 1,425 cu in (23.4 L) and had a compression ratio of 6.5 to 1. XI-1430 installations included a General Electric (GE) turbosupercharger and air-to-air intercooler. The engine initially had a takeoff rating of 1,350 hp (1,007 kW) at 3,300 rpm and a military rating of 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) at 3,200 rpm up to 25,000 ft (7,620 m). Development ultimately increased takeoff power to 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) at 3,300 rpm and 15.3 psi (1.05 bar) of boost. The XI-1430 maintained this power as its normal rating up to 25,000 ft (7,620 m), but at 3,000 rpm. Emergency power was 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) at 3,400 rpm with 28.5 psi (1.97 bar) of boost at 25,000 ft (7,620 m). The XI-1430 was 112.5 in (2.86 m) long, 30.9 in (.78 m) wide, and 33.5 in (.85 m) tall. The engine weighed 1,615 lb (733 kg).

On 20 February 1940, the AAC issued Request for Data R40-C that sought designs of new fighter aircraft capable of 450 mph (724 km/h), with 525 mph (845 km/h) listed as desirable. With a new generation of high-power aircraft engines under development, manufacturers saw it as an opportunity be creative. Five of the 26 submitted designs (some of which only offered slight variations) used the XI-1430 as the selected engine. Bell offered two XI-1430-powered variants of what was similar to a P-39 Airacobra, and two Curtiss-Wright XI-1430-powered submissions were similar to reengined examples of their CW-21 and XP-46. The later design was contracted mid-1940 as the XP-53. However, due to delays with the XI-1430 engine, the AAC requested the substitution of a Packard V-1650 (Merlin) in October 1940, and the XP-53 was subsequently redesignated as the XP-60.

A third XI-1430-powered R40-C proposal from Curtiss-Wright was a pusher aircraft designated P-249C. A design contract for the P-249C was issued on 22 June 1940, but the decision was made not to proceed with a prototype. Curtiss-Wright continued to refine the design and substituted an Allison V-1710 engine (this aircraft design was also an R40-C submission). The V-1710-powered aircraft was eventually built as the XP-55 Ascender. None of XI-1430-powered R40-C aircraft were built.

Continental-XI-1430-left-rear

The induction pipe can be seen extended from the bottom of the supercharger housing and to the inverted Vee between the cylinder banks. Note how the camshaft housing was attached to each individual cylinder.

In March 1940, the engines for the Lockheed XP-49 design were switched to the XI-1430 with a GE B-33 turbosupercharger. The XP-49 was not part of R40-C and was essentially an advancement of the P-38 Lightning. The Pratt & Whitney X-1800 / XH-2600 originally selected for the XP-49 was cancelled, necessitating a power plant switch. Lockheed began to modify the XP-49 for the XI-1430 engines.

In mid-1940, the AAC expressed interest in the XI-1430-powered Bell XP-52. The XP-52 was a twin-boom pusher fighter that never progressed beyond the initial design phase. The project ended in October 1940, before a contract was formalized.

For R40-C, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation proposed four variants of its Model 1 with different engines. None of the variants used the IX-1430. The Model 1 had its engine buried in the fuselage and drove wing-mounted pusher propellers via extensions shafts and right-angle gear boxes. Although radical, the AAC purchased engineering data and a wind tunnel model of the design. McDonnell worked with the AAC to refine the design, which eventually became the Model 2a. The Model 2a was powered by two XI-1430 engines, each with a GE D-23 turbosupercharger. On 30 September 1941, the Army Air Force (AAF—the AAC was renamed in June 1941) contracted McDonnell to build two prototypes of the aircraft as the XP-67.

Meanwhile, the XI-1430 was first run in late 1940 and underwent its first tests in January 1941. Plans were initiated to install the XI-1430 in a few P-39D aircraft, but the concept was ultimately dropped due to a lack of available engines. In July 1941, the AAF and the Defense Plant Corporation funded a new aircraft engine plant for Continental on Getty Street in Muskegon, Michigan that cost $5 million. It appeared as if the AAF truly believed that the XI-1430 would be a successful engine.

Continental-XI-1430-XP-49

The Lockheed XP-49 was obviously a development of the P-38, with the airframes sharing many common parts. However, the XP-49 as built offered no advantage over the P-38, and the aircraft was used mostly as an XI-1430 test bed.

On 22 April 1942, XI-1430 engines that were not fully developed were delivered to Lockheed in Burbank, California for installation in the XP-49. In May, the engine passed a preliminary test at 1,600 hp (1,193 kW). The XP-49 made its first flight on 11 November 1942, piloted by Joe Towle. That same month, the AAF ordered 100 I-1430 engines but required a type test to be passed before delivery. At the end of November, the XP-49 had more powerful engines installed capable of 1,350 hp (1,006 kW) for takeoff and 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m). The engines in the XP-49 proved to be troublesome and required constant maintenance, and the aircraft itself had numerous issues. The I-1430 was also having trouble passing the type test. Around August 1943, the AAF cut its order to 50 engines and later reduced the quantity again to 25. By September 1943, the XP-49 became essentially a testbed for the XI-1430, as the aircraft offered no advantage over the P-38. It was clear that the XP-49 would not go into production.

McDonnell had built a full-scale XP-67 engine nacelle for testing the XI-1430 engine installation. Tests were conducted by McDonnell starting in May 1943. After accumulating almost 27 hours of operation, the rig was sent to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory (now Langley Research Center) in Virginia. The NACA added about 17.5 hours to the engine conducting tests to analyze the installation’s effectiveness for cooling the coolant, oil, and intercooler. The tests indicated that the cooling was insufficient. The nacelle with revised ducts was then shipped to Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio in October 1943. Wright field added another 6.5 hours to the engine, bringing the total to 51 hours. The new ducts proved satisfactory, and McDonnell was allowed to proceeded with XP-67 testing. However, excessive vibrations were noted between the engine and its mounting structure, and a more rigid mount was required to resolve the issue.

On 1 December 1943, the XP-67 had its XI-1430 engines installed and was ready for ground tests. However, both engines caught fire and damaged the aircraft on 8 December. The fire was caused by issues with the exhaust manifolds. By the end of 1943, the AAF had reduced the I-1430 order to just eight engines, signaling that the engine would not enter quantity production. The XP-67 was repaired and made its first flight on 6 January 1944, taking off from Scott Field in Belleville, Illinois. Test pilot Ed E. Elliott had to cut the flight to just six minutes due to both turbosuperchargers overheating, which resulted in small fires. The aircraft was again repaired, but engine and turbosupercharger issues continued to plague the program. The engines were only delivering 1,060 hp (790 kW), well below the expected output of 1,350 hp (1,007 kW).

Continental-XI-1430-underside-XP-67

Underside of an XI-1430-17 installed in the McDonnell XP-67 wing section for tests at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in September 1943. The tests were conducted to evaluate the cooling ducts of the XP-67’s radical blended design. Illustrated is the engine’s intake manifold and two coolant radiators. Note the generator and starter installed on the front accessory drive. The air-cooled jackets surrounding the engine’s exhaust manifolds are also visible. (LMAL image)

In March 1944, the I-1430 type test was partially completed, and the eight engines ordered by the AAF were delivered. At the time, the engine achieved an emergency power rating of 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) with water injection. Continental continued its efforts, and in August 1944, the I-1430 earned a rating of 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) with 150 PN fuel and no water injection.

On 6 September 1944, the exhaust valve rocker of the No. 1 cylinder in the XP-67’s right engine broke while the aircraft was in flight. Exhaust gases unable to escape the cylinder backed up into the induction manifold and caused it to fail, resulting in a fire. Test pilot Elliott was able to land the aircraft, but it was subsequently damaged beyond repair by the fire. This event effectively killed the XP-67, and the project was suspended seven days later on 13 September. All XI-1430 development was halted around this time.

The XP-49 had continued to fly when it could, but engine and airframe issues caused the aircraft to be grounded in December 1944. No longer of any useful service, the XP-49 was subsequently scrapped.

Continental-XI-1430-XP-67

The XP-67 had an impressive appearance with its nacelles and fuselage blended into the wings. However, the XI-1430 engines did not deliver their expected power, and the XP-67’s top speed was 405 mph (652 km/h), well below the expected 448 mph (721 km/h). The XP-67 originally had a guaranteed speed of 472 mph (760 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m) with a gross weight of 18,600 lb (8,437 kg). Once its weight had increased to 22,500 lb (10,206 kg), the expected speed was reduced to 448 mph (721 km/h).

Continental had investigated designs for XI-1430 engines with a two-speed supercharger, a two-stage and two-speed supercharger, contra-rotating propellers, a spur-gear-only propeller reduction, and turbocompounding with a turbine feeding power back to the crankshaft. Continental was to supply XI-1430 engines with a contra-rotating propeller shaft for the second XP-67. The engines were expected in June 1944, but no further information has been found.

Continental did work with General Electric on a turbocompound XI-1430 in 1943, and it appears detailed design work was undertaken. The XP-67 was used for performance calculations with a turbocompounded XI-1430 engine. The turbocompound engines decreased the time of a climb to 25,000 ft (7,620 m) by approximately 38 percent and increased range by 25 percent. The turbocompound XI-1430’s output was an additional 580 hp (395 kW). The engine with its power recovery turbine weighed an additional 235 lb (107 kg), but the total installation weight was only 30 lb (14 kg) additional because a turbosupercharger and its ducting was not needed. In February 1944, Materiel Command’s Engineering Division encouraged the completion of a turbocompound XI-1430 engine to test against the calculated performance estimates, but it does not appear that a complete engine was ever built.

Although the XI-1430 was lighter and more powerful than comparatively sized engines in production, it required additional development to become reliable. It was obvious that the engine would not see combat in World War II, and there was little point in continuing the program. A total of 23 XI-1430 engines were built, and at least four engines are known to survive. A -11 and a -15, are held by the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, a -9 is on display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, and a running -11 is part of a private collection.

Continental-XI-1430-left-right-NASM

The two XI-1430 engines held by the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, with the -11 at top and the -15 at bottom. Both examples rotate counterclockwise (left-handed). The engines are currently in storage and not on display. (NASM images)

Sources:
Development of Aircraft Engines and Aviation Fuels by Robert Schlaifer and S. D. Heron (1950)
Continental! Its Motors and its People by William Wagner (1983)
Aircraft Engines of the World 1946 by Paul H. Wilkinson (1946)
Service Instructions for Aircraft Engines Army Models I-1430-9 and -11 By (20 May 1943)
Performance of the McDonnell XP-67 Airplane with XI-1430 Compound Engines and with Present XI-1430 Engines Using Continental Turbo Chargers by J. H. Gilmore, E. P. Kiefer, and H. D. Delameter (25 February 1944)
U.S. Experimental & Prototype Aircraft Projects: Fighters 1939-1945 by Bill Norton (2008)
American Secret Pusher Fighters of World War II by Gerald H. Balzer (2008)
Final Report on the XP-67 Airplane by John F. Aldridge, Jr. (31 January 1946)
Tornado: Wright Aero’s Last Liquid-Cooled Piston Engine by Kimble D. McCutcheon (2001)
– “Fabricated Crankcase Structure” U.S. patent 2,340,885 by James W. Kinnucan (filed 7 December 1940)
– “Cylinder Head” U.S. patent 2,395,712 by Carl F. Bachle (filed 12 January 1942)
– Accessory Mechanism and Drive for Aircraft Engines” U.S. patent 2,410,167 by James W. Kinnucan (filed 20 March 1942)
http://www.enginehistory.org/Collections/IV-1430/iv-1430.shtml
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/continental-hyper-i-1430-11-inverted-v-12-engine
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/continental-hyper-xi-1430-15-inverted-v-12-engine

Continental-O-1430-engine

Continental Hyper Cylinder and the O-1430 Aircraft Engine

By William Pearce

In the late 1920s, British engine expert Harry R. Ricardo hypothesized that the spark-ignition internal combustion engine with poppet valves had reached its specific power-producing zenith. The foundation for this belief was rooted in the fuel quality and technology employed at the time. Ricardo recommended that a single sleeve valve should replace the cylinder’s poppet valves and would enable the continued increase of an engine’s specific power output.

Continental-Hyper-Cylinder-No-2-sectional

Sectional drawing of the Continental Hyper No. 2 cylinder from August 1933. The domed exhaust valve is on the left. The domed piston had recesses to provide clearance for the valves.

British expatriate turned American citizen Sam D. Heron was also an engine expert and was employed at the time by the Army Air Corps (AAC) at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. Heron was involved in engine research, and with the approval of the AAC, he began to explore the power limits of the spark-ignition internal combustion cylinder with poppet valves. However, Heron had access to one thing that Ricardo did not consider: sodium-cooled exhaust valves.

Around 1923, Heron had developed an air-cooled cylinder for use on the Liberty V-12 engine. This cylinder had a 4.625 in (117 mm) bore, a 7.0 in (178 mm) stroke, and displaced 117.6 cu in (1.93 L). Around 1925, Heron developed the sodium-cooled exhaust valve. These valves had a hollow stem that was partially (approximately 2/3) filled with sodium. Once the valve reached 208° F (98° C), the sodium melted. The up-and-down movement of the valve sloshed the sodium in the valve. The sodium absorbed heat from the valve head, cooling it, and transferred the heat to the valve stem. The valve stem extended out of the cylinder and transferred the heat to the valve guide boss and subsequently to the cooling fins (if air cooled) or the water jacket (if water-cooled). The exhaust valve was a hot spot inside the cylinder that could cause detonation. Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the remaining air and fuel mixture inside the cylinder prior to the flame front propagating from the spark plug, after it has fired, reaches that part of the cylinder. The sodium-cooled valve reduced the valve’s temperature, helping to prevent the possibility of detonation, and enabled the cylinder to produce more power.

Around 1930, Heron took the air-cooled Liberty cylinder with a sodium-cooled exhaust valve and converted it to water-cooling by adding a water jacket around the cylinder barrel. The cylinder was used on a single-cylinder test engine and quickly produced more power than the poppet valve limits described by Ricardo. At the time, an average aircraft engine cylinder produced a mean effective pressure (mep) of around 150 psi (10.3 bar). Using a single sleeve valve engine, Ricardo was able to achieve an mep of 450 psi (31.0 bar). Heron’s test cylinder was able to achieve an mep of 360 psi (24.8 bar) on its first run. Heron’s test cylinder was reworked, and an mep of 500 psi (34.5 bar) was ultimately recorded.

Continental-Hyper-Cylinder-No-2-side-bottom

Two views of the same Hyper No. 2 cylinder after its 49-hour test run in August 1933. The exhaust port is on the same side as the coolant pipe.

Encouraged by Heron’s test results, the AAC sought to develop a high-performance (Hyper) cylinder to be used on an aircraft engine. The cylinder kept the 4.625 in (117 mm) bore, but the stroke was reduced to 5.0 in (127 mm) to permit an engine speed of up to 3,400 rpm. With the change, the cylinder displaced 84.0 cu in (1.38 L). A proposed V-12 engine would incorporate 12 Hyper cylinders for a total displacement of 1,008 cu in (16.5 L) and a goal of producing 1,000 hp (746 kW). The AAC also desired a pressurized cooling system that ran straight ethylene glycol at 300° F (149° C). The then-current practice was to use normal water as the coolant, which limited the temperature to around 180° F (82° C). The high temperature was selected in an effort to decrease the size of the radiator needed in the aircraft. For proper cooling of a complete engine with the desired 300° F (149° C) coolant temperature, the AAC believed that individual cylinder construction would be required rather than six-cylinders together in a monobloc. However, an engine constructed with individual cylinders is less rigid than using monobloc construction, making the crankcase and cylinders prone to cracking when the engine is highly stressed. Individual cylinder construction also makes the engine heavier and longer, which increases torsional stresses on the crankshaft.

On 5 October 1932, a contract to develop the Hyper cylinder and design a complete 12-cylinder engine was issued to the Continental Motors Company. At the time, Continental built engines for a number of different automotive manufacturers and built medium-size air-cooled radial engines under their own name. Continental had also been contracted for experimental work on single sleeve valve engines by both the AAC and the US Navy.

Continental set up an office in Dayton, Ohio to work with Heron and the AAC regarding the design of the first test cylinder, Hyper No. 1. Continental built Hyper No. 1 to the AAC’s specifications at their main facility in Detroit, Michigan. Hyper No. 1 was constructed of a forged steel cylinder barrel screwed and shrunk into a cast aluminum head. A separate steel water-jacket was shrunk over the barrel and a shoulder of the head. The cylinder had a hemispherical combustion chamber with a single intake and a single sodium-cooled exhaust valve. The valves were actuated by an overhead camshaft via rockers. The rockers had a roller that rode on the camshaft and a pad that contacted the valve stem. Hyper No. 1 was first tested in early 1933 and soon produced 84 hp (63 kW) at 3,000 rpm, achieving the goal of producing 1 hp per cu in (.7 kW per 16 cc). However, there was some concern that a 1,008 cu in (16.5 L) engine producing 1,000 hp (746 kW) would be highly stressed, resulting in decreased reliability.

Continental-O-1430-drawing-1933

A drawing of the O-1430 included in U.S. patent 2,016,693 from October 1933 shows the engine’s basic layout. The cylinder appears to be nearly identical to that of Hyper No. 2, and the engine’s configuration matches what was ultimately built in 1938.

The AAC allowed Continental to develop a larger cylinder bore, resulting in Hyper No. 2. Hyper No. 2 had the bore increased by .875 in (22 mm) to 5.5 in (140 mm). This change increased the cylinder’s displacement by 34.8 cu in (.57 L) to 118.8 cu in (1.95 L). An engine with 12 Hyper No. 2 cylinders would displace 1,425 cu in (23.4 L), an increase of 417 cu in (6.8 L) over using Hyper No. 1 cylinders. Other AAC requirements, such as 300° F (149° C) coolant, individual cylinders, and a 1,000 hp (746 kW) output remained unchanged.

An endurance test report of Hyper No. 2 dated 3 August 1933 states that two cylinders were used for the test. The first cylinder failed due to cracks after 11 hours at 3,000 rpm and 9.8 psi (.68 bar) of boost. The second cylinder was run for 49 hours and produced 83 hp (62 kW) at 3,000 rpm with 6.9 psi (.48 bar) of boost. This gave an indicated mep of 211 psi (14.5 bar) and would enable a 12-cylinder engine to produce 1,000 hp (746 kW). However, the second cylinder also exhibited cracks at the end of the run, and numerous parts of both cylinders failed during or were worn out after the test. The report also states that the cylinder had a compression ratio of 5.9 to 1 and that the intake and exhaust valves were both sodium-cooled, but it is not clear if this was also the case with Hyper No. 1. The report includes a drawing of a piston listed as having a 5.75 to 1 compression ratio.

As testing of Hyper No. 2 was underway, serious discussions commenced regarding the design of a 12-cylinder engine. The AAC now wanted a flat (horizontally opposed cylinder) engine that could be installed in an aircraft’s wing and tasked Continental to build such an engine. The result was the O-1430, which utilized Hyper No. 2 cylinders. Sometimes the engine is referred to as OL-1430, for Opposed Liquid-cooled. It was assumed that a complete O-1430 engine would be built quickly and that the engine could be rapidly placed into service, with only a few years elapsing from design to production.

Continental-O-1430-mockup

Wooden mockup of the Continental O-1430 engine. The model was very detailed and closely matched the actual engine. The model survived and is in a private collection. Note the intake manifold and its individual runners atop the engine.

The Continental O-1430 was a horizontally opposed (flat-12 or 180° V-12) aircraft engine. The two-piece aluminum crankcase was split vertically at its center. Six individual steel cylinders were attached via studs to each side of the crankcase. As installed on the engine, the air and fuel mixture entered the cylinder via a port on the top side, and the exhaust gases were expelled via a port on the bottom side of the cylinder. A camshaft housing was attached atop all of the cylinders on each side of the engine. The single overhead camshaft for each cylinder bank was driven from the front of the engine via a shaft and bevel gears. A magneto was mounted to the rear of each camshaft. One magneto fired one spark plug in each cylinder, and the other magneto fired the other spark plug. The spark plugs were both positioned on the intake side of the cylinder and flanked the intake port. The pistons were connected to the crankshaft via fork-and-blade connecting rods.

At the front of the engine was an accessory drive and propeller gear reduction. A double set of spur gears enabled the reduction and kept the propeller shaft on the same axis as the crankshaft. A gear reduction of .455 or .556 could be fitted without any modification to the reduction housings. Additionally, the accessory drive was designed so that swapping two gears would reverse the rotation of the accessory drive shaft relative to the crankshaft. In other words, the setup enabled the accessories to be driven in the same direction whether the crankshaft rotated clockwise or counterclockwise. There was no need for special accessories or gearsets when the engine was installed in handed operation. Reversing the relative positions of the starter and generator mounted to the sides of the front accessory drive and flipping their common drive shaft enabled those units to operate regardless of the clockwise or counterclockwise rotation of the crankshaft.

Continental-O-1430-engine-top

Top view of the complete O-1430 engine shows the accessory section at the front of the engine with the starter and generator. Note the camshaft drives and the leads from the magnetos to the spark plugs.

A downdraft carburetor was positioned at the extreme rear of the O-1430 engine. It fed air and fuel into the single-speed, single-stage supercharger, which was mounted to the rear of the engine. The supercharger impeller was 10.5 in (267 mm) in diameter and turned at 6.45 times crankshaft speed. An intake manifold led from the supercharger and sat atop the engine. Individual runners branched off the manifold and supplied the air and fuel mixture to each cylinder. A water pump with two outlets, one for each cylinder bank, was driven from the bottom of the supercharger drive housing.

The O-1430 had a 5.5 in (140 mm) bore and a 5.0 in (127 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 1,425 cu in (23.4 L) and had compression ratio of 6.1 to 1. Takeoff power was 1,150 hp (858 kW) at 3,150 rpm, and continuous power was 1,000 hp (746 kW) at 3,000 rpm up to 25,000 ft (7,620 m). The O-1430 was 104.5 in (2.65 m) long, 44.3 in (1.13 m) wide, and 24.2 in (.61 m) tall. The engine weighed 1,300 lb (590 kg).

Construction of the O-1430 was delayed by the development of the Hyper No. 2 cylinder. Almost all of the time from 1932 to 1938 was spent on refining the cylinder’s design. The AAC wanted the cylinder to be fully developed before the complete engine was built, and it took Continental years to fully satisfy the AAC’s requirements. Cracks in the cylinder were a constant issue as Hyper No. 2 was developed. Additionally, Continental seemingly did not want to spend any of its own money on the cylinder or engine, even though the company would eventually be reimbursed by the AAC. Rather, Continental sent each change and every purchase through the AAC for contractual approval. While this funding bottleneck severely slowed work, Continental was struggling financially in the Depression era. In addition, Continental believed that the engine would not be suitable for commercial use and that it would only power fighter aircraft. They felt that a fighter engine would not offer a significant return on any money that they invested into the project. At the same time, the AAC had very limited funds available for the experimental engine project.

Continental-O-1430-engine

Although the O-1430 achieved its desired output of 1,000 hp (746 kW), its protracted development rendered the engine obsolete. Had it been completed in 1935, the O-1430 may have found an application and been put into production.

The O-1430 was finally completed and run in 1938. This was about two years past the AAC’s originally envisioned timeline for the engine to be in production and powering various aircraft. The engine passed a 50-hour development test at 1,000 hp (746 kW) in April 1939. By this time, the concept of installing a flat engine in the wing of a fighter had fallen out of favor, as a fighter’s wings were too thin to house such an engine. In addition, a 1,000 hp (746 kW) engine was not powerful enough for fighters under development. The Allison V-1710 and the Rolls-Royce Merlin had both passed more stringent tests and produced more power years prior. In addition, Allison had convinced the AAC that 250° F (121° C) coolant was just as, if not more, efficient as 300° F (149° C) coolant. At 300° F (149° C), a lot of heat is transferred into the oil, necessitating a larger oil cooler. A larger radiator is needed at 250° F (121° C), but the oil cooler can be smaller, resulting in the same overall drag of the comparative cooling systems. Furthermore, the engine and all surrounding components and accessories lasted longer at the lower temperature. It was also found that pure ethylene glycol did not transfer heat as well as a 50/50 mixture of water and ethylene glycol.

A redesign of the O-1430 was offered in which the engine would be altered into a compact Vee configuration. With recent advancements, such as increased supercharging and better fuels, it was believed that the redesigned engine could be made to produce 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) and would be well suited for fighter aircraft. The engine was subsequently redesigned as an inverted V-12. It was officially designated as the Continental XIV-1430 and later became the XI-1430. Work on the O-1430 was halted.

On 11 September 1939, the AAC issued Request for Data R40-A seeking an 1,800–2,400 hp (1,342–1790 kW) engine for installation in a bomber’s thick wing. Continental proposed doubling the O-1430 to create the 24-cylinder XH-2860. This was the same thing Lycoming had done with its O-1230 when creating the XH-2470. However, the Continental XH-2860 did not find favor with the AAC, and the engine never proceeded beyond the preliminary design phase. The decision against the XH-2860 was based in part to allow Continental to focus on developing the XI-1430.

Continental-XI-1430-left-right

The XI-1430 was the final development of the O-1430 and Hyper cylinder program. Although the engine exhibited impressive performance, achieving 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) in August 1944, it had reliability issues and came too late to have any impact in World War II.

Sources:
Development of Aircraft Engines and Aviation Fuels by Robert Schlaifer and S. D. Heron (1950)
Report of 49-Hour Endurance Test of Continental “Hyper” Engine No. 2 by R. N. DuBois (3 August 1933)
Continental! Its Motors and its People by William Wagner (1983)
Tornado: Wright Aero’s Last Liquid-Cooled Piston Engine by Kimble D. McCutcheon (2001)
– “Engine Support” U.S. patent 2,016,693 by Norman N. Tilley (filed 2 October 1933)
– “Reversible Accessory Driving Mechanism for Engines” U.S. patent 2,051,568 by Harold E. Morehouse (filed 7 June 1935)
– “Reversible Starter and Generator Drive for Engines” U.S. patent 2,053,354 by Norman N. Tilley (filed 7 June 1935)
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/HOAE/Continental2.html

Yokosuka YE2H front

Yokosuka YE2H (W-18) and YE3B (X-24) Aircraft Engines

By William Pearce

After World War I, the Japanese Navy established the Aircraft Department of the Hiro Branch Arsenal, which was part of the Kure Naval Arsenal. These arsenals were located near Hiroshima, in the southern part of Japan. The Aircraft Department was the Japanese Navy’s first aircraft maintenance and construction facility. In April 1923, the Hiro Branch Arsenal became independent from the Kure Naval Arsenal and was renamed the Hiro Naval Arsenal (Hiro).

Kawanishi E7K1 floatplane

The Kawanishi E7K1 floatplane served into the 1940s and was powered by the Hiro Type 91 W-12 engine. The Type 91 was based on the Lorraine 12Fa Courlis.

In 1924, the Japanese Navy purchased licenses from Lorraine-Dietrich in France to manufacture the company’s 450 hp (336 kW) 12E aircraft engine. The Lorraine 12E was a liquid-cooled, W-12 aircraft engine, and Hiro was one of the factories chosen to produce the engine. Hiro manufactured three different versions of the Lorraine engine, appropriately called the Hiro-Lorraine 1, 2, and 3. In the late 1920s, Hiro started designing its own engines derived from the Lorraine architecture. Hiro also produced engines based on the updated Lorraine 12Fa Courlis W-12. It is not clear if Hiro obtained a license to produce the 12Fa or if the production was unlicensed. The most successful of the Hiro W-12 engines was the 500–600 hp (373–447 kW) Type 91, which was in service until the early 1940s. Modeled after the 12Fa Courlis, the Type 91 had a bank angle of 60-degrees and four valves per cylinder. The engine had a 5.71 in (145 mm) bore, a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke, and displaced 1,935 cu in (31.7 L).

Like Lorraine, Hiro also produced W-18 engines. Hiro’s first W-18 engine was built in the early 1930s and used individual cylinders derived from the type used on the 12Fa Courlis / Type 91. While Hiro’s W-18 engine may have been inspired by the Lorraine 18K, the engine was not a copy of any Lorraine engine. Reportedly, Hiro’s first W-18 had a 60-degree bank angle between its cylinders. The engine did not enter production and was superseded in 1934 by the Type 94. The Type 94 replaced the earlier engine’s individual cylinders with monobloc cylinder banks and used a 40-degree angle between the banks. The W-18 engine had a 5.71 in (145 mm) bore and a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. The Type 94 displaced 2,902 cu in (47.6 L) and produced 900 hp (671 kW) at 2,000 rpm. The engine was 86 in (2.18 m) long, 44 in (1.11 m) wide, 43 in (1.10 m) tall, and weighed 1,631 lb (740 kg). Only a small number of Type 94 engines were produced, and its main application was the Hiro G2H long-range bomber, of which eight were built. The engine was found to be temperamental and unreliable in service.

Hiro G2H1 bomber

The Hiro G2H1 bomber was the only application for the company’s Type 94 W-18 engine. The engine was problematic, and only eight G2H1s were built. Note the exhaust manifold for the center cylinder bank.

By the mid-1930s, the Navy’s aircraft engine development had been transferred from Hiro to the Yokosuka Naval Air Arsenal (Yokosuka). For a few years, the Navy and Yokosuka let aircraft engine manufacturers develop and produce engines rather than undertaking development on its own. However, around 1940, Yokosuka began development of a new W-18 aircraft engine, the YE2.

The Yokosuka YE2 was based on the Hiro Type 94 but incorporated many changes. The liquid-cooled YE2 had an aluminum, barrel-type crankcase, and its three aluminum, monobloc cylinder banks were attached by studs. The cylinder banks had an included angle of 40 degrees and used crossflow cylinder heads with the intake and exhaust ports on opposite sides of the head. All of the cylinder banks had the intake and exhaust ports on common sides and were interchangeable.

Each cylinder had two intake and two exhaust valves, all actuated by a single overhead camshaft. The camshaft for each cylinder bank was driven via a vertical shaft from an accessory section attached to the drive-end of the engine. The YE2 had a 5.71 in (145 mm) bore, 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke, and displaced 2,902 cu in (47.6 L). The YE2A, B, and C variants had a rated output of 1,600 hp. However, very little is known about these engines, and it is not clear if they were all built.

Yokosuka YE2H front

The Yokosuka YE2-series was developed from the Hiro Type 94. The YE2H was built in the early 1940s, but no applications for the engine have been found. Note the output shaft on the front of the engine that is bare of its extension shaft. The vertical fuel injection pump is just above the horizontally-mounted magnetos. (Smithsonian Air and Space Museum image)

The Yokosuka YE2H variant was developed around 1942 and given the Army-Navy designation [Ha-73]01. It is not clear how the YE2H differed from the earlier YE2 engine. The YE2H was intended for installation in an aircraft’s fuselage (or wing) in a pusher configuration. The rear-facing intake brought in air to the engine’s supercharger. Air from the supercharger was supplied to the cylinders at 12.6 psi (.87 bar) via three intake manifolds—one for each cylinder bank. A common pipe at the drive-end of the engine connected the three intake manifolds to equalize pressure. Fuel was then injected into the cylinders via the fuel injection pump driven at the drive-end of the engine. The two spark plugs per cylinder were fired by magnetos, located under the fuel injection pump. An extension shaft linked the engine to a remote gear reduction unit that turned the propeller at .60 times crankshaft speed.

The YE2H had a maximum output of 2,500 hp (1,864 kW) at 3,000 rpm. The engine had power ratings of 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) at 2,800 rpm at 4,921 ft (1,500 m) and 1,650 hp (1,230 kW) at 2,800 rpm at 26,247 ft (8,000 m). The YE2H was approximately 83 in (2.10 m) long, 37 in (.95 m) wide, and 39 in (1.00 m) tall. The engine weighed around 2,634 lb (1,195 kg). The YE2H was completed and run around March 1944, but development of the engine had tapered off in mid-1943. At that time, Yokosuka refocused on the YE3 engine, which was derived from the YE2H.

Yokosuka YE2H side

The YE2H’s rear-facing intake scoop (far left) indicates the engine was to be installed in a pusher configuration. Note the intake manifolds extending from the supercharger housing. (Smithsonian Air and Space Museum image)

Development of the Yokosuka YE3 started in the early 1940s. The engine possessed the same bore and stroke as the YE2, but the rest of the engine was redesigned. The YE3 was an X-24 engine with four banks of six cylinders. The left and right engine Vees had a 60-degree included angle between the cylinder banks, which gave the upper and lower Vees a 120-degree angle. The YE3’s single crankshaft was at the center of its large aluminum crankcase.

Each cylinder bank had dual overhead camshafts actuating the four valves in each cylinder. The camshafts were driven off the supercharger drive at the non-drive end of the engine. The supercharger delivered air to the cylinders via two loop manifolds—one located in each of the left and right engine Vees. Two fuel injection pumps provided fuel to the cylinders where it was fired by two spark plugs in each cylinder. The fuel injection pumps and magnetos were driven from the drive end of the engine. Exhaust was expelled from the upper and lower engine Vees. Like the YE2, the YE3 was designed for installation in an aircraft’s fuselage or wing, with an extension shaft connecting the engine to the remote propeller gear reduction.

Yokosuka YE3B front

The drive end of the Yoskosuka YE3B gives a good view of the engine’s X configuration. The fuel injection pumps are below the output shaft. (Larry Rinek image via the Aircraft Engine Historical Society)

The YE3A preceded the YE3B, but it is not clear if the YE3A was actually built. The Yokosuka YE3B was given the joint Army-Navy designation [Ha-74]01. The YE3B had a 5.71 in (145 mm) bore and a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 3,870 cu in (63.4 L) and produced 2,500 hp (1,864 kW). The YE3B was rated at 2,150 hp (1,603 kW) at 6,562 ft (2,000 m) and 1,950 hp (1,454 kW) at 16,404 ft (5,000 m). The engine was approximately 79 in (2.00 m) long, 43 in (1.10 m) wide, and 28 in (.70 m) tall.

The YE3B was run by October 1943. The engine used a two-speed remote gear reduction that drove contra-rotating propellers. No real applications for the YE3B are known. However, the engine is often listed as the powerplant for the S-31 Kurowashi (Black Eagle), which was a purely speculative propaganda aircraft. The S-31 was designed as a heavy bomber, and its four YE3B engines were buried in its fuselage.

Yokosuka-YE3B-NASM-2010-TF-1

Side view of the YE3B illustrates the engine’s loop intake manifold. Spark plug leads and fuel injector lines can be seen in the Vee between the cylinder banks. Note the camshaft-driven water pump mounted on the end of the lower cylinder bank. (Tom Fey image)

A further development of the YE3-series was the YE3E. The YE3E was given the joint Army-Navy designation [Ha-74]11. The engine was similar to the earlier YE3-series except that it had two crankshafts. Some sources indicate the engine essentially consisted of two V-12s laid on their sides in a common crankcase with their crankshafts coupled to a common output shaft. The YE3E produced 3,200 hp (2,386 kW) and had power ratings of 2,650 hp (1,976 kW) at 4,921 ft (1,500 m) and 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) at 26,247 ft (8,000 m). The YE3E was approximately 79 in (2.00 m) long, 51 in (1.30 m) wide, and 39 in (1.00 m) tall. The engine was scheduled for completion in spring 1944, but no records have been found indicating it was finished.

A YE2H [Ha-73]01 W-18 engine and a YE3B [Ha-74]01 X-24 engine were captured by US forces after World War II. The engines were sent to Wright Field in Dayton Ohio for further examination. The United States Air Force eventually gave the YE2H and YE3B engines to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, where they are currently in storage.

Yokosuka-YE3B-NASM-2010-TF-2

Detail view of the supercharger mounted to the end of the YE3B. Note the updraft inlet for the supercharger. Camshaft drives can be seen extending from the supercharger housing to the cylinder banks. (Tom Fey image)

Sources:
Japanese Aero-Engines 1910–1945 by Mike Goodwin and Peter Starkings (2017)
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/yokosuka-naval-air-arsenal-ye2h-ha-73-model-01-w-18-engine
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/yokosuka-naval-air-arsenal-ye3b-ha-74-model-01-x-24-engine
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/japanese.shtml
Japanese Secret Projects 1 by Edwin M. Dyer III (2009)

Lorraine 12Fa

Lorraine-Dietrich ‘W’ Aircraft Engines

By William Pearce

In the early 1900s, Lorraine-Dietrich was a French manufacturer of wagons, rail equipment, and automobiles. During World War I, the company’s factory in Argenteuil, France started manufacturing aircraft engines under the name “Lorraine.” The Argenteuil factory was led by Marius Barbarou, the engineer that designed the aircraft engines.

Lorraine 12F

The Lorraine 12F of 1919 was the first of the company’s W-12 engines and followed the design outlined in the 1918 patent. Note the exposed pushrods and enclosed valves.

By 1918, Lorraine had developed aircraft engines in the form of an inline-six, a V-8, and a V-12. However, Barbarou began to experiment with engines of a W configuration. The W (or broad arrow) engine configuration had the benefit of being more rigid and slightly lighter than a comparable V-12, with the drawback of being slightly taller and wider. On 5 June 1918, Lorraine (under Barbarou) applied for a patent in which the benefits of a W engine with either four, six, or eight cylinders per bank was described. While the British Napier Lion W-12 was being developed at the same time, the patent illustrates that the Lorraine W engines were a parallel development and not a copy of the Lion. French patent 504,772 was awarded on 22 April 1920 for the W engine design.

The first generation of Lorraine’s W engines was designed around 1918 and known as the 12F (many sources do not give a designation for this engine, and “12F” was used again). The liquid-cooled, 12-cylinder engine consisted of a two-piece aluminum crankcase that was split horizontally along the crankshaft’s axis. Three banks of cylinders were mounted atop the crankcase, and the left and right banks were angled 60 degrees from the center, vertical bank. Each cylinder bank had two pairs of two cylinders. Each pair of steel cylinders was surrounded by a welded steel water jacket. Atop each cylinder was a single intake valve and a single exhaust valve. The enclosed valves were each actuated by a partially exposed rocker and a fully exposed pushrod. All of the pushrods were controlled by two camshafts—one positioned in each Vee between the cylinder banks. The push rods that controlled the exhaust valves for the left and right cylinder banks had a lower roller rocker that followed the camshaft.

A single-barrel updraft carburetor was positioned on the outer side of the right cylinder bank. An intake pipe led from the carburetor, passed between the two cylinder pairs of the right bank, and joined a manifold. The manifold split into four branches that fed each of the cylinders on the right bank. Employing a similar configuration, a two-barrel carburetor on the left side of the engine fed both the left and center cylinder banks. Each cylinder had two spark plugs that were fired by two magnetos located at the rear of the engine. The left magneto fired the spark plugs on the intake side of the cylinders, and the right magneto fired the exhaust-side spark plugs.

Lorraine 24G

With a new crankcase, crankshaft, and camshafts, the 24-cylinder 24G of 1919 was more than just two 12F engines coupled together. Note the ignition system driven from the propeller shaft.

The flat-plane crankshaft had four throws and was supported by three main bearings. A master connecting rod was attached to each crankpin. The master rods were connected to the aluminum pistons in the vertical cylinder bank. Articulated rods connected the pistons in the left and right cylinder banks to the master connecting rods. The engine had a compression ratio of 5.2 to 1. The propeller was attached directly to the crankshaft without any gear reduction. The Lorraine 12F had a 4.96 in (126 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm) stroke. The W-12 engine displaced 1,826 cu in (29.9 L) and produced 500 hp (372 kW) at 1,600 rpm. The 12F weighed 960 lb (435 kg).

While work on the 12F was underway, a 24-cylinder engine was designed that was basically two 12Fs. The W-24 engine was designated 24G (many sources do not give a designation for this engine, and a different G-series emerged later). Other than having twice the number of cylinders, the main change from the 12F was that the ignition system was driven at the front of the engine. The 12G’s eight throw crankshaft was supported by five main bearings. The W-24 engine displaced 3,652 (59.9 L) and produced 1,000 hp (746 kW) at 1,600 rpm. The direct drive engine weighed 1,874 lb (850 kg), and it was estimated that a 16 ft 5 in (5 m) propeller would be needed to harness its power.

The 12F and 24G engines were built during 1919 and displayed at the Salon de Paris in December of that year. There is some indication that the valve arrangement was problematic at high engine speeds, but the engines were displayed at the next two Salons in November 1921 and December 1922. No applications are known for the 12F or the 24G, which were too large for almost all aircraft. It is unlikely that more than a few of these engines were built.

Lorraine 12Eb no mags

A direct-drive 12E-series engine with exposed valves and overhead camshafts. Unseen are the magnetos positioned at the rear of the engine.

While enduring the rough start with the first generation of W engines, Barbarou had already designed the second generation—starting with the 12E-series. The first engine in this series was the 12Ew, which was derived from the 370 hp (276 kW) Lorraine 12D (V-12) and conceived to fill the power gap between that engine and the 500 hp (373 kW) 12F. The 12Ew was similar in layout to the 12F, but had a completely different valve arrangement. The exposed valves for each cylinder bank were actuated via rockers by a single overhead camshaft. The camshaft was driven by the crankshaft via bevel gears and a vertical shaft at the rear of the engine. It appears that the two magnetos were initially located at the front of the engine but later relocated to the rear of the engine. The engine had a compression ratio of 5.5 to 1. The propeller was attached directly to the crankshaft without any gear reduction.

The Lorraine 12Ew had a 4.72 in (120 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 1,491 cu in (24.4 L) and produced 420 hp (313 kW) at 1,800 rpm. The 12Ew was 54.1 in (1.37 m) long, 47.6 in (1.21 m) wide, and 44.8 in (1.14 m) tall. The engine weighed around 860 lb (390 kg). The 12Ew was first run around late 1919, but development was slowed due to work on other engines and other projects. The 12Ew was used in a few aircraft, and the engine was developed into the 12Eb.

The Lorraine 12Eb was dimensionally the same as the 12Ew, but it had a compression ratio of 6.0 to 1 and produced 450 hp (336 kW) at 1,850 rpm. The engine weighed 822 lb (373 kg). The 12Eb was first run in late 1922 or early 1923, and 30 test engines were built in 1923. The 12Eb quickly proved itself to be a successful engine. In March 1924, the 12Eb was the most economic engine at an endurance competition (Concours de Moteurs de Grande Endurance) held at Chalais-Meudon, near Paris. The engine operated for a total of 410 hours at 1,850 rpm. During that time, three cylinders were replaced due to water leaks.

Lorraine 12Eb museaum

A 12Eb engine with the magnetos driven from the front of the engine. Power from the magnetos was taken to the distributors, which were driven by the back of the left and right cylinder bank camshafts. (Pline image via Wikimedia Commons)

12Eb production started in late 1924, and approximately 150 engines were built in 1925. From 1924 to 1927, a number of licenses were purchased by other countries to manufacture the 12Eb: CASA and Elizalde in Spain; SCAT in Italy; FMA in Argentina; Hiro, Nakajima, and Aichi in Japan; PZL in Poland; Škoda and ČKD in Czechoslovakia; and IAR in Romania. The Blériot-SPAD S.61 fighter, the Breguet 19 light bomber, and the Potez 25TOE reconnaissance bomber were the 12Eb’s primary applications.

In 1925, a geared version of the 12Eb was developed, and it was designated 12Ed (sometimes referred to as 12Ebr). The planetary gear reduction turned the propeller at .647 times crankshaft speed. At 59.9 in (1.52 m), the 12Ed was 5.8 in (.15 m) longer than the direct-drive engine. Engine weight also increased 86 lb (39 kg) to 908 lb (412 kg). The 12Ed produced the same 450 hp (336 kW), but this was achieved at 1,900 engine rpm and 1,226 propeller rpm. The main application for the 12Ed was the CAMS 37 reconnaissance flying boat.

Lorraine 12Ed

The 12Ed engine with a propeller gear reduction was the same basic engine as the 12Eb. The early engines had a smooth gear reduction housing, but ribs were added later for extra strength.

The 12Ee debuted in 1926. This engine was basically a 12Eb with its compression ratio increased to 6.5 to 1. The 12Ee produced 480 hp (358 kW) at 2,000 rpm and had a maximum output of 510 hp (380 kW). The engine weighed 846 lb (383 kg). The 12E-series engines were used in the FBA-21 flying boat and Villiers IV seaplane to set numerous seaplane payload and distance records. Lorraine built around 5,500 E-series W-12 engines, and licensed production added another 1,775, for a total of approximately 7,275 engines. In all, the 12E-series engines were used in around 24 countries.

In December 1926, a Lorraine W-18 engine was displayed at the salon de l’Aviation in Paris. The 18-cylinder engine was designated 18K, and it was based on the E-series. The engine had been under development by Barbarou since at least 1923. The 18K had individual cylinders, rather than the paired units used on the E-series. The cylinder banks had an included angle of 40 degrees. Each of the cylinder banks had two carburetors, with each carburetor feeding three cylinders. Otherwise, the induction system was similar to that used on the 12E, including the two barrel carburetors on the left side of the engine for the left and center cylinder banks. The 18K had a compression ratio of 6.0 to 1, and its crankshaft was supported by seven main bearings.

The Lorraine 18K had the same 4.72 in (120 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm) stroke as the 12E-series engines. The W-18 engine displaced 2,236 cu in (36.6 L) and weighed around 1,287 lb (584 kg). The 18Kb was the direct drive variant that produced 650 hp (485 kW) at 2,000 rpm. The engine was 79.2 in (2.01 m) long, 36.2 in (.92 m) wide, and 43.3 in (1.10 m) tall.

Lorraine 18K

The 18K engine had the same construction as the 12E engines but used individual cylinders. Note that each carburetor fed two inductions pipes—one supplied the left cylinder bank and the other the center bank. The two one-piece magneto/distributor units are driven from the camshaft drive.

A version with a propeller gear reduction was designated 18Kd. The 18Kd turned the propeller at .647 times crankshaft speed and produced up to 785 hp (585 kW) at 2,500 rpm, but its continuous rating was the same as the 18Kb. With a total length of 83.5 in (2.12 m), the 18Kd was 4.3 in (109 mm) longer than the direct drive variant. The 18Kd weighed 1,365 lb (619 kg).

The 18Kd underwent official trials in mid-February 1927, and it was selected for the single-engine Amiot 122 bomber. The 18K may have been installed in other prototype aircraft, but the Amiot 122 was its only production application. A total of approximately 100 18Kb and 18Kd engines were made, and it was not considered a commercial success.

In 1928, Barbarou and Lorraine developed the third generation of W-12 engines, known as 12Fa Courlis. This was a reuse of the “12F” designation that was first applied in 1918. The F-series Courlis engines had a crankcase similar to that of the E-series, but the cylinder bank was a monobloc aluminum casting with enclosed valves. The steel cylinder liners were screwed into the cylinder banks, and the engine’s compression ratio was 6.0 to 1. Compared to the 12E, the cylinder bore diameter was increased, and the stroke length was decreased. Each cylinder had two intake and two exhaust valves, all actuated by a single overhead camshaft. The intake and exhaust ports were on the same side of the cylinder bank, and the carburetors mounted directly to the cylinder bank. The crankshaft was supported by five main bearings.

The Lorraine 12Fa Courlis had a 5.71 in (145 mm) bore and a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 1,944 cu in (31.7 L) and produced 600 hp (447 kW) at 2,000 rpm. Sources indicate that the engine was capable of 765 hp (570 kW) at 2,400 rpm. Without gear reduction, the 12Fa Courlis was 62.2 in (1.66 m) long, 44.9 in (1.14 m) wide, 41.7 in (1.06 m) tall, and weighed 933 lb (423 kg). While the .647 propeller gear reduction did not increase the engine’s length by any noteworthy value, it did add 59 lb (27 kg), resulting in a weight of 992 lb (450 kg).

Lorraine 12Fa

With its enclosed valves and monobloc cylinder banks, the 12Fa Courlis was a modern engine design when it appeared in 1929. The gear reduction mounted to the crankcase in place of the direct-drive propeller shaft housing. The rest of the engine, including the crankshaft, was the same between the direct drive and geared variants.

The 12Fa Courlis was first run around 1928 and was tested by the Ministére de l’Air (French Air Ministry) from 10 to 17 June 1929. During the test, 52 hours were run at 2,000 rpm. In July 1929, the 12Fa made its public debut at the Olympia Aero Show in London. The French authorities officially approved the engine for service on 21 August 1929. The 12Fa was installed in a Potez 25 for engine development tests, which were conducted in 1930.

Developed in 1930, the 12Fb Courlis had a simplified induction system compared to the 12Fa. The 12Fb Courlis had a single, three-barrel carburetor mounted at the rear of the engine. Three separate intake manifolds extended from the carburetor, with one manifold connecting to each cylinder bank. The engine had cross-flow cylinder heads, with the exhaust ports on the side opposite of the intake ports. The 12Fb had the same basic specifications as the 12Fa, but fuel delivery issues initially reduced its rating to 500 hp (372 kW) at 1,900 rpm. However, continued development of the 12Fb soon brought its power up to 600 hp (447 kW) at 2,000 rpm, the same as the 12 Fa. Although installed in a few prototypes, the 12Fb did not power any production aircraft. By the early 1930s, air-cooled radial engines were increasing in popularity for transports and liquid-cooled V-12 engines for fighters. The Lorraine F-series Courlis did not find the success of the E-series. Around 30 F-series Courlis engines were built.

Lorraine 12Fb

The 12Fb had a simplified induction system with one carburetor and three intake manifolds. However, unequal fuel distribution was an issue.

Around 1932, an updated 12Eb was designed that incorporated some features from the 12F-series. Designated 12E Hibis, the engine used aluminum four-valve heads similar to those employed on the 12F engines. The Hibis had a 4.80 in (122 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm) stroke. The engine’s total displacement was 1,541 cu in (25.3 L), and it produced 500 hp (373 kW) at 2,000 rpm. While the engine was proposed around 1932, it is not clear if any were actually produced. The Hibis had disappeared by 1934.

In 1930, Barbarou created the 18-cylinder Lorraine 18Ga Orion. This W-18 engine combined the configuration of the 18K and the improved construction techniques of the F-series Courlis engines. The 18Ga had three monobloc cylinder banks set at 40 degrees. Each bank had six cylinders with a single overhead camshaft that operated the four valves per cylinder. The left and right cylinder banks had their intake and exhaust ports on their outer side. The carburetors were also mounted directly to the outer side of the cylinder bank. The center cylinder banks had a crossflow head with the carburetor and intake ports on the left side and the exhaust port on the right side. The crankshaft was supported by seven main bearings, and the engine had a .647 planetary gear reduction. It does not appear that there was a direct-drive variant.

Lorraine 18Ga

The 18Ga Orion combined the 18-cylinder 18K engine with the modern construction of the 12F-series. Note that the outer cylinder banks have intake and exhaust ports on the same side, while the center cylinder bank has intake and exhaust ports on opposite sides.

The 18Ga Orion had a 4.92 in (125 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 2,426 cu in (39.8 L) and produced 700 hp (522 kW) at 2,100 rpm and 870 hp (649 kW) at 2,500 rpm. The W-18 engine was 83.1 in (2.11 m) long, 36.6 in (.93 m) wide, and 43.7 in (1.11 m) tall. The engine weighed 1,252 lb (568 kg). The 18Ga completed a 50-hour type test prior to its public debut at the salon de l’Aviation in Paris in November 1930. The engine was used in at least one prototype aircraft, the Amiot 126 bomber. The 18Ga did not enter production, and only around 10 engines were built.

In November 1934, a supercharged version of the 18G Orion was displayed at the salon de l’Aviation in Paris. An updraft carburetor fed the gear-driven, centrifugal supercharger that was mounted to the rear of the engine. Three intake manifolds delivered the air and fuel mixture to the cylinder banks, just like the 12Fb engine. The revised cylinder banks included four valves per cylinder that were actuated by dual overhead camshafts. Each camshaft pair was driven by a vertical shaft at the rear of the engine. The supercharged 18G produced 1,050 hp (783 kW) at 2,150 rpm, but no additional specifications have been found.

A few 12E-series engines are preserved in various museum. No Lorraine F-series, 18-cylinder, or 24-cylinder engines are known to exist.

Lorraine 18G supercharged

The supercharged 18G Orion that was debuted in November 1934. Note the appearance of the new cylinder banks, which included four valves per cylinder.

Sources:
Lorraine-Dietrich by Sébastien Faurès Fustel de Coulanges (2017)
Aerosphere 1939 by Glenn D. Angle (1940)
Les Moteurs a Pistons Aeronautiques Francais Tome I by Alfred – Bodemer and Robert Laugier (1987)
Le moteur Lorraine 12 Eb de 450 ch by Gérard Hartmann (undated)
Moteur “Lorraine” 450 C.V. 12 Cylinders en W by Société Lorraine (circa 1925)
Les Moteurs Lorraine by Société Générale Aéronautique (circa 1932)
Moteur “Lorraine” 600 CV (Type 12 Fa.) by Société Lorraine (10 November 1929)

Pratt Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket

Pratt & Whitney R-2060 ‘Yellow Jacket’ 20-Cylinder Engine

By William Pearce

Around 1930, the United States Army Air Corps (AAC) was interested in a 1,000 hp (746 kW), liquid-cooled aircraft engine. Somehow, the AAC persuaded Pratt & Whitney (P&W) to develop an experimental engine at its own expense to meet this goal. The engine was the R-2060 Yellow Jacket, and it carried the P&W experimental engine designation X-31. The “Yellow Jacket” name followed the “Wasp” and “Hornet” engine lines from P&W.

Pratt Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket

The Pratt & Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket was an experimental liquid-cooled engine. Note the annular coolant manifold around the front of the engine that delivered water to the water pumps.

While the R-2060 would be P&W’s first liquid-cooled engine, the company had experimented with liquid-cooled cylinders as early as 1928. In addition, many of P&W’s engineers had experience with liquid-cooled engines while working for other organizations—in particular, those workers who had helped develop liquid-cooled engines at Wright Aeronautical.

The R-2060 had a one-piece, cast aluminum, barrel-type crankcase. Attached radially around the crankcase at 72-degree intervals were five cylinder banks. The lowest (No. 3) cylinder bank was inverted and hung straight down from the crankcase. Each cylinder bank consisted of four individual cylinders arranged in a line. This configuration created a 20-cylinder inline-radial engine. Attached to the front of the crankcase was a propeller gear housing that contained a planetary bevel reduction gear. Mounted to the rear of the crankcase was the supercharger and accessory section.

The crankshaft had four throws and was supported by five main bearings. Mounted to each crankpin was a master connecting rod with four articulated connecting rods—a typical arrangement found in radial engines. Each individual cylinder was surrounded by a steel water jacket. Mounted atop each bank of cylinders was a housing that concealed a single overhead camshaft. The camshaft actuated the one intake valve and one exhaust valve in each cylinder. Each camshaft was driven from the front of the engine by a vertical shaft and bevel gears. Driven from the rear of each camshafts was a magneto that fired the two spark plugs in each cylinder for that cylinder bank. The spark plugs were installed horizontally into the combustion chamber and placed on each exposed side of the cylinder. The camshaft housing on the lower cylinder bank was deeper and served as an oil sump.

Pratt Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket right

The 20-cylinder R-2060 was a fairly compact and light engine. Note the camshaft housings atop each cylinder bank and that the housing of the lower bank was deeper to serve as an oil sump. (Tom Fey image via the Aircraft Engine Historical Society)

Air was drawn into the downdraft carburetor mounted at the rear of the engine. Fuel was added, and the mixture then passed into the supercharger, which was primarily used to mix the air and fuel rather than provide boost. The air and fuel flowed from the supercharger through five outlets—one between each cylinder bank. The outlets were cast integral with the crankcase. Attached to each outlet was an intake manifold that branched into two sections, with each section branching further into two additional sections. The four pipes were then connected to the four cylinders of the cylinder bank. The exhaust ports were on the opposite side of the cylinder bank.

Cooling water flowed from the radiator into two inlets on an annular manifold mounted around the rear of the engine. The manifold had five outlets, one for each cylinder bank. Water flowed from the annular manifold into a pipe that ran along each cylinder bank. Branching off from the pipe were connections for each cylinder, with the mounting point near the exhaust port. The water passed by the exhaust port and through the water jacket, exiting near the intake port. The water from each cylinder was collected in another pipe that led to a smaller annular manifold mounted around the front of the engine. Two water pumps driven at the front of the engine took water from the front manifold and returned it to the radiator.

Pratt Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket left close

For each cylinder bank, the inlet for the intake manifold was cast into the crankcase. Note the water manifolds attached to the cylinders. The generator can be seen mounted on the left. (Tom Fey image via the Aircraft Engine Historical Society)

The Pratt & Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket had a 5.1875 in (132 mm) bore and a 4.875 in (124 mm) stroke. Creating an oversquare (bore larger than the stroke) engine was not typical for P&W and was repeated only with the R-2000, which was derived from the R-1830 with minimal changes. However, the comparatively short stroke helped decrease the engine’s diameter. The R-2060 displaced 2,061 cu in (33.8 L) and was projected to produce 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 3,300 rpm. The Yellow Jacket was 68 in (1.73 m) long and 47 in (1.19 m) in diameter. The engine weighed 1,400 lb (635 kg).

Serious design work on the R-2060 was started in March 1931, and single-cylinder testing began in August of the same year. The engine was first run in July 1932, and issues were soon encountered with oil circulation and coolant leaks. Throughout the rest of 1932, P&W worked to solve the oiling issues, control excessive oil consumption, prevent hot spots in various cylinder banks, and eliminate cracks in the cylinder water jackets. On one of its last tests, the R-2060 achieved 1,116 hp (820 kW) at 2,500 rpm, but reaching 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 3,300 rpm was beyond what the engine could handle. A major redesign of the engine was needed, and the Yellow Jacket project was subsequently cancelled in early 1933 after accumulating just 46 hours of test running. Only one R-2060 engine was built.

Cancellation of the R-2060 allowed P&W to focus on the development of the air-cooled, two-row, 14-cylinder R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine. The R-1830 became the most produced aircraft engine of all time, with 173,618 examples built. The sole R-2060 Yellow Jacket was preserved and is part of Pratt & Whitney’s Hangar Museum in East Hartford, Connecticut.

Pratt Whitney R-2060 Yellow Jacket rear

Rear view of the R-2060 illustrates the engine’s carburetor and supercharger housing. The annular manifold around the rear of the engine supplied cooling water to the five cylinder banks. (Kimble D. McCutcheon image via the Aircraft Engine Historical Society)

Sources:
– The Liquid-Cooled Engines of Pratt & Whitney by Kimble D. McCutcheon (presentation at the 2006 Aircraft Engine Historical Society Convention)
Development of Aircraft Engines and Fuels by Robert Schlaifer and S. D. Heron (1950)
The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History by Jack Connors (2009)

Farman 18T engine

Farman 18T 18-Cylinder Aircraft Engine

By William Pearce

The rules of the Schneider Trophy Contest stated that any country that won the contest three consecutive times would retain permanent possession of the trophy. By 1930, Britain had two consecutive victories and were favored to win the next contest scheduled for September 1931. Frenchman Jacques P. Schneider had started the contest, and France won the first competition held in 1913. The possibility of losing the contest forever spurred France to action, and the STIAé (service technique et industriel de l’aéronautique, or the Technical and Industrial Service of Aeronautics) ordered at least five aircraft types and three different engines for the 1931 contest. One of the engines ordered was the Farman 18T.

Farman 18T engine

The Farman 18T was specifically designed for installation in the Bernard flying boat. The unusual 18-cylinder engine had no other known applications.

Avions Farman (Farman) was founded in 1908 by brothers Richard, Henri, and Maurice. In October 1917, the company moved to produce engines built under license to support the war effort. The first of these engines was built in mid-1918, and production stopped after World War I. In 1922, Farman started to design their own line of engines under the direction of Charles-Raymond Waseige.

The Farman 18T was designed by Waseige and had an unusual layout. The water-cooled engine had three cylinder banks, each with six cylinders. The left and right cylinder banks were horizontally opposed, with a 180-degree flat angle across the engine’s top side. The lower cylinder extended below the crankcase and was perpendicular to the other cylinder banks. This configuration gave the 18-cylinder engine a T shape.

The engine used a two-piece cast aluminum crankcase that was split vertically. Steel cylinder liners were installed in the cast aluminum, monobloc cylinder banks that were bolted to the crankcase. The four valves of each cylinder were actuated via pairs of rockers by a single overhead camshaft. Each camshaft was driven by a vertical shaft at the rear of the engine.

The 18T used aluminum pistons and had a compression ratio of 6.0 to 1, although some sources say 8.5 to 1. The connecting rods consisted of a master rod for the lower cylinder bank and two articulated rods for the left and right cylinder banks. Each cylinder had two spark plugs, one installed in each side of the cylinder bank. The spark plugs were fired by magnetos driven from the rear of the engine. A nose case at the front of the engine contained the Farman-style bevel propeller reduction gear that turned the propeller at .384 crankshaft speed.

Farman 18T Paris Air Show 1932

The 18T (lower left) was proudly displayed as part of the Farman exhibit at the Salon de l’Aéronautique in November 1932. The other Farman engines are a 350 hp (261 kW) 12G (middle) and a 420 hp (313 kW) 12B (right).

For induction, air passed through carburetors at the rear of the engine and into a centrifugal supercharger that provided approximately 4.4 lb (.3 bar) of boost. The air/fuel mixture flowed from the supercharger into an intake manifold for each cylinder bank. The intake manifolds ran along the bottom of the cylinder bank for the left and right banks and along the right side (when viewed from the non-propeller end) of the lower cylinder bank. The exhaust ports were on the opposite side of the cylinder head from the intake.

The 18T had a 4.72 in (120 mm) bore and stroke. The engine displaced 1,491 cu in (24.4 L) and produced a maximum of 1,480 hp (1,104 kW) at 3,700 rpm. The 18T was rated at 1,200 hp (895 kW) at 3,400 rpm for continuous output. The engine was 65.98 in (1.68 m) long, 44.65 in (1.13 m) wide, 32.56 (.83 m) tall, and weighed 1,069 lb (485 kg).

Two Farman 18T engines were ordered under Contract (Marché) 289/0 (some sources state Marché 269/0) issued in 1930 and valued at 3,583,000 Ғ. The two engines were to power a flying boat built by the Société des avions Bernard (Bernard Aircraft Company). An official designation for the flying boat has not been found, and it was not among the known aircraft ordered for the 1931 Schneider Contest. There is some speculation that a lack of funds prevented the aircraft from being ordered for the 1931 race, but it would be ordered in time for the 1933 race.

Farman 18T Paris Air Show 1932 display

The display at the air show in Paris announced the 18T’s 1,200 hp (895 kW) continuous rating. Note that the supercharger housing extended above the crankcase, which was otherwise the engine’s highest point.

The design of the Bernard flying boat was led by Roger Robert and developed in coordination with the 18T engine. The all-metal aircraft had a low, two-step hull with sponsons protruding from the sides, just behind the cockpit. A long pylon above the cockpit extended along the aircraft’s spine, and the pylon supported the engine nacelle and wings. The engines were installed back-to-back in the middle of the nacelle. The engines’ lower cylinder banks extended into the pylon, and the left and right cylinder banks extended into the cantilever wings, which were mounted to the sides of the nacelle. Surface radiators for engine cooling covered the sides of the pylon, and extension shafts connected the propellers to the engines. The aircraft had a 36 ft 1 in (11.0 m) wingspan and was 35 ft 5 in (10.8 m) long. The engine nacelle was 17 ft 1 in (5.21 m) long. A 12.5 to 1 scale model of the flying boat was tested at the Laboratoire Aérodynamique Eiffel (Eiffel Aerodynamics Laboratory) in Auteuil (near Paris), France.

The 18T engines were bench tested in 1931, but the most power achieved was only 1,350 hp (1,007 kW). While further development was possible, at the time, the chance of France fielding a contestant in the 1931 Schneider Contest was virtually non-existent. The chances of the Bernard flying-boat being built were even worse. Although the aircraft had an estimated top speed of over 435 mph (700 km/h), and a detailed study was submitted to the Service Technique (Technical Service), the flying boat was seen as too radical and was never ordered. The limited funds were needed for the more conventional racers.

The Supermarine S.6B went on to win the 1931 Schneider Contest, giving the British permanent possession of the trophy. The 18T was marketed in 1932 and displayed at the Paris Salon de l’Aéronautique (Air Show) in November. However, there was little commercial interest in the 18T, and the project was brought to a close without the engine ever being flown; most likely, full testing was never completed.

Bernard - Farman 18T Schneider 3-view

Powered by two 18T engines, the Bernard flying boat racer had an estimated top speed of over 435 mph (700 km/h). This speed was substantially faster than the Supermarine S.6B that won the 1931 Schneider race at 340.08 mph (547.31 km/h) and went on to set an absolute speed record at 407.5 mph (655.8 km/h). However, the estimated specifications of unconventional aircraft often fall short of what is actually achieved.

Sources:
Aerosphere 1939 by Glenn D. Angle (1940)
Les Moteurs a Pistons Aeronautiques Francais Tome 1 by Alfred Bodemer and Robert Laugier (1987)
Schneider Trophy Seaplanes and Flying Boats by Ralph Pegram (2012)
Les Avions Bernard by Jean Liron (1990)
Les Avions Farman by Jean Liron (1984)

Napier Nomad II rear

Napier Nomad Compound Aircraft Engine

By William Pearce

D. Napier & Son (Napier) was a British engineering firm that designed and manufactured aircraft engines since World War I. In 1931, Napier began experimental design work on a sleeve-valve, 24-cylinder, diesel (compression ignition) engine. Designated E101, the engine had a 5.0 in (127 mm) bore, a 4.75 in (121 mm) stroke, and a displacement of 2,238 cu in (36.7 L). While a two-cylinder test engine was built, and possibly a full bank of six cylinders, it is not clear if a complete H-24 E101 was constructed. However, the E101 served as the foundation for the E107, which was converted to spark ignition and became the first of the Sabre engine line. In 1933, Napier acquired licenses to produce the Junkers Jumo 204 and 205 aircraft engines as the Culverin (E102) and Cutlass (E103). Although not commercially successful, the experience with the Junkers engines provided Napier with detailed knowledge of two-stroke, high-powered diesel engines.

Napier Nomad I front

The Napier Nomad I was perhaps the most complex aircraft engine ever built. Of the contra-rotating propellers, the front set was driven by the turbine, and the rear set was driven by the 12-cyinder diesel engine. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

In late 1944, the British Ministry of Aircraft Production (later, Ministry of Supply, MoS) issued a specification for an economical 6,000 hp (4,474 kW) aircraft engine to be used in large, long-range aircraft. Harry Ricardo, a prominent engine designer and researcher, suggested that combining a two-stroke diesel with a gas turbine would be the best way to create a powerful, compact, and economical aircraft engine.

Napier took Ricardo’s suggestion and combined it with their diesel engine experience. For the 6,000 hp (4,474 kW) engine, Napier proposed the E124: an H-24 diesel with a displacement of approximately 4,575 cu in (75 L) that incorporated an axial flow recovery turbine. Both of the upper and lower cylinder banks formed an included angle of 150 degrees, while the left and right banks formed an angle of 30 degrees. This spacing was done to accommodate exhaust manifolds in the 30-degree left and right Vees. Single- and twin-cylinder tests had begun, as well as tests on the axial-flow compressor, but Napier felt that such an engine would have a very limited market. The project was halted in 1946.

While the E124 was not built, it laid the foundation for a new engine capable of 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) and designed to achieve the lowest fuel consumption under any operating conditions. The new engine was the E125 Nomad I, and Napier began preliminary design work in 1945, with the MoS giving its support by 1946. In a way, the Nomad I was half of the H-24 engine with a reworked recovery turbine. The Nomad I was a liquid-cooled, horizontally-opposed, 12-cylinder, two-stroke, valveless, diesel engine that incorporated a gear-driven, two-speed supercharger and an exhaust-driven turbine that drove a compressor integral with the bottom of the engine. Alone, the compressor could not create the high-level of boost that was desired, so the supercharger was included to reach the design goal.

Napier Nomad I org exhaust rear

Rear view of the Nomad I with its original exhaust manifold illustrates the complexity of the system with its many pipes and flexible joints. The round housing for the supercharger impeller can be seen in front of the turbine. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

The engine’s two-piece magnesium-zirconium alloy crankcase was split vertically and held together by 28 through bolts. A cast aluminum, six-cylinder, monobloc cylinder bank was attached to each side of the crankcase via studs. Wet cylinder liners were installed in the cylinder banks and covered with individual cylinder heads made from aluminum. A magnesium-alloy propeller gear reduction housing was secured via studs to the front of the crankcase. The housing also incorporated air intake on each of its lower sides. The intakes led to the compressor, which had an upper housing cast integral with the bottom of the crankcase, and a lower housing that was bolted on to the crankcase. Behind the compressor was a bifurcated air outlet, an oil sump, and the lower supercharger housing—all bolted to the crankcase.

Air entered the inlets on each side of the Nomad I and flowed into the 10-stage (some sources say 11-stage) axial flow compressor, which was the first stage of supercharging. The compressor had a maximum pressure ratio of 5.62 to 1. The air then exited the compressor via the bifurcated duct, which split the air along both sides of the engine and led back to the supercharger. An air to water intercooler (never installed) was positioned on both sides of the engine, between the compressor and the supercharger. After passing through the engine-driven centrifugal supercharger, the air was ducted into two passageways—one each for the left and right cylinder banks. Pressurized at 95.5 psi (6.58 bar) absolute, the air passed through a compartment in each cylinder bank that interfaced with the intake ports for each cylinder.

Air entered the loop-scavenged cylinder via a series of intake ports around the cylinder liner wall that were uncovered by the piston. The cylinder’s compression ratio was 8 to 1. As the piston moved toward the combustion chamber, fuel was injected via an injector located in the center of the cylinder head. The injected fuel was ignited by the heat of compression as the piston moved toward the cylinder head. On its power stroke, the piston uncovered exhaust ports which were situated slightly higher in the cylinder wall than the intake ports. The high level of supercharging ensured that an ample amount of air passed through the cylinder, which also helped cool the piston crown, cylinder wall, and cylinder head.

Napier Nomad I side

The Nomad I’s original (upper) and revised (lower) exhaust system and turbine can be compared in these images. In the lower image, the compressor’s intake can be seen near the front of the engine. The polished duct between the compressor and supercharger is where the intercooler would have been installed. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE images)

The exhaust gases and scavenging air flowed from the uncovered exhaust ports in the cylinder liner into manifolds positioned above and below the cylinder bank. The two exhaust manifolds for each cylinder bank merged together at the rear of the engine. Here, fuel could be injected, mixed with the surplus air, and ignited to increase the flow of exhaust gas energy to the turbine to create more engine power (for takeoff). The hot gases then flowed to a primary axial flow turbine at the extreme rear of the engine. The gases powered the primary turbine and then flowed out the exhaust nozzle at the end of the engine, generating some thrust. If more power was being harnessed by injecting fuel into the exhaust, a valve allowed the gases to flow into a secondary axial flow turbine positioned between the engine and the primary turbine. After powering the secondary turbine, the gases flowed into the primary turbine and then out the exhaust nozzle. The turbines were mounted in a tubular frame attached to the rear of the engine.

It should be noted that the description above applies to the second version of the exhaust system that was used by 1951. An earlier, original exhaust system had two manifolds above and below each cylinder bank, with each manifold collecting exhaust from three cylinders. The four manifolds from each cylinder bank joined into pairs at the rear of the engine and then merged into a single pipe. Immediately before the exhaust pipes connected to the primary (rear) turbine, an upper and a lower pipe branched off. The upper pipes of the left and right manifolds and the lower pipes of the left and right manifolds joined together at their respective spots as they fed into the secondary (front) turbine. At this point, extra fuel could be injected and ignited for additional power, as in the previous exhaust system described above. The original exhaust system incorporated around 28 flexible joints and was far more complex than the later system. Undoubtedly, issues with the original system were encountered that led to its replacement.

The exhaust turbines were mounted coaxially to the same shaft. This turbine shaft extended forward to power the compressor and led into the propeller gear reduction housing. The turbine shaft was geared to the front (outer) propeller of a contra-rotating set. The front propeller rotated counterclockwise. The rear (inner) propeller rotated clockwise and was geared to the crankshaft. There was nothing that linked the two propeller sets together, but they could not be run independently of each other. In other words, the piston engine section was needed to power the rear propeller, and the engine’s exhaust gases powered the turbine that was needed to run the front propeller. The turbine could not power itself, and the engine’s exhaust gases could not bypass the turbine.

Napier Nomad I Avro Lincoln install

The Nomad I installed in the nose of the Avro Lincoln test bed. The installation required significant modifications to the aircraft. Note the engine’s intake duct and the reversable-pitch propeller. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

The Nomad I’s compressor and turbine were based on those developed for the 1,590 ehp (1,186 kW) Napier Naiad turboprop engine. The six-throw crankshaft of the Nomad I was supported between the left and right crankcase sections by seven main journals. The front of the crankshaft was geared to the propeller and a flexible shaft that extended to the rear of the engine to drive the supercharger impeller. The connecting rods were of the fork-and-blade type. The two-piece pistons had an austenitic stainless steel crown attached to a Y-alloy (aluminum alloy) body. The steel crown was used because of the high temperatures in the cylinder, and the piston was further cooled with oil flowing between the piston body and crown. The center of the crown could reach 1,300° F (700° C) when the engine was running at full power. A camshaft just below each cylinder bank drove three fuel injection dual pumps, and each pump provided the fuel to two cylinders via a single injector in each cylinder. The front of each camshaft also drove a coolant pump. A spark plug positioned just below the injector in each cylinder was used to start the engine. The spark plugs were fired by a magneto driven from the rear of the engine.

Despite its complexity, the Nomad I was designed to be operated by a single lever in the cockpit. The Napier Nomad I had a 6.0 in (152 mm) bore and a 7.375 in (187 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 2,502 cu in (41.0 L) and was rated at 3,080 ehp (2,297 kW) at 2,050 rpm, which was 3,000 shp (2,237 kW) combined with 320 lbf (1.42 kN) of thrust from the turbine. The 3,000 shp (2,237 kW) was combined from 1,450 shp (1,081 kW) from the diesel engine and 1,550 shp (1,156 kW) from the turbine, spinning at 15,600 rpm. For estimated cruising power at 30,250 ft (9,220 m), the diesel engine produced 725 shp (541 kW) at 1,650 rpm and the turbine produced 750 shp (559 kW) at 17,000 rpm, for a combined 1,475 shp (1,100 kW). The Nomad I had a specific fuel consumption (sfc) of 0.36 lb/ehp/hr (219 g/kW/h). The engine was 126.5 in (3.21 m) long, 58.25 in (1.48 m) wide, 49.25 in (1.25 m) tall, and weighed 4,200 lb (1,905 kg).

The design of the Nomad I was laid out by a team led by Ernest Chatterton, Chief Engineer of the Piston Engine Division at Napier. The compressor and turbine sections were tested in 1948. The prototype engine was completed in 1949 and first run in October. After running for a total of 860 hours on the test stand, contra-rotating propellers were installed, and the engine underwent a further 270 hours of tests. In 1950, an Avro Lincoln bomber (serial SX973) that had been loaned to Napier’s Flight Test Department at Luton, England was modified to install the Nomad I in the aircraft’s nose. This conversion entailed a fair amount of work, with everything forward of the cockpit needing to be fabricated. SX973 made its first flight with the Nomad I in 1950. While the aircraft’s four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were retained, they could be shut down in flight and the Lincoln held aloft solely by the Nomad I. The Nomad-Lincoln made its only public appearance at the Society of British Aircraft Constructors flying display at Farnborough in September 1951. Another Nomad I engine was also on display at the show. The Nomad I accumulated 120 hours of flight time in the Lincoln.

Napier Nomad I Avro Lincoln feathered

The Napier Nomad I had enough power to keep the Avro Lincoln aloft with the four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines shut down and feathered. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

After a total of approximately 1,250 hours of operation, the Nomad I program was brought to a close in September 1952. The complex engine had proven to be temperamental, although it did exhibit very good fuel economy when it was running correctly. While Nomad I engine tests were underway, an updated and simplified version of the engine had been designed and designated E145 Nomad II. The design of the Nomad II took advantage of lessons learned from the Nomad I and the latest developments of axial compressors.

The Nomad II was designed in 1951, and the program was supervised by Chatterton and A. J. Penn, Napier’s gas turbine chief engineer. Although similar in configuration and possibly sharing some components with the Napier I, the Napier II was a new design. The Napier II retained the horizontally-opposed 12-cylinder layout incorporating a turbine and compressor, but the contra-rotating propellers and mechanically-driven centrifugal supercharger were discarded. The wet cylinder liners of the Nomad I were replaced by dry liners, which were made of chromium-copper alloy with chrome-plated bores. The crankcase was again cast of magnesium-zirconium (RZ-5) alloy.

Napier Nomad I and II geartrain

A simplified comparison of the Nomad I (top) and Nomad II (bottom) power systems. Not shown on the Nomad I was the two-speed supercharger drive. Not shown on the Nomad II was the second quill shaft to the variable-speed coupling. Neither drawing shows the engines’ accessory camshafts.

The improved axial flow compressor had a diameter of 10.88 in (276 mm) and was hung below the engine via four flexible mounts. The compressor had 12 stages, a maximum pressure ratio of 8.25 to 1, and a maximum mass air flow of 13 lb/sec (5.9 kg/sec). Its inlet faced forward to take full advantage of ram air. The pitch of the compressor’s inlet guide vanes automatically adjusted to improve airflow at lower speeds. The first five stages of the compressor used cobalt-steel blades, and the remaining seven stages used aluminum-bronze blades.

The Nomad II’s loop-scavenged system was improved over that of the Nomad I. Air from the compressor was routed forward in a manifold mounted below each cylinder bank. The pressurized air entered the revised cylinder banks and passed through guide vanes to flow into each cylinder via eight intake ports. Two pairs of four ports were positioned in the upper sides (top side of the engine) of the cylinder wall. The specially-designed intake ports directed the flow of air toward the hemispherical combustion chamber, where it circulated back toward the piston and the uncovered exhaust ports. The six exhaust ports consisted of three large ports, each with a smaller port below (toward the piston). The exhaust ports were positioned on the bottom side of the cylinder (lower side of the engine) and closer to the combustion chamber than the intake ports.

Napier Nomad II front

The Napier Nomad II was a simpler engine and was improved in every way compared to the Nomad I. Note the single rotation propeller shaft and simplified exhaust system. The compressor can be seen under the engine. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

The exhaust gases were collected in an exhaust manifold mounted below each cylinder bank. The exhaust gases flowed back to a three-stage axial flow turbine mounted at the rear of the engine. The turbine and the compressor were mounted on separate shafts that were coaxially coupled. The turbine shaft was also connected to the crankshaft via an infinitely variable-speed fluid coupling (Beier gear). At low power (under 1,500 rpm), the turbine did not create the power needed to drive the compressor. This resulted in the variable-speed coupling delivering power from the crankshaft to drive the compressor. At high power (above 1,500 rpm), the turbine created more power than what was needed to drive the compressor. The variable-speed coupling fed the extra power back to the engine’s crankshaft. The fluid coupling drive set was mounted to the upper-rear of the engine.

While the cylinders’ compression ratio was 8 to 1, air was fed into the cylinders at 89 psi (6.14 bar) absolute for takeoff, creating an effective compression ratio of 27 to 1. A set of six fuel injection pumps were located above each cylinder bank. The pumps were driven by a camshaft from the front of the engine. The fuel injector in the center of the cylinder head had six orifices: one sprayed toward the piston, and the other five were equally spaced radially around the nozzle and sprayed toward the combustion chamber walls. The fuel was injected into the cylinder at 3,675 psi (253 bar).

Napier Nomad II cutaway

The cutaway view of the Nomad II reveals that the engine was still very complex compared to a conventional piston engine. Note the gearset at the front of the engine that powered the propeller shaft, fuel injection cams (upper), and quill shafts (lower) to the variable-speed coupling. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

When the engine was viewed from the rear, the propeller turned counterclockwise. In the reduction gear housing at the front of the engine, the crankshaft drove the propeller shaft via four pinions. Although the exact gear reduction used in the test engines has not been found, a variety of reduction speeds were available: .526, .555, .569, .614, or .660 times crankshaft speed. Each of the lower two pinions were mounted to separate quill shafts that extended back to the rear of the engine and drove (or were driven by) the variable-speed gearset coupled to the turbine shaft. The crankshaft was supported by eight main bearings, with two I-beam connecting rods attached to each crankpin. The connecting rods used slipper-type bearings with two fairly-light straps securing the pair to the crankshaft. Since the engine was a two stroke, there was no downward pull on the connecting rod that required a more robust cap. The small end of the connecting rod that attached to the piston had a slipper-type eccentric bearing. As the connecting rod articulated from top dead center to bottom dead center, the bearing would rock slightly on the piston, opening a small gap for lubrication. This provided the proper oil flow that otherwise would not have occurred with the unidirectional loads of the two-stroke engine.

For starting, two ignition coils and two distributors driven from the front of the engine fired a spark plug in each cylinder. However, some photos appear to show two spark plugs in each cylinder. For installation, the engine was hung by two supports above the front cylinders and two supports above the rear casing.

The Napier Nomad II had the same 6.0 in (152 mm) bore, 7.375 in (187 mm) stroke, and 2,502 cu in (41.0 L) displacement as the Nomad I. The engine initially had a takeoff rating of 3,135 ehp (2,338 kW) at 2,050 rpm, which was 3,046 shp (2,271 kW) combined with 250 lbf (1.11 kN) of thrust from the turbine. As development continued, water injection was added that increased the Nomad II’s takeoff rating to 3,570 ehp (2,662 kW) at 2,050 rpm. This power was a combination of 3,476 shp (2,592 kW) and 230 lbf (1.02 kN) of thrust. At full power, the turbine shaft turned at 18,200 rpm, 8.88 times crankshaft speed. The engine’s maximum continuous rating was 2,488 ehp (1,855 kW) at 1,900 rpm, which was 2,392 shp and 145 lbf (1,855 kW and .64 kN). The Nomad II had a sfc of 0.345 lb/ehp/hr (210 g/kW/h). The engine was 119.25 in (3.03 m) long, 56.25 in (1.43 m) wide, 40 in (1.02 m) tall, and weighed 3,580 lb (1,624 kg).

Napier Nomad II parts

Various components of the Nomad II. Clockwise from the upper left: compressor and compressor housing, parts of the turbine, the Beier variable-speed fluid coupling, two connecting rods, and a piston with its stainless steel crown. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE images)

The Nomad II was first run in December 1952 and had accumulated 350 hours by mid-1954. The engine underwent various bench tests and tests with a 13 ft (3.96 m) diameter, constant-speed, reversable-pitch propeller. It was found that running the engine on diesel, kerosene, or jet fuel (wide-cut gasoline) resulted in little difference in power. Some tests indicated that a sfc as low as 0.326 lb/ehp/hr (198 g/kW/h) could be achieved, this being realized at 22,250 ft (6,782 m) with the engine producing 2,027 ehp (1,511 kW) at 1,750 rpm. The Nomad II maintained takeoff power up to 7,750 ft (2,362 m), and a constant boost, power, and sfc could be maintained up to 25,000 ft (7,620 m). At sea level, the turbine developed 2,250 hp (1,678 kW), but 1,840 hp (1,372 kW) was used to power the compressor. The Nomad experienced a two percent drop in power for every 20° F (11° C) increase in air temperature. Since the engine only burned 70 percent of the air passing through the cylinders, the ability to inject and ignite fuel into the exhaust manifold was experimented with, resulting in 4,095 ehp (3,054 kW) for a sfc of .374 lb/hp/hr (227 g/kW/h).

For flight tests, Napier proposed installing Nomad II engines in place of the outer two Rolls-Royce Griffons on an Avro Shackleton maritime patrol aircraft. In October 1952, the MoS loaned the second prototype Shackleton (VW131) to Napier for conversion and subsequent Nomad II flight testing. The aircraft arrived at Napier’s center at Luton on 16 January 1953. Dummy engines were first installed, and vibration tests were conducted in April 1954. The Nomad II installation and cowlings were clean and refined, but flight-cleared engines were slow to arrive. Eventually, two Nomad II engines were installed and some ground runs were made, but the Nomad program was cancelled in April 1955, before the aircraft had flown. While the Nomad II had unparalleled fuel economy for the time and was simpler, lighter, smaller, and more powerful than the Nomad I, there was little demand for the engine. Napier kept all Nomad data for a time, believing that interest in the engine might be rekindled and spark further development, but that was not the case.

Napier Nomad II rear

The 12-stage turbine was mounted in a tube frame behind the engine. The housing above the turbine contained the variable-speed coupling that linked the crankshaft to the turbine shaft. Note the single spark plug (used for starting) in each cylinder. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

Before the project was cancelled in 1955, the E173 Nomad III was designed as a continuation of the engine’s development. The Nomad III incorporated fuel injection into the exhaust manifold and an air-to-water aftercooler between the compressor and the cylinders. With these changes, the engine had a wet takeoff rating of 4,500 ehp (3,356 kW) at 2,050 rpm, which was 4,412 shp (3,290 kW) combined with 230 lbf (1.021 kN) of thrust from the turbine. The Nomad III weighed 3,750 lb (1,701 kg), 170 lb (77 kg) more than the Nomad II, but a complete engine was never built.

While the Nomad demonstrated excellent economy and impressive power for its weight, the engine was overshadowed by development of turboprops and turbojets. Money for development was tight, and the Nomad program had cost £5.1 million. In cases like the Avro Shackleton, it was less expensive to use Griffon engines than continue development of the Nomad. For other projects, the turboprop offered greater potential in the long run. While the Nomad engine was designed to cruise around 345 mph (556 km/h), the turbojet offered significantly higher cruise speeds compared to any other type of aircraft engine.

The exact number of Nomad I engines constructed has not been found, but it was at least two. A nicely restored Nomad I engine is preserved and on display at the National Museum of Flight at East Fortune Airfield in Scotland. The Nomad I underwent a restoration in 1999, and it was discovered that there were no propeller gears, pistons, or a crankshaft in the engine. This engine may be the Nomad I that was displayed at Farnborough in 1951. Of the six Nomad II engines built, two are preserved and on display—one at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia and the other at the Science Museum at Wroughton, England.

Napier Nomad II prop test

The Nomad II setup for tests with a 13 ft (3.96 m) propeller. Note that two spark plugs appear to be installed in each cylinder. Although not finalized, the top-mounting system made it fairly easy to install or remove the engine. (Napier/NPHT/IMechE image)

Sources:
– “Napier Nomad Aircraft Diesel Engine” by Herbert Sammons and Ernest Chatterton, SAE Transactions Vol 63 (1955)
– “Napier Nomad” by Bill Gunston, Flight (30 April 1954)
– “Napier’s Nomad Engine” The Aeroplane (30 April 1954)
– “Compound Diesel Engine Design Analyzed” Aviation Week (17 May 1954)
Aircraft Engines of the World 1952 by Paul H. Wilkinson (1952)
Aircraft Engines of the World 1956 by Paul H. Wilkinson (1956)
By Precision Into Power by Alan Vessey (2007)
Turbojet: History and Development 1930–1960 Volume 1 by Antony L. Kay (2007)
Men and Machines by Charles Wilson and William Reader (1958)
Napier Powered by Alan Vessey (1997)
https://www.thegrowler.org.uk/avroshackleton/the-nomad-proposal.htm
http://www.apss.org.uk/projects/completed_projects/nomad/index.htm
http://www.apss.org.uk/projects/completed_projects/nomad/detail/index.htm

IAM M-44 sectional view

IAM M-44 V-12 Aircraft Engine

By William Pearce

In 1925, the Soviet Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily or VVS) approached the TsAGI (Tsentral’nyy Aerogidrodinamicheskiy Institut, the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute) and requested proposals for a large, heavy bomber. Under the direction of Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev, the Tupolev OKB (Opytno-Konstruktorskoye Byuro, the Experimental Design Bureau) started design work on the aircraft in 1926, and the government finalized the aircraft’s operational requirements in 1929. The aircraft created from this program was the Tupolev ANT-6, which was given the military designation TB-3.

Tupolev TB-6 6M-44 top

Model of the Tupolev TB-6 6M-44 with its six M-44 engines. Gunner stations are seen outside of the outer engines and in the wing’s trailing edge.

The large, four-engine TB-3 lifted its 137 ft 2 in (41.80 m) wingspan from earth for the first time on 22 December 1930, but plans for even larger and more ambitious aircraft were underway. In October 1929, the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Air Force (Nauchno-tekhnicheskiy komitet upravleniya Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily or NTK UVVS) instructed Tupolev to design bombers capable of carrying a 10-tonne (22,046 lb) and a 25-tonne (55,116 lb) payload. With a 177 ft 2 in (54 m) wingspan, the 10-tonne bomber became the ANT-16, which was given the military designation TB-4. The 25-tonne bomber had a 311 ft 8 in (95 m) wingspan and became the ANT-26, which was given the military designation TB-6. However, this line of developing very large aircraft, the TB-6 in particular, quickly illustrated that there was a lack of powerful engines and that numerous smaller engines were required for the aircraft. The TB-4 required six 800 hp (597 kW) engines, and the TB-6 required twelve 830 hp (619 kW) engines. If an engine with a 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) output could be built, not only could it power these large aircraft, but it would also simplify their construction, maintenance, and control.

Back in 1928, the TsAGI had realized the need for more powerful engines and initiated work on a single-cylinder test engine to precede the design of a large, high-power bomber engine. This test engine was designated M-170; “170” was the anticipated horsepower (127 kW) output of the cylinder. The results were encouraging, and in 1930, the Institute of Aviation Motors (Institut aviatsionnogo motorostroyeniya or IAM) was tasked with the construction of a V-12 engine based on the M-170 cylinder. The 12-cylinder engine was designated M-44, and the single-cylinder test engine was renamed M-170/44.

The design of the M-44 was initiated in February 1931 under the supervision of N. P. Serdyukov. The design progressed rapidly and was completed in May. The M-44 was a four-stroke, water-cooled, 60-degree V-12. Based on a sectional drawing, the crankcase was split horizontally with main bearing caps for the crankshaft machined integral into the lower half of the case. The main bearings were secured by long bolts that passed through the lower crankcase half and screwed into the upper half. The crankshaft accommodated side-by-side connecting rods with flat-top aluminum pistons.

IAM M-44 sectional view

Sectional drawing of the IAM M-44 reveals some of the engine’s inner workings. The design was fairly conventional, just extremely large. Unfortunately, no images or other drawings of the engine have been found.

The individual steel cylinders were secured to the crankcase via hold down studs. A steel water jacket surrounded the cylinder barrel. The cylinder had a flat-roof combustion chamber, and four spark plugs were positioned horizontally at its top, just below the valves. Two spark plugs were on the outer side of the cylinder and the other two on the Vee side. Each cylinder bank was capped by a monobloc cylinder head with dual overhead camshafts. One camshaft operated the two intake valves for each cylinder, and the other camshaft operated the two exhaust valves for each cylinder. An intake manifold was attached to the Vee side of the cylinder head, and individual exhaust stacks were attached to the outer side of the cylinder head.

The normally aspirated M-44 had a compression ratio of 6 to 1 (some sources state 5 to 1). A propeller gear reduction (most likely using spur gears) was incorporated onto the front of the engine. The IAM M-44 had an 8.74 in (222 mm) bore and a 11.26 in (286 mm) stroke. Each cylinder displaced 675.6 cu in (11.07 L), and the engine’s total displacement was 8,107 cu in (132.9 L). The M-44 was the largest V-12 aircraft engine ever built. The engine produced 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) for takeoff and 1,700 hp (1,268 kW) for continuous operation. Some sources indicate that 2,400 hp (1,790 kW) was expected out of the engine after it was fully developed. The M-44 was approximately 118 in (3.00 m) long, 46 in (1.16 m) wide, and 65 in (1.66 m) tall. The engine weighed around 3,858 lb (1,750 kg).

With development of the 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) M-44 engine underway, studies were started to incorporate the engine into the ANT-16 (TB-4) and ANT-26 (TB-6) aircraft designs. Proposals to re-engine the ANT-16 with four M-44s were quickly abandoned so that work could focus on using six M-44 engines to power the ANT-26. This version of the aircraft is often cited as TB-6 6M-44. The ANT-26 design was ordered in July 1932, with construction starting soon after. Delivery of the ANT-26 prototype was expected in December 1935. Some sources state that an even larger, 30-tonne (66,139 lb) bomber with a 656 ft (200 m) wingspan and powered by eight M-44 engines was conceived, but it appears this aircraft never progressed beyond the rough design phase.

The Tupolev TB-6 6M-44 had two engines installed in each wing and two engines positioned back-to-back and mounted above the aircraft’s fuselage. The aircraft had a 311 ft 8 in (95 m) wingspan and was 127 ft 11 in (39 m) long. The TB-6 6M-44’s top speed was 155 mph (250 km/h), and it had a ceiling of 22,966 ft (7,000 m). The aircraft had a maximum bomb load of 48,502 lb (22,000 kg) and could carry a 33,069 lb (15,000 kg) bomb load 2,051 miles (3,300 km). Its maximum range was 2,983 miles (4,800 km).

Tupolev TB-6 6M-44 side

This rear view of the TB-6 6M-44 illustrates the tandem engines mounted above the fuselage.

The construction of three M-44 prototypes was planned, but the first engine was delayed by continued trials of the M-170/44 test engine, which was given a higher priority. The manufacture of the first M-44 engine began in early 1933, and the engine was first run later that year. The second engine was built and run in 1934. Plans to build the third M-44 engine were suspended on account of issues with the first two engines. The M-44 test engines had trouble producing the desired power and suffered from reliability issues. It became clear that the engine was not going to be successful, and the program was cancelled in 1934.

A supercharged version of the engine, known as the M-44H, had undergone preliminary design work in 1932. However, performance specifications for this engine have not been found, and it is doubtful that detailed design work was completed. In 1935, a decision was made to build the third M-44 engine, modified for marine use. This engine was designated GM-44 and incorporated a reversing gearbox. The GM-44 produced 1,870 hp (1,394 kW), but it was no more reliable than the M-44 aircraft engine. The GM-44 engine was cancelled in 1936.

With the M-44 engine program dead, the ANT-26 design reverted back to using 12 engines (1,200 hp / 895 kW Mikulin M-34FRN). However, studies concluded that the multitude of engines created additional drag that impacted the aircraft’s performance, and the engines added so much complexity that the ANT-26 would be difficult to fly and very difficult to maintain. Simply put, the giant aircraft was impractical, and it was subsequently cancelled in July 1934. A transport/commercial version of the aircraft, designated ANT-28, was also cancelled. The ANT-26’s airframe was 75 percent complete at the time of cancellation.

Tupolev TB-6 12M-34FRN

With the M-44 cancelled, the 12-engine TB-6 12M-34FRN was designed to preserve the aircraft’s capabilities with reliable engines. However, one would question the practicality of such an aircraft. Note the set of tandem engines that was placed above each wing.

Sources:
Russian Piston Aero Engines by Vladimir Kotelnikov (2005)
Самолеты- гиганты СССР by Vladimir Kotelnikov (2009)
Unflown Wings by Yefim Gordon and Sergey Komissarov (2013)
OKB Tupolev by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant (2005)

Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 front

Isotta Fraschini W-18 Aircraft and Marine Engines

By William Pearce

In late 1924, the Italian firm Isotta Fraschini responded to a Ministero dell’Aeronautica (Italian Air Ministry) request for a 500 hp (373 kW) aircraft engine by designing the liquid-cooled, V-12 Asso 500. Designed by Giustino Cattaneo, the Asso 500 proved successful and was used by Cattaneo as the basis for a line of Asso (Ace) engines developed in 1927. Ranging from a 250 hp (186 kW) inline-six to a 750 hp (559 kW) W-18, the initial Asso engines shared common designs and common parts wherever possible.

Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 front

The direct drive Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 was the first in a series of 18-cylinder engines that would ultimately be switched to marine use and stay in some form of production for over 90 years.

The Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 W-18 engine consisted of three six-cylinder banks mounted to a two-piece crankcase. The center cylinder bank was in the vertical position, and the two other cylinder banks were spaced at 40 degrees from the center bank. The cylinder bank spacing reduced the 18-cylinder engine’s frontal area to just slightly more than a V-12.

The Asso 750’s crankcase was split horizontally at the crankshaft and was cast from Elektron, a magnesium alloy. A shallow pan covered the bottom of the crankcase. The six-throw crankshaft was supported by eight main bearings. On each crankshaft throw was a master rod that serviced the center cylinder bank. Articulating rods for the other two cylinder banks were mounted on each side of the master rod. A double row ball bearing acted as a thrust bearing on the propeller shaft and enabled the engine to be installed as either a pusher or tractor.

The individual cylinders were forged from carbon steel and had a steel water jacket that was welded on. The cylinders had a closed top with openings for the valves. The monobloc cylinder head was mounted to the top of the cylinders, with one cylinder head serving each bank of cylinders. The cylinder compression ratio was 5.7 to 1. The cylinder head was made from cast aluminum and held the two intake and two exhaust valves for each cylinder. The valves were actuated by dual overhead camshafts, with one camshaft controlling the intake valves and the other camshaft controlling the exhaust valves (except for the center bank). A single lobe on the camshaft acted on a rocker and opened the two corresponding valves for that cylinder. The camshafts for each cylinder bank were driven at the rear of the cylinder head. One camshaft of the cylinder bank was driven via beveled gears by a vertical drive shaft, and the second camshaft was geared to the other driven camshaft. The valve cover casting was made from Elektron.

Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 RC35 crankcase

The cylinder row, upper crankcase, and cylinder head (inverted) of an Asso 750 RC35 with gear reduction. The direct drive Asso 750 was similar except for the shape of the front (right side) of the crankcase. Note the closed top cylinders. The small holes between the studs in the cylinder top were water passageways that communicated with ports on the cylinder head.

Three carburetors were mounted to the outer side of each outer cylinder bank. The intake and exhaust ports of the outer cylinder banks were on the same side. The intake and exhaust ports of the center cylinder bank were rather unusual. When viewed from the rear, the exhaust ports for the rear three cylinders of the center bank were on the right, and the intake ports were on the left. The front three cylinders were the opposite, with their exhaust ports on the left and their intake ports on the right. This configuration gave the cylinders for the center bank crossflow heads, but it also meant that each camshaft controlled half of the intake valves and half of the exhaust valves. A manifold attached to the inner side of the left cylinder bank collected the air/fuel mixture that had flowed through passageways in the left cylinder head and delivered the charge to the rear three cylinders of the center bank. The right cylinder bank had the same provisions but delivered the mixture to the front three cylinders of the center bank. Presumably, the 40-degree cylinder bank angle did not allow enough room to accommodate carburetors for the middle cylinder bank.

The two spark plugs in each cylinder were fired by two magnetos positioned at the rear of the engine and driven by the camshaft drive. From the rear of the engine, the firing order was 1 Left, 6 Center, 1 Right, 5L, 2C, 5R, 3L, 4C, 3R, 6L, 1C, 6R, 2L, 5C, 2R, 4L, 3C, and 4R. A water pump positioned below the magnetos circulated water into a manifold along the base of each cylinder bank. The manifold distributed water into the water jacket for each individual cylinder. The water flowed up through the water jacket and into the cylinder head. Another manifold took the water from each cylinder head to the radiator for cooling. Starting the Asso 750 was achieved with an air starter.

Motore Isotta Fraschini Asso 750

Two views of the direct drive Asso 750 displayed at the Museo nazionale della scienza e della tecnologia Leonardo da Vinci in Milan. Note the three exhaust stacks visible on the center cylinder bank. The front image of the engine illustrates the lack of space between the cylinder banks, which were set at 40 degrees. (Alessandro Nassiri images via Wikimedia Commons)

The Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 had a bore of 5.51 in (140 mm), a stroke of 6.69 in (170 mm), and a total displacement of 2,875 cu in (47.1 L). The original, direct drive Asso 750 produced 750 hp (599 kW) at 1,600 rpm, and weighed 1,279 lb (580 kg). An improved version of the Asso 750 was soon built that produced 830 hp (619 kW) at 1,700 rpm and 900 hp (671 kW) at 1,900 rpm. This engine weighed 1,389 lb (630 kg). The direct drive Asso 750 was 81 in (2.06 m) long, 40 in (1.02 m) wide, and 42 in (1.07 m) tall.

A version of the Asso 750 with a spur gear reduction for the propeller was developed and was sometimes referred to as the Asso 850 R. Available gear reductions were .667 and .581, and the gear reduction resulted in the crankshaft having only seven main bearings. The Asso 850 R produced 850 hp (634 kW) at 1,950 rpm, and weighed 1,455 lb (660 kg). This engine was also further refined and given the more permanent designation of Asso 750 R. The 750 R had a .658 gear reduction. The engine produced 850 hp (634 kW) at 1,800 rpm and 930 hp (694 kW) at 1,900 rpm. The Asso 750 R was 83 in (2.12 m) long and weighed 1,603 lb (727 kg).

Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 rc35 front

Front view of the Asso 750 RC35. The gear reduction required new upper and lower crankcase halves and a new crankshaft, but the other components were interchangeable with the direct drive engine.

Around 1933 the Asso 750 R engine was updated to incorporate a supercharger. The new engine was designated Asso 750 RC35. The “R” in the engine’s designation meant that it had gear reduction (Riduttore de giri); the “C” meant that it was supercharged (Compressore); and the “35” stood for the engine’s critical altitude in hectometers (as in 3,500 meters). The engine’s water pump was moved to a new mount that extended below the oil pan. The supercharger was mounted between the water pump and the magnetos, which were moved to a slightly higher location. The supercharger was meant to maintain sea level power up to a higher altitude, and it provided .29 psi (.02 bar) of boost up to 11,483 ft (3,500 m). The Asso 750 RC35 produced 870 hp (649 kW) at 1,850 rpm at 11,483 ft (3,500 m). The engine was 87 in (2.20 m) long, 41 in (1.03 m) wide, 48 in (1.21 m) tall, and weighed 1,724 lb (782 kg).

In 1928, Isotta Fraschini designed a larger, more powerful engine that had both its bore and stroke increased by .39 in (10 mm) over that of the Asso 750. The larger engine was developed especially for the Macchi M.67 Schneider Trophy racer. The M.67’s engine was initially designated Asso 750 M (for Macchi) but was also commonly referred to as the Asso 2-800. The “2” designation was most likely applied because the engine was a “second generation” and differed greatly from the original Asso 750 design.

Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 rc35 rear

The single-speed supercharger on the Asso 750 RC35 is illustrated in this rear view. Note the relocated and new mounting point for the water pump. The supercharger forced-fed air to the engine’s six carburetors.

The Asso 2-800 had a bore of 5.91 in (150 mm), a stroke of 7.09 in (180 mm), and a total displacement of 3,434 cu in (57.3 L). The engine used new crossflow cylinder heads and a new crankcase. The cylinder heads had intake ports on one side and exhaust ports on the other. Air intakes for the engine were positioned behind the M.67’s spinner, with one intake on the left side for the left cylinder bank and two intakes on the right side for the center and right cylinder banks. Ducts delivered the air to special carburetors positioned between the cylinder banks. The modified engine also had a higher compression ratio and used special fuels. Under perfect conditions, the special Asso 2-800 engine produced up to 1,800 hp (1,342 kW), but it was rarely able to achieve that output. An output of 1,400 hp (1,044 kW) was more typical and still impressive. At speed, the Asso 2-800 in the M.67 reportedly made a roar like no other engine.

Isotta Fraschini made a commercial version of the larger engine, designated Asso 1000. With the same bore, stroke, and displacement as the Asso 2-800, the Asso 1000 is often cited as the engine powering the M.67. However, the Asso 1000 retained the same configuration and architecture as the Asso 750, except the Asso 1000 had a compression ratio of 5.3 to 1. Development of the Asso 1000 trailed slightly behind that of the Asso 750.

The direct drive Isotta Fraschini Asso 1000 produced 1,000 hp (746 kW) at 1,600 rpm and 1,100 hp (820 kW) at 1,800 rpm. The engine was 86 in (2.19 m) long, 42 in (1.06 m) wide, and 44 in (1.12 m) tall. The Asso 1000 weighed 1,764 lb (800 kg). Like with the original Asso 750, a gear reduction version was designed. This engine was sometimes designated as the Asso 1200 R. The gear reduction speeds available were .667 and .581. The Asso 1200 R produced 1,200 hp (895 kW) at 1,950 rpm and weighed 2,116 lb (960 kg).

Isotta Fraschini Asso 1000

The Isotta Fraschini Asso 1000 was very similar to the Asso 750. Note the intake manifolds between the cylinder banks, each taking the air/fuel mixture from one of the outer banks and feeding half of the center bank.

The Asso 750 and Asso 1000 engines were used in a variety of aircraft, but most of the aircraft were either prototypes or had a low production count. For the Asso 750, its most famous applications were the single engine Caproni Ca.111 reconnaissance aircraft (over 150 built) and the twin engine Savoia-Marchetti S.55 double-hulled flying boat. Over 200 S.55s were built, but only the S.55X variant was powered by the Asso 750. Twenty-five S.55X aircraft were built, and in 1933, 24 S.55X aircraft made a historic formation flight from Orbetello, Italy to Chicago, Illinois. The Asso 750 powered many aircraft to numerous payload and distance records. Six direct-drive Asso 1000 engines were used to power the Caproni Ca.90 bomber, which was the world’s largest landplane when it first flew in October 1929. The Ca.90 set six payload records on 22 February 1930.

Although not a complete success in aircraft, the Asso 1000 found its way into marine use as the Isotta Fraschini ASM 180, 181, 183 and 184 engines. ASM was originally written as “As M” and stood for Asso Marini (Ace Marine). The marine engines had water-cooled exhaust pipes and a reversing gearbox coupled to the propeller shaft. The Isotta Fraschini marine engines were used in torpedo boats before, during, and after World War II by Italy, Sweden, and Britain.

Isotta Fraschini ASM 184

The Isotta Fraschini ASM 184 engine with its large, water-cooled exhaust manifolds and drive gearbox. Note that the center bank only has its rear (left) cylinders feeding into the visible exhaust manifold. One of the two centrifugal superchargers can be seen at the rear of the engine. The engine is on display at the Museo Nicolis in Villafranca di Verona. (Stefano Pasini image)

The ASM 180 and 181 were developed around 1933, and produced 900 hp (671 kW) at 1,800 rpm. Refinement of the ASM 181 led to the ASM 183, which produced 1,150 hp (858 kW) at 2,000 rpm. Development of the ASM 184 started around 1940; it was a version of the ASM 183 that featured twin centrifugal superchargers mounted to the rear of the engine. The ASM 184 engine produced 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 2,000 rpm. Around 1950, production of the ASM 184 was continued by Costruzione Revisione Motori (CRM) as the CRM 184. In the mid-1950s, the engine was modified with fuel injection into the supercharger compressors and became the CRM 185. The CRM 185 produced 1,800 hp (1,342 kW) at 2,200 rpm.

CRM continued development of the W-18 platform and created a diesel version of the engine. Designated 18 D, the engine retained the same bore, stroke, and basic configuration as the Asso 1000 and earlier ASM engines. However, the 18 D was made of cast iron, had revised cylinder heads, and had a compression ratio of 14 to 1. The revised cylinder head was much taller and incorporated extra space between the valve springs and the valve heads. The valve stems were elongated, and a pre-combustion chamber was positioned between the valve stems and occupied the extra space in the head. Some versions of the engine have a fuel injection pump consisting of three six-cylinder distributors driven from the rear of the engine, while other versions have a common rail fuel system.

CRM 18 D engines

Four CRM 18 D engines, which can trace their heritage back to the Asso 1000. The three engines on the left use mechanical fuel injection with three distribution pumps. The engine on the right has a common fuel rail. Note the three turbochargers at the front of each engine. (CRM Motori image)

The exhaust gases for each bank were collected and fed through a turbocharger at the front of the engine (some models had just two turbochargers). Pressurized air from the turbochargers passed through an aftercooler and was then fed into two induction manifolds. Each of the manifolds had three outlets. The front and rear outlets were connected to the outer cylinder bank, and the middle outlet was connected to the center bank. For the center bank, induction air for the rear three cylinders was provided by the left manifold, and the front three cylinder received their air from the right manifold.

Various versions of the 18 D were designed, the most powerful being the 18 D BR3-B. The BR3-B had a maximum output of 2,367 hp (1,765 kW) at 2,300 rpm and a continuous output of 2,052 hp (1,530 kW) at 2,180 rpm. The engine had a specific fuel consumption of .365 lb/hp/hr (222 g/kW/h). The BR3-B was 96 in (2.45 m) long, 54 in (1.37 m) wide, 57 in (1.44 m) tall, and weighed 4,740 lb (2,150 kg) without the drive gearbox. CRM, now known as CRM Motori Marini, continues to market 18 D engines.

Isotta Fraschini Asso L180

Other than having a W-18 layout, the Isotta Fraschini L.180 did not share much in common with the Asso 750 or 1000. However, the two-outlet supercharger suggests a similar induction system to the earlier engines. Note the gear reduction’s hollow propeller shaft and the mounts for a cannon atop the engine.

In the late 1930s, Isotta Fraschini revived the W-18 layout with an entirely new aircraft engine known as the Asso L.180 (or military designation L.180 IRCC45). The Asso L.180 was an inverted W-18 (sometimes referred to as an M-18) that featured supercharging and a propeller gear reduction. The engine’s layout and construction were similar to that of the earlier W-18 engines. One source states the cylinder banks were spaced at 45 degrees. With nine power pulses for each crankshaft revolution, this is off from the ideal of having cylinders fire at 40-degree intervals (like the earlier W-18 engines) and may be a misprint. The crankshaft was supported by seven main bearings in a one-piece aluminum crankcase. The spur gear reduction turned at .66 crankshaft speed and had a hollow propeller shaft to allow an engine-mounted cannon to fire through the propeller hub. The single-speed supercharger turned at 10 times crankshaft speed.

The Isotta Fraschini L.180 had a 5.75 in (146 mm) bore and a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 2,942 cu in (48.2 L) and had a compression ratio of 6.4 to 1. The L.180 had a takeoff rating of 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 2,360 rpm, a maximum output of 1,690 hp (1,260 kW) at 2,475 rpm at 14,764 ft (4,500 m), and a cruising output of 1,000 hp (746 kW) at 1,900 rpm at 14,764 ft (4,500 m). It is doubtful that the L.180 proceeded much beyond the mockup phase.

A number of Isotta Fraschini aircraft and marine engines are preserved in various museums and private collections. Some marine engines are still in operation, and the German tractor pulling group Team Twister uses a modified Isotta Fraschini W-18 engine in its Dabelju tractor.

Dabelju IF W-18 57L

The modified Isotta Fraschini W-18 in Team Twister’s Dabelju. The engine’s heads have been modified to have individual intake and exhaust ports. These crossflow heads are similar in concept to the heads used on the Macchi M.67’s engine. (screenshot of Johannes Meuleners Youtube video)

Sources:
Isotta Fraschini Aviation (undated catalog, circa 1930)
Isotta Fraschini Aviation (1929)
Isotta Fraschini Aviazione (undated catalog, circa 1931)
Istruzioni per l’uso del motore Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Asso 750 (1931)
Istruzioni per l’uso del motore Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Asso 750 R (1934)
Istruzioni per l’uso del motore Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Asso 750 RC 35 (1936)
Istruzioni per l’uso del motore Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Asso 1000 (1929)
Aeronuatica Militare Museo Storico Catalogo Motori by Oscar Marchi (1980)
Aircraft Engines of the World 1941 by Paul H. Wilkinson (1941)
Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1931 by C. G. Grey (1931)
https://www.t38.se/marinens-motortyper-i-mtb/
http://www.crmmotori.it/interna.asp?tema=16