By William Pearce

In December 1942, the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) sought a new radial aircraft engine capable of more than 2,500 hp (1,864 kW). At the time, the most powerful Japanese production engines produced around 1,900 hp (1,417 kW). The new engine was given the IJA designation Ha-51 and was later assigned the joint Japanese Army and Navy designation [Ha-51]. However, the Imperial Japanese Navy did not show any interest in the engine.

Some sources state that Nakajima was tasked to develop the new [Ha-51] engine, while other sources contend that Hitachi was in charge of the engine from the start. Both Nakajima and Hitachi had produced previous engines with the same bore and stroke as the [Ha-51]. However, the [Ha-51] shares some characteristics, such as fan-assisted air cooling, with other Nakajima engines. Regardless, development of the [Ha-51] was eventually centered at the Hitachi Aircraft Company (Hitachi Kikuki KK) plant in Tachikawa, near Tokyo, Japan. The Hitachi Aircraft Company was formed in 1939 when the Tokyo Gas & Electric Industry Company (Tokyo Gasu Denki Kogyo KK, or Gasuden for short) merged with the Hitachi Manufacturing Company.

The [Ha-51] was a 22-cylinder, two-row radial engine. Its configuration of 11-cylinders in each of two rows was only common with two other engines: the Mitsubishi A21 / Ha-50 and the Wright R-4090. Although the three engines were developed around the same time, it is not believed that any one influenced the others. Moving from nine cylinders in each row to 11 was a logical step for producing more power without increasing a radial engine’s length. The tradeoff was accepting the increased frontal area of the engine and additional strain on the crankpins.

The engine’s three-piece crankcase was made of steel and split vertically along the cylinder center line. The crankcase bolted together via internal fasteners located between the cylinder mounting pads. The cylinders consisted of an aluminum head screwed and shrunk onto a steel barrel. Each cylinder had one intake valve and one exhaust valve. The valves were inclined at a relatively narrow angle of around 62 degrees. The intake and exhaust ports for each cylinder faced the rear of the engine. The cylinders had a compression ratio of 6.8. The second row of cylinders was staggered behind the first row. Only a very narrow gap existed between the front cylinders to enable cooling air to the rear cylinders. Baffles were used to direct the flow of cooling air.

A single-stage, two-speed supercharger was mounted to the rear of the [Ha-51]. The supercharger’s impeller was 13 in (330 mm) in diameter and turned at 6.67 times crankshaft speed in low gear and 10.0 times crankshaft speed in high gear. Fuel was fed into the supercharger by a carburetor. At the front of the engine was a planetary gear reduction that used spur gears to turn the propeller at .42 times crankshaft speed. A cooling fan driven from the front of the gear reduction was intended to keep engine temperatures within limits once the [Ha-51] was installed in a close-fitting cowling.

The [Ha-51]’s fan-assisted cooling system was originally developed for the 1,900 hp (1,417 kW) Nakajima [Ha-45] Homare engine, which gives some credence to Nakajima being involved with the [Ha-51]. The [Ha-45] and the [Ha-51] also had the same bore and stroke. Nearly all Gasuden/Hitachi radial engines had a single row of nine-cylinders and produced no more than 500 hp (373 kW). Developing a two-row, 22-cylinder, 2,500 hp (1,864 kW) engine would be a significant jump for Hitachi, but much less so for Nakajima.

The [Ha-51] had a 5.12 in (130 mm) bore and a 5.91 in (150 mm) stroke. Its total displacement was 2,673 cu in (43.8 L). The engine had an initial rating of 2,450 hp (1,827 kW) at 3,000 rpm and 8.7 psi (.60 bar) of boost for takeoff, and 1,950 hp (1,454 kW) at 3,000 rpm with 7.7 psi (.53 bar) of boost at 26,247 ft (8,000 m). However, planned development would increase the [Ha-51]’s output up to 3,000 hp (2,237 kW). The engine was 49.4 in (1.26 m) in diameter, 78.7 in (2.00 m) long, and weighed 2,205 lb (1,000 kg).

Construction of the first [Ha-51] prototype was started in March 1944. Testing of the completed engine revealed high oil consumption and issues with bearing seizures between the crankpins and master rods. The gear reduction and cooling fan drive experienced failures, and difficulty with the supercharger led to broken impellers. Due to these issues, the engine was unable to pass a 100-hour endurance test. Three [Ha-51] engines and parts for a fourth had been built when the prototypes were damaged during a US bombing raid on the factory at Tachikawa in April 1945. Combined with the current state of the war, the setback caused by the air raid signaled the end of the [Ha-51] project. When US troops inspected the Tachikawa plant in late 1945, they found the three damaged and partially constructed [Ha-51] engines. One engine was mostly complete but lacked its supercharger section. Reportedly, this engine was reassembled by order of the US military, but no further information regarding its disposition has been found. All [Ha-51] engines were later scrapped, and no parts for them are known to exist.

Sources:
– Japanese Aero-Engines 1910–1945 by Mike Goodwin and Peter Starkings (2017)
– “The Radial 22 Cylinder Engine “HA51” and Genealogic Survey of the Gas-Den Aero-Engine” by Takashi Suzuki, Kenichi Kaki, Toyohiro Takahashi, and Masayoshi Nakanishi Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (Part C) Vol. 74, No. 746 (October 2008)
– “Hitachi Aircraft Company” The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Corporation Report No. VII (February 1947)
– http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/japanese.shtml
– https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ハ51_(エンジン)

By William Pearce

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was Japan’s largest aircraft engine producer and had developed a number of reliable and powerful engines. During 1942, Mitsubishi investigated a 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) engine design. Given the designation A19, the radial engine design had four rows of seven cylinders. The A19 had a 5.51 in (140 mm) bore and a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. This gave the 28-cylinder engine a displacement of 4,208 cu in (69.0 L). However, in the spring of 1943, Mitsubishi engineers concluded after extensive testing that the rear rows of the engine would not have enough airflow for sufficient cooling. The A19 was never built.

To solve the cooling issues, Mitsubishi turned to a two-row radial engine design with 11-cylinders per row. The new engine carried the Mitsubishi designation A21. The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) approved of the engine design and instructed Mitsubishi to proceed with construction. The A21 was given the IJA designation Ha-50. Many sources state the engine was later assigned the joint Japanese Army and Navy designation [Ha-50]. However, [Ha-52] would have been more fitting for the engine’s configuration, and the [Ha-50] designation may be the result of confusion with the IJA’s Ha-50 designation. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) was not involved with the engine’s development.

At the time, Mitsubishi was already developing an 18-cylinder radial based on their 14-cylinder [Ha-32] Kasei engine. To speed development of the Ha-50, Mitsubishi decided to continue the practice of adding additional Kasei-type cylinders to a new crankcase. The resulting air-cooled, 22-cylinder, two-row, radial configuration was common with only two other engines: the Hitachi/Nakajima [Ha-51] and the Wright R-4090. Using two rows of 11 cylinders kept the engine short and relatively simple compared to a four-row configuration. The two-row configuration also enabled a rather straightforward engine cooling operation without resorting to complex baffles. However, the large number of cylinders in each row increased the engine’s frontal area and caused greater stresses on the crankshaft’s crankpins.

The Ha-50 used a three-piece, steel crankcase that was split vertically along the cylinder center line and secured via internal fasteners. Aluminum alloy housings were used for the gear reduction and the supercharger. Each cylinder was secured to the crankcase by 16 studs. The cylinders were formed with a cast aluminum head screwed and shrunk onto a steel barrel. Relatively thin fins were cut into the steel cylinder barrels to aid cooling. Each cylinder had one intake valve and one exhaust valve. The intake and exhaust ports for each cylinder faced toward the rear of the engine. The cylinders had a compression ratio of 6.7. Following the typical two-row radial configuration, the second row of cylinders was staggered behind the first row. Ample space existed between the cylinders in the front row for cooling air to reach the cylinders in the rear row. A fairly large space existed between the front and rear cylinder rows, perhaps signifying a rather robust center crankshaft support.

Two-stage supercharging was used in the form of a remote turbosupercharger for the first stage and a gear-driven, two-speed supercharger for the second stage. However, the test engines had only the gear-driven supercharger, which turned at 7.36 times crankshaft speed in low gear and 10.22 times crankshaft speed in high gear. The Ha-50 used fuel injection, and water-injection was available to further boost power. At the front of the engine was a planetary gear reduction that turned the propeller at .412 times crankshaft speed. Some sources state that contra-rotating propellers were to be used, but only a single propeller shaft was provided on the initial engines. A cooling fan was driven from the front of the gear reduction.

The Ha-50 had a 5.91 in (150 mm) bore and a 6.69 in (170 mm) stroke. Its total displacement was 4,033 cu in (66.1 L). The engine had a takeoff rating of 3,100 hp (2,312 kW) at 2,600 rpm and 8.7 psi (.60 bar) of boost. Normal ratings for the engine were 2,700 hp (2,013 kW) at 4,921 ft (1,500 m) and 2,240 hp (1,670 kW) at 32,808 ft (10,000 m). The normal ratings were achieved at an engine speed of 2,500 rpm and with 5.8 psi (.40 bar) of boost. The Ha-50 was 56.9 in (1.45 m) in diameter, 94.5 in (2.40 m) long, and weighed 3,395 lb (1,540 kg).

Construction of the Ha-50 started in April 1943, and the first engine was completed in 1944. Engine testing began immediately, and severe vibrations were encountered that reportedly shook one engine apart on the test stand. Some sources indicate the Ha-50 was an optional power plant for the Kawanishi TB, a four-engine transoceanic bomber ordered by the IJA. The Kawanishi TB was a smaller and lighter competitor to the Nakajima Fugaku, which had become exclusively an IJN project. Six Ha-50 engines were ordered for the Kawanishi TB, but the bomber project was cancelled before any aircraft were built. Three of the Ha-50 engines were finished, but their operational issues and the cancelling of the Kawanishi TB resulted in the Ha-50 engine project being abandoned. Two of the engines were damaged in a bombing raid, but the surviving Ha-50 reportedly achieved 3,200 hp (2,386 kW) in July 1945.

The three Ha-50 engines were thought to have been destroyed at the end of World War II and before the arrival of US forces. However, one Ha-50 engine was discovered in November 1984 during expansion work at the Haneda Airport (Tokyo International Airport). Some sources indicate the surviving engine was found by US forces shortly after the war and delivered to Haneda Airport for later shipment to the United States. Apparently, plans changed, and the engine was subsequently bulldozed into a pit and covered with dirt. The discovered Ha-50 was in an advanced state of decay, but it was recovered, and efforts were made to preserve the engine and prevent its continued deterioration. The engine’s condition was stabilized, and it was put on display at the Museum of Aviation Science in Narita, Japan. The surviving Ha-50 is the sole example of any 22-cylinder aircraft engine.

Sources:
– Japanese Aero-Engines 1910–1945 by Mike Goodwin and Peter Starkings (2017)
– The History of Mitsubishi Aero-Engines 1915–1945 by Hisamitsu Matsuoka (2005)
– http://www.arawasi.jp/on%20location/narita1.html
– https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ハ50_(エンジン)

By William Pearce

In July 1939, the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, or Germany Air Ministry) issued specifications for a new medium bomber capable of high-speeds. Originally known as Kampfflugzeug B (Warplane B), the aircraft proposal was eventually renamed Bomber B. The Bomber B specification requested an aircraft that could carry a 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) bomb load 3,600 km (2,237 mi) and have a top speed of 600 km/h (373 mph). To power the Bomber B aircraft, the RLM requested engine designs from BMW, Junkers, and Daimler-Benz. The respective companies responded with the BMW 802, the Junkers Jumo 222, and the Daimler-Benz DB 604.

The DB 604 was an all-new, liquid-cooled, 24-cylinder engine. Four banks of six cylinders were arranged in an “X” configuration with each cylinder bank spaced at 90 degrees. The X-24 engine consisted of a two-piece aluminum alloy crankcase split horizontally at its center. The engine’s single crankshaft had six crankpins that were spaced at 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees, 240 degrees, 120 degrees, and 0 degrees. This arrangement resulted in cylinders firing evenly at every 30 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Attached to each crankpin was a master connecting rod that accommodated three articulated connecting rods. A gear reduction at the front of the engine turned the propeller at .334 crankshaft speed. A supercharger mounted to the rear of the engine had an upper and a lower outlet. Each outlet was connected to two intake manifolds that ran along the inner Vee side of the cylinder banks.

The DB 604’s fuel system was located in the upper and lower Vees of the engine and consisted of fuel injection pumps and individual fuel injectors for each cylinder. Each cylinder had two intake and two exhaust valves, all of which were actuated by a single overhead camshaft. The camshaft for each cylinder bank was driven via a vertical shaft from the rear of the engine. The exhaust ports were positioned in the left and right Vees, as were the two spark plugs per cylinder. The spark plugs were fired by two magnetos positioned in the left and right Vees and mounted to the propeller gear reduction housing.

The DB 604 had a 5.31 in (135 mm) bore and stroke and displaced 2,830 cu in (46.4 L). The engine had a 7.0 to 1 compression ratio and weighed 2,381 lb (1,080 kg). The DB 604 prototype was first run in late 1939. The first engine produced 2,313 hp (1,725 kW) at 3,200 rpm. This engine may have had a single-speed supercharger. The DB 604 A and DB 604 B engines were produced quickly after the first prototype. These engines had a two-stage supercharger that provided 6.17 psi (.43 bar) of boost. The difference between A and B versions was the rotation of the engine’s crankshaft. The DB 604 A/B had a maximum output at 3,200 rpm of 2,660 hp (1,984 kW) at sea level and 2,410 hp (1,797 kW) at 20,600 ft (6,279 m). The engine’s maximum continuous output was 2,270 hp (1,693 kW) at sea level and 2,120 hp (1,581 kW) at 21,000 ft (6,401 m), both figures at 3,000 rpm. Maximum cruise power was at 2,800 rpm, with the engine producing 1,830 hp (1,365 kW) at sea level and 1,860 hp (1,387 kW) at 20,000 ft (6,096 m). The DB 604 was flight tested in a Junkers Ju 52 trimotor transport, but it is not clear which version of the engine was tested. At least five DB 604 engines were made.

The Bomber B proposals that moved forward as prototypes were the Dornier Do 317, Focke-Wulf Fw 191, and Junkers Ju 288. Despite the DB 604 showing some promise, the RLM chose the Jumo 222, and work on the DB 604 was stopped in September 1942. No records have been found that detail the DB 604’s reliability, and many other X-24 aircraft engine designs were prone to failure. The sole surviving Daimler-Benz DB 604 engine is on display at the Flugausstellung L.+ P. Junior museum in Hermeskeil, Germany.

Ultimately, the Ju 288 was selected as the winner of the Bomber B program. Delays with the 2,500 hp (1,964 kW) Jumo 222 led to it being substituted with the 2,700 hp (2,013 kW) Daimler-Benz DB 606, and that engine was later replaced by the 2,950 hp (2,200 kW) DB 610. The DB 606 consisted of two DB 601 inverted V-12 engines coupled side-by-side, while the DB 610 was the same arrangement but with two DB 605 engines. The Ju 288 aircraft and the Jumo 222 engine never entered large-scale production.

An enlarged version of the DB 604 was contemplated, with the engine’s bore increased .2 in (5 mm) to 5.51 in (140 mm). This gave the engine a displacement of 3,044 cu in (49.9 L). The larger 90-degree, X-24 engine was very similar to the DB 604 but incorporated a three-speed, three-stage supercharger. The engine was forecasted to produce 3,450 hp (2,575 kW) at 36,089 ft (11,000 m). Development of the larger engine did not progress beyond the initial design phase.

Sources:
– Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke by Kyrill von Gersdorff, et. al. (2007)
– German Aero-Engine Development A.I.2.(g) Report No. 2360 by G. E. R. Proctor (22 June 1945)
– Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich by Dan Sharp (2016)
– Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1945–46 by Leonard Bridgman (1946)
– https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_604
– http://www.aircraftengine.cz/Hermeskeil/

By William Pearce

Since 1933, the Lycoming Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation had worked to create a high-power engine for the United States Armed Forces. Its first attempt was the 1,200 hp (895 kW), 12-cylinder O-1230, which was outclassed by the time it first flew in 1940. Lycoming’s second attempt was the 2,300 hp (1,715 kW), 24-cylinder XH-2470. The engine had shown some promise, but its performance was eclipsed by other engines when the XH-2470 was first flown in 1943. Lycoming set out to design an engine that was more powerful than any other and that would meet the power needs of future large aircraft.

In mid-1943, Lycoming engaged in talks with personnel from the US Army Air Force (AAF) at Wright Field, Ohio. Different sources list the involvement of the Air Materiel Command, Air Technical Service Command, and the Power Plant Lab. By December 1943, the engine concept had been solidified as a very large displacement, high-compression, liquid-cooled engine designed for optimum fuel economy and intended to power the next generation of very large aircraft. Lycoming’s experimental engine was designated XR-7755 and given the “Materiel, Experimental” code MX-434.

Clarence Wiegman headed the Lycoming XR-7755 design team. The engine consisted of nine banks of four inline cylinders positioned radially with 40-degrees of separation around a forged steel crankcase. This formed a 36-cylinder inline radial engine. The crankcase was made up of five sections, each split vertically through the cylinders. The crankcase sections were secured together by nine bolts that extended the length of the case. The individual steel cylinders each had their own water jacket. Each bank of four cylinders shared a common cast aluminum cylinder head. Each four-cylinder bank was secured to the crankcase by 16 long studs that passed through the cylinder head.

Each cylinder had one intake and one exhaust valve. Both valves were sodium cooled, with a hollow stem for the intake valve and a hollow stem and head for the exhaust valve. The valves for each bank of cylinders were actuated by a single overhead camshaft, driven via a vertical shaft at the front of the engine. Each camshaft had two sets of lobes for different valve timing—one lobe set was optimized for power and the other set for economic cruise. The camshafts shifted axially to engage the desired set of lobes. When the camshaft was shifted, the spark plug timing was automatically changed. Ignition was provided by two magnetos and four distributors. Each unit was camshaft-driven and mounted to the front of a separate cylinder bank. The spark plug leads passed through the valve covers and to the spark plugs, which were positioned in opposite corners of each cylinder.

The crankshaft had four crankpins, each spaced at 180 degrees. The crankshaft was made up of five sections and assembled through the four one-piece master connecting rods. The crankshaft sections were joined at the rear of the crankpin via face splines and secured by four bolts. Five roller bearings supported the crankshaft in the crankcase.

At the rear of the engine was a single-stage, single-speed supercharger. The supercharger’s impeller was 14.4 in (366 mm) in diameter and spun at six times crankshaft speed. The supercharger fed air to nine intake manifolds, each mating with the right side of a cylinder bank. Fuel was provided to the cylinder via either a carburetor or fuel injection. Individual exhaust stacks were attached to the left side of each cylinder. Provisions were also made to incorporate two turbosuperchargers.

Although a single rotation engine was tested, the engine accommodated contra-rotating propellers using SAE #60L-80 spline shafts. The inner shaft rotated counterclockwise, and the outer shaft rotated clockwise. A two-speed planetary propeller gear reduction was hydraulically shifted by engine oil boosted to 300 psi (20.68 bar) by a pump in the nose case. A .2460 reduction was available for high engine speeds, and a .3536 reduction was used for cruise operations with low engine rpm. Due to its size, the XR-7755 required two starters. Both starters were mounted vertically on the crankcase in front of the cylinder banks; one was at the 2:30 position, and the other was at the 9:30 position.

The XR-7755 had a 6.375 in (162 mm) bore and a 6.75 in (171 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 7,756 cu in (127.1 L) and had a compression ratio of 8.5 to 1. The XR-7755 produced 5,000 hp (3,728 kW) at 2,600 rpm (.2460 propeller gear) for takeoff, 4,000 hp (2,983 kW) at 2,300 rpm (.2460 propeller gear) for normal operation, and 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) at 2,100 rpm (.3536 propeller gear) for cruise power. Specific fuel consumption at normal cruise power was .43 lb/hp/hr (262 g/kW/hr), but the rate dropped to around .38 lb/hp/hr (231 g/kW/hr) at low cruise power of around 1,500 hp (1,119 kW). The engine was 61.0 in (1.55 m) in diameter, 66.25 in (1.68 m) tall, and 121.35 in (3.08 m) long. The XR-7755 weighed 6,050 lb (2,744 kg).

The XR-7755 was first run in July 1946. At the time, some 10,000 hours of single-cylinder testing had been completed. The Lycoming factory was located near a residential area. Reportedly, a nearby grocery store’s canned goods would vibrate off the shelves as the XR-7755 underwent high-power tests. A good neighbor, Lycoming went to the store and installed strips on the shelf edges to keep the cans from falling. At takeoff power, the XR-7755’s fuel consumption was 580 gallons (2,196 L) per hour, or 20.62 fl oz (.61 L) per second. The engine’s coolant pump flowed 750 gpm (2,839 l/m) to dissipate 95,600 BTUs (24,107 kcal) per minute. That is 2,504 hp (1,681 kW) of heat being rejected into the coolant, and the system’s flow rate was enough to fill a 55 gallon (208 L) drum every 4.4 seconds. The oil pump circulated 71 gpm (269 l/m) at 100 psi (6.89 bar). The oil system absorbed 25,500 BTUs (6,430 kcal) per minute, which is 601 hp (448 kW). Lycoming had an optimistic opinion of the engine and believed that an output of 7,000 hp (5,220 kW) was possible.

Most sources indicate that two XR-7755 engines were built: an XR-7755-1 with a single rotation propeller shaft and an XR-7755-3 with a contra-rotating propeller shaft. Both of these engines used carburetors. There is some indication, including the recollections of those who had family members involved with the project, that a third engine was built: an XR-7755-5 with fuel injection. Reportedly, the -1 underwent a 50-hour test run, but the results are not known. The -3 was delivered to the AAF in 1946, but it is unlikely this engine underwent much testing. It is not clear what happened to the -5, if it was completed. By the time the XR-7755 had run, the concept of an aircraft larger than the Convair B-36 Peacemaker had fallen out of favor, as had the idea of modifying the B-36 with larger piston engines. Rather, jets would be used to improve performance of the aircraft. There was no application for the XR-7755 in a post-war world with the performance of jet aircraft quickly being realized. The XR-7755 never flew.

One curious anomaly in the XR-7755’s story is an appearance of the engine at the Army Air Forces Fair held at Wright Field, Ohio in October 1945. This predates the engine’s run date and its supposed delivery to the AAF. However, the engine appears to have a mockup of its contra-rotating propeller shafts installed. It would seem that the engine is not complete and was shipped the 460 miles (740 km) from Lycoming’s factory in Williamsport, Pennsylvania to Dayton, Ohio to be displayed with other unusual treasures from the war. Presumably, the engine was returned to Lycoming after the show and was subsequently completed and tested in 1946.

The sole XR-7755-3 has been preserved by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum and is on display in the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia. Many consider the XR-7755 the largest aircraft engine ever built. However, the Soviet IAM M-44 (8,107 cu in / 132.8 L) of 1933 and Yakovlev M-501 (8,760 cu in / 143.6 L) of 1952 were larger engines. At the time it first ran, the XR-7755 was the world’s most powerful reciprocating aircraft engine.

Sources:
– “5,000-Hp. Lycoming Revealed” by J. H. Carpenter, Aviation (December 1946)
– Lycoming XR-7755 Aircraft Engine and Engineering Laboratories by Lycoming Division, The Aviation Corporation (31 October 1946)
– “The Evolution of Reciprocating Engines at Lycoming” by A. E. Light, AIAA: Evolution of Aircraft/Aerospace Structures and Materials Symposium (24–25 April 1985)
– Aircraft Engines of the World 1948 by Paul Wilkinson (1948)
– The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines by Richard A. Leyes II and William A. Fleming (1999)
– Studebaker’s XH-9350 and Their Other Aircraft Engines by William Pearce (2018)
– https://generalaviationnews.com/2007/04/20/the-xr-7755-the-whole-story/
– https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lycoming-xr-7755-3-radial-36-engine

By William Pearce

The Lycoming Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation was located in Williamsport (Lycoming County), Pennsylvania. The company had started producing aircraft engines in the late 1920s. In 1937, Lycoming became aware that its most powerful engine to date, the 12-cylinder O-1230, would not produce the power needed for future frontline military aircraft. Development of the O-1230 engine started in 1933, but the anticipated power needs of state-of-the-art aircraft were beyond what the 1,200 hp (895 kW) engine could provide. Lycoming moved quickly to apply knowledge gained from the O-1230 to a new aircraft engine.

Lycoming started the design of its new engine in 1938, and detailed design work commenced in mid-1939. The 24-cylinder engine had an H-configuration and consisted of components from two O-1230 engines combined with a new crankcase. The new two-piece aluminum crankcase was split horizontally and accommodated a left and right crankshaft. Each crankshaft served two banks of six cylinders, with one bank above the engine and the other bank below. Fork-and-blade connecting rods were used, with the forked rods serving the lower cylinders. The H-24 engine was designated XH-2470 and given the “Materiel, Experimental” code MX-211. The US Army Air Corps (AAC) initially felt that the engine was too small, but the US Navy supported the design. The Navy ordered a single prototype engine on 11 December 1939, and the AAC started to show some interest in the engine in 1940.

The Lycoming XH-2470 utilized individual cylinders that consisted of a steel barrel screwed and shrunk into an aluminum head. The liquid-cooled cylinder was surrounded by a steel water jacket. The aluminum head had a hemispherical combustion chamber with one intake valve and one sodium-cooled exhaust valve. A cam box was mounted to the top of each cylinder bank, and each cam box contained a single camshaft that was shaft-driven from the rear of the engine.

A downdraft carburetor fed fuel into the supercharger’s 12 in (305 mm) diameter impeller mounted to the rear of the engine. Lycoming had experimented with direct fuel injection on test cylinders and planned to have fuel injection available for the XH-2470, but it is unlikely that any complete engines ever used fuel injection. The XH-2470-1, -3, and -7 engines had a single-speed, single-stage supercharger that was driven at 6.142 times crankshaft speed. The XH-2470-5 had a two-speed supercharger that was driven at 6.06 and 7.88 times crankshaft speed. Intake manifolds ran between the upper and lower cylinder banks. Depending on the installation, exhaust gases were either expelled from the outer side of the cylinders via individual stacks or collected in a manifold common to each cylinder bank. Provisions were made for the engine to accommodate a turbosupercharger.

The XH-2470-1, -3, and -5 were available with a single-rotation propeller shaft using a SAE #60 spline shaft. The -1 and -3 had a .38 gear reduction. The -5 was listed as having a two-speed reduction, but the ratios have not been found. The XH-2470-7 had contra-rotating propeller shafts and a two-speed gear reduction with speeds of .433 and .321. The contra-rotating shafts were SAE #40-60 splines, with the inner shaft rotating counterclockwise and the outer shaft rotating clockwise. The gear reduction for all engines was achieved through spur gears, and the propeller shaft was positioned above the engine’s centerline. The engine could be installed in either a vertical or horizontal position.

The H-2470 had a 5.25 in (133 mm) bore and a 4.75 in (121 mm) stroke. The engine’s total displacement was 2,468 cu in (40.4 L), and it had a 6.5 to 1 compression ratio. The H-2470 produced 2,300 hp (1,715 kW) at 3,300 rpm at 1,500 ft (457 m) for takeoff, 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) at 3,100 rpm at 3,500 ft (1,067 kW) for normal operation, and 1,300 hp (969 kW) at 2,400 rpm at 15,000 ft (4,572 m) for cruise operation. In addition, the two-speed supercharged engine could achieve 1,900 hp (1,417 kW) at 3,300 rpm at 15,000 ft (4,572 m) for emergency power and 1,750 hp (1,305 kW) at 3,100 rpm at 15,000 ft (4,572 m) for normal operation. The XH-2470 had a 3,720-rpm overspeed limit for diving operations. The single-rotation engines were 89.9 in (2.28 m) long, 30.5 in (.77 m) wide, 50.3 in (1.28 m) tall, and weighed 2,430 lb (1,102 kg). The contra-rotating XH-2470-7 was approximately 114 in (2.90 m) long and weighed 2,600 lb (1,179 kg).

Before the XH-2470 had even run, Lycoming proposed a variant of the engine to satisfy the AAC’s Request for Data R40-D, which was issued on 6 March 1940. R40-D sought the design of a 4,000 to 5,500 hp (2,983 to 4,101 kW) aircraft engine for use in long-range bombers. Lycoming proposed coupling two H-2470 engines together, creating a 48-cylinder XH-4940. The XH-4940 would produce 4,800 hp (3,579 kW) at 3,100 rpm up to 8,500 ft (2,591 m) with the aid of a single-speed, single-stage supercharger. The engine had a projected maximum speed of 3,400 rpm and would weigh 6,200 lb (2,812 kg). The AAC’s R40-D ended up going nowhere, and the request was cancelled in mid-1940.

The XH-2470 was first run in July 1940. The engine was proposed for the Curtiss XF14C Naval fighter and the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose AAC fighter. The XP-54’s original power plant was the Pratt & Whitney X-1800 (XH-2240 / XH-2600), but development of this engine stopped in October 1940. It was the cancellation of the X-1800 that led to the AAC’s interest in the XH-2470, and the AAC ordered 25 (later increased to 50) engines in October 1940. The AAC was also interested in potentially using the XH-2470 to power the Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning. Bell and Northrop also expressed interest in the engine for future projects.

The XH-2470 completed a Navy acceptance test in April 1941. At the time, the XF14C and XP-54 prototypes were in the detailed design stage. However, the Army Air Force (AAF—the AAC had changed its name in June 1941) continued to alter the XP-54 requirements throughout 1941. Added to the Vultee project were Turbosuperchargers, a pressurized cockpit, and the option of the Wright R-2160 Tornado engine. It was not until 1942 when R-2160 development was seriously behind schedule that the engine was dropped from the XP-54 and a more focused installation of the XH-2470 was presented. An XH-2470-7 engine with contra-rotating propellers was intended for the XP-54, but a single rotation engine was substituted because of delays with the contra-rotating gearbox. The AAF specified two Wright TSBB turbosuperchargers for the first XP-54 prototype and a single, experimental General Electric (GE) XCM turbosupercharger for the second aircraft. Reportedly, the Navy ordered 100 XH-2470 engines in May 1942. However, this may have been a total of 100 engines on order with 50 going to the AAF and 50 to the Navy.

The first XP-54 (41-1210) made its first flight on 15 January 1943, taking off from Muroc (now Edwards) Air Force Base, California. With the exception of the first flight, the XH-2470 engine installed in the XP-54 turned a 12 ft 2 in (3.71 m) Hamilton Standard propeller. Although the aircraft handled well, its development had suffered through constant changes in design and intended role. The aircraft underperformed, and the XH-2470 engine had some issues, such as oil foaming at high RPM or at altitudes above 20,000 ft (6,096 m).

The first XP-54 was flown to Wright Field, Ohio on 28 October 1943. After the next flight, a close inspection of the XH-2470 revealed some minor issues as well as damage to the supercharger impeller. The engine was removed and sent to Lycoming for repairs. The cost to fix the engine was more than the AAF was willing to pay, which showed the AAF’s lack of interest in the XH-2470 program. The first XP-54 was removed from flight status and used as a source of spare parts for the second XP-54 aircraft. The first XP-54 had completed 86 flights and accumulated 63.2 hours of flight time.

To make matters worse, the Navy cancelled its XH-2470 order in December 1943, deciding to power the XF14C with a turbosupercharged Wright R-3350 instead. Factors that influenced this change were the Navy’s long-standing preference for air-cooled engines, a shift of the XF14C’s role to that of a high-altitude fighter, issues with the XH-2470’s developmental progress, and doubts that the engine would be ready in time to see combat during World War II. At the same time, Lycoming had moved on to another aircraft engine project, the 36-cylinder XR-7755. Lycoming had invested over $1,000,000 of its own money into the XH-2470 engine.

The second XP-54 prototype (42-108994, but incorrectly painted as 41-1211) made its first flight on 24 May 1944, taking off from Vultee Field. After at least three flights, the GE XCM turbosupercharger and the XH-2470 were removed from the aircraft. Some incompatibility between the turbosupercharger and engine had caused damage to both units. A new engine and turbosupercharger were installed, and the XP-54 flew again in December 1944. The second XP-54 made at least 10 flights, the last ending with an engine failure on 2 April 1945. The airframe had accumulated 10.7 hours of flight time.

At least one XH-2470 engine has been preserved. An XH-2470-7 is in storage at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. The engine, which was never installed in any aircraft, has contra-rotating propellers and a two-speed gear reduction. The Smithsonian also lists an XH-2470-1 engine from the XP-54 in its inventory. However, no further evidence of this engine’s existence has been found.

Sources:
– Aircraft Engines of the World 1947 by Paul Wilkinson (1947)
– American Secret Pusher Fighters of World War II by Gerald H. Balzer (2008)
– Development of Aircraft Engines and Fuels by Robert Schlaifer and S. D. Heron (1950)
– U.S. Experimental & Prototype Aircraft Projects Fighters 1939–1945 by Bill Norton (2008)
– Experimental & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters by Dennis R. Jenkins and Tony R. Landis (2008)
– The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines by Richard A. Leyes II and William A. Fleming (1999)
– Studebaker’s XH-9350 and Their Other Aircraft Engines by William Pearce (2018)
– Preliminary Model Specification for Engine Aircraft Model XH-2470-4 for Opposite Rotating Propellers by Aviation Manufacturing Corporation Lycoming Division (18 April 1940)
– “The Evolution of Reciprocating Engines at Lycoming” by A. E. Light, AIAA: Evolution of Aircraft/Aerospace Structures and Materials Symposium (24–25 April 1985)
– https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lycoming-xh-2470-7-h-24-engine
– https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lycoming-xh-2470-1-h-24-h-type-engine

By William Pearce

On 6 December 1917, Chikuhei Nakajima founded one of the first aircraft manufacturing companies in Japan. Originally known as the Japanese Aeroplane Research Institute (Nihon Hikoki Kenkyūsho), the company went through a few name changes and was reorganized as the Nakajima Aircraft Company, Ltd (Nakajima Hikōki KK) in December 1931, with Chikuhei Nakajima as its chairman. At the onset of World War II, Nakajima felt that the United States had vast industrial resources and that the attack on Pearl Harbor would have dire consequences for Japan. Nakajima believed that the only way to ensure a Japanese victory was for Japan to have a reliable method to consistently attack the US mainland. Such attacks would require the US military to divert offensive forces to defend and protect the US.

In 1942, Nakajima made his thoughts known to the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) and Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), but neither service gave Nakajima much consideration or any support. Frustrated, Nakajima used his company’s own resources to design a large bomber capable of striking the US mainland from Japan. Nakajima designated his bomber design Project Z (or Z Airplane). After months of research, Nakajima again approached the IJA and IJN in April 1943 with his Project Z proposals. The IJA and IJN were more receptive, but there was no consensus between the services on the aircraft’s design, specifications, or mission. The IJA and IJN submitted an updated proposal to Nakajima in June 1943, and through the remainder of 1943, Nakajima worked to solidify the Project Z aircraft design.

In August 1943, Nakajima distributed his thesis, “Strategy for Ultimate Victory,” to IJA and IJN officials and to prominent politicians. The thesis outlined strategic use of Project Z bombers to attack industrial targets in the US. The bombers could fly from Japan to Germany and strike targets in the western US as well as industrial areas in the mid-western states. Once in Germany, the bombers would be rearmed and refueled to make the return trip to Japan, again striking the US. The attacks, combined with their effect on production, was predicted to halt the US advance against Japan and aid in the defense of Germany.

Although several different designs and configurations were investigated, the Project Z aircraft that entered development was a six-engine, long-range bomber of all metal construction. The proposed aircraft had a wingspan of 213.2 ft (64.98 m), a length of 147.6 ft (44.98 m), and a height of 28.8 ft (8.77 m). Project Z had an empty weight of 143,300 lb (65,000 kg) and a maximum weight of 352,739 lb (160,000 kg). The bomber’s top speed was 422 mph (679 km/h) at 32,808 ft (10,000 m). Project Z had a maximum range of 11,185 miles (18,000 km) and a ceiling of 49,213 ft (15,000 m).

Such a massive aircraft required very powerful engines; however, no engine in Japan had the power that Project Z required. To solve this issue, Nakajima decided to make a power plant that could support Project Z by coupling together two existing [Ha-44] engines. The [Ha-44] was the most powerful engine that Nakajima was developing, and the new combined engine for Project Z was designated [Ha-54].

The heritage of Nakajima’s radial engines lies in licenses the company acquired to produce the Bristol Jupiter, Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp, Wright R-1820 Cyclone, and Gnome-Rhône 14M. Nakajima obtained the Jupiter license in 1925, the Wasp license in 1929, the Cyclone license in 1933, and the 14M license in 1937. While Jupiter engines were produced, the Wasp and Cyclone licenses were obtained to gain knowledge, and Nakajima did not produce those engines. Many Nakajima radial engines used a 146 mm bore, which directly corresponded to the Jupiter’s 5.75 in bore, and several Nakajima personnel spent a few months in the US being instructed by Wright as part of the license agreement. The general construction of Nakajima radials resembled a combination of Bristol, Pratt & Whitney, and Wright engines, and Nakajima engineers consistently incorporated their own thoughts and ideas into their engines.

When Nakajima started to develop their own engines in the late 1920s, their designation system consisted of their name and the engine type followed by the engine model letter. As an example, the designation “NAL” represented Nakajima Air-cooled L model. When Nakajima started to develop a new class of high-power engines in the early 1940s, the focus was on air-cooled engines. Subsequently, the letter “N” and the engine type were dropped from the engine designation system. A new letter was used to designate the next generation of engines, followed by the engine model letter. As an example, the designation “BH” stood for B generation H model.

Japanese companies, the IJA, and the IJN all had their own designations for engines. To eliminate confusion (or perhaps add more), a joint designation system was introduced in May 1943. Nakajima [Ha-44] was the joint designation for the engine that would be the basis for Project Z’s engines. The [Ha-44] carried the Nakajima designation BH, the IJA designation Ha-219, and the IJN designation NK11. The [Ha-44] was an experimental, 2,942 cu in (48.2 L), 18-cylinder, air-cooled, radial engine. Development of the [Ha-44] began around 1941, and the engine was based on the 14-cylinder Nakajima [Ha-34] (Nakajima NAL, IJA Ha-41/Ha-109, and IJN NK5). By mid-1943, the [Ha-44] was producing 2,400 hp (1,790 kW) at 2,700 rpm. Two [Ha-44] power sections would be connected to make up the [Ha-54] engine.

The [Ha-54] engine carried the Nakajima designation D-BH, for Double-BH. It was also designated Nakajima Ha-505 by the IJA but had no known IJN designation. Developed under chief designer Kiyoshi Tanaka, the engine was a 36-cylinder, air-cooled radial with two-stage supercharging. The [Ha-54] was comprised of two [Ha-44] engine sections bolted together via an intermediate section. The two engine sections formed a single four-row radial engine with nine-cylinders in each row. The crankshafts of the two engine sections were directly joined, and neither engine section could operate without the other.

The [Ha-54] used cylinders constructed of an aluminum head that was screwed onto a steel barrel. Each cylinder had two valves that were actuated by pushrods driven by cam rings. Exhaust gases flowed into a collector ring positioned behind the engine. Two ducts led from the collector ring, with each duct delivering the exhaust to a turbosupercharger located farther aft in the engine nacelle. The pressurized air from the turbosupercharger was fed through an intercooler and into a three-speed, mechanically-driven supercharger at the rear of the engine. The supercharger’s impeller was 19.69 in (500 mm) in diameter, and it was driven at 1.00, 4.77, or 5.88 times crankshaft speed. The fully-charged air from the supercharger was directed to an annular manifold at the center of the engine. Induction air for the front and rear engine sections was distributed from this central manifold. Because of this configuration, cylinders on the front engine section had rear-facing intake and exhaust ports, while the cylinders on the rear engine section had front facing intake ports and rear facing exhaust ports. Other methods to distribute air into the cylinders were investigated, including the use of two supercharger impellers at the rear of the engine, with each impeller dedicated to one engine section. In addition, some versions of the engine did not employ a turbosupercharger.

Some sources state a low pressure fuel injection system was planned for the [Ha-54] engine. Other Nakajima engines injected the fuel directly before the impeller at 14 psi (.97 bar). However, a different fuel injection point may have been selected to avoid the constant presence of a volatile air/fuel mixture in the annular induction ring at the center of the engine. Anti-detonation injection was also available for takeoff or emergency power.

Cooling the huge engine posed a serious issue, and much research was devoted to finding an adequate solution. Investigations were conducted to employ fan-assisted, forced-air cooling with an engine-driven fan positioned at either the front or rear of the engine. Another plan involved ram-air cooling for the front engine section and reverse cooling for the rear engine section. In this configuration, baffling separated the air flow from the front and rear engine sections. Air to cool the rear engine section was brought in via the wing’s leading edge, made a 180-degree turn, flowed through the cylinders of the rear engine section, and exited cowl flaps positioned at the middle of the engine.

The final cooling configuration involved an engine-driven fan at the front of the cowling. Air was ducted through the cooling fins of the front engine section’s cylinders. The air then exited cowl flaps at the center of the engine cowling. Separately, air was ducted over the cylinders of the front engine section and through the cooling fins of the rear engine section’s cylinders. This air then exited via cowl flaps at the rear of the engine cowling.

At the front of the [Ha-54] engine, the crankshaft drove a propeller gear reduction and the cooling fan. The planetary gear reduction turned the propeller at .414 times crankshaft speed. Both single-rotation and contra-rotating propellers were considered, with the final decision in favor of six-blade (or possibly eight-blade) contra-rotating propellers that had a diameter of 14.8 ft (4.5 m). The [Ha-54] engine would be supported by a series of mounting rings that connected to the engine at its center and rear.

The Nakajima [Ha-54] had a 5.75 in bore (146 mm) and a 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. The 36-cylinder engine had a 7.5 to 1 compression ratio and a total displacement of 5,885 cu in (96.4 L). The [Ha-54] had a maximum output of 5,000 hp (3,728 kW) at 2,800 rpm with 11.6 psi (.80 bar) of boost for takeoff and 4,600 hp (3,430 kW) at 2,800 rpm with 7.73 psi (.53 bar) of boost at 29,528 ft (9,000 m). The engine had a diameter of 61 in (1.55 m) and was 141 in (3.58 m) long. The [Ha-54] weighed approximately 5,400 lb (2,450 kg).

The question of cooling the [Ha-54] was never entirely resolved, and development of the engine was forecasted to take too long. By January 1944, work on the [Ha-54] had stopped, and it is unlikely that a complete engine was ever built. With the the cancellation of the 5,000 hp (3,728 kW) [Ha-54], a scaled-down version of the Project Z aircraft was designed and powered by [Ha-44] engines, which had been developed to 2,500 hp (1,864 kW). The new aircraft, designated Nakajima G10N Fugaku (Mount Fiji) was slightly smaller but still possessed the same, six-engine configuration as Project Z. By the summer of 1944, all of Japan’s resources were needed to protect the homeland, and the prospect of a long-range bomber attacking the US mainland was out of reach. The G10N Fugaku was cancelled, and all work stopped on its engines.

After World War II, the Nakajima Aircraft Company became the Fuji Industrial Company, Ltd. (Fuji Sangyo KK). In July 1953, the company merged with four others to form Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Fuji Jūkōgyō Kabushiki-gaisha). Fuji Heavy Industries manufactured Subaru automobiles and supplied equipment for the aerospace and transportation industries. In April 2017, Fuji Heavy Industries was renamed the Subaru Corporation.

Sources:
– Japanese Aero-Engines 1910–1945 by Mike Goodwin and Peter Starkings (2017)
– Japanese Secret Projects 1 by Edwin M. Dyer III (2009)
– “Nakajima Engine Design and Development” Air Technical Intelligence Group Report No. 45 by J. H. Morse (5 November 1945)
– “Nakajima Aircraft Company, LTD” The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Corporation Report No. II (June 1947)
– https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=24084.0
– http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/japanese.shtml
– http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/199974/Ha-505-Ha-54-01
– https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%8C%E5%B6%BD

By William Pearce

The first original engine made by the Fairey Aviation Company (FAC) was the P.12 Prince. Designed by Captain Archibald Graham Forsyth, the Prince was a 1,559 cu in (25.5 L) V-12 that was ultimately rated at 750 hp (559 kW) for normal output and 900 hp (671 kW) for maximum output.

Seeking more power, Forsyth investigated a 16-cylinder engine designated P.16 that displaced 2,078 cu in (34.1 L). A V-16 design was initially considered, but the configuration was changed over concerns regarding the engine’s length combined with excessive torsional vibrations and stress of the long crankshaft. The P.16 configuration was switched to an H-16 with four banks of four cylinders. However, by switching to an H-24 configuration with four banks of six cylinders, a more powerful engine could be developed that would possess the same frontal area as the H-16. In fact, there is little evidence from primary sources that indicates a P.16 engine or an H-16 configuration were ever seriously considered. Design work on the H-24 engine had begun by October 1935. The H-24 engine was designated P.24 and may have been initially named “Prince” (like the P.12). For a time, the P.24 was called “Queen,” but the name was later changed to “Monarch.”

The Fairey P.24 Monarch was a vertical H engine in which the left and right 12-cylinder engine sections could be operated independently of each other. The aluminum crankcase was made of an upper and lower half. Each bank of six cylinders was mounted to the crankcase. An aluminum cylinder head attached to the cylinder bank. The P.24 retained the bore and stroke of the P.12 (and P.16) engine. Each cylinder had two intake valves and one exhaust valve, all actuated by a single overhead camshaft driven from the rear of the engine. The 1.8125 in (46 mm) diameter intake valves were operated by a T-type tappet, and the 2.25 in (57 mm) diameter exhaust valve was operated directly by the camshaft. It is interesting to note that various British patents (no. 463,501 and 465,540) filed by FAC and Forsyth show four valves per cylinder. No information has been found of a four-valve head being fitted to a P.24 engine.

Mounted to each side of the engine was a single-stage, two-speed supercharger with two carburetors mounted on its inlet. The superchargers were driven from the rear of the engine at 8.3475 times crankshaft speed through three step-up gears. Via a short manifold, each supercharger delivered air into passageways cast integral with the crankcase, cylinder bank, and cylinder head. A single passageway brought air into two cylinders. It was noted in British patent 463,501 that having intake passageways cast integral with the crankcase made the engine cleaner, more rigid, and opened the vertical space between the cylinder banks for either an oil cooler or gun. However, if a gun were to be considered, the crankcase construction did not allow it to fire through the propeller hub. Rather, the gun would need to be synchronized to fire through the propellers.

The air/fuel mixture was ignited by two spark plugs—one on each side of the cylinder. The spark plugs were fired by four magnetos mounted to the rear of the engine. The upper two magnetos fired the spark plugs located on the inner side of the cylinders, and the lower two magnetos fired the spark plugs located on the outer side of the cylinders. The left and right sides of the P.24 had the same firing order: 1U, 5L, 4U, 1L, 2U, 4L, 6U, 2L, 3U, 6L, 5U, and 3L. The first and last cylinders had their own exhaust stack, but the middle four cylinders were paired off with a shared exhaust stack. This arrangement gave the P.24 16 exhaust stacks, which often caused the engine to be mistaken for an H-16.

At the front of the engine, each crankshaft was geared to a separate propeller shaft at a .5435 reduction. The two propeller shafts made up a coaxial, contra-rotating unit. The crankshafts and accessories for each engine section rotated in opposite directions. When viewed from the rear, the left crankshaft rotated clockwise and powered the front propeller. The right crankshaft rotated counterclockwise and powered the rear propeller. The P.24’s fully-adjustable, contra-rotating propeller was developed by FAC. Each crankshaft had six throws and was supported by eight main bearings. The pistons were connected to the crankshaft by fork-and-blade connecting rods, with the fork rod servicing the lower cylinders and the blade rod servicing the upper cylinders. Since they rotated in opposite directions, the crankshafts and engine accessories were not interchangeable.

When either the left or right side of the engine was shut down, the other side of the engine would continue to operate and power its propeller. This gave any aircraft powered by a P.24 engine the reliability of two engines without the drawback of asymmetrical thrust in an engine-out situation. This configuration also allowed half of the engine to be shut down to extend the aircraft’s range or loiter time. Although the cooling and oil systems of the engine sections were separate, they used common tanks and coolers during engine tests. It was noted that completely separate coolers and tanks could be installed in an aircraft to make the engine sections truly independent of one another.

The Fairey P.24 Monarch had a 5.25 in (133 mm) bore, a 6.0 in (152 mm) stroke, and a compression ratio of 6 to 1. The engine displaced 3,117 cu in (51.1 L) and was originally rated for 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) at 2,600 rpm. However, Forsyth felt the engine could be developed to 2,600 hp (1,939 kW) at 3,000 rpm. The two-speed superchargers gave critical altitudes of 6,000 and 13,000 ft (1,829 and 3,962 m). Fuel consumption was .63 lb/hp/hr (383 g/kW/h) at takeoff, .55 lb/hp/hr (335 g/kW/h) at full power, and .45 lb/hp/hr (274 g/kW/h) at 60% throttle. The P.24 engine was 86.25 in (2.19 m) long, 43.0 in (1.09 m) wide, and 52.5 in (1.33 m) tall. The engine weighed around 2,330 lb (1,057 kg), although 2,180 lb (989 kg) is given by many sources. Perhaps the discrepancy in reported weight is a result of the engine’s weight changing with the installation of various accessories.

The P.24 was first run in 1938. The test cell at FAC was not built for the full power of the P.24, so just half of the engine was run at a time. By 6 October 1938, the engine was successfully completing two-hour runs without issues. Arrangements were made to install the P.24 in a Fairey Battle light bomber, and the engine was being considered for use in the Hawker Tornado fighter. The P.24 started its 50-hour civil type test on 13 May 1939 and successfully completed the test on 14 June 1939. For the test, the engine ratings were a normal output of 1,200 hp (895 kW) at 10,500 ft (3,200 m) and 2,400 rpm, and a maximum output of 1,450 hp (1,081 kW) at 10,500 ft (3,200 m) and 2,750 rpm. It appears that a single-speed supercharger delivering just .5 psi (.04 bar) of boost was used for the 50-hour test.

The P.24-powered Battle (K9370) first flew on 30 June 1939, piloted by Christopher S. Staniland. A short time later, a P.24 test engine achieved 1,540 hp (1,148 kW) at 2,600 rpm with 3 psi (.21 bar) of boost for takeoff. With P.24 tests moving forward, FAC looked to apply the engine to new aircraft designs. On 19 October 1939, FAC proposed using the P.24 engine in aircraft designed to specifications N8/39 and N9/39. Designed by FAC chief designer Marcel Lobelle, the same basic single-engine, two-seat fighter design was used to satisfy both specifications, with the addition of a turret for N9/39. In Lobelle’s drawings, the FAC engine was labeled as the “Queen,” but it was visually identical to the P.24 as built. In addition, the late-1939 time frame was after FAC had moved away from 16-cylinder engine designs. In the late-1939 proposals, the engine was rated at 1,320 hp (984 kW) for takeoff and 1,170 hp (872 kW) at 15,000 ft (4,572 m).

During 1940, a number of short runs were made up to 1,750 hp (1,305 kW), but there were no long periods of running at these high outputs. Trouble was experienced with the superchargers and main bearings. A maximum of 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) was achieved, but not with both halves of the engine running at the same time. Each individual engine half achieved an output of 1,100 hp (820 kW), adding up to the 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) figure. In fact, each engine half made two runs at 1,100 hp (820 kW), but the runs were only a short duration of two minutes each.

In October 1940, the Air Ministry made it clear that no production orders for the P.24 engine would be placed. Instead, the focus was on other engines already further developed and being designed by established engine manufacturers with greater facilities for production. In April 1941, the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) expressed some interest in the P.24. Since the P.24 had twin-engine reliability, and its contra-rotating propellers eliminated torque reaction, the engine was ideally suited for carrier operations. However, the Air Ministry again asserted that there would be no production of the engine. This did not stop FAC from continuing to push the P.24 engine, even proposing in mid-1942 that the Fairey Firefly carrier fighter should be re-engined with a P.24 that would produce 2,150 hp (1,603 kW) at 3,000 rpm. The Air Ministry was not interested, and the plan went no further. The P.24-powered Battle was turned over to Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough on 12 July 1941. By this time, P.24 engines on test had been run 20 hours at 2,000–2,100 hp (1,491–1,566 kW) and five hours at 2,100–2,300 hp (1,566–1,715 kW).

Fairey had discussed the P.24 engine with United States Army Air Force (AAF) officials in June 1941. The following month, Forsyth visited the US to give more details about the engine. Fairey and Forsyth felt that the Air Ministry had made a mistake in exclusively backing the Napier Sabre and not providing any support for the P.24. They wanted P.24 development and production to continue in the US; production in the US by an established engine manufacturer would be easier than FAC undertaking the task themselves. By this time, the name “Monarch” was applied to the P.24 engine. In August 1941, the AAF stated that they were not interested in the development or production of the P.24 engine, but they were interested the in the contra-rotating propellers developed for the engine. However, Fairey stated in a letter dated November 1941 that Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio had prepared three-view drawings of the P.24 installed in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter and the Curtiss A-25 Shrike (SB2C Helldiver) dive bomber. Fairey also stated that the Ford Motor Company was engaged in discussions about producing the engine.

The apparent reversal of the AAF’s interest in P.24 production seems odd, and it may have been more optimism on Fairey’s part than what was really expressed by the AAF. Fairey did want to get the engine to the US, and claiming that the AAF was interested was the quickest way to get the cooperation of the Air Ministry, who had been battling Fairey for quite some time. Regardless of the AAF’s level of interest in the engine, they were certainly interested in the contra-rotating propellers. The P.24-powered Battle was shipped to the US on 5 December 1941. Another P.24 engine was delivered to Farnborough for further testing, and a third Monarch engine was prepared for shipping to the US. With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the second P.24 engine was never sent to the US.

Many sources state that the P.24 engine was considered to replace the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 in the P-47. It should be noted that an order for 773 P-47Bs (602 were finished as P-47Cs) was placed in September 1940; the XP-47B made its first flight on 6 May 1941, and an order for 805 P-47Ds was placed in October 1941. All of this P-47 activity occurred before the AAF touched the P.24 engine and before the US entered World War II. An additional 1,050 P-47Ds and 354 P-47Gs were ordered in January 1942, before the AAF had much, if any, time to evaluate the P.24 engine. It would seem that the AAF was quite content with the R-2800 engine, since full-scale P-47 production was underway, and 2,982 aircraft were on order. A request from Fairey dated January 1943 sought a new set of propellers for a P.24 engine installed in a P-47. At the time, the P-47 was two months away from entering combat, with hundreds of aircraft produced and thousands on order. It seems highly unlikely that any engine change would have been seriously considered by the AAF.

When the AAF received the P.24-powered Battle at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio, it had around 87 hours of flight time. The P.24 engine had a takeoff rating of 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) and military ratings of 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) at 6,000 ft (1,829 m) and 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) at 13,000 ft (3,962 m); all ratings were at 3,000 rpm with 9 psi (.62 bar) of boost and using 87 octane fuel. Forsyth believed the engine was capable of 2,600 hp (1,939 kW) with 100 octane fuel. The AAF found the coaxial propellers and the “double engine” concept novel, but found the rest of the engine conventional. The AAF felt the design of the P.24 limited its further development. Since the intake manifolds were cast into the engine’s crankcase, a complete redesign would need to be undertaken to improve their flow. As it was, the intake manifolds fed the air/fuel mixture clumsily into the cylinders through five turns, some of which were fairly sharp 90-degree bends. The integrally cast manifold also caused the air/fuel mixture to be heated as it flowed to the cylinders. Another issue was that the gear reduction housing was cast integral with the crankcase. If a failure caused damage to the gear reduction housing, the entire crankcase would need to be scrapped. With all of the integral components, the two crankcase castings were large and complex. The AAF also noted the non-interchangeability of the crankshafts and other components. The AAF remarked that BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) achieved by the P.24 at 3,000 rpm with 9 psi (.62 bar) of boost was matched by the Allison V-3420 with 3.75 psi (.26 bar) of boost at the same rpm. In addition, the relatively low critical altitude of the P.24 meant the Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 series had a 160 hp (119 kW) advantage at 30,000 ft (9,144 m).

Of course, enhancements to the P.24 could be made, and Forsyth suggested that further development of the engine be conducted in the US. This included increasing the bore of the P.24 to 5.5 in (140 mm), which would give a displacement of 3,421 cu in (56.1 L) and an output of 3,000 hp (2,237 kW). In addition, a P.32 could be built with four banks of eight cylinders for a total displacement of 4,156 cu in (68.1 L). The bore of the 32-cylinder P.32 could also be increased to 5.5 in (140 mm) for a total displacement of 4,562 cu in (74.8 L). A 24-cylinder engine with a 6.0 in (152 mm) bore and stroke could be developed that would displace 4,072 cu in (66.7 L) and produce 3,400 hp (2,535 kW).

Additions to the basic P.24 included developing a two-stage supercharger that would enable the engine to produce around 1,800 hp (1,342 kW) at 36,000 ft (10,973 m). The AAF mentioned that the stages would be separate, with one stage driven from the propeller gear reduction at the front of the engine. In May 1942, Forsyth applied for a US patent (no. 2,470,155) that addressed some of the AAF’s concerns regarding the engine’s gear reduction and supercharger. The patent outlines the basic P.24 engine but with a detachable propeller gear reduction. The engine could be used in a variety of aircraft, and different gear reductions would be fitted to provide the desired propeller rpm based on the aircraft’s role. An extension could be installed between the engine and propeller gear reduction that had a mounting to drive an additional supercharger on each side of the engine. In addition, different superchargers with their own gearing could be installed on the engine to provide different levels of boost based on the needs of the aircraft. In some configurations, superchargers could be engaged as the aircraft gained altitude. In addition, US patent 2,470,155 described how P.24 engines could be coupled to create an H-48 engine. A 48-cylinder engine would displace 6,234 cu in (102 L) and produce over 4,400 hp (3,281 kW).

In June 1942, FAC and Forsyth applied for another US patent (no. 2,395,262) that detailed another supercharger configuration, but with a turbosupercharger mounted to the front of the engine. This configuration was briefly mentioned in US patent 2,470,155. In US patent 2,395,262, the turbosupercharger was the first stage and was powered by the exhaust gases from the top row of cylinders. Exhaust from the lower cylinders was combined with the exhaust from the turbosupercharger. The pressurized air flowed from the turbosupercharger to the gear-driven supercharger at the rear of the engine. The air was pressurized further and directed into the engine via manifolds as seen on the P.24.

Forsyth had been considering the combined turbo and supercharger arrangement since before the P.24 first ran. This concept was outlined in a British patent (no. 463,984) applied for in 1935 and granted in 1937. In this patent, the turbosuperchargers would be mounted on the sides of the engine, outside of the induction manifolds. The gear-driven supercharger would be run alone for low altitude operation, and the turbosupercharger would provide additional boost at higher altitudes. At a certain altitude, valves would open, allowing engine exhaust into the turbosupercharger to start its operation. At the same time, valves on the gear-driven supercharger’s inlet pipes would close. The turbosupercharger would become the first stage of charging and feed air into the gear-driven supercharger, in which fuel would be added and the mixture further pressurized before being fed into the cylinders.

Forsyth also suggested developing a jet engine section to be added to the P.24. British patent 591,048 described the P.24 employed in a semi-motorjet configuration. Behind the piston engine was a supercharger, and behind the supercharger was a large, engine-driven compressor. Fuel was injected and ignited in the compressor to generate thrust. Three different power options were available: the engine could drive the propellers only; the engine could drive both the propellers and the compressor; or the propellers could be disengaged, and the engine would drive the compressor alone, the compressor generating the thrust needed to maintain flight. A series of clutches connected or disconnected the propellers, piston engine, and compressor.

British patent 591,189 described a very similar engine concept as the semi-motorjet listed above; however, two compressors were used. Each engine section had its own compressor section, and the piston engine’s superchargers were again located on the side of the engine. In addition to the power options listed in the previously mentioned patent, one engine section could drive one propeller, while the other engine section could drive one compressor. Both of the patents that incorporated compressors with the P.24 engine were applied for in 1944 and granted in 1947.

Forsyth even thought about using P.24 components to create a marine engine. US patent 2,389,663 outlines P.24 cylinder banks being used in a U-12 configuration. Two U-12 engine sections would be combined to create a U-24 engine. The drive for the contra-rotating marine propellers would come from between the two U-12 engine sections. The patent notes that the six-cylinder engine sections could be run independently and that the superchargers could be engaged or disengaged. Low-speed operation would consist of running one six-cylinder engine section without supercharging. High-speed operation would employ all 24 cylinders and four superchargers.

All of these inventive propulsive ideas came to naught. As previously mentioned, the British supported the Sabre and not the P.24. The AAF felt that only 2,460 hp (1,834 kW) at 3,000 rpm would be obtained from the P.24 (as built) with 100 octane fuel and that no part of the engine was so remarkable that it warranted production in the US. This opinion did not stop the AAF from adding 250 hours of flight time to the P.24 before the Battle was returned to Britain in 1943. The aircraft logged around 340 hours powered by the P.24 engine.

Some suggest that if FAC had received the resources given to Napier for development of the Sabre, the P.24 would have been a phenomenal engine. The P.24 was a good engine, but its performance does not appear to be exceedingly remarkable for the era in which it was developed. While it is true that the P.24 performed reliably, the 3,117 cu in (51.1 L) engine was producing under 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) for most of its developmental life. A P.24 Monarch engine and its contra-rotating propellers survived and are currently on display in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton. The engine and propellers were most likely those used on the Battle.

Sources:
– Fairey Aircraft since 1915 by H. A. Taylor (1988)
– British Piston Aero-Engines and their Aircraft by Alec Lumsden (2003)
– World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines by Bill Gunston (2006)
– Fairey Firefly by W. Harrison (1992)
– Report on 50 Hours Civil Category Type Test Fairey P.24 – Series I (October 1939)
– Memorandum Report on Fairey P-24 (Monarch) Engine by B. Beaman, F. L. Prescott, E. A. Wolfe, and Opie Chenoweth (22 August 1941)
– Memorandum Report on Evaluation of P-24 Engine and Coaxial Rotating Propellers by Air Cops Material Division (27 August 1941)
– “Improvements in or relating to Gaseous Fuel Induction Pipes for Internal Combustion Engine” British patent 463,501 by Fairey Aviation Company and Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 1 April 1937)
– “Improvements in or relating to Supercharging Internal Combustion Engines” British patent 463,984 by Fairey Aviation Company and Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 9 April 1937)
– “Improvements in or relating to Valve Mechanism for Internal Combustion Engines” British patent 465,540 by Fairey Aviation Company and Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 10 May 1937)
– “Improvements in or relating to Power Plants for Aircraft” British patent 469,615 by Fairey Aviation Company and Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 29 July 1937)
– “Marine Power Unit” US patent 2,389,663 by Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 27 November 1945)
– “Supercharging Arrangement” US patent 2,395,262 by Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 19 February 1946)
– “A Power Unit for Aircraft and the like” British patent 591,048 by Fairey Aviation Company and Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 5 August 1947)
– “Improvements in or relating to Power Units” British patent 591,189 by Fairey Aviation Company and Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 11 August 1947)
– “Supercharged Multiple Motor Internal-Combustion Unit for Aircraft” US patent 2,448,789 by Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 7 September 1948)
– “Power Plant Assembly” US patent 2,470,155 by Archibald Graham Forsyth (granted 17 May 1949)
– http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/fairey-aero-engines-any-good-info.30710/

By William Pearce

In 1900, Cesare Isotta and Vincenzo Fraschini formed Isotta Fraschini (IF) in Milan, Italy. The firm originally imported automobiles, but began manufacturing its own vehicles by 1904. In 1908, IF started experimenting with aircraft engines and began producing them by 1911. The company went on to build successful lines of air-cooled and water-cooled engines. In the early 1930s, IF experienced financial issues caused in part by the great depression. In 1932, the Italian aircraft manufacturer Caproni purchased IF and continued production of automobiles and engines (both aircraft and marine).

In the late 1930s, IF developed a pair of inverted, 60 degree, V-12, air-cooled engines. The first of the engines was the Gamma. The Gamma had a 4.92 in (125 mm) bore and a 5.12 in (130 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 1,168 cu in (19.1 L) and produced 542 hp (404 kW) at 2,600 rpm. The second engine was the Delta; it had the same architecture as the Gamma but had a larger bore and stroke of 5.20 in (132 mm) and 6.30 in (160 mm) respectively. The Delta displaced 1,603 cu in (26.3 L) and produced 790 hp (589 kW) at 2,500 rpm.

In 1939, the Ministero dell’Aeronautica (Italian Air Ministry) worked to import Daimler-Benz aircraft engines from Germany and obtain licenses for their production. IF decided to design an engine powerful enough to compete with the Daimler-Benz engines or replace them if sufficient quantities could not be imported.

To speed engine development, IF created the new engine using as much existing technology as possible. Essentially, two Gamma engines were mounted on a common crankcase in an X configuration to create the new engine, which was called the Zeta. The use of air-cooling and a single crankshaft simplified the design of the 24-cylinder Zeta engine.

The Isotta Fraschini Zeta was made up of an aluminum crankcase with four cylinder banks, each with six individual cylinders. All cylinder banks were positioned 90 degrees from one another. Each air-cooled cylinder was secured to the crankcase by ten bolts, and the cylinder’s steel liner extended into the crankcase. Each cylinder had two spark plugs that were fired by magnetos positioned at the rear of the cylinder bank.

Each cylinder had one intake and one exhaust valve. Mounted to the top of each bank of cylinders was a camshaft housing that contained dual overhead camshafts. A vertical shaft at the rear of the cylinder bank directly drove the exhaust camshaft. A short cross shaft drove the intake camshaft from the exhaust camshaft. The crankshaft was supported by seven plain bearings, and each connecting rod served four cylinders via a master rod and three articulating rods.

An accessory section at the rear of the engine drove the magnetos, vertical drives for the camshafts, and a single-stage supercharger. The supercharger forced air through intake manifolds between the upper and lower cylinder Vees. The exhaust gases were expelled from the cylinders via individual stacks between the left and right cylinder Vees. A pressurized air starting system was used, and the engine had a compression ratio of 6.5 to 1. The Zeta maintained the 4.92 in (125 mm) bore and 5.12 in (130 mm) stroke of the Gamma. The Zeta displaced 2,336 cu in (38.3 L) and produced 1,233 hp (919 kW) at 2,700 rpm. The engine was around 68 in (1.73 m) long, and 39 in (1.00 m) wide and tall. The Zeta weighed approximately 1,675 lb (760 kg).

The Zeta RC45 was first run on 28 February 1941, and development was slowed due to various design issues. The engine was also having trouble making the forecasted output, with only around 1,085 hp (809 kW) being achieved. As development progressed, many of the issues were resolved, but the engine still lacked power. In May 1943, the Zeta RC24/60 with a two-speed supercharger was run, but the engine was not able to pass its type test. A number of aircraft were considered for conversion from their initial engines to the Zeta, but serious progress was made on only two aircraft.

The Caproni Vizzola F.6M was an all-metal aircraft based on the Caproni Vizzola F.5 but powered by a 1,475 hp (1,100 kW), liquid-cooled, Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine. While the F.6M was being developed, the design of a second version of the aircraft powered by a Zeta RC45 engine was initiated on 7 October 1941. The new design was called F.6MZ (or just F.6Z). The Zeta-powered aircraft was ordered on 16 June 1942, and it was assigned serial number (Matricola Militare) MM.498. The engine change came about because reliable deliveries of the DB 605 and its license-built contemporary, the FIAT RA 1050, could not be assured.

Progress on the Caproni Vizzola F.6MZ was delayed because of the engine. While the F.6M first flew in September 1941, it was not until 14 August 1943 that the F.6MZ took flight. The F.6MZ had a tight-fitting cowling that bulged around the engine’s four valve covers, and four rows of short exhaust stacks protruded from the cowling. Cooling air was taken in from around the spinner, and the air was expelled via an annular slot at the rear of the cowling. An oil cooler was housed in a chin radiator below the cowling.

First flown by Antonio Moda, the F.6MZ had an estimated top speed of 391 mph (630 km/h), some 37 mph (60 km/h) faster than the F.6M. This speed seems optimistic, considering the Zeta had an output of at least 225 hp (168 kW) less than the DB 605 and that the F.6MZ could not have produced significantly less drag or have been much lighter than the F.6M. The Zeta engine experienced overheating issues throughout the flight test program—the rear cylinders did not have sufficient airflow for proper cooling. Some modifications were made, but further flight tests were halted with Italy’s surrender on 8 September 1943. Two F.6MZ aircraft were ordered, but only the first prototype was built.

In October 1941, Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) requested that Reggiane (Officine Meccaniche Reggiane) replace the DB 605 / FIAT RA 1050 in its RE 2005 Sagittario fighter with the IF Zeta RC24/60. Reggiane was another company owned by Caproni. The Zeta-powered aircraft, developed after the RE 2005, was the Reggiane RE 2004, and seven examples were ordered. Although Reggiane was less enthusiastic about the Zeta than Caproni Vizzola, they did work on designing a firewall-forward engine package.

A Zeta engine was not delivered to Reggiane until 1943. At the time, Reggiane was building Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero three-engined bombers. One SM.79 was modified to have the Zeta engine installed in the nose position. This would enable the engine to be flight tested, and the cooling characteristics of the cowling configuration could be evaluated before the engine was used in the RE 2004. Compared to the F.6Z cowling, the Reggiane cowling had a larger diameter but was a cleaner design. Again, cooling air was brought in from around the spinner and exited through an annular slot at the rear of the cowling, and an oil cooler was positioned below the cowling. The Reggiane installation used exhaust stacks that ended with two close rows along the sides of the cowling. It appears that the Italian surrender occurred before the Zeta engine was ever flown in the SM.79. In fact, the Zeta RC24/60 was never cleared for flight, and the engine used in the SM.79 was most likely a mockup without all of its internal components. Although never built, the RE 2004 had an estimated top speed of 385 mph (620 km/h), 36 mph (58 km/h) slower than the RE 2005. At 7,117 lb (3,228 kg), the RE 2004 was 842 lb (382 kg) lighter than the RE 2005.

IF also designed the Sigma, a larger X-24 engine using cylinders and other components from the inverted, V-12, air-cooled Delta. The Sigma had a 5.20 in (132 mm) bore and 6.30 in (160 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 3,207 cu in (52.5 L) and had an estimated output of 1,578 hp (1,178 kW) at 2,400 rpm. The Sigma was never built, but its approximate dimensions were 82 in (2.08 m) long, and 45 in (1.15 m) wide and tall. The engine weighed around 2,160 lb (980 kg).

Sources:
– https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotta_Fraschini_Zeta
– Tutti gli aerie del Re by Max Vinerba (2011)
– Italian Civil and Military Aircraft 1930-1945 by Jonathan W. Thompson (1963)
– I Reggiane dall’ A alla Z by Sergio Govi (1985)
– The Caproni-Reggiane Fighters 1938-1945 by Piero Prato (1969)
– Ali E Motori D’Italia by Emilio Bestetti (1939)
– Isotta Fraschini: The Noble Pride of Italy by Tim Nichols (1971)

By William Pearce

In the mid-1930s, the United States Army Air Corps (AAC) was interested in a long-range bomber. Boeing won a contract to build the aircraft, which was originally designated XBLR-1 (eXperimental Bomber Long Range-1), but ultimately became the XB-15. By 1935, the AAC realized that current engines, and those under development, lacked the power needed for such a large aircraft. At the time, the AAC was pursuing its next experimental long-range bomber, the Douglas XBLR-2. The AAC requested the Allison Engineering Company build a 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) engine for the XBLR-2, which later became the XB-19.

In 1935, Allison was in the middle of developing its 1,000 hp (746 kW) V-1710 engine. The AAC requested that the new 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) engine have a single crankshaft and use as many V-1710 components as possible to keep development time to a minimum. After evaluating a few different configurations, Allison decided to double the V-1710 to create a 24-cylinder engine in an X configuration. This engine became the X-3420.

The X-3420 would have an entirely new crankcase, crankshaft, gear reduction, supercharger, and accessory section, but it would keep the basic V-1710 cylinder and head. The X-3420 had a flattened X arrangement with a left and right cylinder bank angle of 60 degrees, an upper cylinder bank angle of 90 degrees, and a lower cylinder bank angle of 150 degrees. The fuel-injected engine would produce 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) at 2,400 rpm for takeoff and 1,000 hp (746 kW) at 1,800 rpm for economical cruise. The engine would have an 8.5 to 1 compression ratio and weigh 2,160 lb (980 kg).

While using as many V-1710 components as possible made Allison’s job easier, the X-3420’s single crankshaft and its master and articulating rods required much design work, as did its fuel-injection system. Very quickly, Allison realized it did not have the resources to develop the X-3420 and needed to focus on the V-1710, which was encountering technical issues. Development of the X-3420 was effectively abandoned in 1936. As an alternative, Ron Hazen, Allison’s Chief Engineer, proposed a new 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) engine that had two crankshafts and was more closely based on the V-1710. The engine would produce more power than the X-3420 and be developed in less time. The AAC approved of Hazen’s proposed engine, which became the V-3420. The engine was often referred to as a W-24 or double Vee (DV) and was occasionally called the DV-3420.

The Allison V-3420 design was more complex than just coupling two V-1710 engines together. As with the proposed X-3420, a new crankcase, gear reduction, supercharger, and accessory section were at the center of the engine, but the V-3420 would utilize many V-1710 components. The use of two V-1710 crankshafts along with their connecting rods made the V-3420’s design and development much more manageable for Allison. The engine consisted of two 60 degree V-12 engine sections mounted on a common crankcase and separated by 90 degrees, which gave the inner cylinder banks 30 degrees of separation.

As V-1710 development progressed, Allison was able to offer the V-3420 with 2,300 hp (1,715 kW) for takeoff. At 2,300 lb (1,043 kg), the engine would only weigh 140 lb (64 kg) more than the single crankshaft X-3420, but it would produce an additional 700 hp (522 kW). In May 1937, the AAC contracted Allison to build the V-3420 engine prototype.

A large aluminum crankcase sat at the center of the 24-cylinder V-3420 engine. Attached to the crankcase were four cylinder banks. Each cylinder bank consisted of six steel cylinder barrels shrink fitted to a one-piece aluminum cylinder head. Each cylinder barrel was surrounded by an aluminum water jacket. A single overhead camshaft actuated two intake and two exhaust valves for each cylinder. Each cylinder had a 5.5 in (140 mm) bore and a 6.0 in (152 mm) stroke. The engine displaced 3,421 cu in (56.1 L) and had a compression ratio of 6.65 to 1. At the rear of the engine was a supercharger driven by the right crankshaft, and all accessories were driven by the left crankshaft. The engine was also intended to be used with a General Electric turbosupercharger.

There were only 340 parts unique to the V-3420 engine, and those accounted for 930 pieces of the 11,630 that made up the engine. Initially, the V-3420 had a takeoff rating of 2,300 hp (1,715 kW) at 3,000 rpm, a maximum rating of 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) at 2,600 rpm, and a cruise rating of 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 2,280 rpm. The basic 24-cylinder engine was 97.7 in (2.48 m) long, 60.0 in (1.52 m) wide, and 38.7 in (.98 m) tall. The engine weighed 2,665 lb (1,209 kg)—365 lb (166 kg) more than the original estimate.

In January 1938, Allison was authorized to release V-3420 engine specifications to aircraft manufacturers and airlines. This resulted in a number of aircraft designs incorporating the engine; however, only four V-3420-powered aircraft types were actually flown. The V-3420 engine was first run in April 1938, followed by an AAC order for six engines in June 1938. An engine was also displayed in the 1939 World’s Fair in New York.

The US Navy was aware of the V-3420 engine and asked Allison if it could be converted for marine use. Allison responded with the appropriate designs. In December 1939, the Navy ordered two V-3420 marine engines for installation in a new, aluminum-hulled Patrol Torpedo boat designated PT-8. The two V-3420 marine engines were delivered to the Navy, and the PT-8 boat started trials in November 1940. The PT-8 was tested through 1941, but no further boats or V-3420 marine engines were ordered. The sole PT-8 was later re-engined and still exists as of 2017.

For aircraft use, the V-3420 required further development, which was slow due to Allison’s ongoing commitments to the V-1710 engine as well as the AAC’s preoccupation with vastly expanding its resources for the coming war. In late 1940, Allison focused on two major models of the V-3420 engine: -A and -B. The V-3420-A had crankshafts that rotated the same direction—either clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the desired rotation of the propeller. The -A engine used a single-rotation propeller with either an attached or remote gear reduction, but most commonly with an attached gear reduction. The V-3420-B had crankshafts that rotated in opposite directions and was used with contra-rotating propellers. Different versions of the -B engine could accommodate either an attached or remote gear reduction, which allowed a number of propeller shaft configurations, including right-angle drives. The -B engine almost always had a remote gear reduction. The two crankshafts of the V-3420-B were kept in sync by idler gears at the front of the engine. The idler gears also balanced power loads from the crankshafts to the contra-rotating propeller shafts.

In September 1940, Allison’s V-1710 commitments became overwhelming, and development of the V-3420 engine was put on hold. As a result, the XB-19 had four 2,000 hp (1,491 kW) Wright R-3350 18-cylinder radial engines installed in place of the V-3420s. However, the R-3350 was encountering its own extensive developmental issues that put its use in the Boeing B-29 Superfortress in question. In February 1941, the AAC requested that Allison restart development of the V-3420-A with an output of 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) as a possible replacement for the Wright R-3350. The B-29 bomber was too important for its fate to be tied to one engine.

A V-3420 engine was delivered to Wright Field in October 1941, but with the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December, the V-3420 program was again put on hold so that Allison could focus on the V-1710 engine. History repeated itself in mid-1942 when the suitability of the R-3350 engine was again in question. Allison was instructed by the Army Air Force (AAF—the AAC was renamed in June 1941) to prepare the V-3420 for installation in a B-29, which was redesignated XB-39. Nine engines were built and delivered by October 1942. On 1 October 1942, the AAF ordered two Fisher XP-75 Eagle fighter prototypes that were powered by the V-3420-B engine. This was followed by an order placed on 28 October for 500 V-3420-A engines for installation in 100 production B-39 aircraft.

As the aircraft projects were underway, continued development of the V-3420 engine increased its output to a takeoff rating of 2,600 hp (1,939 kW) at 3,000 rpm with 8 psi (.55 bar) of boost, a normal rating of 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) at 2,600 rpm at 25,000 ft (7,620 m), and a cruise rating of 1,575 hp (1,175 kW) at 2,300 rpm at 25,000 ft (7,620 m). However, the engine could be overboosted in emergency situations to 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) at 3,000 rpm with 10.2 psi of boost (.70 bar).

The first aircraft to fly with the V-3420 was the Fisher XP-75. Developed by the Fisher Body Division of General Motors, the XP-75 was a long-range escort fighter. Through 1943, the AAF felt a desperate need for such an aircraft and ordered six additional XP-75 prototypes, bringing the total to eight. In addition, the AAF expressed its intent to purchase 2,500 P-75s if the prototypes met their performance estimates. The V-3420-B engine for the P-75 had a two-stage, variable speed supercharger (and no turbosupercharger) that was hydraulically coupled to the right crankshaft. The engine alone weighed 2,750 lb (1,247 kg), and its weight increased to 3,275 lb (1,486 kg) with its 3.5 in (89 mm) diameter extension shafts and remote gear reduction.

The XP-75 first flew on 17 November 1943, and the aircraft almost immediately ran into issues. Its V-3420-B engine was not entirely trouble free either; unequal fuel distribution was a continuing problem for the V-3420. The issue was mostly solved by having each alternate engine section fire every 30 degrees of rotation, rather than both engine sections firing every 60 degrees of rotation. The aircraft was redesigned to correct its deficiencies and was given the new designation of P-75A. The AAF ordered 2,500 P-75As on 7 June 1944, and production started immediately. However, the entire P-75 program was cancelled four months later, in October 1944. The P-75A did not live up to expectations, it was outmatched by aircraft already in service, and the end of the war was in sight. Eight XP-75 and six P-75A aircraft were built, but three of the aircraft crashed during testing. One P-75A was preserved and is on display in the National Museum of the US Air Force. The rest of the surviving aircraft were scrapped.

Actual work to install V-3420-A engines in the XB-19 started in November 1942 at Fisher. The aircraft was redesignated XB-19A and flew for the first time with its V-3420 engines in January 1944. The V-3420 installation served as a test for the engine’s use in the XB-39. With the exception of range, the XB-19A’s performance increased across the board: maximum speed increased by 40 mph (64 km/h); cruising speed increased by 50 mph (80 km/h); service ceiling increased by 16,000 ft (4,877 m), but normal range decreased by 1,000 miles (1,609 km). The XB-19A was strictly an experimental aircraft and was never intended to enter production.

In February 1943, V-3420-A engines were selected to power the Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning. The V-3420 was not Lockheed’s first choice, or second, or third. The XP-58 heavy fighter program was initiated in 1940 but was beset with constant design and role changes, which were made worse by developmental issues of the aircraft’s previously selected engines. By the time it was completed, the XP-58 was oversized, overweight, underpowered, and not needed. First flown on 6 June 1944, the aircraft’s lackluster performance matched Lockheed and the AAF’s enthusiasm for the project. Only one prototype was built, and the XP-58 program was cancelled in May 1945.

Even though it helped spur the V-3420 engine program, the V-3420-powered B-29 was the last aircraft to take flight with the engine. A B-29 (actually a YB-29, the first pre-production aircraft) was delivered to Fisher for conversion to an XB-39 with V-3420-A engines. Work on the XB-39 was slow because Fisher’s main focus was the XP-75. The XB-39 finally flew on 9 December 1944. Performance of the XB-39 was superior to that of the B-29: its top speed was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster, and it had a 3,000 ft (914 m) higher service ceiling. However, standard B-29s were proving to be more than adequate, and it was not worth the time or trouble to convert any other airframes to V-3420-power.

To meet the power needs for extremely large aircraft designs during World War II, Allison proposed the DV-6840. The DV-6840 consisted of two V-3420s driving a common remote gearbox for contra-rotating propellers. A gearbox for the DV-6840 was completed in 1946, but no information has been found regarding it being tested. Allison had also planned a further development of the V-3420. This fuel-injected V-3420-C engine had a forecasted emergency output of 4,800 hp (3,579 kW) and a takeoff/military rating of 4,000 hp (2,983 kW)—both ratings at 3,200 rpm with water injection. However, the V-3420-C was never built.

The Allison V-3420 was not a trouble-free engine, but it did work well in its few applications once initial issues were resolved. The engine held a lot of potential, but that potential faded as its development languished. At the start of 1944, only 33 V-3420 engines had been delivered, and two of those were marine engines. Had the AAC committed to the engine in 1936 and provided Allison with the resources needed to develop the engine, the V-3420 very well could have powered the B-29 and various post-war aircraft. The four aircraft projects that used the V-3420 did not fail because of the engine. By the time the V-3420 program was in order in 1944, other engines were adequately fulfilling the 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) role.

Allison built a total of 157 V-3420 engines: 37 -A engines (including the two marine engines) and 120 -B engines. A number of V-3420s were sold as surplus after the war. Some eventually made their way into museums, while other engines were used in a hydroplane (Henry J. Kaiser’s Scooter Too driven by Jack Regas) and a tractor puller (E. J. Potter’s Double Ugly). However, none of the V-3420 engines took flight again.

Sources:
– Vees For Victory!: The Story of the Allison V-1710 Aircraft Engine 1929-1948 by Dan Whitney (1998)
– The Allison Engine Catalog 1915-2007 by John M. Leonard (2008)
– Jim Allison’s Machine Shop: The First 30 Years by John M. Leonard (2016)
– Aircraft Engines of the World 1946 by Paul H. Wilkinson (1946)
– Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II by Graham White (1995)
– US Army Air Force Fighters Part 2 by William Green and Gordon Swanborough (1978)
– McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920: Volume I by Rene J. Francillon (1988)
– Lockheed Aircraft since 1913 by Rene J. Francillon (1982/1987)
– Boeing Aircraft since 1916 by Peter M. Bowers (1966/1989)

By William Pearce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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