Finally, someone who puts out the interesting technical info without posing as a post graduate engineering professor. I am a techno geek but I am mathematically lazy. I get bored quickly when the algebra starts. Keep doing what you're doing and I'll keep watching
@johntindell5512 жыл бұрын
Me too...as soon as the algebra starts I'm done 😃
@patchthesinclair58962 жыл бұрын
Mathematical laziness creates great guestimators. I believe in it!
@pyro10472 жыл бұрын
I love Greg's Planes and Automobiles, but when he starts pulling out the line graphs and comparing Horse power, boost and manifold pressure, climb rate, altitude performance, Turbocharger vs Supercharger, etc... My eyes just kinda glaze over and I just nod and listen.
@AmazingBilldo2 жыл бұрын
@@pyro1047 I LOL'd hard at this, even sympathetic tho I understand the math
@bradschoeck1526 Жыл бұрын
Perfectly stated!
@edwardpate61282 жыл бұрын
The Allison was a VERY rugged engine and its use in aircraft like the P-40 and P-39 showed it could be significantly overboosted up to 70+ inches of manifold pressure with its single stage supercharger. I was always a great low and medium altitude engine and a shame it didn't have a better two stage two speed supercharger. In the P-38 with the addition of the turbo-supercharger it really shined!
@wlewisiii2 жыл бұрын
This. I have a letter from a US General claiming he personally pushed a P-40E to 75" on a regular basis. The engineers at Allison hated this because when they changed the supercharger ratios in later engines, they started blowing up if pushed that hard.
@AlanRoehrich96512 жыл бұрын
The Allison was tested for HOURS at 80" of manifold pressure and 3,200 RPM. It easily passed the test. Repeatedly. The USAAF however hated the idea, and refused to approve the settings. However, units receiving 150 octane fuel routinely rigged the P-38 Allisons to run those settings in War Emergency Power.
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
Great engine down low and RAF Mustang Is were still fighting in April 45 Those turbo supers were too large and added too much weight . The Mustang I was 10 times better than the P38 on low low Ops.
@basiltaylor891011 ай бұрын
This is the engine Trans Canada Air Lines should have chosen to power their Canadair C-4M North Stars, as you rightly stated the 1710 is reliable and bomb proof, ideal for intensive airline application . With a three speed two stage blower, Bendix fuel Injection, a 1710 engined C4M North Star burning regular airport 100/130 grade petrol would have superior performance at high altitude vital to avoid those vicious North Atlantic storms.
@patrickchase56148 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis The P-38 was designed as a pure interceptor. It wasn't meant for "low low ops". The turbosupersharged fighter that was really good "down and dirty" was the Thunderbolt.
@Mejrfrog2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely love what you’re doing here. I’ve been wanting a channel so badly to talk about propulsion of these interwar and WWII fighters. I know the KZfaq algorithm prioritizes shorter videos but please keep them as long and as detailed as possible. Your hard work is very much appreciated sir
@johnfleming78792 жыл бұрын
My dad was a Navy aircraft mechanic in WW II who loved the Allison- he was also put into the program to develop components of the A-Bomb at Oak Ridge, so he was a pretty sharp mechanic- The Allison did power one Salt Flats racer that broke a bunch of speed records after the War.
@dennisford2000 Жыл бұрын
Green Monster
@JC-gw3yo2 жыл бұрын
It good to hear how good the Allison engine actually was... A few more years and the Allison would have been totally perfected
@warfarenotwarfair5655 Жыл бұрын
Of course it was fantastic. The United States produced thousands and thousands of them. We are not like Europeans tolerating crap designs because your government said so.
@glennoswald5928 Жыл бұрын
@@warfarenotwarfair5655 So said the F-35
@wilburfinnigan2142 Жыл бұрын
@@warfarenotwarfair5655 65,000 Allison engines built !! !
@warfarenotwarfair5655 Жыл бұрын
@@glennoswald5928 The F-35A is the new NATO fighter and is more advanced than any other multi-role fighter in the world. This became obvious in late 2015.
@warfarenotwarfair5655 Жыл бұрын
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Exactly, they were used even after the war. In fact there are still thousands of WW2 engines still being bought for smaller tug boats operating in my area. It's amazing really.
@jimb40902 жыл бұрын
I've got both the Information Guide, TO 30-5A-1 and Air Depot Progressive Overhaul Manual for this engine. They were in my Dad's attic since the end of WW2 and are in almost perfect condition except for some slight cover tears. He was a flight engineer and mechanic on several different aircraft so have several other engine and aircraft manuals as well. Well done video...
@chickenfishhybrid442 жыл бұрын
Thats awesome. Preserve those things.
@ATomRileyA2 жыл бұрын
That is a pretty cool find, Might be good to scan them in and makes some pdfs of them so people can look at them in the future.
@jimb40902 жыл бұрын
@@ATomRileyA I could certainly do that as I have a monster of an HP 9500 multifunction but that would mean chopping the binding off to get flat pages. Think I need to keep them in the original..😎. Cheers.
@Silverhks2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I wouldn't break the bindings to scan them. I believe there is a technique to scan old books that doesn't damage them but I've only heard about it in passing. It might be wishful thinking for all I know
@thiswillprobhrt2 жыл бұрын
@@jimb4090 nowadays a phone camera would certainly suffice. No damage to binding required.
@pimpompoom93726 Жыл бұрын
In retrospect, Allison should have parallel path'd Superchargers and Turbochargers on the V-1710 engine. Banking everything on a developing technology-turbocharging-was not sound strategy. I recognize their development was being funded by AAC during the Great Depression years and they probably couldn't afford the second path, but what might have been had they that additional funding? The cost of tooling up to produce the Merlin under license was probably way more that what would have been needed to develop a two-stage supercharged version of the 1710. A similar story with the 'Liberty' aircraft engines from WW1 compared to the Rolls-Royce Eagle series V-12's, America brought a great design to the table, but too late to impact the course of the War. Great video by the way, as a recently retired Engineer with 47 years in Auto industry powertrains, I really enjoy this stuff! A video on the Liberty Engine would REALLY be awesome, I've read a post-war technical report by the chief designer which was absolutely brilliant. SUBSCRIBED.
@philipingram16672 жыл бұрын
Excellent video - like the new format. War surplus engines were used in earthmoving equipment by LeTourneau due to lack of Diesel engine availability and cost. Keep up the good work.
@danhammond8406 Жыл бұрын
Rebuilt a muskeg buggy with a differential out of a Chaffee tank made by them. Dated to the early 1970s with ww2 surplus tank parts
@alancordwell97592 жыл бұрын
I'm really enjoying this series of excellently researched and well presented videos. Keep it up! Best wishes from Sheffield in the UK :)
@default123default22 жыл бұрын
You are really good at these engine videos. I'll watch them all. Amazing how they had 4 valve per cylinder and roller valve parts back then.
@yourgrandmasalzheimerpills11432 жыл бұрын
The Allison weighed less, had fewer parts and complexity, ran higher Manifold pressures, smaller profile, and also had better build quality. It really was only drawn back by the lack of supercharger technology and turbocharging. I mean the p-38K (and D/J) models could easily sit at or above 45,000ft with the turbosupercharger configuration.
@keithstudly60712 жыл бұрын
I would add that the V-1710 was designed to be reversible unlike the Merlin, one of the reasons that the Merlin was never used in the P-38. While we are thinking about the P-38 a large amount of the trouble with them was on account of overly rich fuel mixtures and excessive intercooling resulting in poor fuel distribution between cylinders that resulted in plug fouling and detonation, depending on whether the cylinder was one that tended rich or one that tended lean.
@douglasadams60242 жыл бұрын
agree 100% the Allison had 4000 parts the Merlin had 11000!!!
@GroovesAndLands2 жыл бұрын
110% The Merlin was super neat, of course - but it was designed by British artisans to be built by artisans. The Allison was designed to be simpler and easier to build on more-automated assembly lines...the 'Merican way.
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
No the P38 could not sit above 45000ft WW2Aircraft Performance gave it 40000ft Max That Turbo/super installation was not as efficient as the Merlin supercharger
@yourgrandmasalzheimerpills114311 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis if it were pressurized, the p-38 and p-47 were capable of those altitudes. Watch Greg’s airplanes on turbo supercharging in US warplanes. Theoretically the P-38K and the Ta-152H were more efficient than the Merlin 2 stage supercharger. In fact the Junkers 86 operated over Britain at 50,000ft while carrying bomb loads.
@kenneth98742 жыл бұрын
The army air corp was sold on turbo superchargers and the navy was sold on radial engines so Allison concentrated on what they could sell, namely turbo supercharged two stage systems
@wilburfinnigan2142 Жыл бұрын
The navy used 2 stage mechanical superchargers on the PW R1830 and the PW R2800's
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
@@wilburfinnigan2142 I believe so however they were NOT as efficient as the Merlin or Packard superchargers
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
You cannot put on a system of pipes and a Turbo-Supercharger that weighed maybe a 1000lb and still expect that there would be no repercussions . Plane efficiency goes out the window
@chickenfishhybrid442 жыл бұрын
Well I'm sure alot of it has to do with the fact that there was a fair bit of surplus Allsions after the war and they were used in various applications such as tractor pull rigs and boat racing.. Theres a badass hydroplane that's been coming to the race in my town for the past like 10 years or more with a twin turbo Allison and he's the only one in the Unlimited class that's not running a turbine engine which has been the standard for 25+ years. He often gives the turbine boats a run for their money and has even won the event here. Then there's of course the vintage hydroplanes that run and they almost all are running Allisons.
@dunruden97202 жыл бұрын
alot ???
@jselectronics82152 жыл бұрын
I'm 75, grew up in Washington State, watched the hydroplanes on TV. There was always some team on limited funds trying to keep their Allison going.
@chickenfishhybrid442 жыл бұрын
@@jselectronics8215 Yep, I'm in WA too.
@jselectronics82152 жыл бұрын
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I remember Miss Thriftway was on a trailer, being displayed at the Thriftway store in Port Angeles. Must have been 1956. :)
@danwolf3072 жыл бұрын
E.J. Potter ran these engines in pulling tractors and beat everyone for years. 4 blown hemis doesn't equal 1 Allison.
@davidelliott58432 жыл бұрын
Have you seen the RR Heritage book “Rolls-Royce and the Mustang”. There’s a huge level of detail on the Merlin the Mustang and things like turbo compounding. By the way RR struggled with oil pumps. Merlins basically threw con-rods until they realised the oil pump was not big enough to meet demand at high revs.
@gingernutpreacher2 жыл бұрын
Wasn't it also a poor system? as it started it self due to centraful force and that makes sense why high rpm gave it greaf
@basiltaylor89102 жыл бұрын
Oh shit Stan and Ernie been sleeping on the job, not to be aware of the Merlin,s undersized oil circulation pump, talk about a bad hair day. Why this serious issue was not flagged up in test bench runs at 3,000 rpm or more is odd and at least disturbing on such an important engine. So early Roller Merlins kicked their feet out the bed(con rods bursting from the crankcase) that is bad, thought the magneto drive issue was bad but Merlins kicking their feet out the bed at full power, that is dire so Stan,s spent too much time propping up the bar down the 'Rat&Ferkin' pub.
@gingernutpreacher2 жыл бұрын
@@basiltaylor8910 you're a strange man ( but I like it )
@basiltaylor89102 жыл бұрын
@@gingernutpreacher Thank you for the kind comment , i do not pull my punches,in the late 1930,s due constant parsimony by our stupid short sighted air ministry our aero engine industry was a bloody mess.
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
@@basiltaylor8910 Source please verifiable
@55Reever Жыл бұрын
You answered a question I have had for years and that was about the high altitude under powered reputation of the 1710. Thank you.
@gregjennings9442 Жыл бұрын
Bottom line is that the Merlin had a better supercharger because the AAC was fascinated with turbocharging.
@bobsakamanos44692 ай бұрын
More appropriately, GM and GE were telling the USAAC/USAAF what they were going to use. The turbocharging system of the the P-47 and P-38 were monsterous and vulnerable to enemy fire from behind. Superchargers were well protected by contrast.
@hadial-saadoon21142 жыл бұрын
A fabulous engine that was castrated by the Army. The two-stage engine was unwieldy but the hydraulic coupling was quite advanced. Great video, and all of you Allison fans should check out the book "Vees For Victory", an incredibly detailed history of the V-1710.
@andyharman30222 жыл бұрын
I have it. It is the definitive book on the history of the Allison engine. Author Daniel Whitney also has a follow-up book on Allison engines.
@bobsakamanos4469Ай бұрын
Great. Can you tell us when exactly did Allison produce the new intake manifolds? ... and if they were retrofitted to engines in the field?
@terrywallace51812 жыл бұрын
I greatly enjoyed this video. It was great to hear a more detailed history of the engine.
@peteacher522 жыл бұрын
Thank you! You scuttled some assumptions I nurtured based on hearsay about the Allison being under-developed because of political considerations between GB and the USA. Later of course, Allison became the masters of large turboprops in planes like the Electra, Orion and Hercules. One felt very safe in an Allison powered Electra.
@wilburfinnigan21422 жыл бұрын
Interesting that Rolls Royce bought out the Allison engine co for these turboprop engines that RR did NOT have !!!!
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
w@@wilburfinnigan2142 Source please Wilbur you have a habit of stretching the truth.
@gutofuhr2 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed to know that you and a few watchers also knew the V1710 was incially intended to replace the german V12 Maybachs used in the Akron and Macon airships. Airship tech was widely used in airplanes and I like both types. The Crecy book is a dead giveaway of an airplane engine geek, that's cool! If you intend to do a video only about compound engines, don't forget the Napier Nomad, which you certainly know that was a 2-stroke diesel aero engine prototype - a complete alien in the scene, but an interesting one. Great video, keep doing them in any format you like best!
@richardprice59782 жыл бұрын
so why wasn't there more diesel's in ww2 air-anything? as the nazis could have benefitted from them as high quality airo fuels for them was a challenge plus making one fuel diesel is easier and things like tanker's 🐯/sub's could use it and later the foo fighter's ect
@gutofuhr2 жыл бұрын
@@richardprice5978 I am not shure, but the germans had a series of Junkers Jumo 2-stroke diesels that were widely used in bombers during the war like the Jumo 205, mainly because 2-strokes have a weight to power ratio good enough for aviation, close to 1kW/kg but they were never high-power engines fit for use in fighter planes.
@georgegherghinescu2 жыл бұрын
Good stuff! Like the new format! Good luck growing the channel and getting the algorithm to show it to more people. You already have the production to a great level, the research is good, delivery is plesant and friendly, like especially the way clips are formed to be like a story with little details of the times and about the people behind also.. not just facts and numbers. Ps: great old school radio voice :D
@Thunderous1172 жыл бұрын
Great video, I think one thing worth adding is that while in hindsight we often remember the p38 taking a background role in Europe to the p51, it is well worth considering that before the p51 really came into its own with the merlin equipped p51b and p51c in late 1943 USAAF commanders were clamoring for as many p38s as they could possibly get. The p38 bore the brunt at perhaps the peak of the luftwaffes strength in well trained pilots, and before the fuel shortages and impact of the bombing on parts availability and quality were felt as the allied war effort strangled nazi germany. The p51 with the merlin just changed the game in having a fighter that could go the distance with the heavies at a far cheaper per plane price than the p38. Anywho, I really liked the video and will be subscribing, you clearly put a lot of effort into making this fantastically nuanced video on this fascinating topic, well done.
@CharlesStearman2 жыл бұрын
I've read that one reason for the P38 being withdrawn from the bomber escort role in Europe was its relatively low critical Mach number, which limited its maximum dive speed at altitude to less than that of single engined types.
@gandalfgreyhame34252 жыл бұрын
Actually, the P38 was withdrawn because it had a huge number of issues with flying at the high altitudes of the European air war - a report by Doolittle stated that there was a high loss rate of the P38s due to engine failure, having to do with uneven fuel distribution amongst the pistons so that some got an overly rich fuel-air mixture and others got a lean fuel-air mix and so would suffer problems with detonation and premature crankrod failures (Doolittle explicitly blamed the design of the air-fuel manifold of the Allison V1710s) . The tetraethyl lead added to the British fuel also tended to separate at the cold altitudes, which further worsened the problems with detonation. This is all documented in the book: "P-51 Mustang: Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Paul A Ludwig
@bobsakamanos44695 ай бұрын
@@gandalfgreyhame3425 the Allison intake manifold was one of many issues with the P-38. GM was slow to authorize R&D funds to allow Allison to correct that, among other issues. Pilots called the engine the Allison time bomb. The P-38 airframe was also one of the worst for critical mach speed. Dive flaps solved the "mach tuck" and control lock up, but the max dive speed was still unacceptable above 20,000', so it never was a good high altitude fighter as the LW could just dive away.
@pimpompoom937262 ай бұрын
@@bobsakamanos4469 P-38 had it's shortcomings, but it had the RANGE which was needed to escort bombers. Spitfire was useless as a bomber escort.
@bobsakamanos44692 ай бұрын
@@pimpompoom93726 range yes, but what good was that if it couldn't operate at altitude with the bombers. A tragic error for both P-38 pilots and Bomber crews. It was a fine attack aircraft for ripping up LW on the ground though.
@thomaslockard96862 жыл бұрын
Nice video, the Allison has always been the described as a dog by the uninformed. Glad you mentioned the Allison Engineering bearings which were its real bread and butter before the war. A little mentioned note about the 1710 was it passed the 100% power for 100 hours requirement that the Army specified, which the RR and RR/Packard were never subject to. And finally, the Allison is always compared to the later Merlin Mk XX engine with it 2 speed charger. Thanks for an interesting vid.
@wilburfinnigan2142 Жыл бұрын
That is NOT the two stage version, RR use three different superchargers, a single stage up to the 20 series, the 20 to 50 series got a second SPEED, and the 60series got the drooled and slobbered over 2 stage 2 speed supercharger !!
@DB.scale.models6 ай бұрын
The RR tested there engines at full power for 24 hours, the knock down and checked for ware, and little ware but not measurable.
@bobsakamanos44692 ай бұрын
The Allison engines had a host of problems, especially the intake manifold that caused detonation. The G version was finally well strengthened, but Allison never made a reliable high altitude V-12.
@malcolmsmith650 Жыл бұрын
The engine was actually smoother than the Merlin but where the Merlin beat it was in supercharging. It was the Merlin supercharger which allowed it to excellent at height.
@patrickchase56148 ай бұрын
Specifically Rolls' ability to package a solid 2-stage unit onto a single shaft, and fit into basically the same space as the original single-stage unit. Two-stage supercharging was nothing new - the USN had it in the Wildcat and Corsair long before the Merlin was upgraded to have it, but they both had their second stages in bulky external units with separate shafts and gearing. The Merlin's real innovation was in getting decent performance out of a compact single-spool unit.
@princesofthepower36907 ай бұрын
@@patrickchase5614Merlin 60 had 2-stage chargers as far back as summer 40’. Well before the Wildcat first saw combat with a 2-stage supercharger.
@patrickchase56147 ай бұрын
@@princesofthepower3690 Nonsense. The F4F Wildcat first flew in 1937 and became operational (with two-stage supercharging) in 1940. The very first 2-stage Merlin was bench-run in April 1941 and deployed in 1942 (so after Wildcat "first saw combat", though that's irrelevant to development timeline in any case). Merlin was late on the scene with 2-stage supercharging. What made it unique and brilliant was that it did it in a compact, single-shaft form factor as opposed to the bulky arrangement that Wildcat had. Merlin did gain two _speed_ supercharging in 1940. Might that be the source of your confusion? Note that that was also late relative to others though.
@bobsakamanos4469Ай бұрын
the Allison was smooth and cruised nicely at lower RPM, using crank counterweights, but it had a horribly designed intake manifold (that caused detonation), among other things. The overboosting of early P-40s also caused a lot of engine fires and failures in the slow P-40's, but that was an acceptable risk to Sqn pilots up against superior fighters.
@patjackson16572 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this very informative, both mechanically and historically, video! I enjoyed it and learned quite a few things.
@robwhite32412 жыл бұрын
During Korea my grandfather was stationed in Japan as a stockyard manager. Somehow they managed to loose one of these engine and well they all got into a bit of hot water so they said It must have been stolen. They sent out a search crew but nothing was ever found, he thinks its still at the bottom of the ocean. lol
@EverythingAutomotive132 жыл бұрын
Thank You for your channel. Great Job!
@philflip1963 Жыл бұрын
The best presentation on the Alison engine I've seen. Well done!
@victorcontreras91382 жыл бұрын
I love your optimism in this engine that I first saw on display at Dover AFB museum. "Keep it American" is what I've always said! Give it a chance⚠️
@mikedee8876 Жыл бұрын
Allison still carries a great name for quality and heavy duty performance....hope they never lose that reputation....
@migram4190 Жыл бұрын
Fantastic analysis of the Allison! Thank you!
@androidemulator69522 жыл бұрын
I glad i'm not the only one who delights in intricacies of these legendary engines.
@SoloRenegade2 жыл бұрын
Allison had altitude issues overall, for points you addressed, but from a marketing standpoint, the engine was reliable, and was great for low altitude aircraft designs (Soviet Union?). And it did prove to be capable if someone could design a proper forced induction system for it.
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
You are forgetting the RAF Mustang I, in action10 May 1942. One year before the P47. 2 years before the P51D and 2 months before the P38 in the MTO
@SoloRenegade11 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis good point. But the P-40 was flying the Allison in those theaters it even before that.
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
@@SoloRenegade Yes indeed but the Mustang was the cream on the Cake
@SoloRenegade11 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis for sure
@bobsakamanos44692 ай бұрын
The Allison had a number of problems, especially the intake manifold that was finally redesigned and deployed in 1944. Detonation and lead fouling was an ongoing problem during the war. Desert P-40s had engine fires and failures.
@ikay21022 жыл бұрын
Yes!!!! In plain English, gentlemen explained history that even 5 year old would cherish. Thanks for sharing your knowledge 🙏
@monsieurcommissaire16282 жыл бұрын
You've got a new fan and subscriber here. Excellent work you're doing. The power figures for the turbo compound engine are astonishing. I didn't how how how such a sysyem worked until your beautifully concise explanation.
@williamstel933010 ай бұрын
The Allison engine was in several drag race cars one I remember was called Big Al 2 I did something like 9 seconds at 160 something because tires and clutches weren't developed yet. And I remember always being impressed with those powerful engines and asking my dad if they ever put one in a big truck and he thought that someone had but it tore up the transmissions.
@phlodel10 ай бұрын
My friend's grandfather said he used to drive a truck with an Allison engine. It was used to haul scrap metal over the Grapevine in California. He said it could run up the hill with a heavy load without slowing but it destroyed driveshafts.
@oml81mm2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video and very well explained. The merlin engine had it's problems as well, often solved by testing to destruction, inspection and redesign. This resulted in an extremely strong and reliable engine which could easily cope with the power increases that came later. The main problem in the early days was with the supercharger but a scientist (not engineer) called Stanley Hooker solved that. His speciality was fluid dynamics, and it is said that anything that flows is a fluid, including air. Anyway he transformed what had been expensively and laboriously made into a good and reliable engine into something special. I should add that rwo other things helped a lot... high octane fuel and ethyline glycol, both from the USA!
@SyphenHouse2 жыл бұрын
Keep up the vids! I can nerd out on these engines for days. Enjoyed seeing your bookshelf and had a chuckle that it parallels mine quite well. Cheers.
@vagellan_88422 жыл бұрын
Very entertaining, informative video! Thanks!
@PeteCourtier2 жыл бұрын
Great stuff👍 Really interesting and I like the new format. Is the RR Griffon next? Maybe a Bristol Centaurus👍
@shawnbeckmann18472 жыл бұрын
A very enlightening video thank you for all the new information!
@michaelbooher3392 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. Longtime aircraft mechanic. Truly enjoyed it.
@bradschoeck15266 ай бұрын
This channel has become my favorite KZfaq channel. It’s amazing to discover all these complex technical issues that were figured out 70+ years ago. The Second World War was the pinnacle of technological achievement in my mind, though obviously many could successfully argue that, but I would posture that much of the post war technological development was cheating by using either jet propulsion and later, digital control systems. Yes the planes were better post war, but jets bore me. Nothing beats a good ol warbird with big ol air screw bolted onto a massive power plant that harnesses a bunch of explosions to make it fly. I wish I were born in an earlier era!
@grogon96142 жыл бұрын
A mechanic for 40 years and I just learnt about turbo compounding, very interesting.
@ManiacRacing11 ай бұрын
It's easy to forget, they didn't have the design tech for good compressors and turbo impellers, They were still working out how to actually make boost. And it's much different at altitude compared to car or truck use.
@jimallen5366 Жыл бұрын
Great video. Your comments closely match what my father told me. He was working in the Allison test bed during the war.
@300guy2 жыл бұрын
I wish you were able to touch on the late war/post war installation in the P/F 82 and whether all of these almost solved problems had been finally put behind it or not. Very good presentation. I am surprised someone during the war didn't "accidently" you got your chocolate in my peanut butter the 2nd stage system from the V1650 to the V1710 1st stage.
@raulduke61052 жыл бұрын
My Pops was a Allison factory trained mechanic. Thanks! Miss him.
@JimmySailor22 күн бұрын
Went down a rabbit hole recently with the American M6 heavy tank which began development in May 1940. Being 57 tons it needed a decent engine and the committee of SAE engineers assigned to look into it selected the Wright 1820 to supply ~825 hp. What I don’t know is if they looked into the 1710, which would have been in production at the time. Later in the war the Merlin would be used in tanks quite successfully. What’s interesting about the 1710 in this application is that it was a GM product and GM also had Hydro-Matic transmissions. In theory a 1710 with a Hydro-Matic would have made one of the best tank engines of WW2 and potentially a viable power package for decades. What I’d love to know is if a 1710 was ever arranged like that, for use in heavy vehicles?
@muskepticsometimes91332 жыл бұрын
One important application you missed: the Joe's combat version of the P82 twin mustang. It didn't serve in huge numbers but was important holding the line till more advanced olanes
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Жыл бұрын
It was a dog, vastly inferior to the small Merlin production run planes.
@dyer2cycle Жыл бұрын
what is an olane?...
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
What line ???? the war was over and Jets were here.
@muskepticsometimes913311 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis korea
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
@@muskepticsometimes9133 Korea Jesus we were discussing WW2
@clarkstonguy10652 жыл бұрын
This video nails it, fantastic job of covering the Allison story.
@nickcosentino53682 жыл бұрын
I had to listen to the turbo combining twice, that's brilliant.
@timohanlon36832 жыл бұрын
Love the format. Am loving these new vids. Used to be so into aircraft. Good to be back
@AugustusTitus2 жыл бұрын
Great soup-to-nuts review of the engine. Did not expect such detail.
@joellamoureux7914 Жыл бұрын
Love these videos. I'm gonna put one of these in my chevy sonic. I'm going to sit in the trunk.
@kevatut232 жыл бұрын
Enjoyable read on a fantastic engine, and it's development path. Thanks much. Time well spent.
@SoloRenegade2 жыл бұрын
P-38 Allison configuration outperformed the Merlin at altitude. The Allison powered P-40, A-36, and others dominated the likes of the P-47 and others at low altitude (where a fair amount of combat did occur). The P-51J was considered to be potentially the best P-51 model. A key reason the Allison was ignored was the lack of a common/standard high altitude configuration that could be easily designed around in multiple airframes, and constant carburetor issues throughout the war. The engine was tough, durable, reliable, and could be pushed harder than the official rated numbers. I'm not a diehard Allison fan, but I can't stand the undeserved hate the Allison gets, and the overhyped praise the Merlin gets when in reality it wasn't as straight forward as people try to claim. Meanwhile low altitude Russian fighters are heaped with praise, as are low altitude Japanese planes and low altitude UK planes. It's hypocritical and inconsistent. It's exactly like how the P-51 is the only aircraft that gets hate as a ground attack aircraft for being "inline water cooled". But I present the following ground attack aircraft in WW2 that are legendary and/or heaped with praise for ground attack. Mosquito, A-36, Ju-87, IL-2, Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, Hurricane, P-39, etc. Notice something about all of these?
@tomshumaker73702 жыл бұрын
I had a friend who was an aircraft mechanic during WW2. He loved the Allison and hated the Merlin. He said the Allison was the superior engine and the only good thing about the Merlin was the supercharger. He said after a mission you pretty much just kicked the tires and checked the oil and it was good to go on the next mission. With a Merlin he said he got really good at changing spark plugs. Like you mentioned, there is a reason the Soviets loved the Airacobra and didn't care for the Hurricane and Spitfire. The engine!
@allangibson24082 жыл бұрын
The Allison’s required turbochargers that the US refused to sell to Britain. Secret technology and all that. Britain built jet aircraft instead… The Merlin and Griffon had multiple stage geared superchargers instead with specific models tailored to the specific altitudes required. The ultimate was however the Napier Nomad which had a geared turbocharger.
@EstorilEm2 жыл бұрын
I generally agree with your comment, except for the part about a P-40 “dominating” a P-47 down low. I realize that it’s performance advantages become very obvious at higher altitudes, but even then… I just don’t see it happening.
@SoloRenegade2 жыл бұрын
@@EstorilEm P-40 pilots both in WW2 as well as warbird pilots today that fly airshows now say the P-40 was faster and could out turn the P-47 below 15k ft. Mind you it could also out turn a Bf109 at low altitude as well. And the A-36 was even better at low altitude. Pilots that flew the A-36 in combat claimed it was pretty much the best low altitude fighter as well as being one of the best dive bombers of WW2. The P-40 was aerodynamically inefficient, as the A-36 showed. But the P-40 was better than people think, outlasting other designs and serving to the end of WW2 in rather significant numbers. It all comes down to pilots knowing the strengths and limitations of their aircraft, and maximizing that against the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent appropriately. We have the benefit of hindsight. In WW2, figuring things out on the fly, many pilots never figured out how to use certain aircraft against certain other aircraft effectively, while others did. the learning curve was steep, and they had neither as much time nor access to as much information then as we do now.
@gort82032 жыл бұрын
You are on target about the ignorant hate the P-51 gets in the ground attack role while other liquid cooled aircraft are lauded. Also, all aircraft engines required oil, and every airplane had oil coolers, tanks, and lines that were vulnerable to enemy fire.
@Bearthedancingman Жыл бұрын
The final evidence of the Allison potential is their use in tractor pulling. 3,000+HP is being produced without superchargers ( running nitro methane)
@paulevans32612 жыл бұрын
Outstanding!! Please continue with this format!
@Redhand19492 жыл бұрын
You are a nice complement to Greg's channel. I have subscribed. Please discuss "turbo compounding" in the context of the Wright R-3350, where I understand it was perfected in the 1950s in airliner service. I used to work for Curtiss-Wright (for real) beginning in the 1980s and some of the old-timers there discussed this configuration of the 3350. I never really understood the difference between a two-stage turbo-supercharged engine and "turbo-compounding."
@bingosunnoon93412 жыл бұрын
Turbo compound was never perfected. I worked in the TWA shop in KC and the old timers hated them.
@EstorilEm2 жыл бұрын
@@bingosunnoon9341 Lol the good old PRTs, “parts recovery turbines” 🤣
@andyharman30222 жыл бұрын
I worked at John Deere Rotary Engine Division, which was bought out of Curtiss-Wright in 1984. I worked with some of the old Curtiss-Wright engineers that really KNEW the 3350 and were very sharp engine engineers in general. Did you know Charlie Jones, Davey Meyers, Dick Gigon, Augie Zoll, John Mack, and Ed Drewniany? I learned a lot from them.
@arthurferreira1462 Жыл бұрын
I never worked and most likely will never work with engines. Yet, here i am binge watching greg's and dojo's and also trying to find a good yet simple enough explanation of what a turbocompound is.
@thesep1967 Жыл бұрын
Extremely reliable engine, perfect for lew-level air-work. The British used their P-51As (Mustang I and II) until 1945 in the army cooperation mode. At those heights it could outrun anything the Germans had. The Allison also had good behaviour at low revs (a perennial problem with the Merlin), perfect for long range missions at economic throttle settings. The Russkis loved their P-39s too and put them to good use in another low-level scenario.
@tomnekuda38182 жыл бұрын
I cannot believe the amount of work that went into the development of this engine to make it durable, dependable and possessing adequate horsepower. Whew!!
@CreeperOnYourHouse2 жыл бұрын
Here's the timeline I'm imagining: When the engine was first built, the supercharger was designed during that initial stage. During the reinforcements and engine structure alterations made in the next few years, the induction team would have been able to make the 2 stage supercharger work, which would have been done by 1941, making there be a version with or without 2 stage supercharging depending on turbocharger presence or not. At that point, by the time experiments in turbocompounding started, they would have been more easy to continue given they would not be focused on doing the most with the supercharger they had.
@aker19932 жыл бұрын
I really hate how the air corp so fvcking anal to the producers to have turbocharged thier engines in their planes it crippled their ability to make good single engine planes that are not comically large like the p47 or neuter like the p40 and p39 during the war unlike the navy that stick to a superchargers.
@charlespolk52212 жыл бұрын
A two stage mechanically driven supercharger was installed on the Allison in the P-63 Kingcobra. Allison went down the path that they did because the USAAF would have rejected a two stage mechanical system as too inefficient for the altitudes they wanted to fight at. Since the Navy wasn't going to buy aircraft powered by liquid cooled inline engines that meant USAAF was the only customer domestically for the Allison and USAAF was committed to the turbo as the second stage. Later, when the Russians adopted and used the P-39 extensively, the development of the P-63 for their use with two stage mechanical superchargers. As a side note, mechanically driven superchargers cost between 100 and 150 hp in total engine power to drive which a turbo does not.
@shawnsan9 Жыл бұрын
Well done. Thank you. I actually understood almost all of that.
@9traktor2 жыл бұрын
One of the best aero engines ever!
@jayfrank19134 ай бұрын
They were still using 1710s and Merlins in the piston-powered hydroplanes in the 80's that were raced at Seafair here in Seattle. The turbine hydros always won (Miss Budweiser, Miss Miller, etc...) by using the GE gas-turbines from Bell helicopters
@KellyHill-gg9xr9 ай бұрын
Engines before the widespread use of plastic components hanging off it were such a mechanical thing of beauty. When everything was machined metal . Things were a piece of art.
@neoconshooter2 жыл бұрын
Other points to consider: the Allison made more power at any given level of boost and weighed less than the equivalent Merlin and it lasted longer because it had much better bearings!
@marvinmcconoughey35472 жыл бұрын
Quite true about the engines. We Americans were world leaders in that area.
@tim7052 Жыл бұрын
If the Allison engine was that good, then why was it replaced by the RR Merlin in the Mustang? Oh! That's right - the Merlin was better (and went on to make the Mustangs' reputation)!! 👍
@blackpowder4016Ай бұрын
@@tim7052It wasn't replaced by the RR Merlin in the Mustang. It was replaced by the Packard V1650-1, a modified Merlin 20. Packard made several improvements to the Merlin. They cast the engine block in two pieces which cut bad castings to almost zero, a big cost savings. They adopted Allison-style piston rods which were much stronger, American silver plated bearings which were more corrosion resistant, used a Stromberg throttle body fuel injection system instead of the RR Merlin's wonky SU carb, and the changed the supercharger drive quill to fit the Wright Cyclone two-speed supercharger. The 30 liter Wright Cyclone had extra capacity over the 27 liter Merlin. Rolls-Royce adopted many of these changes. When fitted with a similar supercharger the Allison will outperform the Merlin if for no other reason than it's 28 liters vs 27 for the Merlin. The Allison had a 2,000 hour TBO vs the Merlin's 200 hour TBO. The Merlin had nearly twice as many parts than the Allison and was more expensive to make. The Merlin had three better features, a better supercharger, better flowing intake manifold and a simple 5 counterweight crank. The Allison used 6 or 12 counterweight cranks and the designers were still fiddling with the design until production stopped.
@David-wk6md Жыл бұрын
I have one in my '71 Ford, Pinto. I love it.
@j.edward43798 ай бұрын
It seems i hear more about the war time Rolls-Royce engines than the Allisons. Good video. The first time i heard these engines were in Unlimited Hydroplanes that raced in my hometown. I tell you there is no comparison when you hear 5 or 6 of these engines racing to the start line. You feel them.
@FiveCentsPlease6 ай бұрын
+@j.edward4379 From the 1950s to the 1970s the boat racers blew up and scrapped those engines by the hundreds unfortunately. I know Hydroplanes want to return to piston racing and rather than using any more of these WW2 engines, I'm glad to see that Aardema Development is designing a new V12 series in the spirit of the Allison that they want to use in boat racing. Guess we can see where this effort goes. kzfaq.info70vKqTM1Bro
@iangreenhalgh9280 Жыл бұрын
The Allison engine was arguably a generation in advance of the Merlin in many ways, but the lack of a two stage supercharger hamstrung it.
@MichaelVLang2 жыл бұрын
Deep dive explanations of these monsters needs to be done, great vid. The engineering done that led to the launch of Apollo in this era is as high tech and clever as any modern engineering. It seems so long ago.
@aerotech1bob Жыл бұрын
Great review of a great underrated engine
@jamesb.91559 ай бұрын
Fascinating that there were the 3 main-stay high output V-12 engines between the Brits, Americans and the Germans especially for their fighter aircraft. I have been to the Evergreen Flight Museum here in Oregon to see the Pratt & Whitney R4360 28 cylinder water cooled radial engines which are still fitted on the Hughs 'Spruce Goose'. It is very amazing how the jet engine simplified & improved everything so quickly.
@billballbuster7186 Жыл бұрын
The P-40Q was a good looking aircraft and achieved test speeds of 414mph at 20,000ft. But this was a test aircraft and not service aircraft which was typically quite a bit heavier. It was already way behind the performance of the P-51C when tested 1944-45. Turbo-superchargers were big and heavy and took up a lot of nacelle space on the P-38. The secret of the Merlin was the superb two-stage mechanical supercharger that needed just a 9 inch extension in the engine bay.
@ben3989 Жыл бұрын
I heard these 1710's every august in Seattle when the unlimited hydroplanes came to town. They were running Allisons and Merlins into the 80's before mostly shifting to large turboshaft turbine engines.
@bwfvc77702 жыл бұрын
Thanks for another very inciteful analysis.
@Tylercm2622 жыл бұрын
Packard gets no recognition for actually building the merlin engines. Thank you.
@FiveCentsPlease2 жыл бұрын
+ Tyler Milligan The old Packard plant was in such sorry state when it was torn down. A worn-out ghost.
@scoot777772 жыл бұрын
Very well done! Nice work 🫡🛩✅✈️😊🇺🇸🇺🇸
@davidelliott58432 жыл бұрын
Rolls-Royce constantly improved their supercharger. Battle of Britain engines were all single stage. The two stage blower came into the Merlin 61. It was the RR test engineer who noticed the 61 would go well into the Mustang. The Packard Merlin was a mass production version of the 61. By war end RR was working on a turbo compound system. It was never developed because they found their supercharger was so good that early jets just worked. Early RR turbojet compressors were basically the Merlin supercharger.
@aker19932 жыл бұрын
They leapfrog their development due to the fact RR Superchargers division have experience to the Centrifugal compressors you can see the trend post war most traditional ICE developers use Centrifugal compressors unlike those in the power generator sector like Metropolitan-Vickers and Westinghouse use Axial compressors as they are familiar to them. They are few outliers like BMW and Junker use Axial compressors for Germany first operational jet planes in combat.
@scrumpydrinker2 жыл бұрын
@@aker1993 Yes, it does help greatly that Rolls Royce had in their employ Sir Stanley Hooker who, at the time was the pre eminent designer working on centrifugal superchargers, he took the original supercharger, which was excellent and improved it and was head of supercharger design until the middle of1942 and so also developed the 2speed 2 stage supercharger fitted to the merlin 60 series, he then transferred to the jet engine program.His background was an academic specialising in fluid dynamics. I think the main reason that a lot of the first generation jet engines had centrifugal compressors was that there was much more experience in centrifugal compressor design which were used in most aircraft engines prewar as opposed to the axial compressor which was a design with initially many issues. Axial compressors have their benefits but at that stage in the development the problems outweighed the benefits. Britain had axial jet engines in development at about the same time as Germany and a meteor with Metrovick engines was test flying in about 1943/44 and Rolls Royce was starting the development of what would become the Avon in 1945: if you haven’t already seen it I highly recommend “Not much of an engineer” which is Sir Stanley Hookers autobiography, it fully covers his career.
@kenneth9874 Жыл бұрын
Yes it really put the merlin in the ball game when it was given American developed 2stage 2speed superchargers and American high octane fuel, not to mention the Stromberg pressure carburetor (throttle body fuel injection)
@wilburfinnigan2142 Жыл бұрын
UHHHHH David Elliot most of the merlins Packard made for the Brits, 37,137 were versions of the 20 series, single stage 2 speed. Packard did make some 266 merlins used in the 1040 spitfire Mk XVI, the only 2stage merlins Packard made for the Brits who were the primary users of Packard merlins. USAAF got 3,000 V1650-1 single stage used in some P40's but 15,000 v1650-3 or-7 or -9 went into the Mustangs.YOU are one of the confused that think all merlins were 2 stage, they were not, most merlinswere the 20 series sungle stage....the 2 stage merlin did not show up untill late 1942/43..
@wilburfinnigan2142 Жыл бұрын
@@kenneth9874 Packard use the Bendix pressure carb from the start of their production and Allison used it from 1938 !! ! FYI !!!
@ceebee23 Жыл бұрын
fascinating story .... and great to actually see the face behind the voice!
@martysherrygriggs81362 жыл бұрын
While not a piston engine; The Allison T-56 turbine engine was a huge success for the Allison company. In fact Allison produced many reliable turbine designs for aircraft and helicopters. I would like to know your comments on these engines.
@peterbustin26832 жыл бұрын
Wouldnt bother. He has a weird way of telling a story...
@wilburfinnigan2142 Жыл бұрын
Rolls Royce bought them out to get into the American military market !! !
@KW-ei3pi Жыл бұрын
Excellent video, as always. Your speaking ability is excellent, and the logical development in presenting the material is also excellent. Off topic but related, I am always amazed at the shear volume of technical and engineering development in the early part of the 20th century, especially in the 1930's. No doubt you have noticed this in the research of your videos. Perhaps it could be a subject of a video, if you can pin down exactly why this was the case. Regards.
@RichardGoth2 жыл бұрын
Great video. Love the new format
@charlesdavis794011 ай бұрын
Super interesting video. Very well done. Thank you.
@WPF465B2 жыл бұрын
Really excellent presentation, thank you
@halgilley5717 Жыл бұрын
Allison engine was solid. Problem with the single stage Allisons was that the airframes were too heavy. P-39, P-40 and P-51A weighed 7650#, 8400# and 8600# respectively for an engine of 1150HP. Spitfire V weighed 6500# with 1400HP and a Me109G weighed 7000# with a 1475HP engine.
@Cheka__2 жыл бұрын
Nice shout out to Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. These videos remind me of his. He's all about getting into the technical details of WW2 aircraft engines.
@mopartron3030 Жыл бұрын
Interesting mention towards the end regarding squish/quench not being properly utilized for increased anti-knock capability. From my experience with high-performance automotive engines, for squish to be used effectively there must be a portion of the piston head's surface that comes within roughly .045" or less of the combustion chamber surface when the piston is at TDC. My guess is this was hard to implement without a complex piston dome/dish shape because if it was simply flat then the volume at TDC would have been small and compression ratio likely would have been much too high to be suitable for the intended manifold pressures. Just a thought, makes me want to read that Horsepower Race book even more now...
@shermanhouse68802 жыл бұрын
Enjoying your videos very much thank you for your research and detail please keep them coming
@topturretgunner2 жыл бұрын
Really well done and informative. Thank you.
@patchthesinclair58962 жыл бұрын
I have a fantasy plane, it's a de Havilland Mosquito airframe built-in carbon fibre. In my fantasy I'm always looking for more power than the Merlins it was originally given. This is an interesting part of the dream!
@scottbaase4042 Жыл бұрын
From an engineering standpoint, the nuclear bombs were a terrible move, yet they really saved a lot of American soilders, and more than some Japanese civilians. Still the death knell of the piston engine.
@wirksworthsrailway2 жыл бұрын
A great overview and very well poresented. By the way, I see the book on the Rolls-Royce Crecy over your shoulder: designed just a few miles form where I live!
@kristoffermangila2 жыл бұрын
Did you know that the V-1710 was almost considered to be a tank engine? It was tested on the T29 heavy tank prototype, probably influenced by the Rolls-Royce Meteor.
@jeffbrooke48922 жыл бұрын
Excellent, thanks!
@user-df8it8bs7t2 жыл бұрын
Realy like new format. Looking forward for new vids!
@groomlake51 Жыл бұрын
@6:10 look at the valve seats😎 3 angle form on the intake. 5 angle on the exhaust. That’s Race Car Stuff
@Shadow0fd3ath248 ай бұрын
the size, complexity, and raw HP of these monsters is incredible just to be flown directly into German flak by 18-25 year olds. Such a crazy period in history
@paoloviti61562 жыл бұрын
Very interesting video on the Allison V-1710 engines also because I know very little about the history of the Allison factory. I always understood that the Allison V-1710 was easier to maintain compared to the Rolls-Royce Merlin and had better performance at low altitude. Regarding the issue of the P-38 that had issues over the cold and damp weather it seems to be controversial: years ago I bought a very interesting series of booklets, in this case the two parts on the P-38 variants. It emphatically stated that, here is the following excerpt: "the digestive problems with the engines that occurred at high altitude was argued, by other authors, was due to the cold and damp European weather. The booklet argued that temperatures and humidity are generally the same around the world at altitudes greater than 25,000 feet where those problems occurred when in the Pacific the Lightnings established a great record for reliability regardless of altitude and temperatures. Based on all the facts, it is evident that the poor quality of the British fuel is to blame, because they proved unsuitable for use in turbocharged in-line engines. Powerplants with two-speed, two-stage, mechanical superchargers and even radial engines with turbo superchargers did not have the same ingestive problems with the British fuel but the combination of an inline engine and a turbocharger always did." Mind you that those are not my words as I merely copied it but who wrote this seems to know the facts. That said I didn't know that the Army didn't let the Allison company to develop their own mechanical turbocharger that would have permitted to develop better high altitude engines without needing to use Packard made engines. Good job again 👍👍👍
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
The fight in the ETO was at height and this told against the Allison Most PR was at extreme height and this ruled out the Allison without the Turbo-supercharger
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
Is it not funny that the Packard the Merlin all ran very well on that poor quality British Fuel. Mate the US was in the war in the Med when the P38 was in action for the first time July 42 and by then it would have been US fuel . The Army does not control whether a private company can or cannot develop its own Supercharger. Hell Merlin and Packard were improving their engines from Day 1 right through the War
@paoloviti615611 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis here the story gets a bit complicated because the Packard-Merlin never flew with low-quality fuel because it was supplied directly from USA both in England and the Pacific. But it is true that the Packard-Merlin performed well with lower quality fuel whilst the Allison V-1710 engines suffered from this, the reason why the P-38 had initially serious issues...
@paoloviti615611 ай бұрын
@@jacktattis in this you are correct but remember that the Allison V-1710 had better performance on low altitude...
@jacktattis11 ай бұрын
@@paoloviti6156 Yes better than the radials about even with the Packard Merlin depending on Variant