Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: P-35 V-1710 evolution?

  1. #1
    Senior Member gjs238's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northern NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,074
    Post Thanks / Like

    P-35 V-1710 evolution?

    The R-1820/30 powered Curtiss P-36/Model 75 Hawk evolved into the V-1710 powered P-40.
    Who's to say the similarly powered Seversky P-35 couldn't have had a similar evolution?
    I'm thinking a V-1710 powered P-43.

    I suppose the downside could be no R-2800 powered P-47.
    But a potent P-43 could have been nice for the early war years, and could have ended up displacing the P-40 to some extent.


  2. #2
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't think Republic would have ever considered an in-line engine on their designs. In de Servesky's book "Victory Through Airpower" he refers to the "Allison inline" as the "Air Corps pet engine," perhaps he had some bitter feeling towards the USAAC as he made this statement after he was removed as Serversky's CEO. I think its safe to say that Kartiveli was intent on designing fighters around radials.

  3. #3
    Creator of Interesting Threads tomo pauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    My take is that with non-turbo V-1710 the gain is practically nil - just another plane that's good for combats under 15 kft, but a bad choice for combats above that alt.

    Now, replacing R-1830 with V-1710, in P-43, offers some better performance, at least on paper. P-38F was served with 1325 HP at 20 kft, 1240 HP at 25 kft, in second half of 1942, so we can use that power for 'our' P-43. Such power was comparable with Merlin 60s, but those can go to WEP (or 5min regime?) for more power, albeit at lower height. The P-43 itself was Spitfire-sized, but it was heavier than Mk.IX, let alone the Mk.V. The armament need to go to 6x .50 cals, with at least 350 rpg. Protection also need to be more substantial. That would mean some 500-1000 lbs more for take off - 8000-8500 lbs 'loaded' weight? Heavy indeed, but still some 10% than P-51D.
    My take is that top speed would've been something between Spit V and IX (390 mph at 25 kft? - turbo cancels the exhaust thrust mostly), with climb comparable with P-51D, available from late 1942 on. That's with P-38 engine power for era; from late 1943, it's 1425 HP MIL (400 mph +?), and 1600 HP WER (410-420 mph?).

    Only US plane that was really fast at altitude, prior second half of 1943, was P-38. Splendid plane, but not that available, with many bugs to sort out. A more affordable plane, to bulk out the numbers, but of similar performance, available a full year before P-47, or 15 months prior P-51B, would've been very good for Allied cause. Of course, providing it was offering a substantial internal fuel capacity (218 gals - non-self sealing in real P-43?); 2 x 108 gals drop tanks at such a plane would've take one further away than when attached at real P-47.

    Joe, XP-47A was featuring V-1710 in the mock-up IIRC.
    Last edited by tomo pauk; 11-11-2011 at 02:10 PM.

  4. #4
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by tomo pauk View Post
    Joe, XP-47A was featuring V-1710 in the mock-up IIRC.
    You're right and probably the exception to the rule for some reason, perhaps driven by the AAC within the initial contract.

  5. #5
    Creator of Interesting Threads tomo pauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Turbo R-2800 was to offer 2000 HP all the way to 25000ft, turbo V-1710 was cleared for more than 1150 HP only from mid/late 1942 - no wonder AAC changed their mind and wanted the 2800 in a new fighter from mid 1940. Hence the (X)P-47B was created.
    Last edited by tomo pauk; 11-11-2011 at 04:09 PM.

  6. #6
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Perhaps de Servesky had his reasons for his harsh statements.....

  7. #7
    Banned Siegfried's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    794
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Allison V-1710 was a decent engine when fitted with a two stage, infinetly vairable supercharger as used in the P-40Q.

    Why would it take Allison 2 years after the start of the war to offer variable speed supercharger (either 2 speeds or hydraulic) let alone two stages when every American radial offered a choice of two speeds, often two stages as a further option or turbo as another option.

    Granted it wasn't going to completely make up for the P-40/Me 109 weight difference but it would have given more power at all altitudes through a better matching of blower power to requirements.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    The answer to that is very simple and mostly unknown to the public.The Allison V-1710 engine design was wholly and solely owned by the US Government! Any changes were to be approved by Congress.

    Ever try to get ANY change past Congress? Not easy!
    Last edited by GregP; 11-13-2011 at 12:30 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do you have any proof of this bit of "folk lore". Allison did have to "forget" $900,000 of "government" debt for permission to export the V-1170. With dozens of different Allison models, some with many changes between models I think congress was just a little busy during the war to micro manage an engine program.

    The single speed Allisons were essentially altitude engines anyway. Without a new supercharger (inlet, impeller, housing, etc) the best you were going to get was the 9.60 gears and the 15,500ft critical altitude. a "second" gear would have been a low altitude gear like 6.5 or 7.0 to 1 which would have given more power for take off and low altitudes, perhaps another 75-100hp? Since the Allison seemed to stand up to over boosting at the lower altitudes rather well this really wasn't desperately needed.
    3000rpm X 9.60 gears = 28,800 impeller rpm. 9.5in dia impeller = 29.83in/2.485ft circumference. 28,800rpm X 2.485 ft / 60 (feet to seconds) = 1192fps impeller tip speed. Speed of sound at sea level at 68 degrees is about 1125-1130fps. In the higher pressure, higher temperature interior of the supercharger it is a bit higher but you aren't going to use much more tip speed in the Allison supercharger and get any real benefit.
    The 2 speed (not 2 stage) Merlins used a 9:49 high gear and a 10.25in impeller. Tip speed was 1272fpm. Power used by the supercharger goes up with the square of the tip speed. 30-40% of the power used is turned into heat in the intake charge. you would need a set of 10.24 gears of the Allison to equal the tip speed of the Merlin but since the basic supercharger isn't as good as the Hooker modified supercharger on the Merlin XX you still aren't going to get the same performance.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    3,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the government was in control of the Allison program it would be via the USAAC/F Engineering Division of the Air Materiel Command.

    The AMC definitely controlled the development of the Continental IV-1430.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't have to prove it ... read the books. It's in there.

    The government didn't officially release the Allison rights until the late 1940's after the war was over for several years. By then, the V-1710 was out of production. In the 1980's the rights to the V-1710 were acquired by Rolls Royce with the intent to kill it off. But the Allison is still beating the Merlin in tractor pulls all over Europe. It got so bad that the Europen tractor pull association enacted a rule to limit the tractor enines to 1650 cubic inches, coincidentally the displacement of the Merlin.

    All we did to address that was to install piston liners with 0.1 inch less bore and the displacement was magically down to 1650 and the Allisons still won. When we did that, they relented and threw out the rule, and Allisons are STILL winning tractor pulls in Europe. We have a friensd over tehre running a tractor that can use 2 or 3 Allisons , na dtheya re easily convetered between round to run in different classes.
    Last edited by GregP; 11-13-2011 at 09:02 PM.

  12. #12
    Creator of Interesting Threads tomo pauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    A question about the XP-40Q-3, If I may.
    I've read at the Vee's for victory that it's V-1710-121 was able to deliver 1700 bhp up to 26,000 ft. That was WER, with water/methanol injection. Was that engine featured an intercooler/aftercooler?

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    3,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by tomo pauk View Post
    A question about the XP-40Q-3, If I may.
    I've read at the Vee's for victory that it's V-1710-121 was able to deliver 1700 bhp up to 26,000 ft. That was WER, with water/methanol injection. Was that engine featured an intercooler/aftercooler?
    I think probably not.

    Some 2 stage Allisons did use an intercooler, but those were the earlier ones. And I don't think they used ADI either.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    3,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GregP View Post
    I don't have to prove it ... read the books. It's in there.

    The government didn't officially release the Allison rights until the late 1940's after the war was over for several years. By then, the V-1710 was out of production. In the 1980's the rights to the V-1710 were acquired by Rolls Royce with the intent to kill it off. But the Allison is still beating the Merlin in tractor pulls all over Europe. It got so bad that the Europen tractor pull association enacted a rule to limit the tractor enines to 1650 cubic inches, coincidentally the displacement of the Merlin.

    All we did to address that was to install piston liners with 0.1 inch less bore and the displacement was magically down to 1650 and the Allisons still won. When we did that, they relented and threw out the rule, and Allisons are STILL winning tractor pulls in Europe. We have a friensd over tehre running a tractor that can use 2 or 3 Allisons , na dtheya re easily convetered between round to run in different classes.
    Would Rolls-Royce really care about tractor pulling races using obsolete engines?

    Rolls-Royce would have picked up the rights to the V-1710 when they purchased Allison in the 1990s.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    3,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by tomo pauk View Post
    A question about the XP-40Q-3, If I may.
    I've read at the Vee's for victory that it's V-1710-121 was able to deliver 1700 bhp up to 26,000 ft. That was WER, with water/methanol injection. Was that engine featured an intercooler/aftercooler?
    Quote Originally Posted by wuzak View Post
    I think probably not.

    Some 2 stage Allisons did use an intercooler, but those were the earlier ones. And I don't think they used ADI either.

    Just checked, and the answer is no, the XP-40Q did not have an intercooler or aftercooler.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. P-40 vs. Hurricane
    By DerAdlerIstGelandet in forum Aviation
    Replies: 370
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 08:02 AM
  2. Replies: 473
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 06:04 PM
  3. Visibility over the nose: Inline v Radial engine
    By fastmongrel in forum Engines
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-29-2010, 02:36 PM
  4. P-39 or P-40 for rest of war?
    By Jerry W. Loper in forum Aviation
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 04-29-2010, 04:38 PM
  5. The Birth of Soviet Jets and Korea Operations...
    By lesofprimus in forum Post-War
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-08-2006, 07:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •