enginehistory.org Forum Index enginehistory.org
Aircraft Engine Historical Society Members' Bulletin Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why did the V-1710 require higher PN fuel to reach the perf.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    enginehistory.org Forum Index -> Allison Engines
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jjuutinen



Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:07    Post subject: Why did the V-1710 require higher PN fuel to reach the perf. Reply with quote

...ormance of the Merlin? Now, please forget any IMEPs. I have only interest in what is available to drive the propeller. Anyway, the highest official rating I know of the V-1710 on 100/130 fuel seems to be 1500 hp in non-turbo models. Now, the Merlin 130 is capable of 1830 hp on the same fuel. And the highest power the Allison is capable of on lean mixture seems to be around 800 hp (MAP=38in) while the Merlin 130 is capable of some 1200 hp on (boost +9) the same 100/130 fuel at lean mixture. That is 50% difference. BTW, the Allison G-series, with its reduced cr, has a max continuous boost of 44inHg on 115/145 fuel, while the Merlin 130 reaches 50 in on 100/130 fuel!!! The big question is: What did Allison screw up? Bearing in mind what Heron wrote on mild and severe engines, the Allison seems to be a much more severe engine in terms of fuel quality requirements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gryan
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 21:23    Post subject: It's the combustion chambers? Probably not! Reply with quote

I am interested by this as well.

I thought it intriguing that combusion chamber design of the respective engines seems to indicate the Alison would be the stronger performer. On inspecting cylinder heads, Merlin combustion chamber shape does not seem all that promising. The Allison is more like what you would find in modern practice for a 4-valve engine. Yet the Merlin does better performace wise. Nor does not seem to have had an issue with detonation.

What is going on?
Back to top
jrussell



Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 56
Location: Portland, Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 23:11    Post subject: V-1710 PN Requirements Reply with quote

After searching for good pictures of V-1650 and V-1710 combustion chambers, I also came to the conclusion that the Merlin did not look like it had a clearly better chamber. As a matter of fact, an "eyeball" anaylsis tells me that a V-1710 should have been a lot closer in potential than it seems to be. Does anyone have info on the flow bench performance of the respective inlet and exhxaust ports?. At this point I am focusing on the adiabatic effiency of the respective superchargers, as it seems the most likely candidate for the performance differential. I have tried to find compressor "maps" for the two engines, and have had no luck. NARA sent me some performance charts on early Allison's, but I have'nt had the time to actually figure the effiency of the supercharger from the data.
_________________
It runs best just before it blows!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jjuutinen



Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

This supercharger issue is interesting. I hope Dan Whitney doesn´t blow up, but I really find his comments on the "greatness" of Allison two stage supercharging annoying. It is clear from the specs that the RR two stage solution was vastly superior. For example, two stage Merlins give more power at the same boost that their single stage counterparts and maintain the power to considerably higher altitude, even with low altitude models (66). This is in direct contrast to Allison whose aux stage worsened low alt performance.

Second point is that while the Allison seemed to be stuck to around 1600 hp in all series produced installations to the war´s end, a large number of Merlins were cleared for +25 boost, i.e. some 2000 hp, in the spring of 1944 without any substantial problems in service (see www.spitfireperformance.com). In my opinion the P-38 would have greatly benefitted from Merlin 66s.

It is my opinion that the best late war liquid cooled engines were the Merlin, Sabre, Griffon and the Jumo 213. By the way, it is interesting to note that the Jumo had about 25-30% lower SFC at WEP rating compared to an Allison. A clear demonstration of the superiority of direct injection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rlawrence



Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 06:08    Post subject: Merlin in P-38 Reply with quote

The boys in the photo recon at Mt Farm in England installed Merlins In a 38 in 1944. It ran nicely & flew the same. They reported their findings to higher Hdqts & were promptly told to remove those engines & say no more about it under threat of court martial
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    enginehistory.org Forum Index -> Allison Engines All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group