There are some wild aero-engined tractors out there for pulling. Maybe someone already did this. I've seen them with giant radials, multiple Merlins and even a few gas-turbine powered tractors.
My ex's father, B.C.Smith FRAeS started at Napier as an apprentice when he was 14. One of his jobs was flying around at night in a Lancaster with a Sabre in place of one Merlin. He said they idled the Merlins after takeoff and ran the Sabre flat out, that was enough to haul the Lancaster around at normal speed. But then they were light on fuel and had no other load. His job was recording engine telemetry every few minutes. The manual said to fill the engine with hot oil before starting, but he said they just fired them up. He eventually went on to run three parts of British Aerospace before he retired. He died around 2000.
I read Roland Beamont's book on the Typhoon and Tempest and sleeve wear was the root of the issue. Bristol and English Electric came to the rescue after pressure from the British government. I did not know about the Sabre 7, this is a fantastic video, I don't care how you pronounce Napier this is a brilliant expose of this incredible piece of engineering, thank you Sir
Exactly, as the Sleeve Valve Engine needed material science that didn't exist during WWII. Blow by [the leakage of exhaust] of the British Mark tanks of WWI was known for killing the crews with, so that carbon monoxide would kill the crew leaving the tank lumbering across the battle field. Sleeve valve engines would need much more frequent rebuilding than poppet valve engines. This is the same problem that the Rotary Engine has, with RX7's needing a rebuild to replace the seals as often as a air cooled beetle engine.Quickly RX7's will drop to 11 MPG due to their seals and the Sleeve Valve Engines have the same issues...
@@davidhollenshead4892well said. Tempests were taken out of service in late 1944 to rebuild the engines and for other mods. Sabre V was better but too late for WWII.
My grandfather flew the Typhoon and Tempest, and without a doubt had more flight hours flying these aircraft than any other pilot during world war II. The reasoning I know this is they forgot to include him in the algorithmic rotation of pilots for leave. He had one break during the entirety of the war which consisted of 2 or 3 days on a beach which he said came to an abrupt end when he got a letter telling him to return early. He didn't know what the time but it was for the preparations of D-Day. My grandfather was taught on a Harvard before being assigned to a early model typhoon, he never made any mention of the teething issues of the engine itself, but oftentimes told me how difficult the plane was to land. In his words you had to have the nose off to one side and at last second just before touchdown straight in the plane out, that s was needed so you could see the runway. Adding further challenge was the landing speed of the aircraft which was tremendous. He did make mention that there was a one-time fuel dump on one variant of the aircraft he flew which was to be used in a emergency situation to get the plane out of danger. My grandfather said he used it one time and it greatly increased the airspeed of the aircraft. Sadly D-Day was not a good day for this type of aircraft as they were instructed to fly directly at level with the pill boxes and main guns of the Germans in Normandy to fire their rockets into them. This made them very easy to target and my grandfather lost many friends that day.
@Hugh Leiper My father was a Hurricane then Typhoon pilot before D-Day, the lead up to D-Day and ofc after. Yes, lot of low flying to target railways, tanks etc. Very dangerous. My father's log book documents some of those landings, the plane was big for a single seater and difficult to see the runway both for take off and landing. and other incidents and loosing fellow pilots. He loved the power from that engine and often praised it as an end user. He flew the typhoons with 257_Burma squadron .
I believe what you were referring to was War Emergency Thrust. The throttle had a copper wire as a gate. Push the throttle through the gate,breaking the wire. Depending on the engine,commonly there was water/methanol plus extra fuel for increased boost. The engine needed mandatory extra inspection or engine change if the gate wire was broken. Pilots who did use this remarked on just how much extra noise and furor happened with the extra power. The water/methanol tank capacity limited the time the boost level happened.
@@toonertik I am sorry for the delayed response, and thank you for your further knowledge and information pertaining to your father. I don't know if my Grandfather switched squadrons ever, but but he received his DFC while flying for the 198 Squadron.
@@paulmanson253 Thanks Paul, appreciate your input. Sadly as a child I never asked enough questions and just remember the stories. It's been years since my grandfather has passed and it was always one of those things I wish I had asked about more. But even as a child I knew that it was a touchy subject.
Commented by modern day idiot who does not know that modern engineering makes more use of the human brain and less time preforming menial tasks. Just because you failed how to use the modern tools of this age does not mean that anything made without them is better.
But reality is the people designing had far more skills. My father was a tool and die maker. He said the Britts just had a different culture and ability. Americans were good at mass production at high tolerances, whereas Brits were good at hand fitting Same issue with Merlin engines I’ve read. Each engine hand fitted, parts not interchangeable with level of precision. I do not know if true. I was not around working on them.
When you think about how much power the Sabre VII makes compared to other engines by displacement it’s incredible. Sabre VII has a displacement of 36.7 liters, the same as the RR griffon. It still makes over a thousand more horsepower than the most powerful griffon (130) while operating on LESS manifold pressure. (Griffon 25psi 2450hp, Sabre 20psi 3500hp) a late war PW r2800 made 2800hp and its displacement was much larger at 44L. Using the conventional American radial design, they had to make an engine twice as large as the Sabre to make the same power. The PW r4360 had 27 cylinders and displaced 72 liters, almost twice as big as the Sabre VII but makes the same horsepower. It demonstrates that a smaller engine turning faster can pump more air through it than a larger engine turning slower. The Sabre was truly ahead of it’s time
Seeing the helical-cut reduction gears and thrust balance arms brought back memories from well over fifty years ago. The R-2800CB16 engines on the Convairs I maintained at the time had helical cut reduction gears and an axially-moving component as well. In that case, a rod which was moved by thrust, derived from torque on the gear, moved an oil valve which ported engine oil to a chamber to re-center the valve. The oil pressure in the chamber varied with torque, and was connected to a transmitter that sent the signal to an engine torque gauge in the cockpit, calibrated and identified as BMEP, Brake Mean Effective Pressure. If I remember correctly, the critical indication was 212 BMEP at sea level at 2800 rpm for takeoff. Graphs in the pilot's manual allowed them to calculate actual horsepower delivered at different rpm and BMEP values. Does anybody know why the Sabre engine required constant speed and differential units in the ignition drive shaft?
It was the spring loading of the Saber's reduction gears that contributed to that component's incredible reliability. Halford was way ahead of his time.
After seeing part 1 I also checked Graham White's book just to see if some of the faults were not related to the original Napier-built sleeves. Bristol's nitrided austenitic steel sleeves were a great improvement as you pointed out, specially regarding reliability. I would only add that the 1 extra point in compression ratio used in sleeve-valve engines is well documented in many of Harry Ricardo's writings on the subject, indicating the absence of hot valve heads in the combustion chamber leaded to better knocking resistance and allowed that increase. It would have been good to see Bristol's Hercules and Centaurus engines in you comparision just to see if these other 2 sleeve-valve engines were similar to the Sabre. Keep doing engine videos, they are great!
My English cousin who died a while ago at the age of 96, worked his whole life at Napier. His father worked most of his life there too. He was a member of the Napier foundation a group of retired Napier men who worked to keep Napier history alive.
I'm thankful that my engine technician/engineer self was alerted to Flight Dojo via the algorithm. I worked as a mechanic for more then 45 years with 35 of those year working on Mercedes Benz automobiles. I've always thought it would have been fun to be working at the factory putting together the massive engineering marvels of the time. I really enjoyed everything you have to say during these lectures. Even if you get a specification incorrect, there's so many possibilities, that when you correct them later I find they set a little further into my brain. Thanks for taking the time to produce these wonderful video's. I don't think the factories could have done a better job. During my tenure with Mercedes Benz I found more then a few typos and incorrect nomenclature aberrations in the technical manuals. I honestly believe they were aware of the mistakes only leaving them for the technician/engineer to discover later on. Only the really savvy techs would figure it out. I enjoy this kind of presentation . Please keep on doing what you like so we can enjoy what we like. In other words, good stuff Maynard.
One of my acquaintances' father was a test pilot for the Royal Australian Air Force. He said the Sabre was terrifyingly powerful, almost to the point of twisting the plane around the prop if the throttle was opened too quickly.
My next door neighbour some years ago was a Tempest pilot and said the same - he joined his first squadron just before war ended and was always so sad he never fired his guns in anger, he wasn't bloodthirsty its just that he had wanted to do his bit.
That was commonly referred to as a prop stall, where the aircraft would literally spin around the prop. It was a significant problem during the slow speed landing phase, if power had so suddenly had to be applied to go around. All the later fighter aircraft experienced this problem.
@@jjock3239 The Gerry Beck crash with his new-build P-51A at Oshkosh was a prop stall when he bumped into Odegaard's P-51 during landing and then slammed the throttle to recover.
@@Niinsa62 Designed initially as a compact submarine engine, hence the shape. Napier's detailed history is fascinating, they didn't just do engines, but all manner of machines, trucks and cars, many Napier designs were produced by other companies and never by Napier. Another fascinating Napier engine is the Nomad, check that for specific fuel consumption !
The Deltic was a lot of complexity for even less payoff. An 18 cyl, 36 piston Deltic delivered 1600hp in 1961. An EMD 567C was developing 1750hp with a 16 cylinder V configuration in 1953. A contemporary EMD 567D of 1961 could develop 2250hp. If you were ok with complexity a Fairbanks-Moorse 12 cyl opposed piston diesel could develop 2400hp in rail use in 1953.
@@PositionLight Deltic engines were originally designed for MTB use generating 2500 hp, turbocharged 3,100 hp and charge cooled 3,700 hp. The compound Deltic - tested but never went into manufacture was over 5,000 hp from the same engine block. So, I'm very sorry to say you are wrong.
The algorithm put me onto this channel, adoring the content, hope the views keep up and looking forward to more videos. One note as a friend of mine who owns vintage tractors was at pains to tell me, the shotgun shell starter uses a BLANK cartridge. He knows a guy who used a regular one and made shite of the engine!
Thanks for doing the interesting and enlightening talks on these marvels of engineering. In the late 60s, the wing commander I worked under, survived a tour Typhoons from before D-Day until the end of the war. He wasn't inclined to talk about his experiences, but in the right surroundings and with just the right amount of beer, he could be induced to relate some of his experiences to us first tour sprogs. His mission, was ground attack, and I can still remember him saying that he didn't know what scared him the most, doing the actual attacks on trains, tanks, before and during D-Day, or the flight home across the channel with that monstrous chin scoop, knowing that if he had to ditch, he would certainly have flipped onto his back. He loved the engine, and it never let him down. I was lucky enough to work with a lot of WWII retreads, and regret not getting them to talk more about their experiences. The two piston engines that have always fascinated me the most, are the Napier Sabre, and the Bristol Centaurus. Both of these engines are a thing of beauty in their own right. I first saw the Napier Sabre in the late 70s, at the British Science Museum, and just had to learn more about it. I can't remember for certain, but I think I first saw the Centaurus on display at the Navy Museum (southeast of Bristol). I have also seen the Sea Fury, from takeoff, air display, and landing, and that is one impressive aircraft.
As somebody who lived the first years of his life in Napier, New Zealand, your correction of the inconsistent pronunciation of from Part 1 inside the first minute of Part 2 made me smile. Excellent presentation on a fascinating bit of British engineering. I love all things aero, especially engines. New subscriber here.
I literally just found your channel this morning, watched part 1, and was wondering when you would upload again, love the amount of detail you go into with these videos, you sir have earned a sub!
Another good source of general information on sleev valve angines, (and many other types), is Sir Harry Ricardo's book 'The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine'. One of his wartime test engines, a supercharged single cylinder sleeve valve, engine, managed 219 BHP/Litre, though at that point they stopped testing because they had burned the sleeve using methanol and water injection; they were using that because they had reached the fuel flow limit of the carburetter. Sadly all that research work stopped with the advent of the jet engine. If you want to see another quirky Napier engine, take a look at the 'Deltic', used in Fast patrol boats, Railway engines, and memorably a super pumper for the New York Fire Service, amongst other uses.
Probably 55 years ago, one of my uncles always told me the sleeve valve was the problem (he was also a POW and HATED the Japanese). When I got older and had a lot more interest in piston enginesI wondered about it as the Deltic was made along the same lines but that didn't seem to have the same issues and was used for years by British Rail
@@1crazypj The Napier Deltic was a two stroke design, using fixed cylinder porting to effect fuel inlet and exhaust scavenging, so was not equipped with sleeve valves
Thank you for the hard work you have put into parts 1&2, it was amazing that this engine was produced in such a short period of time and had most of its reliability problems solved to make a formidable fighter.
Please , no worries about Napier, these two videos are brilliant, thank you , much appreciated is the technical content and illustrations. An interesting Diesel engine is the two stroke Napier Deltic, use on the British Railways class 55 locos , it sounds awesome
Wow! 4000+ HP really is an impressive number. I can't remember where I saw it, but some (well informed) guy explained that, practically, the max HP for a cylinder is about 200 HP, and the max number of cylinders for an aero engine is about 25, yielding an absolute maximum of about 5000 HP. This figure was borne out later in the '50s so 4000 HP in 1944 is just jaw-dropping. I still wonder, though, about long-term reliability. It clearly has more moving parts with tighter tolerances and that must bear strongly on reliability. Also, if and when you continue your videos of aero engines, I'd like to see more discussion of specific fuel consumption. I feel this subject is rarely addressed. Great Video! Very Interesting! Much Respect!
Official max performance ever used in a plane is 3055hp at 17lb using water injection and 100/130 fuel of VII and this is in november of 1945 3500hp is not even achievable in this engine even overbusting, you would need a better supercharger or ram air effect at full speed in level flight at SL, let alone 4000hp test runs... this video is like If I take engine test runs of R2800 with powers of 3800hp and say it is better than a 2400hp napier sabre in service, what does this prove?
@@Triple_J.1 This is an inane comparison. Top fuel dragsters are designed to operate for a few seconds and many don't survive even that. This claim was made for aero engines specifically, wherein reliability is of paramount importance. Actual real-world considerations matter too.
I damn near spit my drink out on the ride into work this morning at that john deer comment. I really enjoyed this video and appreciate the work you put into it. It's a shame that none of these engines are in running condition.. but i know that will change at some point with the current projects that are in the works.
As to the cooling system the Merlin was around 300 lbs and from what I remember it ran super high pressure so the radiator was built like a brick house it was so strong you can find photos of them on the ground being some of the largest bits left of the plane
Time stamp 9:38 to 9:48 - Hawker Tornado. Tell tale of the intake over the top of the cowling and more obviously the double exhaust stakes on each side. This indicates it was a RR Vulture engine. Time stamp 9:49 to 9:53 0 Hawker Typhoon MkIA. Tell tale of the 6 ports under wing of the aircraft for the 6 .303 Browning machineguns on the starboard wing. In fact, most of the WW2 footage of the Typhoon was of the MkIA. The same for Part 1 as well. Not complaining, just grateful to see so much footage of the earlier Typhoons. The MkIB is represented as well. You can tell them by the 4 big protuberances on the leading edge of the wings. I should say that a great topic would be the Bristol Centaurus engine. It was a contemporary of the Sabre, and a sleeve valve demon as well.
I've read the story of Bristol sleeve valve engines and they too initially had appalling reliability records, most sleeves didn't last more than 10-20 hours which was far from the roughly 150 hours before teardown of a Merlin engine, but this issue was resolved by contacting an American firm that had the precision manufacturing tools for making the sleeves with enough precision and tolerance. I can't remember the name of the American company selling the tools to Bristol to manufacture their sleeve valves.
Looking at Sir Harry Ricardo's 1952 edition of 'The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine', which you could consider a kind of Bible of the sleeve-valve engine, I only found that Bristol used an austenitic steel sleeve, which was nitrided and 'satin finished' to prolong wear life. There is no reference to any American company, but this doesn't mean your information is not correct. They give most of the credit to the Bristol-developed process of massaging the sleeves after nitriding, eliminating the distortions which resulted from the surface treatment. I wish this information is of your interest.
@@gutofuhr While I don’t question your source, some British pride is difficult to irradicate and a stumbling block when you are writing about your heritage, my source was about the start of the sleeve valve engines and how they broke down when tested in bench, but for my life I can’t remember the name of the source.
They were Sunstrand centreless grinders. Rod Banks was able to secure them and get them sent to Napier for them to manufacture the sleeves. Bristol did not need them, as they had already discovered (by accident) that the way to get the sleeves within tolerance was by using a worn wheel for the final grind. Pratt & Whitney were rather annoyed, as the grinders were meant to be used for the new C series R-2800 production line.
@@gutofuhr Napier had Reliability issues with their Sleeve Valve engines, solved when they asked Bristol to make the sleeves, and then transfer the technology. First Bristol sleeves were made of Nickel Iron; later of KE965 Steel alloy, by Keyser Ellison. For Air Cooled cylinders, Bristol took an alloy with 12 % Silicon. Sleeves were made by Centrifugal Casting. According to Harry Ricardo, Iron Sleeves inside an Steel cylinder had no problems. For his Briggs&Stratton Sleeve Valve lawnmover engine, chagermiles007 used Invar alloy. Mike Hewland and Logan solved the smoke emissions in their single cylinder, 500 cc, Single Sleeve Valve Prototype, with an added Dykes ring on 'Junk Head' See Car&Driver, July 1974. Yes, 50 years ago
The fuel flow rate would also affect the power to weight ratio. If one engine uses less fuel, the aircraft would need to carry less fuel. Another consideration is that the engine with the most power and best power to weight ratio, still might not be the best engine for a particular aircraft. I think you included a good balance of details to video length for two fascinating videos. Thanks.
Here are some details he did not add. USA was not interested as they had their own double sided engine in development by Chrysler with same teething problems. Both Merlin and Allison engines made over 2000Hp before 1945 so... he was underselling those engines. USA was not interested in water cooled engines is the real deal. Especially by the end of the war. It was main reason P47 were tasked with ground attack while P51/P38/P40 were not. Same reason USNavy had zero interest in such an engine. Reliability due to ground fire etc. P47 compared to ALL other fighter types had a loss ratio to hours flown/sorties flown, even with ground pounding down in the dirt role, of 3X superior to its next rival P51(we do not have numbers for Spitfire that I know of as there were so many variants over wartime). P47 was better than the P38/Mosquito with 2 engines in terms of loss of aircraft. Yes, 1 R2800 was superior to 2 Allison/Merlin engines in war. So no, USA was not interested in a Napier Sabre engine when they had larger Radials finishing development with vastly superior reliability and damage tolerance.
The correct characteristic to take this into account is BSFC brake specific fuel consumption. Obviously, one wouldn't use an engine in an aircraft for which it was not suited. But, rest assured that BSFC is used to determine the size(volume) of the fuel tanks to achieve any given range, speed, altitude, climb rate and all up weight specified for the aircraft design. These variables are interrelated and can be traded off against one another. Nevertheless, as an aircraft designer one would choose the most powerful, fuel efficient engine available. It would be interesting if the engines in this video comparison used BSFC
Thank you for this wonderful and informative clip. Since reading Pierre Clostermans books as a youth I’ve had a fascination for the Napier Sabre and its aircraft.
There are many channels that IMO put blatantly wrong data/facts/info in every video, things that are widely known and easily proven, and when I go down into the comments everybody is correcting the creator, which obviously boosts the algorithm. Good video.
I love these aircraft engine reviews! It is truly amazing how fast these engines were developed and improved upon. Todays automotive engines, while more efficient, are still less impressive than the aircraft engines of 70 years ago.
Keep in mind that auto engines have to last two hundred thousand miles unless you are discussing Japan were they throw away cars after they are four years old. The aircraft engines of WWII had a very short life span between rebuilds. I knew an aircraft mechanic who worked on B-17s and told me how they often had to replace an engine between missions, sometimes from flak damage and sometimes because a minor part failed A better comparison is WWII aviation engines v. racing car engines...
@@davidhollenshead4892 I'd agree with that. Being ex air force on fighter/bombers, our early engines were lasting 100 hrs max before turbines would throw a blade; a new type of turbine blade was developed that vastly improved this to about 500-600 hrs, still only about 30,000 equivalent miles in a car though, so yes a good comparison to a racing car. A lot of this in the early days was the pilot pushing the throttles through to 'Combat' ('Max Military' on US jets, I think) on a regular basis; this was also fixed.
Some of the pictures when you were referring to the early Typhoon engine issues actually show the Hawker Tornado, which has the terrible Rolls Royce Vulture engine - identifiable by the TWO rows of exhaust pipes. If the Sabre had reliability issues - they were nothing compared to the Vulture!
The Sabre had a capacity of 37 litres compared to the Merlin’s 27 litres, with double the number of pistons. These were therefore smaller and as a result the Sabre could rev up and down the range like a racing car engine. The maximum revolutions were 4,200 rpm and the power rating in service was set at 3,750 hp, although it could deliver a reliable 5,500 hp with 45 lb/in of supercharger boost. The most power the Merlin could muster was 2,200 hp at 2,900 rpm with 2,640 hp available for short periods. These were incredible figures, but few people today have ever heard of this engine. Much of its history has been obscured by time and (Setright suggests) by the deliberate suppression of records. To his credit Beaverbrook saw the potential of the Sabre when it passed the Air Mistry’s 100-hour test and it went into mass production. It was not an easy engine to make, nor an easy engine to maintain. There was a struggle to make the sleeves perfectly round but by a piece of luck the Bristol Taurus engine shared the same cylinder bore of 5.0 in. Testing with Taurus sleeves was a success, but initially Bristol refused to manufacture Sabre sleeves, objecting that their techniques were confidential! The Air Ministry had to have a stern word, and in the end the sleeves were manufactured from nitrided austenitic steel forgings using Bristol tooling. Quality was not as good as at Rolls-Royce factories, and engines were often delivered with broken piston rings, and machining swarf left inside. The Merlin was more reliable and far better made. By the time the Sabre came into service many of the good pilots had been killed, replaced by those of poorer quality and hastier training. They may have been swayed by the effective Rolls-Royce propaganda, and when pilots and ground crew encountered problems with the Sabre they were prone to condemn what they could not understand. And the Sabre’s reputation was not enhanced by the Rolls-Royce representatives at the airfields. It didn’t have black shiny cam covers like the Merlin, it just looked like a big green metal box with rows of exhaust pipes and sparking plugs. The Sabre was hard to start from cold as the sleeve valves were a tight fit. At freezing point the Coffman starter struggled to turn it over, and Pierre Clostermann describes how the ground crews had to start the Sabre in his Hawker Typhoon every two hours during freezing nights in France. The correct technique was to dilute the oil with petrol, a practice also employed by the Germans, but a misfire when starting from cold could result in a fire and many trainee pilots were terrified of their Typhoons. The second problem was not the fault of the Sabre. Fighters patrolling the Channel suddenly started having engine failures, and on one day no less than 15 Sabres clanked to a halt while up in the air. Frantic investigations revealed the problem, and Setright hints at sabotage: “A bunch of stupid, ignorant and possibly misguided (but by whom?) mechanics had discovered that it was possible to fiddle with the internals of the automatic boost control that integrated the various engine functions…these fighters were cruising up and down the Channel for long drawn out patrols with the airscrews in full coarse pitch, the crankshafts turning over at cruising rev./min., and the blowers were delivering maximum boost! Of course, the engines were hammering themselves to death, and there was practically a riot when the cause was discovered.” The Sabre-powered Hawker Tempest became the most successful destroyer of the V-1 flying bombs as it was the fastest of all the Allied fighters. Whereas the Spitfire had to dive to gain enough speed to catch the V-1, the Tempest could actually overtake the primitive cruise missile. Later the Hawker Tempest managed to shoot down 20 Messerschmitt Me 262 jet aircraft. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and Rolls-Royce produced a copy of the Sabre named the Eagle Mk XXII, with the same layout of 24 cylinders in an H-block configuration and the same kind of sleeve valves. It was never fitted in a production fighter as something else was coming. The Napier Sabre was still the most powerful piston engine at the end of the war, and probably the most misunderstood. It was no Italian beauty on the outside but on the inside it was a paragon of human ingenuity, the apotheosis of the piston engine. For more, see my book on the Rolls-Royce Merlin www.amazon.co.uk/Merlin-Engine-That-Won-WWII/dp/0008359261/ref=as_li_ss_tl?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1576954352&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=sevseasevsum-21&linkId=f4c1b2d9d71477c39003034b2c73f4e6&language=en_GB
I think you are wrong about pilots not being trained properly, at least from my father's view, he was very well trained. The issue was that pilots were not trained in Typhoons. This was because pilots being trained did not know where they were going to be posted, and what aircraft they would then be flying. My father spent on year training in the middle east in Spitfires, and he could have ended up in Asia, most likely though in Italy. But he ended up at 609 Squadron an English Squadron in 1944 and flew Typhoons,
I promise to buy an audible copy of your book if you'll answer my uneducated naively simplistic question with an educated guess: Having watched all these engine videos I can't help but wonder what power to weight could have been produced by a 2 stroke (RR Crecy), sleeve valve opposing 24 (Napier Sabre) turbocompounded (Allison) engine. If that's even a thing that could have worked!
A few pilots never mastered how to start the Sabre. They left it to the ground crew to get it going. I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that one of the problems with running a Sabre today is its very special oil requirement. There are either no supplies left, or there is a tiny amount out there and nobody likely to reproduce it. I believe there is a nil hours Sabre that is/was the property of Rolls Royce out there. I think it's supposed to be destined for a Typhoon rebuild, but I've no idea how the project is faring right now. What I do know is that when German "Tip and Run" raiders in FW190s raided the South Coast of England the Typhoons could catch them on the way home like they were going backwards. That was how powerful the Sabre was. Roland Beamont was shot down in a Typhoon, and ended the war as a POW before moving into test pilot work after WW2.
The oil was different but no more so than a conventional diesel engine oil with higher levels of detergents in it, this was, in an effort to try and reduce excess contamination of sleave ports and top ring lands....these engines drank and burnt oil at an incredibly high rate.
Some relatively recent analysis that I remember reading by Matt Bearman suggests that there were problems with some of the 3 bladed deHavilland propeller designs that resulted in the prop blades operating in the transonic flow regime. It seems that this was was not properly understood at the time, but played havoc with prop constant speed units and imparted additional stresses on the engine which resulted in reliability issues. So it seems that it could have been that a propeller issue which manifest itself as engine reliability problem. The account I read thought the same issue was the source of the reliability issues of the R-R Peregrine in the Westland Whirlwind and R-R Vulture in the Avro Manchester. Interestingly most Typhoon engine reliability issues seem to have disappeared when moving from the early (thicker propeller section) 3 bladed deH prop and the later 4 bladed Rotol unit.
Dzięki Twojemu kanałowi na RUclips nie umrę w nieświadomości i błędnym przekonaniu jak w Polskiej literaturze opisywali i tłumaczyli mi nie znający się całkowicie na wtrysku wody, czy mieszaninie wody i metanolu do komory spalania, jak mówili w koncowej fazie suwu pracy tłoka. Tłumaczyli to nie potrzebą wyeliminowania stukowego spalania, no bo w końcowej fazie nie miało by to uzasadnienia bo zjawisko już nie występuje, tylko dodatkowym wytworzeniem ciśnienia ze względu na dużą prężność pary wodnej. Ciekawiła mnie mieszanina wody i metanolu, myślałem żeby nie zamarzała na wysokościach przy ujemnych temperaturach. Jak jest na prawdę kiedy w którym momencie następował wtrysk wody z metanolem zaraz po wtrysku benzyny, a wcześniej jak były gaźniki kiedy aby zapaliła się mieszanka i nie nastąpiło detonacyjne spalanie. Odpisz, wyjaśnij, pozdrawiam, Wiechu . Thanks to your RUclips channel, I will not die in ignorance and misconception as described and explained in Polish literature by those who do not know completely about water injection or a mixture of water and methanol into the combustion chamber, as they said in the final phase of the piston stroke. They explained this not by the need to eliminate knocking combustion, because in the final phase it would not be justified because the phenomenon no longer occurs, but by additional pressure generation due to the high pressure of water vapor. I was interested in a mixture of water and methanol, I thought that it would not freeze at altitudes at sub-zero temperatures. How is it really, when was the injection of water with methanol right after the injection of gasoline, and before that there were carburetors when the mixture ignited and there was no detonation combustion. Write back, explain, best regards, Wiechu.
Excellent series on a damn interesting engine and what it went through to get into production... Would love to see more like this on all engine histories !!
Just FYI, P&W designed Sabre-like engine in WW2 denoted as the H-370. Test examples were run but it never made it into production. It was slated to produce 4,000 hp from 61 litres. Also, a good reference work is from Bill Gunston called "Development of Piston Aero Engines".
A lot of people slag off the Kaufman starter but I think few realise that Rolls Royce used the Kaufman system in the Avon turbojet. The system was a bit more automated than the Sabre and had 3 cartridges in a revolving magazine in the nose cone of the jet engine, once fired, the gas from the cartridge spun a small turbine which then turned the engine over. The exhaust gas from the starter cartridge was vented from 3 ports on the engine nacelle and frightened the heck of someone who hadn't seen it before.
Great video. WRT to the weight of the cooling system this quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Tempest offers some useful information. “The weight of the heavier Centaurus engine (2,695 lb/1,222 kg versus 2,360 lb/1,070 kg) was offset by the absence of a heavy radiator unit, so that the Tempest II was only some 20 lb (9 kg) heavier overall.” This would seem to indicate a 315lb weight for the cooling system and associated components.
The primary reason that the Sabre stands so high in your comparison is as a consequence of Mr. Ricardo's work on the sleeve valve concept, which was to offset the detonation (knock) problem associated with using low Octane fuel. A general problem particularly for Britain as it had to operate its military just about everywhere in the world at the time, where fuels generally, were below 72 Octane. The sleeve valve has the fundamental advantage of being able to open the cylinder for induction and exhaust to a much larger area than is possible using any configuration or geometry of poppet valves. Configurations and geometries of poppet valves tend to exacerbate the detonation problem by reflecting shock waves within the combustion space of the engine, whereas, sleeve valves do not. This allows a sleeve valve engine to run at a much higher compression ratio without knock for any given fuel Octane than a poppet valve engine and therefore produce a higher power.
I’m a retired mechanical engineer. While I am much more of a motorsports fan, I do have a great appreciation of aircraft technology. Before I watched Part 1 & 2, had never heard of the Napier Sabre engine. It is a fascinating piece of hardware! But, the connection for me is this. For 1966, the displacement maximum changed for Formula 1 engines. They went from 1.5 liters to 3.0 liters. BRM (British Racing Motors) had a previously well developed and successful 1.5 liter V-8 engine. For the 3.0 liter rules, they changed the V configuration to a flat configuration and mounted one on tip of the other for an H-16 arrangement. What I didn’t know was that the Napier Sabre preceded BRM with the H configuration by roughly 30 years. Unfortunately, it only won 1 race during its tenure. Like the Sabre, it turned out to be heavier than expected. It was slow to rev, but that probably would not be a significant problem in an aircraft setting. But, unlike the Sabre, the H-16 didn’t reach the horsepower projections. One question mark for me with the H-16 engine is that I wonder if the extra friction generated by the main bearings of 2 crankshafts was a problem for the H-16?
Thanks for making part 2, great that you made the effort despite the minor errors in the first one. People forget that these things were the F1 engines of their day. You will find most racing piston engine designers tip their hats to the giants that walked before them designing these monsters. I strongly recommend Calum Douglas book 'The Secret Horsepower Race' probably the best researched book I have read on Piston Aero engine development and i have read most of them. Also if you have not, consider joining the Aircraft Engine Historical Society, AEHS, their site has a mine of useful info. Looking forward to your next production.
My favorite aircraft engine. The Napier could rev higher than most, I suspect, because it had a short stroke and relatively small pistons--lower piston speed and rotating masses. I own Graham White's book but still learned a great deal from your presentation. Thanks.
Re: radiator weight. The expanded air from the radiator heat exchanger was used to produce positive thrust, adding to the performance of the engine. The only disadvantage was its vulnerability to damage.
While Frank Halford was working with Napier on the Sabre, he and his team were also developing his first turbojet with De Havilland - the H1 (Goblin). Design started in1941, first run in April '42 and within 2 months making its design thrust of 3000lb. Two H1s powered the prototype Meteor in March '43 and one H1 in the prototype Vampire in Sept '43. Halford learnt to fly in a Bristol Boxkite age 19 in Oct 1913 at the Brookland's Flying School. He was an instructor by Christmas and Chief Instructor by April ! Remarkable life in a remarkable time.
My back ground is marine engineering in which I spent over 50 years and a masters degree. I find your videos very interesting and factual. Most of the engines that I had experience on were the size of houses. I find it fascinating to see that they found that kind of horsepower over 80 years ago and in adverse conditions. It begs you to wonder what they could have achieved with better resources. I am also a female and was a chief engineer for over 20 years. Laurajane from New Zealand 🇳🇿
The photos of the aircraft with the 4 x exhaust banks is the Hawker Tornado, fitted with the Rolls-Royce Vulture engine, which was ultimately unsuccessful, and also fitted to the Avro Manchester bomber.
Thank you for this video. I had the good fortune to meet a man an American who before America got involved in WWII went to Canada enlisted in the RCAF and flew during the Battle of Briton. He started flying Spitfires and Hurricane and transitioned into the Tempest and Typhoon so he spoke highly of the Napier Saber as to it's power. Tempermental yes but powerful.
I always thought the Sabre would have been the perfect engine configuration to install into a mid-engine fighter design like the P-63 Kingcobra. Power, firepower, laminar flow wing, tricycle gear. That would've been a pretty mean combo.
@@loddude5706 Ha! Yea. I figure with the Sabre it would have required a gear reduction box to offset the location of the shaft. Whereas on the Allison in the P-39/63 it appears they ran a shaft straight off the end of the crank forward to a gear reduction unit in front of the cannon. Still, I think this setup would have given a very streamlined package to a massive motor that could have really justified the use of a mid-engine layout with it's "H" configuration.
Except it is liquid cooled and crap at taking damage. P51 had 3X loss ratio of P47 for instance without being tasked with ground pounding. The ultimate was the XP-72 with its recessed radial P&W wasp major engine.
@@w8stral All true and I've always thought it was a shame that the jets cut us off from seeing what aircraft like the P-72 would've really been like. That P-72 is so beautiful. However, my point is that for a mid-engine setup I think the Sabre would have been optimal. If nothing else it would make one hell of a race plane.... Check out the P-39s Cobra I and Cobra II. They used the upgraded Allison's from the P-63 and Cobra II won the 1946 Cleveland Air Race. However, they were really concerned about the structural stiffness of the foreword fuselage due to the torque of the upgraded engines....but the P-39 did get in the last laugh before it rode off into the sunset.
@@w8stral I don't doubt the P-47 was very tough, but I believe in Korea the P-51 had similar losses per sortie to its air cooled Corsair peer (0.5%). And the P-63 had very low losses per sortie in ww2 (0.4%), although it may have been placed on safer missions. Indeed, if the P-51 has a far longer range, it would be exposed to greater hazard over more time per sortie. So it's hard to do a comparison without more fine grained data. Indeed later service in ww2 confers the advantage of less experienced enemy German pilots but increasingly concentrated AAA assets as well. It's tough to draw conclusions without being able to account for more variables than air/water cooling.
The criteria you use to select the Sabre is more applicable to fighter aircraft. If one considers applications in multiengine bomber aircraft the R-2800 and R-3350 are a more preferred solution, particularly at high altitude. These two engines were very successful after the war in the DC6 and DC7. Also noteworthy, the RAF withdrew the Typhoon from operation immediately after the war ended. That being said, hats off to Napier for making this style of engine work. In the US several engine manufactures designed and built ‘hyper’ style engines but none of them entered production. The many problems encountered swamping the development process. My point is that many tried but only Napier succeeded.
The R2800 was a tough engine and powered the R3350 had problems but it was still used and not all the problems were solved until the R4360. The P and W was less known at least to me; than the Saber.
@@markgranger9150 in my opinion the R-4360 is one step beyond practical, and P&W is by far my favorite engine manufacturer to this day. Perhaps the B-36 experience has colored my opinion too much. In the DC7 the turbo compound R-3350 provided reliable service with impressive power output. To me, this is a better arrangement than maintaining 4 rows of cylinders. Again, just my opinion. As for the R-2800, Everts Air Cargo is still operating DC6s in Alaska. That kind of service is hard to match.
Not sure why it would be noteworthy that Typhoons were withdrawn immediately after the war. There was a need to drastically reduce the size of the armed forces, and Tempests (a much improved Typhoon, essentially) were available in sufficient numbers for the peacetime force. Tempest was in fact the last piston-engined fighter the RAF operated before converting to everything to jets.
As a mechanic, when you went on your crankshaft ramble, I took one look at the schematic and shut my eyes, I was laughing by the end of the spiel, that's some beautiful engineering and problem solving. I can see it in motion 👌
I saw a Napier Sabre engine on an engine stand in a workshop in New Zealand six months ago, it had been restored to flying condition and was about to be sent overseas - don't quote me on this - to Kermit Weeks, who has two tempests. The mechanics wouldn't tell me where it was going, but it was just immaculate, you could have eaten your dinner of it.
Check out Hawker Typhoon RB369 in the UK, they have a factory sealed Sabre that is going to be fitted into a restored Typhoon that will be flown in the UK
@peterbird7979 Weeks was just talking about his two Sabre engines a couple of weeks ago and they are both still unrestored at his museum. ruclips.net/video/LVm7jCRARD0/видео.html It will be a big challenge to get a Sabre to safe and flyable condition. I don't think any of the three Sabre projects have a running engine at this time because they are still building the aircraft first. And actually if you listen to this video, Weeks has a later series Sabre and will be the only one that is safe to use for a project. Maybe the other projects do not have viable engines.
Not included in the weight of an R-2800 installed in a P-47 is its extensive turbo charging duct and inter-cooling system; which has to run several hundred pounds on it own. The P-38 also had an extensive turbocharging system as well.
The whole of the analysis divorces the weight of supporting equipment for that of the raw engine block itself. Less we include weight of fuel and fuel tank, lines, oil, ect.
I have heard that Napier also had quality control issues - particularly with dirt and FOD (Foreign Object Damage) - right from the factory. Considering the tolerances needed for a sleeve valves, this would be disastrous. One MAJOR advantage of the Sabre was the fact that Sleeve-Valve engines can use MUCH higher compression without detonation problems on the same grade of gasoline. Stating that the US didn't have the capacity for making Sleeve-Valve engines is forgetting that at least one (and possibly more) auto manufacturers had used them in their cars. Specifically, Willys-Knight was quite well known for their "Silent Knight" sleeve-valve engines.
I used to work in a mechanical engineering drawing office. There were two camps Napier Sabre vs RR Merlin/Griffin. This argument will go on for ever. Napier went on to design and build the Napier Deltic Diesel, an extremely advanced and different engine that ran British Rail in the 1950's. This engine would work in a very large John Deere. Thank you for tackling this thorny topic.
The Deltic wasn't a new engine. Napiers acquired a licence from Junkers for the Jumo 205 series opposed piston diesel engines. Napier marketed the Junkers engine as the Culverin before WW2 but got no takers. The Deltic was 3 Culverins linked together - the trick was to run one in the opposite direction compared to the other two.
The problems suffered with the early Sabre engines and the 'politicized' complaints about the unreliability is not unique to Napier or the Sabre. Pretty much every major engine manufacturer around the world suffered similar issues when they introduced a new type or series of high performance engines, Rolls Royce Vulture and early sleeve valve Bristol engines spring to mind. Especially in wartime there is a rush to get the engine in service and ground/air crews lack the training & equipment so there is a lag period when these issues are highlighted and over-emphasized. Many engine manufacturers faced similar when introducing the early jet engines.
Napier lived way outside the box. The deltic diesel did for locomotives as the Sabre did for aircraft. The Sabre was also very quiet. The Japanese called them whispering death.
@@martinsaunders7925 Yes, the Bristol engine company, a division of the Bristol Aeroplane company developed a range of sleeve valves radials in the inter war period. They culminated in the Centaurus which in its final form kicked out over 2500 bhp and was fitted to such types as the Hawker Sea Fury and the Blackburn Beverly transport. They later were amalgamated with the Armstrong Siddely (spelling?) company to become Bristol Siddely who went on to develop the Olympus fitted to Concorde. Aerospace Bristol have a large collection of engines and a comprehensive archive related to these motors
@@profpep If you see and hear the Shuttleworth collection Gloster Gladiator it is also very quiet but that's down to the ring manifold exhaust configuration because the Bristol Mercury has overhead poppet valves.
RR Griffons saw plenty of action from early 1943, fitted to mk XII Spitfires and appear to have the edge over Typhoons on mutual low level interceptions. Both types went through considerable development from then. Thank you for sharing your enthusiasm for the Sabre. I've had the opportunity to see several examples displayed in museums in the UK. So compact; it somehow looks small compared to Merlins and Griffons. What an impressive device it was.
Thank you for making the graphs readable......except for the Spit 9 vs Me109G graph.....there is no legend for all the squiggly lines...... ---- One of the positive features of the Sabre ( that had nothing to do with performance) was that it was easy to service between flights - no valves to adjust, spark plugs all easily accessible, all dry accessories were on top of the engine, wet accessories ( pumps, etc) were underneath, as opposed to being crowded at the back of a conventional engine.
My girlfriend's father flew the Hawker Typhoon and later the Tempest for the RNZAF. Always remember that he had a Sabre piston and conrod on his mantle piece. He said that over Germany on a sortie there was a bang and a loss of power. He turned around and flew back to base. The piston and conrod was sitting there half in and half out of the side of the engine. He loved the sabre, yes it had its issues, but as he said, nothing like overtaking a FW190 in a level run. Flight Sargent John Dickson. Rest in peace. What a wonderful man.
Napier where always far more adventurous than Rolls Royce (or most other aircraft engine companies) and produced very advanced designs. The Napier Lion (12 cylinder with 3 banks of 4 cast cylinders W configuration) was the best and most powerful aircraft engine to come out of WW1 (lights years ahead of the RR Eagle and Liberty) that set a number of air, land and sea world records, it continued in production to the early 1930s. It was fitted to over 160 aircraft types and was even available with a turbo in 1922 (perhaps the next report). During the 1930s Napier produced 2 successful high speed air-cooled H configuration engines, the Rapier 16 cylinder and Dagger 24 cylinder, designed by Frank Halford who also designed the Sabre. Frank Halford, who initially worked for Sir Harry Ricardo, also designed all of the De Havilland aircraft engines, including the first British jet engine to truly go into production and the first to get a type certificate, the DH Goblin (Halford H1) beating RR by some time. Post WW2 Napier also produced probably the most efficient piston aircraft engines ever produced the Nomad 1 & 2, a turbo compound 2 stroke diesel, that looked like a gas turbine had been mated with a piston engine! The other issue that is rarely discussed about the Sabre is the supercharger drives, a problem the Deltic's also had. The superchargers run at high speed, significantly geared up from the crank, any change to the crank speed produces large inertial loads in the supercharger drive chains. The Sabres and Deltics (especially) could accelerate and decelerate very quickly and despite shock absorber being built into the drive chains unacceptable loads could be produced. The unreliability of sleeve valves has always been cited however the post war commercial version of the Bristol Hercules had the longest Time Between Overhaul (TBO) of any large aircraft piston engine. Keep up the good work.
Thankyou. Goes someway to setting the record straight about oft maligned sleeve valve engine, the rushing into service of the sabre 11 and Hawker Typhoon which again after a bad start served magnificently after d day . Much of the development which was ignored has to be seen against the Jet development and thanks for raising the issues about Rolls Royce wanting to dominate (everything). Bristol had to be forced to give up the resolution so hard won ( and expensively} of sleeve materials and finish. Understandable despite there being a war on. How about doing a video on the Bristol sleeve valvers namely Hercules and Centaurus used in the last piston fighter Tempest 2 , and Sea Fury. Another good read is by the test pilots particularly Roland Beaumont. I think he was quoted as saying something along these lines after a Tempest 5 flight that ‘you can keep your Mustangs And spits, this was real power” Recommend also Desmond Scott ‘Typhoon Pilot’ And Pierre Clostermann ‘The big Show’.
My engine of choice for my WW2 fighter is the Pratt and Whitney R2800. Because they were more or less indestructible. Radial engines can continue to operate after being riddled with bullets and are much easier to repair because you could easily replace cylinder barrels for example whereas one bullet in the engine block of a liquid cooled engine and you can throw the whole thing away. Assuming you make it back to base. I'm not saying the Sabre is a bad engine, it was a remarkable technical achievement for its time but it was complex, and complexity is the enemy of reliability. Superior power output is irrelevant if you can't reliably make use of it when it really counts.
Nice that you discovered Graham White's books. I have the first edition of Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WW2, and practically wore out the Sabre chapter reading it over and over. I recognize a lot of the lines from it that you quoted in the video. Napier made four of the most ambitious engines ever designed: Lion W12, 1200 cubic inches. Designed in WW1, was still setting land speed records in 1947, in John Cobb's Napier Railton Special Sabre H24 sleeve valve, amply discussed in this video Nomad H12 2-stroke turbocompound diesel Deltic 18 2-stroke diesel, 88 liters. For locomotives and fast torpedo boats. Up to 5600 HP in its final turbocompound form. America didn't completely ignore sleeve valve H engines during WW2. Pratt & Whitney had the H-3130 and H-3730 projects, but they were too involved in developing engines already in production to rush the H-engines into production. The desperate times of WW2 led to engines and aircraft that weren't ready to be rushed into production. Curtiss-Wright had a similar debacle with the R-3350 in the early B-29's.
L K J Setright in his book "The Power To Fly" 1971 stated the the Sabre produced close to 5000 HP on the test stand. I don't know if, or how much of an exaggeration, this assertion is. Anyway still great stuff.
I somehow missed this when it first came out, but had a good watch of it today. What an amazing piece of work from an unrepeatable point in History. I just can't get enough of the sheer internal combustion insanity that occured in that rather brief window when extremely powerful aero engines were needed but the jet turbine had yet to take over. The two most gloriously batsh*t engines of this micro-era were the Napier Sabre and the Rolls-Royce Crecy. I've thrice re- watched your excellent video on the latter, and it always saddens me that no sound recordings exist of it. While the Crecy must've made an ear-shatterimg, ungodly scream at high rpm, I often wonder if, like a proper 2-stroke, it sounded like a weedwhacker at idle... Anyway, you do such tremendous work on this subject, please keep them coming!
Nice to know there are plenty of others who also agree this engine was the best... and why would RR try to stop development/production/use of this if they were not worried about the implications of the "market" being flooded with a far superior unit than they were able to produce. I all fairness, their engines were a lot more service friendly, but they were still not anything like as good as this beautifully crafted, amazing sounding engine.
I did notice you miss pronouncing Napier, but didn't really pay that much attention to it. I watch a lot of Formula 1 RUclips content and commentary, most of which are done by people from England. I am used to people speaking the English language, and slaughtering the pronunciation of it's words. I enjoyed both of these videos on the Napier Sabre, I worked as an aircraft mechanic for two major US airlines over 25 years. I knew the Sabre was a different layout, but now have a better understanding of how it functioned, I learned a lot. Great video.
GREAT DOCUMENTARY!!! I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PART THREE!!! I THOROUGHLY EMJOYED HOW YOU INTELLIGENTLY PUT TO REST THE NAY SAYERS!!! I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SLEEVE VALVES AS WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THIS POWERPLANT... I WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO ENJOYING MORE OF YOUR VIDEOS ON THIS TOPIC!!! MUCH GRATITUDE FOR YOUR INSIGHTFUL CONTENT!!!
Really great and complete look at the Napier engine. I certainly hope that you do include the other engines you mentioned. I've not worked on aircraft engines but have worked on car/truck engines all my life. You put the info in a very understandable format and for that I thank you.
@flight_dojo - going from 6:1 to 7:1 compression ratio is a noticeable increase. The higher the compression the more energy can be extracted from combustion. The higher the pressure difference (1 being atmospheric and 7 being how many multiples of atmospheric pressure that is compressed by before combustion happens) results in more efficiency and more energy, ie - more power. Even when boosting an engine, if base compression ratio is higher, it will perform better. (All of this has a limit, but you get the point) I would venture to guess that the largest limiting factors of not increasing it higher at that time were: - heat mitigation (iron does not get rid of heat well when compared to aluminum, and those engines were big, thick, heavy iron) - metallurgy limitations to handle the pressure and heat - lack of knowledge compared to what we know now - fuel (higher compression increases knock potential Which is highly damaging to the engine)
Very great video(s). Many technical details and i love it. Just the production issues due to the sabre innovative design is for me a indication of how this engine was ahead of the Rolls Royce engines. After watching your two video on the Napier Sabre, I do think the main thing that made the Saber not generally discussed as much as other engines of the time, was the lobbying power used by Rolls Royce. If it had been different i dont think we would talk that much about the Merlin.
Nice video. In addition to specific power and power to weight, another important point for comparing engines is frontal area. I don't know how difficult it is to find the data on frontal area, but that would be a great point for your comparison of WWII piston engines.
Such a brilliant design and results speak for themselves Imagine its outcome without multiple negative influences and interfering! Total loss risk for fighters outweighed all - any of this engines problems!
Made back when the airlerons on the Lancaster were covered in irish linen and dope.. The pilots needed to breath bottled oxygen from start up due to the co2 output! The Typhoons had a weak fuselage and would break on landing. Thanks for posting. My Uncle and cousin were RAF during the war.
Not once Hawker had found out the case of the issue, Typhoons were more robust than Spitfire and would return home with far more battle damaged than the pitever could
A family member who was an engineer for the DB during the war knew when being attacked when it was a Typhoon by the sound of the engine. Only the Typhoon had a "banshee wail" as he noted. He would grab the fireman (who got smaller/younger as the war went on) and toss him out of the cab. He knew they were at ground zero as the engine was the prime target... He survived, over 14 engines didn't. Of anything the allies flew, the Typhoon was the most feared by the railroad workers.
I've often wondered what it was like to be an engineer running German trains late in the war. I've never come across anything though, not until this. It sounds as grim as I've been imagining.
The Coffman starter does not fire into the engine. It pushes a piston which engages with a ring gear that has angled teeth, causing it to spin and turn over the engine.
Quite interesting to consider what would have happened to piston engine development if the gas turbine had not come along. Exhaust recovery turbines were being developed.eg Napier Nomad, Wright R-3350 turbo compound and the Dobrynin VD-4K but with ever increasing complexity. I guess one has to look at the equivalent development of Grand Prix car engines to imagine what might have been. A modern GP engine produces 3.2hp/lb and 10.7hp per cubic inch. One other point is that the weight of liquid cooled piston engine cooling systems is rarely placed in the equation beside the air cooled radials.
I’ve always, since I found this great engine. Known it was the best performance piston aero engine ever to see combat. This and the Bristol Centaurus, were the absolute pinnacle of power. Due to the sleeve valve configuration, giving them optimum volumetric efficiency. This valve configuration really fascinated me as a boy. And I was so shocked to see some engines of that era were so complex. And ingenious in comparison to most piston engines of today. This engine along with the English electric Deltic are to me. The best use of piston powered engines of all time!! Thank you greatly for these videos on this engine! As you have settled this argument in full!!
@@adrianhendy the German engine was unworkable. It was the redesign of the engine done by English electric to rotate one crank in the opposite direction that made it workable.
@@robertreavley7145 but without the original design it wouldn't have happened.... Napier had no idea of using opposing pistons until then and the original opposing piston design they licensed was successful
Very interesting indeed. Adding the weight of the Napier cooling system to your calculations is an interesting point. A counter argument to the quoted all-up weight of the P & W 2800 is that in the P-47 there is considerable ducting etc in the fuselage, which is an essential part of the turbocharger installation for that engine. For a fair comparison, that also should be taken into account in the weight calculations. But this is getting over-complicated - perhaps just easiest to stay with the original weights?
And not to mention the fact that the oil cooler for a large air-cooled engine is nearly as big as the water radiator for a liquid cooled engine. Heat rejection to oil is something that cannot be ignored in an air-cooled engine.
You're probably not far wrong when it comes to the weight of the cooling system - it necessarily needs to include the weight of the coolant itself, and although I doubt there are any numbers available on the amount of coolant required it's worth remembering that water alone weighs somewhere around 10 pounds per imperial gallon. The radiator itself (together with the pipework) would be relatively light by comparison.
Great stuff. A real shame there ain’t many of these brilliant engines (let alone the Typhoon / Tempest that they were installed in) left over after the war. War sucks and shouldn’t happen but man, the technological advancements…
If you are interested there is a project in the UK to restore a Hawker Typhoon (Typhoon RB369) to flight they are in possession of a factory sealed Sabre engine donated by RAF Cranfield.
I love the work you put in. I appreciate the information. It's interesting to see the difference ways these engineers came up with ways to fix these challenges.
The best numbers I could locate are: Cooling system for a P-40F/L went a bit over 300 lbs. Cooling system for a Merlin P-51 was given as 663 lbs. Counterweights for a Merlin are approximately 8 lbs, times 12 = 96 lbs.
I like how people are like, "But the R2800 has the cooling included in the weight," even though that pales in comparison to the fact that the R2800 displaces nearly 600 cubic inches more than the Sabre and they also conveniently ignored the fact that the weight of the turbosupercharging system that the variant you used was mated to isn't even included in the weight of said engine. Sure not all R2800s were mated to said system, but not all of them made 2800hp either. The best version with geared superchargers and was used in a production aircraft was the R2800-18W at 2450hp with injection so if people truly wanted to compare like-for-like they would bring up a non-turbocharged one as the weight of the forced induction is not normally included for such systems with the engine. I love the 2800, and it powers my favorite plane of the war, the F6F, and the Allison powers my close second, the P-38, but people need to realize that just because an engine is more popular doesn't mean it was the best.
Incorrect.....the turbo system weight is a direct consequence of where the engine was designed to make that horsepower. Pratt and Whitney could have very easily built a single stage impeller to make 2800 hp and much lower weight to operate at lower altitude. The problem is the Napier could never do the reciprocal to operate at high altitude in a meaningful time period. And this is where this discussion will always fall on its face when discussing aero engines. The induction system is as or more important than any one engine design...full stop. Next, reliability.....how many 4,5,6 hour sorties were recorded by that engine. Did Bristol have the metallurgy worked out in 1940/1941 to make the Napier viable to design other planes around it when it mattered. When you start the video with a caviat that a turbo compounding Allison is at the top of the heap and jets blow all else out of the water, what your really arguing is a time line of when the engine was relevant to use in an airframe to do a task better or more A Symetrically than the enemy. So while it's awesome to appreciate the rediculous complexity and ingenuity of this engine. The real historical injustice was the allies lack of foresight into the jet designs they had 1st and dragged their feet on. Context is everything.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS I am confused as to why you made your comment. Nothing I said was "incorrect." "Context is everything," and I think you completely misunderstood the context of what I said and are confused as to what I was talking about. Yes, obviously the weight of the turbocharging system is directly affected by engine placement and aircraft design. When I was referring to the weight, I was talking about turbocharging systems specifically not being included with the engine the way geared superchargers are when looking at the actual stats for engine weight. Didn't say they weren't important, but that they are literally omitted from the stats of the engine. Most geared systems are actually integrated into the block design and cannot be removed without cutting the engine. Turbocharging systems are not integrated like that. Also, much like the video, reliability is not a consideration, time is not a consideration. All this is about is performance and packaging and what these engines were capable of, and the Napier Sabre was capable of a lot, regardless of how feasible it was to mass produce and get reliable, it was one of if not the best engines ever made purely based on its performance. It is really an underrated engine from a performance standpoint which is what this video argues and which is why I made my comment. I was not arguing most of the points you were trying to make, and I was not incorrect in anything I said when you look at it with the correct context. My comment was much more simple than anything you are talking about if you read it properly. Cause really your comment is entirely confusing to me because its arguing against basically nothing to do with my comment.
@@wruenvadam you start by telling others that they are wrong on two fronts...Telling people its not relevant or worth the time to consider the cooling system that the napier requires....and saying theyre "conveniently" forgetting about the weight of the turbo that allows the R2800 to make 2800 hp. Even if cooling is a small weight penalty its integral..... and drag goes up as the square of the speed so an added cooling system is not an oversight. And there's no point in correcting others on the weight of the super charging system when dojo and you are defending sea level output is where we need to measure for the best "aero" engine of wwii. Again pratt and whitney could have forgone the turbo entirely in place of a bigger single stage impeller to reach that 2800 hp or more if all they were seeking was the last hp before destruction. RR too. And this is really why this whole narrative is wrong headed....aero engines are a system there's little point in discussing them in the terms of this video because it negates most of the variables that decide how aero engines are used and what defines a good one.....but in terms of wwii the Napier was around for more than 4 years and was so plagued with problems and complexity that they were too busy fixing what's wrong to get the time to engineer the systems that would have put it in the running for best aero engine....I think a more interesting insight would be if Napier had the same resources as RR.... was the tech and metallurgy in existance to overcome the challenges of the design or if it would have always been fighting the tolerances of the engine in the face of war time conditions. As the sleeve valve to didn't stick around long.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS You completely misread the meaning when I said, "pales in comparison." That is not me saying it's irrelevant. That is me saying that the added weight from 600 cubic inches more of displacement is a larger factor, which makes it have a larger frontal area and the fact that part of its cooling is literally every cylinder head on the engine. Those little oil coolers do very little to add drag especially if you design the plane properly. Also I said that partly because people were saying it as if it should be separated when the engine is air cooled. Don't ask me which comments I saw that said that. It's been more than a year and I cannot be bothered to go searching for that. Also when talking engine only numbers, sea level which is basically dyno testing is the only real way to remove as many variables as possible to get maximum possible output from an engine. The moment you put it in a vehicle, that's when you have to deal with all the variables that vehicle puts on an engine and is thus no longer a proper comparison. We are talking about ENGINE performance, not whole aircraft performance. Also I really wasn't trying to get this deep about this conversation. Just wanted hur dur engines cool conversation. Not someone bringing in a whole bunch of points that aren't even pertinent to the topic at hand which is raw engine performance.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS Honestly I really don't give as much of a fuck as you do about this conversation. Really this comes across as you trying to get your ego stroked by proving someone wrong and I could care less. So kindly f*** off. I'm not interested in this discussion. Especially since you definite had to go digging for my little ass comment.
This engine is the ultimate! I'm longing for the day when one is flying in a Tempest or Typhoon,the sound is awsome on the Tempest video . With Typhoon restorations underway it would be fantastic to see and hear one.
There is a project underway, based at Goodwood, to get a Typhoon flying again. They are re-building an airframe, much as so many Spitfires are re-built, like Trigger's broom or the axe that took off Queen Mary's head, with seven new heads and four new handles. The engine however, is new in its box and merely(!) needs checking over. That probably means stripping it down and checking absolutely everything but at least it isn't half worn out. I only hope I'm still around when it does fly as I would love to see it and above all, hear it.
@@peterhuxley8181 There is also a Typhoon restoration underway in Canada. "Typhoon Legacy Co" There is a RUclips Channel documenting the work that is underway.
My father was 'Q'ed on the Sabre. He said it was a beautiful piece of engineering but needed to be tuned like a Swiss watch, especially the ignition timing, or else one bank of cylinders would 'drive' the other bank with the concomitant wear on the gearbox that led to unwanted gearbox failures. Also a plug change on a Typhoon was an arduous task, especially if it had to be done in situ, with some plugs being nearly inaccessible.
The sabre VII was initially restricted to +17.25 on boost which gave 3055 HP. This was later increased to +20 lbs and that gave the 3500 HP. I found a weight of 2540 lbs.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Please do put a Napier in your John Deere, that would be hilarious.
In my Ford Ranger!
Throw in some water methanol injection and lets see the beast roar
Hush, else a Ukrainian farmer rebuilding his tractor may hear you...
Napier Deltic, to make DD`s look funny
There are some wild aero-engined tractors out there for pulling. Maybe someone already did this.
I've seen them with giant radials, multiple Merlins and even a few gas-turbine powered tractors.
My ex's father, B.C.Smith FRAeS started at Napier as an apprentice when he was 14. One of his jobs was flying around at night in a Lancaster with a Sabre in place of one Merlin. He said they idled the Merlins after takeoff and ran the Sabre flat out, that was enough to haul the Lancaster around at normal speed. But then they were light on fuel and had no other load. His job was recording engine telemetry every few minutes. The manual said to fill the engine with hot oil before starting, but he said they just fired them up. He eventually went on to run three parts of British Aerospace before he retired. He died around 2000.
Wow 😍
Thanks for sharing this. These snippets of personal stories are real treasures.
I read Roland Beamont's book on the Typhoon and Tempest and sleeve wear was the root of the issue. Bristol and English Electric came to the rescue after pressure from the British government. I did not know about the Sabre 7, this is a fantastic video, I don't care how you pronounce Napier this is a brilliant expose of this incredible piece of engineering, thank you Sir
I have that same book in my collection.
Exactly, as the Sleeve Valve Engine needed material science that didn't exist during WWII. Blow by [the leakage of exhaust] of the British Mark tanks of WWI was known for killing the crews with, so that carbon monoxide would kill the crew leaving the tank lumbering across the battle field. Sleeve valve engines would need much more frequent rebuilding than poppet valve engines.
This is the same problem that the Rotary Engine has, with RX7's needing a rebuild to replace the seals as often as a air cooled beetle engine.Quickly RX7's will drop to 11 MPG due to their seals and the Sleeve Valve Engines have the same issues...
@@davidhollenshead4892material with low coefficient of expansion, jet age metals.
@@davidhollenshead4892well said. Tempests were taken out of service in late 1944 to rebuild the engines and for other mods. Sabre V was better but too late for WWII.
My grandfather flew the Typhoon and Tempest, and without a doubt had more flight hours flying these aircraft than any other pilot during world war II. The reasoning I know this is they forgot to include him in the algorithmic rotation of pilots for leave. He had one break during the entirety of the war which consisted of 2 or 3 days on a beach which he said came to an abrupt end when he got a letter telling him to return early. He didn't know what the time but it was for the preparations of D-Day. My grandfather was taught on a Harvard before being assigned to a early model typhoon, he never made any mention of the teething issues of the engine itself, but oftentimes told me how difficult the plane was to land. In his words you had to have the nose off to one side and at last second just before touchdown straight in the plane out, that s was needed so you could see the runway. Adding further challenge was the landing speed of the aircraft which was tremendous. He did make mention that there was a one-time fuel dump on one variant of the aircraft he flew which was to be used in a emergency situation to get the plane out of danger. My grandfather said he used it one time and it greatly increased the airspeed of the aircraft. Sadly D-Day was not a good day for this type of aircraft as they were instructed to fly directly at level with the pill boxes and main guns of the Germans in Normandy to fire their rockets into them. This made them very easy to target and my grandfather lost many friends that day.
@Hugh Leiper My father was a Hurricane then Typhoon pilot before D-Day, the lead up to D-Day and ofc after. Yes, lot of low flying to target railways, tanks etc. Very dangerous. My father's log book documents some of those landings, the plane was big for a single seater and difficult to see the runway both for take off and landing. and other incidents and loosing fellow pilots. He loved the power from that engine and often praised it as an end user. He flew the typhoons with 257_Burma squadron .
I believe what you were referring to was War Emergency Thrust. The throttle had a copper wire as a gate. Push the throttle through the gate,breaking the wire. Depending on the engine,commonly there was water/methanol plus extra fuel for increased boost. The engine needed mandatory extra inspection or engine change if the gate wire was broken.
Pilots who did use this remarked on just how much extra noise and furor happened with the extra power. The water/methanol tank capacity limited the time the boost level happened.
A huge thanks needs to go out to your grandfather and his mates.
@@toonertik I am sorry for the delayed response, and thank you for your further knowledge and information pertaining to your father. I don't know if my Grandfather switched squadrons ever, but but he received his DFC while flying for the 198 Squadron.
@@paulmanson253 Thanks Paul, appreciate your input. Sadly as a child I never asked enough questions and just remember the stories. It's been years since my grandfather has passed and it was always one of those things I wish I had asked about more. But even as a child I knew that it was a touchy subject.
Designed with slide rules, pencils and drafting paper. No computers. No CAD, no CAM. The engines of this era were quite incredible
Commented by modern day idiot who does not know that modern engineering makes more use of the human brain and less time preforming menial tasks. Just because you failed how to use the modern tools of this age does not mean that anything made without them is better.
pretty sure it uses CAD and CAM. Where the C stands for Cardboard
Ugh-- so it took them longer to draw it up.
But reality is the people designing had far more skills.
My father was a tool and die maker. He said the Britts just had a different culture and ability.
Americans were good at mass production at high tolerances, whereas Brits were good at hand fitting
Same issue with Merlin engines I’ve read. Each engine hand fitted, parts not interchangeable with level of precision.
I do not know if true. I was not around working on them.
@@goldgeologist5320 lmao
When you think about how much power the Sabre VII makes compared to other engines by displacement it’s incredible. Sabre VII has a displacement of 36.7 liters, the same as the RR griffon. It still makes over a thousand more horsepower than the most powerful griffon (130) while operating on LESS manifold pressure. (Griffon 25psi 2450hp, Sabre 20psi 3500hp) a late war PW r2800 made 2800hp and its displacement was much larger at 44L. Using the conventional American radial design, they had to make an engine twice as large as the Sabre to make the same power. The PW r4360 had 27 cylinders and displaced 72 liters, almost twice as big as the Sabre VII but makes the same horsepower. It demonstrates that a smaller engine turning faster can pump more air through it than a larger engine turning slower. The Sabre was truly ahead of it’s time
Totally unreliable until Bristol was forced to provide their patented solution to Napier late war for the Sabre V.
Seeing the helical-cut reduction gears and thrust balance arms brought back memories from well over fifty years ago. The R-2800CB16 engines on the Convairs I maintained at the time had helical cut reduction gears and an axially-moving component as well. In that case, a rod which was moved by thrust, derived from torque on the gear, moved an oil valve which ported engine oil to a chamber to re-center the valve. The oil pressure in the chamber varied with torque, and was connected to a transmitter that sent the signal to an engine torque gauge in the cockpit, calibrated and identified as BMEP, Brake Mean Effective Pressure. If I remember correctly, the critical indication was 212 BMEP at sea level at 2800 rpm for takeoff. Graphs in the pilot's manual allowed them to calculate actual horsepower delivered at different rpm and BMEP values.
Does anybody know why the Sabre engine required constant speed and differential units in the ignition drive shaft?
It was the spring loading of the Saber's reduction gears that contributed to that component's incredible reliability. Halford was way ahead of his time.
After seeing part 1 I also checked Graham White's book just to see if some of the faults were not related to the original Napier-built sleeves. Bristol's nitrided austenitic steel sleeves were a great improvement as you pointed out, specially regarding reliability. I would only add that the 1 extra point in compression ratio used in sleeve-valve engines is well documented in many of Harry Ricardo's writings on the subject, indicating the absence of hot valve heads in the combustion chamber leaded to better knocking resistance and allowed that increase. It would have been good to see Bristol's Hercules and Centaurus engines in you comparision just to see if these other 2 sleeve-valve engines were similar to the Sabre. Keep doing engine videos, they are great!
My English cousin who died a while ago at the age of 96, worked his whole life at Napier. His father worked most of his life there too. He was a member of the Napier foundation a group of retired Napier men who worked to keep Napier history alive.
You know Napier built the 1st aircraft engine model that used a turbocharger. It was a revision of the W block Napier Lion.
I'm thankful that my engine technician/engineer self was alerted to Flight Dojo via the algorithm. I worked as a mechanic for more then 45 years with 35 of those year working on Mercedes Benz automobiles. I've always thought it would have been fun to be working at the factory putting together the massive engineering marvels of the time.
I really enjoyed everything you have to say during these lectures. Even if you get a specification incorrect, there's so many possibilities, that when you correct them later I find they set a little further into my brain.
Thanks for taking the time to produce these wonderful video's. I don't think the factories could have done a better job. During my tenure with Mercedes Benz I found more then a few typos and incorrect nomenclature aberrations in the technical manuals. I honestly believe they were aware of the mistakes only leaving them for the technician/engineer to discover later on. Only the really savvy techs would figure it out.
I enjoy this kind of presentation . Please keep on doing what you like so we can enjoy what we like. In other words, good stuff Maynard.
One of my acquaintances' father was a test pilot for the Royal Australian Air Force. He said the Sabre was terrifyingly powerful, almost to the point of twisting the plane around the prop if the throttle was opened too quickly.
My next door neighbour some years ago was a Tempest pilot and said the same - he joined his first squadron just before war ended and was always so sad he never fired his guns in anger, he wasn't bloodthirsty its just that he had wanted to do his bit.
Pierre Clostemann mentions the tremendous torque of the Sabre causing an abrupt turn during his first take-off in the Tempest.
@@russnixon6020 he was terrified the first time he have to fly that beast
That was commonly referred to as a prop stall, where the aircraft would literally spin around the prop. It was a significant problem during the slow speed landing phase, if power had so suddenly had to be applied to go around. All the later fighter aircraft experienced this problem.
@@jjock3239 The Gerry Beck crash with his new-build P-51A at Oshkosh was a prop stall when he bumped into Odegaard's P-51 during landing and then slammed the throttle to recover.
Another of Napier's successful engines was the Deltic...
That one is nuts. Crazy engineering.
Ah, yeah, the Deltic! The triangular locomotive engine! That one is incredible!
@@Niinsa62 Designed initially as a compact submarine engine, hence the shape.
Napier's detailed history is fascinating, they didn't just do engines, but all manner of machines, trucks and cars, many Napier designs were produced by other companies and never by Napier.
Another fascinating Napier engine is the Nomad, check that for specific fuel consumption !
@@Niinsa62 Actually triangular minesweeper engine. Application to a loco came later.
The Deltic was a lot of complexity for even less payoff. An 18 cyl, 36 piston Deltic delivered 1600hp in 1961. An EMD 567C was developing 1750hp with a 16 cylinder V configuration in 1953. A contemporary EMD 567D of 1961 could develop 2250hp. If you were ok with complexity a Fairbanks-Moorse 12 cyl opposed piston diesel could develop 2400hp in rail use in 1953.
@@PositionLight Deltic engines were originally designed for MTB use generating 2500 hp, turbocharged 3,100 hp and charge cooled 3,700 hp. The compound Deltic - tested but never went into manufacture was over 5,000 hp from the same engine block. So, I'm very sorry to say you are wrong.
The algorithm put me onto this channel, adoring the content, hope the views keep up and looking forward to more videos.
One note as a friend of mine who owns vintage tractors was at pains to tell me, the shotgun shell starter uses a BLANK cartridge. He knows a guy who used a regular one and made shite of the engine!
"Imma put a Napier in mah John Deere" will forever live rent free in my head
Thanks for doing the interesting and enlightening talks on these marvels of engineering.
In the late 60s, the wing commander I worked under, survived a tour Typhoons from before D-Day until the end of the war. He wasn't inclined to talk about his experiences, but in the right surroundings and with just the right amount of beer, he could be induced to relate some of his experiences to us first tour sprogs.
His mission, was ground attack, and I can still remember him saying that he didn't know what scared him the most, doing the actual attacks on trains, tanks, before and during D-Day, or the flight home across the channel with that monstrous chin scoop, knowing that if he had to ditch, he would certainly have flipped onto his back. He loved the engine, and it never let him down. I was lucky enough to work with a lot of WWII retreads, and regret not getting them to talk more about their experiences.
The two piston engines that have always fascinated me the most, are the Napier Sabre, and the Bristol Centaurus. Both of these engines are a thing of beauty in their own right. I first saw the Napier Sabre in the late 70s, at the British Science Museum, and just had to learn more about it. I can't remember for certain, but I think I first saw the Centaurus on display at the Navy Museum (southeast of Bristol). I have also seen the Sea Fury, from takeoff, air display, and landing, and that is one impressive aircraft.
As somebody who lived the first years of his life in Napier, New Zealand, your correction of the inconsistent pronunciation of from Part 1 inside the first minute of Part 2 made me smile.
Excellent presentation on a fascinating bit of British engineering. I love all things aero, especially engines. New subscriber here.
I literally just found your channel this morning, watched part 1, and was wondering when you would upload again, love the amount of detail you go into with these videos, you sir have earned a sub!
I am also excited there ended up being a part two
Another good source of general information on sleev valve angines, (and many other types), is Sir Harry Ricardo's book 'The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine'. One of his wartime test engines, a supercharged single cylinder sleeve valve, engine, managed 219 BHP/Litre, though at that point they stopped testing because they had burned the sleeve using methanol and water injection; they were using that because they had reached the fuel flow limit of the carburetter. Sadly all that research work stopped with the advent of the jet engine.
If you want to see another quirky Napier engine, take a look at the 'Deltic', used in Fast patrol boats, Railway engines, and memorably a super pumper for the New York Fire Service, amongst other uses.
Probably 55 years ago, one of my uncles always told me the sleeve valve was the problem (he was also a POW and HATED the Japanese).
When I got older and had a lot more interest in piston enginesI wondered about it as the Deltic was made along the same lines but that didn't seem to have the same issues and was used for years by British Rail
@@1crazypj The Deltic did not have sleeve valves. It was an opposed piston two stroke diesel and had piston controlled porting for intake/exhaust.
@@1crazypj The Napier Deltic was a two stroke design, using fixed cylinder porting to effect fuel inlet and exhaust scavenging, so was not equipped with sleeve valves
Thank you for the hard work you have put into parts 1&2, it was amazing that this engine was produced in such a short period of time and had most of its reliability problems solved to make a formidable fighter.
mind boggling complexity and the sheer brilliance of the engineers who built this engine
Please , no worries about Napier, these two videos are brilliant, thank you , much appreciated is the technical content and illustrations.
An interesting Diesel engine is the two stroke Napier Deltic, use on the British Railways class 55 locos , it sounds awesome
Wow! 4000+ HP really is an impressive number. I can't remember where I saw it, but some (well informed) guy explained that, practically, the max HP for a cylinder is about 200 HP, and the max number of cylinders for an aero engine is about 25, yielding an absolute maximum of about 5000 HP. This figure was borne out later in the '50s so 4000 HP in 1944 is just jaw-dropping. I still wonder, though, about long-term reliability. It clearly has more moving parts with tighter tolerances and that must bear strongly on reliability.
Also, if and when you continue your videos of aero engines, I'd like to see more discussion of specific fuel consumption. I feel this subject is rarely addressed.
Great Video! Very Interesting! Much Respect!
Long term reliability was 100 combat hours,for fighters. The average lifespan of a pilot was a lot less.
Official max performance ever used in a plane is 3055hp at 17lb using water injection and 100/130 fuel of VII and this is in november of 1945
3500hp is not even achievable in this engine even overbusting, you would need a better supercharger or ram air effect at full speed in level flight at SL, let alone 4000hp test runs...
this video is like If I take engine test runs of R2800 with powers of 3800hp and say it is better than a 2400hp napier sabre in service, what does this prove?
There is no such thing as "max power for a cylinder" as top fuel dragsters develop 8,000-11,500 horsepower via supercharged 500 cubic inch V8s.
@@Triple_J.1 This is an inane comparison. Top fuel dragsters are designed to operate for a few seconds and many don't survive even that. This claim was made for aero engines specifically, wherein reliability is of paramount importance. Actual real-world considerations matter too.
@@johnwiles4391 the only comparison would be the me162 and we all know what throwing airial dragsters at bombers accomplished.
I damn near spit my drink out on the ride into work this morning at that john deer comment. I really enjoyed this video and appreciate the work you put into it.
It's a shame that none of these engines are in running condition.. but i know that will change at some point with the current projects that are in the works.
As to the cooling system the Merlin was around 300 lbs and from what I remember it ran super high pressure so the radiator was built like a brick house it was so strong you can find photos of them on the ground being some of the largest bits left of the plane
Time stamp 9:38 to 9:48 - Hawker Tornado. Tell tale of the intake over the top of the cowling and more obviously the double exhaust stakes on each side. This indicates it was a RR Vulture engine.
Time stamp 9:49 to 9:53 0 Hawker Typhoon MkIA. Tell tale of the 6 ports under wing of the aircraft for the 6 .303 Browning machineguns on the starboard wing. In fact, most of the WW2 footage of the Typhoon was of the MkIA. The same for Part 1 as well. Not complaining, just grateful to see so much footage of the earlier Typhoons. The MkIB is represented as well. You can tell them by the 4 big protuberances on the leading edge of the wings.
I should say that a great topic would be the Bristol Centaurus engine. It was a contemporary of the Sabre, and a sleeve valve demon as well.
I've read the story of Bristol sleeve valve engines and they too initially had appalling reliability records, most sleeves didn't last more than 10-20 hours which was far from the roughly 150 hours before teardown of a Merlin engine, but this issue was resolved by contacting an American firm that had the precision manufacturing tools for making the sleeves with enough precision and tolerance.
I can't remember the name of the American company selling the tools to Bristol to manufacture their sleeve valves.
Looking at Sir Harry Ricardo's 1952 edition of 'The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine', which you could consider a kind of Bible of the sleeve-valve engine, I only found that Bristol used an austenitic steel sleeve, which was nitrided and 'satin finished' to prolong wear life. There is no reference to any American company, but this doesn't mean your information is not correct. They give most of the credit to the Bristol-developed process of massaging the sleeves after nitriding, eliminating the distortions which resulted from the surface treatment. I wish this information is of your interest.
@@gutofuhr While I don’t question your source, some British pride is difficult to irradicate and a stumbling block when you are writing about your heritage, my source was about the start of the sleeve valve engines and how they broke down when tested in bench, but for my life I can’t remember the name of the source.
They were Sunstrand centreless grinders. Rod Banks was able to secure them and get them sent to Napier for them to manufacture the sleeves. Bristol did not need them, as they had already discovered (by accident) that the way to get the sleeves within tolerance was by using a worn wheel for the final grind. Pratt & Whitney were rather annoyed, as the grinders were meant to be used for the new C series R-2800 production line.
@@gutofuhr Napier had Reliability issues with their Sleeve Valve engines, solved when they asked Bristol to make the sleeves, and then transfer the technology.
First Bristol sleeves were made of Nickel Iron; later of KE965 Steel alloy, by Keyser Ellison.
For Air Cooled cylinders, Bristol took an alloy with 12 % Silicon.
Sleeves were made by Centrifugal Casting.
According to Harry Ricardo, Iron Sleeves inside an Steel cylinder had no problems.
For his Briggs&Stratton Sleeve Valve lawnmover engine, chagermiles007 used Invar alloy.
Mike Hewland and Logan solved the smoke emissions in their single cylinder, 500 cc, Single Sleeve Valve Prototype, with an added Dykes ring on 'Junk Head'
See Car&Driver, July 1974.
Yes, 50 years ago
The fuel flow rate would also affect the power to weight ratio. If one engine uses less fuel, the aircraft would need to carry less fuel. Another consideration is that the engine with the most power and best power to weight ratio, still might not be the best engine for a particular aircraft. I think you included a good balance of details to video length for two fascinating videos. Thanks.
Here are some details he did not add. USA was not interested as they had their own double sided engine in development by Chrysler with same teething problems. Both Merlin and Allison engines made over 2000Hp before 1945 so... he was underselling those engines. USA was not interested in water cooled engines is the real deal. Especially by the end of the war. It was main reason P47 were tasked with ground attack while P51/P38/P40 were not. Same reason USNavy had zero interest in such an engine. Reliability due to ground fire etc. P47 compared to ALL other fighter types had a loss ratio to hours flown/sorties flown, even with ground pounding down in the dirt role, of 3X superior to its next rival P51(we do not have numbers for Spitfire that I know of as there were so many variants over wartime). P47 was better than the P38/Mosquito with 2 engines in terms of loss of aircraft. Yes, 1 R2800 was superior to 2 Allison/Merlin engines in war. So no, USA was not interested in a Napier Sabre engine when they had larger Radials finishing development with vastly superior reliability and damage tolerance.
The correct characteristic to take this into account is BSFC brake specific fuel consumption. Obviously, one wouldn't use an engine in an aircraft for which it was not suited. But, rest assured that BSFC is used to determine the size(volume) of the fuel tanks to achieve any given range, speed, altitude, climb rate and all up weight specified for the aircraft design. These variables are interrelated and can be traded off against one another. Nevertheless, as an aircraft designer one would choose the most powerful, fuel efficient engine available. It would be interesting if the engines in this video comparison used BSFC
@@marklelohe3754
YESSSSS!!!
AN IMPORTANT POINT, YOU REVEAL!!!
Thank you for this wonderful and informative clip. Since reading Pierre Clostermans books as a youth I’ve had a fascination for the Napier Sabre and its aircraft.
An excellent book.
There are many channels that IMO put blatantly wrong data/facts/info in every video, things that are widely known and easily proven, and when I go down into the comments everybody is correcting the creator, which obviously boosts the algorithm. Good video.
Kinda like Obama Care?
this video fits your description tom
I love these aircraft engine reviews! It is truly amazing how fast these engines were developed and improved upon. Todays automotive engines, while more efficient, are still less impressive than the aircraft engines of 70 years ago.
Keep in mind that auto engines have to last two hundred thousand miles unless you are discussing Japan were they throw away cars after they are four years old. The aircraft engines of WWII had a very short life span between rebuilds. I knew an aircraft mechanic who worked on B-17s and told me how they often had to replace an engine between missions, sometimes from flak damage and sometimes because a minor part failed A better comparison is WWII aviation engines v. racing car engines...
@@davidhollenshead4892 I'd agree with that. Being ex air force on fighter/bombers, our early engines were lasting 100 hrs max before turbines would throw a blade; a new type of turbine blade was developed that vastly improved this to about 500-600 hrs, still only about 30,000 equivalent miles in a car though, so yes a good comparison to a racing car. A lot of this in the early days was the pilot pushing the throttles through to 'Combat' ('Max Military' on US jets, I think) on a regular basis; this was also fixed.
Some of the pictures when you were referring to the early Typhoon engine issues actually show the Hawker Tornado, which has the terrible Rolls Royce Vulture engine - identifiable by the TWO rows of exhaust pipes. If the Sabre had reliability issues - they were nothing compared to the Vulture!
Just ask Avro on the Manchester.
The Sabre had a capacity of 37 litres compared to the Merlin’s 27 litres, with double the number of pistons. These were therefore smaller and as a result the Sabre could rev up and down the range like a racing car engine. The maximum revolutions were 4,200 rpm and the power rating in service was set at 3,750 hp, although it could deliver a reliable 5,500 hp with 45 lb/in of supercharger boost. The most power the Merlin could muster was 2,200 hp at 2,900 rpm with 2,640 hp available for short periods.
These were incredible figures, but few people today have ever heard of this engine. Much of its history has been obscured by time and (Setright suggests) by the deliberate suppression of records. To his credit Beaverbrook saw the potential of the Sabre when it passed the Air Mistry’s 100-hour test and it went into mass production.
It was not an easy engine to make, nor an easy engine to maintain. There was a struggle to make the sleeves perfectly round but by a piece of luck the Bristol Taurus engine shared the same cylinder bore of 5.0 in. Testing with Taurus sleeves was a success, but initially Bristol refused to manufacture Sabre sleeves, objecting that their techniques were confidential! The Air Ministry had to have a stern word, and in the end the sleeves were manufactured from nitrided austenitic steel forgings using Bristol tooling. Quality was not as good as at Rolls-Royce factories, and engines were often delivered with broken piston rings, and machining swarf left inside. The Merlin was more reliable and far better made.
By the time the Sabre came into service many of the good pilots had been killed, replaced by those of poorer quality and hastier training. They may have been swayed by the effective Rolls-Royce propaganda, and when pilots and ground crew encountered problems with the Sabre they were prone to condemn what they could not understand. And the Sabre’s reputation was not enhanced by the Rolls-Royce representatives at the airfields. It didn’t have black shiny cam covers like the Merlin, it just looked like a big green metal box with rows of exhaust pipes and sparking plugs.
The Sabre was hard to start from cold as the sleeve valves were a tight fit. At freezing point the Coffman starter struggled to turn it over, and Pierre Clostermann describes how the ground crews had to start the Sabre in his Hawker Typhoon every two hours during freezing nights in France. The correct technique was to dilute the oil with petrol, a practice also employed by the Germans, but a misfire when starting from cold could result in a fire and many trainee pilots were terrified of their Typhoons.
The second problem was not the fault of the Sabre. Fighters patrolling the Channel suddenly started having engine failures, and on one day no less than 15 Sabres clanked to a halt while up in the air. Frantic investigations revealed the problem, and Setright hints at sabotage: “A bunch of stupid, ignorant and possibly misguided (but by whom?) mechanics had discovered that it was possible to fiddle with the internals of the automatic boost control that integrated the various engine functions…these fighters were cruising up and down the Channel for long drawn out patrols with the airscrews in full coarse pitch, the crankshafts turning over at cruising rev./min., and the blowers were delivering maximum boost! Of course, the engines were hammering themselves to death, and there was practically a riot when the cause was discovered.”
The Sabre-powered Hawker Tempest became the most successful destroyer of the V-1 flying bombs as it was the fastest of all the Allied fighters. Whereas the Spitfire had to dive to gain enough speed to catch the V-1, the Tempest could actually overtake the primitive cruise missile. Later the Hawker Tempest managed to shoot down 20 Messerschmitt Me 262 jet aircraft.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and Rolls-Royce produced a copy of the Sabre named the Eagle Mk XXII, with the same layout of 24 cylinders in an H-block configuration and the same kind of sleeve valves. It was never fitted in a production fighter as something else was coming.
The Napier Sabre was still the most powerful piston engine at the end of the war, and probably the most misunderstood. It was no Italian beauty on the outside but on the inside it was a paragon of human ingenuity, the apotheosis of the piston engine.
For more, see my book on the Rolls-Royce Merlin www.amazon.co.uk/Merlin-Engine-That-Won-WWII/dp/0008359261/ref=as_li_ss_tl?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1576954352&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=sevseasevsum-21&linkId=f4c1b2d9d71477c39003034b2c73f4e6&language=en_GB
I think you are wrong about pilots not being trained properly, at least from my father's view, he was very well trained. The issue was that pilots were not trained in Typhoons. This was because pilots being trained did not know where they were going to be posted, and what aircraft they would then be flying. My father spent on year training in the middle east in Spitfires, and he could have ended up in Asia, most likely though in Italy. But he ended up at 609 Squadron an English Squadron in 1944 and flew Typhoons,
I promise to buy an audible copy of your book if you'll answer my uneducated naively simplistic question with an educated guess: Having watched all these engine videos I can't help but wonder what power to weight could have been produced by a 2 stroke (RR Crecy), sleeve valve opposing 24 (Napier Sabre) turbocompounded (Allison) engine. If that's even a thing that could have worked!
A few pilots never mastered how to start the Sabre. They left it to the ground crew to get it going. I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that one of the problems with running a Sabre today is its very special oil requirement. There are either no supplies left, or there is a tiny amount out there and nobody likely to reproduce it. I believe there is a nil hours Sabre that is/was the property of Rolls Royce out there. I think it's supposed to be destined for a Typhoon rebuild, but I've no idea how the project is faring right now. What I do know is that when German "Tip and Run" raiders in FW190s raided the South Coast of England the Typhoons could catch them on the way home like they were going backwards. That was how powerful the Sabre was. Roland Beamont was shot down in a Typhoon, and ended the war as a POW before moving into test pilot work after WW2.
The oil was different but no more so than a conventional diesel engine oil with higher levels of detergents in it, this was, in an effort to try and reduce excess contamination of sleave ports and top ring lands....these engines drank and burnt oil at an incredibly high rate.
There is a factory sealed Sabre that was donated by RAF Cranfield to the Typhoon RB369 project which is restoring a Hawker Typhoon to flight.
Some relatively recent analysis that I remember reading by Matt Bearman suggests that there were problems with some of the 3 bladed deHavilland propeller designs that resulted in the prop blades operating in the transonic flow regime. It seems that this was was not properly understood at the time, but played havoc with prop constant speed units and imparted additional stresses on the engine which resulted in reliability issues. So it seems that it could have been that a propeller issue which manifest itself as engine reliability problem. The account I read thought the same issue was the source of the reliability issues of the R-R Peregrine in the Westland Whirlwind and R-R Vulture in the Avro Manchester.
Interestingly most Typhoon engine reliability issues seem to have disappeared when moving from the early (thicker propeller section) 3 bladed deH prop and the later 4 bladed Rotol unit.
Dzięki Twojemu kanałowi na RUclips nie umrę w nieświadomości i błędnym przekonaniu jak w Polskiej literaturze opisywali i tłumaczyli mi nie znający się całkowicie na wtrysku wody, czy mieszaninie wody i metanolu do komory spalania, jak mówili w koncowej fazie suwu pracy tłoka. Tłumaczyli to nie potrzebą wyeliminowania stukowego spalania, no bo w końcowej fazie nie miało by to uzasadnienia bo zjawisko już nie występuje, tylko dodatkowym wytworzeniem ciśnienia ze względu na dużą prężność pary wodnej. Ciekawiła mnie mieszanina wody i metanolu, myślałem żeby nie zamarzała na wysokościach przy ujemnych temperaturach. Jak jest na prawdę kiedy w którym momencie następował wtrysk wody z metanolem zaraz po wtrysku benzyny, a wcześniej jak były gaźniki kiedy aby zapaliła się mieszanka i nie nastąpiło detonacyjne spalanie. Odpisz, wyjaśnij, pozdrawiam, Wiechu .
Thanks to your RUclips channel, I will not die in ignorance and misconception as described and explained in Polish literature by those who do not know completely about water injection or a mixture of water and methanol into the combustion chamber, as they said in the final phase of the piston stroke. They explained this not by the need to eliminate knocking combustion, because in the final phase it would not be justified because the phenomenon no longer occurs, but by additional pressure generation due to the high pressure of water vapor. I was interested in a mixture of water and methanol, I thought that it would not freeze at altitudes at sub-zero temperatures. How is it really, when was the injection of water with methanol right after the injection of gasoline, and before that there were carburetors when the mixture ignited and there was no detonation combustion. Write back, explain, best regards, Wiechu.
Excellent series on a damn interesting engine and what it went through to get into production... Would love to see more like this on all engine histories !!
Just FYI, P&W designed Sabre-like engine in WW2 denoted as the H-370. Test examples were run but it never made it into production. It was slated to produce 4,000 hp from 61 litres. Also, a good reference work is from Bill Gunston called "Development of Piston Aero Engines".
A lot of people slag off the Kaufman starter but I think few realise that Rolls Royce used the Kaufman system in the Avon turbojet. The system was a bit more automated than the Sabre and had 3 cartridges in a revolving magazine in the nose cone of the jet engine, once fired, the gas from the cartridge spun a small turbine which then turned the engine over. The exhaust gas from the starter cartridge was vented from 3 ports on the engine nacelle and frightened the heck of someone who hadn't seen it before.
Spelt Coffman not Kaufman
Great video.
WRT to the weight of the cooling system this quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Tempest offers some useful information.
“The weight of the heavier Centaurus engine (2,695 lb/1,222 kg versus 2,360 lb/1,070 kg) was offset by the absence of a heavy radiator unit, so that the Tempest II was only some 20 lb (9 kg) heavier overall.”
This would seem to indicate a 315lb weight for the cooling system and associated components.
The primary reason that the Sabre stands so high in your comparison is as a consequence of Mr. Ricardo's work on the sleeve valve concept, which was to offset the detonation (knock) problem associated with using low Octane fuel. A general problem particularly for Britain as it had to operate its military just about everywhere in the world at the time, where fuels generally, were below 72 Octane. The sleeve valve has the fundamental advantage of being able to open the cylinder for induction and exhaust to a much larger area than is possible using any configuration or geometry of poppet valves. Configurations and geometries of poppet valves tend to exacerbate the detonation problem by reflecting shock waves within the combustion space of the engine, whereas, sleeve valves do not. This allows a sleeve valve engine to run at a much higher compression ratio without knock for any given fuel Octane than a poppet valve engine and therefore produce a higher power.
I’m a retired mechanical engineer. While I am much more of a motorsports fan, I do have a great appreciation of aircraft technology. Before I watched Part 1 & 2, had never heard of the Napier Sabre engine. It is a fascinating piece of hardware! But, the connection for me is this. For 1966, the displacement maximum changed for Formula 1 engines. They went from 1.5 liters to 3.0 liters. BRM (British Racing Motors) had a previously well developed and successful 1.5 liter V-8 engine. For the 3.0 liter rules, they changed the V configuration to a flat configuration and mounted one on tip of the other for an H-16 arrangement. What I didn’t know was that the Napier Sabre preceded BRM with the H configuration by roughly 30 years.
Unfortunately, it only won 1 race during its tenure. Like the Sabre, it turned out to be heavier than expected. It was slow to rev, but that probably would not be a significant problem in an aircraft setting. But, unlike the Sabre, the H-16 didn’t reach the horsepower projections. One question mark for me with the H-16 engine is that I wonder if the extra friction generated by the main bearings of 2 crankshafts was a problem for the H-16?
Thanks for making part 2, great that you made the effort despite the minor errors in the first one. People forget that these things were the F1 engines of their day. You will find most racing piston engine designers tip their hats to the giants that walked before them designing these monsters. I strongly recommend Calum Douglas book 'The Secret Horsepower Race' probably the best researched book I have read on Piston Aero engine development and i have read most of them. Also if you have not, consider joining the Aircraft Engine Historical Society, AEHS, their site has a mine of useful info. Looking forward to your next production.
Thanks sir! I'm currently in the process of reading Douglas' book and you're absolutely right, the research is phenomenal.
My favorite aircraft engine. The Napier could rev higher than most, I suspect, because it had a short stroke and relatively small pistons--lower piston speed and rotating masses. I own Graham White's book but still learned a great deal from your presentation. Thanks.
Re: radiator weight.
The expanded air from the radiator heat exchanger was used to produce positive thrust, adding to the performance of the engine. The only disadvantage was its vulnerability to damage.
While Frank Halford was working with Napier on the Sabre, he and his team were also developing his first turbojet with De Havilland - the H1 (Goblin). Design started in1941, first run in April '42 and within 2 months making its design thrust of 3000lb. Two H1s powered the prototype Meteor in March '43 and one H1 in the prototype Vampire in Sept '43.
Halford learnt to fly in a Bristol Boxkite age 19 in Oct 1913 at the Brookland's Flying School. He was an instructor by Christmas and Chief Instructor by April ! Remarkable life in a remarkable time.
My back ground is marine engineering in which I spent over 50 years and a masters degree. I find your videos very interesting and factual. Most of the engines that I had experience on were the size of houses. I find it fascinating to see that they found that kind of horsepower over 80 years ago and in adverse conditions. It begs you to wonder what they could have achieved with better resources. I am also a female and was a chief engineer for over 20 years. Laurajane from New Zealand 🇳🇿
The photos of the aircraft with the 4 x exhaust banks is the Hawker Tornado, fitted with the Rolls-Royce Vulture engine, which was ultimately unsuccessful, and also fitted to the Avro Manchester bomber.
nice spot Ian!
Thank you for this video. I had the good fortune to meet a man an American who before America got involved in WWII went to Canada enlisted in the RCAF and flew during the Battle of Briton. He started flying Spitfires and Hurricane and transitioned into the Tempest and Typhoon so he spoke highly of the Napier Saber as to it's power. Tempermental yes but powerful.
I watched part 1 ,and was not disappointed by part 2.thank you,cheers,Roly 🇬🇧.
I hope you do a mini series like this for every legendary aircraft engine!
All of this considered --and I appreciate your input SO much-- I'd choose the R-2800 for its simplicity, reliability, and brute force.
i prefer griffon because water cooled planes have less drag
Huge frontal area is problem in fighters , ok on slower moving planes
I always thought the Sabre would have been the perfect engine configuration to install into a mid-engine fighter design like the P-63 Kingcobra. Power, firepower, laminar flow wing, tricycle gear. That would've been a pretty mean combo.
Thinking 'along' driveshaft placement, the term 'crotch rocket' takes on whole new cluster of possible outcomes! : )
@@loddude5706 Ha! Yea. I figure with the Sabre it would have required a gear reduction box to offset the location of the shaft. Whereas on the Allison in the P-39/63 it appears they ran a shaft straight off the end of the crank forward to a gear reduction unit in front of the cannon.
Still, I think this setup would have given a very streamlined package to a massive motor that could have really justified the use of a mid-engine layout with it's "H" configuration.
Except it is liquid cooled and crap at taking damage. P51 had 3X loss ratio of P47 for instance without being tasked with ground pounding. The ultimate was the XP-72 with its recessed radial P&W wasp major engine.
@@w8stral All true and I've always thought it was a shame that the jets cut us off from seeing what aircraft like the P-72 would've really been like. That P-72 is so beautiful.
However, my point is that for a mid-engine setup I think the Sabre would have been optimal. If nothing else it would make one hell of a race plane....
Check out the P-39s Cobra I and Cobra II. They used the upgraded Allison's from the P-63 and Cobra II won the 1946 Cleveland Air Race. However, they were really concerned about the structural stiffness of the foreword fuselage due to the torque of the upgraded engines....but the P-39 did get in the last laugh before it rode off into the sunset.
@@w8stral I don't doubt the P-47 was very tough, but I believe in Korea the P-51 had similar losses per sortie to its air cooled Corsair peer (0.5%). And the P-63 had very low losses per sortie in ww2 (0.4%), although it may have been placed on safer missions. Indeed, if the P-51 has a far longer range, it would be exposed to greater hazard over more time per sortie. So it's hard to do a comparison without more fine grained data. Indeed later service in ww2 confers the advantage of less experienced enemy German pilots but increasingly concentrated AAA assets as well. It's tough to draw conclusions without being able to account for more variables than air/water cooling.
The criteria you use to select the Sabre is more applicable to fighter aircraft. If one considers applications in multiengine bomber aircraft the R-2800 and R-3350 are a more preferred solution, particularly at high altitude. These two engines were very successful after the war in the DC6 and DC7. Also noteworthy, the RAF withdrew the Typhoon from operation immediately after the war ended.
That being said, hats off to Napier for making this style of engine work. In the US several engine manufactures designed and built ‘hyper’ style engines but none of them entered production. The many problems encountered swamping the development process. My point is that many tried but only Napier succeeded.
The R2800 was a tough engine and powered the R3350 had problems but it was still used and not all the problems were solved until the R4360. The P and W was less known at least to me; than the Saber.
@@markgranger9150 in my opinion the R-4360 is one step beyond practical, and P&W is by far my favorite engine manufacturer to this day. Perhaps the B-36 experience has colored my opinion too much. In the DC7 the turbo compound R-3350 provided reliable service with impressive power output. To me, this is a better arrangement than maintaining 4 rows of cylinders. Again, just my opinion.
As for the R-2800, Everts Air Cargo is still operating DC6s in Alaska. That kind of service is hard to match.
Not sure why it would be noteworthy that Typhoons were withdrawn immediately after the war. There was a need to drastically reduce the size of the armed forces, and Tempests (a much improved Typhoon, essentially) were available in sufficient numbers for the peacetime force. Tempest was in fact the last piston-engined fighter the RAF operated before converting to everything to jets.
As a mechanic, when you went on your crankshaft ramble, I took one look at the schematic and shut my eyes, I was laughing by the end of the spiel, that's some beautiful engineering and problem solving. I can see it in motion 👌
I saw a Napier Sabre engine on an engine stand in a workshop in New Zealand six months ago, it had been restored to flying condition and was about to be sent overseas - don't quote me on this - to Kermit Weeks, who has two tempests. The mechanics wouldn't tell me where it was going, but it was just immaculate, you could have eaten your dinner of it.
Check out Hawker Typhoon RB369 in the UK, they have a factory sealed Sabre that is going to be fitted into a restored Typhoon that will be flown in the UK
@peterbird7979 Weeks was just talking about his two Sabre engines a couple of weeks ago and they are both still unrestored at his museum. ruclips.net/video/LVm7jCRARD0/видео.html It will be a big challenge to get a Sabre to safe and flyable condition. I don't think any of the three Sabre projects have a running engine at this time because they are still building the aircraft first. And actually if you listen to this video, Weeks has a later series Sabre and will be the only one that is safe to use for a project. Maybe the other projects do not have viable engines.
Not included in the weight of an R-2800 installed in a P-47 is its extensive turbo charging duct and inter-cooling system; which has to run several hundred pounds on it own. The P-38 also had an extensive turbocharging system as well.
The whole of the analysis divorces the weight of supporting equipment for that of the raw engine block itself. Less we include weight of fuel and fuel tank, lines, oil, ect.
I have heard that Napier also had quality control issues - particularly with dirt and FOD (Foreign Object Damage) - right from the factory. Considering the tolerances needed for a sleeve valves, this would be disastrous.
One MAJOR advantage of the Sabre was the fact that Sleeve-Valve engines can use MUCH higher compression without detonation problems on the same grade of gasoline.
Stating that the US didn't have the capacity for making Sleeve-Valve engines is forgetting that at least one (and possibly more) auto manufacturers had used them in their cars. Specifically, Willys-Knight was quite well known for their "Silent Knight" sleeve-valve engines.
Look up Rod Banks book I kept No Diary .
He took control of the Sabre project and insisted on the use of Bristol sleeve valves for the Sabre .
I used to work in a mechanical engineering drawing office. There were two camps Napier Sabre vs RR Merlin/Griffin. This argument will go on for ever. Napier went on to design and build the Napier Deltic Diesel, an extremely advanced and different engine that ran British Rail in the 1950's. This engine would work in a very large John Deere. Thank you for tackling this thorny topic.
The Deltic wasn't a new engine. Napiers acquired a licence from Junkers for the Jumo 205 series opposed piston diesel engines. Napier marketed the Junkers engine as the Culverin before WW2 but got no takers. The Deltic was 3 Culverins linked together - the trick was to run one in the opposite direction compared to the other two.
Also used in ships and the ‘nasty’ patrol boats in Vietnam
The problems suffered with the early Sabre engines and the 'politicized' complaints about the unreliability is not unique to Napier or the Sabre. Pretty much every major engine manufacturer around the world suffered similar issues when they introduced a new type or series of high performance engines, Rolls Royce Vulture and early sleeve valve Bristol engines spring to mind. Especially in wartime there is a rush to get the engine in service and ground/air crews lack the training & equipment so there is a lag period when these issues are highlighted and over-emphasized. Many engine manufacturers faced similar when introducing the early jet engines.
RR Griffon.... early engines were really poor
Napier lived way outside the box. The deltic diesel did for locomotives as the Sabre did for aircraft. The Sabre was also very quiet. The Japanese called them whispering death.
'Whispering Death was more commonly a nickname for the Bristol Beafighter, another plane with sleeve valve engines, the Bristol Hercules series.
@@profpep sleeve valve radials?
@@martinsaunders7925 Yes, the Bristol engine company, a division of the Bristol Aeroplane company developed a range of sleeve valves radials in the inter war period. They culminated in the Centaurus which in its final form kicked out over 2500 bhp and was fitted to such types as the Hawker Sea Fury and the Blackburn Beverly transport. They later were amalgamated with the Armstrong Siddely (spelling?) company to become Bristol Siddely who went on to develop the Olympus fitted to Concorde. Aerospace Bristol have a large collection of engines and a comprehensive archive related to these motors
@@profpep If you see and hear the Shuttleworth collection Gloster Gladiator it is also very quiet but that's down to the ring manifold exhaust configuration because the Bristol Mercury has overhead poppet valves.
whispering death was the sleeve valved radial in the Beaufighter
RR Griffons saw plenty of action from early 1943, fitted to mk XII Spitfires and appear to have the edge over Typhoons on mutual low level interceptions.
Both types went through considerable development from then.
Thank you for sharing your enthusiasm for the Sabre.
I've had the opportunity to see several examples displayed in museums in the UK.
So compact; it somehow looks small compared to Merlins and Griffons.
What an impressive device it was.
Thank you for making the graphs readable......except for the Spit 9 vs Me109G graph.....there is no legend for all the squiggly lines......
----
One of the positive features of the Sabre ( that had nothing to do with performance) was that it was easy to service between flights - no valves to adjust, spark plugs all easily accessible, all dry accessories were on top of the engine, wet accessories ( pumps, etc) were underneath, as opposed to being crowded at the back of a conventional engine.
My girlfriend's father flew the Hawker Typhoon and later the Tempest for the RNZAF. Always remember that he had a Sabre piston and conrod on his mantle piece. He said that over Germany on a sortie there was a bang and a loss of power. He turned around and flew back to base. The piston and conrod was sitting there half in and half out of the side of the engine. He loved the sabre, yes it had its issues, but as he said, nothing like overtaking a FW190 in a level run.
Flight Sargent John Dickson. Rest in peace. What a wonderful man.
Napier where always far more adventurous than Rolls Royce (or most other aircraft engine companies) and produced very advanced designs. The Napier Lion (12 cylinder with 3 banks of 4 cast cylinders W configuration) was the best and most powerful aircraft engine to come out of WW1 (lights years ahead of the RR Eagle and Liberty) that set a number of air, land and sea world records, it continued in production to the early 1930s. It was fitted to over 160 aircraft types and was even available with a turbo in 1922 (perhaps the next report). During the 1930s Napier produced 2 successful high speed air-cooled H configuration engines, the Rapier 16 cylinder and Dagger 24 cylinder, designed by Frank Halford who also designed the Sabre. Frank Halford, who initially worked for Sir Harry Ricardo, also designed all of the De Havilland aircraft engines, including the first British jet engine to truly go into production and the first to get a type certificate, the DH Goblin (Halford H1) beating RR by some time. Post WW2 Napier also produced probably the most efficient piston aircraft engines ever produced the Nomad 1 & 2, a turbo compound 2 stroke diesel, that looked like a gas turbine had been mated with a piston engine! The other issue that is rarely discussed about the Sabre is the supercharger drives, a problem the Deltic's also had. The superchargers run at high speed, significantly geared up from the crank, any change to the crank speed produces large inertial loads in the supercharger drive chains. The Sabres and Deltics (especially) could accelerate and decelerate very quickly and despite shock absorber being built into the drive chains unacceptable loads could be produced. The unreliability of sleeve valves has always been cited however the post war commercial version of the Bristol Hercules had the longest Time Between Overhaul (TBO) of any large aircraft piston engine. Keep up the good work.
Thankyou. Goes someway to setting the record straight about oft maligned sleeve valve engine, the rushing into service of the sabre 11 and
Hawker Typhoon which again after a bad start served magnificently after d day . Much of the development which was ignored has to be seen against the
Jet development and thanks for raising the issues about Rolls Royce wanting to dominate (everything).
Bristol had to be forced to give up the resolution so hard won ( and expensively} of sleeve materials and finish. Understandable despite there being a war on.
How about doing a video on the Bristol sleeve valvers namely Hercules and Centaurus used in the last piston fighter Tempest 2 , and Sea Fury.
Another good read is by the test pilots particularly Roland Beaumont. I think he was quoted as saying something along these lines
after a Tempest 5 flight that ‘you can keep your Mustangs And spits, this was real power” Recommend also Desmond Scott ‘Typhoon Pilot’
And Pierre Clostermann ‘The big Show’.
My engine of choice for my WW2 fighter is the Pratt and Whitney R2800. Because they were more or less indestructible. Radial engines can continue to operate after being riddled with bullets and are much easier to repair because you could easily replace cylinder barrels for example whereas one bullet in the engine block of a liquid cooled engine and you can throw the whole thing away. Assuming you make it back to base. I'm not saying the Sabre is a bad engine, it was a remarkable technical achievement for its time but it was complex, and complexity is the enemy of reliability. Superior power output is irrelevant if you can't reliably make use of it when it really counts.
Nice that you discovered Graham White's books. I have the first edition of Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WW2, and practically wore out the Sabre chapter reading it over and over. I recognize a lot of the lines from it that you quoted in the video.
Napier made four of the most ambitious engines ever designed:
Lion W12, 1200 cubic inches. Designed in WW1, was still setting land speed records in 1947, in John Cobb's Napier Railton Special
Sabre H24 sleeve valve, amply discussed in this video
Nomad H12 2-stroke turbocompound diesel
Deltic 18 2-stroke diesel, 88 liters. For locomotives and fast torpedo boats. Up to 5600 HP in its final turbocompound form.
America didn't completely ignore sleeve valve H engines during WW2. Pratt & Whitney had the H-3130 and H-3730 projects, but they were too involved in developing engines already in production to rush the H-engines into production.
The desperate times of WW2 led to engines and aircraft that weren't ready to be rushed into production. Curtiss-Wright had a similar debacle with the R-3350 in the early B-29's.
L K J Setright in his book "The Power To Fly" 1971 stated the the Sabre produced close to 5000 HP on the test stand. I don't know if, or how much of an exaggeration, this assertion is. Anyway still great stuff.
I somehow missed this when it first came out, but had a good watch of it today.
What an amazing piece of work from an unrepeatable point in History. I just can't get enough of the sheer internal combustion insanity that occured in that rather brief window when extremely powerful aero engines were needed but the jet turbine had yet to take over. The two most gloriously batsh*t engines of this micro-era were the Napier Sabre and the Rolls-Royce Crecy. I've thrice re- watched your excellent video on the latter, and it always saddens me that no sound recordings exist of it. While the Crecy must've made an ear-shatterimg, ungodly scream at high rpm, I often wonder if, like a proper 2-stroke, it sounded like a weedwhacker at idle...
Anyway, you do such tremendous work on this subject, please keep them coming!
Nice to know there are plenty of others who also agree this engine was the best... and why would RR try to stop development/production/use of this if they were not worried about the implications of the "market" being flooded with a far superior unit than they were able to produce.
I all fairness, their engines were a lot more service friendly, but they were still not anything like as good as this beautifully crafted, amazing sounding engine.
I did notice you miss pronouncing Napier, but didn't really pay that much attention to it.
I watch a lot of Formula 1 RUclips content and commentary, most of which are done by people from England.
I am used to people speaking the English language, and slaughtering the pronunciation of it's words.
I enjoyed both of these videos on the Napier Sabre, I worked as an aircraft mechanic for two major US airlines over 25 years.
I knew the Sabre was a different layout, but now have a better understanding of how it functioned, I learned a lot.
Great video.
GREAT DOCUMENTARY!!!
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PART THREE!!!
I THOROUGHLY EMJOYED HOW YOU INTELLIGENTLY PUT TO REST THE NAY SAYERS!!!
I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SLEEVE VALVES AS WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THIS POWERPLANT...
I WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO ENJOYING MORE OF YOUR VIDEOS ON THIS TOPIC!!!
MUCH GRATITUDE FOR YOUR INSIGHTFUL CONTENT!!!
Really great and complete look at the Napier engine. I certainly hope that you do include the other engines you mentioned. I've not worked on aircraft engines but have worked on car/truck engines all my life. You put the info in a very understandable format and for that I thank you.
@flight_dojo - going from 6:1 to 7:1 compression ratio is a noticeable increase.
The higher the compression the more energy can be extracted from combustion. The higher the pressure difference (1 being atmospheric and 7 being how many multiples of atmospheric pressure that is compressed by before combustion happens) results in more efficiency and more energy, ie - more power.
Even when boosting an engine, if base compression ratio is higher, it will perform better.
(All of this has a limit, but you get the point)
I would venture to guess that the largest limiting factors of not increasing it higher at that time were:
- heat mitigation (iron does not get rid of heat well when compared to aluminum, and those engines were big, thick, heavy iron)
- metallurgy limitations to handle the pressure and heat
- lack of knowledge compared to what we know now
- fuel (higher compression increases knock potential Which is highly damaging to the engine)
Very great video(s). Many technical details and i love it. Just the production issues due to the sabre innovative design is for me a indication of how this engine was ahead of the Rolls Royce engines. After watching your two video on the Napier Sabre, I do think the main thing that made the Saber not generally discussed as much as other engines of the time, was the lobbying power used by Rolls Royce. If it had been different i dont think we would talk that much about the Merlin.
Nice video. In addition to specific power and power to weight, another important point for comparing engines is frontal area. I don't know how difficult it is to find the data on frontal area, but that would be a great point for your comparison of WWII piston engines.
Such a brilliant design and results speak for themselves Imagine its outcome without multiple negative influences and interfering!
Total loss risk for fighters outweighed all - any of this engines problems!
Made back when the airlerons on the Lancaster were covered in irish linen and dope..
The pilots needed to breath bottled oxygen from start up due to the co2 output!
The Typhoons had a weak fuselage and would break on landing.
Thanks for posting. My Uncle and cousin were RAF during the war.
Not once Hawker had found out the case of the issue, Typhoons were more robust than Spitfire and would return home with far more battle damaged than the pitever could
A family member who was an engineer for the DB during the war knew when being attacked when it was a Typhoon by the sound of the engine. Only the Typhoon had a "banshee wail" as he noted. He would grab the fireman (who got smaller/younger as the war went on) and toss him out of the cab. He knew they were at ground zero as the engine was the prime target...
He survived, over 14 engines didn't. Of anything the allies flew, the Typhoon was the most feared by the railroad workers.
I've often wondered what it was like to be an engineer running German trains late in the war. I've never come across anything though, not until this. It sounds as grim as I've been imagining.
The Coffman starter does not fire into the engine. It pushes a piston which engages with a ring gear that has angled teeth, causing it to spin and turn over the engine.
I was going to mention that.
As a non engineer who does understand sleeve valves , I find this fascinating.
Thank You!.
You can be anything you want on the internet.
Fascinating
Thanks for taking the time to clear that up for all of us
Quite interesting to consider what would have happened to piston engine development if the gas turbine had not come along. Exhaust recovery turbines were being developed.eg Napier Nomad, Wright R-3350 turbo compound and the Dobrynin VD-4K but with ever increasing complexity. I guess one has to look at the equivalent development of Grand Prix car engines to imagine what might have been. A modern GP engine produces 3.2hp/lb and 10.7hp per cubic inch. One other point is that the weight of liquid cooled piston engine cooling systems is rarely placed in the equation beside the air cooled radials.
Enjoyed your video and the canoness about all the different variables involved
Now do a video on the Bristol Centaurus.
I’ve always, since I found this great engine. Known it was the best performance piston aero engine ever to see combat. This and the Bristol Centaurus, were the absolute pinnacle of power. Due to the sleeve valve configuration, giving them optimum volumetric efficiency. This valve configuration really fascinated me as a boy. And I was so shocked to see some engines of that era were so complex. And ingenious in comparison to most piston engines of today. This engine along with the English electric Deltic are to me. The best use of piston powered engines of all time!!
Thank you greatly for these videos on this engine! As you have settled this argument in full!!
Deltic is a superb engine, but it's from a german design ;)
A 'panicle' is "a loose branching cluster of flowers, as in oats." LOL
@@adrianhendy the German engine was unworkable. It was the redesign of the engine done by English electric to rotate one crank in the opposite direction that made it workable.
@@autodidact537 thank you for pointing that out! Bloody auto spell check!!!! 😂
@@robertreavley7145 but without the original design it wouldn't have happened....
Napier had no idea of using opposing pistons until then and the original opposing piston design they licensed was successful
Very interesting indeed.
Adding the weight of the Napier cooling system to your calculations is an interesting point.
A counter argument to the quoted all-up weight of the P & W 2800 is that in the P-47 there is considerable ducting etc in the fuselage, which is an essential part of the turbocharger installation for that engine.
For a fair comparison, that also should be taken into account in the weight calculations.
But this is getting over-complicated - perhaps just easiest to stay with the original weights?
I Thought the same.
And not to mention the fact that the oil cooler for a large air-cooled engine is nearly as big as the water radiator for a liquid cooled engine. Heat rejection to oil is something that cannot be ignored in an air-cooled engine.
You're probably not far wrong when it comes to the weight of the cooling system - it necessarily needs to include the weight of the coolant itself, and although I doubt there are any numbers available on the amount of coolant required it's worth remembering that water alone weighs somewhere around 10 pounds per imperial gallon. The radiator itself (together with the pipework) would be relatively light by comparison.
Great stuff. A real shame there ain’t many of these brilliant engines (let alone the Typhoon / Tempest that they were installed in) left over after the war. War sucks and shouldn’t happen but man, the technological advancements…
Those advancements can be achieved in a peacetime. Just give engineers task and resources.
Moon landing as an example. Yeah, that was a cold war. Just call it competition.
If you are interested there is a project in the UK to restore a Hawker Typhoon (Typhoon RB369) to flight they are in possession of a factory sealed Sabre engine donated by RAF Cranfield.
Typhoon pilots had balls as big as church bells. Makes me wonder how they fit in the cockpit.
Edit: man I love this WW2 AC nerd stuff. Thank you!
We need more videos on engines please!!!!
THANK YOU FOR A PROFESSIONAL, WELL RESEARCHED AND PRESENTED VIDEO - SUBSCRIBED.
I love the work you put in. I appreciate the information. It's interesting to see the difference ways these engineers came up with ways to fix these challenges.
The best numbers I could locate are:
Cooling system for a P-40F/L went a bit over 300 lbs.
Cooling system for a Merlin P-51 was given as 663 lbs.
Counterweights for a Merlin are approximately 8 lbs, times 12 = 96 lbs.
I like how people are like, "But the R2800 has the cooling included in the weight," even though that pales in comparison to the fact that the R2800 displaces nearly 600 cubic inches more than the Sabre and they also conveniently ignored the fact that the weight of the turbosupercharging system that the variant you used was mated to isn't even included in the weight of said engine. Sure not all R2800s were mated to said system, but not all of them made 2800hp either. The best version with geared superchargers and was used in a production aircraft was the R2800-18W at 2450hp with injection so if people truly wanted to compare like-for-like they would bring up a non-turbocharged one as the weight of the forced induction is not normally included for such systems with the engine. I love the 2800, and it powers my favorite plane of the war, the F6F, and the Allison powers my close second, the P-38, but people need to realize that just because an engine is more popular doesn't mean it was the best.
Incorrect.....the turbo system weight is a direct consequence of where the engine was designed to make that horsepower. Pratt and Whitney could have very easily built a single stage impeller to make 2800 hp and much lower weight to operate at lower altitude. The problem is the Napier could never do the reciprocal to operate at high altitude in a meaningful time period. And this is where this discussion will always fall on its face when discussing aero engines. The induction system is as or more important than any one engine design...full stop. Next, reliability.....how many 4,5,6 hour sorties were recorded by that engine. Did Bristol have the metallurgy worked out in 1940/1941 to make the Napier viable to design other planes around it when it mattered. When you start the video with a caviat that a turbo compounding Allison is at the top of the heap and jets blow all else out of the water, what your really arguing is a time line of when the engine was relevant to use in an airframe to do a task better or more A Symetrically than the enemy. So while it's awesome to appreciate the rediculous complexity and ingenuity of this engine. The real historical injustice was the allies lack of foresight into the jet designs they had 1st and dragged their feet on. Context is everything.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS I am confused as to why you made your comment. Nothing I said was "incorrect." "Context is everything," and I think you completely misunderstood the context of what I said and are confused as to what I was talking about. Yes, obviously the weight of the turbocharging system is directly affected by engine placement and aircraft design. When I was referring to the weight, I was talking about turbocharging systems specifically not being included with the engine the way geared superchargers are when looking at the actual stats for engine weight. Didn't say they weren't important, but that they are literally omitted from the stats of the engine. Most geared systems are actually integrated into the block design and cannot be removed without cutting the engine. Turbocharging systems are not integrated like that. Also, much like the video, reliability is not a consideration, time is not a consideration. All this is about is performance and packaging and what these engines were capable of, and the Napier Sabre was capable of a lot, regardless of how feasible it was to mass produce and get reliable, it was one of if not the best engines ever made purely based on its performance. It is really an underrated engine from a performance standpoint which is what this video argues and which is why I made my comment. I was not arguing most of the points you were trying to make, and I was not incorrect in anything I said when you look at it with the correct context. My comment was much more simple than anything you are talking about if you read it properly. Cause really your comment is entirely confusing to me because its arguing against basically nothing to do with my comment.
@@wruenvadam you start by telling others that they are wrong on two fronts...Telling people its not relevant or worth the time to consider the cooling system that the napier requires....and saying theyre "conveniently" forgetting about the weight of the turbo that allows the R2800 to make 2800 hp. Even if cooling is a small weight penalty its integral..... and drag goes up as the square of the speed so an added cooling system is not an oversight. And there's no point in correcting others on the weight of the super charging system when dojo and you are defending sea level output is where we need to measure for the best "aero" engine of wwii. Again pratt and whitney could have forgone the turbo entirely in place of a bigger single stage impeller to reach that 2800 hp or more if all they were seeking was the last hp before destruction. RR too. And this is really why this whole narrative is wrong headed....aero engines are a system there's little point in discussing them in the terms of this video because it negates most of the variables that decide how aero engines are used and what defines a good one.....but in terms of wwii the Napier was around for more than 4 years and was so plagued with problems and complexity that they were too busy fixing what's wrong to get the time to engineer the systems that would have put it in the running for best aero engine....I think a more interesting insight would be if Napier had the same resources as RR.... was the tech and metallurgy in existance to overcome the challenges of the design or if it would have always been fighting the tolerances of the engine in the face of war time conditions. As the sleeve valve to didn't stick around long.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS You completely misread the meaning when I said, "pales in comparison." That is not me saying it's irrelevant. That is me saying that the added weight from 600 cubic inches more of displacement is a larger factor, which makes it have a larger frontal area and the fact that part of its cooling is literally every cylinder head on the engine. Those little oil coolers do very little to add drag especially if you design the plane properly. Also I said that partly because people were saying it as if it should be separated when the engine is air cooled. Don't ask me which comments I saw that said that. It's been more than a year and I cannot be bothered to go searching for that. Also when talking engine only numbers, sea level which is basically dyno testing is the only real way to remove as many variables as possible to get maximum possible output from an engine. The moment you put it in a vehicle, that's when you have to deal with all the variables that vehicle puts on an engine and is thus no longer a proper comparison. We are talking about ENGINE performance, not whole aircraft performance. Also I really wasn't trying to get this deep about this conversation. Just wanted hur dur engines cool conversation. Not someone bringing in a whole bunch of points that aren't even pertinent to the topic at hand which is raw engine performance.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS Honestly I really don't give as much of a fuck as you do about this conversation. Really this comes across as you trying to get your ego stroked by proving someone wrong and I could care less. So kindly f*** off. I'm not interested in this discussion. Especially since you definite had to go digging for my little ass comment.
This engine is the ultimate! I'm longing for the day when one is flying in a Tempest or Typhoon,the sound is awsome on the Tempest video . With Typhoon restorations underway it would be fantastic to see and hear one.
There is a project underway, based at Goodwood, to get a Typhoon flying again. They are re-building an airframe, much as so many Spitfires are re-built, like Trigger's broom or the axe that took off Queen Mary's head, with seven new heads and four new handles. The engine however, is new in its box and merely(!) needs checking over. That probably means stripping it down and checking absolutely everything but at least it isn't half worn out. I only hope I'm still around when it does fly as I would love to see it and above all, hear it.
@@peterhuxley8181 There is also a Typhoon restoration underway in Canada. "Typhoon Legacy Co" There is a RUclips Channel documenting the work that is underway.
@@peterhuxley8181 can't wait to see RB369 in the air again, i believe the date they are aiming for is 2024 ready for the 80th anniversary of D-Day
My father was 'Q'ed on the Sabre. He said it was a beautiful piece of engineering but needed to be tuned like a Swiss watch, especially the ignition timing, or else one bank of cylinders would 'drive' the other bank with the concomitant wear on the gearbox that led to unwanted gearbox failures. Also a plug change on a Typhoon was an arduous task, especially if it had to be done in situ, with some plugs being nearly inaccessible.
The sabre VII was initially restricted to +17.25 on boost which gave 3055 HP.
This was later increased to +20 lbs and that gave the 3500 HP.
I found a weight of 2540 lbs.
Hey Simon, where did you find the weight for Sabre VII?
@@flightdojo 2540 lbs is denoted as the dry weight
Here is another spec
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Napier_Sabre.pdf
Fascinating introduction and review of the development and technology of the Sabre. Learned a lot and subbed for more! Well done.