What happened to the 3000 Horsepower Bristol Centaurus?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 май 2024
- Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time
by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/flightdojo
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso,
Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. See important Masterworks disclosures:
masterworks.io/cd
PATREON:
/ flightdojo
INSTAGRAM:
/ flybenfly
Having since become a legend in the air racing scene, few engines, save for perhaps the Napier Sabre, have shown so much promise, and likewise, have been shrouded in mystery like the Bristol Centaurus.
When you do a little digging around the internet, you’re left with more questions than answers. Where is all the information on this engine? Where are the books?
After lots of effort, I finally found enough information on the mighty Centaurus to make an entire video…
Developed as Bristol’s hyper engine that would power the next class of 2000+ horsepower fighters, the Bristol Centaurus was an 18-cylinder sleeve valve engine that would ultimately provide over 3000 horsepower in a 3270 cubic inch (57 liters) package but likely could have provided much, much more. However, despite this prodigious power, it wasn’t really fit into any aircraft until after WWII.
So… what happened? Why were only 2800 Centauruses built? And what could have Bristol done differently to get their horse in the race in time? In today’s video, we’ll be revealing the mysteries behind the Centaurus.
00:00 - Start
01:36 - SPONSORSHIP
03:57 - DEVELOPMENT
13:10 - DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS
15:21 - CONCLUSION
![Chance The Rapper, DJ Premier - Together (2024) | [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZVwTX6WP-MM/mqdefault.jpg)
Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time
by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/flightdojo
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso,
Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. See important Masterworks disclosures:
masterworks.io/cd
Apart from the entirety speculative nature of art investment, the fees on this are insane. They take 10% fees upfront, then 15 to 20% auction fees, and take 1.5% of your equity every year. You would have to be very lucky indeed to make anything at all, and risk losing the lot.
Seriously? Right - you're not really keeping up to date on cyrpto are you?
@@jackroutledge352 - that's far more than even the worst front loaded bonds back in the "old days" of FS in the UK. That's fraud. A bid/offer spread at that level? Utterly unacceptable. This guy is a con.
The Bristol Hercules is often overlooked because it did not power any famous single-engine fighters and is not as sexy as the Centaurus, but it was one of the most successful engines of WWII.
It deserves its own video.
NZ used Bristol Freighters to successfully carry air cargo across Cook Strait for years. Those Hercules sounded wonderful.
Though it was the primary engine used in a famous twin engine heavy fighter, the Bristol Beaufighter , used as the first successful British night fighter, and as a heavy strike fighter attack aircraft
@@leonardmiyata482 Yes about the Beaufighter. The Beau is an unsang hero that gets way too little credit for the amout of action it had at the most critical times of the war and against the worst opposition ("Armed Rovers" book really opened my eyes about that).
The Hercules engine is rarely mentioned when talking about WWII engines. If it gets its name dropped it is usually as a predecessor to the mighty Centaurus, such as in this video (not a criticism in this case). You will not find many youtube videos about it, and working examples of it are very rare - one of the reasons that there are no flyable Beaufighter today.
It was a sleeve valve engine that worked and worked well. 57,400 of it were built according to wikipedia - that is pretty frigging successful. Compare that to just 2,500 Centauruses.
Sure does.
@@rararnanan7244 Well it depends on what you read, from an early age I have known about the Hercules but then again I live in Australia and the Beau was probably better known here than in Europe, a very versatile, tough little aircraft. There were a lot of Hercs in Oz as well, you could not walk into a WWII air museum in Oz (no matter how small) without seeing a Herc , either full, partial, damaged, or in bits.
As a bit of Trivia, Sir Jack Brabham (two-time F1 world champion and the only person ever to win a championship in a car of his own name) was a mechanic in the RAAF in WWII, he thought the Bristol Hercs he worked on to a very well-designed and manufactured engine.
Having said this, the Centaurus was the logical next step, Fedden had also done initial design work on an enlarged Centaurus, the Orion of 48 litres (according to one source this included a single-cylinder test engine - I find this suspicious, Fedden's test engines were usually of two cylinders). There is also some talk of a four row version of the Centaurus, but I have not looked into this. The Orion was supposed to be a 4000hp engine.
Unfortunately, the Centaurus along with all the large radial engines had a combustion chamber that was just too large to be effective or efficient. RR was aware that the combustion chamber of the 1939 Griffon was at the very limit, if not too large in itself.
Modern spark ignition gasoline/petrol car engines (quite different beasts to the WWII aero engines) are best at around 500cc per cylinder, this has been confirmed by a number of manufacturers' research projects as well as independent research projects.
Being from north Bristol I was used to the sound of Olympus engines winding up and down and as a 9 year old I was with thousands of spectators on Filton golf course and watched concord's first UK take off .later I completed a "tin Smith's"sheet metal course at Filton unfortunately there was a down turn in the aircraft's industry at the time so I didn't pursue that line of work .I did get to walk around the site and was shown concord's being built . absolutely amazing to learn aircraft's level of engineering quality control. As the years progress the Filton site has been run down and sold off even the massive long runway is now being built on with over priced naff houses .so any historical dive into Bristol's engineering history is very welcome and I thank this gentleman from across the pond for his dive into this subject .I just lament the lack of respect for that site that planners have shown in recent years .I do hope this site's historical value is taught in the local community........
It makes a change from Bristol's continued self- flagellation over the transatlantic slave trade.
I lived on Filton airfield as an engineering apprentice and witnessed Concorde’s maiden flight from there. I also flew on their flight test VC10 and got a flight on the Vulcan used for flight testing the RB199 engine. All different now!
If I remember correctly, Hawker built a Tornado around an early Centaurus engine that flew in 1941. Even in that form, the plane was capable of 402 mph, very good for 1941. But the pressing need for the Rolls-Royce Merlin/Griffon and Bristol Hercules engines meant the Centaurus was slow in development, and the Centaurus didn't really enter service on an aircraft until the end of World War II.
The Hawker Tornado was powered by the Rolls Royce Vulture engine. The Tornado was abandoned when RR abandoned the Vulture engine.
I've also got a photo somewhere of a Griffon powered hawker fury! They were a little worried it might never happen for the big radial.
@@mrrolandlawrence The Centaurus was also planned for the Hawker Tempest and was flown as a prototype with it during the war but it was decided to go with the Napier Sabre instead. The Tempest did enter service later with the Centaurus but not in time for combat service in WW2.
@@johnyoung1128 your assessment is correct, but one incomplete Tornado airframe was rebuilt to accommodate an early Mark of the Centaurus radial engine. It flew in the spring of 1941, but had to be modified early on due to oil overheating issues, adding an oil cooler after a few test flights.
Thanks for the post on the Tornado. I'd not heard of this before.
Just love the Seafury and just love the sound of that sleeve valve.
I had the good opportunity to work on a Fury resto - we had a Centaurus cosmolined in a canister, but I think they decided to go w a Wright 3350. I'd have liked to see/hear the Bristol.
Where did u get to hear one? Airshow? Reno?
Maybe he heard it on Putlos Toddendorf firing Range we were there shooting with FK20 20mm Flak, Germany flew the Sea Fury in the target Tug role, i remember it was in the Aircraft recognition part in the Soldiers Handbook during the 60s, when i served i think they used OV-10 Broncos in the TT role
There are still occasional Centaurus powered Reno Racers. I have seen a Sea Fury at work up close. Amazingly quiet and man did it go!
the consolidation of effort also fell victim to Rolls Royce's Gov lobbying.
I worked with a pilot that flew short Sterling’s throughout the war towing gliders for D day and said “you could empty a machine gun into a Bristol engine and it would keep running but a RR Merlin would fail”
The excellent and underrated engine,
the Bristol Hercules
Great vid , and nice one for shouting out to Greg , king of manifold pressure and another pilot .
Great episode! Very balanced. Part of the reason 4 valve heads are unusual in air-cooled engines is the difficulty in achieving cooling fully around the exhaust valve seats. When Porsche initially changed to 4 valve heads on their aircooled racing engines they resorted to water cooling the heads while keeping the cylinders air cooled.
The reason the Centaurus went out of favor was a minor invention called the Jet engine. The Centaurus went the same way as the Merlin, Griffon, Allison, Packard, Wright Cyclones, and Pratt & Whitney Hornets and Wasps. Replaced by jets.
I love your deep dives into these engines and knowing how they work it's the kind of things I love to learn how they work and how people used to use their heads instead of computers
Wow, brilliant and informative documentary - well done sir!!!
you are so easy on the ears 🙂 thx for the good work!
Nice to see High Flight's video here - he is an ace videographer, and the notes on his videos are very worth reading. NB - nice to see you in IL2 as well!!
The Sleeve Valve engine weak point was the Rolex Looking gear train in the rear case. Very Complex system to time the sleeves. That said its a great engine for Pylon racing in Reno with ADI and added coolers.
Another excellent job.
have been waiting for this :)
You didn't mention the RAF fleet of Blackburn Beverleys, all powered by the Centaurus 173/175. However, because of the extreme operating conditions asked of the Beverley, the engine was prone to problems.....not the fault of the design.
Great video about another great engine! Best wishes to you from NZ.😉
Bristol Freighter loving Kiwi here who lived by the Wellington airport.
I would often see these engines being built and serviced at the Ricardo Consulting Engineers build shop in the late 90's
Love your stuff, do more Piston engine and interwar yr planes
Great video! Those sleeve valve engines were amazing but the assessment is correct - that the life of the poppet valve engine was far from over! And those last poppet valve engines of Bristol had such potential!
Both types would be rendered obsolete by the introduction of the Messerschmitt Me-262 in April 1944...
Cracking little film, thanks for making it......
Great video. Love sleeve valves, but trying to figure out the effect on the rings (including lubrication) breaks my head (and there were more of them). I assume you are familiar with Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WW2."
Made my night, “But first as always, let’s hear it’s sound” followed immediately by a toothpaste ad. 😂
Love this channel.
There is little info in the US on anything outside of the US whether airframe or powerplants . In the UK there are large amounts of info on the many different engine and airframe designs
13:46 Hard to tell if I am viewing an engine or a Rolex watch with 15 complications.
"Climb rate?"
"yes"
In comparison, the American Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone was available mid-war and powered the B-29 Superforts that bombed Japan into surrender. B-29 suffered plenty of accidents until they de-bugged the engines. Post war, R-335os powered a variety of military transports (KC-97 and C-119) and maritime patrol planes (Martin Marlin, Lockheed Neptune and Canadair Argus), but only saw limited service with civilian airlines in Douglas DC-7 and Lockheed Constellations. Again, airlines took a few years to learn the finer points of R-3350 operation and some critics referred to the Lockheed Constellation as "the best 3 engined airliner on the North Atlantic route.
The even larger P&WC R-4360 was primarily used in military transports.
Another excellent production, you need to read the book Enterprise and engines
The Shuttleworth Collection in the UK have a cutaway one that you can see the internal workings - it's fascinating.
The most effective way to have shortened WW2 would have been to use fast twin engine bombers with a crew of two rather that the slow heavies like B-17. For example - two Mosquitoes would have use four engines but their bomb load would have been higher than one B-17. Aircrew of 4 crew vs 10 in B-17. Fast bombers need less if any escort fighters, can bomb more accurately and take on German fighters.
I think the focus on the superior sleeve valve design over poppet valves was the right one. If you consider the technological challenge at the time, particularly in metallurgy and the relatively short span of WW2, Bristol did well in getting the Centaurus ready for the Tempest II which just missed War service. As to the view that “if only design work started 2 years earlier” , it is such an elementary observation which you could make about anything that’s not available on time. The challenge they took on was to push the boundaries of technology when materials, time and manpower were scarce while wartime projects and initiatives were in abundance.
Henry Ricardo was the most ardent proponent of the sleeve valve technology and I read recently that the anti knock performance of 1930's avgas was terrible something down in the 60's. The sleeve valve was attractive because the absence of a glowing hot poppet exhaust valve made them very tolerant of low octane fuels. By the time the technology was mature however high octane fuels were in ready supply due in part to shipments from the US. As poppet valve technology evolved the edge that sleeve valves had in this area disappeared. Sir Roy Fedden admitted after the war that he probably got a bit obsessive with perfecting the sleeve valve while moving away from Bristols superb Poppet valve engines of the 30's which were considered world leading at the time.
This is the most fascinating part of modern engine development. It was all about speed... How fast engines could be developed. How fast they could be produced. And the power and weight of the resulting engines... The more power and the lower the weight, the faster the plane can go...Speed.
Wish you'd refer to the displacement in litres, not ci. Only the American engine manufacturers worked in ci -- irrelevant to the rest of the world, including the UK where this engine was developed.
You have info about the BMW 803?
This Bristol Sleeveengine is known by the halifaxbombers and afterwar in a transporter / parashutplane in Germany
I read somewhere, perhaps in the excellent book by Callum Douglas that the geometry of the radial engine creates inherent problems with deriving an efficient supercharger. Hence radial engine aircraft with good high altitude performance featured a turbo charger as well as a somewhat basic ist stage mechanical blower. The P47 and B17 both had turbochargers as a second stage and were able to maintain good power at high altitude but for some reason the Centaurus powered Tempest Mk2 and Seafury never did hence their performance was hampered at altitudes over 20,000 ft but then when you look at the bulk, weight and complexity of the turbocharger system on the P47 (its massive) you can understand why it would be easier for airframe designers to leave it out.
Why didn't sleeve valve radial engines survive WW2? Pratt and Whitney and Wright. These engines cost 2.5x more to manufacture then their US poppet valve competitors. Required more maintenance and consumed a whole bunch more oil. TBO was comparable. The sleeve valve concept is absurdly complex. Required lots of hand fitting. Only the British would have ever done this:).
How do sleeves fare on battle damage survivability? ie. can they continue to run (oil loss accepted) with a cyl. 'shot-off', or would the 'entanglementation' of timing gears & sleeve rods immediately stop the whole engine?
My oldie who flew the Hercules engine in a Bristol Beaufighter suggested that they could survive strikes to the cylinder head which would disable an overhead valve engine. In the event of a complete cylinder being shot off, neither the sleeve valve engine or conventional poppet valve engine would survive very long after fragmentation began in the crankcase.
What is that beautiful music playing along in the background?
Благодарю, было очень интересно. Давно интересовался историей и конструкцией Centaurus.
Также поразительно много информации в комментариях, иногда восхищающих сильнее видео. Благодарю и комментаторов!👍
Теперь буду искать аналогичную информацию по Napier Sabre.
Excellent.
One of the great ‘What-if’ questions.
It seems sleeve-valve engines had great potential, but only after exhaustive research & testing to overcome the tricky mechanical issues inherent in the design.
There are some really amazing power outputs quoted for another sleeve-valve, the water-cooled Napier Sabre, which had probably benefited from greater supercharger development?
The turbocharger probably had greater potential than the supercharger, but in this era it just couldn’t be efficiently packaged into the very limited space of a fighter airframe as opposed to a bomber?
Well, yes, given the size of WWII era turbochargers, for a single engine plane you'd need to design the entire plane around the turbocharger. And hence we got the P-47, which was a humongous plane compared to most other single-engine ones.
Sleeve-valve engines are an American invention that dates back well before British development.
While the Sleeve valve offered superior volumetric efficiency in normally aspirated applications and reduced pumping loss in supercharged applications compared to poppet valve engines it was plagued with sealing, lubrication and oil consumption problems that were never solved by British manufacturers.
@@jbepsilon America produced several very successful turbocharged aircraft during WW2 including the;
P-38, P-47,B-17, B-24, B-29, B-32
The advantage of turbocharging is two-fold, not only does it produce more power than a supercharger, it increases fuel efficiency thus increasing range and payload capability.
@@WilhelmKarsten I know, but do note my comment was limited to single engine planes. AFAIU the P-47 was the only turbocharged single engine plane that entered wide-spread usage.
@@jbepsilon Reliable automatic Turbocharger controls didn't exist during WW2, the extra power and range was an advantage but the extra pilot workload required to manage the turbo and boost lag were disadvantages of the single pilot P-47
At 11:55, is the Hydra a twin octagon? It looks like at least one more cylinder could be hiding behind the propeller hub…it’s just that I thought a row in a radial needs an odd number of cylinders. Is this an exception?
Edit - sure enough, it’s a two-row 16cyl radial. Well how about that, gonna have to do some research on this marvel of British engineering. I wonder if we ever experimented w sleeve technology on this side of the pond.
It is not really a two-row radial in terms of how the harmonics work. Think of it as four V4 engines geared onto a common crank. It was also not an engineering marvel: it was a complete waste of effort. Only one ever flew, and the vibration was so bad that it was quickly abandoned
Well now I understand why it was not used for the Lincoln bomber.
Is it true that in the Korean war , a Seafury shot down a Mig 15 . An old sea dog told me that tale ,and he served on the aircraft carrier . He said he saw the pilot do a victory roll before he came into land .
a golden BB
Ironic that you show a SeaFury, aka Dreadnought powered with a Pratt and Whitney R-4360. In reality many of these owners re-engine their planes with the Wright 3350 or one of the Pratt and Whitneys. Typically the R-2800 or the R-4360. There just aren't the parts for the sleeve valve engine. Their reliability is also a little suspect....
Насколько я понял из других видео по Sea Fury - на двигателях Wright & P&W 4-лопастные винты, с вращением по часовой стрелке. Centaurus имеет 5-лопастный винт с вращением против часовой стрелки 🤷
US turbo-supercharger technology was developed only on the Army Air Corp insistence of its use for bombers and fighters. The only US fighters that used it was the P-38 Lighting, (which used its twin boom design to provide room for the turbo-superchargers) and the P-47 Thunderbolt, which in combination with the largest US produced air cooled radial engine, was designed around its turbo-supercharger system, with the resulting size and weight penalty produced a single engine fighter larger then most light bombers. Air cooled radial US fighters used a 2 stage superchargers. With the success of the British Merlin 2 stage supercharger, it would be unlikely that the British would use a turbo-supercharger unit for anything except for bomber aircraft
I'm sure it's a matter of metallurgy, but it's seems crazy that sleeve valves would hold up to the punishment.
Not as crazy as poppet valves.
Lot of loads on those things.
@Retired Bore The precision workmanship of the sleeves is excellent to view. It had to be. There was apparently an issue with the upper sleeve within its space between the outer cylinder and the inner working face of the "junk" head receiving adequate lubrication at all times. Cooling was also an issue on the ground. The fan in later versions and in the Centaurus dealt with that problem. Later iterations of the head had tin plated wearing surfaces to avoid the problem of "pickup" AKA seizing of the head material onto the sleeve. In a video recording of the last engine run of a Hercules in an aircraft at Moorabbin Victoria in Australia, as the engine was shut down, you could hear a distinct creaking sound which was a sleeve binding in its upper working space.
I understand, maybe incorrectly that the tech involved was similar to the manufacture of barrels for large bore artillery.
@Retired Bore There are a couple of videos on youtube regarding the Ricardo sleeve valve diesel, the Brotherhood engines. Here is one at a museum.
ruclips.net/video/oA6z5x8aQwQ/видео.html
@Retired Bore My understanding is that the sleeves were initially cast, then forged before machining, fine finishing then nitriding.
I've seen the Sea Fury flying a few times here in the UK & recall there being an entire engine in the engineering school at RAF Halton when I did my trade training half a century ago.
After listening carefully to the Sea Furies with the Centaurus and the ones with the R-3350, I'd have to opine that the Wright's poppet valves sound sharper and therefore a bit louder being up on the pitch scale and the sleeve valve deeper and pretty cool alright but relatively softer than the R-3350.
But hey what does a guy like me, that flunked his last workplace hearing tests and retests and not the sense to wear earplugs hear anyway? So maybe I'm just hearing the memory-echo of Detroit Diesels, Shipyard chippers, Jimi Hendrix Concert and high speed milling spindles. I could be missing a whole range of sounds. So which is louder, the poppet or sleeve valve ?
Sleeve valves are known to run quieter than poppet valves. I think you’re correct!
The Fury sort of was in WW2, it was an extreme development of the very successful Tempest. It got a fully monocoque fuselage and reduced centre span wings.
Hawker Fury is just a Brit copy of FW 190 D Model.
@@michaelsamuel9917 Your insight and wisdom without learning is incredible.
@@michaelsamuel9917 Dunning and Kruger would like a wee word.
@@ianmcsherry5254 I second that Ian! Its bovine excrement that Hawker Fury is a copy of FW 190. Totally different aeroplanes
Amazing aero engine.....Thanks.....
Shoe🇺🇸
I see sleeve valve engine video, I press like. That is all.
The reason why the sleeve valve was chosen for development was that the sleve valve was theoretically able to use inferior octane fuel and/or higher boost pressures than the poppet valve aircraft engines then in use . Britain had no petroleum plants able to make aviation fuel in sufficient quantities over 85 octane before 1939-40. The French and Belgian position on the provision of high octane aviation fuels was even worse.
An interesting but obscure high potential poppet valve British radial aircraft engine was the Armstrong Whitworth Deerhound. This radical air cooled radial engine's development was terminated by the Air Ministry when the test plane was conveniently sabotaged on the occasion of it's first flight killing the pilot. Later investigation revealed that the flight cables to the tail unit had been reversed. This identical method of sabotage also happened to some other engine prototype and early development british aircraft engines during the war! One engine manufacturer Fairey Aviation promptly took his firms 2000 hp inline water cooled P series aircraft engines to be tested and produced in America or Canada rather than risk trying to develop them in Britain. The American's were very interested to begin with but they already had their own engines under development.
A promising technology that was awaiting materials science to catch up with it in much the same way the development of the jet engine, that went on to ultimately eclipsed it, suffered for lack of high nickel steel. The difference being that the nascent jet engine technology had development head room whereas arguably sleeve valve technology was a pinnacle of displacement engine development. Timing!
Wonder how much development would have sped up by if they hadn't tried to keep the engine so short
Great intel
It happened! I'm happy
Speaking of aircraft "what-ifs", ever read The Foresight War?
I would not describe the Hawker Fury as "wildly successful" as it never progressed past the prototype stage. Sleeve valve aero engines did not stop being developed due to improvements in poppet valves; it was the rise of the jet engine which caused the cancellation of all high power internal combustion engine projects. Rolls Royce had joined Bristol and Napier in moving to sleeve valves. Even the American manufacturers had been developing sleeve valve engines, but abandoned them, as they knew that they would be obsolete by the time they were ready for production.
Not sure the pilots of the FAA or Cuban airforce would agree with that opinion
@@robertpatrick3350 As I said, the Fury could hardly be described as a success, though obviously a good design, as it was not put into production. The Sea Fury is a different matter! In the video it is stated that "both the Fury and the Sea Fury were wildly successful aircraft".
Another person who knows nothing about what he is discussing.
@@mandoprince1Non-navalised Fury's were used by Iraq, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan Air Forces. (No folding wings or arrestor hook). The Sea Fury also saw active combat with the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy's in Korea. Netherlands also took them on strength with Fokker building them under licence. Several of the "Baghdad" Fury's were imported into Australian in the 1970's and at least one was converted to Naval specification with folding wings. It continues to fly in Europe. There is video of it flying at Coolangatta air races in the 1980's on RUclips. Owned then by Guido Zucolli.
With over 840 built I suppose it's the definition of successful that comes into play.
The jet engine rapidly overtook the piston engine, from 1000 lbs of thrust of the Whittle W1 to 4000 and 5000 thrust in quick succession, the power of the jet soon left behind the 3000 hp Centaurus. The image at 12m32s of the smart young man with the ready smile is the Design Engineer Alex Moulton, the personal assistant of Fedden during WW2, Moulton joined Bristol while waiting for his commission for the RAF, post WW2, Moulton developing innovative motor vehicle suspension systems, known as Hydralastic and Hydragas, and also bicycles the Moulton F-frame and the Alex Moulton space-frame , the space-frame bicycles are a high-end product in continuous production since the 1980s
How reliable was this engine compared to the Pratt and Whitney planes? Lots of Pratt and Whitney radials were chosen for airliners after the war but not so many Bristols correct? Why not?
The fundamental reason is that the ready availability of high octane fuel made sleeve valve technology an unnecessary risk for other engine manufacturers. In the 2000 to 2500 hp class the P&W R-2800 was by then vastly cheaper as the world's most-produced ever aircraft piston engine, with a massive wealth of know-how and support, relevant engineering expertise and spare parts available all over the world. In the higher horsepower classes, before turbine engines swept them all away, the larger Wright R-3350 and P&W R-4360, being built and used on a massive scale for the US military, rapidly accumulated economies of scale and critical mass in terms of widespread operating experience. Also, commercially of course the dominant US aviation industry had every interest in promoting US engines for its US airframes.
Those Hydras at full song must have sounded even better than the Centaurus, a bit like the Auto Union Type C racing cars. In the sky on a Sea Fury airframe that would have added an awesome Doppler effect to the tune. Having said that the Centaurus is the smoothest sounding 18 cyl your ever likely to hear, very distinct from the roughness of the P&W/Wright engines.
Funny you should say that - the C-Series P&W R2800 was the ONLY large reciprocating aircraft engine ever made to NOT require anti-vibration devices incorporated into its engine mounts. On the Grumman F7F Tigercat, The Convair CV240 Convairliner, and the Canadair CL-215 Scooper those engines are bolted directly to the fatigue-prone aluminum structure of the wing spar with no ill effects.
And reason alone will tell you there is no comparing the smooth power delivery and balance of the R4360 28 cylinder (4 rows-of-seven) Wasp Major in flight with any lesser AC piston engine, anywhere.
I have had much experience with all sizes of Wright and PW engines. Wright always preferred to use the minimum number of large displacement cylinders for 1) Fuel economy 2) Reliability-through-simplicity reasons. But probably the roughest shakiest AC piston engines of all time were the single-row R1820 Cyclone and R1300 Cyclone 7 series.
The words "Nasty and Brutish" have came into my mind every time I have ever waken one from it's slumber.
Given that: I have heard a few Centaurus powered Sea Furies fire up, taxi, take off and flyby and they ARE quieter. (Also they "turn the wrong direction" !) I think that is because the valve lash on 2800s and 4360s was set .060" (1.5mm) and the absence of of all those click sounds was very noticeable to my ears. I have talked with experienced pilots who didn't actually admit to overspeeding those engines on takeoff - but did say "they had heard" of other pilots who had taken off and glanced down to see 5000 and 5500 rpm - quickly reset the prop control to 3200 - and continued on seemingly no worse for wear.
It's my $0.02 worth. You're welcome.
@@patrickshaw8595 Sorry my comment was purely acoustic oriented and not on mechanical harmonics. However I totally agree and appreciate your informative reply. The points you bring up I recall mentioned in Graham Whites books on the R-2800, and on the P&W R-4360 ( both thoroughly excellent books). As I recall the single row radials have a type of Hula-hoop vibration, and the twin rows a type of spinning top wobble that can really whip the propeller blades around at idle, thus why Dyna-focal mounts where invented to dampen such movements. And by extension I guess the four-row radials completely eliminate all of the above types of vibrations by virtue of mirroring a double and single row, and thus balancing out.
That is quite a claim though, that any big displacement multi-row radial stayed together even for an instant @ 5500rpm, though I know the race prepared Merlins can hang together reliably @ 4000rpm.
@@stevenborham1584 My father was on the throttle for the first 8 hours of a 24 hour test when Luke Hobbs was matching Hartford's R4360 24 hour benchmarks with the C-series. The fact that the C-series was still running perfectly at the end of a 4000rpm 130" hg map power setting test making 4000 hp continuous was immediately stamped Military Top Secret and wasn't revealed as true until 1969 when Daryll Greenamyer successfully lobbied Congress to have it declassified.
Being an A&P for the last 50 years it is my considered guess that if a prop governor was somehow to malfunction and drive a large radial to stratospheric rpms it would immediately explode. But it is a completely different matter if is making large amount of positive torque and the prop governor setting smoothly and slowly increased.
When I was with te KANG wrenching on KC97G R4360s there was an epidemic of failures on power reduction after ten twelve fourteen hours at METO.
PW had flight engineers institute a 10-step power reduction regimen over 30 minutes and the problem stopped.
No idea if it was heat flow being interrupted, the stacked power cases unwinding after transmitting stupefying amounts of torque for long duration - or negative torque - I submit that extra rpm under load was pretty tolerable.
Look up all the competition pulling tractors running R3350 Wrights at 5500 rpm on alcohol here on RUclips.
@@patrickshaw8595 You speak of adverse internal pressures being the failure point. I always thought that the big piston aero engines were already at the limit of piston acceleration/speeds, or is that a slight wives tail like volumetric efficiency being the limit of power generation...Then along came supercharging to change all that. You have a lot of interesting points that I have not seen in any literature on these engines.
I have a question that I think you would have an informed answer to, that I tend to find ignorant brick walls to? Could big piston aero engines make a resurgence to fill a niche where thermal/fuel efficiency is more important than brute power, even given that piston engines will never be competitive regards P2W? There are plenty of small engine examples such as the RED A03 diesel V-12 and the Thielert engines in the popular Diamond aircraft. These engines are at least price competitive. I'm sure the age old sentiment of too many moving parts is at least partially negated by development cost of making a reliable pin-wheel that will hang together during typical thermal abuse from average pilots.
@@stevenborham1584 All I got is speculation.
But I think the ideal drone/overseas-unmanned-seaskimmer-freighter engine would be modular engines composed of 4-piston X-shaped scotch-yoke piston port 2-cycle diesel using electric turbo scavenging like the big Busch-Sulzer ship engines (but without their overhead pneaumatic-controlled poppet valve)
Somebody proposed exactly that in the mid-80s but it didn't bear fruit.
I see you have read two of Graham White's masterpieces = good going.
I am out-of-town or I would cite a few others you would like if they are still to be found. But if memory serves correctly British Piston Aero-engines and Their Aicraft by Lumsden has the best info on the Napier Nomad diesel that I ever saw.
My brother works for Cessna and the Thielert ( in reality a modified Mercedes 300D inline six ) almost became a regular Cessna production engine option. The snag was their insistence that no one else disassemble and repair one and that they would be sole arbiters what would and would not be covered under warranty without legal recourse in case of disagreement.
I could see high efficiency solar cells sending a meaningful amount of energy into an electric turbo sytem during daytime
and reducing BSFC even farther - possibly enough to be a winner in the drone loiter time sweepstakes.
I once was crew chief on an IH Super 1066 pulling tractor (surprisingly stock IH DT466 turbo diesel) making in excess of 2500 hp at 5000 rpm. I was engaged at the 150psig and 1500 hp point whan camshaft breakage was the limiting factor under extreme exhaust valve loading. Being a toolmaker's apprentice then I fabbed a head with 6 double-beat exhaust valves that eliminated the problem and enabled 250psig boost - and then stacked turbos were outlawed and we never got to see the limits of that strategy in action.
Nice chatting, great exchange.
It appears that Feden did not have a good idea (the superiority of the sleeve valve over poppet valve engine) and it didn't win out. RR (Stanley Hooker) 's idea was that boost pressure (thermal efficiency), the turbo charger design, was where the best performance gain could be made with the least effort, time and cost. In retrospect the British government made the right decision in choosing RR conventional type rather than sleeve valve or even whittles turbo jet. Afterall they did win the war even though they knew victory was not gauranteed. Their choices were constrained by myriad unrelated factors.
The engineers back then would have loved Kashima Coating 😮
There was a habit in the UK during the war of diving in to elaborate solutions when more orthodox ideas would have been better. Another example was the eccentric locomotive designer Bullied's pacific air smoothed locomotive using oil bath chain drive valve gear built during war conditions by somehow posing it as a mixed traffic locomotive. Pacifics are bad enough with their tendency to slip with the drawbar pulling down on trailing wheels without the addition of a leaky bath oiling the few 6 drivers it had with as many non driving axles. British Rail went to the trouble to rebuild many of them with orthodox valve gear and stripping the pointless streamlining after the war.
Just a point or two. The Bristol Hercules (sleeve valve) was one of the most reliable engines of WW2 and after - although it seldom gets a mention, being a) British and b) sleeve valve. So any problems with sleeve valves were eminently solvable. Had the British government set its sights on developing the Bristol Centaur and invested in it it would have been a very reliable engine of about 2,500 - 3,500 hp during the war. The problem was that 3,000 hp was seen as excessive and the tried and tested Merlin and Hercules did the job at lower power levels (about 1,500 hp). The Griffon and Napier Sabre were seen as the "high power" solution so the Centaur was underfunded and under-researched.
I have never seen an American-authored video (and I include this one) which does justice to the superlative performance (efficiency, power to weight ratio etc) of sleeve valve engines or the Centaurus. Most videos carp and snipe about problems caused by out of spec running or whine about the "complexity" of the sleeve valve drivetrain (which is less complicated and requires less maintenance than that of a pushrod OHV engine). Even P&W were convinced (too late) that the sleeve valve was a better solution in the H-3730 (about 3,000 -4,000 hp before it was cancelled). Alas all piston aero engines were doomed by the turbine. Gunson, The Development of Piston Aero Engines is worth a read if you haven't already.
All rendered obsolete by the introduction of the Messerschmitt Me-262 with its revolutionary axial compressor turbojet engines
It hardly got off the ground , any success was miniscule.
@@bertiescunsbutch9323 Messerschmitt Me-262 pilots shot down over 550 Allied aircraft, 26 scored Ace or higher... Kurt Welter remains the highest scoring jet Ace in history.
British jets only killed RAF pilots.
I love sleeve valves!!!! I am a sleeve valve Stan. Bring back the sleeve valve!!!!
What would you put it in ? nothing street legal could use it because it uses more oil than two-stroke engines. In an aircraft ? where's the benefit compared to current, ultra-reliable engines ?
@@CaptHollister Сколько был часовой расход моторного масла на угар у двигателя Centaurus? Читал, что и Sabre тоже страдал повышенным расходом масла...
@@user-bf3ft7og7o All WW2 aircraft engines burned oil and radial engines burned more than inline engines. I couldn't find the exact figures for the Centaurus, but the Sabre used about 30% more oil than a poppet valve engine.
Why didn't they borrow some tech from the P&W R2800, Double Wasp? Or were these guys obsessed with reinventing the wheel?
Please make a video about mig 23/27. Its pretty interesting, and there is a lot of info for a good video
High flight? What happened with the 'High Times' Magazine?
Douglas was also saying that the sleeve valve was not capable of high boost. Which was of course erroneous, Douglas does not understand the concept of compressor adiabatic efficiency. I do not think that Douglas understands engines so well, despite hispublications.
Quite a lot of pressure from Rolls-Royce did for the Centaurus engine
Last things first. The Centaurus did power the 860 odd Hawker Sea Furies, but also 452 Tempest IIs. However, the only production Hawker Fury was a biplane. There were some later Hawker Fury prototypes, some used Centaurus radials BUT then there was LA610 fitted with the highest powered Sabre engine ever to fly, the Sabre VII of 3055hp (takeoff with ADI) - I must write some comments on your Sabre videos. In my opinion, The Hawker Fury prototype was the most beautiful piston-powered aircraft ever built. The Hawker Fury was cancelled, there was only one prototype and no production aircraft whatsoever, so the (later) Hawker Fury could not be "wildly successful".
Calum Douglas's book is a good source of primary information, but I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. Apart from 20-20 hindsight, there are the assumptions.
There is no guarantee that had Bristol taken a different path that it would have all worked out. I am especially surprised that you put up a picture of a Hydra. This engine is a quandary, it had twin overhead cams but only two valves per cylinder, what a missed opportunity, they could have built it with four valves per cylinder and improved volumetric efficiency, but they just stuck to two valves. The Pegasus had four valves per cylinder, and it was pushrod. Should they gone to twin overhead cam four valves per cylinder, the increasing power requirements as the war progressed would have caused considerable trouble with cooling of the rear bank similar to the Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound and their other dog engines.
The obvious thing to do would be liquid cooling, uh-oh.
The Junkers Jumo 222 a liquid-cooled 6 rows of four cylinders radial 24 used conventional valve gear. Although it was designed by Junkers, possibly the best of all the designers, it was a fiasco, it sank the entire Bomber B project! The Daimler Benz engines also developed for Bomber B, the DB 604 X24, the DB 606 coupled 24 (two V12s coupled together) and the DB 610 coupled 24, were equally diabolical.
BMW's 803 - disaster!
Did anyone build a successful inline radial?
Just as the designer looking at sleeve valves in the early thirties did not know it was possible to fix the problems with poppet valves, there is just no evidence to support the view that any particular path forward would guarantee success or end up as a dismal failure.
Wrong: the Fury monoplane (not Sea Fury) was commercially produced. Iraq ordered the type and about two dozen were delivered. These were basically the spec the RAF turned town. Easy recognition point is the full-depth rudder with no provision for a tail hook to be fitted
@@harryspeakup8452 Ahh yes, I forgot about the Bagdad Furies so I am indeed wrong There were a few two-seat trainers made and about 55 aircraft, more than I thought. There is at least one of these aircraft flying with a Centaurus engine. I also forgot about the even larger number of Furies ordered by Pakistan to replace the Tempest VIs (I think).
However, the Iraqi/Pakistan aircraft were not direct descendants of the original Fury prototypes (NX798 and NX802 for the Centaurus options, LA610 and VP207 for the Griffin and Sabre variants). They were Sea Furies, "de-navalised" on the production line and were descendants of SR661 and SR666. Later on, Hawker bought back some Sea Furies and "de-navalised" them for use as target tugs. There were also a few other very small orders, so all in all, well under 200 aircraft, substantial for the times but very much less than the number of Tempest IIs and Sea Furies
The original Fury prototypes and the specifications were for lightweight interceptor versions of the Tempests, however, the Sea Fury prototypes evolved into a ground attack fighter-bombers and that was how the Sea Fury was delivered. There were a number of different specifications issued but I do not have access to them or the time required to sort them out.
I do not think that the Iraqi/Pakistani aircraft were built to the spec that was canceled by the RAF but I could be wrong. Certainly, the Sea Fury had evolved and changed quite a bit from NX802 before going into production and it was the production Sea Fury that was "de-navalised" for these Furies.
I am not even sure that the RAF had decided on the engine to be used before canceling the contract. Any definitive primary information you can supply on this issue would be appreciated.
So, yes, I am wrong, but then ...
No anti detonation measures required for sleeve valve design engines unlike the Pratt Whitney radials, both the Napier Sabre and the Bristol Centaurus and Taurus were direct competitors to Rolls Royce Merlin who mounted a disinformation campaign against the Napier Sabre engine and radial engine makers from the US. Business came first before patriotism during WW2, the best technology is not usually the one that is chosen.
How can the Sleeve Valves be a tight fit.
It’s the same old story, British “connection” if you didn’t/don’t have them then you only got the contract as a last resort or only enough to deflect criticism. Why was Hawker systematically starved of work in WW2, why wasn’t the Tempest produced earlier?
Bristol Centaurus vs Crecy which do you think?
Interesting
Dude. When you put this video out the All Ordinaries was about 7300. Which is fractionally higher than pre-COVID times. Don't believe everything your sponsor tells you in their media pack..
Nice history of a cool engine all the same.
Idk man, 2 minutes 30 of advertisement in your vid is kind of a lot ...
I appreciate your videos and will obviously keep watching them no matter what, but maybe you can choose a less intrusive sponsorship next time ?
What aircraft is that, looks like a 190.
Saying they should have used poppet valves instead of the sleeve valve is just plain wrong. Sleeve valves were the next evolution of the piston engine that was cut short by the jet engine and the lack of a need for high altitude ultimate performance piston engines.
I enjoyed this video and greatly appreciate your kind words about my channel.
Thanks Greg. Glad to hear your operation went well!
Did anyone ever try a 4V DOHC arrangement ?
@Retired Bore Если вы имеете в виду танковый дизель В-2 с танка Т-34 - то у него, судя по всему, корни идут с авиадизеля Луи Коталена, купленного с патентом на Всемирной Парижской выставке 1935 года. Алюминиевый блок цилиндров, DOHC и 4-клапанные головки цилиндров, а также коробки привода распредвалов с коническими передачами в передней части двигателя прямо указывают на это. У нас на технических форумах по двигателестроению много кто прямо указывает на это. Также В-2 имеет много общего с авиадвигателем Hispano-Suiza 12 Ybrs. Прямое копирование, лицензионное и без лицензии, многочисленных западных образцов двигателей, а также низкий уровень конструкторской школы и производственных возможностей не позволяли изобретать что-либо значительное. Но это было время индустриализации, промышленного подъёма. Единственная заслуга конструкторов - конверсия бензинового авиадвигателя в танковый транспортный дизель, до чего мало кто додумался в то время. И потомки этих авиадизелей до сих пор работают и выпускаются в различных вариантах...
Very close to the start why is there a movie of chap wondering why he killed his own grandmother ?
Story starts at 4:01, and was that the sound of a centaurs or a wright cyclone? I doubt the author cares.
Was it ever used on airliners?
The Bristol Brabazon had Centaurus engines.
@@raoulcruz4404 Why wasn't it competing with the DC6, Constellations, etc.
@@jimleech2364 The Brabazon was just too much airplane even for the Centaurus engine. With 8 engines to feed plus the extra weight, 100 passengers could not provide enough revenue. Connie’s and DC-6s could carry about the same number of passengers and with a pretty decent cruise speed.
Well the British Empire did have designs that could have but they did not have the luxury of resources to develop them plus they had the turboprop
Why haven’t cars been made with sleeve valves if they’re so good?
Aircraft performance benefits from light powerful smaller frontal area engines hugely in range payload etc. Your not going to notice this in a car enough to pay for it
I'm fairly sure that there were some high-end cars made in the 1920's that used a sleeve valve variant in their engines. Maybe it was Bugatti or Benz.
Roll knew more about efficient turbine design than anyone in those days. Little bit of jealousy I'll bet.
A poppet valve Centaurus would have been no better the other "round" engines like the Wright R-3350. Comparing apples the two Seafuries that fly at Reno air races one runs a R-3350 and the other the Centaurus, and the Wright powered one always beats it out. Might be they are babying the Centaurus since parts are nie impossible to get, maybe. I think it might be a that the Wright was much further refined in its lifespan negating the Centaurus advantage.
What do you think would hapen if sleeve valve was improved.
tbf its hard to relate anything happening at Reno (or any other air races) to the performance of their operational WW2 equivalents. Things get modded to hell in air races as the engines don't have to last that long.
@@JohnyG29 not really with parts getting very hard to find racers are demodding and not working them like the used too. Especially since the purse doesn't even cover sparkplugs now.
@@TheDaroza there is no incentive too now. It's easier to hang a R-3350 and call it a day since parts are marginally easier to get.
Which ''Reno'' Sea Furies are you referring to?
There’s a good reason no one has pursued sleeve valve technology since the war, an engineering dead end.🇦🇺
Вы считаете, что это инженерно-технический курьёз?🤔
why didn't they use sleeve valve engines in cars?
thank you for that explanation@Retired Bore
Very god point. Well explained. I think you are a retired engineer@Retired Bore
There was a lot of interest in sleeve valves when poppet valve technology was seen to be a dead-end. In particular, the exhaust valve got so hot that it prematurely ignited the fuel, limiting the compression ratio. However, the invention of sodium cooled valves largely solved that problem, and 4 valves per cylinders also largely solved the issue with insufficient ventilation. Whereas there was no solution to the problem of sleeve valves requiring very precise dimensions and high oil consumption.
That being said, an additional small advantage of sleeve valves was that there was no valve gear on top of the cylinder heads, so the frontal area of the engine was smaller than an equivalent poppet valve engine. But not terribly important outside high performance aviation engines.
I work at an modern version ... need money , like every inventor ...
Couldn’t get past the stock market ad. I’m afraid.
Hey Hully, if you find the ad is preventing you from watching, there’re chapters in the video, it links to the beginning of the content…
Sorry ,Roy backed the wrong horse ,sleeve valves in the harsh world of commercial airline operation did not cut the mustard , yes you can get a higher pony count with less cylinders using a high boost pressure, burn less fuel and be lighter. Ask any Dumbo and he ,she will say there is no such thing as a free lunch, only a few cents off the price. The downside is excessive complication in the valve drive, from the front, the engine looking like a demented automaton toy. Need for exotic austhentic steels needed in the manufacture of said sleeve valves, and specialized training required for mechanics in order to maintain service and repair Centaurus engines. Reason why Pratt&Whittney, Curtiss Wright wiped the floor with Bristol ,is they kept their engines simple, if you look at an R-1340 Wasp, or R-1820 Cyclone ,its Russian clone the Ash 621R , both are basically a big motorbike engine, any farm boy with a degree of aptitude for mechanics and may have an old Harley, or Indian to tinker with. Well it does not take Albert Einstein to figure it out, if said farm boy can fix a motorbike , then he can fix a Curtiss Wright R-1820 Cyclone or Pratt&Whittney R-1830 Twin Wasp. Yes cats&kittens, poppet valves despite their problems are simple , easy to manufacture at reasonable cost and readily understood by any competent airline mechanic. In the harsh climate of airline operation, need your aeroplane in the air earning hard cash ,not in the shop with one engine in bits on a mechanic,s bench.
That is very likely true, but an additional factor was that the British empire was more or less bankrupt after the war, whereas the US wasn't and had an absolutely gargantuan industrial machine that was let loose on the world market after the war. So US technology came to dominate the aviation industry.
@@jbepsilon It is, the only Centaurus powered aircraft in regular commercial airline service , small fleet of Airspeed AS 57 Ambassadors, a graceful high wing twin engine medium haul airliner, a tad bigger than a Convairliner 240 . Commissioned by BEA in the early1950,s, as an insurance policy, should the iconic Roller Dart turbine engine Vickers Viscount fail to meet the airline,s specification. Compared to an R-2800- CB17, the airline equivalent of Mr Ford,s bombproof ,Flat Head Sidevalve V-8 car engine, reliable, easy to fix and service, everybody loved them. Not so the 661 Series Centaurus was, and still is a petulant dog, on take off an Ambassador Skipper ,even with a light load in the back, for he, she had to pay close attention to the boost pressure . The 661 Centaurus suffered badly from boost surging , drank oil like a whino on Jack Daniels, and liable to overheat. Google up the Munich Air Crash Feb 1958 that wiped out Manchester United the UK,s Premier Football (soccer) team 'Matt Busbys Babes', the accident caused by excessive slush on the single runway, aggrivated by a boost surge on the left engine. The Aircraft concerned, yes cats&kittens a BEA Airspeed AS -57 Ambassador with 661 Series Centaurus engines. Even before the bottom fell out of the British Empire we could hold our own against Uncle Sam,s industrial might, keeping what he sold simple easy fix ,result is everyone wanted buy his wares.
The Centaur was a good engine but expensive, but it arrived too late to have a big impact in the aviation industry. The poppet valve engines were cheaper and had similar performance. But the new jet engines now predominated in military aviation with their far greater performance. Likewise for long range commercial aircraft, the turbo-prop had been developed.
Too unreliable, obsolete on arrival