Allison V-1710 - A Liquid-Cooled American WWII Warhorse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Enjoy this video? Leave us a tip at: / flightdojo
In this video, we take a look at the developmental history of the Allison 1710 series of engines. Covering the inception of the Allison engine company and the many design iterations of the 1710 throughout the war. The most notable features of this engine were the combustion chamber design, the strong components, and the potential for turbo compounding technology.
#aviationhistory #wwiihistory #engineering
Finally, someone who puts out the interesting technical info without posing as a post graduate engineering professor. I am a techno geek but I am mathematically lazy. I get bored quickly when the algebra starts. Keep doing what you're doing and I'll keep watching
Me too...as soon as the algebra starts I'm done 😃
Mathematical laziness creates great guestimators.
I believe in it!
I love Greg's Planes and Automobiles, but when he starts pulling out the line graphs and comparing Horse power, boost and manifold pressure, climb rate, altitude performance, Turbocharger vs Supercharger, etc...
My eyes just kinda glaze over and I just nod and listen.
@@pyro1047 I LOL'd hard at this, even sympathetic tho I understand the math
Perfectly stated!
Absolutely love what you’re doing here. I’ve been wanting a channel so badly to talk about propulsion of these interwar and WWII fighters. I know the RUclips algorithm prioritizes shorter videos but please keep them as long and as detailed as possible. Your hard work is very much appreciated sir
The Allison was a VERY rugged engine and its use in aircraft like the P-40 and P-39 showed it could be significantly overboosted up to 70+ inches of manifold pressure with its single stage supercharger. I was always a great low and medium altitude engine and a shame it didn't have a better two stage two speed supercharger. In the P-38 with the addition of the turbo-supercharger it really shined!
This. I have a letter from a US General claiming he personally pushed a P-40E to 75" on a regular basis. The engineers at Allison hated this because when they changed the supercharger ratios in later engines, they started blowing up if pushed that hard.
The Allison was tested for HOURS at 80" of manifold pressure and 3,200 RPM. It easily passed the test. Repeatedly.
The USAAF however hated the idea, and refused to approve the settings. However, units receiving 150 octane fuel routinely rigged the P-38 Allisons to run those settings in War Emergency Power.
Great engine down low and RAF Mustang Is were still fighting in April 45 Those turbo supers were too large and added too much weight . The Mustang I was 10 times better than the P38 on low low Ops.
This is the engine Trans Canada Air Lines should have chosen to power their Canadair C-4M North Stars, as you rightly stated the 1710 is reliable and bomb proof, ideal for intensive airline application . With a three speed two stage blower, Bendix fuel Injection, a 1710 engined C4M North Star burning regular airport 100/130 grade petrol would have superior performance at high altitude vital to avoid those vicious North Atlantic storms.
@@jacktattis The P-38 was designed as a pure interceptor. It wasn't meant for "low low ops".
The turbosupersharged fighter that was really good "down and dirty" was the Thunderbolt.
I've got both the Information Guide, TO 30-5A-1 and Air Depot Progressive Overhaul Manual for this engine. They were in my Dad's attic since the end of WW2 and are in almost perfect condition except for some slight cover tears. He was a flight engineer and mechanic on several different aircraft so have several other engine and aircraft manuals as well. Well done video...
Thats awesome. Preserve those things.
That is a pretty cool find, Might be good to scan them in and makes some pdfs of them so people can look at them in the future.
@@ATomRileyA I could certainly do that as I have a monster of an HP 9500 multifunction but that would mean chopping the binding off to get flat pages. Think I need to keep them in the original..😎. Cheers.
Yeah, I wouldn't break the bindings to scan them. I believe there is a technique to scan old books that doesn't damage them but I've only heard about it in passing. It might be wishful thinking for all I know
@@jimb4090 nowadays a phone camera would certainly suffice. No damage to binding required.
Excellent video - like the new format. War surplus engines were used in earthmoving equipment by LeTourneau due to lack of Diesel engine availability and cost. Keep up the good work.
Rebuilt a muskeg buggy with a differential out of a Chaffee tank made by them. Dated to the early 1970s with ww2 surplus tank parts
It good to hear how good the Allison engine actually was... A few more years and the Allison would have been totally perfected
Of course it was fantastic. The United States produced thousands and thousands of them. We are not like Europeans tolerating crap designs because your government said so.
@@warfarenotwarfair5655 So said the F-35
@@warfarenotwarfair5655 65,000 Allison engines built !! !
@@glennoswald5928 The F-35A is the new NATO fighter and is more advanced than any other multi-role fighter in the world. This became obvious in late 2015.
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Exactly, they were used even after the war. In fact there are still thousands of WW2 engines still being bought for smaller tug boats operating in my area. It's amazing really.
My dad was a Navy aircraft mechanic in WW II who loved the Allison- he was also put into the program to develop components of the A-Bomb at Oak Ridge, so he was a pretty sharp mechanic- The Allison did power one Salt Flats racer that broke a bunch of speed records after the War.
Green Monster
Have you seen the RR Heritage book “Rolls-Royce and the Mustang”. There’s a huge level of detail on the Merlin the Mustang and things like turbo compounding.
By the way RR struggled with oil pumps. Merlins basically threw con-rods until they realised the oil pump was not big enough to meet demand at high revs.
Wasn't it also a poor system? as it started it self due to centraful force and that makes sense why high rpm gave it greaf
Oh shit Stan and Ernie been sleeping on the job, not to be aware of the Merlin,s undersized oil circulation pump, talk about a bad hair day. Why this serious issue was not flagged up in test bench runs at 3,000 rpm or more is odd and at least disturbing on such an important engine. So early Roller Merlins kicked their feet out the bed(con rods bursting from the crankcase) that is bad, thought the magneto drive issue was bad but Merlins kicking their feet out the bed at full power, that is dire so Stan,s spent too much time propping up the bar down the 'Rat&Ferkin' pub.
@@basiltaylor8910 you're a strange man ( but I like it )
@@gingernutpreacher Thank you for the kind comment , i do not pull my punches,in the late 1930,s due constant parsimony by our stupid short sighted air ministry our aero engine industry was a bloody mess.
@@basiltaylor8910 Source please verifiable
Well I'm sure alot of it has to do with the fact that there was a fair bit of surplus Allsions after the war and they were used in various applications such as tractor pull rigs and boat racing.. Theres a badass hydroplane that's been coming to the race in my town for the past like 10 years or more with a twin turbo Allison and he's the only one in the Unlimited class that's not running a turbine engine which has been the standard for 25+ years. He often gives the turbine boats a run for their money and has even won the event here. Then there's of course the vintage hydroplanes that run and they almost all are running Allisons.
alot ???
I'm 75, grew up in Washington State, watched the hydroplanes on TV. There was always some team on limited funds trying to keep their Allison going.
@@jselectronics8215 Yep, I'm in WA too.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I remember Miss Thriftway was on a trailer, being displayed at the Thriftway store in Port Angeles. Must have been 1956. :)
E.J. Potter ran these engines in pulling tractors and beat everyone for years. 4 blown hemis doesn't equal 1 Allison.
I'm really enjoying this series of excellently researched and well presented videos. Keep it up! Best wishes from Sheffield in the UK :)
The army air corp was sold on turbo superchargers and the navy was sold on radial engines so Allison concentrated on what they could sell, namely turbo supercharged two stage systems
The navy used 2 stage mechanical superchargers on the PW R1830 and the PW R2800's
@@wilburfinnigan2142 I believe so however they were NOT as efficient as the Merlin or Packard superchargers
You cannot put on a system of pipes and a Turbo-Supercharger that weighed maybe a 1000lb and still expect that there would be no repercussions . Plane efficiency goes out the window
Bottom line is that the Merlin had a better supercharger because the AAC was fascinated with turbocharging.
More appropriately, GM and GE were telling the USAAC/USAAF what they were going to use. The turbocharging system of the the P-47 and P-38 were monsterous and vulnerable to enemy fire from behind. Superchargers were well protected by contrast.
Nice video, the Allison has always been the described as a dog by the uninformed.
Glad you mentioned the Allison Engineering bearings which were its real bread and butter before the war.
A little mentioned note about the 1710 was it passed the 100% power for 100 hours requirement that the Army specified, which the RR and RR/Packard were never subject to.
And finally, the Allison is always compared to the later Merlin Mk XX engine with it 2 speed charger.
Thanks for an interesting vid.
That is NOT the two stage version, RR use three different superchargers, a single stage up to the 20 series, the 20 to 50 series got a second SPEED, and the 60series got the drooled and slobbered over 2 stage 2 speed supercharger !!
The RR tested there engines at full power for 24 hours, the knock down and checked for ware, and little ware but not measurable.
The Allison engines had a host of problems, especially the intake manifold that caused detonation. The G version was finally well strengthened, but Allison never made a reliable high altitude V-12.
The engine was actually smoother than the Merlin but where the Merlin beat it was in supercharging. It was the Merlin supercharger which allowed it to excellent at height.
Specifically Rolls' ability to package a solid 2-stage unit onto a single shaft, and fit into basically the same space as the original single-stage unit.
Two-stage supercharging was nothing new - the USN had it in the Wildcat and Corsair long before the Merlin was upgraded to have it, but they both had their second stages in bulky external units with separate shafts and gearing. The Merlin's real innovation was in getting decent performance out of a compact single-spool unit.
@@patrickchase5614Merlin 60 had 2-stage chargers as far back as summer 40’. Well before the Wildcat first saw combat with a 2-stage supercharger.
@@princesofthepower3690 Nonsense.
The F4F Wildcat first flew in 1937 and became operational (with two-stage supercharging) in 1940.
The very first 2-stage Merlin was bench-run in April 1941 and deployed in 1942 (so after Wildcat "first saw combat", though that's irrelevant to development timeline in any case).
Merlin was late on the scene with 2-stage supercharging. What made it unique and brilliant was that it did it in a compact, single-shaft form factor as opposed to the bulky arrangement that Wildcat had.
Merlin did gain two _speed_ supercharging in 1940. Might that be the source of your confusion? Note that that was also late relative to others though.
the Allison was smooth and cruised nicely at lower RPM, using crank counterweights, but it had a horribly designed intake manifold (that caused detonation), among other things. The overboosting of early P-40s also caused a lot of engine fires and failures in the slow P-40's, but that was an acceptable risk to Sqn pilots up against superior fighters.
@6:10 look at the valve seats😎 3 angle form on the intake. 5 angle on the exhaust. That’s Race Car Stuff
You are really good at these engine videos. I'll watch them all. Amazing how they had 4 valve per cylinder and roller valve parts back then.
In retrospect, Allison should have parallel path'd Superchargers and Turbochargers on the V-1710 engine. Banking everything on a developing technology-turbocharging-was not sound strategy. I recognize their development was being funded by AAC during the Great Depression years and they probably couldn't afford the second path, but what might have been had they that additional funding? The cost of tooling up to produce the Merlin under license was probably way more that what would have been needed to develop a two-stage supercharged version of the 1710. A similar story with the 'Liberty' aircraft engines from WW1 compared to the Rolls-Royce Eagle series V-12's, America brought a great design to the table, but too late to impact the course of the War. Great video by the way, as a recently retired Engineer with 47 years in Auto industry powertrains, I really enjoy this stuff! A video on the Liberty Engine would REALLY be awesome, I've read a post-war technical report by the chief designer which was absolutely brilliant. SUBSCRIBED.
Great stuff👍 Really interesting and I like the new format.
Is the RR Griffon next? Maybe a Bristol Centaurus👍
Enjoyed your video on the DB-600 series, and I incorporated it with the information I have gotten from other sources. One other channel which has produced very accurate videos about WWII aircraft and the associated technologies is Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. (ruclips.net/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg) Greg comes from a flying background too, but he goes into very deep detail about the engine performance, manufacturer's data and aerodynamic performance of the airframes. The thought that the Allison V-1710 was a low altitude engine happened because it's original single stage supercharging system was not as efficient as the early single stage Rolls Royce Merlins, but there were mechanical second stage developments (which were mostly not adopted because of production needs), and also a second turbocharger stage was used on the V-1710 for excellent high altitude performance in the P-38.
Excellent high altitude performance Not in the west it had all kinds of problems 40000ft Max as tested was not that great
You are a nice complement to Greg's channel. I have subscribed. Please discuss "turbo compounding" in the context of the Wright R-3350, where I understand it was perfected in the 1950s in airliner service. I used to work for Curtiss-Wright (for real) beginning in the 1980s and some of the old-timers there discussed this configuration of the 3350. I never really understood the difference between a two-stage turbo-supercharged engine and "turbo-compounding."
Turbo compound was never perfected. I worked in the TWA shop in KC and the old timers hated them.
@@bingosunnoon9341 Lol the good old PRTs, “parts recovery turbines” 🤣
I worked at John Deere Rotary Engine Division, which was bought out of Curtiss-Wright in 1984. I worked with some of the old Curtiss-Wright engineers that really KNEW the 3350 and were very sharp engine engineers in general. Did you know Charlie Jones, Davey Meyers, Dick Gigon, Augie Zoll, John Mack, and Ed Drewniany? I learned a lot from them.
I never worked and most likely will never work with engines. Yet, here i am binge watching greg's and dojo's and also trying to find a good yet simple enough explanation of what a turbocompound is.
A fabulous engine that was castrated by the Army. The two-stage engine was unwieldy but the hydraulic coupling was quite advanced. Great video, and all of you Allison fans should check out the book "Vees For Victory", an incredibly detailed history of the V-1710.
I have it. It is the definitive book on the history of the Allison engine. Author Daniel Whitney also has a follow-up book on Allison engines.
Great. Can you tell us when exactly did Allison produce the new intake manifolds? ... and if they were retrofitted to engines in the field?
Allison had altitude issues overall, for points you addressed, but from a marketing standpoint, the engine was reliable, and was great for low altitude aircraft designs (Soviet Union?). And it did prove to be capable if someone could design a proper forced induction system for it.
You are forgetting the RAF Mustang I, in action10 May 1942. One year before the P47. 2 years before the P51D and 2 months before the P38 in the MTO
@@jacktattis good point. But the P-40 was flying the Allison in those theaters it even before that.
@@SoloRenegade Yes indeed but the Mustang was the cream on the Cake
@@jacktattis for sure
The Allison had a number of problems, especially the intake manifold that was finally redesigned and deployed in 1944. Detonation and lead fouling was an ongoing problem during the war. Desert P-40s had engine fires and failures.
I enjoyed to know that you and a few watchers also knew the V1710 was incially intended to replace the german V12 Maybachs used in the Akron and Macon airships. Airship tech was widely used in airplanes and I like both types. The Crecy book is a dead giveaway of an airplane engine geek, that's cool! If you intend to do a video only about compound engines, don't forget the Napier Nomad, which you certainly know that was a 2-stroke diesel aero engine prototype - a complete alien in the scene, but an interesting one. Great video, keep doing them in any format you like best!
so why wasn't there more diesel's in ww2 air-anything? as the nazis could have benefitted from them as high quality airo fuels for them was a challenge plus making one fuel diesel is easier and things like tanker's 🐯/sub's could use it and later the foo fighter's ect
@@richardprice5978 I am not shure, but the germans had a series of Junkers Jumo 2-stroke diesels that were widely used in bombers during the war like the Jumo 205, mainly because 2-strokes have a weight to power ratio good enough for aviation, close to 1kW/kg but they were never high-power engines fit for use in fighter planes.
During Korea my grandfather was stationed in Japan as a stockyard manager. Somehow they managed to loose one of these engine and well they all got into a bit of hot water so they said It must have been stolen. They sent out a search crew but nothing was ever found, he thinks its still at the bottom of the ocean. lol
Thank you! You scuttled some assumptions I nurtured based on hearsay about the Allison being under-developed because of political considerations between GB and the USA. Later of course, Allison became the masters of large turboprops in planes like the Electra, Orion and Hercules. One felt very safe in an Allison powered Electra.
Interesting that Rolls Royce bought out the Allison engine co for these turboprop engines that RR did NOT have !!!!
w@@wilburfinnigan2142 Source please Wilbur you have a habit of stretching the truth.
Oh NO!!! First (about 6 minutes) the Allison uses a monobloc cylinder design with a removable cylinder head held on by 14 studs, then not more than 20 seconds later, the cylinder liners are individually shrunk onto the cylinder heads with a coolant jacket. If you actually look at one, a manual for one, or even a good cross-sectional drawing, you will find the truth.
What annoys me is that this video, along with many of your other videos get things wrong, and you don't correct them, now there are even more people out there, repeating all these mistakes. Use primary sources, and think it through. Quality (think accuracy) not quantity.
I am no particular fan of the Merlin but even though its early development was marred by some serious issues (the original design was for a one piece casting comprising the upper crankcase and both cylinder blocks with removable heads, just like a modern engine, but there were issues with the casting failures, it was also, at one stage, inverted) it was still superior to the Allison in a number of ways, for example, compare the crankcase designs, Allison - two piece crankcase split on the centerline of the main bearings, not good, this required a rigid crankshaft to overcome vibrational modes that the crankcase could not limit, Allison tinkered quite a bit with the crankshaft. The Merlin used deeply inset main caps that were cross bolted, much stronger and more rigid, this allowed R-R to get away with a much more "whippy" crankshaft.
The pent-head has no real advantage unless the head design has a lot of "squish" which the Allison does not. Squish is produced by very small clearances between the piston and the head surface at the outer parts of the cylinder. This only came about in the early 60s when Honda brought back 4 valve designs in motorcycle racing (the manufacturer before that with 4 valve was Rudge!), they incorporated squish plateaus in the head design, Harry Weslake then did development for Ford and Gurney which further improved things, then Keith Duckworth at Coswoirth blew everyone away. But the Allison in the 40s - nope!
It had some good design elements, but the fundamental engine design was outdated, as was the Merlin, and most other aero engines, I mean the much earlier Napier Lion and Hispano Suisa engines both used twin overhead cams, manufacturers just decided that level of complexity was not required. A bit like the Russians, NOT putting Hirth built, roller bearing, crankshaft, Maybach engines into tanks.
Not quite correct, the P38 did have over cooling and a shit cockpit. But the real problem was its inability to dive from a high altitude and survive.
Wrong , no roller bearings on the cams but rollers on the rockers against the cam , as on today's Harleys , plain bearings on the cams , in contrast to the merlins which had also plain bearings on the cams but hardened rocker against the cams. which is inferior . puts far larger demands on the oil.....
Good stuff! Like the new format! Good luck growing the channel and getting the algorithm to show it to more people. You already have the production to a great level, the research is good, delivery is plesant and friendly, like especially the way clips are formed to be like a story with little details of the times and about the people behind also.. not just facts and numbers. Ps: great old school radio voice :D
GE still has turbo issues. Just in GE locomotives. Referred to as"toasters" 🚂🔥🚂🚂🙋
The Allison weighed less, had fewer parts and complexity, ran higher Manifold pressures, smaller profile, and also had better build quality. It really was only drawn back by the lack of supercharger technology and turbocharging. I mean the p-38K (and D/J) models could easily sit at or above 45,000ft with the turbosupercharger configuration.
I would add that the V-1710 was designed to be reversible unlike the Merlin, one of the reasons that the Merlin was never used in the P-38. While we are thinking about the P-38 a large amount of the trouble with them was on account of overly rich fuel mixtures and excessive intercooling resulting in poor fuel distribution between cylinders that resulted in plug fouling and detonation, depending on whether the cylinder was one that tended rich or one that tended lean.
agree 100% the Allison had 4000 parts the Merlin had 11000!!!
110% The Merlin was super neat, of course - but it was designed by British artisans to be built by artisans. The Allison was designed to be simpler and easier to build on more-automated assembly lines...the 'Merican way.
No the P38 could not sit above 45000ft WW2Aircraft Performance gave it 40000ft Max That Turbo/super installation was not as efficient as the Merlin supercharger
@@jacktattis if it were pressurized, the p-38 and p-47 were capable of those altitudes. Watch Greg’s airplanes on turbo supercharging in US warplanes. Theoretically the P-38K and the Ta-152H were more efficient than the Merlin 2 stage supercharger. In fact the Junkers 86 operated over Britain at 50,000ft while carrying bomb loads.
I greatly enjoyed this video. It was great to hear a more detailed history of the engine.
Packard gets no recognition for actually building the merlin engines. Thank you.
+ Tyler Milligan The old Packard plant was in such sorry state when it was torn down. A worn-out ghost.
P-38 Allison configuration outperformed the Merlin at altitude.
The Allison powered P-40, A-36, and others dominated the likes of the P-47 and others at low altitude (where a fair amount of combat did occur). The P-51J was considered to be potentially the best P-51 model.
A key reason the Allison was ignored was the lack of a common/standard high altitude configuration that could be easily designed around in multiple airframes, and constant carburetor issues throughout the war.
The engine was tough, durable, reliable, and could be pushed harder than the official rated numbers.
I'm not a diehard Allison fan, but I can't stand the undeserved hate the Allison gets, and the overhyped praise the Merlin gets when in reality it wasn't as straight forward as people try to claim.
Meanwhile low altitude Russian fighters are heaped with praise, as are low altitude Japanese planes and low altitude UK planes. It's hypocritical and inconsistent. It's exactly like how the P-51 is the only aircraft that gets hate as a ground attack aircraft for being "inline water cooled". But I present the following ground attack aircraft in WW2 that are legendary and/or heaped with praise for ground attack. Mosquito, A-36, Ju-87, IL-2, Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, Hurricane, P-39, etc. Notice something about all of these?
I had a friend who was an aircraft mechanic during WW2. He loved the Allison and hated the Merlin. He said the Allison was the superior engine and the only good thing about the Merlin was the supercharger. He said after a mission you pretty much just kicked the tires and checked the oil and it was good to go on the next mission. With a Merlin he said he got really good at changing spark plugs.
Like you mentioned, there is a reason the Soviets loved the Airacobra and didn't care for the Hurricane and Spitfire. The engine!
The Allison’s required turbochargers that the US refused to sell to Britain.
Secret technology and all that.
Britain built jet aircraft instead…
The Merlin and Griffon had multiple stage geared superchargers instead with specific models tailored to the specific altitudes required.
The ultimate was however the Napier Nomad which had a geared turbocharger.
I generally agree with your comment, except for the part about a P-40 “dominating” a P-47 down low. I realize that it’s performance advantages become very obvious at higher altitudes, but even then… I just don’t see it happening.
@@EstorilEm P-40 pilots both in WW2 as well as warbird pilots today that fly airshows now say the P-40 was faster and could out turn the P-47 below 15k ft. Mind you it could also out turn a Bf109 at low altitude as well. And the A-36 was even better at low altitude. Pilots that flew the A-36 in combat claimed it was pretty much the best low altitude fighter as well as being one of the best dive bombers of WW2.
The P-40 was aerodynamically inefficient, as the A-36 showed. But the P-40 was better than people think, outlasting other designs and serving to the end of WW2 in rather significant numbers.
It all comes down to pilots knowing the strengths and limitations of their aircraft, and maximizing that against the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent appropriately. We have the benefit of hindsight. In WW2, figuring things out on the fly, many pilots never figured out how to use certain aircraft against certain other aircraft effectively, while others did. the learning curve was steep, and they had neither as much time nor access to as much information then as we do now.
You are on target about the ignorant hate the P-51 gets in the ground attack role while other liquid cooled aircraft are lauded. Also, all aircraft engines required oil, and every airplane had oil coolers, tanks, and lines that were vulnerable to enemy fire.
One important application you missed: the Joe's combat version of the P82 twin mustang. It didn't serve in huge numbers but was important holding the line till more advanced olanes
It was a dog, vastly inferior to the small Merlin production run planes.
what is an olane?...
What line ???? the war was over and Jets were here.
@@jacktattis korea
@@muskepticsometimes9133 Korea Jesus we were discussing WW2
Thank You for your channel. Great Job!
06:37, do you mean to say the cylinder liners were installed in the block instead of on the head? I have never heard or know of how that would work. The block is what holds the cylinders, not the head, I am confused.
23:46 oil is in the radiator, not the intercooler.
Great video, I think one thing worth adding is that while in hindsight we often remember the p38 taking a background role in Europe to the p51, it is well worth considering that before the p51 really came into its own with the merlin equipped p51b and p51c in late 1943 USAAF commanders were clamoring for as many p38s as they could possibly get. The p38 bore the brunt at perhaps the peak of the luftwaffes strength in well trained pilots, and before the fuel shortages and impact of the bombing on parts availability and quality were felt as the allied war effort strangled nazi germany. The p51 with the merlin just changed the game in having a fighter that could go the distance with the heavies at a far cheaper per plane price than the p38. Anywho, I really liked the video and will be subscribing, you clearly put a lot of effort into making this fantastically nuanced video on this fascinating topic, well done.
I've read that one reason for the P38 being withdrawn from the bomber escort role in Europe was its relatively low critical Mach number, which limited its maximum dive speed at altitude to less than that of single engined types.
Actually, the P38 was withdrawn because it had a huge number of issues with flying at the high altitudes of the European air war - a report by Doolittle stated that there was a high loss rate of the P38s due to engine failure, having to do with uneven fuel distribution amongst the pistons so that some got an overly rich fuel-air mixture and others got a lean fuel-air mix and so would suffer problems with detonation and premature crankrod failures (Doolittle explicitly blamed the design of the air-fuel manifold of the Allison V1710s) . The tetraethyl lead added to the British fuel also tended to separate at the cold altitudes, which further worsened the problems with detonation.
This is all documented in the book: "P-51 Mustang: Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Paul A Ludwig
@@gandalfgreyhame3425 the Allison intake manifold was one of many issues with the P-38. GM was slow to authorize R&D funds to allow Allison to correct that, among other issues. Pilots called the engine the Allison time bomb.
The P-38 airframe was also one of the worst for critical mach speed. Dive flaps solved the "mach tuck" and control lock up, but the max dive speed was still unacceptable above 20,000', so it never was a good high altitude fighter as the LW could just dive away.
@@bobsakamanos4469 P-38 had it's shortcomings, but it had the RANGE which was needed to escort bombers. Spitfire was useless as a bomber escort.
@@pimpompoom93726 range yes, but what good was that if it couldn't operate at altitude with the bombers. A tragic error for both P-38 pilots and Bomber crews. It was a fine attack aircraft for ripping up LW on the ground though.
Allison makes very nice small turbines yunis
The Allison engine was arguably a generation in advance of the Merlin in many ways, but the lack of a two stage supercharger hamstrung it.
Thank you for your hard work and research in this subject. Yes, agree things could have been designed much better, if the engineers had the freedom to have made everything in one shot the first time. To bad they never figured out turbo fuel injection until much later. After watching this broadcast you made me a fan of the Allison engine. Where do I purchase one of the last engine design models?
Don't like your snide comments
Thank you for this very informative, both mechanically and historically, video! I enjoyed it and learned quite a few things.
I have a fantasy plane, it's a de Havilland Mosquito airframe built-in carbon fibre. In my fantasy I'm always looking for more power than the Merlins it was originally given.
This is an interesting part of the dream!
Didn't the Bell P-63 Kingcobra use an Allison V-1710 as well?
I believe this aircraft also saw service during WW2 with the red airforce over China.
Yes, it did.
And it had a 2 stage supercharger in the P-63.
No pop filter, can't tell if you're handling that in post, or that's a small diaphragm condenser rather than a typical dynamic mic.
normal SM57, just compression and EQ and a multiband de-pop compressor
There are some misconceptions about the RR Merlins ALL having 2 stage superchargers and that RR "invented" the 2 stage supercharger. Both are false !!! The 2 stage supercharger was invented and patented in the USA in 1938 and first used on the Grumman F4F-3 wildcat with the PW R1830 engine. RR used 3 different superchargers on the merlin. All merlins up to but not the 20 series were SINGLE STAGE just as the Allison V1710. Just in time for the Battle of Britain RR added a second SPEED to the supercharger, not stage but speed to turn the supercharger faster at altitude, that was the merlin 20 to 50 series.. it gave some altitude advantage but not much.Most Merlins used during the war were these models !!! Then in late 1942 RR added a second stage to the merlin with the second speed,the merlin 60 series in service 1943. Interesting that of the 20,000 spitfires built only 7,000 had the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger. NONE of the Lancaster bombers got the 2 stage 2 speed merlins all were the 20series single stage 2 speed, as was ALL hurricanes. only some of the later Mosquitos got the later 2 stage merlins. Interesting the P40 with its single stage Allison was faster, climbed faster, rolled faster than the British Hurricane, why the Brits came to USA seeking more of them any why they ended up at North American to have them build the P40. Dutch Kindelberger and Lee Atwood had been working on a new fighter design, and the laminar flow wing and radiator housing, and they flatly refused to build the P40 offering a better fighter with the Allison engine, only V12 AVAILABLE in the USA> RR was over at Packard trying toget Packard to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS.!!!! and the Brits took the offer from North AMerican for the Mustang. The Brits KNEW what they were getting but that was all that was available.and they were desperate for fighters. and the Allison engined Mustang out performed the then Current spitfire Mk V which still had the 20 series merlin with the single stage 2 speed merlin engine. Mustang was 30 MPH faster at 20,000 ft and lower. The Allison was a better designed, stronger, lighter, larger engine than the merlin and it wasn't until the 2 stage merlin 60 came out that the merlin had better performance, BUT only above 20,000 ft. There were 14,000 P40's built 9,000 P38's and about 9,000 P39's all using the Allison throughout the war. they maybe were not the best but AVAILABLE and good enough to get the job done when flown correctly !!! It was interesting the Navy used the mechanical 2 stage superchargers on the F4F Wildcat The F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat with the PW R2800 engines. Also interesting when the 1310 P40F & L's got the Packard V1650-1 single stage 2 speed merlin the Allison was faster, climbed faster and rolled faster than the merlin model. the merlin only had a slight altitude advantage and why Curtis went back to the Allison engine.
Production of the Spitfire prototype plus Marks I, II, III, V, and VI, all powered by single-stage Merlins, totaled 9,078 airplanes. Mk V Spitfires were powered by Merlin 45, 50, or 55. Production of 2-stage Merlin versions, Marks VII, VIII, IX, and XVI (powered by Packard-Merlins) totaled 8995. Interestingly, all the Mk XVIs were LF (low-altitude-rated) versions. The rest were powered by the RR Griffon, totaling 2024. British heavy bombers did not need Merlin 60-series and higher engines, as they operated below 20,000 feet. Re the comparison between the Spitfire Mk V and the P-51 Mustang, the Spitfire had a top speed of 375 mph at 20,800 feet. The P-51A had a top speed of 382 mph at 13,000 feet.
@@RANDALLBRIGGS you are wrong the RAF Mustang Mk I had a top speed of 390mMPHand the MkIA topped out at 400mMPH at 20,000 ft !!! do NOT try and lie to me
You answered a question I have had for years and that was about the high altitude under powered reputation of the 1710. Thank you.
The Allison engine was in several drag race cars one I remember was called Big Al 2 I did something like 9 seconds at 160 something because tires and clutches weren't developed yet. And I remember always being impressed with those powerful engines and asking my dad if they ever put one in a big truck and he thought that someone had but it tore up the transmissions.
My friend's grandfather said he used to drive a truck with an Allison engine. It was used to haul scrap metal over the Grapevine in California. He said it could run up the hill with a heavy load without slowing but it destroyed driveshafts.
Gear reduction, something that needs to happen. Horsepower means RPM from the powerplant and you can't turn a prop faster that Mach 1, they just don't work, I mean at the tip. So figure a C-130 propeller at about 16 feet in diameter, It turns at about 1150 rpm. Once you know how big the prop is then you know how fast it can turn. Need an engine that turns fast and a prop that you can manage.
ALSO ON THIS MACH ONE THING
THE HUB OF A PROPELLER SPEED CANNOT REACH 1/2 MACH 1, LIKE HELOS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM
SMASHING THE TIPS OF THE BLADE,
@@raypitts4880 tip speed is all I am concerned
Great video, the Americans are Brilliant engineers and have the industry to manufacture Amazing engines for all types of applications. Keep up the Excellent work,your videos are very interesting to watch and are very Educational. Cheers.👍.
It just shows what people from many nations can do when they come together.
Remember!.Americans are just people from all over the world.
Now imagine what could be accomplished if nations worked as hard finding ways to avoid war instead of finding ways to destroy each other.
I love your optimism in this engine that I first saw on display at Dover AFB museum. "Keep it American" is what I've always said! Give it a chance⚠️
I wish you were able to touch on the late war/post war installation in the P/F 82 and whether all of these almost solved problems had been finally put behind it or not. Very good presentation. I am surprised someone during the war didn't "accidently" you got your chocolate in my peanut butter the 2nd stage system from the V1650 to the V1710 1st stage.
Correction; the Allison 1710 had a 5.500 bore with a 6.00 stroke, NOT a 6.00 bore with a 5.500 stroke. This would be 1865 CU inches !!!
I see you have the Crecy book behind you. That engine and the 2-stroke X-16 engine would make for a real interesting vid on what T-compounding could have achieved.
The final evidence of the Allison potential is their use in tractor pulling. 3,000+HP is being produced without superchargers ( running nitro methane)
Very entertaining, informative video! Thanks!
Excellent video, as always. Your speaking ability is excellent, and the logical development in presenting the material is also excellent.
Off topic but related, I am always amazed at the shear volume of technical and engineering development in the early part of the 20th century, especially in the 1930's. No doubt you have noticed this in the research of your videos. Perhaps it could be a subject of a video, if you can pin down exactly why this was the case. Regards.
Did you know that the V-1710 was almost considered to be a tank engine? It was tested on the T29 heavy tank prototype, probably influenced by the Rolls-Royce Meteor.
I was most surprised to find out the Allison's used Roller Rockers and the Merlin didn't 😳
Its a fact. remember Allison had his roots in racing engines, all good racing engines use roller tips
20:50 I wonder how fast and deadly the P-39/P-63 would be with the turbo-compounding system (or a two-stage supercharger for that matter). I say this because the P-39 is my favorite American fighter of WW2, and I reckon that a P-39/P-63 with a sufficiently improved engine would have the ability to outclass the Bf 109K-4, Spitfire Mk. XIV, Tempest Mk. V, Ki-84, J7W Shinden, Ta 152, and P-51H.
Awesome Channel. I would love to see some information about Japanese supercharging how did airplanes get so high in elevation thank you
Other points to consider: the Allison made more power at any given level of boost and weighed less than the equivalent Merlin and it lasted longer because it had much better bearings!
Quite true about the engines. We Americans were world leaders in that area.
If the Allison engine was that good, then why was it replaced by the RR Merlin in the Mustang? Oh! That's right - the Merlin was better (and went on to make the Mustangs' reputation)!! 👍
@@tim7052It wasn't replaced by the RR Merlin in the Mustang. It was replaced by the Packard V1650-1, a modified Merlin 20. Packard made several improvements to the Merlin. They cast the engine block in two pieces which cut bad castings to almost zero, a big cost savings. They adopted Allison-style piston rods which were much stronger, American silver plated bearings which were more corrosion resistant, used a Stromberg throttle body fuel injection system instead of the RR Merlin's wonky SU carb, and the changed the supercharger drive quill to fit the Wright Cyclone two-speed supercharger. The 30 liter Wright Cyclone had extra capacity over the 27 liter Merlin. Rolls-Royce adopted many of these changes. When fitted with a similar supercharger the Allison will outperform the Merlin if for no other reason than it's 28 liters vs 27 for the Merlin. The Allison had a 2,000 hour TBO vs the Merlin's 200 hour TBO. The Merlin had nearly twice as many parts than the Allison and was more expensive to make. The Merlin had three better features, a better supercharger, better flowing intake manifold and a simple 5 counterweight crank. The Allison used 6 or 12 counterweight cranks and the designers were still fiddling with the design until production stopped.
The airships suffered from insufficiently trained crews. Germany had very experienced airship men, won at horrific costs during WWI, but both US and UK didn't pay sufficient attention to this matter. I think the solution should have been to produce a family of smaller Zeppelins to train crews. UK had more rigid airships but didn't fly them sufficiently - costs! When USN used non-rigid airships for convoy protection during WWII it was remarkably successful.
Those V12 Beasts are all awesome!! The Merlins & Gryphons by Rolls Royce (and Packard) along with These Allison Screamers! Variants of these engines would find themselves in all kinds Marine and other applications! The RR Meteor was at it's "heart" a Merlin! There are 2 really bizarre custom cars that some enthusiasts built around different brands of V12 aero engines. It still amazing to me that these things actually worked...and worked extremely well!!
With the right supercharger it would have been as good if not better than the Merlin. The Alison in the P-38 was excellent with the supercharger they used in that platform.
The combustion chambers pic shown in your video is not a V-1710 cylinder head, there is only 1 spark plug per cylinder. But to be fair I couldn't find any combustion chamber photos or drawings on the web either. Good content though. Learned a few more details. Thanks for sharing.
Rolls-Royce constantly improved their supercharger. Battle of Britain engines were all single stage. The two stage blower came into the Merlin 61. It was the RR test engineer who noticed the 61 would go well into the Mustang. The Packard Merlin was a mass production version of the 61.
By war end RR was working on a turbo compound system. It was never developed because they found their supercharger was so good that early jets just worked. Early RR turbojet compressors were basically the Merlin supercharger.
They leapfrog their development due to the fact RR Superchargers division have experience to the Centrifugal compressors you can see the trend post war most traditional ICE developers use Centrifugal compressors unlike those in the power generator sector like Metropolitan-Vickers
and Westinghouse use Axial compressors as they are familiar to them. They are few outliers like BMW and Junker use Axial compressors for Germany first operational jet planes in combat.
@@aker1993 Yes, it does help greatly that Rolls Royce had in their employ Sir Stanley Hooker who, at the time was the pre eminent designer working on centrifugal superchargers, he took the original supercharger, which was excellent and improved it and was head of supercharger design until the middle of1942 and so also developed the 2speed 2 stage supercharger fitted to the merlin 60 series, he then transferred to the jet engine program.His background was an academic specialising in fluid dynamics. I think the main reason that a lot of the first generation jet engines had centrifugal compressors was that there was much more experience in centrifugal compressor design which were used in most aircraft engines prewar as opposed to the axial compressor which was a design with initially many issues. Axial compressors have their benefits but at that stage in the development the problems outweighed the benefits. Britain had axial jet engines in development at about the same time as Germany and a meteor with Metrovick engines was test flying in about 1943/44 and Rolls Royce was starting the development of what would become the Avon in 1945: if you haven’t already seen it I highly recommend “Not much of an engineer” which is Sir Stanley Hookers autobiography, it fully covers his career.
Yes it really put the merlin in the ball game when it was given American developed 2stage 2speed superchargers and American high octane fuel, not to mention the Stromberg pressure carburetor (throttle body fuel injection)
UHHHHH David Elliot most of the merlins Packard made for the Brits, 37,137 were versions of the 20 series, single stage 2 speed. Packard did make some 266 merlins used in the 1040 spitfire Mk XVI, the only 2stage merlins Packard made for the Brits who were the primary users of Packard merlins. USAAF got 3,000 V1650-1 single stage used in some P40's but 15,000 v1650-3 or-7 or -9 went into the Mustangs.YOU are one of the confused that think all merlins were 2 stage, they were not, most merlinswere the 20 series sungle stage....the 2 stage merlin did not show up untill late 1942/43..
@@kenneth9874 Packard use the Bendix pressure carb from the start of their production and Allison used it from 1938 !! ! FYI !!!
To get your facts? straight, you should do more research. The Allison came first, made more power to a higher altitude than any early Single-Stage-Single Speed Merlin! The problem comes when you comp the latter Two Stage-Two Speed Merlin to the earlier SS-SS Allison engine. When you comp the Two Stage-Two Speed, or Turbocharged Allison to the 60 Serries Merlin the Merlin is a very distant third place. (Behind the later SS-SS Allison that made 1,825 HP down low, comp'd to the 66 Serries Merlin at 1,720 HP, or the Turbo Allison that made 1,600 HP at much higher altitude than the Merlin! 33,000' Vs 22,600'!) I hate it when you You-Tube guys make so many mistakes! Do your Due Diligence! The later TS-TS Alison in the F-82 made 2,300 HP Comp't to the Merlins 2,000 post war in the Hornet.
Extremely reliable engine, perfect for lew-level air-work. The British used their P-51As (Mustang I and II) until 1945 in the army cooperation mode. At those heights it could outrun anything the Germans had.
The Allison also had good behaviour at low revs (a perennial problem with the Merlin), perfect for long range missions at economic throttle settings. The Russkis loved their P-39s too and put them to good use in another low-level scenario.
The Allison was superior to the Merlin in almost every way except for the supercharging. The final operational V1710 produced 1,600hp and installed in the twin Mustang. The V1720-E27 produced 3,000 hp but was experimental.
Allison engine was solid. Problem with the single stage Allisons was that the airframes were too heavy. P-39, P-40 and P-51A weighed 7650#, 8400# and 8600# respectively for an engine of 1150HP. Spitfire V weighed 6500# with 1400HP and a Me109G weighed 7000# with a 1475HP engine.
...one thing I have always wondered...since we were at war, and sharing design and technology, why Allison engineers didn't simply adapt the Merlin supercharger to fit the V-1710?...since they were both 60 degree V-12 engines of similar size, seems like it should have been doable..some American company could have license-built the superchargers...and yes, I think both the turbo-compound V-1710 and the V-3420 were awesome...maybe even better than the stuff the Germans were working on with the DB-605, DB-603, and Jumo 213...BTW, I have seen the numbers on the X-B-39(Boeing B-29 equipped with the Allison V-3420)...quite a bit of an improvement over the R-3350 in both performance and reliability, and given the poor reliability, engine fires, frequent engine failures, and short service life of the early R-3350's in B-29 service, one has to wonder why they did not just switch to the V-3450 for production aircraft?....
They should have done, as an insurance policy ,look at Pratt&Whittney ,s R-1830-66 ,yes cats&kittens, an 1830 Twin Wasp with a two speed two stage blower ,thank c----t P&W did as all dash 66,s earmarked by the US Navy&Marines to power a later model of Leroy Grumman,s F4-F Wildcat. The only fighter that could take on Mitsubishi,s A6M Model 21 Zero on almost equal terms, all down to P&W having the foresight and cash to develop such a feature. In order to make money ,you have to spend some, that is why the R-1830 Twin Wasp became the best selling air cooled radial on the planet. Reason why ?, aircraft companies like Bristol ,Douglas, Lockheed, Glenn L Martin ,and Consolidated Vultee wanted them.
They were still using 1710s and Merlins in the piston-powered hydroplanes in the 80's that were raced at Seafair here in Seattle. The turbine hydros always won (Miss Budweiser, Miss Miller, etc...) by using the GE gas-turbines from Bell helicopters
People probably like the Allison because it's made and designed in the USA and it's reliability...How about the Napier Sabre Mark VII? It did better than ANY Allison design right around the same time..
The supposition of this video is FALSE! It, the Merlin-II engine was chosen because Reginald Mitchel and the RAF believed that inline Liquid cooled engines had less frontal area and thus drag at high speeds. This assumption is easily proven false and the P&W R-1830 had equivalent, OR LESS installed frontal area than the Merlin in either the Spitfire, or Hurricane and made 170 more HP! It also weighed 174 Kilograms less, was much more reliable, but not made-invented here in England! It would never do to have the RAF use an American designed engine, even if it was made under license in England! Think what a nasty shock an R-1830 engined Spitfire would have been to the Germans like the FW190 was to the RAF? Even worse think what an R-1830 engined Hurricane with its superior weapons fit and thicker, thus more maneuverable and because of the higher power, faster plane! It's such a shame that R-R had soooo much political influence!
It had less frontal area than the installed Merlin because many of the merlin engine's accessories were installed over or under it for ease of maintenance, while the R-1830's accessories were all mounted behind it. There were also much more reliable and easier to service because they were built to airline standards and required much less maintenance in the first place! It also lasted much longer, 1000 hours to start, Vs
The P-40Q was a good looking aircraft and achieved test speeds of 414mph at 20,000ft. But this was a test aircraft and not service aircraft which was typically quite a bit heavier. It was already way behind the performance of the P-51C when tested 1944-45. Turbo-superchargers were big and heavy and took up a lot of nacelle space on the P-38. The secret of the Merlin was the superb two-stage mechanical supercharger that needed just a 9 inch extension in the engine bay.
The sm57 sounds good with your voice, they're great mics. You could always print out a photo of a Neuman u87 and past it in front of your Sure.
While not a piston engine; The Allison T-56 turbine engine was a huge success for the Allison company. In fact Allison produced many reliable turbine designs for aircraft and helicopters. I would like to know your comments on these engines.
Wouldnt bother. He has a weird way of telling a story...
Rolls Royce bought them out to get into the American military market !! !
The bore was 5.5 inches and stroke was 6 inches yielding 1710 cu. in. If the bore was 6 and the stroke was 5.5 the displacement would have been 1866 cu in.
I thought so. .. VERY interesting.. I lived in speedway not far from the plant. Almost bought a 1710 .. just to make a glass top table out of it 😜. And preserve its historical awesomeness.. anyway I always felt that Allison got somehow shortchanged by burocacy after having been exposed to both it and the Merlin even the DB. Thank you for putting the record out there on what was is an amazing feat of engineering ART As far as I'm concerned!!
Hey of July b. Keep 'em coming. Btw: tge 193's hyper engine bad gear driven camels. Why have we used belts instead?
Intake manifold was always a problem and one of the causes of detonation. Read up on the Wright Field trials using 150 octane. If the later Allisons couldn't handle the increased boost with 150 fuel, then the earlier Allisons on the P-40's certainly couldn't ... and they didn't.
Engine fires, broken cranks, thrown rods were common on P-40D, E, K when over boosted.
19:04 that’s not true, actually. The P-63 had a two stage supercharger (with the auxiliary first stage even being infinitely variable!) on its V-1710-93 and -117 engines.
It is worth reading Formula 1 engine designer and author on WW2 engines, Calum E. Douglas - as mentioned in this vid. He studied them and their design drawings. He is not complimentary on German engines which appear to be rather overrated. He is also on RUclips. Interesting man. Search on RUclips: _The Secret Behind German Engine Performance: GM-1 and MW-50, _ being a guest on _Military Aviation History._
the size, complexity, and raw HP of these monsters is incredible just to be flown directly into German flak by 18-25 year olds. Such a crazy period in history
The P-63 Kingcobra used two-stage V-1710s. They saw combat, but with the Russians, who loved them.
You tolking to fast???.If idia to bring yours narrative to interested pablik,slow down , it is hard to follow .!!!
Re the Alison suffering from poor decisions by the customers, this is not new and affects multiple countries and still happens today.
At least the core of the Alison was solid.
I have seen the merlin in parts. It reminds me of a farm tractor engine. Thats not a bad thing at all. You want reliability and thats what it gave with decent horsepower (ok it had sodium filled valves). Good for bombers and it sounds good. The Griffin sounded better. It was not ever a hyper engine like a Sabre or Centaurus. Like the US, the British also suffered bad decisions.
Re the jet engines. Thank goodness the idiots in charge in Germany didn't put much stock in that. How the heck do so many incompetents get to be in charge? Even today.
Great vid, but one slight correction. The USS Macon is pronounced just like the city of Macon in Georgia because it was named for the city. It is pronounced Maycon, not the Maycron like you stated. Really enjoy your videos since I found your channel, you include stuff most people leave out
Looking at the pics of the exhaust manifolds alone the turbo was at best inneficient. And those turbos look prehistoric,, 1920s instead of 1940s. So 2 stage blower were far better.
Over 3000 rpm too was maybe a bit average, that much boost at that rpm?
YeS - "Distributer Finger" it is OLD saying about new generation of COIL today. "Finger" because side (alike finger) was rotating to distribute the voltage to spark plugs.
I think that the US provided some fighter planes to the Soviet Union that had Allison engines with no supercharger.
AeroCobra. The Russians loved it.
You still have the Bore & Stroke backwards. It is a 5.5" bore and 6" stroke. When you restated it after your little giggle you just flipflopped the order of statement and not the fact that in fact the engine is a "long stroke", meaning that the stroke is longer than the bore is wide. You still have it backwards in both statements.
Oh no buddy boy, the Allisons that were in the P38s that we sent to England in 1940 or 41 had no superchargers on them, stop reading wiki & study your real history.
WOW Allison screwed themselves, 1710g 2200hp vs 1750hp wtf us army
...too add an additional thought, Allison was a very tiny company. Yes, it was part of General Motors, but it had to standalone to make a profit, and the country was still in a depression. Had Allision received the backing of the government (as Rolls Royce and German companies had) and the Army Air Corps recognized the need for high altitude combat, we would have seen a more thoroughly engineering product.
Wrong again, you’re wrong about what fixed the P38s in the Atlantic, you’re a little right but the majority of the problems were fixed by Charles Lindbergh, yes him, he convinced the powers that be to send him, a civilian pilot to one of the islands that the P38s were stationed on and he worked for a month retuining and leaning out the fuel until he had made it pretty good, & he decided he was going to fly with the guys on a mission after that which he did and shot down a Zero, unfortunately the Military brass found out about it and immediately dragged him back to the US, now if you think I’m fully of bull you need to read your history, plus there’s even story’s about him doing that on RUclips.
Great job explaining the turbocharger situation. Unfortunately I can picture a smoke filled room with a GE sales vp assuring the military that all will be OK. Am I over-reading this, or were the British more likely to work on what they thought the war/country needed without reference to this year's bottom.line?