Talk:Allison V-1710

F-82 error

The Korean War service of the F-82 actually lasted well into 1952; they were not withdrawn "by 1950" (the poor phrasing of which implies that they were out of Korea before the war had even started). I am also curious as to why the article is semi-protected.172.190.33.130 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment on the semi-protection, an IP user kept adding over precise figures to the specs without consensus, as he/she would not stop adding the figures the article was protected. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits with references

I re-submitted less wordy edits and provided references on the performance of the turbosuperchaged V-1710 in Europe. This was taken from Whitney's conclusions on design/operational variables that affected the P-38 in the European Theater. It is explained that the pre/early-war training of many pilots advocated these engines settings which were thought to be advantageous if jumped by the enemy, but they were later discovered to increase the risk of engine problems. Bcraig15 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

including a cruise setting that involves running the engine at a high RPM and low manifold pressure with a rich mixture. - I'm not surprised the recommended engine settings caused problems. For optimum range/cruise you need the lowest possible rpm (coarsest propeller pitch) and lowest recommended boost that will maintain the specified (optimum) airspeed. And on engines that don't possess an Automatic Mixture Control (AMC) you certainly don't run them rich for long periods if you want range - I bet the spark plugs had oiled and sooted up nicely by the time the pilots needed to use any power for combat.

Recommending extended use of 'high rpm' is the aeronautical equivalent of running a car long distances in low gear. No wonder they had problems. The poor engine fitters/mechanics must have just loved whoever thought that one up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The long way home

Looking at the engine length, after learning the GAA was 41" (source was a forum...), makes me wonder if that 85" figure doesn't also include the gearbox. Can anybody say? And fix it, if so? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor engine cooling - P40

One of the P40's greatest weaknesses was lack of engine cooling. P40 pilots in N Africa died/burned to death due to engine fires. Soviet pilots burnt out their engines in a matter of weeks. It was a death trap for many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.71.162 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What's your source for this? Whatever it was, it cannot be as serious as you say or I would have read of it in multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

For starters, my father flew on 112 Sqn and spoke of it often - he lost friends due to engine bearings overheating/fires, which is also referred to in a number of accounts, which I will cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffon 101 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Engine cooling cannot be discussed of course without its relationship to power settings. Pilot's Operating Handbooks are written with an eye for compromise between power (hence need to dissipate heat) and engine life. The Allison engine left the P40, P38, P39 very underpowered; so for survival purposes, the pilots often had their crew chiefs modify throttle controls so that they could have a fighting chance against a faster or more nimble enemy fighter. Search and you will find lots of criticisms of the Allison engine, so please let's not try to change history and glorify this power plant, but rather glorify the airmen who adapted to it. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffon 101 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I call "baloney". Lieutenant Ben Kelsey would never have specified an underpowered, overheating engine for his favorite fighter projects. Kelsey specifically noted that the Allison had a very smooth and predictable power curve. Your URL is a self-published essay by Wayne Cunningham who is not known as an expert in Allisons. Self-published sources by non-experts are not used on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. No one could seriously describe the P-38 or P-40 as underpowered. Indeed, power was one of the few things going for the P-40; with a maximum speed in level flight of 355 mph, it could outrun an early model Zero at sea level, which it frequently needed to do since it had the maneuverability of a hippopotamus. --Yaush (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in making personal attacks. Wayne Cunningham uses credible sources. The fact that P40's were not used in the European theatre and that P38's were pulled out of that area speaks volumes. Bcraig15 above, understands perfectly, as would any engineer or operational pilot. P40's did have engine fires in 112 Sqn and, apart from engine management, it also had to do with soft engine bearings in the early Kittyhawks and desert conditions. Later improvements to the engine prevented overheating. Read: Billy Drake, Fighter Leader; Kittyhawk Pilot; Men of the Desert Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffon 101 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cunningham misuses sources: There's no way that the Bodie book about P-38s would ever support the notion that the Allison V-1710 was overheating or underpowered. Cunningham is wa-a-ay off base. His essay is so far outside the mainstream that it is WP:FRINGE, and not worth notice. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You ask for references and I supply them. Is wiki about revealing facts, or about you getting your own way? End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffon 101 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it may not be relevant to the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk performance in the desert, it is noticeable that the P-40 did not appear to have been fitted with a tropical air filter (such as the British Vokes type) for the carburettor as was done with the Hurricane, Spitfire, and Defiant when operated in the desert. If so, then this may have had a bearing (if you'll pardon the pun) on the engine problems mentioned above. It is also possible that the sandy conditions just made maintenance more difficult for the Allison, as IIRC the Merlins for these latter aircraft were all overhauled in a specialised depot in Cairo, Egypt. Perhaps the Allisons had to be overhauled in more primitive conditions in the field. In the desert it is impossible to keep sand out of machinery for any length of time, as tropical sandstorms blow sand into just about everything. Sometimes these sand storms blow for days at a time.

Without a carburettor air filter, sand gets into the engine via the induction system and the cylinders, and then into the engine oil, and then to the bearings. So that would cause bearing failure, soft bearings or not. At best it would cause greatly accelerated bearing and cylinder/piston ring wear, at worst it would clog the oil galleries and lead to engine overheating and possible fires.

For most of the relevant period the aircraft were being operated off of improvised air strips with only tented accommodation, with the aeroplanes parked outdoors all the time. Routine servicing and maintenance was usually carried out under an improvised awning to provide some shade from the sun, but otherwise there was no shelter from the elements. Sometimes a shade would be rigged-up over the cockpit between operations as otherwise when the pilot got in some parts would be too hot to touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: a modified cowling incorporating air cleaners was developed and tested on a Kittyhawk I [1] but it doesn't appear to have been used much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent service.

I call BS on the sentence in the introduction where it says "the Allison gave excellent service when turbocharged". The Allison gave excellent service when it WASN'T turbocharged too. Maybe it wasn't up to fighting at high altitude, but I don't think anyone can deny the contributions it made in Africa and Russia and Asia, where it wasn't expected to fight at 30,000ft. I would consider those "excellent service" personally. In any case, it was the designers late start on designing a suitable supercharger that limited it in that area. That doesn't reflect on the design of the actual engine itself. The original Merlin wasn't great at high altitudes either, but Rolls-Royce was already working on an effective two-stage, two-speed system. A Napier Sabre didn't "give excellent service" (although it did okay), because of design weaknesses in the engine itself. There was no such weakness in a V-1710. I'd say that it gave excellent service overall, although there were certain areas it was lacking in..45Colt 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately if an enemy is coming over to bomb you from 20,000-30,000 feet, you have little option than to fight them at 20,000-30,000 feet, and this any un-turbocharged Allison-powered aircraft such as the P-39, P-40 or Mustang I/P-51A could not do. The early Spitfire Ia and Hurricane Ia powered by the early Merlin could.

The two highest interceptions of the war, one over the UK, one over the Mediterranean, were against high-altitude Junkers Ju 86P and R's at over 40,000 feet. In both cases the interceptor was a Spitfire powered by a Merlin. The unofficial altitude record for a Merlin was around 48,000 feet, again in a Spitfire.

The V-1710 was a fine engine. But there were situations that it could not handle. The Merlin could, and did.

BTW, if Allison or anyone else on the US side had asked, Rolls-Royce would almost certainly have allowed Allison to licence the Merlin supercharger for use on the V-1710. Packard were already making the Merlin superchargers, and could have supplied Allison with redesigned parts ready to fit. Unfortunately for the V-1710, AFAIK no-one ever asked.

There seems to be some confusion over the 2 different forms of forced induction, supercharging and turbo charging. The Merlin engine , as its own page says, wasnt turbo charged in any version. And I quote:

"As the Merlin evolved so too did the supercharger; the latter fitting into three broad categories:

Single-stage, single-speed gearbox: Merlin I to III, XII, 30, 40, and 50 series (1937–1942).

Single-stage, two-speed gearbox: experimental Merlin X (1938), production Merlin XX (1940–1945).

Two-stage, two-speed gearbox with intercooler: mainly Merlin 60, 70, and 80 series (1942–1946)."

This isnt about the Merlin, but the Allison V1710 which in its first production version had single stage supercharging or for the P-38 with turbo charging and supercharging.

Hydroplane engine

The Allison V-1710 that powered Slo-Mo-Shun IV to records.

I came here looking for some comments about the use of the V-12 Allison used to power Unlimited Hydroplanes, especially those designed by Ted Jones (hydroplanes) for the Slo-Mo-Shun IV and Slo-Mo-Shun V that broke all sorts of world water speed records in the early 1950s, and won numerous APBA Gold Cups in the 1950s and '60s. (The Rolls-Royce Merlin was also used, but the Allison was preferred.) I noticed there were a couple of words about V-12 Allisons in the Unlimited hydroplane engines section of the Hydroplane (boat) article, but it's hardly a start. --- I realize this is not considered a "major" application of the Allison engine, but it is very noteworthy. Perhaps some gearhead could add a paragraph or two about the V-12 Allison's significance to boat racing and those speed records in this article. (I am not knowledgeable enough about engines or fluent enough in English to do it myself.) Regards, Charvex (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

P-39 ground attack

I have deleted the claim that the Soviets used the P-39 "primarily in the ground attack, anti-tank role with its central mounted spinner fitted canon." This ended the sentence "The P-39 was rejected by the British, but used by the U.S. in the Mediterranean and the early Pacific air war, as well as shipped to the Soviet Union in large numbers under the Lend Lease program." The sentence now simply ends at "program". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra#Soviet_Union - Wikipedia's own article on the P-39 debunks this claim. The matter itself need not be covered here, although the P-39 is relevant, being an Allison V-1710 equipped aircraft. 27.253.53.162 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Good removal. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible image

https://www.si.edu/object/nasm_A19600126000

©Geni (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.si.edu/object/nasm_A19600125000

Another early version.©Geni (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Image Note

Just an interesting note on the last image of Air Zoo display engine in Spec section: The engine has a Curtiss Electric prop installed (cool), is missing the rocker covers (should be noted?) and is shown in front of a wall size image of Rolls Royce powered P-40s (???). JetMec (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Image captions are kept quite simple in a general encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is), the guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. MOS:CAPSUCCINCT is relevant here. There is a good photo of a complete engine in the infobox which readers would usually see first. Extra details could be added to the image page itself with their source or even on the file discussion page if unsourced (WP:OR). The file link is File:Air Zoo December 2019 127 (Allison V-1710).jpg. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)