Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

[First time Juke]

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%201792.html

I wonder if enhanced to 16 000 hp would there be a big enough airframe to carry it...Skyraider ?

[JET1]

mostlikely never even worked except on paper

H engines never did make the grade (Napier Sabre) etc. I always thought the X liquid cooled engines had a lot more promise for big HP. someone needs to take a 4360, spend a kajillion dollars and convert it to liquid/air cooling! now that would be an exercise in futility!

[W J Pearce]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

I think the biggest issue with the H engines was their timing (as in date, not ignition). Most were developed right before or during WWII. There was a war on and resources were being spent more and more on tried and true engine configurations.

Engines like the Sabre, Eagle, and H-3130 all had sleeve-vales incorporated with the build. That exasperated the developmental issues. The Sabre was the only one to see major production and not only was its development started in the mid 30s, but success was found when Bristol sleeves were used. It is also important to remember that Napier had already built two other H engines, the Rapier and Dagger. It is debatable whether the time, expense, and losses of the Sabre were worth the achievements of the Tempest and Typhoon. The RR Eagle was replaced by turboprops and the P&W H-2240 (X-1800), H-3130, and H-3730 by the R-4360.

The Fairey P24 ran well but the MoD had Fairey's engines blacklisted since they tried to produce the Curtiss D-12. The Lycoming H-2470 languished in development and was not a significant improvement of what was then in war production.

The Arsenal can be counted as a jet victim. Why continue to develop something that is so obviously obsolete? Then there is the king of H's (and possibly aircraft engines), the Studebaker H-9350.

In short, there was something that works already being built. Even if an H in development would beat all other piston engines, it would fall far short of the jet.

[jarrodeu]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

Is Wikipedia correct that the Studebaker H-9350 was never finished?

Jarrod

[W J Pearce]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

Every account of the H-9350 that I have read was that it was "most likely never built". There are pictures/accounts of all the other oddball and Hyper engines. I'd think that some photo of it would have popped up by know if it were built/completed/run.

It is in the same class as the Lycoming XR-7755. That one was built and run. Just not flown. I think two complete engines were made, one with contra-props.

[First time Juke]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

Every account of the H-9350 that I have read was that it was "most likely never built". There are pictures/accounts of all the other oddball and Hyper engines. I'd think that some photo of it would have popped up by know if it were built/completed/run.

It is in the same class as the Lycoming XR-7755. That one was built and run. Just not flown. I think two complete engines were made, one with contra-props.

Correct; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_R-7755

[tjyak50]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

Some guy (Clennell "Clen" Tomlinson?) built a scale model of a Napier Sabre engine - I think it runs.

[First time Juke]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

Heston J-5 was powered with a Napier Sabre..which overheated and result was a rough landing which destroyed the 500+ mph contender totally.

http://project-napier-heston.com/

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

...I think two complete engines were made, one with contra-props.

There was a design for a single prop (dash -1), but the 2 examples built were counter-rotating dash -3's, according to that WIKI page.

[W J Pearce]

Re: Arsenal 24H 8000 hp aviation engine.

There was a design for a single prop (dash -1), but the 2 examples built were counter-rotating dash -3's, according to that WIKI page.

I always like to make it clear that I was not there. I just go off of things I have read and photos that I have seem. I have no 1st hand info. But giving accurate information is very important.

In addition to having read somewhere that one of the engines built was single prop have a look....

NASM photo of the -3. Note the long prop shaft:

http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/200328563-8.jpg

Have a look at the two photos in the middle of this page. One where the two guys are in front of the XR-7755 and the other with everybody in front. Notice the propshaft is single rotation. Maybe they did not have the inner shaft installed. But the photo with all the people in front of the XR-7755 has exhaust stacks. Seems like they would have it installed if they were going to add the little stacks.

http://people.virginia.edu/~rjr/engines/

Also, in Aircraft Engines of the World 1947 there is a picture of the XR-7755 on a test stand with a test club and the exhaust stacks. Maybe they were run without the inner shaft for testing. I don't know but it is easy to see why people would think there was a single rotation engine built, if in fact there never was.

I have attached the photo from "Aircraft Engines of the World 1947" written and published by Paul Wilkinson.

I do not know if the -1 was built. I believe I have read that it was. The photos indicate a single rotation engine existed and was tested. That may simply be a -3 without the inner shaft, but I don't know if you could run a -3 without the inner shaft. If the Wikipedia page is correct the "single rotation" engine in the test bed is the same engine as the "dual rotation" at the NASM.