engine SE-5

Was the hispano suisa a straight 8 or a v 8 [

Hi Frank, the SE5's Hispano Suiza engine was a V8.

James

[PeterL]

There are some fine drawings of the hisso and other period engines at http://mars.ark.com/~mdf/motor.html

hth

Peter L

[leo]

By all accounts a super engine when running properly. It was complex, though, and I understand it gave a lot of problems from a reliability stand point in both English and French airframes.

leo

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
The Hispano-Suiza V-8 engine was probably the most significant engine design of WW1. The engine with it's mono-block construction set the design for future engines of Allison and Rolls-Royce of WW2.
The 150 Hp direct drive Hisso was trouble free in service. The Model B series which was geared drive andand various models produced 200, 220 and 240 hp
The the Model B series engine was put in very large scale production by Hispano-Suiza and I believe 8 other engine manufacturers. This lead to problems with some of the licensed manufactures, The Brazier (8700 200hp models)company for one which did not properly heat treat the reduction gears. This led to gear failures and and a very low serviceability rate in the Spad XII Escadrilles and the RFC/RAF SE5a squadrons. The Hispano-Suiza engines gave good service.
Blue Skies,
Dan-San Abbott

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
Spad XII should read Spad XIII. The Spad XII also had a Hispano-Suiza engine of 200 hp with a 37mm cannon mounted between the engine banks and firing
thriugh the propeller shaft. There were not many made. Guynemer had one.
Blue Skies,
Dan-San Abbott

[leo]

H-S ngines were built by firms in France, Spain, Italy,England, Italy, Russia, Japan and the US. In all some 29,000 were built. Besides the gear problem mentioned by Brother Dan, the British version (Wolseley Adder 200) suffered crank shaft problems which even when modified would not let the engine be operated at over 1750 RPM. Normal speed was 2000 RPM. H-S was not able to supply the demand for its engines and as a result some of the foreign companies did not produce engines to the same standard as H-S.

leo

The problem with the HS's with gear reduction was that the oil coagulated when operated at reduced temperatures. A thin-walled tube transferred oil to the reduction assembly from the sump via a constant pressure pump. The pump exerted an ever-increasing force on the frozen oil in the tube: the tube would fracture and all subsequent oiling to the reduction housing was prevented. Caquot, of Balloon fame, re-engineered the system with a relief valve but it was too late (May-June of '18- I estimate) to do much good. The relief valve modification required the engine be disassembled. The English in some cases machined an adaptor and- elimininating the reduction assembly entirely- operated the propeller directly off the crank a la the 180. I suspect that the American units were never supplied with the modified units: thus Hartney's quote- frequently bannered here on this site- "Damn those SPADS!": he moreover writes that he had only 64 available at most out of nearly 100 assigned to the First Pursuit during the St. Mihel campaign. The N-28s always were the preference of the two English-trained C.O.s of the Group (Hartney and Bonnell). Ralph O'Neil an ace with the 27th has written that the unit was successful only as long as the 28's were available and that the record indicates the ratio of victories to losses was lackluster after the XIIIs were issued. O'Neil blames Rickenbacker for being too confident that he would be able to resolve the operational difficulties that were known to come with 220 engines. Bonnell lost his command over his attitude toward the SPADs and Hartney kept a Camel around for his own mount after taking command of the First. Caquot undertook his work at a time when 10,000! 220 HS's were held up as suspect.BTW: The Gorrell Report states that the N-28 wings had been reinforced and the ships were ready for reissue as the Armistice came. This is a topic of great interest to me: The annoyance and anger over the "borrowed equipment" of WWI resulted in a rejection of the opportunity to manufacture Mosquitoes (and Spits) here in the U.S. during WWII- a most unfortunate decision out of Washington in '40-41. The Mosquito Bomber could carry about the same bomb load of the B-17 at nearly twice the speed, with the same range and with a two-man crew instead of the nine or so poor SOBs in a Boeing or B-24. The Mosquito had about a 2% loss rate as contrasted to the horrendous losses of the heavy bombers we operated in WWII. VBR and a nice TG to all! ..Lee

[leo]

I have to wonder if the US could have taken on the building of any foreign aircraft in 1940 and 1941. The majority of Americans back then were isolationists and the buildong of British planes at that time would have been grossly unpopular. The same goes for engines. Could you imagine either plane with Allisons? The US auto industry so important after the US entry into the war was still busy with passenger car production. I expect that nationalism had something to do with it as well. One might ask why didn't the Brits use the Douglas Devestator TBD and or the Douglas Dauntless SBD instead of some of the old kites they flew from carriers. We certainly would have made them available had they been requested.

leo