THE HISPANO-SUIZA V-8 718 & 1127c.i. CRANKSHAFT PROBLEMS

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Originally Posted by Ransom E. Olds

Maybe the shortcomings of the 1911 Brasier are just some of those solecisms Leonard Setright liked to write about and not evidence of chronic wrong-headedness on the firm's part. Ransom

I will, sometime in the future, see if I can write about the Brasier, but just finding enough information is the real challenge! This is especially true of the 1914-1919 period. I have found some, but little, information about the cars. But almost nothing about the WW-1 period.

Yours, M.L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

marion5drsn  02-Dec-02 00:43 31

Member
Since: Oct 2000

Here is copy of a posting I made in 2002 of the causes of the secondary shake this is still posted in the Atlas F1 along with 339 posts of argument pro and con about the was/is and its seriousness.

The 180-degree crankshaft and what makes it worse on Secondary Shake.

The longer the stroke the worse the shake.
The faster the engine turns the worse the shake.
The shorter the connecting rod the worse the shake.
The more of each one of the above the worse the shake.
The heavier the upper conrod and piston the more the shake.
The fact that you can't feel the shake in the driver's position doesn't mean that shake isn't there; it just means that the person who designed it made some terrific motor mounts. The shake doesn't hurt the driver it hurts the engine and the other parts of the engine such as the timing gears, pinions plus the idler wheels.
The only time it might hurt the driver is when the engine is bolted directly to the frame of a steel car and his hands get numb.
If you want to check the engine for shake you need the Formula and the others parts of the engine dimensions. I have never tried it, but using a piece of wood similar to a broomstick might be a good start. This especially if the engine is turning about 800 to1600 rpm.

The Hispano-Suiza of WW-1 shook the propeller gear and pinion so badly that they had to remove the gearbox and fly aircraft without the two to one propeller reduction. Also remember the NOVI racecar had a 180-degree crankshaft. Plus the Cosworth called boneshakers were 180-degree crankshafts.

The part in Italics is the part that is not true as I didn't know about the failure of the Lubrication System due to a design failure of the Oil Pump and the lack of a Oil Pressure Relief Valve!
M.L. Anderson

[Taz]

M.L.- I think it is very important you get this information to Ferrari as soon as possible. From 1973-1989 they built ~30,376 production 90 deg V-8 engines with 180 deg crankshafts and redlines up to 8000 rpm. Since the F430 came on line, they have built another 15,000 or so with redlines up to 8300 rpm. They do not even realize they have a problem. Source Cavallino magazine.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[jumpinjan]

Originally Posted by m9a3r5i7o2n

...Charles Fayette Taylor’s Volume # 2 of,“The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice”, at the bottom of page # 399 it will give you the reason that Wolseley did what they did in 1917.

My book (1st edition, 1977), at page 399, doesn't have anything related to what we are talking about.

The 180-degree crankshaft and what makes it worse on Secondary Shake.
The longer the stroke the worse the shake.
The faster the engine turns the worse the shake.
The shorter the connecting rod the worse the shake.
The more of each one of the above the worse the shake.
The heavier the upper conrod and piston the more the shake.

Why not just say the larger the displacement, the greater the 2nd moments? Above 2.3L (small I4 engines), the shake gets noticed, and will benefit from balance shafts.
Jan

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

...The durability of the European built Hispano engines was very poor, the major items of difficulty being the connecting rods, the exhaust valves, and the reduction gear where used...
Bletchley:
I have a great deal of admiration for Sam Heron’s word as he was the first person that had the idea, ability and sheer determination to put to put a Spherical Segment combustion chamber into an air-cooled radial and gave us the Wright J-5 engine. However he did not love any engine other than a stationary radial and in this particular case it is obvious that he did not know about the H.S. lubrication pipe problem as he fails to mention the problem in any way. I don’t know when the problem surfaced but I did not know of it until the several books about ten years ago revealed the problem. No book or publication that I know about spoke of it before that time. One must keep in mind that the Caquot report was not even dated as to it first general release time. I am very suspicious as to when they released the information to the British and American upper echelons.
Yours, M. L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Terry Phillips:
Why not just say the larger the displacement, the greater the 2nd moments? Above 2.3L (small I4 engines), the shake gets noticed, and will benefit from balance shafts.
Jan[/quote]
Primarily because it isn’t telling enough of the problem of both the Primary and the addition of the Secondary Shake. One of which even then could have been solved (Wolsely did) and then only the lesser of the two would have been left unresolved. This may have been the reason that Birkigt was fearful of really turning the engine faster he just had an over abundance of the two shakes. He only turned the engines to 2,100 r.p.m. or a piston speed of 1,791 feet per minute a very low amount for an engine with 5 main bearings and such a high oil flow/pressure rate.

We are talking about a V-8 with a long stroke even tho it has a low R.P.M and with out the myriad of computers around. I once did an evaluation of just the Secondary Horizontal and that combined with the Primary is what we are reflecting on. I am quite sure that Ferrari has the Primary figured out to a very fine point. That along with the short stroke, overlap of the crankpins and modern bearing materials and many other things would obviate the reference to Ferrari and their almost nearing the 50,000 make. This in relation to an engine made in 1915 which ceased production in 1933 I believe.
Just how good balancing machines were at that time is open to question as opposed to machines today that I understand some balance engines in the running mode.
Today some firms even balance the camshafts and especially on high speed engines. Whether Ferrari does or not I don’t know, but it would not surprise me even a little!

My book is Volume II: revised edition 1985. Table # 8-2, 90 degree bank bottom of the page . However I doubt it will be there in your book as this is a 1985 version. If it is in your book you should find it in Chapter #8 under Engine Balance and Vibration, Four Cycle V-Type Engines. In my book the example you would like to find is at the bottom of the page.

Yours respectfully, M.L. Anderson

[Catfish]

Hello,
i know a bit about engines, having restored a V6 Maserati engine and others, but this is not why i post here.
The german pilot Jentsch did fly a captured SPAD for trial and was very fond of it, saying "the engine is unbelievably steady and stable", at least respectively to the Albatros DII he flew at that time (he flew a Rumpler and a Pfalz monoplane before, but the Pfalz had a gnome rotary engine). I will have a look at the book whether it is written what kind of SPAD it exactly was.
He wrote it was no wonder the SPAD pilots always attacked from above (mentioning the brick-like behaviour) and were able to aim and shoot exactly due to the smooth running engine. The SPAD seems not to have behaved shaky in any way, or a shaky engine did not have any impact on the rest of the plane, but i doubt it.
Greetings,
Catfish

[Taz]

Catfish- Most likely a Spad VII if he was still flying a D.III. Tell me which Jasta he was in and I may be able to tell you which aircraft it was.

ML-Just giving you a hard time. Most of the WW-I engines were so large and ran so slowly you could virtually feel every cylinder firing. I can imagine how rough some of the early inline fours must have been. Porsche was happy to pay Mitsubishi a royalty on every 944 and 968 to use their patented balance shafts.

The Wolsey Viper in the S.E.5a was essentially a Hisso. They seemed to be pretty reliable.

Interestingly, Alan Toelle did a serviceability study on the Nieuport 28 vs Spad XIII, and the rotary engined Nieuport beat the Spad hands down.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[StephenLawson]

Greetings M. L. Anderson;

May I say you have drawn a most impressive response in this thread with your comments. Thank you for the earlier reference to my comments. I look forward to your posts here.

[StephenLawson]

Originally Posted by Taz

". . .The Wolsey Viper in the S.E.5a was essentially a Hisso. They seemed to be pretty reliable.. ."

Interestingly, Alan Toelle did a serviceability study on the Nieuport 28 vs Spad XIII, and the rotary engined Nieuport beat the Spad hands down.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Greetings Taz, essentially Alan notes that the problem in the Spad XIII was that the double dipped radiator was hung on the Hisso gear housing. Thus the vibrations litterally shook the radiator in a manner that degraded its construction and leaks kept most AEF Spad XIII types in the hangar about 30% of the time.

Of course the Viper had no gear housing and was not installed in a manner where the radiator hung on the engine for support.