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

[Butch]

French con rods.

[Butch]

Wright Martin con rods.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting, but not really relevant to the next part...

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

Gear drives have lash.

Reciprocating engines accelerate and decelerate the crankshaft on every combustion cycle.

This sets up a situation where every combustion cycle "hammers" on the gear teeth. In order to overcome the damage caused by this, you have to either do something to absorb the shock prior to the gear teeth... or make them SO overbuilt as to be ludicrously large and heavy. (Ok, that is an oversimplification... but true as a generality.)

Running a heavy flywheel helps. Rubber or other "elastic" in the drivetrain prior to the gears also helps (like the springs on the hub of a clutch plate... or a clutch itself that slips slightly... or various other methods to dampen the effects of that acceleration and deceleration.)

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Butch:
I first want to thank you for what is a extremely quick response to my query. I thot that it may have been as it looks in your picture as a drawing on page 14 fig # 9, ((90h.p. Renault I believe) shows it to be exactly as yours but I dismissed it for the following reasons and we must also remember that this was in 1916, 1917 and 1918.

This has to be an extremely difficult method of making a conrod as the machining of the two extensions, on the Blade rod, is very difficult and it would require a very special grinding procedure to achieve a properly sized Outside Diameter and one that had the following.

I haven’t determined just how important it is to have a precise Concentricity to the Inside Diameter. However it also seems to me that it has to be very close as this would naturally affect the Perpendicularity of the O.D. and the I.D.

The two Outside Diameters have to be very Concentric!

This would also affect the amount of offset of the Blade Rod and it’s Alignment with the two Inside Diameters of the fork Rod.
The turning of the Inside Diameters of the Fork Rod would be a simple task as the babbitting of the I.D. and then the precision boring of the Babbitt would take care of the alignment of those two bores.

The tasks of doing the above machining would be far beyond the achievable rates of World War 1 production methods of most machine shops of that period!!!

I also do not know if the precision boring machine at that time were good enough to bore the Babbitt of both the Connecting rods and I also do not know if the Hispano-Suiza Blueprints were drafted with the actual tolerances that were needed. Modern blueprints would probably call for a total tolerance spread of three ten thousands of an inch (.0003“), or .00762 mm. Just what the total tolerance of the Concentricity and Perpendicularity would need to be but my guess would be less than one thousandth of an inch (.0010”) or .0254mm and it might very well be just the same as the .0003” for the tolerance of the I.D.s and O.D.s I have never seen the tolerances for the Hispano-Suiza as given on the official Blueprints.

It’s not any wonder that both of the rods were machined all over! These rods under any circumstance would be very expensive and especially the Blade rod. Getting the two O.D’s Inline would be a net trick without special grinding machines. Just when multiple grinding wheel machine became common for the grinding of Main bearing is not in my memory. However I doubt it was known in WW-1.

If one is really interested in this type of bearing one might read the chapter about bearings in the book, “ Vee’s for Victory” by Daniel D. Whitney, Appendix 10 plus many other parts of the book listed under “Bearing” Index Page # 467.

Yours, M.L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Having just made a working drawing of the Blade Rod for the Hispano-Suiza V-8 that the O.D. and the I.D. were working Babbitted areas and the Fork Rod did not have any Babbitted areas on it but rode on the outside of the Fork Rod Babbitted Outside Diameter. It makes me wonder even more just how the machinists did their machining on the Fork Rod Outside Diameter!

Unfortunately my copy of the, “The French 200 H.P. Hispano-Suiza Aero Engine” does not have a satisfactory picture of the layout but does allow me to make sketch of the lower part of the Fork Rod in enough detail to see the basic working layout.

If it were not for Butch’s picture and my studying of the approximate 100 page French book, “Description Technique DU MOTEUR D’AVIATION Hispano-Suiza” I would never have figured it out with any degree of surety.
(Page 15)
M.L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

I have a copy of a British document entiteled,
“MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS
Department of Aircraft Production.
TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT
I.C. 611 Victoria Embankment
W.C.2.,
14th. February, 1918
Report upon Troubles with 200 H.P. French Hispano in Service’
Ap.D.(P) D441/1915 2/18
The only person mentioned is a French Major Martinot Legarde.
The copy I have is not complete and I believe it is of 4 or 5 pages and I have only 3, which do not appear to be consecutive. So it also appears to be this is the document that tells the British of the problems of the Castor Oil and the lack of a Oil Pressure Relief Valve.
Any information would be of help.
M.L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Page # Sat., 05-31-2008

http://storage.mfa.free.fr/gallery/s...001/cock/4.jpg

The dial is graduated in divisions of 1 kg/sq cm or 14.2232 pounds per square inch. This covers about 300 degrees of the dial face.
The part that covers the 15 to 30 kg/sq. cm. is divided much closer than the area below the 5kg/sq. cm mark therefore it might seem to be that is the area of oil pressure that is considered to be “Normal”. The regular marking below 5 is marked off in 1,2,3,4 but above 5 it is marked off 5, 10 and 15 and then it jumps up to 30! A very obvious transition from the lower readings.
Each small graduation is one tenth (1/10th.) of a kilogram per square centimeter or 1.42232 pounds per square inch.
The first numeral 1 is 1 kilogram per square centimeter or 14.2232 pounds per square inch.
2 = 2 kg/square cm or 28.4644 lbs/square inch.
3 = 3 kg/square cm or 42.6966 lbs/square inch.
4 = 4 kg/square cm or 56.9288 lbs/square inch.
5 = 5 kg/square cm or 71.1610 lbs/square inch.
10 = 10 kg/square cm or 142.322 lbs/square inch.
15 = 15 kg/square cm or 213.483 lbs/square inch.
30 = 30 kg/square cm or 426.966 lbs/square inch.

Lage’s book states that normal running pressure was, (Quote) on the
Page #
H.S.8A engine was from 15kg/square cm (cold) to 11 kg/square cm (hot) or from 213 lbs/square inch (cold) to 156.6 lbs/square inch (hot). The gage markings seem to indicate from 15 kg/square cm (cold) to 5 kg/square cm (hot). The gage is from an 8B engine. The 5 kg/square cm might be from an engine that is not only hot but an engine toward the end of its useful life. The French seemed to be using First Pressing Pharmaceutical Castor Oil. Olive Oil under the same criteria is called Virgin.
The number on the dial is a graduation in divisions of 1 kg/sq cm or 14.2232 pounds per square inch. This covers about 300 degrees of the dial face.
The part that covers the 15 to 30 kg/sq. cm. is divided in numbers much closer than the area below the 5kg/sq. cm mark therefore it might seem to be that is the area of oil pressure that is considered to be “Normal”. The regular marking below 5 are marked off in 1,2,3,4 but above 5 it is marked off 5,10 and 15 and then it jumps up to 30! A very obvious transition from the lower readings.
My statement or question is that there is an obvious statement on the dial informing the observer/pilot in this case that the marking are put there for a very definite purpose of trying the get the pilot to keep the reading within the 5 to 15 kg/sq. cm. pressure range.
Also note that the oil pressure is extremely high. Most people seeing this would be surprised that Marc Birkigt would keep them in this high range. At this r.p.m. 5kg/sq.cm or 71.2 lbs/sq. in. (hot or cold) would be sufficient. A well designed Oil Pressure Relief Valve should have taken care of this. The 200/220 H.P. engine did not have this in it’s early design and seemed to lag in its placement on engines even after they admitted its lack of control of pressure in the use of Castor Oil in particular and it‘s peculiarities. Just why they insisted on using an oil with its congealing properties is still unknown and just why they didn‘t change to a mineral oil was and is and the reason why is an unknown to any degree of certainty to this day.

M.L. Anderson May 31-2008

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

# 1. Castor Oil is a vegetable product produced by the pressing of the bean and squeezing out the oil similar to Olive Oil. Altho I don’t believe that there is such a thing as Virgin Castor Oil as opposed to Virgin Olive Oil..

# 2. Ordinary lubricating oil is a Mineral product which doesn’t mix with Castor Oil I have been led to believe.

# 3. Castrol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# 4. Notice the difference in spelling between Castrol Oil and the name of the vegetable oil Castor Oil, very important I thot.

# 5. I suppose that at one time in distance past this was thot to be very important, but obviously the powers that be in WW-1did not think so as Hispano-Suiza just keep using Castor Oil that congealed at low temperatures and failed to return to a normal liquid state until the Hispano- Suiza engines had disintegrated into a pile of unusable metal that forced Birkigt to redesigned the oil pump to accommodate an Oil Pressure Relief Valve.
Which he had previously placed on the older 140-180-8A H.P. engines but failed to place on the newer engine as to reduce the total weight of the engine and thereby increase the engine weight to horsepower ratio to a more favorable number. It cost the Allies very dearly and Birkigt never did admit to the design error.

Of course Birkigt and Hispano-Suiza made millions of dollars/francs/pounds/lire/yen off of selling about 50,000 engines before the end of WW-1, but as we all know that when money walks in the door that good judgment flies out the window for people of certain levels of character. Every man has his price I guess, Birkigt no less than others.

M.L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

One of the things many of us fail to realize is that Wolseley had previously made six V-8s of a much smaller piston displace two of 558 c.i. and 1,100 c.i and this was done in 1910 and 1911. Altho these engines weren’t used to any great extant they must of gave Wolseley Engineers some appreciation of the V-8 engine and its problems, particularly of vibration! Previously, in 1907 Archibald Sharp had published his book. “ Balancing of Engines” and its formulas for this on pages 117 & 118. This is my belief just why Wolseley was so far ahead of Hispano-Suiza and many others in the aspect of engine balance.
According to Airplane Encyclopedia there were several others engines built also of 441 c.i., 485 c.i. Some of these engines are not listed in Lumsden’s book. Some engines were side valve and some pushrod O.H.V. configuration. So it would seem that they had some engineers working on V-8 engines before they started on the Hispano-Suiza.
M.L. Anderson Next Caquot: Report or Cover-Up

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Planes Albert Caquot
Caquot: a Report or a Cover Up?

SPAD had a newer version of the 718 cubic inch engine of higher quality it was hoped. The SPAD XIII with the 200/220 H.P 8B engine and dual machine guns. Ten thousand of these engines were in stock when Albert Caquot is named, but they had not passed their tests successfully, which created a distressing problem. The Commander Caquot receives the report of the department head of the engines and asks him to put at the testing ground ten engines in stock. The first test will be stopped at the end of one hour, the second at the end of two hours and so on. After a test is stopped the casing will be opened and the moving parts disassembled. The acceptance tests tried hitherto and which, according to the schedule of conditions, were ten hours, involved seizing, from where a crankcase of broken rods or a broken gear/pinion box, and the breakdown shown by spectacular destruction in the casing. However the engine, a prototype tested in the middle of the year 1917, had made a success of all the tests, while the engine of the regular production series did not make a success of its simple test of ten hours control.
The tests of the spread out duration were stopped at the end of four hours, the cause of seizing having appeared: the oil piping in the interior of the gear/pinion box was broken and the puncture had the shape of rupture of a pipe subjected to a very strong pressure. The engine continued to turn regularly by the former lubrication(?) and the seizing intervened when this small provision of lubrication was consumed(?), which had avoided the spread out test. Albert Caquot immediately understood the reason of the difference in the behavior of the prototype and the series. The first had been tested in hot season, whereas the series left at the end of the year, in cold season; the Hispano engine had an oil circulation by volumetric, with constant flow whatever the viscosity of oil. This being achieved by the lack of a Oil Pressure Control Valve in the lubrication system. However, the oil used in 1917, being Castor Oil, had a viscosity varying greatly with the temperature and the increase in viscosity in the cold season involved a very high oil pressure causing in the piping with a constant flow from the pump, the breaking of the copper pipe. The maximum oil pressure should not have exceeded 100 p.s.i.g. nor dropped below 45 p.s.i.g. according to Wright-Martin on the old engine.

The thing that is not, at this time, fully determinable is why the pipe did not break at the very first of the engine running as this is the time when the oil should have been at its very coldest (January) and therefore its thickest viscosity. Were they testing the engine with oil that had been heated to a high temperature. If this is so then why did the pipe break at all. The alternative answer is that the copper pipe was sensitive to vibration and it took about four hours of vibration to start the split in the copper pipe. As the engine kept running the split in the pipe keep getting bigger until it became so large that the pump couldn’t keep up with it and the engine failed. Notice again that there was no mention of the oil pressure gage reading at any point in the report. Not even one mention about oil pressure dropping right before the engine self destructed. Not one mention of the oil pressure dropping and just how much it dropped and at what time in the tests did it start to drop.

I don’t believe it was just the cold Oil by itself or the Vibration by itself that did the harm.
Example; #1. We start the engine up with cold oil and no preheating of the oil or the coolant in any way. The engine is at the ambient temperature. Please note the Caquot did not give any Temperature of the Oil and Coolant at any point. Or any mention of the actual ambient temperature. Question: when do you think the pipe should break?

Example # 2. We heat the oil (160°F.) and the coolant (120°) up to the maximum temperature we dare before starting the engine. The temperature given above is on the old direct drive engine. Caquot report does not state anything about the startup procedure in any way except the timing method.. Now we start up the engine and wait until the engine breaks up its major parts enough that it will not run any more. Now if the pipe breaks due to cold oil please tell me why as the engine hadn’t any cold oil/water in it RIGHT FROM THE STARTUP?!.

# 1. Did they start with the oil heated and then poured into the engines Oil Tank similar to how they were actually instructed to do on the aircraft.
# 2. Did the Oil then start a cooling phase and get down to a temperature that caused the copper pipe to break?
# 3. Why didn’t they mention an Oil Pressure Gage Observation of any kind.
# 4. Some SPAD cockpits had a Pressure gage but no sight glass and some SPADs had only a sight glass. Did any SPADs have both Oil Pressure and a Sight Glass.
# 5. Sight Glasses (Flow Meters) are of no real value in a regular four stroke engine as it only checks the oil picked up by the Scavenger pump! Are they a hangover from Rotary Radial engines or what?
# 6. Did Joe Eastman make a mistake in his phrasing and call it a Sight Gage instead of a Pressure Gage, I DON‘T BELIEVE SO. There are thousands of these instruments on the Internet ,just run up the words Sight Gages or flow meters. These give dimensions pressure limitations, height, diameter type of fluids and whether they are see thru or one side visual. etc, etc.
VENTED OIL GAGES / SIGHT PLUGS - STRAIGHT .50 (12.70MM)/.69 (17.53MM), BULLETIN F1927-3 : Lube Devices
The conclusion was very reassuring: the engine was well built and the series had the quality of the prototype. It was enough to decrease the flow in the first operating hours with the very viscous lubricant by limiting its pressure to the normal value of safety of piping, which Albert Caquot obtained by a relief valve on the output side of the high pressure feed pump, formed by a simple ball pressed by a spring on a conical seat.

Did the new Oil Pressure Valve fix the problem in any weather; That is did the engine start in any weather without any heating of the engine by external means such as heating the oil and the coolant with out the destruction of the engine or did other parts have to be changed also to prevent the Oil Pipe from blowing such as making the pipe of another more durable metal or changing the Oil to a mineral type to avoid the extreme viscosity change that Caster Oil possesses.

Should there have been at least three major changes in the engine start up procedure:

# 1. Change to Mineral Oil.
# 2. Fix the Lubrication system to a more appropriate Oil Pressure Relief Valve.
# 3 Try to find a more appropriate way to start the engine instead of the time consuming method that Hispano-Suiza recommended. The mechanics must have been dead tired from all the required extra work to start one of these cold engines in even -15° Centigrade 41° Fahrenheit temperature weather. But Caquot didn’t mention the average temperature in France in January 1918 nor the ambient temperature at the time of the test. Or the temperature of the oil and the coolant at the time of the test. There was something rotten in France.
M.L. Anderson