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

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

--THE HISPANO-SUIZA V-8 718 & 1127c.i. CRANKSHAFT PROBLEMS --
Page # Friday, March 14, 2008
The problems of these crankshafts can be viewed from three positions,

(# 1) PRIMARY SHAKE due to the failure to place eight counterweights on the crankshaft.

(# 2) SECONDARY HORIZONTAL SHAKE due to the using of a 180 degree crankshaft in V-8 engine at 90 degrees block angle.

(# 3) METALURGY!
PRIMARY SHAKE is the result of the lower part of the connecting rod and the throws on that side of the crankshaft where the connecting rods are attached and the lack of a counterweight on the opposite side to oppose it. This is a continuous happening 100% of the time if not counterweighted with eight counterweights in their proper position as was done by Wolseley on their W.4A Adder I, W.4B* Adder II and W.4B* Adder III engines.
HORIZONTAL SECONDARY SHAKE is the result of the upper part of the connecting rod,, piston, piston pin, rings and any other part in that area that contributes to the weight above the center of mass of the connecting rod area. This occurs twice each revolution hence its name SECONDARY HORIZONTAL SHAKE. This was not fully addressed until The Wright- Martin Co. of New Brunswick New Jersey U.S.A. wanted to balance this by using a 90 degree crankshaft after the Armistice of WW-1 was achieved. It can be deadly to small parts that have the same vibration period as the HORIZONTAL SECONDARY SHAKE itself.

This is very likely the reason for H-S redesigning the Magnetos which had to be placed in the horizontal position when doing several other things on the H-S 8B engines. I think that H-S then added a flexible coupling to the two Magnetos to alleviate some of the destructive power of the Hor. Sec. Shake. There may be other reasons but none that I can think of at this time.

A formula for it is listed in Marks Handbook of 1922 on page 56. Also in S.A.E. Journal October 1934 by Kalb pages 26 and 27. I have ofttimes wondered just how much German Engineers calculated on these two things when they were attempting to manufacture V8 engines similar to the Hispano-Suiza 718 c.i.engine.

General Rule # 1, If you greatly increase the horsepower you must add weigh to offset the added stresses and strains.
General Rule # 2,”You don’t get something for nothing very often.” covers this very well. Also did Birkigt try to make an engine that was just too far underweight for war combat usage? A listing of the weight of the Wolseley crankshaft both balanced and unbalanced would be interesting. But a Hispano-Suiza V-12 crankshaft of later years weighed 37% more when counterweights were added. Read page # 271 of Lage’s book paragraph #1. Lines 8 thru #18. A difference of 30 kg or 66 lbs. Also a reading of pages # 269 thru page # 271 will reveal a general difference of opinion about crankshaft weight theory.
If the unbalanced H.S. 8A or 8B crankshaft is 37% wrong on the Primary Shake isn’t that unbalanced force going into the engine itself especially into the main bearings?

The above plus short 225mm (8.858”) connecting rods that were contributing to the Horizontal Secondary Shake. Remember short con rods multiply the Secondary Shake. One formula I found stated that the con rods should not have been shorter than 247mm. 3.8 x (stroke/2) = con rod length of 247 mm (9.724”) Possibly another case of keeping the engine (Height & Width) short for weight reasons or the fact that the original engine was made to have a stroke of 120mm (4.724”) or a con rod of 228mm (8.976”). This will also keep down the overall frontal area.

Both of the items above, out of balances, may have contributed to the Hispano- Suiza Lubrication Problem. This by the possibility that the gear/pinion teeth contributed to the vibration due to the fact that the rolling engagement of the teeth may have produced a frequency somewhat similar to that of the copper(?) pipe itself.

METALLUARGY
Metallurgy was in it’s very infancy at this time. If one wants to delve into this they might read the book, “On Damascus Steel”, by Leo S. Figiel, MD 1991. This will give one an idea of just how long it took to get the heat treatment and carbon into the iron to turn it into a usable piece of steel for swords actually took. The men in Japan turned this into a fine art of work and superstition to do it. The development of tools to check the hardness of steel was probably among the first scientific steps with such people/firms making hardness testers such as the Brinell.

Also the Microscopic examination of the steel was and is necessary to find the actual structure of the steel. Somewhere I thought that Birkigt purchased hardness testing machines from somewhere for testing steels used in the products of Hispano-Suiza but have been unable to find it again.

The company did for very sure send a Mr. Zaracondegui
to the U.S.A. to arrange for the purchase of necessary materials for the manufacture of parts for Hispano-Suiza, this was done around June of 1915. Just what this included is not listed on page 307 of the book, “La HISPANO-SUIZA”, By Emilio Polo. It is also possible that “La HISPANO-SUIZA” purchased Brinell hardness testers direct from Sweden and Brinell during the development of the 718 cubic inch engine.

I haven’t been able to find the dates for the other machines capable of testing the hardness of steel but some of them were after the time of WW-1. We do know that 4130 Chrome-Molybdenum steel properly heat treated did not come before 1920.

Johan August Brinell 
Born 21 Nov 1849-Died 17 Nov 1925.
Swedish metallurgist who devised the Brinell hardness test, a rapid, nondestructive means of determining the hardness of metals. Brinell studied many aspects of iron and its cooling. His discoveries about the control of the carbon containing phases is the present basis for the knowledge about properties of steel. The Brinell Hardness Test measures the relative hardness of metals and alloys, by forcing a 10mm hard steel ball into a test piece with a 3000kg load for 30 seconds and measuring the surface area of the resulting indentation. The load is reduced to 500kg for very soft materials and the steel ball is replaced with tungsten carbide for very hard materials.
Brinell is the oldest of the hardness test methods. Dr. J. A. Brinell invented the Brinell test in Sweden in 1900. It seems that Rockwell and Vickers did not make hardness testers until after the patents for the Brinell had run out about 1920.
It is my personal opinion that the problem of the Hispano-Suiza crankshaft was not so much the steel composition as the 180 degree crankshaft and the lack of proper balancing counterweights. Pictures do show that there was no overlap between the Rod journals and the main bearings to stiffen the crankshaft and change the natural frequency.

Dimensions (Lage’s book) of the Main Bearing journals are given on pages 41 left column paragraph 5 as 58mm O.D. x 36mm width early and 60mm O.D. x 40mm width later. Altho there is some differing of dimensions on Appendix II Page #481 where the journal Outside Diameters are given as Main Bearing (Supports) as 60mm O.D. x 42mm width. Connecting rod bearing 54mm O.D. x 64mm width early, 54mm O.D. x 70mm width later.

Altho not a part of the crankshaft group is the cylinder liner which was closed steel at the top where the valves sit directly on the cylinder liner itself. The trouble with this is the difference in the expansion rate of the steel liner and the aluminum cylinder head area. This caused a lot of unnecessary burning of the valves and the valve seats. Wright-Martin changed this to a cylinder liner open at both ends with steel valve seat inserted into the top end for the two valves directly into the aluminum head area. W-M also used much better steel in the valves themselves and this helped the life of the valves and the life of the engine. Later Wright-Martin even changed the name of the engine to “Tempest”. Finding out much about this engine is almost impossible as the present Wright Corp. won’t reveal the location of the information or who holds the rights to its disclosure.

In 1875 Johan August Brinell began his career as an engineer at the Lesjöfers Ironworks and in 1882 became chief engineer of the Fagersta Ironworks. While at Fagersta he studied the internal composition of steel during cooling and heating and devised his hardness test, which was displayed at the Paris Exhibition of 1900.
Brinell Hardness, the test method per ASTM E-18 and Newage Rockwell System selection
M.L. Anderson March-14-2008

[jumpinjan]

If a V8 engine uses a 180 degree (angle between crankpins) and 4 crankpins, the primary forces are balanced, the secondary forces are unbalanced and the rocking couples are balanced. Imagine this as two, I-4 engines that share the same crankpins. I'm pretty sure this does not need counterweights.
I haven't studied the HISPANO-SUIZA engine, but I'll try to get some engineering texts on it.
Jan

[Bletchley]

This may be of interest, from S.D. Heron's "History of the aircraft piston engine" (Ethyl Corporation, 1961):

"The Hispano-Suiza V-8...initial rating of 150 horsepower...had a light and weak crankcase which was stiffened very materially by two very stiff aluminum cylinder blocks. Although aluminum was used as a cylinder material, it did not contribute to cylinder cooling. In fact, the cooling was equivalent to that of a badly cooled steel cylinder...The engine had totally enclosed valve gear lubricated with engine crankcase oil...The design was exceedingly clever but showed little knowledge of either cylinder or valve cooling. However, none of us knew very much about these subjects in 1915...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...The late Henry Crane was responsible for introducing a greatly improved connecting rod design, but the exhaust valve durability of the American [Wright-Martin] engines was about as bad as that of the European design...Subsequent to the end of the war, a considerable number of direct-drive models were built by Wright Aeronautical (successor to Wright-Martin)...The engine had an unpleasant high-frequency vibration that put the pilots' feet to sleep." p.15-16

Bletchley

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

To; jumpinjan,
If you examine the Wolseley crankshaft you will notice the addition of the eight counterweights for the balancing of the Primary Shake. Also you can go to the two places I listed plus 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. It is my personal believe that they were just one step away from the development of the 90 degree V-8 crankshaft. However we will never know. Fortunately World War-1 ended about a year later.

Also you will find that on page 232 of the book by Alec Lumsden the Viper and Adder engines had balanced crankshafts but not the Secondary Horizontal Shake Damper used on the 1930-1931 American car engine the Oakland and also used on the Pontiac V-8 for just one year 1932 which was the same company just a change in names.

M.L. Anderson

[Greybeard]

Dear Mr. Anderson,

I'm unsure to have understood reason of your plethoric "raid" in this forum: I guess you're searching for confirmation the "Hisso" engines did have lubrication problems caused by vibration.

I believe possible to exclude such a phenomenon; lubrication and "shaking" are independent. Much more probable it was a cooling problem, like described by Bletchley. Oil overheating was only a consequence.

About "shaking", or vibration, as far as I know, only an in-line six cylinder can be balanced also for 2nd order ones; all remaining, like the 8V Hispano-Suiza, can be counterweighed only for 1st order forces. These latter are caused by oscillating masses of piston and about one third of rod weight, which tend, so to speak, to pull toghether the whole engine with each of them, up and down. Balancing weights on crankshaft *reduce* this forces, since they *rotate*, while those oscillate. Of course, they must be present of crankshaft, otherwise engine will retain all oscillating force caused by such moving masses. Indeed, in that era this was not yet always practiced.

GB

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Greybeard;

Shaking and Lubrication may have a lot more to do with one another than what you believe as one must remember that this pipe was supposedly made of COPPER, a metal I believe is very susceptible to vibration in thin wall applications. Altho this is not the primary thrust of my thot.

As to the Oil overheating I haven’t given this any thot at all as I do not believe this was a contributing factor in the pipe breakage. Oil chilling may or may not be the primary culprit as we will examine in the future. The ground work for this was laid out some years ago by Albert Caquot. This was started by my reading of several posts by Stephen Lawson in 2002 page #4415 permalinks # 5,6 & 8 which thoroly aroused my suspicion and distrust of the whole analysis of the so called gearbox situation. Of which I will get into at later date.

Possibly you may find the same thing that I consider a major flaw in this complete episode if you compare closely the finding of Caquot and the diary of Eastman. There are in my estimation two or three serious discrepancies in the two writings.

Yours, M. L. Anderson

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

While investigating the Brasier company and why they supposedly made such poor engines I ran across this item.

The Peking to Paris Motor Challenge
The Greatest Motoring Adventure
June - July, 2007Copper fuel pipes, unprotected and having to run the length of an engine bay, hanging over a hot engine, soon had tiny splits as a result of the vibration – all advice having been ignored. Peking to Paris Motor Challenge - 2007 Peking Paris

M.L. Anderson

[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

[Taz]

M.L. Anderson- Millions of V-8s with 90 deg crankshafts and 100s of thousands of V-8s with 180 deg crankshafts have been successfully built. The big advantage of the 180 deg crankshaft is the extraction of exhaust gasses from what is essentially two four cylinder engines, as Jan stated, and for this reason they have been largely limited to race or very high performance engines such as the Ferrari 308/328/430, all of which have 90 degree blocks. My 308 GTS worked just fine.

90 degree blocks and 180 degree crankshafts work just fine, as Ferrari can attest. What was the point of your post? There were myriads of engineering details needing to be fixed on WW-I engines for which they used as much trial and error as theoretical mathematical solutions. Much harder to do when you have to do everything with a slide rule. Aerodynamics and aircraft design were much the same. Some theory, some stiffness rules of thumb, much trial and error. Daimler's 220 PS, straight 8, Mercedes D.IV was a good example of unknown unknowns. It worked fine in two seat, single engine aircraft with relatively rigid engine mounts, but had severe torsional issues when mounted in twin engine aircraft with insufficient structure to dampen the torsional vibrations of the long block and crankshaft.

Eventually Birkigt and company worked out the details.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Partial quote Terry Phillips:
100s of thousands of V-8s with 180 deg crankshafts have been successfully built.
I doubt that 100s of thousands of 180 degree crank shafted engines have been built as Cadillac developed the 90 degree crankshaft V8 about 1923 There is a claim that 50,000 Hispano-Suiza engines were built but none of them were 90 degree crankshaft. If 100,000 180 degree crankshaft engines were built from the time that Levavasseur built the first V-8 engines in about 1903 I might go along with that, but 200,000 I find extremely unlikely.

Eventually Birkigt and company worked out the details.

Birkigt never did workout the shake and vibrations of his V-8 unless one calls the substitutions of the V-12 a solution of the problems of a V-8 with a 180 degree crankshaft with both Primary and Secondary Shake a solution. He never did even solve the Primary Shake that Wolseley did and none of them solved the Secondary Shake until Wright wanted to do in 1921 or so.

As to the 180 degree crankshaft engines built since 1923 Oakland-Pontiac built about 3,900 of that engine but this was with a full set of Primary Counterweights plus a Secondary Horizontal Shake Dampener. This was in 1930-31-32. After 1932 the amount of 180 degree crankshaft engines built is very small. I believe the 1939 Mercedes V-8 for the Tripoli race were 90 degree crankshaft.

Yours, M.L. Anderson