There's A 28 Litre, 1,100+ HP Allison V12 Aero Engine For Sale On eBay

[3toes]

THERE’S A 28 LITRE, 1,100+ HP ALLISON V12 AERO ENGINE FOR SALE ON EBAY


There's A 28 Litre, 1,100+ HP Allison V12 Aero Engine For Sale On eBay (https://silodrome.com/allison-v-1710-engine-for-sale/)

Have copied the pictures however not sure how to resize

The Allison V-1710 aircraft engine was originally intended for use in US military airships, it would later be used in a wide variety of aircraft during the Second World War including the original P-51 Mustang (https://silodrome.com/unrestored-p-51d-mustang/), the twin-engined Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the Bell P-39, the Curtiss P-40, and many others.
Known colloquially as “the Allison”, the V-1710 engine takes its model name from its displacement of 1,710.6 cu. in. (28 litres). It’s a 60º V12 with a single overhead cam per bank, four valves per cylinder, and it has a bore and stroke of 5.5 in. by 6 in. (139.7 mm by 152.4 mm).
Before and during WW2 the Allison V-1710 was offered in a number of configurations including naturally aspirated, supercharged, and turbo-supercharged. The engine you see here is one of the supercharged variants, with a large centrifugal supercharger mounted to the back of the engine in a similar configuration to the Rolls-Royce Merlin V12 (https://silodrome.com/documentary-rolls-royce-merlin-engine/).


Almost 70,000 Allison V-1710 engines were built during the war, and in the years after hostilities ceased many of them ended up being sold into private hands. It would be in private ownership that the Allison would see some of its most extreme development, the engines were used for land speed racing, high performance powerboats, and in tractor pulling competition.
Highly tuned versions of the V-1710 were capable of well over 3,000 hp, more than triple the original power rating of the first V-1710s. The Allison is still a common engine in the tractor pulling world, there are companies that specialize in rebuilding them and supplying parts, as well as advice.
The Allison V-1710 you see here is a military surplus unit, it comes with its original WW2 documentation showing that it was rebuilt in 1944 after being pulled from service in 1943 due to metal being found on the magnetic sump plug. Of course it would need a rebuilt again now before any serious use.
The engine is for sale on eBay with a Buy It Now price of $36,000 USD, it’s mounted to a steel engine stand and it comes in a wooden crate for shipping.

https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Allison-V-1710-aircraft-engine-1600x959.jpg

https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Allison-V-1710-aircraft-engine-document-bag.jpg


https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Allison-V-1710-aircraft-engine-ID-plate.jpg


https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Allison-V-1710-aircraft-engine-front-and-back-740x489.jpg

[PhilipA]

Otherwise known as an Americanised Rolls Royce Merlin.

you could buy them for a quid after the war. Maybe someone should have squirrelled a lot away and sold them now.
regards PhilipA

[Bigbjorn]

Otherwise known as an Americanised Rolls Royce Merlin.

you could buy them for a quid after the war. Maybe someone should have squirrelled a lot away and sold them now.
regards PhilipA

Not so. The Allison was designed in 1929 and first ran in 1930. The Merlin first ran in 1933. Some similarities. Both were V12's of near identical capacity, single overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, fork and blade rods with a variety of supercharger, carburetor, and magneto arrangements. I turned spanners on both way back in the early sixties building them for hydroplane racers. From the engine fitters point of view the Allison was superior. It had about half the number of parts as the Merlin and was much easier to service and rebuild. When I briefly worked for Ernie Nunn building up a Merlin for one of his boats I was offered a Mark sixty-something Merlin with the twin stage two speed superchargers for two hundred quid. Ernie was horrified. He said he had never paid more than ten quid for either a Merlin or Allison. Ernie was a tad careful with his brass. Merlins were made by Rolls-Royce at Derby, Crewe, and Glasgow, Ford Motor Coy at Manchester, Packard and Continental in the USA. Packard made about one third of them. Packard designed and made their own supercharger/accessory drive, a planetary arrangement. quite superior to the R-R drive. RR historians do not list any Australian production apparently regarding our output as assembly/partial manufacture. James Kirby still had Merlin special tools in 1963. I acquired some from a storeman in exchange for a quantity of Resch's Pilsener.

[Eevo]

i would love one, but not for that price

[Bigbjorn]

i would love one, but not for that price

Where were you in 1983. I sold one then I had owned for 20 years for $300. I bought it with the idea of a drag racer. Never got around to that but I did get it to run. Plumbed it and fired it up in the garage behind mum and dad's house in New Farm one Saturday afternoon. I thought I would have to put the hose on dad to quiet him down.

[Eevo]

Where were you in 1983.

sadly i wasnt born yet.

[ramblingboy42]

Yes , the Allison was a design of it's own.

I think people get a bit confused with the Packard V12s which I believe were manufactured by Packard under agreement from Rolls Royce.

From my experience it seemed the Rolls Royces found themselves mainly in aeroplanes and the Packards mainly in boats.

I would bet there are quite a few Packards still sitting around in some old dusty waterfront warehouses.

There were some Merlins that I knew of sitting around in Oakey,Qld , a few years ago.

[aussearcher]

The Allisons were apparently heavy on fuel compared with the Merlins. Charles Lindberg spent some time with one of the US Lightning squadrons based in PNG working on flight settings to (successfully) improve range. If the Allison is a bit pricey, there is another V12 at a more reasonable price on eBay UK at the moment: a Chinese tank engine (unused) military surplus in Albania.

[JDNSW]

Not so. The Allison was designed in 1929 and first ran in 1930. The Merlin first ran in 1933. Some similarities. Both were V12's of near identical capacity, single overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, fork and blade rods with a variety of supercharger, carburetor, and magneto arrangements. I turned spanners on both way back in the early sixties building them for hydroplane racers. From the engine fitters point of view the Allison was superior. It had about half the number of parts as the Merlin and was much easier to service and rebuild. When I briefly worked for Ernie Nunn building up a Merlin for one of his boats I was offered a Mark sixty-something Merlin with the twin stage two speed superchargers for four hundred quid. Ernie was horrified. He said he had never paid more than ten quid for either a Merlin or Allison. Ernie was a tad careful with his brass. Merlins were made by Rolls-Royce at Derby, Crewe, and Glasgow, Ford Motor Coy at Manchester, Packard and Continental in the USA. Packard made about one third of them. Packard designed and made their own supercharger/accessory drive, a planetary arrangement. quite superior to the R-R drive. RR historians do not list any Australian production apparently regarding our output as assembly/partial manufacture. James Kirby still had Merlin special tools in 1963. I acquired some from a storeman in exchange for a quantity of Resch's Pilsener.

My father would have made some of those tools.

A good indication of the relative place of the Allison and Merlin is the P51 Mustang. This was designed by North American in 1940 (in four months!) to meet a British request that they get a licence to build P-40s (which the British already had some of). Operational in 1942 they were no match for the Luftwaffe aircraft of the time (nor was the P-40). Installing the Merlin transformed the performance at altitude, and made it comparable to the German aircraft, without losing range. All future P-51s P-51B to P-51D were fitted with Merlins, specifically the Packard built version of the Merlin 66.

V-12 engines had been pretty much standard for large water cooled aircraft engines from about 1916, so there is nothing surprising that both engines were the same in this regard.

This particular engine would undoubtedly have been sold as scrap metal in 1946 or thereabouts, and as you say, around ten pounds was the going price. Of course, ten pounds ($20) was a lot more then than today - I saw one of my father's pay slips from the 1940s about fifty years ago, and his week's pay, for a toolmaker, was well under ten pounds.

Conceptually, someone has made a lot of money, but there are almost certainly better ways they could have spent the ten pounds seventy years ago!

[Pickles2]

Not so. The Allison was designed in 1929 and first ran in 1930. The Merlin first ran in 1933. Some similarities. Both were V12's of near identical capacity, single overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, fork and blade rods with a variety of supercharger, carburetor, and magneto arrangements. I turned spanners on both way back in the early sixties building them for hydroplane racers. From the engine fitters point of view the Allison was superior. It had about half the number of parts as the Merlin and was much easier to service and rebuild. When I briefly worked for Ernie Nunn building up a Merlin for one of his boats I was offered a Mark sixty-something Merlin with the twin stage two speed superchargers for four hundred quid. Ernie was horrified. He said he had never paid more than ten quid for either a Merlin or Allison. Ernie was a tad careful with his brass. Merlins were made by Rolls-Royce at Derby, Crewe, and Glasgow, Ford Motor Coy at Manchester, Packard and Continental in the USA. Packard made about one third of them. Packard designed and made their own supercharger/accessory drive, a planetary arrangement. quite superior to the R-R drive. RR historians do not list any Australian production apparently regarding our output as assembly/partial manufacture. James Kirby still had Merlin special tools in 1963. I acquired some from a storeman in exchange for a quantity of Resch's Pilsener.
Fantastic info. Thank You.
Pickles.

[Bigbjorn]

Yes , the Allison was a design of it's own.

I think people get a bit confused with the Packard V12s which I believe were manufactured by Packard under agreement from Rolls Royce.

From my experience it seemed the Rolls Royces found themselves mainly in aeroplanes and the Packards mainly in boats.

I would bet there are quite a few Packards still sitting around in some old dusty waterfront warehouses.

There were some Merlins that I knew of sitting around in Oakey,Qld , a few years ago.

Packard had been building V12's for aircraft, marine, automobiles since before 1920. The Packard V12 used in small craft like torpedo boats was a 40 litre engine of Packard's own design. Don't confuse this with the Packard built Merlins. Totally different engines.

[Bigbjorn]

My father would have made some of those tools.

A good indication of the relative place of the Allison and Merlin is the P51 Mustang. This was designed by North American in 1940 (in four months!) to meet a British request that they get a licence to build P-40s (which the British already had some of). Operational in 1942 they were no match for the Luftwaffe aircraft of the time (nor was the P-40). Installing the Merlin transformed the performance at altitude, and made it comparable to the German aircraft, without losing range. All future P-51s P-51B to P-51D were fitted with Merlins, specifically the Packard built version of the Merlin 66.

V-12 engines had been pretty much standard for large water cooled aircraft engines from about 1916, so there is nothing surprising that both engines were the same in this regard.

This particular engine would undoubtedly have been sold as scrap metal in 1946 or thereabouts, and as you say, around ten pounds was the going price. Of course, ten pounds ($20) was a lot more then than today - I saw one of my father's pay slips from the 1940s about fifty years ago, and his week's pay, for a toolmaker, was well under ten pounds.

Conceptually, someone has made a lot of money, but there are almost certainly better ways they could have spent the ten pounds seventy years ago!

Actually the Merlin was a very ordinary performer at altitude up until the Mk. 20 which was the first to use Stanley Hooker's two stage supercharger. This transformed performance above 20,000 feet. The turbo/supercharger system used on the Lockheed P38 needed a lot of development which it didn't get for a multitude of reasons. Allison were a relatively small company flat out on war production and didn't have the resources for development. Besides which the patents for the turbo system were owned by the USAAC who insisted Allison use them and actually supplied them to Allison after ordering them from GE. Given that the P38 had extraordinary ceiling and altitude performance and speed as was it would have been a real goer if the engine problems were sorted. The Allison and Merlin were the only liquid cooled engine used on US military aircraft in WW2. All others were aircooled radials.

[JDNSW]

Actually the Merlin was a very ordinary performer at altitude up until the Mk. 20 which was the first to use Stanley Hooker's two stage supercharger. This transformed performance above 20,000 feet. The turbo/supercharger system used on the Lockheed P38 needed a lot of development which it didn't get for a multitude of reasons. Allison were a relatively small company flat out on war production and didn't have the resources for development. Besides which the patents for the turbo system were owned by the USAAC who insisted Allison use them and actually supplied them to Allison after ordering them from GE. Given that the P38 had extraordinary ceiling and altitude performance and speed as was it would have been a real goer if the engine problems were sorted. The Allison and Merlin were the only liquid cooled engine used on US military aircraft in WW2. All others were aircooled radials.

The major problem with the turbos was that they required special alloys that were simply not available in the necessary quantities. Allison was not the only company stressed by wartime production problems - at least they didn't have bombs coming through the factory roof like RR did. Everyone was pushed to the limit, and many companies were doing things they had never done before. To take a local example, during the war, there were about ten thousand Gipsy Major engines built in Australia - by GMH and Tasmanian Railways! Neither organisation had built aeroplane engines before, even small ones like these.

The US did, as you say, largely use aircooled engines in WW2. This was mainly due to experience with the Liberty engine of WW1, which seems to have had major issues keeping water in. Both aircooled and liquid cooled engines were widely used by all the combatants in Europe, with top performers such as fighter aircraft using liquid cooled engines mainly because of their lower frontal area until fairly late in the war when the generally larger size of aircraft meant engine frontal area became less of an issue.

The US had an advantage in the aircooled engine in that a lot of development had continued in these in the two years before the country entered the war - once the war is on there is a strong pressure to stick with what you already have and develop that. A prime example is the Merlin. Developing 890hp in the Fairey Battle in 1936, in 1945, in the Hornet, it was producing over 2,000hp.

Aircooled engines were less able to be increased in power, a good example of a comparable power is the P&W R1830, which produced 800hp initially, but never exceeded 1350hp. It is a lot easier to increase the cooling in a liquid cooled engine!

[Bigbjorn]

The major problem with the turbos was that they required special alloys that were simply not available in the necessary quantities. Allison was not the only company stressed by wartime production problems - at least they didn't have bombs coming through the factory roof like RR did. Everyone was pushed to the limit, and many companies were doing things they had never done before. To take a local example, during the war, there were about ten thousand Gipsy Major engines built in Australia - by GMH and Tasmanian Railways! Neither organisation had built aeroplane engines before, even small ones like these.

The US did, as you say, largely use aircooled engines in WW2. This was mainly due to experience with the Liberty engine of WW1, which seems to have had major issues keeping water in. Both aircooled and liquid cooled engines were widely used by all the combatants in Europe, with top performers such as fighter aircraft using liquid cooled engines mainly because of their lower frontal area until fairly late in the war when the generally larger size of aircraft meant engine frontal area became less of an issue.

The US had an advantage in the aircooled engine in that a lot of development had continued in these in the two years before the country entered the war - once the war is on there is a strong pressure to stick with what you already have and develop that. A prime example is the Merlin. Developing 890hp in the Fairey Battle in 1936, in 1945, in the Hornet, it was producing over 2,000hp.

Aircooled engines were less able to be increased in power, a good example of a comparable power is the P&W R1830, which produced 800hp initially, but never exceeded 1350hp. It is a lot easier to increase the cooling in a liquid cooled engine!

Yes, Buick made several hundred thousand radial aircraft engines, Frigidaire made .50 machine guns in similar quantities after redesigning it to make it on their sheet metal machinery and by 1944 had cut the cost by more than half. Cadillac made tanks as did Chrysler. Ford made B24 bombers in the US and Merlins in England. Offenhauser who only made racing engines made fine tolerance hydraulic components for the Los Angeles aircraft factories having machining expertise second to none.

The US Navy was opposed to liquid cooled engines. The navy considered radials more tolerant of battle damage. Their concern was getting pilots back on board the carrier. Industry could make planes much quicker than the navy could train carrier pilots.

The Allison intake system on the P38 gave inefficient and unequal mixture distribution and needed a full redesign and testing. Uneven distribution is a major problem on a high boost pressure charged engine. They also suffered detonation (pre-ignition) under high boost condition. The boost retard systems available then were not up to the job and needed more work. Problems arose when using the P38 as escorts in the temperatures encountered at high altitudes in the European winter. Turbos would heat and cool unevenly and crack casings, Intercoolers freeze up. No such problems in the Pacific theatre where the USAAC loved them and kept asking for more. The USAAC credited the P38 with destroying the land based Japanese air force. It could fly higher and faster than anything the Japs had. Allison didn't have the resources to do the development and were reluctant to do so on items patented by someone else.

[cripesamighty]

This is a good read on the P-38.

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning (http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html)

[JDNSW]

Yes, Buick made several hundred thousand radial aircraft engines, Frigidaire made .50 machine guns in similar quantities after redesigning it to make it on their sheet metal machinery and by 1944 had cut the cost by more than half. Cadillac made tanks as did Chrysler. Ford made B24 bombers in the US and Merlins in England. Offenhauser who only made racing engines made fine tolerance hydraulic components for the Los Angeles aircraft factories having machining expertise second to none.

The US Navy was opposed to liquid cooled engines. The navy considered radials more tolerant of battle damage. Their concern was getting pilots back on board the carrier. Industry could make planes much quicker than the navy could train carrier pilots.

The Allison intake system on the P38 gave inefficient and unequal mixture distribution and needed a full redesign and testing. Uneven distribution is a major problem on a high boost pressure charged engine. They also suffered detonation (pre-ignition) under high boost condition. The boost retard systems available then were not up to the job and needed more work. Problems arose when using the P38 as escorts in the temperatures encountered at high altitudes in the European winter. Turbos would heat and cool unevenly and crack casings, Intercoolers freeze up. No such problems in the Pacific theatre where the USAAC loved them and kept asking for more. The USAAC credited the P38 with destroying the land based Japanese air force. It could fly higher and faster than anything the Japs had. Allison didn't have the resources to do the development and were reluctant to do so on items patented by someone else.

The US Navy was definitely opposed to liquid cooled engines, but not so much because of the risk of battle damage as because of their experience with the Liberty engine. The airforce, not so much, probably because, as you point out, easier to build more planes than to train pilots, and while a pilot who has to bail out of a plane over land has a good chance of survival, this does not apply over ocean. And the pilot over land may well be able to make a forced landing.

The Japanese had a serious problem with aeroplane engines during the war. While the Germans, English, Americans, and even Russians were able to successfully uprate their engines or design better ones and actually build them in useful numbers, it seems the Japanese were unable to do so. A good comparison is to look at the famous fighter aircraft of the war - Britain was using Spitfires at the start and finish, but the 1945 version was way ahead of the 1939 one, and they were also operating Typhoons, Hornets, Spiteful, that were not even thought of at the start of the war, in 1939 the best the US could do was the P-40, which was behind any of the European fighters in every respect, but by 1945 they had a whole range, including the P38, P51, and a number of others all undreamt of in 1939. Germany started the war with the Bf109, ended with the FW190 and Me262 (and the Bf109!). But Japan in 1939 had arguably the best shipboard fighter in the world in the A6M; it was still their front line aircraft in 1945, but had not only not improved in performance, but it was lower performance, as it had put on weight - but the new engine never went into production successfully. The big advantage the US had over everyone else was their industrial depth - as you say, car makers built planes - but they also built cars, trucks, jeeps etc. And, since this is a Landrover forum, worth pointing out that Rover built aeroplanes, aeroplane components, jet engines, and tank engines.

And let us not forget the debt owed to the fuel chemists in improving engine performance. In 1939, fuel was 80/87 octane at best, by 1945 front line aircraft were routinely using 115/145, and occasionally higher. Add this to improvements in supercharger, and this is where most of the increases in power came from (of course, the engine had to be strong enough mechanically and adequately cooled as well).

[Bigbjorn]

Packard had been building V12's for aircraft, marine, automobiles since before 1920. The Packard V12 used in small craft like torpedo boats was a 40 litre engine of Packard's own design. Don't confuse this with the Packard built Merlins. Totally different engines.

Here are some photos of a Packard V12 marine engine. These were taken at the Packard Museum in Dayton, Ohio. Well worth a visit if you are near. Some magnificent classic cars. It is in a former Packard dealership right in downtown Dayton158229158230158231.

The USAF National Museum is not far away. This needs several days if you are an aircraft fanatic. Carry your passport as you need to show it to get the tour of the restoration shop which is on a working air force base.

Here is another photo. This one has been restored and is in the Nethercutt Museum in Sylmar, Los Angeles. Another do not miss place if you are in LA.158236

[3toes]

An Uncle worked on both Merlin and Packard Merlins during WW2. He once commented that you did not need to see the makers name plate to know which was which. His opinion was that although both were built to the same standards that those of one manufacturer were more exacting was evident to anyone who spent their time up to their elbows in them

[Bigbjorn]

An Uncle worked on both Merlin and Packard Merlins during WW2. He once commented that you did not need to see the makers name plate to know which was which. His opinion was that although both were built to the same standards that those of one manufacturer were more exacting was evident to anyone who spent their time up to their elbows in them

Absolute nonsense. All were built to high standards. Merlins were built in Crewe, Derby, Glasgow by Rolls Royce, in Manchester by Ford , and in Detroit by Packard. Packard at one time couldn't keep up and subbied some production out to Continental. It was Ford and Packard that showed R-R how to mass produce high precision engine parts to be assembled by unskilled labour. Ford and Packard between them made slightly more than half of all Merlin production.

Sir Stanley Hooker wrote this in his autobiography "Not much of an engineer".

Stanley Hooker's autobiography, Not Much of an Engineer, deals mostly with his work on Rolls-Royce jet engines. But its section on Merlin development, the superchargers of which Hooker played a role in developing, is illuminating:

"In my enthusiasm, I considered that Rolls-Royce designs were the ne plus ultra, until the Ford Motor Co. in Britain was invited to manufacture the Merlin in the early days of the War. A number of Ford engineers arrived in Derby, and spent some months examining and familiarizing themselves with the drawings and manufacturing methods. One day their Chief Engineer appeared in (Merlin development head Cyril Lovesey's) office, which I was then sharing, and said, 'You know, we can't make the Merlin to these drawings.'

"I replied loftily, 'I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can't achieve the accuracy.'

"'On the contrary,' he replied, 'the tolerances are far too wide for us. We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass production.'"

[JDNSW]

Mass production, in the sense of interchangeable parts, only really entered the aeroplane engine world in WW2. Like other aero engine manufacturers, Rolls Royce built engines by fitting the manufactured parts, often by selective fit. It was the way it had always been done, and working to the very close tolerances needed for these engines without having to do 'fitting', was not justified for the small numbers of aero engines that were produced up till then. There simply were not very many aero engines built of any one design.

But motor manufacturers, or at least the (successful) mass market ones, had already crossed that bridge, some of them even before WW1. When these companies were asked (or told) to build aero engines, they had already leaned how to do this, and passed this on to the aero engine designers and original manufacturers.

Two other factors affected this ability - the need for improved production machinery, including some less obvious things; for example, building aero engines in Australia was only possible after the establishment of the National Standards Laboratory (now National Measurement Institute).

A less obvious difference in building these engines was the extent to which the designers had incorporated ease of manufacture in the design. And this is tied to how well the designers knew the production methods, and very likely led to a lot of changes in the Merlin, as well as the Allison over the war years.