The Tempest was capable to fly faster than 800 km/h with emergency power . One is being restored by Kermit Weeks in Florida . He has a brand new Sabre and the plane will fly in few years becomming the only flying Hawker Tempest Mk V . A beast that I'll love to see in her element .

@thatonescrambler

2 ай бұрын

Yup.

@pazsion

2 ай бұрын

emergency power? what did that do? a prop plane that could fly over 630mph?

@shtupidmate

2 ай бұрын

@@pazsion War Emergency Power, or WEP is a system in wartime propeller aircraft that temporarily pushes the engines out of its safe operating limits for short periods of time in the name of power, e.g. if your life / plane depends on you outclimbing an enemy aircraft on your tail, you would use WEP. This was done by water / water-methanol injection or increasing forced induction pressure. It's only for short periods however, as more than a few hours of WEP operation often requires an engine rebuild / overhaul.

@waynec3563

2 ай бұрын

The Tempest could do 800km/h in a dive. The Supermarine Spiteful XVI, of which only 2 were made, could do 494mph/795km/h. The fastest Sabre powered fighter was the Hawker Fury prototype, which managed 484mph/779km/h. There were three Fury prototypes made, two powered by the Centaurus. The third was initially powered by a Rolls-Royce Griffon, and then changed to the Sabre.

@priceyA320

2 ай бұрын

@@TheSilverShadow17 How about not. 700 mph is 608 knots. At 15000 ft that is Mach 1 I.e. supersonic (square root of the degrees kelvin times 38.94 = local speed of sound in knots) No WW2 piston engine fighter was capable of anything like Mach 1, for aerodynamic reasons as well as not enough power and also a propeller aerodynamic reasons like the prop tips going supersonic long before the aircraft does.

Napier was one of the coolest engine design companies around. This engine, and others like the Deltic, earned them a place in history.

@Damien.D

2 ай бұрын

Yeah they did exotic concept, and made them work mostly flawlessly (comparatively to their complexity).

@ManiacRacing

2 ай бұрын

Yeah. I love sleeve valves regardless just for the seeming simplicity, and yet insane mechanical complexity. Always wanted to design a small motorcycle two stroke with a sleeve valve engine.@@Damien.D

@juhajuntunen7866

2 ай бұрын

​@@ManiacRacingthat would be interesting concept... big exhaust ports open at end of stroke, got all possible power from power stroke.

@ManiacRacing

2 ай бұрын

Exactly. Combine the timing control of sleeve openings with two stroke breathing and simplicity. A single sleeve should not be too crazy complex...@@juhajuntunen7866

@ManiacRacing

Ай бұрын

yes, I think so as well, but rotary valves have been used to great effect by rotax among others....I believe there is room for a sleeve valve design @@Turnipstalk

Bristol were hardly "eager" to help Napier with the sleeve valve problem. They were ordered to by the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

@davidhollenshead4892

Ай бұрын

The Sleeve Valve Engine always had issues, the reason development stopped at the end of the war. Remember the first British Tanks of the Mark Series also had a Sleeve Valve Engine that leaked so much exhaust that it often sickened or killed the crew. Many of the Tanks that Germany used in WWI were British Mark Series Tanks, as they would keep lumbering past the Germans until they ran out of fuel or got stuck. The Germans opened them, removed the dead crew, added a large blower to remove the fumes, and then painted the Iron Cross on them, and used them to fight the British & French...

@keithstudly6071

Ай бұрын

And the company that took over production of the Saber after Napier failed was Rolls-Royce. Napier was judged to be very poor in the management of the Saber program. Bristol did better with their sleeve valve engines which were radials and ended up powering the Hawker Sea Fury which was an excellent aircraft.

@robertnicholson7733

Ай бұрын

@@keithstudly6071 Rolls-Royce built a sleeve valve H24 engine called the Eagle22, it was internally quite different to the Sabre, however R-R DID NOT take over Sabre production or have anything to do with it at all. The British government forced the sale of Napier to English Electric. Although this is considered by many to have saved the Sabre, there is a counter view that it created more problems and disruption than it solved.

@robertnicholson7733

Ай бұрын

@@davidhollenshead4892 Do you have a reference for this information? I thought the poisonous environment was more likely caused by the fact there was no partition between the crew, the guns and the engine, they cohabitated, so the crew had to withstand any leaks in the exhaust system, oil leaks, etc. In both the double acting and single acting sleeve valves (they are very different, both the British sleeve valve aero engines [including the Sabre] and the experimental American sleeve valve engines built by Continental and Pratt& Whitney used single acting sleeves) the sleeves are fully internal to the engine so any blow-by, oil fumes, and smoke will be contained within the engine and only make it to the outside by the crankcase breather and the exhaust system. The Mark I tank used a Daimler double-acting sleeve valve engine. The problem with this engine was not so much the interior of the tank but that the very smokey exhaust betrayed its position to the enemy. As far as I am aware, the single acting sleeve valve engine was not used in British WWI tanks. The Mark V used the Ricardo petrol engine. As to development not stopping on the sleeve valve engines, this is true, although Bristol manufactured them right up to the point that they were acquired by Rolls-Royce. I should mention that car companies that manufactured quite advanced engines in WWII went back to the push-rod and side-valve engines they made before WWII, there was no need for the technology used in advanced high-power aircraft engines to be used in the family car.

@keithstudly6071

Ай бұрын

@@robertnicholson7733 My apologies. It was English Electric that took over Napier in December 1942. They found that Bristol was able to produce higher quality cylinders for sleeve valve engines than Napier and got Bristol to produce Saber cylinders after a deal was made to get 6 precision centerless grinders from the USA which had been earmarked for Pratt & Whitney's Kansas City factory that was trying to start production on the improved R-2800C engines.

I relative of mine flew the Hawker Typhoon, I think in 1943 or 1944. Where he was strafing canals and trains in Belgium and Netherlands in low level attacks. He had engine failure over the English Channel and bailed out, unfortunately he didn’t survive.

Great stuff, Visioracer! Napier Sabre is one of my favorite engines. Napier made four of the coolest engines ever to be created, and all of very different configurations: Lion W-12 of WW1. Sabre H-24 of WW2. Nomad Flat-12 2-stroke turbocompound diesel for airliners. Deltic 18-cylinder 2-stroke opposed-piston diesel for locomotives and torpedo boats. I keep hoping that somebody will revive the sleeve-valve concept. Back in the 1920's and 30's Harry Ricardo made very systematic studies of poppet and sleeve valve engine performance, and concluded that sleeve valves were superior. They allowed higher compression ratio, better volumetric efficiency, and higher operating speed. The best application of the Sabre during WW2 was in Hawker Tempests chasing and shooting down V-1 buzzbombs. Even though it didn't have a great supercharger for high-altitude performance, the single-stage supercharged Sabre was faster than anything at low altitudes.

@jbepsilon

2 ай бұрын

The lack of sleeve valves in the zillions of engines produced after WWII suggests that, in fact, they were not inherently superior to poppet valves. Sleeve valves were a suggested solution to some problems encountered by poppet valve engines in the 1920'ies. By the mid-30'ies, however, poppet valve technology had moved on and pretty much solved these problems, while sleeve valves brought along a boatload of rather serious issues themselves, some of which were rather fundamental and not solvable. We should be thankful that people like Halford and Fedden and their teams put in a lot of elbow grease trying to make them work, so we can see how well they worked, but ultimately they were a technological dead end.

@bocahdongo7769

2 ай бұрын

"Sleeve valve are superior." was completely hindsight quotes at that time. You must know that at that time, poppet valve isn't capable of beyond 3000 RPM and only has 6:1 compression ratio at best. But dear oh dear, we live in 2024. Poppet valve already on 22.000 RPM and 20:1 compression ratio. Whereas sleeve valve was considered obsolete because (surprise surprise) worse compression ratio ceiling, volumetric efficiency ceiling, and operating speed ceiling. On top of dumb thing such as excessive oil burning and mechanically complex engine. Sleeve valve just aged like a milk, and with same resource you can ressurect opposite piston diesel engine instead, or literally anything better

@Danger_mouse

2 ай бұрын

Funny how time and technology move on. A mundane Honda naturally aspirated K24 2.4 engine uses poppet valves and produces 1.37hp/Ci, all with no super charger and conforming to current fuel emissions standards, all while having 10,000km service intervals and long service life. I highly doubt we'll see sleeve valves make a comeback any time in the future.

@MrThatnativeguy

2 ай бұрын

I love the Deltic, I’ve had the pleasure of operating a locomotive equipped with one once, it has quite a thunderous roar at full chat!

@robertpatrick3350

2 ай бұрын

@@jbepsilon no the absence of zillions is flawed as sleeve valves were still in the early phase of their development if the war had continued poppet valved engines would have been widely supplanted in high performance applications. Furthermore US manufacturers were behind and lacked the ability to produce comparable engines.

A sleeve valve engine has high oil consumption and can be difficult to start in freezing temperatures. That is why they are not used anymore. Then of course by the time the Tempest came out the Me 262 did too.

@keithammleter3824

2 ай бұрын

Another important factor: in the 1920's, poppet exhaust valves set a limit on engine performance because doing anything to increase power output for a given cylinder size led to exhaust valves being overheated and burning out. Sleeve valves don't have this problem and experts including Harry Ricardo promoted sleeve valves as the future. However, in time for WW2 engines such as the Merlin, sodium filled stellite exhaust valves were developed, which had improved heat flow into the cylinder head and withstood higher temperatures anyway. These rendered sleeve valves obsolete virtually overnight.

@keithammleter3824

2 ай бұрын

@@Turnipstalk That's true in theory, however aircraft engines of WWII vintage were limited to about 7:1 so that they could use low swirl combustion for efficiency and so they could use supercharging/turbocharging. The Napier engines featured in this video had a 7:1 compression ratio, actually higher than for example the poppet valve Merlin, which had only 6:1. Both required fuel of at least 100 octane rating. In terms of combustion conditions, supercharging is much the same as raising the compression ratio, as is turbocharging, except that turbocharging is a little more efficient as it uses waste heat in the exhaust instead of taking some power from the crankshaft.

@robertnicholson7733

Ай бұрын

Once it was sorted, the single-acting sleeve valve system used in the Bristol, Rolls-Royce, and Napier engines had similar oil consumption figures to the equivalent poppet valved engines. As the war went on, the oil consumption of both types of engines was significantly reduced

@robertnicholson7733

Ай бұрын

@@keithammleter3824 This is true, however unlike poppet valves, the sleeve valve was not prone to leading with high grade fuels that contained large amounts of TEL. They also had superior tumble and swirl characteristics. Despite all the reported problems of sleeve valves (setting aside the Crecy) three of the last four piston aircraft engines designed by Rolls-Royce were sleeve valve, the Exe, The Pennine, and the Eagle 22 H24 (the last piston engine they designed), the only poppet valve engine after the Merlin (design started in 1933) was the Griffin (design started in 1939). It begs the question, given R-R's knowledge about poppet valve improvement, why the sleeve valve designs?

@keithammleter3824

Ай бұрын

@@robertnicholson7733 ; I can only speculate, though with some certainty. The Pennine and the Exe are really the same engine in different sizes. Intended for commercial heavy transport use they were air cooled to reduce maintenance costs. Maintaining closely to a design operating temperature is more difficult than with liquid cooling - possibly some engineer decided to pay safe and use sleeve valves. The Eagle series of engines originated back before sodium filled poppet valves became available. Design on the Exe started in the mid 1930's - when the industry was in transition from plain stellite poppets to sodium filled poppets. Basic features eg inline, V, X, etc type of cooling, type of valves get set early in the design process as once decided, changing basically means starting all over again. No more aircraft engines with poppets or sleeves came from Rolls Royce after these because Rolls Royce changed to making jet engines. The Merlin & Griffin were as good as is possible - so close to the theoretical maximum thermodynamic efficiency you couldn't make a better piston aircraft engine to run on 100 octane juice now.

I can believe that ive been watching your videos for 8 years, because your content is consistent and flawless man

This was my first time ever hearing about the Napier Sabre, it's quite a fascinating and unique engine that didn't get enough time in the spotlight like the Merlin did.

My great uncle flew Typhoons, he was the only RAF pilot ever to survive a mid air tail loss, another of the many issues with the aircraft!

Napier did build a two stroke but this was the opposed piston Culverin diesel and later Deltic which had three cranks and three lines of cylinders. The deafening two stroke mentioned in the video was probably the Rolls-Royce Crecy. A sleeve valve direct injection V12. Sadly largely neglected by RR so it never saw service.

Torsion bar is more accurately a quill shaft or jackshaft

Thanks!!! VisioRacer!!! Unique!!!

It really shows what a blessing the early jet engines were, compared to these mechanical monstrosities that required exotic super high octane fuels. More power, far fewer parts and could burn kerosene.

@alanbrown397

Ай бұрын

The fuel requirement wasn't the issue so much as the insane maintenance requirements - this is why piston engines came off airliners as soon as turbojet fuel consumption got low enough to be viable

I forget the source but I recall reading somewhere that the typical overhaul time for the Sabre was listed simply as 1 man year.

@neilreynolds3858

2 ай бұрын

🤣

@1967250s

2 ай бұрын

2,000 hours ?!

Tremendous video, amazing engine!

As much as the last of the aero piston engines are works of art, its easy to see why turbine engines become popular.

Once again a very interesting video. Fantastic engine 🙂

@vuvinh2032

2 ай бұрын

Sounds good even in it the same thx for engine simulator

Great video, love this aircraft ❤

Honestly, I think the horizontally opposed engine is probably the best design for most automobiles. There is the width issue, but careful design can create and engine that is not that wide, and it will fit in a car that has comfortable but not excessive width. AMC in the United States produced a car called the Pacer in 1975, and it was heralded as the "First Wide Small Car", and yes it was wider than most cars at 1963 mm. But it's dimensions were based upon four people sitting comfortably in a box, not around an engine as many cars are built. The Subaru Outback car from 2001 is 1745 mm wide, and it seats two comfortably with a horizontally opposed engine in the front of the car, where the wheels still need to turn. Thus the notion that the "flat" engine is bad due to packaging is nonsense. These engines have perfect primary and secondary balance and are not hard to service at all. Spark plug access on Subaru's can be described as "different, but do-able". You just need to look at a video on how to do it and then it isn't tough at all, since the frame rail is right next to the head and coils. I have two flat-6 cars, a '14 Porsche Cayman S with a 3.4 liter F6, and an '01 Subaru Outback LL Bean edition with the "H6" engine. The engines are amazingly similar, and not all that much different from the 9.4 liter Lycoming and Continental flat-6 engines that I have dealt with in general aviation. Most light aircraft use horizontally opposed four and six cylinder engines of 300-600 cubic inches because this design is easy to cool using air only, which increases reliability. AND they can make big power with direct drive at only 2700 rpm. I loved pancakes when I was a kid. And I like engines like them now!

@MrThatnativeguy

2 ай бұрын

Sure maybe 25 years ago width would have been an issue but all cars have gotten much wider so an opposed piston may be possible these days.

@Flies2FLL

2 ай бұрын

@@MrThatnativeguy Opposed piston engines allow full expansion, but the extra drag of all the mechanical linkages cancels out any efficiency advantage. Along with far more expensive construction. -You do know the difference between opposed piston and horizontally opposed engines right-?

It's amazing how complex engines they could build in these days! There is no internal combustion engine today that complex!

@Pesmog

Ай бұрын

The Napier Sabre and the Napier Nomad diesel are regarded as two of the most complex engines ever made. They were though, at a kind of engineering dead end as by the end of the war and subsequently 4 stroke internal combustion engines using conventional poppet valves and forced induction has proven to be more scalable.

@alanbrown397

Ай бұрын

@@Pesmog The Nomad proved that turbocompounding wasn't worthwhile - half the power came from the exhaust turbine with only 3 moving partsm vs thousands in the gas generator (piston engine). Jets had the advantage of being 1/10 the weight in addition to the lower part count

@alanbrown397

Ай бұрын

@@mitchellcouchman6589 Yup, but that didn't take long. British jets were already fairly good by the start of WW2 and what let the german ones down was availability of materials. Powerjets was already working on bypass engines at the start of WW2

A good example of wonderfully complicated engineering that was designed to give mechanics a great big headache. Simplicity is the key but that was not Napier’s aim.

Interesting design but far too complicated for a war machine. I love the sound.

@sethharpenger607

2 ай бұрын

I could be simpler but its already an excellent engine with poor support

Please do a video on the Fred Offenhauser engine. Its head and engine block were one piece. They could run insane boost pressures and were able to get about 1400 hp out of their 2.6L 4 cylinder. Indy car eventually restricted them out of the racetrack.

@mikesmith7447

Ай бұрын

😳

Keep it up Bro.

nice vid and great research as always, but why not to mention all sources in the vid?

Don't know how you manage to do such comprehensive, high quality yet short mini-documentaries.

Like any new design there were teething problems but towards their use they were a much more reliable unit.

Honda proved in the 1960s that multiplying the number of cylinders in order to allow higher rpm limits was the best way of achieving higher hp for a given displacement. Sleeve valves have one big advantage over poppet valves: they don't have any exhaust valve to create a hot spot in the combustion chamber so they aren't prone to preignition which makes them very tolerant of lower octane fuels. They also have a big disadvantage: they consume a lot of oil. The most exciting news about the Napier Sabre is that a Tempest is being restored in the US by Kermit Weeks while Typhoons are being restored to flying condition in Canada and the UK. What this means is that in a few years we will be able to hear the roar of a running Sabre, a sound that has not been heard on Earth in almost 7 decades.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

Honda was certainly not the first to discover the advantages of multi-cylinder layouts... higher rpm is not an advantage for propeller driven aircraft which is why aero engines rev slower than motorcycle or automobile engines. The advantage of the sleeve valve design is volumetric efficiency.

I've never seen that sleeve valves system before. Interesting design.

Increasing the octane rating of the fuel reduced the advantage of the sleeve valve design. Although I love non-poppet-valve designs, high octane avgas and sodium cooled valves moved the advantage away from sleeve valve engines. Sleeve valves could still get slightly higher performance, but the added complexity reduced reliability enough that it was only worth it to squeeze maximum performance out of the last piston engined fighters. After the war, when reliability became more important, they were discarded.

Both the Packard-Merlin and Pratt and Whitney R-2800 did more to win the war. And the Wright R-3350 ended it.

Napier certainly had a way of thinking out of the box. Just remember the Deltic…

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

Napier bought the Deltic technology from Jumo

@paulqueripel3493

2 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 that was the Culverin, which was going to be a Jumo built under licence. The Deltic took it further by changing the layout of the cylinders, number of crankshafts (& the need to rotate one backwards).

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

@paulqueripel3493 Napier licensed the Culverin, Cutlass, Rombus and Deltic designs from Junkers Jumo AG.

04:18 awesome sounding engine!

Good video, silly title. Nice internal component shots. That post-Normandy particle separator (now common on helicopters) may be the first of that style.

Good explanation Thankyou. The initial sleeve valve issues were resolved by Bristols being compelled by government to reveal the process by which they had done the same ( very expensively ) for their radial sleevevalvers in the late thirties, in the Nick of time for the war . The Hercules being without doubt a superb powerplant. Grateful for the soundtrack also. There is now a Tempest 11 (Centaurus) the fastest variant PR533 in airworthy condition, hopefully one of the Sabre Tempest V’s will be completed soon . Brute of an aircraft or not it clobbered more V1’s than all other types.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

It's important also to remember that Bristol licensed the technology from the American Knight company who invented sleeve valve engines.

@johncrispin2118

Ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Interesting indeed, but I thought the Knight car engine was a dual sleeve? A far cry from the mono sleeve patented by Burt and Mcollum and applied in the rather barren post ww1 years without much impact. Fedden waited for the expiring patent from Burt McCollum in late 1926 to start the long long path of research to build the well known Bristol sleeve v radials which followed In the thirties.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

@@johncrispin2118 British Daimler ( a Knight licensee) was the origin of the Bristol designs.. Knight patented both single and dual sleeve designs.

@danielstickney2400

Ай бұрын

Sabre production was also saved by an emergency shipment of high precision American machine tools, in particular Sundstrom centerless grinding machines that had been previously promised to Pratt & Whitney. Napier's prewar practice of "close enough" machining followed by laborious hand fitting was great for producing racing engines and prototypes, not so great for mass production.

Let's make an engine move around the pistons, Jerry will not see that one coming!

@beaterbikechannel2538

Ай бұрын

British engines. Yes.....but.....

If you think that's smoking the Crecy was on a whole new level

Not sure that the Bristol Aeroplane Company was ‘eager’ to help the rival Napier Company solve their engineering problems. I think it was more a case of the Air Ministry (in the middle of a major war) knocking heads together, and forcing them to help out instead! The 1690kg, 71-litre P & W Wasp Major made about 4,300 hp, compared to the 1070kg, 37-litre Sabre at 3500hp.

Time to make a video about the Centaurus! Coolest radialengine ever produced!

I am obsessed with the Sabre. It's just such a completely bonkers motor.

@djcjr1x1

2 ай бұрын

Me too! First time I saw those sleeve valves my head almost blew right off.🤯

@daviddavid5880

2 ай бұрын

@@djcjr1x1 Major Halford looked at the menu and said "Yes. All of it. With gravy"

@terraboundmisfit

2 ай бұрын

It is not a motor!

@djcjr1x1

Ай бұрын

@@terraboundmisfit that always bugs me too it's an engine, as a mechanic my dad made sure I knew the difference at a young age. I think it's too cemented in people's minds to change now though.🙄

These used a large amount of castor oil in their oil; The mechanics that worked on these invariably ingested small amounts of this oil, which is a powerful laxative. "I've gotta go potty!"

@keithammleter3824

2 ай бұрын

That sounds like an urban myth or maybe you made it up. A typical adult dose to make you go is 15 to 20 ml - about one tablespoon. It is quite likely that mechanics with oil on their hands might wipe their mouths and ingest some oil, but it would be nowhere near a spoonful, even if it was 100% castor used. In any case, the digestive system has great powers of automatic adjustment and under regular ingestion will overcome any laxative cause. Those of us old guys who, like Joe Biden, are on a drug esopremazole long term (eg to stop chest pain) know that - it causes diarrhea but only for the first few days. When you stop taking it, you don't go for about a week. In WW1 it was said that pilots ingested castor oil blown back in their faces by the open design radial engines of the period. But considering they had to fly rickety cloth & string biplanes into enemy territory and get shot at, I reckon anyone would get the urge to evacuate regardless of what they did or did not ingest.

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

​@keithammleter3824 Rotary type engines used castor oil and were total loss lubrication, most of the oil was ejected from the exhaust ports and blown back towards the pilot and crew. The typical image of the WW1 pilot wearing a scarf was a very practical article of clothing used to cover the pilots mouth and prevent ingesting the castor oil

@terrydepew1252

2 ай бұрын

If they did indeed use castor bean oil in the Typhoon and Tempest, the flight lines must have smelled wonderful. Castor bean oil was well known for unmatched lubricity and was quite common in the 60's and 70's in racing two strokes. I road raced club level in the early 70's at Ontario on a 750 Honda and the smell in the pits and even on the track following a bike burning race gas and bean oil was quite lovely. Even some of the 4 stroke bikes had it in the crankcase. There was no mistaking the aroma. The sounds of twin and multi 3 and 4 cylinder 2 strokes mixed with the booming twin XR 750 Harleys and the odd BMW boxer, 3 cylinder BSA and Triumph triples and Honda 500 or 750 and of course a 4 cylinder Z1 900 Kawasaki or two all making music to ones ears mixed with the smell of castor......well it was just magic. Ontario Motor Speedway Champion Spark Plug Motorcycle Classic 1972 or 1974 I think it was. The race tracks will never sound or smell as sweet as those days. Blendzall had 3-4 different castor bean oil mixes. I think Blendzall gold had nitro in it. I remember Blendzall green also. Later on when working on my bike in the garage I would grab a quart of Castrol pure castor bean oil and would put some in a teaspoon that was held in my bench vise and I would put a torch under the spoon to "cook off" the bean oil just to get the garage smelling somewhat like the good ole days at the race track. I never ran bean oil in my two stroke Yamaha due to it gumming up everything in short order and needing to be disassembled regularly for cleaning the top end. I ran an early synthetic Steen C in my 2 stroke Yamaha cafe racer. Much cleaner burning but nowhere near as nice smelling as bean oil. I did run Cox model airplane fuel with bean oil and nitro in a lawn mower back then tho. Same wonderful smell! To your remark about laxative qualities of castor oil my Dad told me a spoon of castor oil was used as a threat when he was mis behaving as a kid in the 30's. He said the mere threat would straighten him right out.

@keithammleter3824

2 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 ; Yes, I should have written "rotary" where i wrote "radial".

@keithammleter3824

2 ай бұрын

@@terrydepew1252 : My mother told me much the same story as your Dad. If I remember right she said it tasted really foul. It was the foul taste that made her behave more than the trots.

There’s a typhoon being restored in the UK so there will be a running flying sabre soon!

@andrewtadd4373

2 ай бұрын

RB396 👍

@chunkblaster

Ай бұрын

Hope to see it at the new (formerly Reno) air races

I have an engineering drawing of this engine on a livingroom wall. ..

A truly fascinating piece of engineering,this. Great vid,sir!

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

Sleeve valve engines were a fascinating technology, invented by American Charles Knight and licensed to many European companies

The Sabre had THREE inlet ports and TWO exhaust ports, the sleeves had FOUR ports. One of the sleeve ports (openings) serviced both an inlet and an exhaust port. This is the same arrangement as the Bristol sleeve valves, the Rolls-Royce sleeve valves and the little-known experimental Continental (at least some of them) and Pratt& Whitney sleeve valve arrangements. This is usually considered a no-no in engineering, with first relatively cool inlet gases travelling through the port followed very quickly by very hot exhaust gases, but it seemed to work. There was never a 4000hp two-stroke deafening engine. I suspect you have conflated the Napier two-cylinder test engine that was built under the same project as the Rolls-Royce Crecy (the deafening part) with the Napier Nomad, a two-stroke flat 12 diesel compounded with a gas turbine, a very fuel-efficient but complex engine that incorporated many novel features. The Sabre suffered from two major failure points, the manufacturing of the sleeves, which is well known. Lesser know were the problems with the plain journal bearings in the bottom end. A factory was built across the road from Napier's Acton works specifically to produce Vandervell shell-type crankshaft plain bearings for this engine. The reduction gearing on the Sabre is very interesting and uses a novel system to eliminate lash between the two crankshafts. The Rapier was never put into production although it was used in at least one prototype. The Dagger was put into service but amongst other things the aircrews hated it, it revved at 4200 rpm and unlike the Sabre it fired at a regular interval of 30 degrees so it sounded like an unmuffled 8.4 litre 12 cylinder engine revving at 8400 rpm constantly - that was defending and in the Hereford the engines could not be synched causing a maddening low frequency beat. Having said this, the Mark VIII produced just under 1000hp from 16.8 litres, about the same specific power as the early production Sabres. It was an air-cooled overhead cam design with two poppet valves per cylinder. The air cooling was its Achilles Heal.

Fantastic engine noise, comparable to the Trumpets of Jericho to German troops on D-Day!

This is by far the most complex engine ever produced, imagine this was done 80 years ago..

Old time engineers were crazy but in good way!

The North American P-51D Mustang was probably the most successful airplane of WWII, but in my opinion, if this Napier Sabre engine with 2500 hp had been grafted onto the small airframe, you would have the only piston powered fighter of the war that could at least stand up to the 600 mph jets. They mounted it on the Hawker Typhoon and while this was a winning combination, the front mounted radiator incurred a large drag penalty in comparison with the rear mounted radiator and belly scoop of the P-51 design. Chuck Yeager said the Focke Wulf FW-190 was the best piston fighter he ever flew, but that was based upon its maneuverability, the P-51D was faster. The Focke Wulf TA-152 was a high altitude fighter based upon the FW-190 with a huge bomber engine and it was very fast, but lacked maneuverability due to the larger wing and heavier design. Great video as always!

@andrewtadd4373

2 ай бұрын

@Flies2FLL Hawker did try the rear mounted radiator on the Typhoon on early developmental aircraft but found it was causing handling issues. Although the chin radiator looks ungainly, it does infact produce the same effect as the Mustang radiator. The Tempest Mk.V kept the chin mounted radiator on the insistence of the Ministry of aircraft production, the Tempest Mk.I had leading mounted radiators and was the fastest of all the marks of Tempest, and in my opinion the best looking too.

@Flies2FLL

2 ай бұрын

@@andrewtadd4373 Can you site your sources for that information?

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

*The Messerschmitt Me-109 was the most successful fighter aircraft in history.*

@Flies2FLL

2 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 No.

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

@Flies2FLL *THE MESSERSCHMITT ME-109 IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FIGHTER AIRCRAFT DESIGN IN HISTORY, THE 109 IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SHOOTING DOWN OVER 15,000 AIRCRAFT AND IS UNMATCHED IN COMBAT PERFORMANCE.*

That's no doubt is Hawker Tempest V is the on of best fighter in ww2

@v4skunk739

2 ай бұрын

No where near.

@johnh6524

2 ай бұрын

@v4skunk739 The aircraft capable of dealing with FW 190s on hit and run raids, shooting down buzz bombs and dealing wth ME262 at low altitudes - clearly one of the best fighters and fighter bombers of the war.

wonderful

"So how much pistons do you want?" "Yes" "And how many valves would it need?" "No"

I always thougt the cranks where set to run so the engine fired at 30° it fires simultaneously RG500 style. Every day a school say here!

The Merlin V12 was by far the top engine for the Allies in WW2.

@jbepsilon

2 ай бұрын

The Merlin had the good fortune of good timing, being ready in time for WWII and still had enough legroom in the basic design that it was usable as a front line engine for the duration of the war. The success of the Merlin also shows that the recipe for success is having a good, if even a bit boring, base engine and keep improving it rather than flailing around in a 100 different directions trying all kinds of exotic approaches like sleeve valves.

@mtacoustic1

2 ай бұрын

RR Griffon, and P&W R-2800 fans will dispute that!

@bushman4949

2 ай бұрын

R-2800 started life with 2000 HP and by the end of the war 2700 with water injection. Get ya home even with a cylinder blown off. Half the maintenance of a merlin and twice the TBO! Was more of a gas guzzler though.

@stringpicker5468

2 ай бұрын

@@mtacoustic1Then they do not know what they are talking about.

@stringpicker5468

2 ай бұрын

@@bushman4949The Merlin started at 1030hp and got to 2200.

The title is really misleading! With the Merlin and its successor the Griffin, the Allies didn't need the Sabre to "win the war", in fact it was only used in a couple of front line planes, the Typhoon and the Tempest.

@jeremyrichards8327

Ай бұрын

Griffon not Griffin

Thank you. Good video.

Such a beast, like a Spitfire on steroids.

Great video but you got the title wrong.

It sounds like they were way ahead of their time

they wanted to put these into seafires (naval spitfires)

Roland Beamont did 495mph at Newquay RAF base in Cornwall. I think he used the word impressive

@johnmclean6498

2 ай бұрын

Newchurch?

@beagle7622

2 ай бұрын

@@johnmclean6498 Yes , I am not sure it one of them . Anyway he was impressed to say the least . My father flew Mustangs in the 2nd TAF and the impressed him at lower altitudes. A formidable aircraft., they certainly did win the war but as it stated gave the ME262 a tough time occasionally. My father said they were sometimes interesting starting .

Probably bit unfair to say “won the war” ......but my personal fav of all aero piston engines🙂, bit of a“ might have been” in that I do wonder if how could have been further developed ( especially regarding reliability/longevity) if gas turbines hadn’t come along🤔

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

Indeed, there was only two winners in WW2... Britain was not one of them

Then the legacy was destroyed by the Ford Tempest.

@johnmoruzzi7236

Ай бұрын

Not Pontiac ? With the Buick / Rover V8 ?

A very curious title for your video as the Sabre was most definitely not a war winning engine.

@hughwilson-gm9bw

Ай бұрын

So the typhoon and tempest had no impact on the war? Anyway the statement was helped win the war which it did.

Just imagine trying to mass produce that. A winner in the HP stakes, however , one substandard or loose critical engine nut, pipe fitting or bolt & that was the end of all that LOL

Sad none of them are still running today. Fiat had a engine that was two v12s inline running 440mph in mid 30s

The propellor spins the wrong way-

@surfside75

2 ай бұрын

-😂

That wheels up landing not caused by engine 😊

A sleeve valve engine has a lot fewer moving parts per cylinder than a 4 valve poppet. Sleeve valve technology did not have the same long period of research that poppet valve enjoyed.

@danielstickney2400

Ай бұрын

Sleeve valve engines had enough development to prove that their practical disadvantages outweighed their theoretical advantages. Radial sleeve valve engines require ridiculously complicated valve trains, there's something like 100 gear wheels in a Bristol Centaurus. And even simpler sleeve valve engines require more precision bearings and machined surfaces than poppet valve engines and require a more machining and fitting. And a poppet valve engine can swallow a valve and keep running, any failure in a sleeve drive jams the whole engine.

Pitty the engine life was only around 25 hours on the Napier Sabre. They just kept on failing... The Merlin was the engine that won the war and we all know it.

My favorite nightmare plane.

Amazing engine but I wouldn't have wanted to be in charge of maintaining it!🤕

Roland Beamont said that the Centurus powered Tempest was the best of all the Hawker designs. No one is better suited to comment than him....

@stringpicker5468

2 ай бұрын

Sorry the Hercules never powered a Tempest, that was the Centaurus. There is one of them flying as of about 3 months ago.

@MBCGRS

2 ай бұрын

@stringpicker5468 Is was, too. That's what you get for texting in bed. Unfortunately, the sleeve valve is a great idea, but it is practically very difficult to maintain. They continually crack and fail. No different on the Sabre.

@andrewtadd4373

2 ай бұрын

​@MBCGRS the Hercules never powered the Tempest it was powered by the Sabre and the Centurus, they were also tested with the RR Griffin engine too. The Hawker Tornado that only ever got to the testing stage was powered by the RR Vulture engine.

@MBCGRS

2 ай бұрын

Every fucking expert happy now...

@hughwilson-gm9bw

Ай бұрын

Centaurus engine development took even longer to develop than the sabre.

can it fit into a miata?

I want one

Speaking as a first generation baby boomer l just cant imagine our twenty something year old fathers and uncles sitting a few feet behind these massively powerful engine capable of propelling them at speeds of 500MPH at rooftop level....No wonder the enemy dreaded hearing them diving to deliver a firepower equals to a RN destroyer..

Why are you saying this plane won the war when clearly it didn't?

@What-he5pr

2 ай бұрын

Kinda like how the bench warmers on a sports team "win" the game.

@tstodgell

2 ай бұрын

We're in that uncanny valley between hyperbole and untruth.

@SSFproductions1

2 ай бұрын

Nobody won the war.

@user-fu6ce6tr8e

Ай бұрын

It says helped win the war

According to information that I read in a book, back in the late 1970's, the Tempest V had a terminal dive speed of 657 MPH, which was higher than that of any other fighter, including the Me262 (which it could out accelerate in a dive).

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

Pure B.S.

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

Aircraft with a front mounted propeller are incapable of controlled flights speeds above 0.80 Mach. The Messerschmitt Me-262 had the highest critical Mach number performance of any WW2 aircraft.

0:43 can’t compare anything to a spitfire. Spitfires were the subi-BRZ of the sky, not very fast, but turned and stopped better than literally everything else, that means higher G force and all of a sudden doesn’t look like a beginner craft compared to this.

@hughwilson-gm9bw

Ай бұрын

Spitfires didn't carry the armament and could be difficult to land with their narrow undercarriage. Typhoon excelled as low level strike aircraft.

But will it fit in a Miata?

i never could imagine to build,maintain even upgrade that kind of engine, im a modern mechanic that relay to nowdays metalurgies,oil quality & perfest design by big *ss manufactured the war era engine is more than just a piece of metal,they pour blood,sweat,tear hoping the engine could help win their nation, god damn!

Is that essentially a similair idea to how a two stroke works. ? Sort of.

@brianb-p6586

Ай бұрын

No.

The Sabre is cooler than the Deltic, change my mind.

the H24

With only 1700 built vs the 15k+ Mustangs and 20k+ Spitfires how can you say it won the war? It made such a small contribution compared to almost every other fighter of the era.

@jbepsilon

2 ай бұрын

I think there were some 3300 Typhoons and 700 Tempest V's built that saw service in the war. But still it's a pittance compared to other aircraft types, and by the time the worst issues with the Sabre had been worked out Germany was firmly on the back foot already.

OK. Now, the killer problem of this engine, and why is wasn't adopted by any CAR COMPANY.... (Hello? This should tell you something about the technology....) Is that it needed extremely good lubrication in order to last 500 hours of flight time. They had to use oil with a huge amount of castor oil, and even this wasn't good. For use in an automotive engine which is expected to last 250,000 miles by the buying public who REFUSE TO CHECK THEIR FUCKING OIL at all means that this design simply wouldn't do; For these few thousand fighter planes in WWII, which was 80 years ago, this engine made sense. Great video!

@1967250s

2 ай бұрын

One might think that with modern synthetic and multi-weight oils, it would be possible to extend engine life, like they are doing with other WW2 engines currently.

@jacksons1010

2 ай бұрын

50,000 miles was a respectable life for a car engine in the 1940’s. 250,000 miles was not expected, even for a diesel truck motor.

@Flies2FLL

2 ай бұрын

@@1967250s No. Or it would have been done commercially.

@Flies2FLL

2 ай бұрын

@@jacksons1010 And your point would be?

@juhajuntunen7866

2 ай бұрын

I wonder, in these pictures were several women mechanics. They must be skilled when service and repair these engines. What were their career after war, just home wife or does any continue as mechanic?

The 14-cylinder 1900hp engine wasn't so bad compared to this one. :)

Won the war?? That's a pretty bold statement when remembering all of the other great engines of the period. No, it did not "win the war" but it did contribute.

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

Indeed! There were only two winners in WW2 and Britain was not one of them!

@KB10GL

2 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Britain carried the war on it's back for over two years before the US finally joined up, & only then, because it was dragged kicking & screaming into the fray. The US did, however, send war materiel for Britain & it's allies to test out at the cost of many lives so that these [mostly] aircraft could have the bugs worked out & improved before the precious US forces had to use them. Great Britain was in the war from 3/9/1939 to 2/9/1945 [that's day month year format] A total of six whole years, The US, as usual, turned up several years late, just like in the great war [1914 to 1918] yet the US wants to pretend that they won it. Don't waste my time.

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

@KB10GL Britain was defeated in September 1940, faced with the choice of surrendering to Hitler? or America? The Tizard Mission was a failure and the bankrupt UK government had no choice but to surrender its autonomy and become a U.S protectorate, in 1946 the UK collapsed again and was forced to sign the Anglo-American bailout loan agreement which essentially mortgaged the country to American and became a United States possession until 2006, US military forces still occupy the UK.

@KB10GL

Ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 What drugs are you on? I want some

@KB10GL

Ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Yeah, nice try, but Britain was never defeated. It was facing possible defeat, to be sure, but the RAF kept the skies under British control & Hitler [foolishly, as it transpired] diverted his energies toward the east when he realised that he was getting nowhere in the west. The US finally realised that the Brits had done it alone & subsequently joined up with the winning side, more than two years late.

What kind of accent does this guy have? Where is he from?

@Omsip123

Ай бұрын

The channel description locates to Slovakia. It is a quite strong accent to be honest, but nicely done video overa5.

@VisioRacer

Ай бұрын

It's a Slavic accent. Slovakia in particular

And this is the engine that won ww2 ?

bro your english improved lots and lots

Keeps me puzzled why on earth is that these gigantic engines (by displacment) deliver actualy not a lot of power for the displacment. 120-130 hp per liter is frankly not a lot at all.

@chrisridethatbloodything2044

2 ай бұрын

2,200 hp out of 37 litres are only 59 hp/litre. Simple car engines of the 70s or 80s produced around 50 hp/litre. But in the early days they had much worse fuel. The compression ratio was only 7:1. Maybe thats one of the reasons. Also modern engines rev much higher. Motorcycle engines produce often around 100 hp/litre. But only on high revs and with relatively little torque.

@nagyandras8857

2 ай бұрын

​@@chrisridethatbloodything2044 low compression ratio was indeed partialy a limitation by fuel knock resistance. But these are all supercharged engines. The tourqe characterisitcs is dominated mainly by bore and stroke ratio, revs is limited by peak piston speed. Overall about 500 ccm per cylinder is considered optimum even today when Both power output and efficiency are considered. When power is the only goal with zero efforth in fuel efficiency then about 300 ccm is considered to be the sweet spot. When only fuel efficiency is a consideration then around 1000 ccm per cylinder is desired. The longer the stroke the more efficiency you get at the cost of max rpm. The shorter the stroke , the more power you can make but with reduced efficiency. These figures where known even ftom the steam engine period of technology. Opposed piston engines however have a trick of allowing twice the revs , thus the power. 2 stroke has an edge as they have 2 Times as many power strokes Than 4 strokes. So fundamentally when these gigantic engines where made everything was available knowledge wise to invalidate these engines on the first sight. All these engines are supercharged , we can allso say they are variable compression engines. The final compression ratio is a product of the pistons compression and te supercharger compression ratio. So actualy the 7 to 1 and other low figures are Just the pistons compression. Not the whole deal. A supercharger depending on the operation region is more efficient Than pistons compressing air. Likely the low piston cr of these engines was artifical , as thats how they could match them to the superchargers efficiency to get the best out of the system. To sum up , other Than bling and magic pony farts , there was no reason for an engine with such complexity.

@billyp4850

2 ай бұрын

@@chrisridethatbloodything2044 Car engines really can't handle the duty cycle of an aircraft engine, that's the difference. They have 130 octane fuels in WW2 also.

@anthonyjackson280

Ай бұрын

@@billyp4850 to expatiate on your comment: aircraft engines (and stationary, Marine , armoured vehicle engines) are required to produce their rate power continuously, not just in brief, high rpm bursts. Also look at the rpm at which the rating is given - nowhere near the peak power rpm of auto engines. Also - yes the western Allies made extensive use of 130 octane fuel and experimented with up to 140/145 but the lead fouling of engines, exhausts and airframes rendered those fuels impracticable for the diminishing return they gave. In the case of aero-engines the rating is at a specific altitude (Merlin 47; 1,415 hp (1,055 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 14,000 ft ) The currently largest and most powerful piston engine produced is a 14 cylinder (in line) 2 stroke Marine diesel. Displacement is a whopping 1,829 litres per CYLINDER. Total 25,606 litres. Power is 107,400 HP. A comparatively puny 4.2 HP/litre. But that is at a maximum speed of 102 rpm.

Napier Sabre?

@thomashanson6603

2 ай бұрын

nailed it

Won the war? How is that?

A cool engine no doubt; however it was not war winning. The engine was far too complex and too little and too late. The war winner was clearly the Merlin and later the Griffin was excellent.

Britain lost the war too..

this engine is so complicated that I almost vomited

@djcjr1x1

2 ай бұрын

It's British what would you expect?!😂

Forgive my old addled brain. But why is horse power so important. Shirly the prop rotational speed is more important than the power or torque

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

Speed is result of Drag vs. Horsepower... aircraft engines are not rated in torque as it is not important. Rpm of the propeller is typically limited to 2,700 rpm or less depending on the diameter and the tip speed...

@garryparkes9121

2 ай бұрын

I understand Drag. I also know that the prop can vary its RPM and also it's pitch. Why not have a Wankel engine that has 400hp but can rev up to 12,000 rpm. Why does high horse power make it go faster. It can't spin the blade faster. I know I'm a dunce, but I don't understand @@sandervanderkammen9230

@billyp4850

2 ай бұрын

These aircraft are fitted with constant speed propellors. The speed of the prop is effectively fixed at a predetermined RPM. You get more speed by increasing the pitch of the prop, as the throttle is opened. The prop therefore absorbs more torque, and translates that into more thrust.

@garryparkes9121

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your answer. But what is House power have to do with speed and climb rate?@@billyp4850

@sandervanderkammen9230

2 ай бұрын

@billyp4850 Not exactly true, each of the specific power settings, max.continuous cruise power, Mil./ take-off power and WEP are all produced at different rpms.

Your headlines ranks in top of ludicrous statements on the net. Engines don't win wars.

Pratt n Whitney R2800 was way simpler , better

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

Radial type engines have several major disadvantages and limitations which is why in-line engines were preferred for fighter aircraft applications, of course all piston engine fighters were rendered obsolete by the introduction of the Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighter.