Inverted V Engines,,, WHY ????

It was actually done at the Reichlin (SP?) research center in Berlin. The Spit was then used in comparison trails with a similary engined Me109. I do not remember the resaults, but I think I remember correctly, that the Germans were less than impressed by the Spit’s performance in this configuration!

re. the DB-engined spit – image above. I’ve seen that picture before – here I suppose. Is it simply a “what-if” machine or did someone actually do this?

Please correct me where I go wrong here – but I have in my mind the piece of info that because of carburetion on the Spitfire/Hurrican vs fuel injection on the 109 the English pilots had to do the half roll to dive whereas the German pilots could simply push the stick forward into a dive – saving precious seconds at difficult moments.

Makes me wonder/query whether there is/was any cause and effect between inverting the vee and fuel injection. And of course the related question, could carburettors be fitted to an inverted vee?

In other words were these two different approaches deliberate design principles related to fuel injection vs carburettion – and inter alia related to fighter design principles?

u can surely put a carburettor to an inverted V engine, but if u have injection stick to it 😉
As per the negative Gs… The issue was solved on the MkV with the anti-g carburettor (dont ask me how it worked though, I just know it was there..).
Good point even about the exhaust glare, this surely was another positive point for the inverted V solution!

Alex

The reasons for inverted V-engines were the better visibility over the hood, less glare from the exhausts during night flights, and (before using reduction gears) better CoG and a larger prop w/o extending the landing gear.

SpitaSchmitt !!!!or a MessrSpit

DB-engined Spit as another.

EN830 by chance ?????

No problem with carburettors, IIRC on a merlin it’s at the back of the engine. Turn the engine over (not quite that simple) and leave the carb the right way up. Gipsy Twelve AKA Gipsy King was inverted and carburetted.

Streamling also no difference. Visually, saw the nose off a Spifire and a ‘109 and turn them over and that’s it. Compare the Bf109 and Buchon as one example and the DB-engined Spit as another.

Wasn’t it also partly to do with streamlining?

Please correct me where I go wrong here – but I have in my mind the piece of info that because of carburetion on the Spitfire/Hurrican vs fuel injection on the 109 the English pilots had to do the half roll to dive whereas the German pilots could simply push the stick forward into a dive – saving precious seconds at difficult moments.

Makes me wonder/query whether there is/was any cause and effect between inverting the vee and fuel injection. And of course the related question, could carburettors be fitted to an inverted vee?

In other words were these two different approaches deliberate design principles related to fuel injection vs carburettion – and inter alia related to fighter design principles?

the bf109 prototype was designed to be used with the Junkers Jumo 210 engine, an inverted V 12 cylinders engine. Unfortunately the engine wasnt ready for the prototype so the Bf109 0 was flown with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine. Anyway the main reason seemed to be the visibility, but if i remember correctly the DB engineers decided to mantain this layout even because they monitored a better burning performance of the combustion chamber in the inverted position, with a better response on the throttle. This configuration even allowed to install two MGs on the top cowling. Last but not least the propeller shaft was really near to the roll axis, I dont know how much bad this was for a fighter plane.

Alex

Upside down or the right way up makes no difference to fitting a cannon as it still fires through the V.

I believe it’s just to do with vision over the nose. However it brings in other problems. The thrust line changes, which is probably easy for an aircraft designer to sort out, and with a geared engine by bringing the prop centre nearer the ground it will need a longer undercarriage, or smaller prop.
As already stated, the Merlin was planned to be inverted but it was dropped after resistance from the aircraft manufacturers.
As well as the DB range, it didn’t seem to cause any problems on 20-odd thousand Gipsys, including a V12.

inverted aero engines

yes the germans may have copied rolls royce.and gained some visibility,but there are some disadvantages such as oil scavenging hydrostatic lock and resultant damage on starting .i have no idea of any major advantage. it would be nice to know once and for all the reason. i understand that there is a chap in baveria somewhere who recovers db601 engines from crash sites . and re builds them into museum display condition if it were possible to ask, he may know

In Sptifire the History it is suggested that Rolls Royce had studied the inverted V-engine in the early or mid 1930’s and even made a wooden prototype, with photographs shown in the book. A German party visited the works and were shown the wooden prototype.

But if this why the German engine manufacturers were inspired, I doubt it. Had probably more to do with vision over the nose.

But its a nice story anyway.

Cheers

Cees

The concept of ‘right-way-up’ is unknown to the engine. It cares not one jot if its valve gear is on the bottom, the top, or the side.

The inverted V gives you a much better view over the cowling though.

Moggy

One of the advantages of mounting the engine upside down is the ability to have a cannon firing through the spinner. I doubt if that is the real reason though.

It might have something to do with getting the thrust line closer to the C/G, but I wouldn’t know.