While browsing through Tank Encyclopedia, I came across the A.C. IV and some of it's suggested alternative engines for its Perrier-Cadillac unit. Intrigued, I decided to do a little digging around.
The results of my trivia-hunt:
-
Front view of the Perrier-Cadillac.
The Perrier-Cadillac 41-75 engine, made by Robert Perrier, can be described as three Cadillac 75 engines mounted radially along a common crankshaft, one mounted on top with the other two mounted 60 degrees to the left and right. The design is similar to the A57 Multibank, although they are not related. Each engine had its own water pump but otherwise used a single cooling system and radiator. A lighter, more compact yet a more efficient power package in comparison to the clover leaf configuration whilst retaining its redundancy and solving the cooling problem.
The Perrier-Cadillac displaced 1,039 cu in (17.0 L) and produced 397 hp. The engine weighed around 3,000 lb (1,360 kg).
In summary: Smaller, more powerful then its previous configuration whilst retaining redundancy in the case of a "significant emotional event". What's not to love?
Welded steel crankcase for the Perrier-Cadillac. Guessing it would've helped accessing the whole thing in one go a breeze.
Rear view.
-
Cut-away drawing of the Quad Gipsy Major engine.
EDIT: Christ, this image is massive.
The Quad Gipsy Major engine was a proposed alternative to the Perrier-Cadillac engine. It uses four De Havilland Gipsy Major four-cylinder air-cooled inline engines typically used in aircraft and is arranged in a horizontal H configuration (two-layered horizontally-opposed setup):
Something like this.
This engine was rated at a hypothetical 510 horsepower at 2,500 rpm. It would've displaced 1,495 cu in (24.5 L) and weighted around 1,500 lb (680 kg). If my research is to be believed, the Gipsy Major engines had a reputation for being reliable, which may very well translate to this engine being reliable as well. A non-functional mockup was made using as many genuine parts as possible, however development for this engine was stopped when the A.C. program was shut down. It's lighter, more powerful and according Old Machine Press, simpler.
In summary: You're strapping 4 aircraft engines on a tank to make it go zoom-zoom. Of course it's going to be kindavelocious dashing...
for any other engine, I guess.
Simpler. Ok, sure, I guess.
-
Cut-away drawing of a Crankless engine
EDIT: And so is this image.
A crankless engine is a... well, an engine lacking a crankshaft. According to Tanks Encyclopedia, this engine in question is a Michell type crankless engine utilising a swashplate in place of the crankshaft, a design which was extensively developed by the respected Australian Inventor A.G Michell in the 1920s. The basis of the engine comes from his Michell thrust bearing and knowledge of lubrication, specifically a slipper pad mated to a piston 'slides' over the swashplate by a film of oil which is sprayed onto the swashplate, minimising friction. This engine would've produced a hypothetical 600 horsepower, on par with the British Meteor engine whilst supposedly being more fuel-efficient (about 10 percent?), a smaller-size-to-horsepower-output ratio and arguably greater reliability.
Alfred Reginald Code, Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicle Production, had previously worked for Crankless Engines, Ltd., as the Chief Designing Engineer and it stands to reason that he likely proposed the powerpack in the first place. Unlike the Quad-Gipsy, this engine never left the drawing board, and I can speculate a few reasons:
-
What are your thoughts?
EDIT: Corrected some information regarding the crankless engine. Additional source noted.
The results of my trivia-hunt:
-
Front view of the Perrier-Cadillac.
The Perrier-Cadillac 41-75 engine, made by Robert Perrier, can be described as three Cadillac 75 engines mounted radially along a common crankshaft, one mounted on top with the other two mounted 60 degrees to the left and right. The design is similar to the A57 Multibank, although they are not related. Each engine had its own water pump but otherwise used a single cooling system and radiator. A lighter, more compact yet a more efficient power package in comparison to the clover leaf configuration whilst retaining its redundancy and solving the cooling problem.
The Perrier-Cadillac displaced 1,039 cu in (17.0 L) and produced 397 hp. The engine weighed around 3,000 lb (1,360 kg).
In summary: Smaller, more powerful then its previous configuration whilst retaining redundancy in the case of a "significant emotional event". What's not to love?
Welded steel crankcase for the Perrier-Cadillac. Guessing it would've helped accessing the whole thing in one go a breeze.
Rear view.
-
Cut-away drawing of the Quad Gipsy Major engine.
EDIT: Christ, this image is massive.
The Quad Gipsy Major engine was a proposed alternative to the Perrier-Cadillac engine. It uses four De Havilland Gipsy Major four-cylinder air-cooled inline engines typically used in aircraft and is arranged in a horizontal H configuration (two-layered horizontally-opposed setup):
Something like this.
This engine was rated at a hypothetical 510 horsepower at 2,500 rpm. It would've displaced 1,495 cu in (24.5 L) and weighted around 1,500 lb (680 kg). If my research is to be believed, the Gipsy Major engines had a reputation for being reliable, which may very well translate to this engine being reliable as well. A non-functional mockup was made using as many genuine parts as possible, however development for this engine was stopped when the A.C. program was shut down. It's lighter, more powerful and according Old Machine Press, simpler.
In summary: You're strapping 4 aircraft engines on a tank to make it go zoom-zoom. Of course it's going to be kinda
for any other engine, I guess.
Simpler. Ok, sure, I guess.
-
Cut-away drawing of a Crankless engine
EDIT: And so is this image.
A crankless engine is a... well, an engine lacking a crankshaft. According to Tanks Encyclopedia, this engine in question is a Michell type crankless engine utilising a swashplate in place of the crankshaft, a design which was extensively developed by the respected Australian Inventor A.G Michell in the 1920s. The basis of the engine comes from his Michell thrust bearing and knowledge of lubrication, specifically a slipper pad mated to a piston 'slides' over the swashplate by a film of oil which is sprayed onto the swashplate, minimising friction. This engine would've produced a hypothetical 600 horsepower, on par with the British Meteor engine whilst supposedly being more fuel-efficient (about 10 percent?), a smaller-size-to-horsepower-output ratio and arguably greater reliability.
Alfred Reginald Code, Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicle Production, had previously worked for Crankless Engines, Ltd., as the Chief Designing Engineer and it stands to reason that he likely proposed the powerpack in the first place. Unlike the Quad-Gipsy, this engine never left the drawing board, and I can speculate a few reasons:
- The amount of retooling and retraining required for this engine for this specific tank would've likely made it difficult to justify adoption.
- Much of the technical information relating to Michell's crankless engine were lost when the Melbourne office closed in 1928.
-
What are your thoughts?
- National Archives of Australia B6118 7
- The Piston Engine Revolution: Chapter 12 Anning
- Tanks Encyclopedia: AC IV
- Old Machine Press: Perrier-Cadillac 41-75 Tank Engine
- www.mheaust.com
- The Self Site
EDIT: Corrected some information regarding the crankless engine. Additional source noted.
Last edited: