26 replies to this topic

[Nev]

As most of you may already be aware, Jaguar were planning a V12 as early as 1951 (as well as a 4.5 litre V8). I have been trawling through some original documents and came across a previously-unpublished hand-drawn representation produced by Claude Baily in 1951.



Any idea what they were there for???

Any thoughts on what else is represented in the drawing? I can't make sense of the word to the right of "camshafts" and was intrigued by the extra auxiliary drives. I found it interesting (because I am sad like that) he was proposing the use of Chrysler & Cadillac conrods and bearings in another document.

I am pretty certain it was drawn by Claude Baily because the handwriting exactly matches many of the other documents I have. I was a bit put off at first because it looks to have been written with a biro but it seems they were in common use since before the second world war.

Here is a doodle by Baily of his ideas on a V8 (also in 1951). I suspect he may have struggled to fit the carbs under a Jag bonnet but, of course, these engines may have been destined for a military application.



(both images are reproduced with permission)

Edited by Nev, 22 April 2015 - 02:51.

[David McKinney]

I think you'll find that's a magneto, Nev

[Robin Fairservice]

I see a note that suggests that this was an 18 litre engine.

[Nev]

I see a note that suggests that this was an 18 litre engine.

Looks more like a crossing-out to me?

Here's another document just to confirm ...

Edited by Nev, 02 August 2011 - 16:45.

[Nev]

Would have seemed rather a retrograde step for Jaguar in 1951?

Edited by Nev, 22 April 2015 - 02:52.

[Vitesse2]

Looks more like a crossing-out to me?

The calculation to the left of it is cubic inches to litres.

[Tuboscocca]

Looks more like a crossing-out to me?

But 1100 c.i. (cubic inches) are 18 litres...?? Didn't calculate bore and stroke..

Michael

[Nev]

Could the word to the right of "camshafts" be "governor"? Perhaps required for a military application?

[Tony Matthews]

I see a note that suggests that this was an 18 litre engine.

Looks more like a crossing-out to me?

It also says - 500 BHP = 28 BHP/litre. Thats 17.86 litres!

[doc knutsen]

Could the word to the right of "camshafts" be "governor"? Perhaps required for a military application?

Look at the cylinder dimensions. I used to think the XK stroke of 106mm is, er, ample. But this behemoth increases that by a third! Surely a power plant for military use.

[Vitesse2]

Maybe two different but related military projects? 18 litres for a medium tank and 8 for an APC? 1951 would fit with the spec which eventually produced the Saracen APC, which had a Rolls Royce B80 of about 6 litres.

[D-Type]

But 5.4" bore x 6" stroke x 12 cylinders = 1649 cu ins = 27 021 cc
Clearly a different calculation

A 90 degree cylinder angle suggests a V8 - with that bore and stroke it would be 18014 cc - 18 litres

Next question: In the second sketch, what is the word beginning with A?

Tank or boat?

[David McKinney]

Alternator

[D-Type]

I wondered about that, but had the alternator been invented in 1951?

[Roger Clark]

Is there any evidence that the designs progressed beyond these sketches? they don't suggest a works project.

[Nev]

Is there any evidence that the designs progressed beyond these sketches? they don't suggest a works project.

Thanks to feedback on this forum I suspect these were design studies for post-war military projects but I don't think the engines saw the light of day.

Of rather more interest to me is the clear evolution of Baily's basic design through to the XJ13 quad-cam V12 of 1963/69. When Walter Hassan joined Jaguar from Coventry Climax he began to steer Jaguar towards designs that differed from Baily's quad-cam basic architecture.

Here are a few more c1951 documents from the same batch:









I don't think these designs progressed beyond these sketches in 1951. However, I have just come across a further document from February 1953 which is titled, "Revised data for Ministry of Supply of Vee 8 engine". Although now at 9 litres it does seem a development of these earlier sketches. There is no evidence any engines were actually assembled but I have subscribed to the murky world of a vintage military forum in the hope I can find some more answers there.

There are yet more documents on a similar topic that show Baily was proposing a V8 of around 4.5 litres capacity making use of Jaguar's 2 litre XK engine heads into the late 1950s (albeit using left and right-handed versions of the head).

Edited by Nev, 03 August 2011 - 06:55.

[peter kropotk]

[quote name='Nev' date='Aug 3 2011, 07:44' post='5215274']
Thanks to feedback on this forum I suspect these were design studies for post-war military projects but I don't think the engines saw the light of day.

This is an diversion, but the repeated citing of huge engine capacities brought these guys to mind:

http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/

I've posted the link also in the rasf1 forum. The website's left-hand menu lets you pick an engine.
Their new monster is a 16.5 litre V-8 (a simple two valve pushrod job).
You could always settle for a mere 15.25 litres, if you can get by on only 2,000bhp.

[AJB]

Rolls-Royce Merlin, 5.4" bore x 6" stroke x 12 cylinders = 27 litres. Sounds familiar?
Or the unsupercharged Meteor tank engine version at 500bhp+.

Alan

Edited by AJB, 04 August 2011 - 19:26.

[Catalina Park]

There was a V8 version of the Meteor motor called the Meteorite and it was built by Rover for use in the Thornycroft Mighty Antar.
The capacity was 18.01 litres (1,099 cu in)

Edited by Catalina Park, 05 August 2011 - 11:48.

[peter kropotk]

There was a V8 version of the Meteor motor called the Meteorite and it was built by Rover for use in the Thornycroft Mighty Antar.
The capacity was 18.01 litres (1,099 cu in)

Ah, the memories brought back by that name.
How many of you owned the Dinky diecast model: http://cgi.ebay.co.u...em=140581120934
or the Matchbox diecast model: http://cgi.ebay.co.u...em=120739575488

[Tony Matthews]

Ah, the memories brought back by that name.
How many of you owned the Dinky diecast model

I was desperate for that as a small boy! The nearest I got was the Centurion tank...

[Nev]

Here's a picture of Baily's 8.5 litre quad-cam 90 degree V8 taken in 1954. Looks like at least one was made. According to the documents I have, the heads were XK100 4-cyl (handed).

Any military-types out there know if any of these have survived? With all these riots in the UK I am thinking of building a tank ...

[D-Type]

The XK100 was about 2 litres, ie 250cc 500cc a cylinder. This engine is about 1060cc per pot. To use the same head it must have had the same cylinder centres so it couldn't have been bored out much - It must have had an incredibly long stroke

Edit cylinder capacity changed to what I meant to write

Edited by D-Type, 16 August 2011 - 22:47.

[Tim Murray]

The XK100 was 83 mm bore and 91 mm stroke, giving an individual cylinder capacity of 492.4 cc. The point is still valid, however - if the 8.5 litre V8 had had the same bore as the XK100 its stroke would have been around 196 mm!

[T54]

Looks like a light tank engine to me...

I like the magnets idea. Retains the steel dust from those plain bearings on the way back from the filters...
Now, did i not see something like that in the J.C. Whitney catalog, and the claims that it improves your fuel consumption by 25% or more?
By any means, thanks for posting those very interesting documents.

[D-Type]

The XK100 was 83 mm bore and 91 mm stroke, giving an individual cylinder capacity of 492.4 cc. The point is still valid, however - if the 8.5 litre V8 had had the same bore as the XK100 its stroke would have been around 196 mm!

DOH! I meant 500 cc not 250

[Nev]

Yes - you are absolutely right. Either the photo was wrongly-captioned (it should be 4.5 litres) or it is a completely different 90 degree V8 to the one described in the following documents: