I like the design theory for the Sherman. "What do we got for a first run?" "Airplaine engine!" "Ok, too bad it isn't very reliable. Ford, what do you have?" "BIG ASS V8" "That's what we like to see! How about you, GM?" "Two diesel engines side by side" "That's the spirit! And you, Chrysler?" "We bolted 5 flathead sixes together at the crank" "..........."
That engine is utter madness! And utterly practical. The American automotive industry was fearless back then:- Need a tank engine really quick? Right, what have we got hundreds of thousands of that can fit in that space? Chrysler sixes? We can get five in? Great! We just have to design a star crankcase, stick a fat clutch on it and the rest is just peanuts!
Also the Sherman was sized the way it was because we could build them fast they fit on a railroad stock without changing anything they fit through all of our railroad tunnels and curves without changing anything and we had a million different ways to power them without screwing up production of other weapons. Amazing. The gun made the Firefly invincible though in it's time.
dunno if you guys gives a damn but if you guys are stoned like me atm you can watch pretty much all of the latest movies and series on InstaFlixxer. Have been binge watching with my gf lately :)
I love it!! The Multibank A57 engine had a large cast iron crankcase that formed the central structure of the powerplant. Five Chrysler 251 cu in (4.1 L) six-cylinder engines were bolted to this central crankcase. Two of the engines were bolted to the lower portion of the crankcase, one on each side, with their cylinders angled 7-1/2 degrees above horizontal. Two addition engines were bolted to the crankcase above the first two, with their cylinders 27 degrees above horizontal. The fifth engine was bolted vertically at the top of the crankcase.
I have a photograph of my father crossing the River Orne at "London Bridge" in a Sherman firefly 1944 - same engine. He said they were a better engine than the radial , they used to freeze to death with the radial engine.
My old dad was in the Canadian Army and crewed a M4A4 Sherman with this multi-bank engine fighting in Italy, Belgium, Holland and Germany. One hell of a soldier, and one hell of a tank.
This engine was Yankee ingenuity at its best, plus a little bit of American over-the-top: "If 12 cylinders are good, then 30 must be 2.5x better...!" Being American I can relate. Thanks for your work restoring the Sherman and for the informative video.
Years ago my uncle had a yell hot rod, with one of the banks from one of these engines running it-amazing torque on American Graffiti had the car in the show, don't think he made any money with it but it was amazing.
I think it slides in on a kind of rack arrangement so you can pull it out for checks etc, but I'm not sure. Wonderful design. Was said to still be able to run on only 12 working cylinders..
It was lowered from the top and fixed on three points. No rack or something like that. On the M18 it was possible to pull the radial engine from the back on guiding rails.
So cool! The fact Chrysler Corp. Was a total outside the box thinking company from the beginning and this is exactly why they were actually well ahead of the times! Something so stupid and simple but effective for the Sherman tanks! What better way of keeping it simple, stupid, than bolting together 5 of their most tried and true inline 6 cylinders and keeping them all independent basically in something that will be shot at or blown up by mines! If you lost a bank or 2 it would still try to keep running on the remaining independent engines to get you home! Personally from an engineering standpoint, out of the radial aircraft engines and the dual Cadillac V engines of the time, something for this particular purpose to take a licking and keep on ticking is the best possible solution to this problem. With 1 shop or mine being able to take out one radial engine or one V engine and leaving you stranded with a 30 ton mess which would have to be destroyed so not to fall into enemy hands, this was probably the best possible bet for the tank and its operators to be using in battle lines! I know if I had a choice of tank's? First off the list of Sherman's is the radials, which needed higher octane fuels and had a tendency to run hot being higher compression and air cooled! Hence a aircraft engine placed in a enclosed engine compartment in one of the slowest moving vehicles ever made, isn't a great combination of engines and armor! They made good HP and RPM'S but they were shorter lived and problematic, requiring more maintenance as well! The V engines are a step up in the right direction for simplicity and having the fluid drive of the Cadillac Hydromatic transmissions made for much easier driving than the manuals of the day no doubt. Being liquid cooled has its advantages and disadvantages of course. More protection around the piston with a double wall cooling jacket would stop a lot of small arms fire and mine fragments, but it's radiators when hit would be it's weaknesses without any ready supply of water near by. So were left with the Chrysler multibank engines. 5 independent 6 cylinders bolted together and sharing a common output shaft. You have plenty of low end torque with all this inline power and the reliability of simplistic crude farm tractor type engines almost anyone could have worked on back then! Plus the ruggedness of heavy water cooled blocks that could take a good punishment or shot by small arms fire and if you lost a bank or 2 it would keep running on the remaining 3 or even 2 I've heard in very rare instances. They needed less attention and service compared to the much more finicky radials and less problematic than the Cadillac engines too. Second choice would be a Cadillac system, but first choice would be the Chrysler multibanks for hopes that these little tough engines would be able to get me where I was needed and back hopefully more so than the other 2 drive-trains would.........?
Chrysler A57 Multi-bank 30 cylinder (20.5L) gasoline tank engine. Used on the M4A4 "Sherman" tank mainly by the British. It was five Chrysler straight 6 engines bolted together around a sun gear which drove the driveshaft. The British loved it as it allowed the Sherman to accelerate quicker and have a higher top speed than the Ford GAA V8 found in the American units. Maintenance times were slightly longer, though access was easy.
@@mrbeefhbw >"slightly longer" cue some old guy having flashbacks of changing 30 of everything outside in the rain How does one sort the fettuccini from the angel hair pasta in a calm timely fashion with two hands and no ratchets when you have tea at 5 and Hans at 6, and it's 4 : 30?
Anyone who thinks Malcolm X coined the phrase "by any means necessary", obviously had no appreciation for the approach of wartime Chrysler engineering mantra.
I like the design theory for the Sherman.
"What do we got for a first run?"
"Airplaine engine!"
"Ok, too bad it isn't very reliable. Ford, what do you have?"
"BIG ASS V8"
"That's what we like to see! How about you, GM?"
"Two diesel engines side by side"
"That's the spirit! And you, Chrysler?"
"We bolted 5 flathead sixes together at the crank"
"..........."
Six cylinder engines simply have the best sound. And the more six-cylinder engines you have, the better.
Hell no... Inline 6s sound like garbage
@@davelowets opinion rejected.
Nah. 30 cylinder engines sound the best, because they eat 6 cylinders for breakfast. 🤣
That engine is utter madness! And utterly practical.
The American automotive industry was fearless back then:- Need a tank engine really quick? Right, what have we got hundreds of thousands of that can fit in that space? Chrysler sixes? We can get five in? Great! We just have to design a star crankcase, stick a fat clutch on it and the rest is just peanuts!
Also the Sherman was sized the way it was because we could build them fast they fit on a railroad stock without changing anything they fit through all of our railroad tunnels and curves without changing anything and we had a million different ways to power them without screwing up production of other weapons. Amazing. The gun made the Firefly invincible though in it's time.
The sound and fury of 5 Chrysler inline sixes, writ large...
370HP naturally aspirated gasoline engine got the job done. Ease of manufacturing and numbers was the best and correct decision
dunno if you guys gives a damn but if you guys are stoned like me atm you can watch pretty much all of the latest movies and series on InstaFlixxer. Have been binge watching with my gf lately :)
@Malachi Raymond Yea, have been using InstaFlixxer for since december myself :)
@Malachi Raymond Yup, have been watching on InstaFlixxer for months myself :D
@Malachi Raymond Yea, I have been using InstaFlixxer for years myself :)
Why was the horsepower so low. I mean each of those engines should have made 90-120hp???
I love it!! The Multibank A57 engine had a large cast iron crankcase that formed the central structure of the powerplant. Five Chrysler 251 cu in (4.1 L) six-cylinder engines were bolted to this central crankcase. Two of the engines were bolted to the lower portion of the crankcase, one on each side, with their cylinders angled 7-1/2 degrees above horizontal. Two addition engines were bolted to the crankcase above the first two, with their cylinders 27 degrees above horizontal. The fifth engine was bolted vertically at the top of the crankcase.
How did they connect together? geartrain?
@@SirFloofy001 Yes.
Love to see Stellantis do this! Lmao
@@teaeff8898 Who is Stellantis???
@@w.w.2restorations.vehicles698 Fiat- Chrysler
I have a photograph of my father crossing the River Orne at "London Bridge" in a Sherman firefly 1944 - same engine. He said they were a better engine than the radial , they used to freeze to death with the radial engine.
My old dad was in the Canadian Army and crewed a M4A4 Sherman with this multi-bank engine fighting in Italy, Belgium, Holland and Germany. One hell of a soldier, and one hell of a tank.
This engine was Yankee ingenuity at its best, plus a little bit of American over-the-top: "If 12 cylinders are good, then 30 must be 2.5x better...!" Being American I can relate. Thanks for your work restoring the Sherman and for the informative video.
And some British spit and polish to make it reliable and maintainable.
I love the way old, gas guzzling heavy duty engines sound!
Years ago my uncle had a yell hot rod, with one of the banks from one of these engines running it-amazing torque on American Graffiti had the car in the show, don't think he made any money with it but it was amazing.
I’ve heard the Continental radial (in person) and the Detroit Diesel, never heard the Multi-bank! Amazing!
Excellent work going on to keep that Sherman running. Great to see and hear it. Thanks
I bet this engine has not been used on a motorcycle before. The guy who made the motorcycle that uses the Viper V10 engine would be jealous.
Moving around very sprightly without the added weight of the turret.
Yep,sounds like a Sherman to me,and hardly a puff of smoke on start up.👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Hello there! May I use this clip in my compilation?
Thanks.
The audio quality makes this a whole lot better
I would be interested to see how they actually got the engine installed. Thank you for sharing. Have a blessed day.
I think it slides in on a kind of rack arrangement so you can pull it out for checks etc, but I'm not sure. Wonderful design. Was said to still be able to run on only 12 working cylinders..
It was lowered from the top and fixed on three points. No rack or something like that.
On the M18 it was possible to pull the radial engine from the back on guiding rails.
I just read about this beauty in an article....the link was in the article about the Ford 1100 cubic inch tank motor.
So cool! The fact Chrysler Corp. Was a total outside the box thinking company from the beginning and this is exactly why they were actually well ahead of the times! Something so stupid and simple but effective for the Sherman tanks! What better way of keeping it simple, stupid, than bolting together 5 of their most tried and true inline 6 cylinders and keeping them all independent basically in something that will be shot at or blown up by mines! If you lost a bank or 2 it would still try to keep running on the remaining independent engines to get you home! Personally from an engineering standpoint, out of the radial aircraft engines and the dual Cadillac V engines of the time, something for this particular purpose to take a licking and keep on ticking is the best possible solution to this problem. With 1 shop or mine being able to take out one radial engine or one V engine and leaving you stranded with a 30 ton mess which would have to be destroyed so not to fall into enemy hands, this was probably the best possible bet for the tank and its operators to be using in battle lines! I know if I had a choice of tank's? First off the list of Sherman's is the radials, which needed higher octane fuels and had a tendency to run hot being higher compression and air cooled! Hence a aircraft engine placed in a enclosed engine compartment in one of the slowest moving vehicles ever made, isn't a great combination of engines and armor! They made good HP and RPM'S but they were shorter lived and problematic, requiring more maintenance as well! The V engines are a step up in the right direction for simplicity and having the fluid drive of the Cadillac Hydromatic transmissions made for much easier driving than the manuals of the day no doubt. Being liquid cooled has its advantages and disadvantages of course. More protection around the piston with a double wall cooling jacket would stop a lot of small arms fire and mine fragments, but it's radiators when hit would be it's weaknesses without any ready supply of water near by. So were left with the Chrysler multibank engines. 5 independent 6 cylinders bolted together and sharing a common output shaft. You have plenty of low end torque with all this inline power and the reliability of simplistic crude farm tractor type engines almost anyone could have worked on back then! Plus the ruggedness of heavy water cooled blocks that could take a good punishment or shot by small arms fire and if you lost a bank or 2 it would keep running on the remaining 3 or even 2 I've heard in very rare instances. They needed less attention and service compared to the much more finicky radials and less problematic than the Cadillac engines too. Second choice would be a Cadillac system, but first choice would be the Chrysler multibanks for hopes that these little tough engines would be able to get me where I was needed and back hopefully more so than the other 2 drive-trains would.........?
She purrs!!
I feel like I just listened to 5 1941 Plymouth cars without mufflers driving by nothing like the sound
Reminds me of that Simpsons episodes with Moe.
"And that's how, with a few minor adjustments, you can turn a regular gun into five guns."
You should wet down the pavement with water to ease the load and wear on the rubber blocks on the tracks. They can't be cheap to replace?
I guess the engine mechs in the Army weren’t any slouches.
Chrysler A57?
Chrysler A57 Multi-bank 30 cylinder (20.5L) gasoline tank engine.
Used on the M4A4 "Sherman" tank mainly by the British. It was five Chrysler straight 6 engines bolted together around a sun gear which drove the driveshaft. The British loved it as it allowed the Sherman to accelerate quicker and have a higher top speed than the Ford GAA V8 found in the American units. Maintenance times were slightly longer, though access was easy.
@@mrbeefhbw >"slightly longer"
cue some old guy having flashbacks of changing 30 of everything outside in the rain
How does one sort the fettuccini from the angel hair pasta in a calm timely fashion with two hands and no ratchets when you have tea at 5 and Hans at 6, and it's 4 : 30?
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 that is the greatest comment I’ve ever read lol
I can't imagine the misfire codes that thing would throw if it were OBDII
Thanks.
wow
How many quarts of oil does that thing need?
32
It requires 40 quarts of engine oil to fill the oil tank & engine from empty. 32 quarts was the servicing quantity.
@@armouredengineeringltd7259 I don't think I'll buy it... maintenance seems expensive
How many cylinder can you loose before you notice?
sound great,, how much petrol did it burn? miles per gallon,, or gallons per mile?
The manual states the fuel economy at 800 yds per gallon!
@@armouredengineeringltd7259 Thanks for the reply,, just over 2 gallons per mile, I suppose all WW2 petrol tanks were a tad "thirsty"?
The old firefly engine.
Anyone who thinks Malcolm X coined the phrase "by any means necessary", obviously had no appreciation for the approach of wartime Chrysler engineering mantra.
Would that be a slant-6 5?
No. The Slant 6 only came in 1960. These are side valve engines that predecessed the slant 6. it was 5 flathead chrysler six engines.
It's so responsive for a tank.
Get 5 car engines and put them together.