Talk:Fairbanks-Morse

Radios
I have a Fairbanks-Morse brochure with they title:Fairbanks-Morse turret shielded radio of 1937. I assume that radios were also a product of this company but there is no mention in article.64.60.244.180 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

reread the article, it is there, not detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.77.4 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Refrigerators and Freezers
I have a Fairbanks Morse refrigerator in my house and this article doesn't make mention that they ever manufactured these either. Googling will show some images of these products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.168.113 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Refine Subject
This article has been hijacked by Fairbanks Morse Engines which only marginally a descendant of Fairbanks Morse and Company. The original Fairbanks, Morse and Company is the correct subject of this article. FME is a different company - reference the updated corporate disposition info. FME should have a separate page as should Fairbanks Morse Pump and Fairbanks Scale.--User:ebtrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebtrr1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful here-- there is the Food Manufacturing Co; FMC chemicals; and Fairbanks Morse, all separate companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is one of the problems of poorly cited articles - a casual editor can't verify the lineage of descendant companies. If you can put the spin-offs in here, and cite them, verifying that they are indeed independent, it seems to me that we can establish separate articles at that time. Thanks.

Fairbanks Morse Engines. World War II Submarine usage and modern US Submarine Emergency diesels ( in Nuclear powered submarines) - typically were opposed piston- 2 pistons in a single cylinder- then tow crankshafts. These diesels had some vastly differences that some mechanics had problems with. The more recent/modern Fairbanks Morse company engines- yes probably a different company, and they were license built using Colt-Pielstickdesign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.67.249 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like the "parent" article. Fairbanks-Morse is trademarked. Presumably spin-offs have the right to use this name. So this should be a summary. Fairbanks Scales has already been forked. The others should be as well. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-adjust Goalposts
Time Magazine 1935

From 1929 to 1932 annual sales dropped from $31,500,000 to $8,500,000, and total Depression losses footed up to $8,000,000.

Diesel engines are the most important product in the long Fairbanks, Morse line normally accounting for about one-half of total sales. Electric motors, generators and appliances rank second. Fairbanks Morse is one of the biggest pump-makers in the U. S. It supplies railroads with inspection cards, water-tanks and coaling stations. But for every person who has seen a Fairbanks, Morse municipal power plant or a Fairbanks, Morse oil pipe-line pumping station, thousands in every corner of the civilized world have seen Fairbanks scales.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748831,00.html#ixzz1ankL2w9D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

O.P. engines strange
Opposed Piston engines appear to be exclusive to F-M, and they made them quite a success in marine use. How? Should the unique operation be mentioned? Jane's show F-M in the submarine Narwhal (1929). Are these the first O.P.s (seems likely)? Were they designed specifically for subs? Have they always been 8 1/8"x10"? Is the 10" each crank, or both combined (latter seems likely)? How long did they make this piece, before they went to licensed real engines? The US Navy should have a line somewhere, being a major customer. How could these things exist, much less flourish?Sammy D III (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed piston engines (at least, as applied to two stroke diesel or oil engines) have a substantial history outside F-M and many of these were for use on ships. They have advantages both for efficiency and also for compactness. Junkers built their M12 stationary heavy oil engine in 1905, Gobron-Brillié were already building light petrol engines for cars before this. Probably the first marine OP engine would be the small Junkers HK series, very commonly used in fishing boats and the like. Submarines are even tighter for space than ships, so they favoured either opposed piston or even double acting pistons, such as the unfortunate Pompano's. The largest OP marine diesel would probably be the Doxford.
 * In mid-century, we see high-speed engines appearing like the Junkers 205 aircraft diesel, the Napier Deltic and the Commer TS3. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I’m surprised, and happy, that someone is here. Sort of a remote subject. I was thinking of US ships, but the wider picture is interesting, I didn’t look. Plus “made in America” blindness.
 * “Exclusive” was too much. But F-M appears to be by far the most successful. I should have remembered the Deltic, but they only built 22, a tiny number to a navy. Didn’t they have maintenance problems? None of the others were major players, were they? More like oddities? Did the OP airplane engine last long?
 * O.P.’s appear to generally be an early 1900’s idea. Possibly when valves were problematic? F-M seems to have used the idea fairly late, GM was using exhaust valves by 1934 (both are two strokes with roots superchargers). Are ports more efficient than ports/valves?
 * Using railroad numbers, I was able to compare a F-M to GM’s early Winton 201 and later EMC 567, which was used interchangeably with the F-M in US fleet subs. The F-M must have a 20” combined stroke, you compare pistons, not cylinders, for the numbers to make any sense. In horsepower per inch the F-M fell right between the early and late GMs. The 567 changed the US railroad industry, the F-M was a failure on rails.
 * The Deltic triangle deal may be compact, but a strait OP may not have any advantage over a V, might be worse. Similar length, taller but narrower, with upper crank weight. And the 567 is a 45% V, pretty narrow. Which would weigh more (I may check).
 * I have no knowledge of either monster ship or stationary engines.
 * Anyway, F-M has successfully made an unusual type of engine for a long time, and a lot of money. Should the unusual operation be mentioned?
 * Thank you for talking about a strange thingSammy D III (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, if you’re still there, I apologize, I didn’t take the Deltic’s marine use into account. This does make a parallel of sorts, with Napier doing it later and better. But they made a “race car” instead of F-M’s “truck”.
 * In side to side cross section, the reconciling of the cranks is huge, the counter rotating one is tough to grasp, but works somehow. (The illustration moves a touch fast for me, but does a good job, that’s pretty hard to imagine). Having three cylinders looks like you get combustion every 120 degrees, smooth built in. And as for displacement, you get six pistons instead of two, three times the volume for the length.
 * Why? This is all about the layout’s power to weight, right? Is there an OP advantage over valves? Doesn’t introducing intake at the ports to push exhaust thru the valves end up clearing the cylinder better, with a fresher charge, less intermingling of gases? Are valves harder to maintain than cranks? You’ve done away with the beveled gears, but that crank to crank with opposite rotation stuff seems tough. Wouldn’t having one crankcase seem stronger than three at the outer reaches? And doesn’t the 20 degree offset cause some strange stresses?
 * I used railroad numbers, they should relate engine to engine, right? I just did hp per inch (sort of an efficiency), but didn’t have Deltic displacement. Winton (34)=.14, FM (44)=.16, GM 567 (43)=.17, GM 645 (66)=.19. My math is suspect, I did hp divided by inch on 12 piston non turbo. How does Napier relate?
 * The military wanted lots of horsepower in a small package, Napier threw enough thought and money at it to do the job, but it was sort of a limited market? And how does the engine design create a “low magnetic signature”, wouldn’t that relate to construction materials?
 * Napier Deltic has more engine info than Fairbanks-Morse, but they’ve built far more types. Still, I think F-M could use some punching up, at least a mention of the strange system. Thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Gobron-Brillié is an aberration, but otherwise OP engines are a means to building two-stroke uniflow diesels with piston porting. This gives two advantages: avoiding valves is simpler (no camshafts, valve seats, cam drives, rockers) and secondly a uniflow engine gives efficient scavenging, the main design goal of an efficient two-stroke diesel.
 * The Commer TS3 illustrates simplicity, for a commercial truck engine (also a boat engine). No valvegear, half the number of injectors and maintenance access was from the sides, not the top. This allowed Commer to build a new range of cab forward trucks, without the later complexity of tilting cabs. Also the Deltic is pretty simple. Can you imagine the complexity of that beastie with long, flexing camshafts and 36 sets of valvegear too?
 * One of the major wear items for diesels of TS3 vintage (i.e. downtime and service costs) was valve seat wear. This just isn't an issue for piston-porting.
 * Scavenging is important, as is efficient scavenging. Some non-uniflow two-strokes (like the 6-71)) can achieve good scavenging, but only at the cost of consuming excess scavenge air from the external blower. That blower needs power to drive it, so even when one of those is scavenged enough to clean up the exhaust smoke, it's now fuel-hungry.
 * Uniflow has obvious benefits. I've never seen a uniflow diesel with valves, although there are a few (like the Petter Harmonic) that use piston inlet and a single exhaust valve. It's just a better way to build diesels. Look at the efficiency figures for modern engines vs the Deltic.
 * The drawbacks of uniflow are increased engine height and also forced induction when starting. We might see uniflow car engines (even Africar were talking about this, twenty-five years ago) but they won't fit into the same engine bay layouts as current engines. Also a turbocharger is claggy on start-up (and may even be four-stroking) until blower pressure comes up to speed. Fine for gen sets, but it's a problem for domestic cars.


 * The Junkers 205 was just about the only successful diesel aircraft engine. It was even license-built in the UK by Napier. Not a high-performance engine, but its excellent fuel efficiency made it popular for most large German long-endurance seaplanes of the 1930s. Look for the distinctive tall nacelles, with an offset prop spinner in line with one crankshaft.
 * Lots of Deltics were built. Railway, naval (both PT boats and minesweepers), gen sets and even New York's "Super Pumper" fire truck. Deltics were also pretty reliable: there were some development issues, particularly with the piston crown design and a few issues with the cylinder liners, but these are over-emphasised compared to other engines because they were so widely publicised and studied. Chamberlin's paper for the Inst Mech Engr is a good starter. The few engines that did have any real problems were the later loco engines, once BREL decided to do engine rebuilds in-house rather than sending engines back to Napiers. Shame the Deltic aircraft engine never happened, but turboprops had clearly collected that market and the B36 was a little too early, the Shackleton too wedded to a four engine layout.
 * What really did for the Deltic was UK government policy in the 1960s to consolidate the post-war engineering markets, particularly for aircraft and aircraft engines (i.e. everything was merged to "British Aircraft Corporation" and "Rolls-Royce" - then within a few years R-R had gone bust). This shut Napier out of the developing aircraft engine gas turbine market and their diesel market couldn't stand against the bulk of the orders placed with English Electric and Paxman. High-speed Maybach engines were wedded to the diesel-hydraulic locos, and they're their own story. The sad upshot of all this was the use off the far from adventurous Paxman Ventura and Valenta engines. The excellent HST had Valentas, now MTUs (i.e. Maybach), when that's a unit that should surely have had a turbocharged Deltic in each powercar.
 * Opposed piston engines have a substantial history, great future potential and we're not covering either well as yet. I've half-done articles on the HK and the Doxford, when I get time to finish them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect I’m dealing with “not made in America” in general. Example, the Super Pumper is always referred to here as a Mack, who apparently only built the tractor. (I drove Macks in construction for years, boy are they tough in our service). Light for its high output, the Deltic pump makes sense, I’m very surprised it seems to get little if any mention. I believe that the basic super pumper idea failed, my guess would be that even in NYC, surrounded by water, there’s plenty at the hydrant (the valve/connection which comes out of the ground). We do use a lot of fresh water here, and fire trucks in general have had pretty strong engines. I also believe that high rise buildings have pumps built into them, those water tanks on the roof are pretty much gone.
 * I’m not sure what uniflow means. We have had Detroit Diesel (GM) exhaust valve two strokes here, 53, 71, and 92 series, almost universally despised by their drivers. Before turbos (not needed for operation, an efficiency deal) they were LOUD, no amount of mufflers could shut them up much. Filthy oil leakers, too, but that has to be an engine specific weakness, not related to cycles. And all GM two strokes, even those with turbos, have mechanical supercharging and will self start. F-M, too, as I understand. All other automotive engines here are four strokes, except for a few small motorcycles. I’ve never heard of “four stroking”, I suspect that we would just say “missing”, and we rarely operate any H.D. engine cold here. Wear issues.
 * I have more questions/discussions, I don’t think I’ve ever talked to anybody who had a clue. But I better do some reading, and thinking, first. I would be interested in Deltic power per displacement, rather than weight, for my own comparison. And what are the basic maintenance shortcomings? F-Ms seem to have impressive reliability, but they ARE much simpler. I still think they’re sort of stupid, but I know nothing about marine demands, so I’ll stop using stronger adjectives.
 * If I do come back, please take questions as interest, not argument. And thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts. I have problems using the Deltic as an example, its layout may be more important than its operating system. So I’m going to keep using F-M vs EMC until I come up with a newer direct comparison. That’s where I started from, anyway.

In the second paragraph, Commer is weak. Was the engine developed further? Valve gear is well proven. A flat engine would have side access. Tilting cabs aren’t all that difficult, and would be no issue in a conventional. The Deltic is hardly simple, and cams are the same length as the crank, where twisting is a design issue. Cams are simple, and valves are proven up to railroad size, at least.

In the fourth paragraph, “but only at… blower” has problems. Both engines use Roots type blowers, which do suck power. (Side note: on all engines of any type, the more you can turbo, the better). But both engines have to blow about the same air per displacement, it and the amount of fuel are part of the design. Both engines should have the same air/fuel ratio at ignition. My thought was that a valve engine may have a cleaner charge, and be able to inject more fuel for more power per displacement.

In stationary use, where space is not a problem, square looks interesting. You have to get the cranks to work two cylinders, don’t you? But however simple you get, you’re stuck with connecting the cranks, I would think that would be the greatest physical challenge.

This got pretty long, didn't it? Thank you very much. Sammy D III (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Commer has to be thought of in its context. At the time, lorries in the UK had long bonnets, mostly inline-six petrol engines (many still war surplus) and any sort of forced induction was unheard of. Nothing worked, everything wore out in no time, so anything complicated was deeply distrusted. Fuel was cheap, but maintenance meant downtime. There were no tilting cabs (actually I think the wartime CMP invented this, but by accident not design and they tended to bend so they wouldn't go back down). A tilting cab really needs its own subframe added to it. Aircraft-grade manufacture had sophisticated metallurgy and high reliability, but this hadn't made it down into the general motor industry. So for a clean-slate cab forward design, with the Tilling-Stevens engine design available (itself aware of a pre-war Sulzer opposed piston) the idea of a two-stroke diesel wasn't a wild leap from established four-stroke diesels, as they just weren't that common anyway. Truck diesels were indirect injection at this time, with separate combustion chambers, and although these gave good starting, they had efficiency and noise drawbacks. Direct injection was recognised to be an advantage for both, but didn't start easily (at that time). The TS3 avoided all three problems. Its downside was a perceived complexity, and in reality a little unreliability from the blower quill shaft breaking (just about the only weak spot on this engine). They produced intense loyalty from their operators, who saw them as powerful, reliable and efficient, but a sense of unease from those unfamiliar with them, often citing the blower shaft failures as a "new" problem, when in reality their own Bedfords and AECs spent far more time with the heads off, doing valve jobs – but this was an old problem, thus expected.
 * The noise of a TS3 is similar to that of the Detroit Diesel: the way to get good scavenging most simply is to have plenty of scavenge air and port timings with plenty of overlap – so that the scavenge air still has plenty of energy when it leaves the exhaust port. Naturally this also means a noisy exhaust, whether the exhaust is a port or a valve. A quieter engine is the turbo engine – as the turbo-compound engine article still needs to be rewritten, a problem with highly supercharged diesels was that they could generate power, but there was no way to extract it all with a piston. A downstream turbine can get that last bit out much more efficiently (and hence either turbo-compound engines or, more simply, turbochargers). Having extracted that last heat energy from the exhaust, the exhaust is quieter.
 * A further advantage for opposed pistons driven by crankshafts, rather than the TS3 bellcranks, is the ability to adjust the lead between the pistons. Deltics used 20º. This varies the port timing between inlet and exhaust. So better scavenging efficiency for less blower power. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I can do time, POV 1960s 4 stroke.
 * Yea, WWII was strait 6 gassers, sort of a line between flatheads and OHV. I was taught grinding valves/seats, but by that time it was generally done in a machine shop during overhaul, I’ve never done it as a repair. But that was past the 1950’s. Valve train problems usually related to engine speed, we beat them pretty hard. In the low 60’s we got hydraulic lifters, not only no adjusting, all the parts stay in contact, no gap hammering.
 * H.D. diesels really came of age in the ‘60s here, turbos were an expensive option, but reliable. Detroits had been around forever, the only two strokes on the road, possibly the first really successful Diesel. They were often smokey and had poor fuel economy, neither all that important back then. Somebody, I think Cat, had precombustion chamber vs direct injection heads as an option. I think the pre’s may have had glow plugs, that does sound like cold starting, doesn’t it? I don’t remember ever having glow plugs, we used spray cans of either, you could bring the dead to life.
 * Blower shaft sounds like any weakness in any engine, evolves into a stronger shaft. No relation to operating system, does sound like a bum’s rap. The Commer doesn’t have to sync cranks, that seems promising to me. Stationary engines? I get the offset for port timing, although it seems uneven. Could you offset the Commer style with different levers side to side? Some motorcycle had rotary valves, but I would think that would be a wear nightmare.
 * Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. You don't need to have both pistons have the same stroke, do you? As long as the combined stroke was the same, you would have the same compression ratio, correct? Could you time ports like that? Seems like a flash to me, but someone has certainly tried somewhere before. Thanks again. Sammy D III (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Fairbanks-Morse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221080403/http://www.tugboatenthusiastsociety.org:80/pages/tugmach-diesel-modern-FM.htm to http://www.tugboatenthusiastsociety.org/pages/tugmach-diesel-modern-FM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025084103/http://www.psrm.org/index.php/trains/diesel/1361 to http://www.psrm.org/index.php/trains/diesel/1361

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Z" Engines and Radios
I have added some details on the "Z" engine line as well as on the radio line, and have added 3 sources.

Tadfafty (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

EnPro sold off Fairbanks Morse Engine and it is now just "Fairbanks Morse"
So what should become of this article? --GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs)
 * create a disambiguation page with and without the dash?
 * combine the two companies?
 * or ?

Where were/are the major manufacturing faciities?
Not a word in this article about where Fairbanks Morse made anything. Surely they had some large factories. Tmangray (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fairbanks Morse Defense
* Specific Text to be added:

Under Modern Descendants

In the 1990s, Fairbanks Morse merged with ALCO to make the FM | ALCO line. Fairbanks Morse Engine was acquired by Arcline Investment Management in 2019 and quickly rebranded as Fairbanks Morse Defense in 2021. Fairbanks Morse Defense (FMD) is still a principal supplier of engines to the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, Military Sealift Command, and the Canadian Coast Guard, but they also provide maritime technologies, OEM parts, and turnkey services as well. Since rebranding, Fairbanks Morse Defense has acquired Hunt Valve, Federal Equipment Company, Ward Leonard, Welin Lambie, Maxim Watermakers, Research Tool & Die, and American Fan.

* Reason for the Change: The page is out dated. Fairbanks Morse Defense has been a direct descendant sine the rebrand in 2021.

* Reference: Home | Fairbanks Morse Defense Will.Monroe FMDefense (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)