# Replicas of original engines for warbirds



## Jenisch (Apr 22, 2012)

Why they are not made, high cost? I can think of aircraft like the Yaks and the Ki-43 from the video I posted in the other topic benefited from this.


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

Extreme expense of tooling up, limited market, horrendous liabillity if a warbird crashes with a "new build" engine in it.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 22, 2012)

The expense, combined with the limited market. How many Ki-43 engines would be needed worldwide?
TVAL are manufacturing new WW1 aircraft engines, but these engines are a lot simpler to manufcture. 
oberursel-engine
raf1-engine-reproduction
Note: TVAL refer to these engines (and all their aircraft) as reproductions, not replicas.

There may come a time when you could buy all the new components for a Merlin or an Allison.


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2012)

If anyone needs an Allison V-1710, we build those and have about 100 avialble for rebuild and sale. We can build E, F, and G engines and have two auxilliary supercharger stages if someone wants to race an Allison. If so, PM me!


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 22, 2012)

And thats another reason why no-one's building new. There are still plenty of originals around!


----------



## GregP (Apr 23, 2012)

No, there aren't. We have the largest inventory of Allsions and Allison parts in the world and we are a full service shop ... we'll overhaul your Allsion or build one up for you, your choice.

And, unlike other Allison builders, we guarantee ours and will fly behind them ourselves. Want a 12 - 15 year engine? Call Joe Yancey at YanceyAllisons.com

Serious inquiries nly please!


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 23, 2012)

Worldwide, there are a lot more of those engines around than airframes (at the moment). Certainly there isn't a market for new engines while people have them sitting on the shelf (or ready to build up for you). 
I can see a time when it is viable, but not until parts shortages make repairing engines impossible. I guess it'll probably start with companies manufacturing smaller parts, and then gradually making bigger and bigger sub-assemblies until they are effectivley manufacturing new engines bar the data plate. There must be a certain number of parts that are currently manufactured.


----------



## GregP (Apr 24, 2012)

We are at a critical point in WWII warbird ownership.

There are few Merlins available and they are flying parts today that they would have thrown away 20 years ago.

There are no P-51 Mustang propellers left (actually few ...) and if you want to make a new P-51 prop, you need to buy both props from a Grumman Albatross, and use two balanced blades opposite from each other for the four blades.

Curtiss Electric props are also a bit scarce, as are accessories. We can work on Merlins, too ... but usually don't. Many Alilison / Merlin / DB600 cases have spun bearings and you have to line bore the case to rebuild it. We can DO it, but not many people can because the tools are getting increasingly scarce. A good line hone capable of honing a Merlin, Allison, or Daimler-Benz is no longer made. You need to find an old one and overhaul it. We found one in average shape and spent 3 months overhauiling it. It is pristine now and we can line hone WWII V-12's. Not many shops can make that claim. 

If you spin a bearing, the case is usually lost to the world population. What you do is to drill out the bad bearing race bigger than stock, weld it back to smaller than stock, drill it back to just a small bit smaller than stock, and then hone it back to stock dimensions. If you have the machinery and the know-how, you have just rescued an otehrwise useless engine case, and can return one to service. WE can, but not many shops can or do.

Increasingly, the warbirds are the perview of the ultra wealthy because the parts are so scarce and expensive. That's OK, after 70+ years, maybe it's only the way life goes.

The point is, yes, WE happen to have Alllison engines available, but they aren't cheap or easily rebuildable. If we start with a complete Allison, we can usually rebuiltd one in about 6 - 8 weeks unless the schedule is full. Then the timeframe is variable depending on the backlog.

So ... enjoy them while you can because their time is limited. When the peoplpe with the knowledge to overhaul WWII V-12 and radial engines in bad condition retire or pass way, the skill is lost and the engines become unsupportable. The same is true for propellers and other critical parts. For instance, all the parts for Allisons (and other WWII engines) that will ever be made HAVE been made. When a water pump shaft is worn, we don't throw it away. We send it out to be machined down, replated, and then remachined back to stock specifications.

My own estimate is we can expect to see WWII fighers flying around for perhpas another 40 years and it will be done becasue the parts and skills to keep them flying will simply be gone.

I am 61 years old and the younger generation simply doesn't care that much about WWII aircraft or even flying in general. WWII WAS 70 years ago. So even though the hulks are rebuildable, there is little modern desire to do so from young people. We see it at the museum ... we have 300 volunteers and maybe 10 -15 are younger than 40 years old. And they usually don't become A&P mechanics or even get pilot's licenses.

I've had a good go at flying and have flown Cessnas, Pipers, Stearmans, and even have a bit of time in a MiG-15 UTI along with some VERY unusual time (got to fly right seat for awhile in a Convair 580). We even restored and got running a WWII V-1 pulsejet (Google Chino Pulsejet and you can see my pickup being pushed dowbn the runway with the pulsejet). I wish the younger generation had more interest in it, but they seem willing to fly on a jetliner with a computer for a pilot. Not me, ever.

I grieve for the great birds when our generation is gone. A Spitfire or Mustang should be flying once in awhile, not static in a museum with dust on it.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 24, 2012)

Greg, I'm a bit more positive about the state of operating warbirds.
Yes, it is more expensive, but (down here in New Zealand at least) we are starting to see a resurgence of people interested.
I have continually heard the line about not having the parts and skills to keep maintaining these birds, and yet, we have a certified WW1 aircraft manufacturer, who has redeveloped the skills and is now using original methods, techniques and practices to build these machines. I have no doubt that when the time comes, the same will happen with WW2 aircraft. Already we see it happening with airframes, and it will happen with engines.

MT Propellers is currently doing this for props (They manufacture the prop for the FW-190), and you can buy a new prop for a Spitfire, I am sure that when Albatross blades run out, someone will start manufacturing them.



> I grieve for the great birds when our generation is gone.


I am part of the generation that will inherit (is inheriting) this legacy, and I can guarantee you, that while the appreciation is different for the different generations, there is still a desire to keep these machines flying.
Around where I live, the warbird scene is mostly based on WW1 machines, and probably half of the people involved would be in the 30-45 age group, which is where you have the money and wherewithall to be able to indulge in this sort of thing, but they will keep flying.


----------



## GregP (Apr 24, 2012)

Great to hear! I hope there IS interest in late-generation propeller fighters going forward. 

My fondest hope is that 60 years from now, when I won't be here, some airshow happens where a P-38 and a P-51, and Spitifre, and a Zero, and an Me 109 or Fw 190 gets flown for the people, and does something other than a flyby. It should do a loop, a roll (possibly a point roll), a slow flyby, and a high-speed pass at the minimum ... not just fly past the assembled masses.

Warbirds are all about power, speed, and agility. Unfortunately, we usually can't demonstrate their other talent ... weapons delivery.

Since you are in New Zealand, you can see one of our engines down there in a newly-completed Yak-3. We sent an Allison V-1710 down to Graham Frue (not sure of the spelling of his last name) and they flew it at the Waribird Over Wanaka Airshow just recently. The Allison is very relaible and it SHOULD be flying down there for a long time. I hope you enjoy it. The engine ran great on the test stand (they ALL do or we fix them!) and Graham was very pleased to find he could show the Mustangs a thing or two about maneuverabilty and climb rate. In point of fact, he can wax their butts in ACM below 15,000 feet.

Our buddy Wuzak is also down in New Zealand and I hope you both went to the show, saw the Yak-3, and enjoyed it.

I really like the restorations you are doing in New Zealand, particularly the Japanese stuff such as the Ki-43, and would LOVE to be in on it. The Russian I-16's were pretty great, too. Keep it up! Maybe you guys should try to get our Mitsubishi J2M Raiden and restore it! It isn't on our schedule for at least a few years.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2012)

GregP said:


> Our buddy Wuzak is also down in New Zealand and I hope you both went to the show, saw the Yak-3, and enjoyed it.



I was in New Zealand....





....for about 3 hours, at Aukland Airport. Actually, I have been there 4 times. The total amount of time I have spent in New Zealand wouldn't add up to a half day. 

Remember I gave you a boomerang? That should be a hint as to what country I am from!

btw, have you tried it out?


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 25, 2012)

> Since you are in New Zealand, you can see one of our engines down there in a newly-completed Yak-3. We sent an Allison V-1710 down to Graham Frue (not sure of the spelling of his last name) and they flew it at the Waribird Over Wanaka Airshow just recently. The Allison is very relaible and it SHOULD be flying down there for a long time. I hope you enjoy it. The engine ran great on the test stand (they ALL do or we fix them!) and Graham was very pleased to find he could show the Mustangs a thing or two about maneuverabilty and climb rate. In point of fact, he can wax their butts in ACM below 15,000 feet.



I know that aircraft reasonably well, its been done a a local shop.

I didn't go to Warbirds over Wanaka, we've got a baby on the way, and I had some flying to complete in the CJ6. But I saw most of the test flying of the Yak, and it goes pretty well. There's plenty of time for me to see that aircraft in action. Gavin Conroy got some good photos of it as it came out of the shop: Classic Aircraft Photography - Classic Aircraft Photography, Air To Air photos taken by Gavin Conroy.

Jay has only got one restoration in the shop at the moment, might be room for the Mitsubishi...

Please, please don't get Tasmanians confused with New Zealanders again. It could start a war!


----------



## GregP (Apr 25, 2012)

Hi Wuzak from Tassmania ... I sort of screwed that one up, didn't I? And I KNOW what country you are from, just sort of space cased while posting in public. Bummer. Abject apologies. Beat me. make me feel cheap.

Yes I tried the boomberang in a grass park, no damage but I also didn't catch it. I started to try and decided I needed my good hand more than I needed to break a finger.

Sorry you didn't get to this year's "Warbirds Over Wanaka." We have an Allison flying down there in a Yak-3 and it seems to be flying quite well at this time. Graham calls us from New Zealand from time to time and says that while the Yak was sort of looked down upon by the Mustang drivers, it actually can out maneuver them easily ... and they are a bit miffed now that they have found that out.

Take care and pet the next local Tasmanian Devil you see for me. Maybe they need an engineering manager.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 25, 2012)

Greg,
Given that i get to get up close and personal to warbirds all the time, I don't feel I missed out on much, but it has been too many years since I've been down there.

When they were test flying the Yak, the test pilot's wife was flying chase in a P-40 and was struggling to keep up.


----------



## GregP (Apr 26, 2012)

Hi Gumbyk!

Maybe she needs a Yancey's Allison for her trusty P-40!

We had one at Reno two years ago (in the Bronze race) and it outran a Vought F4U Corsair who was really trying to catch up! All the P-40 pilot did was notch the rpm up from 3,000 to 3,400 and he pulled away from the Corsair. The normal limit for the Allison in aircraft is 3,000 rpm, but it was DESIGNED for 4,000 rpm. Not sure the Curtiss Electric propeller is, but that's another story ...


----------



## wuzak (Apr 26, 2012)

GregP said:


> Yes I tried the boomberang in a grass park, no damage but I also didn't catch it. I started to try and decided I needed my good hand more than I needed to break a finger.



Did it return?

I can't remember if I gave instructions on how to throw them. I have thrown a couple, but not since I was at school, many moons ago. So if I did give you instructions they're just as likely to be wrong!


----------



## GregP (Apr 27, 2012)

I have thrown Australian Boomernags before and have caught them, so I know how to throw them.

The real issue is catching them ... and I have, but not this one. When I did, I was wearing a catcher's mitt from American baseball, and it helped a lot.

Meanwhile, pet a Tasmianian Devil for me ...

Hope to see you within a few years.

Cheers, mate!


----------



## wuzak (Apr 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> I have thrown Australian Boomernags before and have caught them, so I know how to throw them.
> 
> The real issue is catching them ... and I have, but not this one. When I did, I was wearing a catcher's mitt from American baseball, and it helped a lot.



The problem for the Aborigines was that if they ar ecatching them they have missed their food....




GregP said:


> Meanwhile, pet a Tasmianian Devil for me ...



Like you, I like my hand!


----------



## GregP (Apr 27, 2012)

Hi Wuzak, 

Actually, I've thrown them before and I already knew how. The trick is to throw horizontally, not add height and to throw at 90° to the ground. Once you master that, you can experiment with slight angles, but they usually just ruin the flight path. I've been told you and hit things with practive, but all I can hit is the ground in some unknown spot that is usually not that close to where I wanted it to be.

Yes, it came back pretty close to me! Thanks for the neat Boomerang!


----------



## Siegfried (May 1, 2012)

I rather suspect that producing a replica engine wouldn't be too hard.

1 Mill the engine out of a solid block (rather than casting) using CNC machine tools, dimensions would be captured into a 3D cad system using 3D cameras, lasers or schmematic capture. This is how the Jabiru engine of the Australian light plane is made.
3 Mixture preperation: use and off the shelf multi-point or throttle body fuel injection system. It's no point wasting time remaking a Stromberg carburator unless Mr Money bags wants it.


----------



## gumbyk (May 1, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> I rather suspect that producing a replica engine wouldn't be too hard.
> 
> 1 Mill the engine out of a solid block (rather than casting) using CNC machine tools, dimensions would be captured into a 3D cad system using 3D cameras, lasers or schmematic capture. This is how the Jabiru engine of the Australian light plane is made.
> 3 Mixture preperation: use and off the shelf multi-point or throttle body fuel injection system. It's no point wasting time remaking a Stromberg carburator unless Mr Money bags wants it.



Unfortunately, easier said than done. TVAL took over 10 months just to do the reverse-engineering required for a WW1 engine, which is comparatively a simpler machine. So you are talking a significant investment of labour before you evenget to the point of producing a single part.

Although it is possible, and I have no doubt that it will happen in the future, it isn't a simple process. As well as measuring and getting the drawings, you have to work out what material you are working with, and procure the material.


----------



## GregP (May 2, 2012)

I can tell you this, the steel in an Allison V-1710 is head and shoulder s above the steel in a Chevy V-8.

We have crankshafts that have not rusted in 60 years ... and a few tath have (cn be rescued easily with the right techniques).

We don;t have the technology these days to duplicate the hard, non-rusting stell of WWII engines. I have never seen their like in a modern engine. 

Modern engines seem to be made from beer can grade steel ... but thaht can be misleading. Maybe the air is corrosive these days? But wait! The air is the SAME for both the 1940 engine and the 1995 engine, isn't it? 

So why is the 1944 engine in better shape? Must be the steel. Nothing else makes sense.


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2012)

GregP said:


> I can tell you this, the steel in an Allison V-1710 is head and shoulder s above the steel in a Chevy V-8.
> 
> We have crankshafts that have not rusted in 60 years ... and a few tath have (cn be rescued easily with the right techniques).
> 
> ...


 

Resistance to rust does not make the steel in an Allison's crankshaft superior to that in a Chevy's. Unless resistance to corrosion is of primary improtance - which I say is not the case fro a crankshaft.

I'm sure that the steel could easily be replicated today. Just send a sample to a materials testing lab and they will give you the composition of the steel, which any steel maker could match. Then the heat and surface treatments need to be identified and matched.

Car engines probably use cheaper inferior grade steels on the basis of cost. Not sure, but they may also use casting for the crankshaft, rather than forging.


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> I rather suspect that producing a replica engine wouldn't be too hard.
> 
> 1 Mill the engine out of a solid block (rather than casting) using CNC machine tools, dimensions would be captured into a 3D cad system using 3D cameras, lasers or schmematic capture. This is how the Jabiru engine of the Australian light plane is made.
> 3 Mixture preperation: use and off the shelf multi-point or throttle body fuel injection system. It's no point wasting time remaking a Stromberg carburator unless Mr Money bags wants it.



Making coolant passages for liquid cooled engines would be difficult using the milled method. Though with wet liners that wouldn't be a problem for teh block - but it would for the head.

Then you have to worry about oil galleries.


----------



## GregP (May 4, 2012)

Wayne,

In this instance you are 100% wrong (unusual when it comes to you).

The U.S.A. used to have four open hearth furnaces. We now have zero. The ones we used to have are operating in China today. The steel in the Battleship Missouri is armor steel along the armored areas. At the waterline it is 39 inches thick and is MUCH harder than steels made today. We have simply lost the technology to duplicte it as well as the equipment. If we wanted to do it again, we'd have to duplicate the research and reinvent the old ways. That is not from me, but rather from a fried who used to be a steelworker in the immediate popst-WWII days. He maintains that today's steel is made for economic reasons, not for the properties of teh steel itself. I believe him.

The furnaces we use today are pitiful cmpared with what we were using in WWII.

I have a piece of armor steel that laid out in the elements for 50+ years. It weighs about 65 pounds. Got it from a shipyard from my old friend about 20 years ago. It was armor steel used in ship building. When I shoot it with a 30-06 rifle, it doesn't even leave a scratch and barely a mark ... and the mark comes from the lead in the bullet, not from the steel. If an Exocet missile ever hit the Missouri near the waterline, it would not go through. It would scarcely leave a mark. Just my take on it since 39 inches of armor steel is all but impossible to penetrate without extraordinay weapopns. The waterline of the Missouri could take direct hits from any Battleship including 18 inch guns and not be holed. The unarmored areas could be penetrated, but the armor belts were pretty much immune to fatal damage.

Wehnthe Bismarkw as sunk, I dount she was holed in the armor belts either, but she still sank. Sure you can sink the Missouri, but not through the armor belts with anything I know of. Heck, most ship today are made from steel (or even Aluminum) that is one inch or less thick! Who'd want to go to a shooting war in THAT? Mostly, the new ships depend on standoff strike capabilty and missile and Phalanx guns to stop incoming hits. If a big one gets through, the modern ship is pretty much done or at minimum seriously damaged. Older warships could take a pretty good pounding and still be ready for action.


----------



## gumbyk (May 4, 2012)

Greg, all that proves is that if you want the steel, you won't be able to get it in the States. Given that the furnaces are still in use in China, then there's a good chance of getting it.
Just because it's not available in the USA doesn't mean it's not available, and at the right quality.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2012)

Actually, according to Wiki, the furnaces are no longer used in China.

Greg, in your opinion what makes the open heart furnaces superior to the currently used furnaces?

As far as I can tell the only advantage they had was that they operated slowly, which gave time for the steelworkers to check and adjust the steel composition. But this is moot now since there are faster methods for sampling the alloy.

As far as I can tell the armour on the Missouri was made from ATSM A-36 steel, with surface hardening.

A36 steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A-36 Properties

Greg, if you take your steel plate down to a testing lab you could find the hardness, tensile strength and composition.


----------



## Jenisch (May 4, 2012)

GregP said:


> That is not from me, but rather from a fried who used to be a steelworker in the immediate popst-WWII days. He maintains that today's steel is made for economic reasons, not for the properties of teh steel itself. I believe him.


 
My grandfather used to say the same. And actually this is extended to most industrialized stuff we have today. I belive the reason is in the much larger global population and consequent need for consumption.


----------



## GregP (May 4, 2012)

Yes I could do that.

I get my idea from at least 5 former steel workers who told me alot abiout it that I didn't really understand.

The thing is, if you process it slowly and introduce things at just the right time, you get not only hardness, but also a very hard steel that is both not brittle and also resistent to rust.

The old-time steel workers did not tell the new guys the secrets of armor steel when the new furnaces took over, and vowed never to reveal the sercets unless the old ways came back. One thing I can tell you, even freshly-made armor steel is pretty useless without aging in the elements. Most of the armor steel used in our WWII Battleships was made years before it was used and was aged, not artificially, in the open for several years. That's from actual WWII steel workers. You can believe it or not, makes no difference to me, but I've never found anything like my hunk of WWII armor steel, and I worked in industries that used steel for products.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2012)

Rust resistance is as much about the alloying components used as well as the carbon levels.

Not sure about the aging. Of course it could be done today too.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> My grandfather used to say the same. And actually this is extended to most industrialized stuff we have today. I belive the reason is in the much larger global population and consequent need for consumption.



I'm sure it has always been the case that the cost of making the steel is offset against the quantities required and the cost of making it into something useful. For things where weight isn't an issue cheaper, lower grade steels can be used.

Some of the automakers have, instead of following the trend to aluminium, began using high tensile steels for structural components - Porsche, I think, is one.


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2012)

Greg, Joe may have drawings for the crankshaft of the V-1710. If he does, that should have the material spec on it.

Also note that with the same basic steel you can get different strength, hardnesse and other properties simply by the way it is processed and made into the final product - hot rolled, cold rolled, cast, forged, machined, ground, annealed, case hardened, through hardened, carburised, etc.


----------



## GregP (May 5, 2012)

I'll check with Joe, but he says the same thing I just did ... they can't make it anymore.


----------



## DonL (May 5, 2012)

> Wayne,
> 
> In this instance you are 100% wrong (unusual when it comes to you).
> 
> ...



I don't want to offend you, but what you have written is simply untrue and somekind of myths.

1. Most to all Battleships were *built* with *ST 52* construction steel, this is absolutely the same ST 52 construction steel from today for nearly all ships that were and would be build! ST 52 Steel is normed worldwide after DIN!

2. Second you are refering to amored Steel like US Class A face hardened steel (Krupp cemented KCn.A, British cemented etc.) or US Class B homogeneous Steel (Krupp Wotan hard/soft, British homogeneous) The face hardened steel plates were for the belt and turret roofs protection and the homogeneous Steel plates for the protection deck and torpedo bulkheads.
You claimed you don't know anything that could punch through such a steel. 
For example modern APFSDS or HEAT shells produce heat of 5000 degree Celsius, with this heat every Steel will be punched like the butter with a knife!
Also modern Antiship missles, for example from Russia, have a war head till 700kg SAP (armor piercing high explosive). THe USS 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 shell (from Iowa) had a AP warhead of 18,5 kg and a HE warhead of 70kg.

I'm a member of a historical Navy forum and last year we visited Krupp at Essen and we have had a complete day for a tour and a very kind and knowledged company employee (something about 60 years old), which we have punched with question about the naval steels of WWII.
All Krupp formulas are at the company and can build again, but he has very good explained why amored steel has today only a niche being and compound armor is much better again modern weapons.


----------



## GregP (May 5, 2012)

You didn't offend me Doni, I just don't believe you. I know too many steelworkers who say otherwise. However, since I don't build ships or make steel, it really doesn't matter. I CAN say this, the steel in my modern rifles rusts easily if I neglect them. The steel in my WWI and WWII rifles doesn't. My Swedish Mauser is dated 1911 and it is PERFECT. I know guys with WWII M-1's that are in MUCH worse shape, with less use.

That says SOMETHING about the realtive quality of the steels. I have a bayonette dated 1901 that looks brand new! My 1950 bayonettes aren't nearly in so good shape as some of the older ones.

I absolutely KNOW that 1920's machine guns outshoot ANYTHING modern becasue I have shot most of them. I used to have a freind in the automatic arms business in Arizona. I have shot the German MG42 and a host of Thompsons, as well as the M60 and Mac10, etc. The older guns outperform the newer ones hands down ... and the steel is in better shape to boot.

Sorry, but modern steels aren't a patch on older steels, in my own experience. Maybe yours has been different but, mine has not. I would not say your experince is untrue, but I have not experienced it. That's all.


----------



## wuzak (May 9, 2012)

Asked in another forum (a techncial forum) about steels and the consensus is that steels today can be made to the same or better standard of years gone by, but that in most cases cheaper lower grade material is used because the better grades are usually not necessary.


----------



## GregP (May 10, 2012)

OK Wuzak, ask around and see who can claims they can make WWII battleship grade armor steel. Then ask if they have ever DONE so. Saying you can do something means nothing if you never have. If they can, I might be interested in some REAL steel, not virtual steel from someone who is not a steel supplier. Sounds like a Mythbusters show to me.

I have never seen WWII military grade steel from ANY modern steelmaker. If you have, in what products? Can I get one now?

In my exprience, all modern steels rust much sooner than older steels. Even Rockwell C 58 steels rust easily today while WWII Rockwell C 58 steel is usually pristine. Of course, all Rockwell C 58 steels are not equal ... it depends on the element mix / heat treatment and we just can't duplicate the WWII stuff as far as I know becasue we don't know what they DID to make it.

Like I said, if we can, I'd be interested in buying some, even if it from offshore.


----------



## wuzak (May 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> OK Wuzak, ask around and see who can claims they can make WWII battleship grade armor steel. Then ask if they have ever DONE so. Saying you can do something means nothing if you never have. If they can, I might be interested in some REAL steel, not virtual steel from someone who is not a steel supplier. Sounds like a Mythbusters show to me.
> 
> I have never seen WWII military grade steel from ANY modern steelmaker. If you have, in what products? Can I get one now?
> 
> ...



What specification is the armour plate? Rockwell 58C doesn't specify what type of steel it is - just that it is hard or hardened. 

I think rust resistance is largely dependent on the Chromium content.


----------



## wuzak (May 10, 2012)

Hardness is an interesting thing.

Steels can be hardened, some better than others. The armour plate that you are referring to probably have been surface hardened - that is justthe surface is hard. They can also be through hardened.

Looking at a chart for a number of different grades of steel which shows typical temperatures for different processes, with the final process being noted as "to the desired hardness".


----------



## wuzak (May 10, 2012)

http://www.bisalloy.com.au/files/Techman/Range of Grades.pdf

Check out the Armour Plate.


----------



## wuzak (May 10, 2012)

This appears to be the steel used in class A grade ship armour:

Special treatment steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The high chromium content explains the resistance to corrosion.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> OK Wuzak, ask around and see who can claims they can make WWII battleship grade armor steel. Then ask if they have ever DONE so. Saying you can do something means nothing if you never have. If they can, I might be interested in some REAL steel, not virtual steel from someone who is not a steel supplier. Sounds like a Mythbusters show to me.




The Nuclear industry uses steels that would have made a battleship designer cry himself to sleep.


----------



## Ascent (May 10, 2012)

Moving away from the steel for a moment, I must admit I'd love to get into revamping or repairing old WWII engines. Mind you I was a propulsion Tech in the RAF for 19 years.

A guy I was in training with for a while had been on BBMF for about 5 years. Now that is a posting I would have ripped someones hand off to get.


----------



## GregP (May 10, 2012)

I won't argue steel anymore. I just don't believe any of you since I have yet to see the proof, and I have been looking for it. Showing me a brochure for modernn armor plate does nolthing whatsoever for comparing it with older armor plate. If I had the specs of the older plate, I'd know more about it than anyone else.

The Nuclear industry doesn't need armor steel. They need steel of high consistent quality and of a certain thickness. A contanment package doesn't need to stop Naval shells, it simply needs to hold the pressure without cracking for 20 - 40 years or more. Ductility is more important than armor resistance.

Hi Ascent,

As someone who works in a shop dedicated to Allisons, I can understand where you are coming from. It is fun, but work, and you have to know people who do things the old way.

For instance, when a water pump shaft is worn out, we don't throw it away. We send it out and get the shaft plated with enough thickness to make it too big. We then send it out to be remachined down to new tolerances ... and we have a virtual new water pump shaft. Takes time and patience, but it has rewards. Much the same goes for other parts, too.

Good luck!


----------



## wuzak (May 10, 2012)

Greg, here is a page with soem info of WW2 ship armour

Table of Metallurgical Properties of Naval Armor and Construction Materials


----------



## CdnDave (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm looking for an Allison 1710 for a pet project of mine. I sent a PM, but my profile says it never went. Might be a forum permissions thing as I just joined? Looking for an approximate cost of a zero hr ready to go 1710. I know if I have to ask I can't afford it...


----------

