If you could go back to WW-2 with the knowledge you have now in engine design...what would you improve? No jets...

[jetcal1]

I got out in '74. That happened in '88. In '90 I had a new hire FO in my right seat, a TD who got an early out rather than transition to IC and go to sea for a year. He said most TDs were converted to ICs, yanked from the airedale Navy and sent to sea as black shoes. He said they had to take on short notice the IC exam for the rate they held as TDs just to hold their paygrade, and depending on their scores, many were set back a paygrade or two. Not happy campers. A lot of folks went to work for GD, MacD, and CAE about then.
Probably a good thing from a taxpayer standpoint, as when I left in '74 Naval Air seemed to be functioning more on the expertise of tech reps than of sailors.
Cheers,
Wes

From TD to IC? WTF? My exposure to TD's was admittedly limited to the ones that ran flight simulators but a direct cross rate to Data Systems seems like it would have been more appropriate. (At least a review by NEC to help determine what rate to cross someone into.)

I went into the F-14 community in '80 and found some pretty sharp cats who were essentially detailed in to stand up the East Coast. I didn't run into a bad squadron until 1990 and regrettably lacked the technical talent to just walk in and troubleshoot a helicopter after 10 years of F-14's.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

From TD to IC? WTF? My exposure to TD's was admittedly limited to the ones that ran flight simulators but a direct cross rate to Data Systems seems like it would have been more appropriate. (At least a review by NEC to help determine what rate to cross someone into.)

I went into the F-14 community in '80 and found some pretty sharp cats who were essentially detailed in to stand up the East Coast. I didn't run into a bad squadron until 1990 and regrettably lacked the technical talent to just walk in and troubleshoot a helicopter after 10 years of F-14's.

I was long gone when all of this happened, so most of what I "know" is hearsay and official statements. Apparently the black shoe navy was (as always) starved for electronic talent, and with the Aegis system coming online, IC responsibilities were shifting from "low tech" to "high tech", and a lot of the rate were off in B schools playing catch up, so the up to speed guys were not getting ANY shore duty rotations.
Most TDs were working with "dated" computer systems, whereas Data Systems needed people up to speed on the latest rapidly evolving computer technology. Besides, TDs enjoyed a life of perpetual shore duty, and were top-heavy in rank, much to the envy of the black shoe navy. Apparently the knowledge base of TDs was enough different from IC that most couldn't step right into the responsibility level their paygrade warranted, hence the setbacks. Wouldn't have happened in my day, with VN going on and manpower at a premium. But the cold war was winding down and budget was an issue, and AF and Navy were starting to downsize. That's the story as I got it, but you were there and I wasn't, so what's your take?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[jetcal1]

I was long gone when all of this happened, so most of what I "know" is hearsay and official statements. Apparently the black shoe navy was (as always) starved for electronic talent, and with the Aegis system coming online, IC responsibilities were shifting from "low tech" to "high tech", and a lot of the rate were off in B schools playing catch up, so the up to speed guys were not getting ANY shore duty rotations.
Most TDs were working with "dated" computer systems, whereas Data Systems needed people up to speed on the latest rapidly evolving computer technology. Besides, TDs enjoyed a life of perpetual shore duty, and were top-heavy in rank, much to the envy of the black shoe navy. Apparently the knowledge base of TDs was enough different from IC that most couldn't step right into the responsibility level their paygrade warranted, hence the setbacks. Wouldn't have happened in my day, with VN going on and manpower at a premium. But the cold war was winding down and budget was an issue, and AF and Navy were starting to downsize. That's the story as I got it, but you were there and I wasn't, so what's your take?
Cheers,
Wes

I don't know enough about the rate. With the exception of the TD1's running the C-118 procedures simulator at Glenview, every other TD I saw was also a TD1 working as assistants to the civilians running the flight simulators for the F-14's at NAS Oceana and Miramar. (Oh, and I don't think I ever saw a young TD or a even TD2.) in .other words, I could spell TD. Even the training simulators at the F-14 schoolhouse were run by the rates teaching the course. (I don't think NAMTRAGRUDET had any TD billets in '80 or when I recycled through in Miramar in '85.)

 

[XBe02Drvr]

every other TD I saw was also a TD1 working as assistants to the civilians running the flight simulators for the F14s.

That's the crux of the issue: contract civilians handling a job that had got too complex for enlisted guys to manage unsupervised. Probably cheaper in the long run. I remember J79 and AWG10 maintenance at the RAG happening under the watchful eyes of the tech reps.

the training simulators at the F-14 schoolhouse were run by the rates teaching the course. (

What rates were these? My trainer was run by the Lieutenants and Lt. Commanders who were instructors at the RAG, while I assisted by flying the targets and operating their ECM. Student flew the scope, instructor flew the interceptor, and I played "aggressor". The instructors were Vietnam experienced, Topgun qualified, hotshots who would sometimes leave me to run a student through repetitive interception drills while they "dispensed combat wisdom" in the coffee mess to the students waiting their turn on the trainer. Interesting experience. I got so I could run VID interceptions in my sleep. High speed three dimensional geometry problems.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[jetcal1]

That's the crux of the issue: contract civilians handling a job that had got too complex for enlisted guys to manage unsupervised. Probably cheaper in the long run. I remember J79 and AWG10 maintenance at the RAG happening under the watchful eyes of the tech reps.


What rates were these? My trainer was run by the Lieutenants and Lt. Commanders who were instructors at the RAG, while I assisted by flying the targets and operating their ECM. Student flew the scope, instructor flew the interceptor, and I played "aggressor". The instructors were Vietnam experienced, Topgun qualified, hotshots who would sometimes leave me to run a student through repetitive interception drills while they "dispensed combat wisdom" in the coffee mess to the students waiting their turn on the trainer. Interesting experience. I got so I could run VID interceptions in my sleep. High speed three dimensional geometry problems.
Cheers,
Wes

J79 repairs supervised by tech reps? (And I worked on '79's both in the shop and in the testcell for about two years. While doing my TF30 as well.) Wow! That's way beyond anything I ever saw. Our Pratt and Whitney TF30 Reps basically hung out for the coffee for a little while, looked at engines we had complaints about and then went back into their offices.

We got the simulators at night for low and high power TF30 engine run simulation. My instructors were two AD2's and we got the simulators after 1900.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

J79 repairs supervised by tech reps? (And I worked on '79's both in the shop and in the testcell for about two years. While doing my TF30 as well.) Wow! That's way beyond anything I ever saw.

You may have had the benefit of a more senior, more experienced engine shop than VF101DetKeyWest or RVAHWing1 had. Lots of junior guys and not so many career sailors. Vietnam was over and retention was an issue. Miramar and Oceana were both master jet bases with all the trimmings. Key West was an outpost.
I don't think there was a test cell on base, but I know the Alameda chocks got a lot of use. They weren't very far from my barracks.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[xylstra]

Why on Earth do you feel you need to go back in time? Advanced aero-engine technology already existed in the day!
1/ Roland Cross of Cross Manufacturing Limited, U.K. had designed and drawn-up plans for a Rotary-Valve (his famous 'Cross 'horizontal Rotary-Valve) cylinder-head conversion for the R-R 'Merlin'.
R-V's offer a huge amount of port area using only a single valve with the option of using two if needs be (even more area!), allow higher compression ratios to be used, a significant reduction in fuel consumption, higher BMEP and such complete combustion that there is virtually no visible exhaust flame (no dampers required for night vision). No high-tech required! Sadly, it was never actually made - damn!!
2/ Electronic ignition - 'Yes, that's right"!
BOSCH developed and test flew a fighter with a Thyratron valve-based CDI ignition system from Rechlin in the closing stages of WW2 (NB. does anyone have a copy of the actual test report and/or the post-war allied intelligence report?). First known example of its application to aero-engines although there were pre-war experiments in America with road-transport petrol engines.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Sadly, it was never actually made - damn!!

So we'll never actually know if it would have ever actually worked?

 

[wuzak]

Why on Earth do you feel you need to go back in time? Advanced aero-engine technology already existed in the day!
1/ Roland Cross of Cross Manufacturing Limited, U.K. had designed and drawn-up plans for a Rotary-Valve (his famous 'Cross 'horizontal Rotary-Valve) cylinder-head conversion for the R-R 'Merlin'.
R-V's offer a huge amount of port area using only a single valve with the option of using two if needs be (even more area!), allow higher compression ratios to be used, a significant reduction in fuel consumption, higher BMEP and such complete combustion that there is virtually no visible exhaust flame (no dampers required for night vision). No high-tech required! Sadly, it was never actually made - damn!!

Rotary valves still have sealing problems to this day.

 

[xylstra]

Rotary valves still have sealing problems to this day.

NO they do not! Have you even seen a rotary-valve 4-stroke engine running?
I have: not one, but several. Most of my friends are engine inventors and I have had the privilege of seeing these engines operate and irrefutably demonstrate the desirable characteristics that Rotary-Valve engines are noted for (e.g. me holding my hand 3" from the exhaust port and feeling only a very warm breeze attesting to superb combustion). Type "Ralph Watson on scienceontheweb"into your browser and look at Ralph's BSA V-twin RV conversion. And, by the way, these are not fragile test-bed prototypes they have been installed in vehicles used as daily runners. Ralph also used to race his BSA.
So once and for all put the baloney myth of "sealing PROBLEMS with RV engines..." into the garbage bin where they belong!

 

[DerGiLLster]

You know browsing along this thread and reading how much of the tech today is done with supercomputers, makes me believe the end of the Korean War, 1953, should be the stopgap for any effective application of tech to World War Two, unless something can be brought up. Who knows I may be wrong on that. Not the first time.

What about starting development on the Wasp Major engine, the VDT variant(4300 hp), in 1933 and having it ready by 1936-37? Would it be possible to accomplish it in that time frame? Could you memorize the blueprints for that thing and have it ready for mass production in American bombers?

Wonder if the powerful engine could make B-17s have two engines instead of four?

 

[Shortround6]

What about starting development on the Wasp Major engine, the VDT variant(4300 hp), in 1933 and having it ready by 1936-37? Would it be possible to accomplish it in that time frame? Could you memorize the blueprints for that thing and have it ready for mass production in American bombers?

It isn't a matter of memorising blueprints (or even having a crate of them with with you). It is a matter of bringing the knowledge of the metallurgy, the manufacturing techniques and some other things.
Do you know how to make 1945-46 valve springs or piston rings instead of 1933 springs and rings? (or bearings?)
Do you know how to make a rotary centrifuge casting machine? (and other specialized machinery)
Do you know what to do to get the fuel the Wasp Major VDT was supposed to run on? (it was 115/145, not 100/130 )

The list goes on.
P & W spent around 25 million dollars developing the R-4360 but they did that on the back of the R-2800 ( 8 million) and earlier engines. They had learned how to make the Cylinders, pistons, rings, valves and much of the rest of the engine before or during the development of the R-4360.
Having a set of plans might speed things up a bit but not to the extent you might think.

 

[DerGiLLster]

Snip

Interesting. Metallurgy for the mid 1940s was different than the mid 1930s? Would you mind being able to estimate how long such completion would take? How many more differences are there? Do you know any good books that explain the advance in metallurgy from 1930s to the 1940s, even 1950s, as I know the engine was still manufactured in the 50s.

Are you saying that a rotary centrifuge casting machine wasn't invented back then? When was it put into use?

I really wish to dive deep into this subject as a layman.

 

[Shortround6]

What little I know comes from a variety of sources.
Improvements in valve spring material and drawing techniques in late 20s and early 30s increased the life of valve springs enormously. It is this change in the actual technology of what seem to simple parts that allows for some large changes. Like car engines of the 1960-70s using push rods and running at rpm that some DOHC engines of the 50s could not match. Higher stress and longer life at the same time.
They were coming up with new alloys, new heat treatment and new service treatments continually.
One of the few good books on engine development is "Vees for Victory" about the Allison engine. The Allison went through 4 different crankshafts, at least two crankcases, different valve springs, different piston rings and other changes to go from a 1040hp engine to 1600-1800hp engine, this is in addition to the changes in fuel. Pouring 115/145 fuel into the tanks of a very early P-40 would only get you high power for a very short period of time.
Some WW II aircraft engines doubled their time between overhauls from the beginning of the war till end even though the late war engines were allowed to make much more power at times and even crusie power was raised somewhat. This was due to the better materials and manufacturing techniques.

BTW the R-4360 C with the VDT used a Bendix-Stromberg 28 plunger direct fuel injection system instead of the 4 barrel injection carburetor used on the B series engines (3500hp?)
The question is not wither it can be made at all but if it can be mass produced at the rate of hundreds per month.

 

[DerGiLLster]

What little I know comes from a variety of sources.
Improvements in valve spring material and drawing techniques in late 20s and early 30s increased the life of valve springs enormously. It is this change in the actual technology of what seem to simple parts that allows for some large changes. Like car engines of the 1960-70s using push rods and running at rpm that some DOHC engines of the 50s could not match. Higher stress and longer life at the same time.
They were coming up with new alloys, new heat treatment and new service treatments continually.
One of the few good books on engine development is "Vees for Victory" about the Allison engine. The Allison went through 4 different crankshafts, at least two crankcases, different valve springs, different piston rings and other changes to go from a 1040hp engine to 1600-1800hp engine, this is in addition to the changes in fuel. Pouring 115/145 fuel into the tanks of a very early P-40 would only get you high power for a very short period of time.
Some WW II aircraft engines doubled their time between overhauls from the beginning of the war till end even though the late war engines were allowed to make much more power at times and even crusie power was raised somewhat. This was due to the better materials and manufacturing techniques.

BTW the R-4360 C with the VDT used a Bendix-Stromberg 28 plunger direct fuel injection system instead of the 4 barrel injection carburetor used on the B series engines (3500hp?)
The question is not wither it can be made at all but if it can be mass produced at the rate of hundreds per month.

Woah! Impressive info! You amaze me again Shortround6. Despite your name you never come short of information.

But one thing I am confused on is this. Why is the issue of mass production important if this engine came from from the United States of America?
They made 18,697 engines between 1944 and 1955. That is approx 140 engines per month, with production coming in late in the war. I don't think mass production would be an issue here.

But then again I could be wrong. Just seem a little weird to speculate if the US of all nations could mas produce this engine earlier.

 

[Shortround6]

Ford topped out at 2,419 R-2800s in June of 1944,plus spare parts. Nash-Kelvinator made 859 R-2800s the same month, Chevrolet was still tooling up for the R-2800 ( but did make 2600 R-1830s that month) P & W Kansas city made 301 R-2800 "C"s and was still ramping up. The R-2800 C had the closest cylinders to the R-4360. P & W Hartford built 722 R-1830s, 194 R-2000s, 800 R-2800s, 4 R-3360s and 992 assorted other engines.
One reason that the US could build such large numbers of engines was standardization. Ford only built single stage engines (mostly Bs) , N-K only built two stage engines (again Bs) . Kansas city only built single stage Cs. Chevrolet was tooling up to make single stage Cs and Harford was making a variety, however by June of 1944 they had stopped making single stage Bs and were making two stage Bs and were starting up on the two stage Cs.
P&W had started design work on the R-2800 C in May of 1940, ran the first prototype in sept 1940 and delivered the 5th "production" engine in Aug of 1943. Dec 1943. saw the 12th R-2800 C completed so counting some of these engines as production may be stretching things.
Enormous resources were used. But also modifications and slightly different models were held to a minimum and, as shown, factories specialised in one type of engine or another.

trying to sell either P & W or the US government a 3000hp plus engine that weighed over 3000lbs when they had just adopted the P-26 Peashooter with a 600hp engine. might have taken a little salesmanship

 

[edwest3]

An upcoming book that may interest a few here: 8504 - THE SECRET HORSEPOWER RACE - WESTERN FRONT FIGHTER ENGINE DEVELOPMENT | Mortons Books

 

[wuzak]

Ford topped out at 2,419 R-2800s in June of 1944,plus spare parts. Nash-Kelvinator made 859 R-2800s the same month, Chevrolet was still tooling up for the R-2800 ( but did make 2600 R-1830s that month) P & W Kansas city made 301 R-2800 "C"s and was still ramping up. The R-2800 C had the closest cylinders to the R-4360. P & W Hartford built 722 R-1830s, 194 R-2000s, 800 R-2800s, 4 R-3360s and 992 assorted other engines.
One reason that the US could build such large numbers of engines was standardization. Ford only built single stage engines (mostly Bs) , N-K only built two stage engines (again Bs) . Kansas city only built single stage Cs. Chevrolet was tooling up to make single stage Cs and Harford was making a variety, however by June of 1944 they had stopped making single stage Bs and were making two stage Bs and were starting up on the two stage Cs.
P&W had started design work on the R-2800 C in May of 1940, ran the first prototype in sept 1940 and delivered the 5th "production" engine in Aug of 1943. Dec 1943. saw the 12th R-2800 C completed so counting some of these engines as production may be stretching things.
Enormous resources were used. But also modifications and slightly different models were held to a minimum and, as shown, factories specialised in one type of engine or another.

trying to sell either P & W or the US government a 3000hp plus engine that weighed over 3000lbs when they had just adopted the P-26 Peashooter with a 600hp engine. might have taken a little salesmanship

Did Ford build complete engines? Or did they subcontract some sections, like reduction gear or supercharger?

I wonder if it was considered to have a company making cylinder barrels, another making heads, another making crankcases, etc. With one company overseeing the whole project and assembling the engines.

Would that have been less efficient?

 

[xylstra]

It isn't a matter of memorising blueprints (or even having a crate of them with with you). It is a matter of bringing the knowledge of the metallurgy, the manufacturing techniques and some other things.
Do you know how to make 1945-46 valve springs or piston rings instead of 1933 springs and rings? (or bearings?)
Do you know how to make a rotary centrifuge casting machine? (and other specialized machinery)
Do you know what to do to get the fuel the Wasp Major VDT was supposed to run on? (it was 115/145, not 100/130 )

The list goes on.
P & W spent around 25 million dollars developing the R-4360 but they did that on the back of the R-2800 ( 8 million) and earlier engines. They had learned how to make the Cylinders, pistons, rings, valves and much of the rest of the engine before or during the development of the R-4360.
Having a set of plans might speed things up a bit but not to the extent you might think.

So very, VERY true. Exactly the same with the Saturn V F1 1st stage rocket engines. Manufacturing know-how acquired on-the-job and now permanently lost due to the death of these long-retired craftsmen. A great shame.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I wonder if it was considered to have a company making cylinder barrels, another making heads, another making crankcases, etc. With one company overse

Great idea, as long as you have the Nazi Party in charge of quality control. At GE we "wasted" lots of time reworking subcontractor supplied Vulcan and Minigun parts that were off by a ten thousandth or so here or there, or in some cases threw them away and made a new "prototype" part to send to the vendor with the following admonition. "Build this. Build exactly this. Build only this, if you want to get paid and stay out of court!"
We even got a set of raw castings (at several $K each) that were mirror image of the original part. Oops!
So subcontractor supply chain is a great concept - when you finally get the bugs worked out of it.
When you're trying to get low tech subs up to speed with advanced materials and fabrication techniques, it can be buggy and slow, not to mention expensive.
Besides the problem of selling an expensive monster engine to a peashooter air force In the middle of a Depression, there's the problem (in addition to fuel mentioned by SR6), the problem of heat dissipation in that corncob engine. The cylinders they had the technology to build in the '30s couldn't effectively radiate that much heat. Pratt spent years calculating and experimenting and evolving through a series of engines to get to the 4360. It wasn't going to happen in a quantum leap.
Cheers,
Wes