Mistake In the book Turning the Tide (6 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

MIflyer

Captain
7,601
16,262
May 30, 2011
Cape Canaveral
A book I am reading, Turning the Tide, seems to be a really well researched history of the USAAF in North Africa and Sicily and I have already learned a lot from it even though I am only in 40 pages or so.

But the author made a technical mistake on page 34, discussing the problems with the P-38's sent to the theater. I quote:

"The cooling system for the engines involved circulating air from the radiators into the leading edge of the outer wing. Because the radiator was too small for adequate cooling under desert conditions, and because this system for cooling the air turned out to be inadequate. the problem of engines overheating and failing was a common one for a pilot to deal with in 1942-43 North Africa."

Maybe there were cooling problems with the P-38 in the desert, but what he describes is completely wrong. The V-1710 is a liquid cooled engine and the only air going through the aft boom mounted radiators was that coming in the front and going out the back. Liquid coolant, Glycol, was pumped from the engine case back to the coolant radiators and then back up to the engines.

On the P-38's before the J model the leading edge of the outer wing was used to cool the pressurized air that came out of the turbosuperchargers before it was inducted into the V-1710 mechanical supercharger. The leading edges of the outer wings were used Intercoolers. This was clever and elegant design with very low aerodynamic drag. On B-17's the intercoolers were inside the wing and air had to be taken in through the leading edges of the wing, flowed through the intercooler, and then exhausted back out of the wing. But there were neither external nor internal fins to help with heat transfer in the leading edges of the P-38 wings and adding paint on the outside did not help, either. In the P-38H the engine power was limited by the limited cooling capability of the intercoolers. The P-38J introduced into production air to air intercoolers located in the cowling chin position and this solved the intercooler limitations problem but introduced a new and potentially more serious one, since the air/gasoline vapor charge going into the cylinders could get too cool, especially at high altitudes. So the P-38H engines could not put out all the power they were capable of while the P-38J/L engines occasionally blew up. At the 9th PRS in India they solved the intercooler overcooling problem on their F-5 recon aircraft by blocking off some of the cowling exhaust area, a solution that was possible since recon aircrafa tended to fly high and fast without much in the way of power charges, unlike fighters. In any case, for the P-38F and G models in N Africa the leading edge intercoolers certainly were not causing engines to overheat. The hot air was down low and the turbos really started boosting big time up where it was high and cooler.

Now, as for the engines getting too hot in the desert, the P-38F and G models did not have engine coolant radiators that stuck further out into the airstream as did the later models. For both the P-38 and the P-51 the designers figured out that separating the slow moving boundary layer air next to the fuselage from the faster moving air a few inches further out helped a great deal with improving cooling. This was even a problem with the intakes on the earliest P-80's; they had to add splitter plates.

"
 
Okay here are another couple of errors.

He states that the P-39 had poor high altitude performance because of the removal of the turbosupercharger. In reality the P-39 prototype had lower performance with the turbo than it did with just the single stage supercharged V-1710.

On P.44 he states: "The P-40F differed from the P-40E's they had been flying by having the Allison V-1710 engine of the P-40E replaced with the Packard built V-1650-1 Merlin = equivalent to the Rolls Royce Merlin XX and designated Packard-Merlin 28 by the RAF - with a single stage two speed supercharger that produced full power at higher altitudes than the Allison could reach, as it lacked a supercharger."

I am kind of amazed that people are still writing that "the Allison lacked a supercharger." The basic V-1710 had a single stage single speed supercharger that in the P-40E and P-39 was set up for maximum speed at about 15,000 ft while in the P-51A it produced maximum speed at about 20,000 ft. The V-1650-1 had single stage two-speed supercharger that produced a maximum speed at about 15,000 ft in low speed, at which point it switched to the high supercharger speed and gave the airplane its highest top speed at about 20,000 ft.
 
I've grown to loathe the books that try to describe everything.
If a book is about the German paratroopers: writers please don't use a drop of ink in describing how Hitler was bad. If a book is about Japanese aero engines, why waste a half of the book describing the Japanese aircraft (while trying to stay away from the primary sources)? A book offered for free download during the COVID, describing the Hawker Hurricane, claims that the Merlin XX was with a 2-stage supercharger? Or, why make a comment (in a book about the Axis aircraft) about GM-1 not being as good as supercharging - thus implying that aircraft using the GM-1 had no supercharging? Same book implies that Re.2005 was used above 'ruins of Berlin'???

Cringe all around.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
It was common, in WW2 at least, for people to use the term "two stage supercharging" interchangably with "two speed supercharging."

And I still wonder about a very nice article in Air Enthusiast about the Stormavik that said the engine did not have a supercharger. I very much doubt that. Even the Vultee BT-13 had a supercharger.
 
It was common, in WW2 at least, for people to use the term "two stage supercharging" interchangably with "two speed supercharging."

And I still wonder about a very nice article in Air Enthusiast about the Stormavik that said the engine did not have a supercharger. I very much doubt that. Even the Vultee BT-13 had a supercharger.
1037

Yes. Regarding the V-1710 "without" supercharger, it should be remembered that the Allison engine was often used with a separate turbocharger.

On the other hand, everyone knows that the Rolls-Royce engine owed its high performance to a highly sophisticated mechanical supercharger (depending on the engine's use: 1 or 2 speeds, 1 or 2 stages, integrated intercooler).

It is therefore very easy for authors who are imprecise about technical specifications to claim that the V-1710 "had no supercharger" when, in reality, it was only fitted without a turbocharger... and forget that all versions had a (rather discreet) mechanical supercharger integrated into the rear end of engine.
 
Last edited:
And I still wonder about a very nice article in Air Enthusiast about the Stormavik that said the engine did not have a supercharger. I very much doubt that. Even the Vultee BT-13 had a supercharger.
Years ago, the Air Vectors site claimed that AM-38 engine had no supercharger, so I've sent them a mail saying that was not the case. I'm not sure what took them to change that, however now they claim that this:

Part of the problem was that the AM35 had a two-speed supercharger, which wasn't needed for the low-level operations appropriate for a battlefield support aircraft; it actually robbed the engine of power,

The whole quoted passage being wrong.

I'd be very vary with any Western (USA + UK) publication from ~1995 and earlier that tries to go deep about the technicalities of the Soviet/Russian gear. Similar for the Western publications dealing with Axis gear, for at least the same time.
Heck, they even get the indigenous stuff wrong many times.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back