Navalized P-38/39/40: pros cons

[GregP]

In most carriers water was let into the fuel bilges for ballast because fuel floats on the water. It works except in violent seas when flying wouldn't be happening anyway. I realize bilges are planned out. What I was saying is simply that if they wanted to emplane liquid-cooled aircraft, they'd have to allow bilge space for coolant ... or space above the bilges, and I cannot see a way around that statement.

You can't fly liquid cooled planes and expect the same coolant they emplane with to be used for the entire cruise. They lose some due to leaks and they also loose some due to maintenance. You MUST be able to replace it so the plane can fly.

Ergo, had they acquired any liquid-cooled aircraft on carriers, they'd HAVE to have coolant aboard somehwere, whether in bilges or not. I'm not arguing about where it would be stored or what procedures would be required. All I'm syaing is the coolant would be required; it would not be optional.

Maybe coolant did play a part in the Naval preference for air-coold radials. I wasn't around to hear the arguments, but have heard that the guys making the decisions were biased toward air-cooled radials because that's what THEY flew when engine becames much more reialble during their earlier flying careers. Again, these stories might be wrong, but they do get repeated occasionally at museum events by guys who were there. Maybe it ws all scuttlebutt. Maybe not. I don't recall ever having heard anyone who flew the Wildcat / Hellcast / Bearcat saying they weren't great aircraft. Everyone who flew them loved them.

Of course, you could say the same about Spitfires and Bf 109s, too, and a host of others.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In most carriers water was let into the fuel bilges for ballast because fuel floats on the water. It works except in violent seas when flying wouldn't be happening anyway. I realize bilges are planned out. What I was saying is simply that if they wanted to emplane liquid-cooled aircraft, they'd have to allow bilge space for coolant ... or space above the bilges, and I cannot see a way around that statement.

And more a reason why another liquid wouldn't be welcomed aboard an aircraft carrier, at least a US one...

You can't fly liquid cooled planes and expect the same coolant they emplane with to be used for the entire cruise. They lose some due to leaks and they also loose some due to maintenance. You MUST be able to replace it so the plane can fly.

Ditto above

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A thread from a modeling forum about the Lockheed model 24.

Lockheed Model 24 (XFM-2) Navy Fighter

 

[gjs238]

How did the Brits manage the coolant issue on their carriers?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How did the Brits manage the coolant issue on their carriers?

AFAIK they built stores for the coolant. Their decks were armored too!

 

[BiffF15]

AFAIK they built stores for the coolant. Their decks were armored too!

Brilliant!

 

[GrauGeist]

How did the Brits manage the coolant issue on their carriers?

Keep in mind that the U.S. Navy had 8 aircraft Carriers in service by 7 December 1941 and one more commissioned on 30 December, 1941.

The Langley, Lexington, Saratoga and Ranger were built before 1935, and were not large ships by latewar standards. By the mid-30's, the specs for the carriers reflected changes in naval aviation. However, all of these ships were built with the premise that the Navy would be using air-cooled engines of the day. Once the war got started, the carriers were still designed with intention of being outfitted with compliments of radial aircraft...so at no time, was provisions for "Prestone" storage made available. And in building a carrier (as with any warship), every square inch is accounted for in the way of function.

The Royal Navy, on the otherhand, had a history of using liquid-cooled engines for thier various Naval types, so their carrier's design would have included the necessary storage for the coolant.

Anyway, back to the original question, the navy did look into a navalized version of the P-39 the XFL-1. And here is another interesting note, regarding the Navy...they did not like nose-gear equipped aircraft, so the XFL-1 was built with conventional gear. It is an odd sight, seeing a P-39 tail-dragger...
I might suggest reading Tommy Thomason's book: "Bell XFL-1 Airobonita" number 81 in the "Naval Fighters" series.

I might add that the Navy was certainly exploring twin-engined aircraft (in keeping with the recent P-38 discussion) and during the late 1930's, they had a Lockheed Junior converted for "sea trials". It was extensively trialed aboard the Lexington.

 

[GregP]

This is plain silly. The Lexington had displacement of 36,578 tons and a full load displacement of 43,757 tons. If they had needed , say, 1500 gallons of coolant, it could have been EASILY done. The only quesiton is what goes in it and where is it placed.

I cannot see the argument about glycol being hazmat. They didn't know what hazmat WAS in those days. They knew what they needed and how to handle it. It wasn't a tough thing to accomplish. 1,500 gallons of coolant would NOT take up much room or displacement. The ONLY question would be where to put it and what gets bumped.

1,500 gallons is only about 200 cubic feet or 5.7 cubic meters. I can find 200 cubic feet on a 150 foot boat. It's 10 feet by 10 feet by 2 feet. If that is gonna' break the bank, sink the damed thing and be done with it. Make the wardroom 2 feet smaller. The ONLY reason they didn't do it is because the people who made the decisions loved air-cooled radials, not for any hazmat or storage reasons.

Get real and stop thinking like the EPA was around. It wasn't and NOBODY was worried about coolant storage. They were worried about what engine was best for Naval aviation and only that. If there wasn't a hose to deliver it, they could always use buckets. There was PLENTY of labor around. Sailor labor was "disposable" at that time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is plain silly. The Lexington had displacement of 36,578 tons and a full load displacement of 43,757 tons. If they had needed , say, 1500 gallons of coolant, it could have been EASILY done. The only quesiton is what goes in it and where is it placed.

I cannot see the argument about glycol being hazmat. They didn't know what hazmat WAS in those days. They knew what they needed and how to handle it. It wasn't a tough thing to accomplish. 1,500 gallons of coolant would NOT take up much room or displacement. The ONLY question would be where to put it and what gets bumped.

1,500 gallons is only about 200 cubic feet or 5.7 cubic meters. I can find 200 cubic feet on a 150 foot boat. It's 10 feet by 10 feet by 2 feet. If that is gonna' break the bank, sink the damed thing and be done with it. Make the wardroom 2 feet smaller. The ONLY reason they didn't do it is because the people who made the decisions loved air-cooled radials, not for any hazmat or storage reasons.

Get real and stop thinking like the EPA was around. It wasn't and NOBODY was worried about coolant storage. They were worried about what engine was best for Naval aviation and only that. If there wasn't a hose to deliver it, they could always use buckets. There was PLENTY of labor around. Sailor labor was "disposable" at that time.

Greg, I was in the Navy - 1,500 gallons of extra anything would not be welcomed aboard ship - PERIOD. You're entitled to your opinions, I know Airdales who served aboard ships during WW2, mention glycol, they'll roll their eyes and say "that's stuff for the air force."

 

[tomo pauk]

Just to put into a perspective how much the 1500 gals of anything is compared with Avgas stored in Lex Sara (from Wikipedia article about Lex):

Avgas was stored in eight compartments of the torpedo protection system, and their capacity has been quoted as either 132,264 US gallons (500,670 l; 110,133 imp gal) or 163,000 US gallons (620,000 l; 136,000 imp gal).[11]

1500 gals of coolant means such big ship will carry roughly 1% less Avgas.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just to put into a perspective how much the 1500 gals of anything is compared with Avgas stored in Lex Sara (from Wikipedia article about Lex):


1500 gals of coolant means such big ship will carry roughly 1% less Avgas.

I could see a maintenance Chief blowing his top over that!

 

[tomo pauk]

Maintenance chief will surely follow orders.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Maintenance chief will surely follow orders.

Er no - they make orders!!! In the US Navy Chiefs (E-7 and above) carry more weight then some officers in other branches of the military. I suggest you read about the US Navy and how it runs, some of my fellow sailors on here could attest to this.

 

[tomo pauk]

I admit that I'm not that fluent in US military designations.
Do we have any informations how this or that chief felt when in 1944 they were informed they will need to find the place for 1000, or 1500, or maybe 2000 gals of ADI fluid, that was chemically similar to the coolant? Including the chiefs on the tiny escort carriers operating FM-2s (500-1000 gals here?), and still small light carriers?
Fifty Hellcats can consume ~800 gals of ADI in one sortie each.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I admit that I'm not that fluent in US military designations.
Do we have any informations how this or that chief felt when in 1944 they were informed they will need to find the place for 1000, or 1500, or maybe 2000 gals of ADI fluid, that was chemically similar to the coolant? Including the chiefs on the tiny escort carriers operating FM-2s (500-1000 gals here?), and still small light carriers?
Fifty Hellcats can consume ~800 gals of ADI in one sortie each.

We don't, but we do know the way a Chief felt when he discovered someone was jacking off in someone else's towel!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TlOD2anqOU

 

[GrauGeist]

Not sure how we came to the conclusion that it would be "only" 1,500 gallons of Prestone needed for a deployment.

If we average the coolant capacity to 22 gallons per aircraft and figure on roughly 45 fighters (could be more, could be less - this is just a generic figure), this gives us a working quantity of 990 gallons. So if we take the working quantity of 990 gallons and double it for the onboard storage reserve, that gives us a quantity of 1,980 gallons. Now I am pretty sure there would need to be just a little more on hand to replace any coolant lost due to overheating, combat damage and hard landing attrition. There will also be coolant lost during maintenance and engine swaps. This continued draw on the onboard storage will exist for the duration of the constant CAP and enemy encounters during the deployment. So now 1,980 gallons doesn't look like much, now does it?

So if there is not enough coolant on hand, you don't fly. This is why they made sure to have ample engine oil and hydraulic oil storage to be able to not only support each aircraft, but to be able to anticipate any emergency.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

I could see a maintenance Chief blowing his top over that!

Liquid cooled engines typically are built to tighter clearances (less thermal expansion) and typically are more aerodynamic. As such, they should get significantly better fuel economy. Net impact on fuel utilization might well be positive with liquid cooled engines.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Liquid cooled engines typically are built to tighter clearances (less thermal expansion) and typically are more aerodynamic. As such, they should get significantly better fuel economy. Net impact on fuel utilization might well be positive with liquid cooled engines.

The US Navy in the late 1930s and into WW2 didn't think so.

 

[GrauGeist]

Liquid cooled engines typically are built to tighter clearances (less thermal expansion) and typically are more aerodynamic. As such, they should get significantly better fuel economy. Net impact on fuel utilization might well be positive with liquid cooled engines.

Might want to check with the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy for their opinion...

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Might want to check with the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy for their opinion...

I'm not sure we need to go that far. Didn't the Mustang have a significantly longer range than the Corsair, while carrying less fuel?

IMO a far bigger issue than carrying glycol on a carrier is that aircraft with liquid cooled engines are much more vulnerable to battle damage (one hit anywhere in the cooling system and you're not going home) than radials. As such they aren't suited to an especially high-threat environment (single engine ones in particular). Carriers don't have the capacity of fixed airstrips to carry different aircraft for high-risk ground attack missions and others for straight air superiority/escort duties.