P-47 from a carrier?

[Shortround6]

The coolant storage thing is vastly over rated.

The Liquid cooled (water) vs air cooled in the US Navy started with a few of the around world tours and the transatlantic fights.
1919

and the 1924 round the world flight.

In the 1920s the US used quite a few Liberty V-12 engines and the experiences were not happy ones.

It took a while for radiators and hoses/piping to become reliable for long over water flights. Many flights used the ability of the flying boats/float planes to land and for the crew to repair minor water leaks.

Things changed rather quickly in 1930s but most of the senior officers had come up through the ranks in WW I and the 1920s.

A young Major Henry Arnold with the first Liberty V-12 engine in 1917.
The 1930s had seen the change from water (leaked bad enough in the old engines/radiators) to pure Prestone, which leaked in systems that were 100% water tight and in 1939-40 the British and Americans were changing back to a 30/70 mixture which didn't leak any worse that plain water.
Radiators were better and the knowledge of how to fit the pipes (vibration loops) got better. But some air forces (navies) had already made decisions on which types of engines they wanted to deal with.

The over rated part is the the coolant was supposed to stay inside the cooling system. There shouldn't have been any bulk storage of prestone on an aircraft carrier.
Unlike oil which was a consumable (engine was going to use up a certain number of pints or quarts every hour in cruise) the engine should land with the same amount of coolant that it took off with. If coolant disappeared in flight from a sealed system then either the engine had been overheated and vented or there was a leak (or more than one).
A carrier needed a small store Prestone to top things off, to make up for leaks when taking thing apart for maintenance and similar occasions. You were not supposed to putting gallons of Prestone in every plane before every flight.

The amount of Prestone that needed to be stored was a fraction of the amount of engine oil that needed to stored and "might" have been less than stored paint, especially the ships paint.

If a liquid cooled aircraft had demonstrated good enough performance over the aircooled aircraft (and Performance includes take-off and landing) the US Navy would not have stuck with the aircooled engines as was seen by the XFL-1. By they time they modified it meet carrier take-off and landing requirements the XF4U was well in hand. Granted in took a bit longer to sort out

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The coolant storage thing is vastly over rated.

The over rated part is the the coolant was supposed to stay inside the cooling system. There shouldn't have been any bulk storage of prestone on an aircraft carrier.

Actually it's not - having spent a short time in the USN, this was mentioned in training many times. Some old chiefs I've been around mentioned that various commands spent much time trying to figure out what liquids could be eliminated aboard ship, especially on carriers and some talked about the RAN and their inline aircraft and the fact of having to have some coolant stored aboard ship, an "extra liquid in bulk."

If you're doing an engine change on an inline engine your going to have to have some coolant on hand and you shouldn't be using "second hand coolant." Yes, "the coolant was supposed to stay inside the cooling system" the same could be said for hydraulic fluid, and there was/is bulk storage for that aboard ship, then and now!

 

[Shortround6]

Are we talking about "bulk" storage as in a built in tank of hundreds of gallons or a number of 55 gallon drums or a number of smaller containers?
The Navy is going to want "safe" storage in that what ever sized container's were used would be in racks and fastened down to prevent moving in a sea way.
Yes you cannot just throw a bunch if 1-2 gallon tin cans on shelf in any old store room.

Yes you want the Prestone stored somewhere safe, but compared to engine oil, which could be needed by several 55 gal drums just to get one large mission off the deck the quantity of Prestone needed per day or per week for normal operations was rather small.

the physical space needed was probably the least of the problems. For 50-90 planes are you going to need more mechanics to deal with the liquid cooled engines than air cooled engines? How many man hours per day (or how many flight hours per day/week) and you need a stock of spare parts (hoses, radiators, pumps, etc. )
The logistic foot print for liquid cooled engines could be bigger than air cooled engines but the foot of the coolant itself should not have been that big a deal.

Late model Corsairs and Hellcats could need 4-5 gallon of alcohol per plane (mixed with about the same amount of water but the water comes from the distillers on the ship).
Granted only fighters used the alcohol and not on ever flight.

 

[GrauGeist]

A gallon of Ethyl Alcohol weighs 6.5 pounds.
A gallon of Ethylene Glycol weighs 9.3 pounds.

Leaks and engine maintenance aside, take into consideration the need for a sufficient store of "Prestone" to compensate for loss of the coolant to battle damage.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are we talking about "bulk" storage as in a built in tank of hundreds of gallons or a number of 55 gallon drums or a number of smaller containers?

All - I think it would depend how the shop was set up, usually at the discretion of the maintenance chief and what was expected on the cruise

The Navy is going to want "safe" storage in that what ever sized container's were used would be in racks and fastened down to prevent moving in a sea way.
Yes you cannot just throw a bunch if 1-2 gallon tin cans on shelf in any old store room.

Correct, and from what I understand some "flammables" were stored in bilge tanks as well.

Yes you want the Prestone stored somewhere safe, but compared to engine oil, which could be needed by several 55 gal drums just to get one large mission off the deck the quantity of Prestone needed per day or per week for normal operations was rather small.

Under normal operations, yes. In a combat environment where you're going to have fluid lines shot up, you're going to need to replenish fluids

the physical space needed was probably the least of the problems. For 50-90 planes are you going to need more mechanics to deal with the liquid cooled engines than air cooled engines? How many man hours per day (or how many flight hours per day/week) and you need a stock of spare parts (hoses, radiators, pumps, etc. )

IMO I think the mechanic pool and labor hours for maintaining a fleet of inline engine aircraft would be greater, but a lot of that would depend on the aircraft.

The logistic foot print for liquid cooled engines could be bigger than air cooled engines but the foot of the coolant itself should not have been that big a deal.

But it was still an extra fluid not welcomed aboard ship.

Late model Corsairs and Hellcats could need 4-5 gallon of alcohol per plane (mixed with about the same amount of water but the water comes from the distillers on the ship).
Granted only fighters used the alcohol and not on ever flight.

Yes -

If we fast forward in the post Vietnam war days, I know many were relieved when the Skyraider and S-2 were retired so AvGas were no longer carried aboard carriers.

 

[Shortround6]

If we fast forward in the post Vietnam war days, I know many were relieved when the Skyraider and S-2 were retired so AvGas were no longer carried aboard carriers.

Very true, but you needed more Avgas to put one Skyraider into the air for a few hours than 60 liquid cooled engines were going to use up Prestone in several days of flying.

Prestone, unmixed, has flashpoint of 234 degrees F. Compared to gasoline of -40 degrees F or diesel which is around 100 degrees F (depends on grade/s), so there isn't much danger of fumes causing dangerous/explosive vapors.
Mineral sprits used in paint is around 100-105 degrees and I went to one garage fire that was the result of the cement garage floor being painted and the paint fumes went down the 1/2 stair to the basement and across about 15-20ft of open basement and found the gas fired hot water heater. Flashed back the garage (scorch marks on basement wood beams) and lit off the garage floor.

Prestone can be made to burn but there is a lot of other stuff aboard ship (especially in the 1930s/40s)that is a bigger hazard.


Besides, everybody knows that you don't need much in the way of replacement Prestone for combat damaged planes.
We have been being told for decades that a single rifle bullet or shell fragment will cause most of the coolant to leak out in a few minutes causing the catastrophic destruction of the engine well before the liquid cooled plane ever makes it back to it's base/carrier.

Yes, space aboard ship is precious. I just think that the amount of space needed to hold the Prestone for liquid cooled engines is the least of the problems of operating the liquid cooled engines aboard ship.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very true, but you needed more Avgas to put one Skyraider into the air for a few hours than 60 liquid cooled engines were going to use up Prestone in several days of flying.

Obviously

Prestone, unmixed, has flashpoint of 234 degrees F. Compared to gasoline of -40 degrees F or diesel which is around 100 degrees F (depends on grade/s), so there isn't much danger of fumes causing dangerous/explosive vapors.

It isn't so much it its toxicity or flashpoint, it was a matter of space. I had an old maintenance chief tell me if there was a way to magically remove all flammable or toxic liquids from a carrier, it would be a perfect fighting machine!

Besides, everybody knows that you don't need much in the way of replacement Prestone for combat damaged planes.
We have been being told for decades that a single rifle bullet or shell fragment will cause most of the coolant to leak out in a few minutes causing the catastrophic destruction of the engine well before the liquid cooled plane ever makes it back to it's base/carrier.

True, LOL!

Yes, space aboard ship is precious. I just think that the amount of space needed to hold the Prestone for liquid cooled engines is the least of the problems of operating the liquid cooled engines aboard ship.

Well some old crusty maintenance chief who ran a hangar deck for a dozen or more cruises might disagree!

 

[MiTasol]

The problem encountered with the P-51s, was it's stall speed.
Getting it to slow down enough to catch the wire put it dangerously close to a stall.
None tested ever crashed, but there were some harrowing moments - and consider that these test aircraft were flown by extremely experienced pilots.

I am surprised they did not throw in some aileron droop to help lower the stall for carrier ops.

 

[MiTasol]

A gallon of Ethyl Alcohol weighs 6.5 pounds.
A gallon of Ethylene Glycol weighs 9.3 pounds.

Leaks and engine maintenance aside, take into consideration the need for a sufficient store of "Prestone" to compensate for loss of the coolant to battle damage.

Actually the alcohol used in water injection systems is Methyl - not Ethyl.

And yes there would definitely be a need for Prestone for battle damage, and component replacement, and .......... but far less than oil.

 

[GrauGeist]

Actually the alcohol used in water injection systems is Methyl - not Ethyl.

And yes there would definitely be a need for Prestone for battle damage, and component replacement, and .......... but far less than oil.

A P-51D's total cooling system capacity was 16.5 gallons, which was nearly identical to it's oil capacity.

 

[EwenS]

There seems to be little published information about the nitty gritty of fuel/lubricant/storage on carriers. But what were do know:-

Ships FFO and diesel - separate systems were needed for the storage and piping of these fuels around the ship. Diesel was required for generators, more of which were added to/built in as the war progressed as a damage control measure.

Petrol/avgas - bulk storage required special levels of protection or you end up with fires and explosions that did for the likes of CV-2 Lexington, CV-7 Wasp, the 4 Japanese carriers at Midway, HMS Dasher and IJN Taiho. Britain learnt its lesson in WW1 with bulk storage in 2gal petrol tins leading to the loss of the seaplane carrier Ben my Chree. As a result the precautions taken in British carriers were far more extensive than by USN & IJN. The sacrifice however was the quantity the carriers were able to carry, especially as aircraft engines became thirstier from the mid1930s. After the loss of Dasher all US built CVE for the RN underwent modifications to their petrol storage to make it safer. That reduced the capacity by one third to one half.

As designed an Essex had 252,000 gals of avgas held in bulk storage fore and aft. As the war went on and protection was improved in later ships this fell to 212,000 gals. Postwar this was increased in the SCB-27 modernisations.

Jet fuel - from the mid-1950s as jets began to run on less flammable fuels, these were able to be stored in the ships' own fuel tanks. Then begins the trade off between fuel for the air group and range of the ship. This is the attraction of the CVN as there is not much fuel required for the ship (diesel for generators will probably still be needed).

ISTR that there was a period where RN jets were using a petrol/kerosene mix but can't put my hands on it just now. This was mixed in the ship.

Lubricants - the detailed spec I have for the Essex class shows the requirement for bulk storage of aviation lubricants with piping and pumping systems to supply it to hangar and flight deck. These were fillable by hose connections or tipping in the contents of 55gal drums.

Bulk coolant storage - must have existed in some shape or form in those carriers needing it but I've not seen mention of it. The principal carriers affected were HMS Implacable and Indefatigable and 3 escort carriers with large numbers of Seafires and Fireflies in the air groups 1944/45 and Indomitable during 1943 (40 Seafires). Prior to that the numbers of inline engined aircraft on each ship is not huge (12-20) and the ships are operating close to base.

In terms of resupply, an Essex would generally take 3 hoses from a tanker. 2 providing FFO/diesel and another for avgas. By 1945 lubricants were carried on the tankers in 55 gal drums for transfer to the carrier if required.

Engine changes - just how many of these were being carried out on operational carries in WW2? Certainly as the war went on the emphasis in the US carrier task forces, and followed by the RN in 1945, was to move heavier maintenance away from the operational carriers to reduce the maintenance burden as air group sizes increased. At each replenishment flyable duds would be sent to replenishment carriers in exchange for new serviceable aircraft. If it wasn't flyable it was often stripped of anything useable and ditched. The USN had plenty of aircraft to allow this to happen. The RN less so.

 

[Big Jake]

I believe that the use of type of engine was dictated by what was available. Until the Centaurus, the Brits didn't have a radial engine suitable for fighters so they had to use liquid cooled ones. Similarly, until copying the DB engine, the IJN only had air cooled engines. Similarly, in liquid cooled engines, the US only had the V1710 (the and we all know how good it was for fighters) while the R1820, R1830 and especially the R2800 have proven themselves as very reliable and easy to maintain engines. In addition, maintaining the radial engine is much easier than the liquid cooled one, requiring less logistics.

 

[MiTasol]

The Japanese did not copy the DB601. They built it under license. That is a very big difference.

Radials are easier to maintain but they cannot tolerate abuse like a liquid cooled engine can. Heads start splitting and barrels start breaking studs with very little overboost whereas the Allison could be boosted to almost double for short periods and still run reliably. There is no way you can run a radial designed for 36" at 70" - it will kitset itself long before then. A radial designed for 36" starts kitsetting after a very few minutes at 40". Likewise they do not like over-revving.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Allison V-1710 was an excellent engine - the P-38 proves that.

 

[ThomasP]

hmmm . . .

If

The V-1710 was an excellent design - the P-38 proves that . . .

then

The V-1710 was an excellent engine - the P-39 proves that.

then

The P-39 was an excellent design - the V-1710 proves that.

hmmm . . .

forgive me . . . I can't help myself

 

[GrauGeist]

View attachment 676175 hmmm . . .

If

The V-1710 was an excellent design - the P-38 proves that . . .

then

The V-1710 was an excellent engine - the P-39 proves that.

then

The P-39 was and excellent design - the V-1710 proves that.

hmmm . . . View attachment 676175

forgive me . . . I can't help myself

Apples and oranges.

The P-39 (as has been exhaustively been covered) did not have the supercharger system that it would have needed for higher altitude operations.

Otherwise, we can add the P-40 and P-51/A-36 to the P-39's corner, too.

 

[MiTasol]

View attachment 676175 hmmm . . .

If

The V-1710 was an excellent design - the P-38 proves that . . .

then

The V-1710 was an excellent engine - the P-39 proves that.

then

The P-39 was an excellent design - the V-1710 proves that.

hmmm . . . View attachment 676175

forgive me . . . I can't help myself

Now you are talking like a public servant or po liar tic ian.

 

[Shortround6]

View attachment 676175 hmmm . . .

If

The V-1710 was an excellent design - the P-38 proves that . . .

then

The V-1710 was an excellent engine - the P-39 proves that.

then

The P-39 was an excellent design - the V-1710 proves that.

hmmm . . . View attachment 676175

forgive me . . . I can't help myself

Hmmm.
The R-1820 was an excellent engine - the F2A proves that..........
then
The R-1820 was an excellent engine-the Hawk 75 proves that.........

Or
The R-1830 was an excellent engine - the P-36 proves that..........
then
The R-1830 was an excellent engine - the P-66 proves that.
then
The R-1830 was an excellent engine - the P-43 proves that (and it had a turbo)..........

 

[GrauGeist]

Hmmm.
The R-1820 was an excellent engine - the F2A proves that..........
then
The R-1820 was an excellent engine-the Hawk 75 proves that.........

Or
The R-1830 was an excellent engine - the P-36 proves that..........
then
The R-1830 was an excellent engine - the P-66 proves that.
then
The R-1830 was an excellent engine - the P-43 proves that (and it had a turbo)..........

I'll refer you back to the nugget that generated the P-38 comment:

the US only had the V1710 (the and we all know how good it was for fighters)

 

[Shortround6]

I'll refer you back to the nugget that generated the P-38 comment:

I know.
The two don't have anything to each other.

The R-1820 worked well in the B-17 and a number of other planes. It didn't work well in fighters until the H version in the FM-2 showed up in 1943. French even repowered their Hawk 75s that had Cyclones in 1944-45 with R-1830 P&Ws, there was a problem with oil system and the R-1820 didn't like to fly inverted.
Now that is a problem for a fighter engine.

The R-1830 P&W didn't make enough power at altitude without a two stage supercharger.
The V-1710's "problem" was that they stuffed it into 8,000lb plus airplanes.
Stick a DB601 engine into a 8,000lb airplane and see what kind of performance you get