Replicas of original engines for warbirds

[gumbyk]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DonL]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Check out the Armour Plate.