Air-cooled tank engines

[ledslinger]

Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: flacoman
Chrysler made a 30 cylinder radial out of 5 flathead 6's !
http://jalopnik.com/5156050/[censored]-kickin-engine-of-the-day-chrysler-a57-multi-bank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_A57_multibank

that bad boy went into M4A4 Sherman Tanks (mainly supplied to the Brits, US Preferred the V8 powered M4A3)
Chrysler claimed it could still move the tank with 12 of the 30 cylinders out of commission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman



If the big block Chevy were designed earlier, we'd have won the war six months earlier. All that to make 470 HP? My grandfather's 1936 Chris Craft Racing Runabout had on of those with triple updraft carbs.

 

[hattaresguy]

Early tanks used aircraft engines because they were the most powerful you could get at that time.

 

[Nyogtha]

And were nicknamed "Ronsons" due to the effects of penetration.

The M18 Hellcat is the model that always impressed me. The fastest tracked vehicle fielded by any nation throughout WWII. But the opening scenes of the original "The Day The Earth Stood Still" of M-24 Chaffee's power-sliding out of the base were plenty cool to actually see on film.

Many Shermans were also built with diesel engines but a lot of those were shipped to the USSR.

 

[AITG]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
AITG - The Deutz air cooled diesel trucks sold here in OZ has a very good reputation - especially in outback operations in cattle hauling road trains etc


These were in what we would call a 2 ton truck-typically a van body 18 to 22 feet long. The heat issue was the only complaint I recall but in Michigan no heat is a deal breaker.

 

[Subdued]

Originally Posted By: ledslinger
Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: flacoman
Chrysler made a 30 cylinder radial out of 5 flathead 6's !
http://jalopnik.com/5156050/[censored]-kickin-engine-of-the-day-chrysler-a57-multi-bank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_A57_multibank

that bad boy went into M4A4 Sherman Tanks (mainly supplied to the Brits, US Preferred the V8 powered M4A3)
Chrysler claimed it could still move the tank with 12 of the 30 cylinders out of commission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman



If the big block Chevy were designed earlier, we'd have won the war six months earlier. All that to make 470 HP? My grandfather's 1936 Chris Craft Racing Runabout had on of those with triple updraft carbs.

If the nuclear bomb was developed 6 months faster, we'd have won 6 months sooner...

 

[Schmoe]

Can't remember which military vehicle it was in, but years ago I was over at a motorpool in the DOL compound, and they were rebuilding a V12 air cooled engine. I was just amazed. A V12 air cooled engine in a howitzer. That was just too cool.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Then there was the Continental V-12 diesel in the M-60 tank. 750 hp, twin turbocharged, and air cooled. 40 years of service and still being used in a lot of Armies. And grunts can hide behind it for cover compared to the heat blasting M-1 Abrams turbine powered setup. The M-60 was the mainstay during my 7 years in the Army. My last year in, I got to see the M-1 tank just starting it's initial testing period.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: ledslinger
If the big block Chevy were designed earlier, we'd have won the war six months earlier. All that to make 470 HP? My grandfather's 1936 Chris Craft Racing Runabout had on of those with triple updraft carbs.


I think not.

That 470hp big block would puke it's guts out trying the move the 67,000lb Sherman through 12" of mud all day long at battle speeds, day in and day out.

That monstrosity of a 30 cylinder engine may look goofy, but it would have had exponentially more torque than a BBC and a much greater duty cycle.

 

[JetStar]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: ledslinger
If the big block Chevy were designed earlier, we'd have won the war six months earlier. All that to make 470 HP? My grandfather's 1936 Chris Craft Racing Runabout had on of those with triple updraft carbs.


I think not.

That 470hp big block would puke it's guts out trying the move the 67,000lb Sherman through 12" of mud all day long at battle speeds, day in and day out.

That monstrosity of a 30 cylinder engine may look goofy, but it would have had exponentially more torque than a BBC and a much greater duty cycle.


I was thinking the same thing. The BBC has to turn relatively high RPM's to make that power. The purpose designed tank engines produce it at much lower RPM's. That means huge torque that will last much longer than the BBC at WOT.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Duty cycle? These things were cobbled up in a bit of a rush by Chrysler. But according to those "in the know" they were actually quite durable in the field, nothing like the M1's of today which require tons of maintenance every few hours of running time.

The Sherman V used a Chrysler multi-bank engine. Pretty simple stuff.

"The engine did have its problems, as it was basically five Chrysler truck engines bolted together, thus having 30 cylinders and initially five belt-driven water pumps. Its size took up the majority of space in the enlarged engine compartment and made even simple maintenance difficult. Various changes (such as replacing the five water pumps with just one gear-driven pump) helped to get over some of these problems...In order to fit the larger engine the hull had to be lengthened by some 11 inches and the vertical fuel tanks (of earlier Sherman models) removed. The loss of these tanks was compensated for by the installation of larger sponson tanks, each holding 80 gallons. Bulges also appeared - in the floor for the engine cooling fan and on the rear deck to house the upper part of the radiator assembly. To redistribute the weight properly the centre and rear bogies had to be relocated on the longer hull. Longer tracks were needed (83 plates per track instead of 79), and the ground contact length increased from 147 to 160 inches.19

 

[andyd]

Thank you for the overview on the various tank engines. I'm WWII history buff as well as being a gear head. I knew about the 5 Mopar flathead sixes, and Mustang motors and the Packard V 12s. Aero engines and aero engineering was the space program of the era between the world wars. The first mass produced small block OHV V8 was the engine in the Curtis Jenny

 

[HangFire]

I see some really not-so-knowledgable comments about the M1.

Unless the deck is up for service, the heat goes up and back, so no problem using it for cover. Large volumes are air are used creatively for various reasons, including false signature concentration so anything heat-seeking will probably miss accordingly.

All tracked armored vehicles have high maintenance cycles compared to wheeled un-armored vehicles, but the M1 is now a sorted system. Yes, it had issues when it started to replace the well understood, tried-and-proven (and obsolete) M-60, the rubber track pads wore out quickly, the old filtration systems needed constant cleaning. The M-60 had a nicer targeting display. All of that got sorted out.

Compare a modern Abrams to a late model M-60 and you'll only find better up-time, higher speed, higher accuracy, higher lethality, higher survivability, and a tank that every other country is trying to emulate or surpass.

 

[Stelth]

It appears that there may still be some air-cooled tank engines in use. The Teledyne Continental AVDS-1790-9AR engine, developing 1200 horsepower, was used in the Merkava I, II, and III. Other vehicles developed from these would also use the air-cooled Continental. Also, the Turkish Sabra Mk. I uses a version of the same engine. The M60-2000, and the General Dynamics 120S use the Teledyne Continental AVDS-1790-9AR, although I don't know if anyone has bought these tanks.

They do seem to be fading away, though.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Duty cycle? These things were cobbled up in a bit of a rush by Chrysler. But according to those "in the know" they were actually quite durable in the field, nothing like the M1's of today which require tons of maintenance every few hours of running time.

The Sherman V used a Chrysler multi-bank engine. Pretty simple stuff.

"The engine did have its problems, as it was basically five Chrysler truck engines bolted together, thus having 30 cylinders and initially five belt-driven water pumps. Its size took up the majority of space in the enlarged engine compartment and made even simple maintenance difficult. Various changes (such as replacing the five water pumps with just one gear-driven pump) helped to get over some of these problems...In order to fit the larger engine the hull had to be lengthened by some 11 inches and the vertical fuel tanks (of earlier Sherman models) removed. The loss of these tanks was compensated for by the installation of larger sponson tanks, each holding 80 gallons. Bulges also appeared - in the floor for the engine cooling fan and on the rear deck to house the upper part of the radiator assembly. To redistribute the weight properly the centre and rear bogies had to be relocated on the longer hull. Longer tracks were needed (83 plates per track instead of 79), and the ground contact length increased from 147 to 160 inches.19


All great stuff in this thread. There is a 5-bank tank engine in the Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills, MI. The display tells much the same story as other posters have stated here.

The Chrysler Museum also has an XIV-2220 V16. This is the "first" Chrysler Hemi, originally developed for the Army Air Force in WWII, and tested in a P-47 aircraft.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
The Ford GAA is something else. Really a groundbreaking engine when you consider how many of the basic design elements have trickled down to automotive production engines...IE DOHC, all aluminum construction, etc.

Here's a GAA in a car (1970 Mustang)...

Ford also designed the GAC in the same engine family, which was a 1650-cubic inch V12 intended to replace Merlins (and presumably Allisons) in aircraft applications. Ford's better idea was to use more conventional automotive engine design features to make it more production-friendly.

 

[440Magnum]

It amazes me that the Chrysler Tank Power Unit was as successful as it was... just due to the physical SIZE of the thing. But in a tank, that doesn't matter as much as redundancy and reliability. With 5 independent oiling systems, 5 independent ignition systems, 5 independent fuel systems, and (in early versions) 5 separate water pumps, the thing could absorb a round that would take out 2 of the 5 blocks completely and still keep going, albeit slower. That counts for a lot when its your ride back out of the line of fire...

For more on the Continental air-cooled V12 tank engine, google up Jay Leno's "Blastolene Special" hot rod that was built around one.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman


Ford also designed the GAC in the same engine family, which was a 1650-cubic inch V12 intended to replace Merlins (and presumably Allisons) in aircraft applications. Ford's better idea was to use more conventional automotive engine design features to make it more production-friendly.


Speaking of production friendliness, its often glossed over just how much Packard contributed to the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Yes, they "just" built it under license from RR, but they did a lot more than that in terms of making it mass-producible and "de-Britishing" some of its odder features (like switching from hard to assemble crushed-tang located bearing shells to American-style captive tang bearing shells that dropped right into place). Post-war, Rolls-Royce incorporated a lot of Packard's work into the so-called "transport" Merlins that were intended for use in airliners.. which didn't get very far before the turbine engine made piston airliner engines antiques.

Somewhere I have a book by one of the Merlin engineers (Wilfred Hyde-White, IIRC) that narrates the evolution of the Merlin from start to end. An early (late 1930s) Merlin had a lot less than you might think in common with a postwar "transport" Merlin. It also has one of my all-time favorite quotes from a Spitfire pilot, talking about what happened in a particular failure mode where the block would flex enough for the cam drive gears to come un-meshed: "...and then things went bloody quiet."

 

[flacoman]

Looking at Flight magazine's archives from 1935 - 1950 reveals most of the "new" technology being applied to cars today.

 

[DoubleWasp]

As the engine compartment was outside of the main armor tub of the passenger compartment, a shot that could disable the engine would not necessarily kill the crew.

Air cooled aircraft engines at the time were well known (P&W Double Wasp, Cyclone, etc) for continuing to run with entire cylinders shot off of the engine.

Tank rounds were also not what they are now. In tank engagements, many tanks would absorb as much as 30 rounds before being disabled. Some would become de-turreted and shoot up a jet flame after only one shot. All depended on the gunner, the round, and the target.

Even after this occurred, much to the dismay of the Allied forces, they would see a disabled tank they had abandoned, painted with a swastika and shooting back at them the very next day.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Early tanks used aircraft engines because they were the most powerful you could get at that time.
Correct, although the rest of the story is than demand for high power aircraft engines was so great and the high power designs advanced so fast it left some "middle class" aircraft engines no longer needed for new aircraft. Since the engines were proven and the production lines existed they went into vehicles. With the M1A1 we're back to aircraft engines again. The Soviet tank engine of WWII was a converted to diesel aircraft V 12. GM made a bunch of rear engine radial powered buses afte the war.