Servicing a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 in RAF

[Larry]

In the spring of 1944 my father was posted to 575 Sqn at RAF Broadwell, as an engine fitter and he told me that in the build up for D-Day, the base received a vast supply of brand new crated Pratt & Whitney R-1830 engines which he and other fitters then prepared for immediate use.

According to my late father, the RAF decided it was easier to remove a defective engine and take it to the workshops, that spend time on stripping it on the aircraft out at dispersal. This he said was rather a new way of doing things for the RAF and I wonder if this was just for Dakota Sqns because of the nature of the engine / airframe or whether it was adopted throughout other Commands?

Obviously an engine swap was done only for major problems or if hit by flak, rather than for basic maintenance. Hoever a novel feature of the C-47 was that it was delivered with a tool kit containing tools the likes of which the RAF fitters had never seen before, so an engine change didn't take forever.

BTW - Does anyone know how many hours a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 would run before it needed a major service in RAF service in WW2?

[Peter Clare]

Not sure if I got this right but here goes.....

The attachment if from the Operators Handbook for the Twin Wasp C4 Engine as published by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of which I have a copy.

Apart from the list of work to be done which covers a periodic inspection of 50 to 75 hours of operation there is more detailed instruction for each section.....

My father was a Fight Engineer on 120 Squadron operating with the B-24 Liberator.

[Graham Boak]

Depending on the problem, of course, but this is partly the principle behind the "power egg" approach which RR (and Bristol) were pressing for adoption in the early war years, and can be seen on, for example, the Wellington Mk.II, Beaufighter Mk.II, Lancaster, and other some other Merlin types. In this principle the various accessories are mounted directly onto the engine, so are removed with the engine rather than requiring an additional number of actions to separate the engine from the airframe.

The arguments for this are more rapid engine changes improving serviceability of the aircraft, and more work/money for the engine company. The downside is that a standardised engine installation is rarely the best for all aircraft, and can produce a considerably reduction in performance. This was displayed with the example of installing these standard "power egg" installations on a Mosquito, but the benefits of integrating ancillary systems with the airframe can also seen in the very low drag of the cooling installation of a Mustang.

[Larry]

Dear Graham,

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. No doubt the engine on the C-47 was basic enought to support the engine off and new one on approach, and possibly the forerunner of the way airlines today deal with engine problems.