The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi
» Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf
» Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102
» Topic:
Some Documents from my Elco collection
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3324
I thought I would post some documents from my Elco Naval Division collection. I scanned an original Memo concerning John D. Bulkeley's Naval Career, and a couple of documents on PT-619. Hope you enjoy.
Frank
[b][red]John D. Bulkeley[/red][/b]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0001.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0002.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0003.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0004.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0005.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0006.jpg[/image]
[b][red]PT-619[/red][/b]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0007.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/scan0008.jpg[/image]
Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 7:42am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am
Frank;
Are they referring to the Elcoplane kits or Elco Slipper kits here? Very interesting.
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 9:12am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Holy Cow Frank, I never saw any documentation pertaining to the rearrangement of the deck ordnance on the 613 thru the 624 boats. Please tell me you also have the subsequent documentation indicating further modifications to the 620-624 calling for the movement of the rocket launchers, rocket storage boxes and forward torpedoes racks also being moved further aft by about 4 feet. To the very best of my knowledge, these were the only 4 boats that had these additional changes completed.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 9:20am
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Frank;
Are they referring to the Elcoplane kits or Elco Slipper kits here? Very interesting.
Take care,
TED
Sounds like a simple trim tab arrangement; probably this one:
[image]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/624_0002_zps75f4f869.jpg[/image]
Al Ross
Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 12:57pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm
Here is the uncompleted PT 624.
[image]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/624_0001_zpsd58272ed.jpg[/image]
Al Ross
Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 1:00pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm
Thanks for posting that photo of the 624 boat Al. I had used that photo while building the 623 and only about 6 other photos I could find of those 5 boats to get the correct placements of the listed ordnance. This photo however shows more of the aft section of the boat than the one I had. Wish I had it last year.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 1:50pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Roy, I would have to check some of the documents as I have several of them. Al is correct in his statement and photo. When I get time, I will post more interesting inner office memo's.
Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Aug 24, 2013 - 3:26pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am
Nice Frank, thank you for sharing those.documents.
I'm not sure I'd want to ride on a boat with "flippers" installed.
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Aug 25, 2013 - 12:35am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
Your welcome guys, Al that photo of the unfinished boat, has her right along side the dock-side crane at Elco. In 1998, I was right inside that crane house to the left of the photo, operating the Crane.
Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Aug 25, 2013 - 4:06am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am
Digging through some files last night I determined that Al's photo of the stern is the nonadjustable step. The photo below is the movable Flipper that was installed on PT-613.
Posted By: Andy Small | Posted on: Dec 14, 2016 - 9:35am
Total Posts: 262 | Joined: Nov 20, 2013 - 9:04pm
Andy;
That is an interesting photo of PT 613, where did you find it? Also, are there any Port or Starboard photos of this and the PT 614-619 photo(Al's), so we can see the difference from a better angle?
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Dec 15, 2016 - 6:52am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Photo is an ELCO one that is part of the Naval War College collection. The description from the PT613 trials (National Archives) from July 45 is as follows:
The slippers... consist of plywood planes which continue the bottom surface of the boat to a point about thirty inches aft of the transom. Port and starboard slippers are adjusted independently by means of a pinion gear crank which engages teeth on a bronze nut. This bronze nut, when rotated, moves the pipe stanchion and the slipper.
Pushing the slippers down, raises the stern and depresses the bow of the boat, pulling the slipper up has the opposite effect. In each case, the amount of change of trim depends on the speed and loading of the boat.
PT 613 was also testing the new spade type monel metal rudders (design #6223) and 29 x 26 propellers. During the turning tests, the flippers (seems the test guys called them this) were set at an optimum setting for the 124,000 lbs displacement at 1" down setting. This pushed the bow down and gave a trim angle of 3 degrees at high speed.
I've been developing a PT Boat turning comparison chart from data I've collected from 1942 to 1945. The ELCO was by far the turning pig of the 3 types of PT Boats mainly due to the lack of a forefoot which is key to providing the counter forces needed for quick turns. The introduction of the 40mm aft greatly affected its turns whereas I have found no such issues with the Higgins or Huckins. PT 103 did 360 degree turns at 2100 rpm (94,000 lbs displacement - two torpedo tubes, 2.5 degree trim) in 48 seconds to the right, and 47 seconds to the left. Three years later, PT 614 weighing in at 30,000 lbs more, and at 2400 rpm, took 77 seconds to the right and a whopping 115 seconds to the left.
PT 613 with the slippers (flippers) and new spade type rudders (slight wedge shape), and at the same displacement, recorded the right turn in 50 seconds and the left in 49 seconds basically restoring the ELCO to it's original turning capability. For comparison with the Higgins, PT 650 recorded 36 seconds to the right and 35 seconds to the left at 2500 rpm and 117,000 lbs displacement.
I do have some more PT 613 photos which I will post once I locate them.
Cheers,
Andy
Posted By: Andy Small | Posted on: Dec 16, 2016 - 9:47am
Total Posts: 262 | Joined: Nov 20, 2013 - 9:04pm
So Higgins Boats DID handle better than 80 ft Elcos! I knew it. They could turn faster effectively. That is important in trying to avoid kamikaze planes and bombs etc. This proves once and for all the VAST Superiority of the HIGGINS 78ft PT Boat! HAH!
Thanks ANDY!
Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Dec 16, 2016 - 6:34pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Jerry;
C'mon man!
All you have to do is look at the rudders. They were too small. with the added weight of the 1945 load out, changed the balance, it would slide the hull, making it harder for the rudders to react and causing them to be even less efficient than they originally were. Also the fact that the ELCO rode at high speed with more of the hull out of the water, Slightly larger props with a different pitch, probably would have helped too.
Take care,
TED
P.S. ELCO's still look better!!
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Dec 16, 2016 - 7:54pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Elco's Rule Higgins Drool!
Jimbo
Posted By: Jimbo Melanson | Posted on: Dec 17, 2016 - 3:10pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Very interesting and nice work Andy! Keep your eye out for any testing done with PTs 163-174, a drawing of a triangular fin mounted at about bulkhead 9 shows these boats listed. I'm guessing it was added to improve turning but proved ineffective. I had an image of a PT at speed with the bow out of water showing the fin but can't find it...
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Dec 18, 2016 - 6:06am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
I did not know that about the fins on the earlier 80 footers. The Elcoplane drawing No. 3107 (see below) shows a small fin. After the war (Oct 45), there's a mention of installing fins on the RON 42 boats. Adding forward fins was used on race boats in the early 20s. One of the most interesting was the fin added to Oleo III (Hickman Sea Sled race boat). It was installed only on the port side since the race course was to port. The Sea Sled was up against very small and nimble hydroplanes with bow rudders, and while the fin helped the turning, as did the sea sled's faster straight away speeds, it wasn't enough to overcome the hydroplane advantage on the race course.
I've attached another photo of PT613 adjustable slipper and spade rudders. I've also attached two photos of Mr Johannes Plum's Fantail Flipper. This was in a Buships package from Sep 38 and shows the young Dane's invention. The boat was a stepped hydroplane. I'm sure that Elco used this as the basis for their later design.
Posted By: Andy Small | Posted on: Dec 20, 2016 - 10:04am
Total Posts: 262 | Joined: Nov 20, 2013 - 9:04pm
Again thanks Andy, very interesting! They sure did a lot of experimenting trying to increase speed and turning. And no wonder they used the Fantail design as a start, this article mentions that even with 4000 pounds added ballast the speed remained the same: [url]http://www.woodyboater.com/blog/2016/08/26/its-time-to-play-another-round-of-look-whats-in-my-drawers/[/url]
I'll e-mail you some drawing notes on the 487 you might find interesting.
I had a small shallow V R/C race boat that although very fast, my friends that had experience with the hull said would never turn well. I tweaked the strut until it would run straight with zero rudder offset and added a turn fin like the hydros used on the stbd (we ran a clockwise oval course) outboard stern. It ended up faster and turned like it was on rails and had my buds shaking their heads. Sometimes it pays to experiment.
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Dec 21, 2016 - 9:32am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
How about a 6 second turn? ELCO RULES [:-grin-:] From Dick's An Administrative History of PT Boats available on the downloads page:
[green][b]The fastest run ever made by any PT and the quickest turns ever made at high speed were undoubtedly accomplished by Elco’s PT 487, which hit 55.95 knots during trials for the Board of Inspection and Survey, and made a 180 degree turn at top speed in about six seconds – a turn so fast that at its completion the boat had sternway on! The secret of this amazing performance was the addition by Elco of five steps to the bottom of a standard eighty foot boat[/b].[/green]
[green][b]The tests on the boat took place on 26 December 1943, and although this was the first time that a PT had ever been equipped with Elcoplanes, as the steps were named, the principle of multiple steps on Elco boats had been conceived more than thirty years before. On 14 January 1913, Irwin Chase, Elco’s design genius, was granted a patent for a hydroplane-boat which was “a boat comprising a buoyant hull having an unbroken surface skimming hydroplane, secured to said bottom surface . . . “ The sketches accompanying the patent show a boat with a series of steps similar to those employed on the PT boat thirty years later.[/b][/green]
Mr. Chase's design:
[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/IrwinChaseHydroPatent.jpg[/image]
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Dec 21, 2016 - 10:34am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
Thanks Jeff! The Buships notes on the Fantail are very interesting and maybe someday I'll transcribe all the pencil writing from their evaluation.
For those who have not done so, I highly recommend going to the National Archives to research all the amazing materials they have. I'm a research hound and love to find new things and fill in holes and create new ones
My favorite parts are the sometimes sarcastic engineer comments written in the margins or in the routing memos.
Posted By: Andy Small | Posted on: Dec 21, 2016 - 10:40am
Total Posts: 262 | Joined: Nov 20, 2013 - 9:04pm
Jerry seems a little bit biased! Lol
I wonder why?!😂
Don't get me wrong, I like the Higgins boat, but I think I'm becoming more of an elco guy.
Maybe I'm the one who's biased?
ThePTboater
Posted By: ThePTboater | Posted on: Dec 28, 2016 - 1:45am
Total Posts: 136 | Joined: Jan 17, 2016 - 1:28pm
To all you doubters of the Higgins superiority let me repost the key part of Andys Post here for you to remember:
"PT 613 with the slippers (flippers) and new spade type rudders (slight wedge shape), and at the same displacement, recorded the right turn in 50 seconds and the left in 49 seconds basically restoring the ELCO to it's original turning capability. For comparison with the Higgins, PT 650 recorded 36 seconds to the right and 35 seconds to the left at 2500 rpm and 117,000 lbs displacement"
So the Elco even with improvements turned 50 seconds and 49 seconds compared to Higgins 36 and 35 seconds. This is unrefutable evidence of the Higgins superior handling characteristics. I don't know about you, but if a kamikaze plane was trying to crash into my boat I would rather be on a nimble Higgins than a wallowing Elco!
Happy new year (even to you doubting Thomases!)
Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Dec 28, 2016 - 12:52pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Yes but if the pilot had a good sense of aesthetics and and saw an Elco and a Higgins running side-by-side he'd no doubt aim for the
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Dec 29, 2016 - 7:48am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
I found an angled main strut drawing, it is marked Void, For 1st PT 545 Only. My strut bending on my model was far from an original idea!:
[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/Elco80_Strut_PT545.jpg[/image]
I wonder if it was ever tested, and if so, how they handled installation. A forward strut drawing for PT 545 only shows no offset, maybe a universal joint on the shaft in front of the main strut? Although a prop shaft drawing for PT 545 only shows no joint.
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Jan 5, 2017 - 5:46am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
Another PT 545 wing strut drawing (June 1944) shows no angle. The one I posted is dated March 1944. A guess would be that they actually tested angled struts at least on the wings. I didn't find an angled main center strut nor angled wing forward struts drawings.
The angled main wing struts drawing shows a single distance of 3' 6" to center line of boat compared to 4' 5" on the straight struts. So maybe both wing struts were angled in as opposed to the same direction (being used to counteract prop torque like I first thought).
Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Jan 5, 2017 - 7:52am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am
