±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 540
Total: 540
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Home
05: Your Account
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Photo Gallery
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Photo Gallery
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Photo Gallery
25: Community Forums
26: Your Account
27: Photo Gallery
28: Community Forums
29: Downloads
30: Community Forums
31: Your Account
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Home
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Home
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: News
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Your Account
58: Downloads
59: Community Forums
60: Home
61: Community Forums
62: Photo Gallery
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: News Archive
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Your Account
70: Downloads
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Photo Gallery
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Downloads
77: Community Forums
78: Downloads
79: Home
80: Community Forums
81: Photo Gallery
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Downloads
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Statistics
90: Home
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Home
95: CPGlang
96: Home
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Member Screenshots
101: Photo Gallery
102: Photo Gallery
103: CPGlang
104: Photo Gallery
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Member Screenshots
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Photo Gallery
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: CPGlang
116: Home
117: Community Forums
118: Your Account
119: Home
120: Home
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Photo Gallery
126: Photo Gallery
127: Community Forums
128: Photo Gallery
129: Community Forums
130: Home
131: Community Forums
132: Community Forums
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Photo Gallery
136: Community Forums
137: Photo Gallery
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Photo Gallery
143: CPGlang
144: Community Forums
145: CPGlang
146: CPGlang
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Member Screenshots
153: Your Account
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Downloads
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Community Forums
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Community Forums
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Downloads
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Photo Gallery
177: Photo Gallery
178: Downloads
179: Photo Gallery
180: Home
181: Home
182: Community Forums
183: Home
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Community Forums
188: Community Forums
189: Home
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Home
193: Photo Gallery
194: Member Screenshots
195: Photo Gallery
196: News
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Photo Gallery
200: Community Forums
201: Member Screenshots
202: Photo Gallery
203: Downloads
204: Community Forums
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Downloads
212: Home
213: Home
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Photo Gallery
217: Home
218: Community Forums
219: Community Forums
220: Photo Gallery
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: News
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Community Forums
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: CPGlang
234: Home
235: Photo Gallery
236: Home
237: Community Forums
238: Member Screenshots
239: Community Forums
240: CPGlang
241: Community Forums
242: Photo Gallery
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Downloads
249: Community Forums
250: Community Forums
251: Home
252: Community Forums
253: Photo Gallery
254: Community Forums
255: Photo Gallery
256: Photo Gallery
257: Community Forums
258: Downloads
259: Home
260: News
261: Photo Gallery
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Photo Gallery
268: Photo Gallery
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Community Forums
273: Photo Gallery
274: Photo Gallery
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Community Forums
278: Community Forums
279: Community Forums
280: Community Forums
281: Community Forums
282: Photo Gallery
283: Photo Gallery
284: Downloads
285: Community Forums
286: Statistics
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Downloads
291: Community Forums
292: Downloads
293: Community Forums
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Community Forums
302: Home
303: Community Forums
304: Photo Gallery
305: Photo Gallery
306: Community Forums
307: Community Forums
308: Community Forums
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Downloads
312: Community Forums
313: Community Forums
314: Community Forums
315: Home
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Your Account
320: Home
321: News Archive
322: Community Forums
323: Photo Gallery
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Home
329: Photo Gallery
330: Photo Gallery
331: Community Forums
332: Home
333: Community Forums
334: Home
335: Community Forums
336: Photo Gallery
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Photo Gallery
340: Community Forums
341: Photo Gallery
342: Community Forums
343: Photo Gallery
344: Home
345: Community Forums
346: Home
347: Downloads
348: Downloads
349: Home
350: Downloads
351: Photo Gallery
352: Community Forums
353: Home
354: Downloads
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Photo Gallery
367: Photo Gallery
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Photo Gallery
375: Community Forums
376: Downloads
377: Community Forums
378: Downloads
379: Community Forums
380: Community Forums
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Home
384: Community Forums
385: Photo Gallery
386: Community Forums
387: Photo Gallery
388: Community Forums
389: Community Forums
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Community Forums
393: Community Forums
394: Community Forums
395: Community Forums
396: Community Forums
397: Photo Gallery
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Community Forums
401: Photo Gallery
402: Community Forums
403: Community Forums
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Community Forums
408: Community Forums
409: Community Forums
410: Community Forums
411: Community Forums
412: Downloads
413: Community Forums
414: Community Forums
415: Photo Gallery
416: Photo Gallery
417: Community Forums
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: Home
422: Community Forums
423: Community Forums
424: Photo Gallery
425: Community Forums
426: Community Forums
427: Photo Gallery
428: Community Forums
429: News Archive
430: Community Forums
431: Photo Gallery
432: Community Forums
433: Downloads
434: Photo Gallery
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: CPGlang
439: Community Forums
440: Community Forums
441: News Archive
442: Community Forums
443: Downloads
444: Community Forums
445: Community Forums
446: Downloads
447: Photo Gallery
448: Community Forums
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: Photo Gallery
452: Community Forums
453: Community Forums
454: Community Forums
455: Home
456: CPGlang
457: Community Forums
458: Community Forums
459: Community Forums
460: Downloads
461: Community Forums
462: Photo Gallery
463: Community Forums
464: Community Forums
465: Community Forums
466: Community Forums
467: Photo Gallery
468: Community Forums
469: Community Forums
470: Home
471: Community Forums
472: Home
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Downloads
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Photo Gallery
479: Photo Gallery
480: Community Forums
481: Your Account
482: CPGlang
483: Community Forums
484: Photo Gallery
485: Community Forums
486: Your Account
487: Community Forums
488: Community Forums
489: Community Forums
490: Community Forums
491: Home
492: Photo Gallery
493: Photo Gallery
494: Photo Gallery
495: Photo Gallery
496: Community Forums
497: Community Forums
498: Statistics
499: Community Forums
500: Member Screenshots
501: Community Forums
502: Home
503: Community Forums
504: Community Forums
505: Community Forums
506: Community Forums
507: Community Forums
508: Community Forums
509: Community Forums
510: Photo Gallery
511: Downloads
512: Photo Gallery
513: Community Forums
514: Downloads
515: Community Forums
516: Community Forums
517: Photo Gallery
518: Community Forums
519: CPGlang
520: Community Forums
521: Photo Gallery
522: Home
523: Home
524: Community Forums
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Community Forums
529: Community Forums
530: Community Forums
531: Community Forums
532: Your Account
533: Community Forums
534: Downloads
535: Downloads
536: Community Forums
537: Home
538: CPGlang
539: Photo Gallery
540: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
"Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:57 pm
Post subject: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

Mainly for Oldtop, but Roy and some others may shed some light:

I'm trying to get a handle on what it was that made top-loading air filters less satisfactory than side loaders apart from convenience/access, if anything. That is, were they less efficient or just less likely to receive attention? I've crewed vehicles (M48A2, M60A1, M60A2) with both systems, but only at Ft. Knox which isn't as dusty as some other locations that come to mind.

Also, I notice that some of the top loaders on M60A1's have a smooth-sided armored box on the outward side while others have a single horizontal "ridge" there, like on this one:
image2.sina.com.cn/jc/...093650.jpg

...my pics of the M60A1 side-skirt test vehicle, "Hotpants", has this ridge too. I don't recall any function associated with it.

Thanks!
D.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:56 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

Hi Doug, all,

The top loading air cleaners were made of steel, rather than aluminum as the originals were. I recall that our maintenance guys didn't like the side loaders because the mechanisms were easily damaged, hard to repair, and the filter elements were often screwed up by crews trying to jam them back in. The doors were tricky and the seals often leaked, which is a problem when they are sucking air in that close to the tracks! The doors were a problem from the beginning, and the horizontal rib your pic shows is a reinforcment to stiffen the door and keep from flexing. (Yup, that's a side loader in your pic.)

I remember fighting with both, and hated the side loaders. The filter element was a very tight fit, and had to be held at just the right angle. However, you had to stand beside the tank and hold the heavy element at roughly shoulder-height to do this, which made it double hard. We usually used two folks to do it, one on the ground and one on the tank (leaning over the side) to guide it into the slots. The top loaders were a piece of cake, and the element just dropped into it's cradle.

Sometime after the A1s began to be produced, fairly early in the run, they changed to the top loading 'armored' type. I remember hearing that this was originally done by the Israelis, and adopted by us. But there are/were some A1s with the old-style side-loaders. The RISE modifications were supposed to replace these, when they were done.

This is all from deep memory, so I await corrections from better memories!

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:42 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Thanks, Chuck...

Only now, I'm really confused! I based my phrasing on "Oldtops" comment in the other thread:

One indecater that this is an first production is "side loader " air filter housing which is the same as on the M48A3 upgrade, M60A1s picker up the "top loader" armored box type...and with which the vehicle was damned for its operation life.


...which I understood (perhaps incorrectly) to mean that the toploaders were the troublesome types.

As I didn't personally experience problems with either, I'm just trying to clarify in my mind which system was preferred, and why. Sounds like you're more a fan of the toploaders.

Cheers!
D.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:34 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

The first problem with top loaders was they stood out and everything fired at the tank hit them, 10 micorms (I could put that much dirt in your eye and you wouldn't notice it)of dust would kill the 1790 diesel engine.
The side loaders were postive sealing (when the cover was closed it was sealed) . The top loaders lid had two legs (one on each side) that engaed two studs on each side of air filter cage, when the lid close it was desiged for the leg to force the element (cage) seal into the front of the aircleaner housing so that no unfiltered air could be drawn into the engine intake..or all air had to go through the filter element first. The filter elements were a group of bag shaped cloth or paper envelopes held in a welded steel cage with a rubber gasget on the open end.
Problem #1 Each manufacter placed the metal studs a little bit off from what the specs called for, so when you closed the lid the leg may or may not engae the two studs and complete seal.
Problem#2 It was possible for the crewmen to put the element in backwards and by standing on the lid get the bolt holes to line up enough to get the bolts in...results were raw unfiltered air in the engine.
Problem #3 The soution was to weld shims to the lid legs to make sure they made contacted with the studs on the element cage. To do this the instuction for testing the seal was to coat the element seal with art white lead oil paint close and bolt down the lid then unbolt it and open the lid and check to see if there was a complet impression from the seal on the end of the housing...."However" because each manufacter place the studs differantly if you had welded shims the seal could end up too tight and the gasget seal was crushed and no airtight seal..raw unfiltered air (again).
My solution was to glue plastic shim or ring cut from PVC pipe on the studs, that way the ring would crush before the seal did and I knew we had a good seal no matter what...ya it worked fine!
As for the crewmen you simply put alining makes on the filter elements and the housing and hopefully the dummys would get it right..maybe.
...sub-problem err lets call it 3A problem, on thr front of each filter housing was a elbow that conducted the filtered air to the engine intake, the problem was the 3/8" capscrews holding it to the filter housing would work lose (even with lock washers) and you had (again) raw unfiltered air getting into the engine. the solution was to go to 1/2 capscrews and a spring washer...well it worked for me.
sub-problem 3B...the cloth elements were which designed to be cleaned and reinstalled, these elements developed holes in them and the only way to detected them was to build a "ligt box" over which you placed the elements (in a dark room), as you found each hole you placed a drop of "Elmer's glue on it. This problem alone killed over 50% of the dead lined engines, the solution was to use paper "one time" uses filter element which were in such a short supply that they'er production never caught up with the needs....so tank units clean and patched the paper elements and reused them...raw air problem again!!!
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:41 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Hi Folks!

Thanks Top for explaining your post. I guess that one is a case of the repairer's point of veiw. Surprised

I was like Doug(SORRY DOUG). While I didn't work directly with the M60s very much, I never heard any of the tankers I was around saying the top loaders were a problem. For the most part, all of them loved the top loading design. But then maybe it was a major case of they didn't know their last engine failure was caused by raw air intake.

That's two things I have learned today!
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.


Last edited by Roy_A_Lingle on Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:46 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

- Roy_A_Lingle

I was like Dong. Smile


Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:19 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

Hi everyone,
My experience was with top loaders only, which came in armored and aluminum. Aluminum was on some of the A1's we had in 1-63 Fort Riley. The only side loaders I had any dealings with was when the Kansas National Gaurd had straight 60's and would be on the the range. The crews hated them. They wanted the simplicity of the top loader. Never had a problem getting filters either, got new ones every Q-service. I remember having to check the seals on ours too with that paint Ole Top talks about. They all sealed fine, this was in Germany, Riley and Irwin. The filters where made by Donaldson (?) from what I remember. If there was a sealing problem it would've been very evident at Irwin. I think the biggest improvement was the VDSS system, which IIRC stood for Vehicle Dust Scavenge System. It got rid of the blower motors and could self clean the filters. We had that system at Irwin. Even had a warning light in the drivers compartment. I absolutely loved that system. As far as placing a filter in wrong, yes, it could be done but you had to be a rock with lips to not notice it was when you closed the lid. To me the top loader was the way to go, and for what it's worth, blowing a pack was not a common thing, even with all the miles we drove in Germany. I guess my comparisons are also skewed by my very negative experiences with the M1 system and it's very high sensitivity to dust.
I am still trying to figure how the side loaders were less of a target than the top loaders on the 60, Both are loacated in the same place and took up the same amount of space. At least the later model top loader was armored and not aluminum.

My perspective

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

I am still trying to figure how the side loaders were less of a target than the top loaders on the 60, Both are loacated in the same place and took up the same amount of space. At least the later model top loader was armored and not aluminum.


I might be wrong about this, but I think Oldtop was not referring to "hostile fire" when referring to what "might be fired at them", but dirt, debris, dust and the like. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong 'bout 'dat.

Well, what's emerging here is at least a good explanation of why I was confused...it seems there are at least two bodies of opinion out there regarding air filters, and maybe some of that follows the perspective of crews vs. mechanics or something. For sure there's a basis of experience to support both views.

My own one was that there was no significant difference between the two types...each having it's own virtues and vices. But I've heard strong negative opinions expressed about the toploader before and didn't fully understand the reason for it. I'm not sure I do now, but at least there's something to go on.

I'd sure like to hear any other opinions from those with time on either or both types.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:29 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Hi Doug, Roy, Oletop, everyone!

I'm guessing that which one you hated more depended on which one gave you the most problems.

I remember our maintenance guys being very firm about putting the air filters in right, so Oletop's comments probably cover the same concerns. I remember the effort that was required to get the lids closed on the top-loaders, and how careful we had to be to get them right.

One needed and welcome improvement on the M60A3s were restriction indicators on the intake elbows...as long as no one knocked them off. They were vacuum indicators, similar to those used on many commercial diesels, that told you it was time to change/clean your filters.

I do know that the maintenance guys didn't have much nice to say about the side loaders, especially the doors. Apparently, they were subject to warpage under some conditions, which broke the seals on the filters. Fixing the doors was quite challenging, and being aluminum they were virtually impossible to weld under field conditions. The latch handle was held shut by a steel bolt, tapped into the aluminum housing. Inevitably, some young, strapping, not-so-bright crewman would overtighten the bolt and strip the hole. At some point, there were no practical bolts available large enough to retap the hole again, and the entire housing had to be replaced (or the hole had to be welded up...cheaper and simpler, but not likely). Being in a Reserve unit in the early 80's,parts were slow coming, and a simple stupid repair like that could deadline a tank for months or more.

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:34 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

What was the compounded problem was due to dust ingestion (both filters and lose elbows) there was a shortage of engines (RISE mod) at the same time a batch of "bad" pistions got into the system so maint units were caught between a rock and a hard place as were rebuild centers, you would see engines with mixed parts (RISE and non-RISE mixed). Once the new air filtering system was in place on the production line most of the problems were ironed out.....but from 1975 to 80 maints was pure hell in the support units. As for this thing between the side loaders vs top loaders, just look at the hight deference, the Israeli IDF pointed out time after time the damage done to the housing in combat...why in the world would you desgne a vehicle with its air filtering system sitting out in the open on the fenders?????
Back to top
View user's profile
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:56 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

This story begins with the M48s. Like most med to heavy tanks they are limited by their range of operation, if one reads the manuals you'll the range of U.S. diesel powered tanks is around 300 miles. However this was not the story with the gasoline fueled models, M48s and A1s were lucky if they got 90 miles per fuel load. (the german Tiger 1 had a ture combat range of 70 to 80 plus miles) The Army tried fuel injected engines for a few more miles, I know there are pictures foating around of M48s with barrels of gas strapped to a rack on their ass to push for more range (made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck just to think about it)...So heres the rule of thumb I use in calulating the fuel needed to support a tracked vehicle in the field. For every hour of cross-country operation you lose 5% of your total road range on top of you normal fuel consumtion...or a addistional 50% of your total road range milage every 10 hours...or if you burn half your fuel in 10 hours cross contry move you'er out of the go go stuff. This was the wall every army in the world was up against..and still is. So what has this to do with airfilters you ask. Well when the U.S. went to the dieselized M60 they remove the "lil joe" (APU) and installed form -fitting fuel tanks in the engine compartment, one other thing had been removed, the aircleaners which has sat in the left and right front of the engine compartment (fuel injected M48s had been the first with airfilters moved in this manner ). Now we had a med tank with a 300 mile road range and better than 150 mile cross country range (the diesel powered M103 heavy tank could now get better than 100 miles per fuel load with twice the fuel tankage)...However we now had the airfilter housings sitting rightt out in the open for everybody to shoot at, it was like the designers had said "oh were should we put these things")
Back to top
View user's profile
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:06 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

"I do know that the maintenance guys didn't have much nice to say about the side loaders, especially the doors. Apparently, they were subject to warpage under some conditions, which broke the seals on the filters. Fixing the doors was quite challenging, and being aluminum they were virtually impossible to weld under field conditions. The latch handle was held shut by a steel bolt, tapped into the aluminum housing. Inevitably, some young, strapping, not-so-bright crewman would overtighten the bolt and strip the hole. At some point, there were no practical bolts available large enough to retap the hole again, and the entire housing had to be replaced (or the hole had to be welded up...cheaper and simpler, but not likely). Being in a Reserve unit in the early 80's,parts were slow coming, and a simple stupid repair like that could deadline a tank for months or more."
I was lucky enough to have a LM-62 welding unit with a "mig" system so I could rework the housings, once the word got out that I was repairing the housings I had Army reserve and NG units bring them to my shop for repair. With gobs of money for the Marine Reserves as well as pro welders I had a first class welding and machine shop, I mean my reserve troops built ships and powerplants for a living so they did great work.
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:14 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Hi Folks!

I always though that putting the air filters out on the fender was a compromise for some reason. Never realized it was to make room for larger fuel tanks.

One thing I have learned from this, which surpised me, was the fact that the side loading boxes where made out of aluminum. Shocked

Now that is a weight compromise and I guess the IDF proved that it wasn't worth it. If I understand it right, they were the ones who came up with the armored version?

I think this is a major example of everything that goes into a tank is a compromise with something else. Only combat proves if each compromise is a good or bad idea.

Thanks Top!
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:51 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

- oldtop
What was the compounded problem was due to dust ingestion (both filters and lose elbows) there was a shortage of engines (RISE mod) at the same time a batch of "bad" pistions got into the system so maint units were caught between a rock and a hard place as were rebuild centers, you would see engines with mixed parts (RISE and non-RISE mixed). Once the new air filtering system was in place on the production line most of the problems were ironed out.....but from 1975 to 80 maints was pure hell in the support units.


This at least partially explains my lack of familiarity with this problem in spite of the fact that I crewed side loader and top loader vehicles. All my experience was prior to 1974, so RISE parts availability was not an issue. Furthermore, I ETS'd about 60 days after the October (Yom Kippur) war, so any lessons learned by the Israelis during that one (apart from vulnerability to TOW missiles and the shortcomings of committing tanks without infantry support) were too late in coming to reach me. I'd moved on to other things.

I was also probably a bit spoiled by serving my last ~2 years at the Armor Board, one of the most support-rich units in all of tank-dom.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:22 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

The Israelis got a way with "cheating" for years (sending tanks in with out grunt support) till Yom Kippur..after all, the enemy had always ran away before! Any 2nd Lt in any other army knew you don't do that!!!
Know one ever want to fes up to how bad the M60 engine shortage was in the Marines, I had M60s sitting for over a year on my maint line/bone yard deadlined due to the lack of engines. And I couldn't get the parts to rebuild.
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum