PDA

View Full Version : Fastest piston plane ever built?



Vinnie_Gumbat
09-13-2008, 06:37 PM
here's a top contender.
Republic's XF-12 Rainbow.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/f12.jpg

Top speed and cruise speed are quoted as either 450 or 470.
There were faster piston planes, but this jewl
could and did sustain 450mph cruise coast to coast
over the US.
No piston fighter could have stayed with it.
They had a saying, "4 square". 4 engines, 40,000' and over 400 mph.

Powered by 4 P&W R-4360 radials of over 3,000hp
and lacking drag causing cowl flaps.
All engine exhaust and cooling bypass went out
the huge tailpipe on the back of each nacelle.

Vinnie

Wildnoob
09-13-2008, 06:42 PM
good to know, but I've read in guiness edition of 1994 that was the Tu-95.

stalkervision
09-13-2008, 06:53 PM
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/p47/screenshots/1/xp72_ext.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

M_Gunz
09-13-2008, 08:22 PM
What about the Reno racers like Rare Bear?

Daiichidoku
09-13-2008, 10:24 PM
this one was #1 for a long time

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/43-46920.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/XP47j.jpg

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_9.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p47_9.html)

The fastest version of the Thunderbolt was the XP-47J, which was proposed in November 1942 as a lighter-weight version of the Thunderbolt designed to explore the outer limits of the design's basic performance envelope. The XP-47J was fitted with a 2800 hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57(C) housed inside a close-fitting cowling and cooled by a fan. The ventral intake for the CH-5 turbosupercharger was separated from the engine cowling and moved aft. The four-bladed propeller was fitted with a large conical-shaped spinner. The wing structure was lightened and the armament was reduced from eight to six 0.50-inch machine guns. The contract was approved on June 18, 1943.

The XP-47J was a completely new airframe and not a conversion of an existing P-47D. The serial number was 43-46952. The XP-47J flew for the first time on November 26, 1943. On August 4, 1944, it attained a speed of 504 mph in level fight, becoming the first propeller-driven fighter to exceed 500 mph.

Maximum speed of the XP-47J was 507 mph at 34,300 feet, range was 765 miles at 400 mph, 1070 miles at economical cruising speed. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 4.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Weights were 9663 pounds empty, 12,400 pounds normal loaded, 16,780 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 40 feet 11 inches, length was 33 feet 3 inches, height was 14 feet 2 inches, and wing area was 300 square feet.

TinyTim
09-14-2008, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
good to know, but I've read in guiness edition of 1994 that was the Tu-95.

Tu-95 is the fastest propeller driven plane. It uses turboprop engines, not piston ones.

VF-17_Jolly
09-14-2008, 03:45 AM
On 12 December 1942 Philip Lucas reached 575 mph (mach 0.76)at 20,000 feet in a full throttle dive from 27,000 feet in the prototype Tempest V. Thereafter tests were flown on production aircraft, often firring their guns in dives at around 550mph to see if the wings came off

.diving trials with spitfire PR.XI's in the late summer of 1943.......sqn leader James Tobin recorded Mach 0.92 between 25,000 and 30,000 feet (a figure later amended to Mach 0.90, but still a speed of around 650mph TAS)

In a dive i know but!

How about a jug in a dive.....How fast

Fastest PRODUCTION fighter seems to be the DH Seahornet 472mph
The Do 335 was maybe faster?

Bremspropeller
09-14-2008, 06:15 AM
The Jug WAS slower than M.9 - at least those that returned.

Wildnoob
09-14-2008, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
good to know, but I've read in guiness edition of 1994 that was the Tu-95.

Tu-95 is the fastest propeller driven plane. It uses turboprop engines, not piston ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh, sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

thanks for the correction TinyTim.

Aaron_GT
09-14-2008, 08:20 AM
this one was #1 for a long time

Is this figure a simple IAS to TAS figure or additionally corrected for compressibility at the pitot head (which is the source of erroneous claims of breaking the sound barrier)? There are a number of speed figures for various P-47 versions that catch people out because the additional correction has not been applied. The only way to be absolutely sure is to measure from the ground. This throws things back to officially sanctioned airspeed records, which gives the prize a modified F8F (at low altitude) in 1969, although it is entirely possible that some piston aircraft may have beaten it in level flight at altitude. You could measure it now, though, by using GPS at altitude to get a fully corrected TAS with a small error margin over a 2km course.

Aaron_GT
09-14-2008, 08:33 AM
Fastest PRODUCTION fighter seems to be the DH Seahornet 472mph

There was some production of the Spiteful XIV (whether you'd count less than 19 examples as production is another matter) that topped out at 475 mph, and the RAE was very careful with pitot head corrections. The Seafang had the same top speed, but with even fewer built than the Spiteful!

With about 50 of all types you'd be hard pressed to call it a production type, but the 300 or so Hornets of all types count I think.

The P-51H has a valid claim. I can't find the relevant pages on Spitfire performance, but from memory in tests it was flying at speeds of around 485 clean at 25,000 ft and even 450 with 1000lbs of bombs.

So my money is on the P-51H as a production type at altitude, F8F as an official record, and one of the P-51H, P-47J or Spiteful at altitude [in WW2], depending on whether all the speeds have been corrected full for instrumentation issues.

450 cruise must put the XF-12 at the top of the cruise tree, though.

fraidycat1
09-14-2008, 08:43 AM
Rare Bear, 528 mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
09-14-2008, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:

.diving trials with spitfire PR.XI's in the late summer of 1943.......sqn leader James Tobin recorded Mach 0.92 between 25,000 and 30,000 feet (a figure later amended to Mach 0.90, but still a speed of around 650mph TAS)

In a dive i know but!



That number was more a result of wrong measurement then actually achieved speed. The spit can't go anywhere near that mach number.

VF-17_Jolly
09-14-2008, 09:59 AM
Lieutenant Raymond Hurtienne's purpose, it turns out, was to break the speed of sound in a propeller-driven aircraft, and he swears he did it, in the spring of 1945, in the skies above Long Island. "I rolled her over, pointed her straight down, ******ed throttle, full left trim and full forward stick," he wrote in a letter to a P-47 pilot's association. "As the speed increased, control responses became more and more rigid. The airspeed indicator became stuck against the peg at 575 mph. Vapor trails were forming at both wingtips. The stick seemed like concrete. The altimeter was unwinding at a terrific rate. This was it: I had hit Mach 1. There wasn't another plane in the skies that could touch me."

lots of stories

Viper2005_
09-14-2008, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:

.diving trials with spitfire PR.XI's in the late summer of 1943.......sqn leader James Tobin recorded Mach 0.92 between 25,000 and 30,000 feet (a figure later amended to Mach 0.90, but still a speed of around 650mph TAS)

In a dive i know but!



That number was more a result of wrong measurement then actually achieved speed. The spit can't go anywhere near that mach number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg

There's some data for you.

What is the basis for your allegations of error?

stalkervision
09-14-2008, 10:44 AM
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0052.gif

M_Gunz
09-14-2008, 10:52 AM
.891 != .92

that error?

Daiichidoku
09-14-2008, 11:41 AM
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19...90943_1993090943.pdf

Page 131 of NACA Report 868, Summary of Lateral-Control Research:
For the P-47C-1-RE at 400 mph IAS, a 31% loss in aileron effectiveness. The aileron reversal speed is about 545 mph IAS.
Spitfire at 400 mph IAS, approx 65% loss in aileron effectiveness


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

"Due to the unusually high speeds that the Supermarine Spitfire could be dived at, this problem of aileron reversal became apparent when it was wished to increase the lateral manouverabilty (rate of roll) by increasing the aileron area. The aircraft had a wing designed originally for an aileron reversal airspeed of 580 mph, and any attempt to increase the aileron area would have resulted in the wing twisting when the larger ailerons were applied at high speed, the aircraft then rolling in the opposite direction to that intended by the pilot. The problem of increasing the rate of roll was temporarily alleviated with the introduction of "clipped" wing tips (to reduce the aerodynamic load on the tip area, allowing larger ailerons to be used) until a new, stiffer wing could be incorporated. This new wing was introduced in the Mark XXI and had a theoretical aileron reversal speed of 825 mph"



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

The elliptical wing was able to reach a safe Mach number of 0.83 and maximum of 0.86 without encountering the problem of Mach-induced aileron flutter, a phenomenon which continued to blight many newer designs.

Jaws2002
09-14-2008, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:

There's some data for you.

What is the basis for your allegations of error?

That data is colected from the available instruments.
Remember this is 1944. there are no supersonic wind tunels or supersonic aircraft to even test this instruments in transonic speeds and what happens at Mach .90 is a world away from the usual 400Mph of ww2 prop fighters. Did they corected the recorded data for compressability in the pitot tube?
Did they know exactly what is happening in the pitot tube at those speeds? How do you know your instruments are acurate at Mach 0.8-0.9 in 1944.?

I doubt any WW2 prop aircraft could get much past .80. The Thunderbolt
allegedly did 700mph until the engineers took a look at the data, applied a
compressibility correction and came
up with about 550mph.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-14-2008, 12:09 PM
After WWII a P-47 was fitted with a Curtiss Electric
"super sonic" propeller and a revised Pitot tube
designed for trans sonic flight.
The P-47 as tested revealed two things.

The prop acted as a big speed brake as it reached the speed of sound before the airframe.

The old pitot tube was woefully inaccurate at speeds over 500mph.

No speed faster than 550mph was possible.
Controls locked up and the plane refused to go faster.

After reading about those high speed tests I came
to the conclusion that no pre 1946 aircraft got near the speed of sound.
Those spitfire dive tests are also bound to be off by a large margin.

The top speed contenders for production piston fighters
are the supermarine Spiteful at a claimed 485mph (16 built)
and the P-51H at 487 mph (550 built).

There were a few one off fighters that neared 500 mph
There was one Hawker tempest that made around 480mph and of course
the P-47J@504 mph (I seriously doubt this number).
Other one to three built class of prototypes that neared the 500mph mark
include the P-51F,G and J and the XP-72.

What the Republic Rainbow did so well was sustained speed over great distances.
It is no small feat to be able to cruise for 3,000 miles at the top speed of the best piston fighters.

Vinnie

PanzerAce
09-14-2008, 12:50 PM
As has been stated already, the fastest piston plane is currently Rare Bare from the Reno Unlimited class (should be racing today, actually).

However, look at it, shouldn't be to hard to beat if say you got your hands on a D-9 airframe, built an engine to handle some serious power, and then put contra-rotating blades on there...

No, I've NEVER thought about how to beat Rare Bear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
09-14-2008, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg


Was this from the dive over the weather station? And wasn't data collected from the ground
or was it from instruments in the plane with the pitot being only one?

Are altitude, dive angle and time shown there primary data?

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-14-2008, 01:14 PM
For piston powered planes.
Rare Bear holds many records including closed course at 5,000' (Reno Stead airport) 495.039mph.
World Speed Record (528.3 mph) and 3000 Meter Time-To-Climb Record (91.9 seconds).

Unofficially "Dago Red" a modified P-51 made a 530+ mph pass at sea level, but the engine failed and they could not make the required return pass.

Unofficially a R-3350 powered sea fury racer made a 507 mph
lap at Reno Stead (5000' elevation).
It was clocked officially, but did not count as it was not a qualifying run.

Top speeds for Dago Red and the Bear are over 540 mph
at their best altitudes but they are EXTREMELY modified aircraft.

The engine in the Rare Bear and the Racing Sea Fury are modified Curtiss Wright R-3350s at over 4500 hp.

Dago Red has a modified Merlin producing about 3,800 hp.

As of this time no one races a Sea Fury powered by a Bristol Centaurus, and no one ever will.
Bristol Centauruses are not suitable for high boost pressures and racing conditions.



Vinnie

Ronbo3
09-14-2008, 01:53 PM
Dago Red holds the race record from 2003 with its 507mph race, highest lap 511. Rare Bear was haulin too, but looked like they tapered off a bit from the video.

Aaron_GT
09-14-2008, 02:41 PM
The top speed contenders for production piston fighters
are the supermarine Spiteful at a claimed 485mph (16 built)
and the P-51H at 487 mph (550 built).

There were a few one off fighters that neared 500 mph
There was one Hawker tempest that made around 480mph and of course
the P-47J@504 mph (I seriously doubt this number).
Other one to three built class of prototypes that neared the 500mph mark
include the P-51F,G and J and the XP-72.


Spiteful prototype, 494, production (19 built of the XIV, not 16) 475, ditto Seafang F.32 (8 built). Hawker Fury (not Tempest) approx 490 AFAIK.

jdigris001
09-14-2008, 03:13 PM
I came to the conclusion that no pre 1946 aircraft got near the speed of sound.

weel thats true for props but there were some stories from german jet and rocket pilots that they came close, one ex me-262 to this day claims he was the first to break the soundbarrier and live to tell the tale. I saw an interview with him on the history channel and he claims he had control reversal then a period of calm then as he got lower and the air density increased he came back below mach1. He also claimed that the tail was severly damaged and the airframe was a write off. Most aviation engineers dispute his claim, its well documented that the me262's tail will break completely off in the transonic region, and the fact that the engine ducts had no way of dealing with supersonic air also disputes his claim. His main point seems to be several people on the ground swore they heard the classic double sonic booms. On the same show it also said that many me163s came close, a lot closer than anything else, several never pulled out of power dives and sonicbooms were also reported as heard. I guess we will never really know

WTE_Galway
09-14-2008, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:

There were a few one off fighters that neared 500 mph
There was one Hawker tempest that made around 480mph and of course
the P-47J@504 mph (I seriously doubt this number).
Other one to three built class of prototypes that neared the 500mph mark
include the P-51F,G and J and the XP-72.

Vinnie


Not sure about Tempests but the one off Sabre powered Sea Fury prototype got to 483 MPH without any particular tweaking or effort to get high speeds.

Altamov_Steppes
09-14-2008, 06:22 PM
Some observations:

1. If an aircraft designer wants to have a fast prop plane then natural parasitic drag penalty around the airframe requires that it be a tradeoff to engine weight and fuel (not to mention another factor of interference drag). This tradeoff was one of the reasons for the 109's (and the Spit's) reduced range.

2. The Spit's first elliptical wing was attributed as the factor that helped it achieve the mach 0.92 number in a dive. Other wings may well have fallen off by then (the somewhat elliptical shape of the Tempest's wings may have helped its mentioned mach number also).

Regards KT

M_Gunz
09-14-2008, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by jdigris001:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I came to the conclusion that no pre 1946 aircraft got near the speed of sound.

weel thats true for props but there were some stories from german jet and rocket pilots that they came close, one ex me-262 to this day claims he was the first to break the soundbarrier and live to tell the tale. I saw an interview with him on the history channel and he claims he had control reversal then a period of calm then as he got lower and the air density increased he came back below mach1. He also claimed that the tail was severly damaged and the airframe was a write off. Most aviation engineers dispute his claim, its well documented that the me262's tail will break completely off in the transonic region, and the fact that the engine ducts had no way of dealing with supersonic air also disputes his claim. His main point seems to be several people on the ground swore they heard the classic double sonic booms. On the same show it also said that many me163s came close, a lot closer than anything else, several never pulled out of power dives and sonicbooms were also reported as heard. I guess we will never really know </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 163 developed uncontrollable nose tuck below Mach 1. Critical Mach was 'about' .84.

A Fighter Ahead of Its Time, end of Rudy Opitz Tells It Like It Was. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight6.htm)


Alexander Lippisch was aware of the causes of Mach tuck and tried to design the operational Me 163B to have as high a critical Mach number as possible. This dictated that the wings have very little washout. Most wings are twisted so the tip is at a lower angle of attack than the root; this twist is called washout. It is used to make the wing stall at the root first and keep the airplane from dropping a wing or spinning when stalled. Washout is particularly important for swept wings, which more readily tip-stall (causing a wing to drop).

The problem Lippisch faced with the Komet was that washout caused the lower surface of the wingtips to shock stall at high speeds, bringing on Mach tuck. Since washout had to be kept to a minimum, he used fixed leading-edge slots (called C-slots) to delay the stall of the wingtips.

Viper2005_
09-14-2008, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

There's some data for you.

What is the basis for your allegations of error?

That data is colected from the available instruments.
Remember this is 1944. there are no supersonic wind tunels or supersonic aircraft to even test this instruments in transonic speeds and what happens at Mach .90 is a world away from the usual 400Mph of ww2 prop fighters. Did they corected the recorded data for compressability in the pitot tube?
Did they know exactly what is happening in the pitot tube at those speeds? How do you know your instruments are acurate at Mach 0.8-0.9 in 1944.?

I doubt any WW2 prop aircraft could get much past .80. The Thunderbolt
allegedly did 700mph until the engineers took a look at the data, applied a
compressibility correction and came
up with about 550mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually supersonic data was quite readily available, albeit usually at quite low Reynolds numbers. The problem was transonic flow, especially around complex shapes (like aeroplanes).

Transonic flow problems were both analytical (You've got both subsonic and supersonic flow around the same body, with different mathematical rules to apply. This makes it really hard to produce an analytical solution, whilst numerical solutions are likely to oscillate around M=1 making them computationally expensive).

Meanwhile if you try to put a model into a windtunnel, blockage effects become increasingly significant, and you also tend to suffer from reflected shocks interfering with your results. Obviously at M>>1, reflected shocks are downstream and therefore not a problem. The brute-force approach to this problem is the make the model smaller in relation to the working section. If you have a fixed tunnel this results in a smaller model and therefore larger errors associated with correcting to full scale Reynolds number. If you have a fixed model then it means that you need to build a much bigger tunnel; since power requirement scales with working section area, this gets very expensive very quickly!

But we're not talking about understanding transonic flows around complex objects; the problem in this context is limited to producing appropriate correction factors for airspeed indicators.

Pitot tubes are pretty simple devices. The equations for Mach number are fairly simple:

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

Note that Bernoulli, Mach and Rayleigh were all dead and gone by the time this stuff was going on. So come to that were Navier and Stokes...

You can derive the compressible version of Bernoulli's equation with pretty simple thermodynamic tools, all of which were readily available in the 1930s.

***

The RAE high speed flight were the world leaders in high Mach number manned flight until the cancellation of the Miles M.52. It was they for example who were tasked with evaluating the tactical Mach number of USAAF escort fighters; and it was largely due to the fact that their flight tests showed the P-51 to have superior performance in this regard that it was selected as the standard US escort fighter. BTW, the P-51's tactical Mach number was in the 0.8 class, making it almost as good as the Spitfire.

The Spitfire PR.XI test series was real cutting edge stuff, and represented one of the first applications of an auto-observer, the immediate predecessor of the telemetry upon which modern flight testing relies.

The auto observer consisted of a camera pointed at an auxiliary instrument panel behind the pilot, taking photographs at regular intervals. This allowed the pilot to concentrate on flying his aeroplane through what was an extremely dangerous dive to the very edge of controllability (and sometimes beyond).

The aeroplane was specially instrumented, with (if memory serves) strain gauges on the tail, holes for pressure plotting, and special airspeed measuring equipment (I've seen at least one photograph showing it fitted with a rake pitot system).

This data is in an entirely different league from the anecdotal "I was doing 700 mph as I chased down the 109" type reports often quoted in relation to other aeroplanes.

However, this data is not representative of an operational Spitfire fighter. The PR.XI was somewhat cleaner than the F.IX, and the pilots were operating on the bleeding edge of the envelope under carefully controlled conditions, and were somewhat stronger than average - maximum "safely" achievable Mach number was strength limited by the (up) elevator force required to maintain constant dive angle. Nevertheless, accidents happened, including the complete departure of prop and reduction gear, resulting in an 11 g pitch up (due to the instantaneous aft migration of the CoG) and glide recovery to Farnborough. The aeroplane was a write-off; but then 11 g is well above the call of duty!

AFAIK the RAE tests didn't go much beyond M 0.90. There was an anecdotal report of a Squadron pilot taking an F.24 to Mach 0.92 or there abouts post war, but this is a far less trustworthy tale since the aeroplane was not appropriately instrumented, and the data reduction process may well have left something to be desired...

When I go back to uni I shall have to see if I can dig out a copy of the original RAE report from the library in order to evaluate the precise data-reduction methodology applied...

However, I would be extremely surprised if there was a substantial error in the data because otherwise it would have almost certainly been corrected in the immediate post-war period when supersonic flight became a reality.

Kettenhunde
09-14-2008, 07:35 PM
I posted the report were the RAE states the "measured" dive speeds recorded in that report cannot be considered accurate.

The static ports are located in the wrong postion for any accurate measurement of transonic speeds.

When I return from my trip in October I will repost it or someone can simply do a search. This a topic which has been covered before and really does not need to be covered again given the facts.

All the Best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-14-2008, 07:47 PM
The equations for Mach number are fairly simple:


What? Getting the mach number is easy.

Determining the speed input to the get ratio is not easy.

M_Gunz
09-14-2008, 08:04 PM
I don't know about auto-observers but I have seen German altitude-climb data from chart
recorder collected during WWI. Clock drive, paper, pen, instrument, viola.

Buzzsaw-
09-14-2008, 08:42 PM
Salute

Most of the aircraft mentioned here are either heavily modified, or experimental, or in a dive, with measurements done with instruments which cannot be depended on.

The only LARGE SERIES PRODUCTION, PISTON engined aircraft, ARMED WITH FULL WEAPONRY, which routinely went up into the high 400's IN LEVEL FLIGHT, and IN 1945, was the P-51H, and it did it easily, reaching 487 mph at full combat load without any special mods to airframe, or engine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/P-51H.jpg

Speed charts below, courtesy Mike William's WWII Aircraft Performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg

Notice the speed at Sea Level: 423 mph.

Yippee.
09-14-2008, 09:38 PM
Man, I love the P51 more and more.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-15-2008, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Most of the aircraft mentioned here are either heavily modified, or experimental, or in a dive, with measurements done with instruments which cannot be depended on.

The only LARGE SERIES PRODUCTION, PISTON engined aircraft, ARMED WITH FULL WEAPONRY, which routinely went up into the high 400's IN LEVEL FLIGHT, and IN 1945, was the P-51H, and it did it easily, reaching 487 mph at full combat load without any special mods to airframe, or engine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/P-51H.jpg

Speed charts below, courtesy Mike William's WWII Aircraft Performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg

Notice the speed at Sea Level: 423 mph.

No doubt that 555 units built makes the P-51H the fastest
production prop plane ever.

A clean P-51H was capable of 420+ mph at sea level.
Nothing but a jet could get near it in 1945.

Vinnie

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-15-2008, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
As has been stated already, the fastest piston plane is currently Rare Bare from the Reno Unlimited class (should be racing today, actually).

However, look at it, shouldn't be to hard to beat if say you got your hands on a D-9 airframe, built an engine to handle some serious power, and then put contra-rotating blades on there...

No, I've NEVER thought about how to beat Rare Bear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At the risk of being attacked as anti German
I have to tell you that a Fw-190 would suffer the same
issues that the Yak based racers do.
The wings are not good at over 450mph.

All the top contenders at RENO are of a laminar flow profile wing.
Maybe with a set of P-51H wings attached?
Also if you want to win you need about 5,000 hp
these days. Even the time proven P-51 racers
are no longer capable of beating those R-3350
and R-4360 powered race planes.

No contra rotating prop planes have been competative since the
"RB-51" was lost in a crash. It was also the last Griffon powered racer
that was competative. Griffon Spits do poorly as race planes.

As I am typing this I am reading that the top engine choice
is the R-3350 radial with a 3:1 gear reduction used on DC-7C
and Lockheed "Super Constellations".
They are highly modified with a lot of parts swapping...

Vinnie

Metatron_123
09-15-2008, 02:03 AM
Why wasn't the P-51H used in Korea? I thought I'd skip the research and ask here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
09-15-2008, 06:07 AM
Props in Korea were no match for the jets though. I'd not like to be doing ground support in
a P-51 due to the golden bb collector up front alone, if MiGs showed up that would not be my
idea of party time!

M_Gunz
09-15-2008, 06:12 AM
Haven't there been advances in prop design since about 1978 or before?
Okay, I know there have but I haven't kept up with the news.

We have better understanding, better materials, better machine tools.
Well the Reno Racers *are* modified from original.

stalkervision
09-15-2008, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Haven't there been advances in prop design since about 1978 or before?
Okay, I know there have but I haven't kept up with the news.

We have better understanding, better materials, better machine tools.
Well the Reno Racers *are* modified from original.

yes there are actually props that are designed to run at supersonic speeds. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

They are quite stubby.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/super-prop/xf88.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0031b.shtml

There are newer ones then this to I believe that are a lot better even.

luftluuver
09-15-2008, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Props in Korea were no match for the jets though. I'd not like to be doing ground support in a P-51 due to the golden bb collector up front alone, if MiGs showed up that would not be my idea of party time!
What golden bb collector would that be?

M_Gunz
09-15-2008, 07:09 AM
The oil cooler.

luftluuver
09-15-2008, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The oil cooler.
Better look again. The oil cooler was in front of the coolant radiator.

http://www.supercoolprops.com/images/15resize.gif

PanzerAce
09-15-2008, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
At the risk of being attacked as anti German
I have to tell you that a Fw-190 would suffer the same
issues that the Yak based racers do.
The wings are not good at over 450mph.

All the top contenders at RENO are of a laminar flow profile wing.
Maybe with a set of P-51H wings attached?
Also if you want to win you need about 5,000 hp
these days. Even the time proven P-51 racers
are no longer capable of beating those R-3350
and R-4360 powered race planes.

No contra rotating prop planes have been competative since the
"RB-51" was lost in a crash. It was also the last Griffon powered racer
that was competative. Griffon Spits do poorly as race planes.

As I am typing this I am reading that the top engine choice
is the R-3350 radial with a 3:1 gear reduction used on DC-7C
and Lockheed "Super Constellations".
They are highly modified with a lot of parts swapping...

Vinnie

I was under the impression that the problem with the Yaks in reno was that they WERE popping R-xxxx engines into them, and they have WAY more power than those planes were built to withstand, in addition to all the issues that arise when you run a racing engine period.

I would argue the laminar flow wing idea as well, since it's pretty clear that the Bearcats and Sea Furies are competitve. While it is true that they might not be able to reach the same speed given equal power as the -51s, in an environment like Reno where you *can't* reach your Vmax for straight and level flight, this seems like less of an issue (it's still an issue, just not quite as much of one).

The reason I'm arguing for contra props is actually because of what I've read about some yaks having to run basically full rudder all the time, or adding several feet to the vertical stab to avoid augering in from the torque. Assuming you could get your hands on a Jumo 213 (or could get one built, since we *are* talking about the Reno races here, this isn't some local AutoX event, this takes money), even if you didn't change the CR of the engine, with modern jungle juice instead of the terrible fuel they ran on, you could turn the boost WAY up, which on that small of a plane probably WOULD over power the airframe, unless you had a contra prop to negate the torque.

It's quite possible that the reason no contra prop planes have been effective since the RB-51 crashed is that most groups don't want to deal the set of issues specific to them, and would rather focus on other stuff.

And lets be honest, alot of these guys are old hands with warbirds, so there might be a feeling that what they know (big radials or merlins, clipping wings, etc) is the only way *shrugs*.

Actually, another interesting race would be to build He-162A/Ns, and run them in the jet class now that the rules have opened it up to more designs.

Viper2005_
09-15-2008, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Why wasn't the P-51H used in Korea? I thought I'd skip the research and ask here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The H has small tyres and is therefore less well suited to operations from unprepared strips than the D. There were also far more D models produced, and far more spares available.

I think that 487 mph is somewhat optimistic for the H; most of the data available shows it being about 10 mph slower, which puts it on a roughly level pegging with the DH-103.

I expect that the P-82 prior to the addition of its radar pod would have been extremely fast...

Daiichidoku
09-15-2008, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The H has small tyres and is therefore less well suited to operations from unprepared strips than the D. There were also far more D models produced, and far more spares available.

yes to both of those reasons, although the chief one was the H's wings were not stressed for the ordinance D's could carry, considering the expected and then realized state of (particularly satelite stations) airstrips in Korea, not to mention some of the terrain they would be flying low level attack in, with heavy stores


http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_13.html)

"Pilots generally found the P-51H to be even more delightful to fly than the D model. However, some pilots were distrustful of the H's lighter structure, preferring the greater sturdiness of the D. Consequently, it was not considered as being suitable for combat operations in Korea."

Aaron_GT
09-15-2008, 10:53 AM
No doubt that 555 units built makes the P-51H the fastest
production prop plane ever.

Speed not number of units made make it the fastest!

Aaron_GT
09-15-2008, 11:02 AM
I expect that the P-82 prior to the addition of its radar pod would have been extremely fast...

AFAIK approx 475 in the first version (low production run) with Merlin, 460 with Allison after the Merlin had to be dropped.

487 is for the P-51H is clean at 90" MP, although bomb racks only knock about 5mph off. Whether 487 was achievable on serial production examples I don't know.

AFAIK 472 is for serial production DH103s, with it managing 482 in special test config that was not achievable in full serial config and fit. 494 for the Spiteful was prototype only, production examples (and those were rare beasts) being 20mph slower.

Fairly similar numbers of DH103 and P-51H were built (300 versus 550).

jdigris001
09-15-2008, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Props in Korea were no match for the jets though. I'd not like to be doing ground support in
a P-51 due to the golden bb collector up front alone, if MiGs showed up that would not be my
idea of party time!

There were a couple of Mig15 kills scored by P51s, but this was more likely due to experienced pilot skills than any other factor. Didnt Meyer get 2 Mig15s in P51s or was he in an F86?

M_Gunz
09-15-2008, 05:40 PM
If you could sucker the MiG into getting in front of you anywhere below maybe 300 mph and in
range then sure thing you can get the shots. But he'd have to be an idiot to let it happen.

Swept wings may have higher critical mach but they also have higher stall. In a hard turn
they need much higher speed.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-15-2008, 06:06 PM
P-51H is generaly recognised as the fastest production prop fighter.
The P-51H-5NA was a bit faster than all the others since
they had no external stores and a shorter D model tail.

No P-51H saw service in Korea.

There were no confirmed Mig-15 kills for a P-51 in Korea, only one probable kill.

P-82B was very fast at just over 480mph at critical altitude. I forgot to mention it.

If you you want to win at RENO you need an airframe that can
mount a R-3350.
There is no other engine capable of making that kind of power, not even a R-4360.

Yes PanzerAce, a crew actually grafted a R-3350 TCW onto a Yak trainer with functional recovery turbines!
It was severly over powered but managed to place in the Gold race several times.

Presently the Hawker Seafury has what seems the perfect combination
of low drag and the ability to handle a CW R-3350.

Beating the Bear and the Seafurys will require
a new better powerplant and a more streamlined airframe.
Neither is likely in the forseeable future since
Seafurys are still plentiful and R-3350s can be easily had at scrap prices!

Vinnie

WTE_Galway
09-15-2008, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you could sucker the MiG into getting in front of you anywhere below maybe 300 mph and in
range then sure thing you can get the shots. But he'd have to be an idiot to let it happen.

Swept wings may have higher critical mach but they also have higher stall. In a hard turn
they need much higher speed.

I have read a few RAAF pilots reports of combat between P51s and MIGs in Korea.

It would seem the main problem was the stressed metal skin and armor of a MIG is pretty resistant to 0.50 cal. Regardless of the endless threads about 0.50 cal during WWII it was definitely on the way out by Korea.

M_Gunz
09-15-2008, 08:10 PM
The Sabres were 50 cal armed weren't they?

And yeah there was problem with damaging the MiGs compared to WWII prop fighters, they not only
have stronger skin but much stronger internal members. Yet there was one Ace whose wingmate
noted he took out a MiG at about 800 yards. He wrote that he would not have made the shot but
that his leader was smart enough to know that at the extreme height they were at, drag on the
bullets was enough less to make the shot. He must have known to judge the drop when aiming.

There are some very vulnerable and critical parts on those if not every jet fighter AFAIK.
That's the compressor blades and turbine blades. One little crack should be enough at the
rpms they turn to make serious problems!

ADD: BTW, did you ever get a chance to fly Rowan's MiG Alley Ace from 1998?

WTE_Galway
09-15-2008, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The Sabres were 50 cal armed weren't they?


The RAAF Sabres were Aussie made and fitted with a pair of 30mm adens ... but they never fought in Korea, we used P51s and Meteors at that stage.

But yes ... the Sabres had the same problem, 0.50 cal may have been awesome in WWII but by korea it was stretching it. I will post alink to a discussion by a Korean Vet when I get a chance to look it up.

berg417448
09-15-2008, 08:33 PM
Wasn't it Colonel Glenn Eagleston who did a report for the USAF which concluded that two thirds of the MiG-15s actually hit with .50 caliber guns escaped?

Viper2005_
09-15-2008, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Beating the Bear and the Seafurys will require
a new better powerplant and a more streamlined airframe.
Neither is likely in the forseeable future since
Seafurys are still plentiful and R-3350s can be easily had at scrap prices!

Vinnie

Rather sad that the Napier Sabre isn't available; Ricardo had single cylinder test engines up to ~5000 bhp according to Gunston.

In reno especially, rpm beats BMEP.

I'm surprised that anybody would race a turbo-compound. At high speed I would have thought that raw exhaust thrust would have been more valuable than shaft power, especially given that the races aren't that long...

WTE_Galway
09-16-2008, 12:17 AM
Not quite sure how the topic got switched to Migs and F86 Sabres in Korea but no matter, I came across this model catalogue earlier today that includes an awesome F86 with fully detailed 0.50 cal guns and ammo as well as a Mig, a Hellcat, a p38 and heaps of other stuff:

http://www.hph.cz/download/Katalog2005hph.pdf

PanzerAce
09-16-2008, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Beating the Bear and the Seafurys will require
a new better powerplant and a more streamlined
I'm surprised that anybody would race a turbo-compound. At high speed I would have thought that raw exhaust thrust would have been more valuable than shaft power, especially given that the races aren't that long...

I'm confused by what you are saying here. Are you arguing that turboing an engine is a BAD idea given the race length? In which case, I'm forced to point out that most engines during WWII and thus in Reno aren't turbo charged anyways, but rather supercharged.

Bremspropeller
09-16-2008, 05:25 AM
Swept wings have a shallower CL over AoA curve.

That means you'll need high-lift devices (such as leading-edge flaps or even slats) during slow speed flight.

But then again, swept wings can be "pushed" to higher AOAs before stalling.
Stalls usually occur at the trailing-edge of the wing-tips and then travel inwards as AoA is increased.
Stalls on straight-winged a/c usually start at the wing-root (trailing-edge first), travelling outwards.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-16-2008, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Beating the Bear and the Seafurys will require
a new better powerplant and a more streamlined airframe.
Neither is likely in the forseeable future since
Seafurys are still plentiful and R-3350s can be easily had at scrap prices!

Vinnie

Rather sad that the Napier Sabre isn't available; Ricardo had single cylinder test engines up to ~5000 bhp according to Gunston.

In reno especially, rpm beats BMEP.

I'm surprised that anybody would race a turbo-compound. At high speed I would have thought that raw exhaust thrust would have been more valuable than shaft power, especially given that the races aren't that long... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, they need to run to win.
Sleeve valve engines like the Sabre and Centaurus are prone to sleeve failure and
other major problems when run at high boost pressures.
That is why all racing Seafurys are powered by US CW R-3350s.

Vinnie

Aaron_GT
09-16-2008, 11:18 AM
P-82B was very fast at just over 480mph at critical altitude. I forgot to mention it.

Vinnie, that is only true of the Merlin version, P-82B with 482mph at 21,500ft, but only 20 were built (about the same as the Spiteful, or Seafang, though). Packard decided not to continue the Merlin line (issues with RR, balance of payments, etc.) and the P-82 was swapped to the Allison which reduced the speed (at the same altitude) to a still impressive but not-prize winning 465mph clean with no radome.

The P/F-82 and DH.103 are close. The Hornet has greater gun armament, 7mph faster (not sure how the NF.21 compares to F-82 NFs) and longer range, but the F-82 has twice the bombload or three times the rocket load, and a slightly higher service ceiling.

The F7F also isn't far behind - just 5mph slower than the F-82, same bombload as the Hornet, and the heaviest armament of the three, but not particulary good range, but even higher ceiling, and radar built in.

M_Gunz
09-16-2008, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Swept wings have a shallower CL over AoA curve.

That means you'll need high-lift devices (such as leading-edge flaps or even slats) during slow speed flight.

But then again, swept wings can be "pushed" to higher AOAs before stalling.
Stalls usually occur at the trailing-edge of the wing-tips and then travel inwards as AoA is increased.
Stalls on straight-winged a/c usually start at the wing-root (trailing-edge first), travelling outwards.

CL = coefficient of lift?

If you mean the lift curve is less steep then which tops out higher at critical angle given
the same foil?

Also doesn't swept wing Center of Lift move more than straight wing C/L with change in AOA?

Those MiG Alley swept wing planes are very easy to stall at less than high speed, we were
told and shown why back then. Perhaps those F-86's and MiG's just had less wing than low
speed maneuver needed?

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-16-2008, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-82B was very fast at just over 480mph at critical altitude. I forgot to mention it.

Vinnie, that is only true of the Merlin version, P-82B with 482mph at 21,500ft, but only 20 were built (about the same as the Spiteful, or Seafang, though). Packard decided not to continue the Merlin line (issues with RR, balance of payments, etc.) and the P-82 was swapped to the Allison which reduced the speed (at the same altitude) to a still impressive but not-prize winning 465mph clean with no radome.

The P/F-82 and DH.103 are close. The Hornet has greater gun armament, 7mph faster (not sure how the NF.21 compares to F-82 NFs) and longer range, but the F-82 has twice the bombload or three times the rocket load, and a slightly higher service ceiling.

The F7F also isn't far behind - just 5mph slower than the F-82, same bombload as the Hornet, and the heaviest armament of the three, but not particulary good range, but even higher ceiling, and radar built in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a total of 23 F-82s were built with Merlins including prototypes.
Rolls Royce licence fees were waived during the war.
Packard comitted suicide by abandoning the Merlin.
They never did well in passenger cars after the war and they
got into jet engine manufacture in an akward manner.

Forgive me but I thought the P-82B has the record for ther longest range for any piston fighter.
A P-82B "Betty Jo" flew from Hickam AB Hawaii to what
is now Laguardia airport in NYNY non stop at
an average speed of 342mph!
Betty was modified to carry extra externals.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=284

"Of a total of 273 F-82s produced, 20 were F-82Bs. The F-82B on display, Betty-Jo, flew from Hawaii to New York on Feb. 27-28, 1947, a distance of 5,051 miles, the longest non-stop flight ever made by a propeller-driven fighter. Betty-Jo came to the museum in 1957."

Max range with "normal maximum" fuel for an Allison F-82E was 2,504 miles (1,186 gallons of fuel).
Betty was carrying 2,215 gallons on the record setting trip!
Internal fuel alone is 576 gallons for all F-82s.
By the way, betty Jo had a couple hundred gallons still aboard when she landed in NYNY (verbal from Bob Thacker, the pilot on the trip)!

Vinniehttp://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/050317-F-1234P-032.jpg

M_Gunz
09-16-2008, 07:06 PM
Was "Betty Jo" modified to carry a 10 gallon thermos of espesso?

It's like 6 hours from San Fran to Honolulu by 747 last times I made the trip!

Daiichidoku
09-16-2008, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Slaughter/Sergio101:
By the way, betty Jo had a couple hundred gallons still aboard when she landed

one of her drop tanks hung and stayed for the flight...could have been even faster

Aaron_GT
09-17-2008, 01:23 AM
Internal fuel alone is 576 gallons for all F-82s.

540 US gallons internal for the Hornet, single hull and thrifty Merlins, thus 3000 mile range versus 2500 (using you figure) for the P-82 in standard rather than record breaking configurations.

I don't know what the external tankage for 3000 miles was, or what the range on internal was. I would guess it would be the two standard 90 imperial gallon tanks, for a grand total of 756.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-17-2008, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Internal fuel alone is 576 gallons for all F-82s.

540 US gallons internal for the Hornet, single hull and thrifty Merlins, thus 3000 mile range versus 2500 (using you figure) for the P-82 in standard rather than record breaking configurations.

I don't know what the external tankage for 3000 miles was, or what the range on internal was. I would guess it would be the two standard 90 imperial gallon tanks, for a grand total of 756. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my figure of 2504 miles comes from several
sources
for the Allison version of the F-82.
I can not find the figure for the P-51B powered by the "thrifty Merlins"
I doubt it's any better.

Vinnie

Aaron_GT
09-17-2008, 05:21 PM
I've seen 2250 and 2500 quoted for the F-82 and 3000 miles and 'much greater than 2500' for the DH.103. Most of my DH.103 information is in addenda to books on the Mosquito, though, so not a huge amount of detail, hence the guess that the external tanks were probably the standard RAF 90 Imp. gallon ones (which would eat speed more than the faired-in Mosquito tanks).

The Hornet started out with much shorter legs, with only about 2/3 its final tankage, but it was 540 in the main production F.3.

I tracked down a figure for the Sea Hornet NF.21, which would be the equivalent to the F-82G or F7F, as it suffered a 40mph penalty. It can't all be the thimble nose, so I am presuming the back seater was responsible for a lot of it. The F-82 suffered a lower penalty for radar, and the F7F none since it was there from the outset. So in terms of NF versions the Hornet was bringing up the rear except in terms of armament (I have no figures on relative ranges of the F-82G and Horenet NF.21)

luftluuver
09-17-2008, 07:19 PM
I don't know Aaron. That radar pod is huge.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fighter/f82-i.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f82.html

Sillius_Sodus
09-17-2008, 09:43 PM
These guys a pretty fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/RNOdf_0920-1280.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/RNOdf_2560-1280.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/RNOdf_0932-1280.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/RNOdf_1693-1280.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/RNOdf_3087-1280.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/RNOmw_4064-1280.jpg

Jaws2002
09-17-2008, 10:36 PM
Amazing to see the closed cowling design introduced by FW-190 in so many fast planes even today. Pretty much all fast radials use it.

Aaron_GT
09-18-2008, 11:33 AM
I don't know Aaron. That radar pod is huge.

Only a 5mph penalty, though.

Aaron_GT
09-18-2008, 11:37 AM
Amazing to see the closed cowling design introduced by FW-190 in so many fast planes even today. Pretty much all fast radials use it.

Originally a NACA development, although the Sea Fury inherited partly via the Fw-190. (The Centaurus with close coupling was already in Bristol's mind, but looking at the 190 allowed them to shorten development time by using the results of lessons learned by Tank).

Badsight-
09-19-2008, 06:12 PM
those are some kick-a$$ pics

TY

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-19-2008, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Amazing to see the closed cowling design introduced by FW-190 in so many fast planes even today. Pretty much all fast radials use it.

here are a gaggle of pre Fw-190 aircraft that used a close cowled radial.
NACA was a leader in the design of high speed radial cowls.
It is fair to say that curt tank looked at the US
NACA designed cowls for inspiration.
This is not to say that there were no other close
cowl designs.
Everyone was getting into the act.
Bristol had a neat cowl that incorporated the engine exhaust into the leading edge of the cowl.
Racers like the Granville Brothers designed
a extremely efficient cowl for their race planes.
Boeing used close cowled P&W Hornet radials on their model 299 (B-17).
Howard Hughes had a VERY tight cowl on the H1 race plane.

There were many innovations in low drag cowl design and
The Fw-190 was one of the last. Sorry, but nothing new there.

Vinnie

Kettenhunde
09-19-2008, 09:06 PM
Incidentally, there is a myth in circulation that the Sea Fury was based on the FW-190. In reality, the resemblance between the two aircraft is very superficial, and any consideration of the design evolution of the Hawker fighter shows the idea to be nonsense. The British didn't get their hands on an FW-190 until mid-1942, well after the flight of the Centaurus-powered Tornado that was the design ancestor of the Sea Fury, and the only major feature the Sea Fury owed to the FW-190 was the engine mounting scheme.



http://www.vectorsite.net/avcfury.html


The first Centaurus Tempest, or "Tempest Mark II", flew on 28 June 1943 with a Centaurus IV, and was followed presently by the second. The radial engine installation owed much to examinations of a captured Focke-Wulf FW-190,

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avcfury.html

The Sea Fury and the FW190 are both using 1920's NACA cowling. Looks like the engineers at Hawker did take some inspiration from Tank's design.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Te...y/cowling/Tech17.htm (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/cowling/Tech17.htm)

All the best,

Crumpp

Jaws2002
09-19-2008, 09:18 PM
While the NACA cowling is old news the way was incorporated into the FW-190 was new. The air traveling through the cowl was guided through the two rather small vents on the sides of the fuselage, greatly reducing the drag, compared with the normal cowl design, that was open all around the airframe.
K. Tank's method of incorporating the cowl into the fuselage was indeed adopted by Sea Furry, Bearcat, La fighters, XP-72 and even that modified F4U in the pic above.

The planes you are talking above have standard cowling used by pretty much everybody by that time.

R_Target
09-19-2008, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
While the NACA cowling is old news the way was incorporated into the FW-190 was new. The air traveling through the cowl was guided through the two rather small vents on the sides of the fuselage, greatly reducing the drag, compared with the normal cowl design, that was open all around the airframe.
K. Tank's method of incorporating the cowl into the fuselage was indeed adopted by Sea Furry, Bearcat, La fighters, XP-72 and even that modified F4U in the pic above.

The planes you are talking above have standard cowling used by pretty much everybody by that time.

The F8F has a tight fitting cowling vented along the fuselage and cowl flaps on the upper sides, much like the F6F that preceded it.

Would you happen to have a list of any modifications that have been made to restored F2G-1 BuNo 88458 pictured above?

luftluuver
09-20-2008, 12:01 AM
The first Centaurus powered Tornado, HG641, was flown in Oct 1941. With the capture of Faber's 190, the the nose was hurriedly redesigned. ref. Francis K. Mason

Aaron_GT
09-20-2008, 01:57 AM
Thanks for that Luftluuver - that backs up what I was saying. The Centaurus was long pencille in for the series, with close cowling (see drawings of other proposed Centaurus designs of the period) but examination of the FW-190 allowed the incorporation of fixes and improvements without addiional development time. Given how long it took to marry Hawker and Centaurus into a production design then potentially it might never have happened otherwise as Hawker might otherwise moved onto jets before perfecting it!

VF-17_Jolly
09-20-2008, 05:51 AM
Tornado 3rd prototype http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/PippinBill/5625.jpg

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-20-2008, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Thanks for that Luftluuver - that backs up what I was saying. The Centaurus was long pencille in for the series, with close cowling (see drawings of other proposed Centaurus designs of the period) but examination of the FW-190 allowed the incorporation of fixes and improvements without addiional development time. Given how long it took to marry Hawker and Centaurus into a production design then potentially it might never have happened otherwise as Hawker might otherwise moved onto jets before perfecting it!

Not one of those racing Seafurys have
Bristol Centaurus power
and all have entirely new custom cowls to enclose
their Wright R-3350 engines.
In the case of the Seafury "Dreadnaught" it is P&W R-4360 power.

Vinnie

Bremspropeller
09-20-2008, 06:06 AM
CL = coefficient of lift?

If you mean the lift curve is less steep then which tops out higher at critical angle given
the same foil?

CL is the coefficient of lift, yes.

No, they don't top out higher.
That's the reason why swept-winged a/c usually ned high-lift-devices.
But they can usually poll more AoA than straight-winged a/c.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-20-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
While the NACA cowling is old news the way was incorporated into the FW-190 was new. The air traveling through the cowl was guided through the two rather small vents on the sides of the fuselage, greatly reducing the drag, compared with the normal cowl design, that was open all around the airframe.
K. Tank's method of incorporating the cowl into the fuselage was indeed adopted by Sea Furry, Bearcat, La fighters, XP-72 and even that modified F4U in the pic above.

The planes you are talking above have standard cowling used by pretty much everybody by that time.

The F8F has a tight fitting cowling vented along the fuselage and cowl flaps on the upper sides, much like the F6F that preceded it.

Would you happen to have a list of any modifications that have been made to restored F2G-1 BuNo 88458 pictured above? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F2G-1 BuNo 88458 "Super Corsair" powered by a P&W R-4360
radial of 28 cylinders was raced pretty much stock
in the late 1940s.
In the early days of post WWII racing few mods were done more
than tweaking boost pressures and adding water meth ADI.
Although there were exceptions.

Vinnie

M_Gunz
09-20-2008, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CL = coefficient of lift?

If you mean the lift curve is less steep then which tops out higher at critical angle given
the same foil?

CL is the coefficient of lift, yes.

No, they don't top out higher.
That's the reason why swept-winged a/c usually ned high-lift-devices.
But they can usually poll more AoA than straight-winged a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was beginning to wonder if the stalls in MiG Alley swept wing planes were over-done.

Aaron_GT
09-20-2008, 05:35 PM
Not one of those racing Seafurys have
Bristol Centaurus power

I'm not surprised - the racing is in the USA and the Centaurus was a rare engine in the UK let alone anywhere else so spares would be expensive compared to those for US engines that would also be much more familiar to maintenancde crew for air racing. I don't think the standard Sea Fury on the airshow circuit has a Centaurus in it and I doubt that ever gets pushed much about 300mph.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-20-2008, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not one of those racing Seafurys have
Bristol Centaurus power

I'm not surprised - the racing is in the USA and the Centaurus was a rare engine in the UK let alone anywhere else so spares would be expensive compared to those for US engines that would also be much more familiar to maintenancde crew for air racing. I don't think the standard Sea Fury on the airshow circuit has a Centaurus in it and I doubt that ever gets pushed much about 300mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

truth is that Bristol Centauruses are cheap and plentiful
having been used, like the R-3350, right through the 1990s
in planes like the Bristol Freighter.
As I understand it the issue lies with the sleeve valves
failing at high boost pressured and racing conditions.

The primary advantage sleeve valves had over poppet valves
was the ability to use higher compression and boost with low octane fuels of the mid 1930s.
When the ultra high octane fuels were developed in late 1939 and early 1940
any advantage sleeve valves had vanished.

Vinnie

Aaron_GT
09-21-2008, 03:59 AM
truth is that Bristol Centauruses are cheap and plentiful
having been used, like the R-3350, right through the 1990s
in planes like the Bristol Freighter.

It was used in the Tempest II (450 built) and Sea Fury (860 built), both produced in some numbers, but not on the scale of wartime production, the Brigand (147 built), Buckingham (around 200 built, but only half actually received any engines at all), Buckmaster, Spearfish (5 built), Brabazon (one plane) . The Bristol Freighter used the Hercules and even if it had, only about 200 were built anyway.

Based on the above that's a little more than 2000 required for all planes using it, so I would guess that would put total production at maybe 4000? This is for 5 production aircraft, whereas you have the R-3350 being used in around 20 different types, and even just one (Skyraider) would require more engines than the entire usage of Centaurus by 50%! And then you have nearly 4,000 B-29s with four apiece!

So given that just based on the B-29 and the first Skyraiders (i.e. production in the 1940s and early 1950s) you have more than six times the number of engines, support, technical knowledge and an engine with a simpler operating principle you are going select the R-3350. I would if I was putting together a racing team, but I'd have to employ people to tell me one end of the engine from the other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The R-3350 is known as a solid engine - some issues in the B-29, but more due to design issues with the B-29 installation which were fixed than the engine.

I wish I could find definitive information but I either read (or perhaps it was at an airshow) that the Sea Fury doing tours of air shows was using a R-3350 rather than a Centaurus. That might have been the one that crashed though.

The Centaurus is going to be a rare beast compared to the R-3350.

From the web page of those restoring "Critical Mass" back to stock (www.seafury10.com):

"Due to the unavailability of Bristol Centaurus engines and spares, we will be forced to utilize an American Wright R-3350-26WD engine."

M_Gunz
09-21-2008, 04:11 AM
But how of each many got scrapped? I still shudder to think of the new or almost planes that
got scrapped after the war.

Aaron_GT
09-21-2008, 04:15 AM
Even with engines getting scrapped if 1% come onto the market 1% of 40,000+ is more than 1% of 4,000!

In the mid 1950s, though, you have quite a number of B-29s being scrapped, but the Sea Fury and the Tempest IIs sold off to the Indian Air Force and others and still in use. So most of the engines were still actually in use at the point when large quantities of R-3350 are likely to have become available, so a huge difference in availability and cost. I would imagine that quite a number of B-29s were scrapped earlier too, although I don't know the numbers and dates. The RAF did use a small number as the Washington but that was in the early 1950s AFAIK.

VF-17_Jolly
09-21-2008, 04:42 AM
Which model Bristol Freighter used Centaurus engines?
The info I have says it used Hercules engines
The Blackburn Beverly on the other hand used Centaurus and four at once but only about 40 odd were built.

luftluuver
09-21-2008, 07:11 AM
According to Graham White only 2800 Centaurus engines were built during WW2.

R-3350 usage

* Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
* Boeing B-29 Superfortress
* Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter
* Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger
* Canadair CL-28 Argus
* Consolidated B-32 Dominator
* Curtiss XBTC-2
* Curtiss XF14C
* Curtiss XP-62
* Douglas A-1 Skyraider
* Douglas BTD Destroyer
* Douglas DC-7
* Douglas XB-31
* Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar
* Fairchild AC-119
* Lockheed Constellation
* Lockheed P-2 Neptune
* Lockheed XB-30
* Martin JRM Mars
* Martin B-33 Super Marauder
* Martin P5M Marlin
* Stroukoff YC-134

M_Gunz
09-21-2008, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Even with engines getting scrapped if 1% come onto the market 1% of 40,000+ is more than 1% of 4,000!

Only if both were scrapped the same percent.


In the mid 1950s, though, you have quite a number of B-29s being scrapped, but the Sea Fury and the Tempest IIs sold off to the Indian Air Force and others and still in use. So most of the engines were still actually in use at the point when large quantities of R-3350 are likely to have become available, so a huge difference in availability and cost. I would imagine that quite a number of B-29s were scrapped earlier too, although I don't know the numbers and dates. The RAF did use a small number as the Washington but that was in the early 1950s AFAIK.

I'm sure that the number of engines of both types still around tells the story.
Was the scrapping total or were engines, instruments, etc salvaged first -- that kind of thing.
I've seen video of after war, pushing whole planes off Carrier decks. Makes me weep how much
waste but hey it was only taxes and bond money right?

I remember being just a bit too young to get in on the surplus Harleys in crates deal back
in the 60's. "Dad, can I get one and keep it I'm older? Only $50!" "No way!" "Can we get
a jeep?" "NO!"

Aaron_GT
09-21-2008, 09:23 AM
Only if both were scrapped the same percent.

True, but my first order estimate assumes the same percentage! If anything, given that the Tempest IIs and Sea Furys were sold off to other airforces on withdrawl from RAF and FAA service (a good number of Tempest IIs were simply transferred in situ to the Indian Airforce in 1947, Sea Furys ended up all over the place) in a way the likes of the B-29 wasn't (apart from a few Washington B.1s in RAF service) then unless B-29 engines were recycled into other R-3350 engined planes then the R-3350 scrap rate for servicable engines is likely to have been higher than for the Centaurus (ones that have totally worn out are another matter). Given that some of the airforces where the Tempest IIs and Sea Furys ended up were operating them as frontline into the early 60s even, and then as trainers beyond then the engines surviving the airframes would be pretty well used. But with an engine in use in very few types then the value of an engine with two or three decades of hard use of a type not really used in anything else would have been low in the 1970s so I doubt many were saved.

Given that some R-3350s might have been recycled into civilian service then it might depend on what your definition of scrapped is, but then ones 'scrapped' from USAF service but still usable in civilian projects like racing are the important cateogry of 'scrapped'.

If, say, the production of R-3350s, with some additional manufacture for total engine writeoffs, is considered then that's possibly 15,000 engines alone. That's a lot to possibly be recycled, and any healthy rate of recycling could equal a sizeable fraction of entire Centaurus production!

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-21-2008, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
Which model Bristol Freighter used Centaurus engines?
The info I have says it used Hercules engines
The Blackburn Beverly on the other hand used Centaurus and four at once but only about 40 odd were built.

My error.
True that most use of the Centaurus was post war.

Vinnie

Aaron_GT
09-21-2008, 09:39 AM
I've seen video of after war, pushing whole planes off Carrier decks. Makes me weep how much
waste but hey it was only taxes and bond money right?

I can see some of the logic of that. With a surplus of war material the value as an actual airframe would have been very low, and I bet in the USA the scrap value of even aircraft-grade alloy was pretty low. In other words it might have cost more to transport those aircraft back and have them scrapped than the scrap was worth. So the more cost-efficient option might well have been to shove them off the decks rather than bring them back to the USA and sort them out.

A lot of the B-29s, though, seem to have been flown into the desert, and that seems to have been true of naval types not on ships at the time. That seems to have been low cost as they were just flown there and left there rather than being actively scrapped as such (i.e. not broken up), presumably pending a time when scrap values came back up and someone was prepared to pay for them and thus save the USAF money rather than the USAAF/USAF (as it was by then) having to pay for them to be broken up.

The UK actually purchased back some Tarpon/Avengers (although this time I think they were actually called Avengers in service) in around 1952-3 to act as AEWs pending the Gannet coming into service (which was late) and they were in storage somewhere in the USA before the UK buying them. It might well have included some ex FAA Lend-Lease planes.

Things were a bit different in the UK as the economy was in dire straits so the stuff was probably worth more in scrap value, but I think some stuff got dumped down mine shafts!

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-21-2008, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
According to Graham White only 2800 Centaurus engines were built during WW2.

R-3350 usage

* Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
* Boeing B-29 Superfortress
* Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter
* Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger
* Canadair CL-28 Argus
* Consolidated B-32 Dominator
* Curtiss XBTC-2
* Curtiss XF14C
* Curtiss XP-62
* Douglas A-1 Skyraider
* Douglas BTD Destroyer
* Douglas DC-7
* Douglas XB-31
* Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar
* Fairchild AC-119
* Lockheed Constellation
* Lockheed P-2 Neptune
* Lockheed XB-30
* Martin JRM Mars
* Martin B-33 Super Marauder
* Martin P5M Marlin
* Stroukoff YC-134

While many of the above were designed and or first flew durung WWII
most of the production types saw their heyday as post war designs.

Martin B-33 Super Marauder was only a paper airplane.
More paper planes listed above
Lockheed XB-30
Douglas XB-31

The one off and prototypes that never got beyone one or two prototypes.
Stroukoff YC-134 (1950s proposal, C-130 was chosen as winner)
Curtiss XF14C
Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger (one built, used extensivly during the war referred to as the "lone ranger")
Curtiss XP-62
Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly

One notable that you missed
Douglas B-19 (later re-engined to the Allison V-3420 as the B-19A)

Vinnie

Aaron_GT
09-21-2008, 10:13 AM
I am sure a fair proportion of B-29 production was during WW2. Assuming that two thirds was then that's still 10,000 R-3350s from that one type not even accounting for replacement engines, or more than three times the Centaurus production for all aircraft in WW2. Add in replacement engines and you are probably talking more like four or five times wartime Centaurus production.

Even assuming quite a number for the post war Sea Fury and Tempest II (only just post war) the number needed for just the Skyraider would also be triple in the post war period unless there was a really active recycling of old engines going on. And that's not counting all the other post war types using it. Again add in replacements and you are talking around four times the postwar Centaurus production in R-3350s just for one type (although that would be the dominant use of the engine).

Again, I'll reiterate - if you count up all the Centaurus installations (number of planes times engines per plane) you get to around 2000. If you do that for the R-3350 for the principal uses, the B-29 and Skyraider, plus 3000 for Constellations, over 2000 for flying boxcars, another 1200 for DC-7s and that's already over 25,000 installation, an order of magnitude more than Centaurus installations.

I'd agree, though, that the R-3350 is the better choice, especially in the USA, for air racing - better availability (the only ones in the USA were likely to be stuck on the front of the Sea Furys bought to race with) , more development potential beyond 2500hp, plus it would be easier to drop in on Wright for advice than on Bristol in the 1950s when international phone calls were difficult and expensive.

M_Gunz
09-21-2008, 04:25 PM
Scrap value? Those engines alone have gone into things from big boats to farm tractors.
But the way business works is to waste today and make another tomorrow with no regards
to resources invested or remaining. We are only beginning to pay for that now.
Just saying it's been greed over intelligence for a long time.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-21-2008, 04:35 PM
Yes, scrap value.
The peak of the scrapping frenzy is long past.
But old airliners and ex USAF planes are still being broken up.
Most of the old engines are no longer certifiable as airworthy.
They are worth more by the pound than running.

All but a few B-29s were built during WWII.
Nearly all R-3350 engines were earmarked for the B-29 and B-32.
Post war production switched to the B-29D or
better known as the B-50 with R-4360 power.

Based on this list of airframes there were at least
5059 Centauruses built. Figure spares and it is
and the number should be about double that.
The list is incomplete but paints a picture of more than limited production numbers.
A couple of these planes are one off prototypes.

Airspeed Ambassador
Blackburn Beverley
Blackburn Firebrand
Blackburn Firecrest
Breda BZ.308
Bristol Brabazon
Bristol Brigand
Bristol Buckingham
Bristol Buckmaster
Fairey Spearfish
Hawker Sea Fury
Hawker Tempest
Hawker Tornado
Short Solent
Vickers Warwick

Vinnie

luftluuver
09-21-2008, 05:26 PM
Airspeed Ambassador > 23 built
Blackburn Beverley > 49 built
Blackburn Firebrand > 193 built
Blackburn Firecrest > 3 built
Breda BZ.308 > 1 built
Bristol Brabazon > 1 built
Bristol Brigand > 147 built
Bristol Buckingham > 119 built
Bristol Buckmaster > 112 built
Fairey Spearfish > 5 built
Hawker Sea Fury > 860
Hawker Tempest II > 1702
Hawker Tornado > 2
Short Solent > 23 (not all Centaurus)
Vickers Warwick > 712

luftluuver
09-21-2008, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Scrap value? Those engines alone have gone into things from big boats to farm tractors.
Radials?
Allisons, Merlins and Griffons, be sure.

PanzerAce
09-21-2008, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Scrap value? Those engines alone have gone into things from big boats to farm tractors.
Radials?
Allisons, Merlins and Griffons, be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say the same thing. I don't see a multiple row radial going into anything but a plane (or maybe a tank).

WTE_Galway
09-21-2008, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Scrap value? Those engines alone have gone into things from big boats to farm tractors.
Radials?
Allisons, Merlins and Griffons, be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say the same thing. I don't see a multiple row radial going into anything but a plane (or maybe a tank). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

42 cylinder radial engine for ships ...


http://www.yachtboutique.com/images/BM_Engines.jpg


The real problem is that most of the aircraft radials are air cooled.

PanzerAce
09-21-2008, 06:49 PM
ah, terminology issue, ships != big boats.

I didn't know they actually used radials on ships, but it doesn't really surprise me, since the cooling issue isn't an issue.

WTE_Galway
09-21-2008, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
ah, terminology issue, ships != big boats.

I didn't know they actually used radials on ships, but it doesn't really surprise me, since the cooling issue isn't an issue.

Well I am assuming they probably whack two of those things (because twin screws maneuver a lot better than single) into harbor ferries and so forth.

PanzerAce
09-21-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
ah, terminology issue, ships != big boats.

I didn't know they actually used radials on ships, but it doesn't really surprise me, since the cooling issue isn't an issue.

Well I am assuming they probably whack two of those things (because twin screws maneuver a lot better than single) into harbor ferries and so forth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe, though I've never heard of them doing that. Usually it's diesels or steam *shrugs*

WTE_Galway
09-21-2008, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
ah, terminology issue, ships != big boats.

I didn't know they actually used radials on ships, but it doesn't really surprise me, since the cooling issue isn't an issue.

Well I am assuming they probably whack two of those things (because twin screws maneuver a lot better than single) into harbor ferries and so forth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe, though I've never heard of them doing that. Usually it's diesels or steam *shrugs* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or turbines in some cases

Rolls Royce sold more concorde engines for marine applications than aircraft apparently

luftluuver
09-22-2008, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
42 cylinder radial engine for ships ...
Is that an a/c engine?

PanzerAce
09-22-2008, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
42 cylinder radial engine for ships ...
Is that an a/c engine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the only 42 cylinder radial was the wright...2160? Basically an experimental engine that never was produced in any notable amount. Even the R-4360 is only a 28 cylinder...

Aaron_GT
09-22-2008, 10:53 AM
I was going to say the same thing. I don't see a multiple row radial going into anything but a plane (or maybe a tank).

How about one of those florida swamp boats with over 2500hp!

PanzerAce
09-22-2008, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was going to say the same thing. I don't see a multiple row radial going into anything but a plane (or maybe a tank).

How about one of those florida swamp boats with over 2500hp! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression that most swamp boats (assuming we are thinking about the same kind of boat) were relatively low powered for the speeds they could get to. I've never heard of a big radial going into one of those.

VF-17_Jolly
09-22-2008, 12:06 PM
At least one Wright Cyclone R-1820 radial engine was used after the war as a wind machine by MGM Studios.

I don`t Know if you could safely use an R-3350 like that I imagine it would be quite powerful

Aaron_GT
09-22-2008, 02:31 PM
I was under the impression that most swamp boats (assuming we are thinking about the same kind of boat) were relatively low powered for the speeds they could get to. I've never heard of a big radial going into one of those.

Yes, so imagine one with 2500hp. It would be like an amp that went up to 11!

DrHerb
09-22-2008, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Scrap value? Those engines alone have gone into things from big boats to farm tractors.
Radials?
Allisons, Merlins and Griffons, be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say the same thing. I don't see a multiple row radial going into anything but a plane (or maybe a tank). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are used in tractor pulling competitions

Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwOVq5aC0As

WTE_Galway
09-22-2008, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Scrap value? Those engines alone have gone into things from big boats to farm tractors.
Radials?
Allisons, Merlins and Griffons, be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say the same thing. I don't see a multiple row radial going into anything but a plane (or maybe a tank). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are used in tractor pulling competitions

Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwOVq5aC0As </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Excellent find !!!

This seems to be the same tractor ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQC10OKtGQ8&feature=related



I also like this radial powered motorcycle clip that was linked to it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUx35zuI5GI&feature=related



They make excellent ceiling fans .....

http://radialclassics.com/images/pieces/fan1.jpg



Old radial engines are also popular as coffee tables ...


http://radialclassics.com/images/pieces/aviator1.jpg

http://radialclassics.com/images/pieces/aviator2.jpg


http://radialclassics.com/images/pieces/navigator1.jpg

DrHerb
09-22-2008, 06:06 PM
theres vids on youtube that sadly shows tractor pulls grenading merlin and griffin engines too *sniff* waste of history as far as im concerned

PanzerAce
09-22-2008, 06:07 PM
I want an engine coffee table http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

PanzerAce
09-22-2008, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
theres vids on youtube that sadly shows tractor pulls grenading merlin and griffin engines too *sniff* waste of history as far as im concerned

link, stat

WTE_Galway
09-22-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
I want an engine coffee table http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

They come from this mob ...

http://radialclassics.com/


FAQ

Where do you get the engines that you use in your tables?

Our sister company, Radial Engines Ltd, is a FAA Certified Repair Station overhauling radial engines for the antique aircraft community. Engine parts that are found not to be serviceable for a flying aircraft are used by Radial Engine Classics to create artwork.



How can I have the engine delivered to me and how much are typical shipping charges?

We crate the engines in wooden crates and ship by motor freight. We have very good discounts (73% off list) with several freight companies and pass that discount along to you. A typical table such as the Aviator coffee table will cost about $200 to ship to either coast.



Can I pick up my engine at your location?

That is not a problem. We have both a loading dock and fork lift on site.



How are the engines detailed cosmetically?
Radial Engines, Ltd is known worldwide for meticulous cosmetic detail in each of the engines overhauled and sent out for use on flying aircraft. Radial Engine Classics incorporates the same attention to detail in each of our tables and other art creations. From beautiful sanded and filled automotive paint finishes on the engine cases to chrome and gold plated accents, attention to detail is paramount. Further, our goal is to make each engine look as if it is ready to start, run, and take to the skies!



Can I get a table with the cases finished in a custom color?

Absolutely! Give us a color code or sample, and we will match it.



What is the lead-time to have a table built?

If we have your choice in stock, we can typically ship the next day. If we have to assemble your table or build to custom colors or specifications, it can take up to three weeks.



Do you have a show room where I can see the various pieces in person?

We have most of our production pieces and a few of the custom ones available for viewing in our show room at 9550 W. Seward Rd. Guthrie, OK.



I have an idea for a special table built around a WWI Rotary engine that I presently own. Can you take this engine and make it into a table to my specifications?

We certainly can. We recently built a LeRhone display for a customer who supplied an engine that had in the past been stripped internally, and had been in his family since 1922.

DrHerb
09-22-2008, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
theres vids on youtube that sadly shows tractor pulls grenading merlin and griffin engines too *sniff* waste of history as far as im concerned

link, stat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jfe7Dysv2Q

*edit* heres another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0noRVIHQigE happens at 3:14 and 4:06

WTE_Galway
09-22-2008, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:


link, stat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jfe7Dysv2Q[/QUOTE]


Some more craziness here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIj2GVfua84&feature=related

DrHerb
09-22-2008, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
theres vids on youtube that sadly shows tractor pulls grenading merlin and griffin engines too *sniff* waste of history as far as im concerned

link, stat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jfe7Dysv2Q

*edit* heres another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0noRVIHQigE happens at 3:14 and 4:06 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and heres ANOTHER one grenading, looks like a v12 but not sure if its a Rolls *edit* after some research, this tractor has 2 Griffon engines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsjRvYnjDUE&NR=1