C-97 Still Losing Engines!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by A. Niemyer View Post
    Jase,
    -4360's have been doing what they do for a really long time. Sometimes they're great, other times, you're delighted to have the other three
    Chuckle, chuckle, yup, concur! Thinking back now to the old daze when somebody had used the "corncob" in a single engined airplane, try'na think now who/what it was - Grumman Guardian meb'be? Anyone here know?

    best, randy


    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Randy Sohn View Post

      Chuckle, chuckle, yup, concur! Thinking back now to the old daze when somebody had used the "corncob" in a single engined airplane, try'na think now who/what it was - Grumman Guardian meb'be? Anyone here know?

      best, randy

      FG Corsair

      Guardian was an R-2800. In a 22,000 pound aircraft.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jase Pence View Post
        4) ALL operators of the R-4360, whether the airlines, the military, Hawkins and Powers, or Steve Hinton /Planes of Fame; have shelled out engines. It is the nature of the beast.
        I'm mildly curious about why that is. About the only activities I can think of that regularly goes though engines is drag racing, tractor pulls, etc. In their case, it's understandable. Why something that's being run within it's specs is doing it is curious.

        To protect future engines, have you thought about how to detect problems and shutdown before the block goes? Perhaps chip detectors in the oil?

        Comment


        • #19
          Well, radials don't have a "block"per se -- each cylinder is a separate assembly -- and that means a very complex thermal distribution. A moderately hot cylinder here, a nearly red-hot exhaust manifold there, a cold intake manifold somewhere else...thermal shock was terrible. The R-3350 was a perfect b***h to cool in its early days, so bad that engine fires shot down more B-29's than Japan did...the R-4360 had the advantage of being perfected in a peacetime environment, but it still must have been tough.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Randy Sohn View Post

            Chuckle, chuckle, yup, concur! Thinking back now to the old daze when somebody had used the "corncob" in a single engined airplane, try'na think now who/what it was - Grumman Guardian meb'be? Anyone here know?

            best, randy

            Randy, the Martin Mauler as well as the F2G "Super Corsair"

            Told Fuentes you said Hi, gave him your number (ends with 267?) He was happy you remembered him!! Told him to call you and say hey.

            Best

            Jase

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Russell Holton View Post
              curious..........block goes.....prrhaps chip detectors in the oil?
              Don't recall having any "block"? Just 4 rows of 7 jugs each.

              And we used a rather conservative cruise power of 1735 BHP and a 10 BMEP drop on each engine. While on the CV's R-2800s (on the airline0 we used an 1100 horse cruise and leaned to a 4 drop.

              best, randy

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jase Pence View Post

                the Martin Mauler as well as the F2G "Super Corsair"
                Wow1 Yup, you be 100% correctamundo! Twuz the Mauler, only ever saw one, it was down in Lubbock with Gerald Martin. And had forgotten about that Corsair that Steverino had come to grief with.

                best, randy (sure happy to hear about Fuentes!)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Yes indeed, we have definitely given this subject *much* thought. The first thing is what Ralph mentioned, it's a terribly complex thermal distribution. Different metals, multiple rows of cylinders, and so forth. The second thing is, "the nature of the beast". In Graham White's wonderful book on the R-4360, I believe he mentions just how many "moving parts" there are in a -4360. Taking into account bearings/bushings etc, I think the number is like NINE THOUSAND moving parts within a running R-4360. With that many parts flinging around, it doesn't take but ONE small issue to quickly cause other issues.

                  Another issue, that we have talked at length with people *much* smarter than me about; is the metallurgy of the time. Ray Anderson is convinced that some of the bearing metallurgy was *not* the best, or maybe was sub-standard from new (low-bid suppliers mebbe?). There is no doubt that today's metallurgy, aided by computer simulations of stresses etc, is orders of magnitude better than what was "state-of-the-art" in the late 40s and 50s.

                  Lastly, and this is something ALL of us vintage plane operators are faced with, is that at the newest, we are using stuff that's 50 years old. (Yea, I know, there are some new build engine parts for some specific popular engines but that's an exception). As well as it was designed when new, I can't help but think that the engineers at Boeing, or Pratt & Whitney, or Allison, would be blown away that we are still operating their stuff 50,60,70 years on...especially when their design parameters were probably a 5-10 year "useful life".

                  We are talking about chip detectors...the problem there is that once something makes metal, that metal is distributed thru the oil system damned rapidly. There is also the "Chinese TV", the Bendix Oscilloscope Ignition Analyser, that in the hands of a knowledgable engineer can see such problems.... My big issue with the analyser is that looking at the analyser takes my eyes off the panel, looking for other issues. Plus, we aren't doing "long hauls", most of our flights are going to be less than 2 hours in the air, we figure....except for special stuff like Osh, S&F and so on. The sad reality is that while airshows on the West Coast might want us, they tend to choke at the 500+GPH to get us there....

                  All good questions though, keep em coming. They make *me* think as well, and I'm sure not perfect, there may well be something utterly simple that we've missed!!

                  Best

                  Jase

                  Originally posted by Russell Holton View Post
                  I'm mildly curious about why that is. About the only activities I can think of that regularly goes though engines is drag racing, tractor pulls, etc. In their case, it's understandable. Why something that's being run within it's specs is doing it is curious.

                  To protect future engines, have you thought about how to detect problems and shutdown before the block goes? Perhaps chip detectors in the oil?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jase Pence View Post
                    there may well be something utterly simple that we've missed!!
                    Chuckle, 'fraid there is! They did it to one 97, saw it once down at Kelly or Reese or somehere else down around San Antone or LBB. Gen. Gerrity's airplane, converted to turboprops. Can't recall now, what were they? T-what's?

                    And re that 500 gph fuel factor, concur.

                    best, randy

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Ah yes, the C-97J "Turbo-Stratocruiser". Think they built 2 of them, I know most of one (and the T-34 turbo props) ended up on Conroy's Super Guppy. Built as test beds for the C-133 engine. As an aside, I was told by one of the guys at Ellington that maintained the 377SG, the only reason NASA retired it to Pima was a lack of spares for the props and the nose case. Dunno what was special about *that* nose case versus any other T-34. I do know the inboard props were like 1 foot diametre smaller than outboard ones tho.

                      Randy, I feel honoured that you have that much faith in my mechanical abilities.... but I think a turboprop conversion is more than I'm comfortable undertaking!!

                      Best
                      Jase

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jase Pence View Post
                        Dunno what was special about *that* nose case versus any other T-34
                        Jase, dunno either, meb'be the "inverted" V/S "upright" deal? Still recall once on our merry way to V/N in our 97 and overheard on HF that C-133 not answer and disappear, never heard from again.

                        At any rate, Clay and I were both BS'n and wondering the last time I was out there in Van Nozzle about whatever happned to Jack's SG. Now we can remember, thanks. Clay was my upperclassman in cadets but he was Cal. ANG on active duty.

                        BTW, need your E-mail address.

                        best, randy

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jase Pence View Post
                          All good questions though, keep em coming. They make *me* think as well
                          And thanks for taking the suggestions in the spirit intended.

                          As for the ignition analyzer, it seems with today's computing power, it should be possible to have a computer keep an eye on it for you. I'd think the technology exists, the trick is to find the people capable of it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            http://www.enginehistory.org/Operati...4360ops1.shtml

                            A bit if interesting operational history here....

                            Reams

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Saw this at Reno last year....

                              As soon as we get the rocker covers on we'll be ready to run. (remember the IO-720 lycoming was 2 1O-360s so why not 2 4360s)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                See, Russell, there you go again, making me think!! This is an example of something that had *never* even occurred to me. Hmmmmmm. This has some promise. Any software genius types hereabouts?

                                I want to clarify my "rant" about Keyboard Kommandos, earlier. That was certainly NOT aimed at anyone here on the 'sig.... it was a grumpy rant about some of the self-appointed experts on the Book of Faces. Apologies if anyone thought it was aimed their way, it definitely was not. And, as far as "spirit intended", absolutely. I wouldn't have posted, especially in detail, if I hadn't been seeking inputs and thoughts from folks whose experiences are in some ways similar to mine, but in other ways are far far greater than anything I'll ever be involved with. For the record, I value the heck out of *everyone's* comments and opinions here.

                                So, thanks, and keep up the questions comments and especially the prayers for our sanity (or demonstrated lack thereof!! )

                                Best
                                Jase

                                Originally posted by Russell Holton View Post
                                And thanks for taking the suggestions in the spirit intended.

                                As for the ignition analyzer, it seems with today's computing power, it should be possible to have a computer keep an eye on it for you. I'd think the technology exists, the trick is to find the people capable of it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X