The engineering that went into just imagining these was insane enough, let alone machining it all and making it all run well enough to be trusted and to keep their pilots safe!!
I'm so glad you included the R-4360. For those of you who don't understand engine naming conventions of American piston engines the first letter designates its configuration. This is why you see R at the beginning of every radial engine as it is what the R stands for. The numbers indicate displacement in cubic inches. One of the biggest reasons why massive radials are almost all but gone is because of the complexity involved in their design, production cost, maintenance costs, and maintenance time. It took a lot of service to keep these big engines running and with the way trends were going they were set to just get bigger and bigger. As the jet engine came of age it quickly began replacing piston engines in a lot of aircraft operations. Outside of general aviation you won't see piston powered aircraft all that much. There's no real benefit of using them anymore in aircraft that earn revenue or do some kind of work. Even in prop aircraft that still exist turboprops are becoming more popular as their prices decrease for those who can swing buying aircraft with turboprops as well as the associate operation and maintenance costs. That's not to say piston powered aircraft will be going anywhere for a long time. In fact many advancements have been made and approved by the FAA for piston powered aircraft. Many of the newest general aviation prop planes come with things you are already used to in your own vehicle. Electronic fuel injection, electronic ignition systems, computer management for the engines, and a host of other advancements. Rotax has pioneered a lot of these advancements and even diesel engines are being put on some aircraft now.
You left out the part where all of these WWII era radial engines were designed to work with high octane Avgas, which contained tetraethyl lead. As TEL got phased out (because environmental lead slowly poisons people and makes children retarded), getting supplies of this high octane Avgas has become a major limiting factor in continuing to economically operate these old engines.
Dad worked on the Wasp engines at SFO when radial engines ruled the skies. These engines always smoked on start-up due to the bottom cylinders pools of oil when stopped. Each engine needed 2 quarts oil needed after a long tun.
It’s amazing they were able to engineer these engines back then without computers and they built so many of them and they were reliable. Now we have turbine engines that don’t have as many moving parts and make much more power with far less maintenance.
Think, it was less than 50 years before that, that horse and buggy was more common than car. We went from clopping around behind beasts of burden to flying with birds in less than one mans lifetime. Amazing.
@@carlosandleon they didn’t maintain them during the war they did the bare minimum to get them back in the air obviously after the war maintenance was a much bigger thing. Every engine from this time period leaked oil it doesn’t matter if it was a lawnmower or an aircraft engine we had only been making engine for a handful of decades we didn’t have all the good gasket materials and sealers that we do now and I’m sure they didn’t know that one gasket material will seal better with a rougher machined surface and another gasket with seal better if it were smoother and we for sure didn’t have good seals I mean just look 50 years ago with cars where they had rope rear main seals it was just normal for every car to leak oil. The tolerances of engine manufacturing back then was also bad all the way around and even worse was balancing engines you can find videos from back then where a person is weighing pistons on a scale and before the needle on the scale stops moving they pull the piston off to put another on it lol. There are still surpluses of new old stock engine parts from ww2 for these old engines that still get used. Nowadays it’s normal for a little 4cyl engine in a car to rev past 7,000 rpm smoothly because they are balanced so well and they take thin 0w20 oil because the tolerances are much tighter. I use to work for a Saturn dealership as a mechanic and they used a Saab v6 engine in a few cars and the tolerances were so perfect they didn’t have a stock size main bearing every engine would usually have multiple different size bearings because they manufactured them to much tighter clearances and because they did such a great job machining the bottom ends they would never come in with spun bearings I think the entire time I worked there we did a crank on 2 engines because someone cracked the oil filter housing and leaked all the oil out. Engines have came a very long ways! My grandfather worked on the b-29’s in the Korean War I think they had 18 cylinder wright engines, he flew all over the world in them on missions he said the biggest problems were with the magnetos and then cylinders would crack some times but he said the cylinders were more of a problem when the were doing training in northern Canada because of the super cold weather. Either way it’s amazing some of these old air frames are 80 years old and still in use!
Nothing can quite thrill like a giant piston aircraft engine. The visceral experience is amazing. That smooth low frequency sound and propeller hum is such a beautiful sound.
The Wright 2600 is an incredibly durable design, there were accounts of it flying for hours back to base with entire cylinders blown away and still giving power to bring the planes and crews back home.
VisioRacer. Thank you for sharing that video. Just for the sake of accuracy FIFI the B 29 Superfortress in the final clip is powered by Wright R 3350’s. The follow to on the B 29 the B 50 also a Boeing design was indeed powered by the mighty Pratt & Whitney R 4360 an engineering marvel in itself. All the best to you.
That plane at 8:00 is an Ilyushin IL18, which uses turboprop engines. In fact you used three separate clips of the same plane and didn't notice it was a turboprop.
When discussing the PW R4360, they showed a B-29 as one which used the 4360. However, the B-29 was not powered by the 4360, but a larger, look-alike, the B-50 was. I spent a lot of hours as crew member of aircraft powered by the 4360.
I once visited an airfield to appraise a classic car for a customer and in the clubhouse was a cutaway 28 litre horizontally opposed plane engine,it was a magnificent ornament!
Thanks for the sounds of yesteryear! I grew up during the Cold War on USAF air force bases around the world surounded with the sounds of BIG radials. The first time I crossed the atlantic was on a Lockheed Constellation in the fall of 1959. I know there are a few critics down below but I think they are missing the point. At the time these engines were the cutting edge of a technology era coming to an end. Even my return trip back from Germany in 1962 was on a Boeing 707! And the very last time I flew behind a big radial on a reg sched airline was in 1974 on a Pluna DC-3. The music of a many cylinder orchestra is like a lullaby half a century old! Maybe in another 50 yrs the smell of jet fuel in the morning will be a thing of the past as well. Loyal Fan!!!!!!!!!!
Super video, doplnil som znalosti, tak ako aj fanúšik aút som fanúšik lietadiel, takže toto video parádne doplnilo tento repertoár celý, zaujímavé...len tak ďalej ✌🏼
The R-4360 didn't see service in WWII, but it saw active military service with SAC, powering the frankly ludicrous B-36 Peacemaker. Which still holds the record for the largest wingspan of any combat aircraft - a whopping 230 feet. It gave rise to the least enviable job in the US Air Force at the time - namely, changing all 336 spark plugs on the six engines.
@VisioRacer Thank You for doing your homework for the narrative of this video! Not all of us know much about flight history, & the variety of planes btw GB & the US during WWII is overwhelming. I hope youll be doing another flight history video like this one :)
What? No Napier Sabre?! It had the most original, and rare, configuration of them all, two complete flat 12s laid on top of each other, making it incredibly compact for its 24 cylinders. AND driving by FAR the biggest fighter propeller of WWII: 14 feet. Take that Corsair, and your 2800 driving a puny 12 footer!
The Hawker Fury with Napier Sabre is shown just after the Corsair at 3:57. That had 37 litres from two crankshafts and 24 cylinders. In late 1944 they were doing 2,400bhp but eventually made 3,500 bhp. Test bed engines reached 5,500bhp.
@@davidelliott5843 Sorry mate...not a Napier. That is the Bristol Centaurus. There are no Sabres running at the moment, until the UK Hawker Typhoon resto comes to life in 4 or 5 years.
@@@johnmclean6498 - Sorry mate... not a Centaurus. The engine installed in the Fury at 3:57 is an overhead valve design (you can see the rocker covers). The Centaurus is a sleeve valve design.
Incidentally, it is not uncommon for multi-engined aircraft to have their engines spin in opposite directions specifically so that this torque effect will be mostly self-cancelling.
I absolutely love your videos, ive been watching them for a couple years now :) I wanted to thank you for shedding light onto all these different types of vehicles, aircraft, engines and everything else that would normally be lost to the pages of history. Where are you from? Im in Denver, Colorado USA
I saw the 4360 Wright engine when I visited the National air Museum annex out by Dulles airport. As an engineer myself it is mind boggling to think of the amount of design work that had to have gone into it in the pre-CAD days. And to think of the work needed to tear one down and rebuild it. One would have had to darn well follow the instructions to the letter.
The B-36 Peacemaker had 6 of these engines and since the Peacemaker was too big to fit in a hangar the maintenance crews had to service the engines outside... 2 spark plugs per cylinder, 28 cylinders per engine and 6 engines per plane.
Try the engines of a Super Constellation, not just turbo chargers, superchargers, buckets of sparkplugs, mass quantities of oil, but a power recover turbine coupled via viscous coupling to the crank.
I was a Reciprocating Aircraft Engine mech when I was in the Air force. I worked on R-2000's, R4360's and R1300's. The 4360 was the sweetest sounding engine of them all, but it was much harder to work on than the 2000 or the 1300.
The footage for the 'Ash-73' is of a totally different turboprop engine. Basically a jet engine that uses a propeller for thrust. And the footage for the R-4360 is a B-29. Those used R-3350's. R-4360's were used on B36 and B-50 bombers
I can confirm the Ash-73 comment. 1. Totally wrong sound for a piston engine on the first and third plane. 2. Totally wrong exhaust plumes on second plane. (No gasoline aircraft piston engine smokes black) 3. Totally wrong cowling shape for a piston engine (no cooling flaps on all three planes) About the R-4360 cant say for sure, but the 'Fifi' was a B29 which were indeed powered only with R-3350s.
Basically the B-50 is a upgraded version of the B-29. But you can easily spot the main differences: - Chin coolers under the engines nacelles. - And a much taller tail fin. The B-29 was planned with the R-4360 but the engine wasn't ready fast enough. So it had to be build with R-3350s, which were a fire hazard.
Reminds me a bit of flight of the phoenix especially that first start up. All it needed was Mr Stewart firing the cartridges and Ronald Frazer to count them.
YES! Something somehow soothing about the sound of a big radial. The big V12's too!... The jets are awesome yes, all light and small and powerful and reliable... But their shrill, screechy sound will never match the charismatic rumble, the melodic charms of the big old piston engines!
Thanks for the compilation, just be careful what footage you choose for each engine - there are a few danglers where it doesn't match (e.g. 6:00 is not a Centaurus even through the airframe would originally have had one, it's an R-3350 - valve rocker covers are a giveaway ;P)
The B-29 used very unreliable Wright R-3350 engines as in the B-29 , FiFi, during the war. It was later improved to be much more reliable for commercial use after WWII. Eventually evolving into the commercial/military turbo-compound R-3350 where the 4 turbo chargers per engine added ~ 150 HP each directly back to the crankshaft. A sort of “hybrid” between the piston and jet engine ages. The Pratt & Whitney R-4360 was basically added to the B-29 to create the much more powerful and reliable B-50. All as the B-36 with 6 R-4360s and 4 jet engines was developed.
The coolest will always be the Napier Sabre 24 cylinder engine. Maxed out at 5500 HP. There wasn't an engine during the war that could compare to it's max power output.
Agreed. Once initial reliability problems were overcome the Sabre was a potent engine, most famously used in the Hawker Typhoon and later Tempest. It is interesting to note that Napier ran into problems with the Sabre and the great Roy Fedden from rival manufacturer Bristol was co-opted into ironing out the problems.
As far as i am aware the engine never made anything close to 5500hp. The last production version (the Mk VII) was rated at 3050hp. There were reports that the Mark VIII made around 4000hp with a completely redesigned induction system but I have not seen any documentation to back the claim. I suspect the 5500hp number is the structural design capacity of the engine before it breaks, not its actual output. This number would be considerably more than its original design as the engine had two major redesigns of its internal structure (including discarding the crankshaft counterweights!) through its life, The engine was almost single handedly designed by Major Frank Halford who was unfairly blamed for many of the problems with the engine, the original hand made prototypes worked very well. Unfortunately, Napier could not rely on its highly skilled craftsmen to build the engines in production and the design really wasn't well suited to the unskilled workforce engaged by Napier in war time. The tolerances required in the sleeve valves was far tighter than RR employed in its engines. It has been said that Napier's original production facilities resembled something you would find described in a Charles Dickens novel. I think that Napier, as a company, just wasn't well suited to large scale production. Things improved dramatically after English Electric acquired the company. There are some very interesting stories about the engine including the redirection of some precision centreless grinders from Pratt&Whitney to Napier. I do not think P&W was very happy about it. When all the production problems were occurring, Frank Halford had already closed his design shop and returned to working for de Havilland exclusively. He designed all three of their gas turbines, the H1 (the Goblin), The H2 (used in the Comet but only indirectly related to the sad history of that aircraft), and the H3. Anyhow the Napier Nomad was much more complex than the Sabre, it being a compound engine, half gas turbine, half 2 stroke diesel with many unconventional design features. Features such as the load sharing variable ratio Briers coupling that transferred the excess power from the 3 stagepower turbine (that is, power turbine produced several hundred hp more power required by the 12 stage axial compressor to function as a supercharger) to the 2 stroke diesel crankshaft. All the power was transferred by a very thin film of oil in shear!!. The whole engine was far too complex to be used in the field. The US Airforce looked at the engine design in ( I think) the 90s when assessing aircraft engine design (Again I think it was helicopter design) but baulked at the complexity. Even the two stroke diesel was unconventional, its fully ported loop scavenged combustion chamber did not have enough cylinder compression to ignite the fuel charge (when running at power the supercharger provided enough extra compression to support ignition) so Napier designed a primitive spark ignition system to start the engine. There were many other unusual features including the opposing conrods running on the same crankshaft journal with NO offset, there were no caps on the conrods just thin retaining rings that stopped the conrods from falling off the journal when the engine was starting or not running. Even the big ends themselves were unconventional, too hard to explain and I doubt most people would believe it. Composite pistons made of alloy with a pressurised oil cooled iron crown, the list is just too long. So why design it? The Nomad's main claim to fame was that it was the most fuel efficient aircraft engine ever built, i do not know whether it still holds that title. You can find some contemporary articles on this engine and other engines (RR Griffons) in the Flight magazine which is archived on WWW. Sorry, but i can't remember in which editions they were described. Worth looking up was the RR Crecy, a very unusual engine in its own right. I have read THE book on the engine and it is well worth the read. I haven't read the other two books that include the Crecy. One is on all the 2 stroke aircraft engines so it includes the Nomad as well, the other book is on RR engines only.
@AMCKenA I like Setright's books but I don't necessarily believe everything he wrote in them. I suspect some of what he wrote was apocryphal. The 3050hp number I mention comes from Napier advertisements in Flight magazine post WWII. They never advertise it at any higher power. The 3750hp is believable for the MarkVIII and although I can believe the 175 hours but I have difficulty with it being continuous and at that power level. 4200rpm is about 400 rpm higher than the max for the engine in production and although possible it is also hard to accept. I would think Conrod velocity would be getting up in the danger zone although I have not calculated it. There is also the issue about what fuel they were using with charge air pressures of 45psi. The Nomad used higher pressures but it was a diesel and I think one experimental (well, more experimental) RR Crecy used pressures at this level but it was a direct injection, stratified charge petrol engine. BMEP is usually calculated not measured, so if any of the figures (rpm or hp)are out BMEP will be equally out. Don't get me wrong, the Sabre is one of my all time favourite engines. I am fascinated by its design including the elegant way used to stop lash on the propellor reduction gear set which also serves to couple the two banks of the engine. Its designer is, in my opinion, grossly overlooked. But despite all this, I don't overlook it failings, not the least of which was amount of money and effort that was diverted to its production. The same can be said of the RR Crecy and the whole range of sleeve valve engines built by Bristol. The RR Crecy, Exe, and Pennine were all sleeve valves engines (Crecy was two stroke and had somewhat different sleeve valve arrangement). In the book i have on the Crecy (currently on loan and not available), it is mentioned that Bristol spent more money ( maybe twice as much) and effort on determining the best material for the sleeve valves than was spent by Power Jets on the entire effort to develop the gas turbine! I don't know whether this is true, it was said by a RR engineer, I think. The British were not alone, both the Americans and especially the Germans diverted massive resources and people to complex and totally unnecessary projects. The Germans, apart from the V weapons, the advanced tanks were unnecessary (the Russian tanks were primitive but they could build a lot of them, the Russians weren't stupid), Junkers completely disabled the German Heavy Bomber Programme with their Jumo 222 and also spent a considerable amount of resources on the extraordinary Jumo 223, similar to the Deltic except having 4 banks of cylinders arranged in a rhomboid (technically superior to the deltic as all the crankshafts rotate in the same direction), and the even bigger Jumo 224. Then there was the RR Vulture and Peregrine. Daimler Benz on the DB606 and other developments. Heinkel also ran a number of high end projects that fail the sensible test. Anyhow back to the Sabre. I assume that people at the Napier Power Heritage Trust would have a more informed view of what was the max power of the Sabre. i must drop them a message and see what documentation is available. During a quick look at their website, I can only see them mentioning 3000hp
@AMCKenA By the end of the war it was clear that the competition was all about fuel and air charge. The only other part of the competition was keeping the engines in one piece. RR's greatest advantage was the design of its supercharger. Their other main advantage was their continuous development process. I think it may have been Setright who described the Merlin as the triumph of development over design. The Griffin was a far better designed engine. Obviously the higher RPM possible with the smaller stroke of the Sabre was a big advantage but it was offset (to a degree) by the larger number of moving parts and thus inherently lower reliability, not to mention weight. At this point consider this; the power produced by the engine is determined by the mass of air that can be delivered by the supercharger/ turbocharger/ turbo-supercharger. Even if the rest of the engine was up to the task the Sabre's supercharger wasn't. This is exacerbated by the lack of charge air cooling (often erroneously called intercooling) As is well reported, the Napier powered fighter planes really weren't good at high altitudes, a consequence of the design of the induction system. Napier was apparently redesigning the supercharger when English Electric took control of the company. Rightly, English Electric decided it needed to focus on correcting the reliability issues of the engine. After the war Napier redesigned the induction system for the Mark VIII. In the end, it was the better fuels available to the allies that provided the 'edge'. In this, there is a difference between bomber and fighters. After the failure of the RR Vulture X24 in the Manchester bomber and its subsequent replacement by 4 Merlins which turned the Manchester into the Lancaster, it became clear that 4 engines were indeed better than 2. This is not so clear in fighters, A single high power engine was the traditional solution for fighters. Later in the war, this traditional view was tested by a number of 2 engined fighters designed by the Britishs, Americans, Germans and perhaps the Russians. There are several to chose from but my favourite is the DH Hornet. It doesn't hurt that it looks like an over engined scaled down Mosquito, itself inspired by the beautiful DH88 Comet. At one time DH considered using the Sabre but the reliability/availability of the engine steered them back to the Merlin. Although Ricardo maintained that the sleeve valve allowed a higher compression ratio by one (that is from say 6 to 7) on the same fuel, I do not know whether this was proven and if so whether it was the case later in war. At 45psi (3 atmospheres!) the temperature out of a practical induction system is going to require a very high grade (octane) of fuel to avoid detonation and the consequent failure of the engine. I am not sure that the maximum grade available at the time (100/150) would be sufficient for such an induction pressure and temperature, even taking into account ADI (anti detonation injection i.e. water/alcohol injection). I am having difficulty finding information on the boost pressures used in test bed Merlin/Griffins. It appears that 25 PSI was the highest used in production engines. Interestingly, the 'turbo wars' in 80's F1 racing faced the same challenges with similar results.
@AMCKenA I am trying to find a paper i once read that was a relatively scholarly article that directly compared sleeve valve with equivalent poppet valve engines. This thread has me thinking about all of this stuff, I have also found a few old emails that have some of the things out of the paper but does not mention its name or Author - most annoying. As there were no equivalent engine to the Sabre, he compared the Bristol Hercules and Centaurus engines to the P&W R2800 and the Wright R1820. There is some comparison of design factors between the Sabre VII, the RR Griffin 130, the RR Eagle 46H22, and the Merlin 130, earlier Merlins and Griffins, the Allison V1710G and the Allison V-3420. The sleeve valve engines did run 1 compression ratio higher than the piston engines, Merlins and Griffins 6:1, Sabre and Eagle 7:1. The Sabre VII had a maximum military rating of 3055hp @ 3850rpm on 100/130 fuel, unfortunately the boost pressure is not shown. The sleeve valve's anti knock capability was demonstrated by the much lower ignition advance enjoyed by the Bristol sleeve valves. I still find it hard to believe the 5500hp. Some calculations put the maximum possible power out of the Eagle22 at about 4300, it only reached 3500hp despite its 46litres. Impulse power is never used in specifying the max output of an engine, the dynos of the day would have taken a while to come back with an accurate power reading. Max power for a few seconds is relatively meaningless as are powers for 'special' engines. For instance the Merlin equivalent of the Rolls Royce R engine was a prewar strengthened Merlin III. It produced a max power of 2160hp at 3200rpm and boost of 27psi At the time the production engine was putting out about 1000hp. It could survive a 15 hour test at 1800hp at 3200rpm and 22psi boost, much better than I would have thought.. It is also much better than the RR R (racing engine) which often had a between tear down period of a few hours. The fuel must have been very special, there was no 120/150 grade or even 100/13 grade fuel at that time. As the engine would not be run for very long, leading of the plugs was probably not much of an issue so i would think there was a lot of lead in the fuel A couple of other things from the paper in my emails (for radials) were, sleeve valve was inherently heavier than poppet due to cooling issues with the junk head, sleeve valve engines about the same frontal area area as poppet valves (again cooling issues). Inline liquid cooled engines are heavier and longer due to wider cylinder spacing required for the layout of the inlet ports. The Sabre was especially heavy due to two large crankshafts, later, the weight was somewhat reduced when the counterweights were removed from the crankshaft design. In the end the paper appears to back the claim of sleeve valve superiority but at a price. Some things that I found very strange about things in the paper, it appears that a contemporary book showed that sleeve valves used about half the oil as the equivalent poppet valve engine, quite the opposite to what has been promulgated in so many stories. Total friction in the sleeve and poppet version was about the same. There was, however, a problem with the sleeves that was due to the mono grade oils available at the time. The Napier used the Coffman starter system. In cold weather, the engines were difficult to start due to high viscosity of the oil, the solution was to start and run the engine every three hours or so, the alternate was truck with a big heater on the back was was used to blow hot air through the chin radiator and warm up the engine. The Napier was difficult to start and many pilots had problems so ground crew would start the engine for them. The Coffman starter really wasn't powerful enough for the Napier. The impulse start caused by the rapid rise of pressure in the starter cylinder put the engine under a fair deal of stress, this was no different for the Merlins that used them. There were 4 cartridges in the Coffman starter. If all cartridges were used and still no start, the ground crew had to remove the plugs and spray a solution of oil into the cylinders to replace the oil that the fuel stripped from the cylinders. When the engines were shut down, at the end there was an injection of the oil solution to keep the cylinders lubricated. This responsible for the cloud of smoke when they were started. When properly built, sleeve valve engines were more reliable than poppets with very long service times. Few wartime engines were adapted for post war commercial use. It cost RR a lot of money to get the Griffin up to snuff for commercial use. It was much easier for Bristol and the Centaurus which had very long service periods. It is interesting that of the last 5 piston engines designed by Rolls Royce 4 were sleeve valve, the only poppet was the Griffin, which followed the line of 36litre engines The Condor, the R, and the Griffin. The air cooled, sleeve valve X24 Pennine was designed to be put in commercial service. So what did RR know that made them shift from poppet to sleeve? I will eventually find that paper and when i do I will post a link.
The interesting thing about most of the German examples is that they ran on relatively low octane fuel. Most American engines were designed for super high octane avgas (normally 130 octane although 150 octane could be requisitioned if required). The Germans had to make do with 80 octane pump gas. As a short fix/booster most German engines were fitted with a water/methanol injection system
@@HSMiyamoto enola gay (plane #82)(now in the smithsonian) dropped the first atomic bomb, bock's car (plane #77)(now in the wright-patterson air force museum) dropped the second atomic bomb
Quite a few errors here as has been pointed out. But in addition to those I am pretty sure no Sea Fury racers use the Centaurus any more because of the lack of spare parts, replacing it with the R3350 instead.
If you happen to go to the Glenn H. Curtis Museum in NY's finger lakes region, they have an R 4360 Wasp Major on display.. The R 4360 was affectionately known as 'The Corn Cob".
The development of the Super fortress, the B50, had Wasp 28 cylinder engines. Several P47 Thunderbolts were powered with them but the need was passing. They were expensive to maintain.
All radial engines pool oil in the bottom cylinder and have the startup smoke. They get turned manually to make sure they did not have a oil lock that would damage the engine Each engine usually needed 2 quarts of oil after a long flight. Dad was an A & P at SFO until jets took over. I still think the Connie is the most beautiful airframe ever made and I would not hesitate to fly in one. It was built like a Swiss Watch and the rebuild was financed by Breitling Watches Company. That is what the B on the triple rudders stand for. There is a RU-vid flight on Camera. Just search for it. Only the German transcontinental plane is close: the FW 200. One of the first " Airforce One " for Hitler. Even President Eisenhower made a Connie an " Airforce 1 " that was his flying office. Thanks for the stroll down Memory Lane.
great video, and I know this is nitpicking but you portrayed the 4360 with the B-29 which actually utiliized the 3360. aircraft with the 4360 included the Boing stratocruiser/C-97, and the B-36
I like the content. Do an episode on aircraft superchargers & turbochargers , describe the types of superchargers (roots,centrifugal,compound turbo+supercharger) and the application on different types of piston engines.
для сведения, было две версии самолета Ил-18. В 47-48 году на нем реально стояли указанные двигатели, Аш-73, а на том что показан в ролике, стоят турбовинтовые двигатели Аи-20.
There are few aircraft in this world as beautiful to me as a Lockheed Constellation/Super Constellation. The B-29 is an elegant plane as well (and I've been lucky enough to see that one, Fifi, in flight. Until recently, she was the only one flying Now, with Doc restored, there are two of them). Neat video!
FiFi runs Curtiss-Wright 3350's, the later B-50 (same basic airframe) ran the Wasp Major. The Ilyushin IL-18 only ran the ASh-73 while the aircraft was being developed, as the ASh-73 was needed more critically for the Tupolev Tu-4 (reverse engineered B-29) the IL-18 went with the Ivchenko AI-20M turboprop from early in its development. There were also teething troubles with the ASh-73, with a very low lifespan (150-200 hour TBO), making it a poor choice for a passenger airliner.
3:45 we have a pair of R2800s at my Aviation Maintenance school. Coated in preservative, never used. We think they were built at some point in the 1950s.
@@xvg3980 they all have a power to volume ratio that is close to 50 hp/litre, they all have the same rpm range, and they are all the same rough weight. They might as well be the same practical engine.
On the Wright Cyclone R3350, you can see the green painted power recovery turbines. Basically the exhaust side of a turbo charger, but with a shaft geared to the crankshaft. Those would provide an additional 150hp per turbine on this engine.
Nope to what? The B36 did use six R-4360's in a pusher configuration. Several also had additional power from 4 J47 engines in 2 engine pods (like the ones first used on a B-47)
I was going to post corrections but it seems everyone else has that under control. Haven't noticed an inaccurate comment yet. Proud of you comment section!
Jacob Aubertin I wonder why somebody would make such a video, while they have totally no clue of what they are talking about! ...probably just for the subs.
Sadly, while the info on the engines is correct, it isn't for the video's of flying planes supporting the engine types. For the Bristol Centaurus, the airplane shown at 4:10 is a Hawker Sea Fury which had original a Centaurus engine, but this example has an R-2800 fitted, one can notice the silver collored valve rocker covers on the engine, which a sleeve valve engine doesn't have, so this one is shown at the right section as far as the engine type goes.. But then the airframe shown at 6:10 in the Centaurus section is also a Sea Fury, this one rebuilt for the Reno Air Races unlimited class, which has the R-3350 fitted in it. The second error is the IL-2 shown at 5:00, original it had a Mikulin AM-38, but this flying example, restored after being found in a swamp, had it's engine replaced with an American Allison V-1710 engine as there were no working examples of the Mikulin for hand, I believe there is now a Sturmovik under restoration which is to use the original engine, which is shown in static testing in this video. The B-29 never had the R-4360 fitted, some famous planes which had those were the B-36 and Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" which had 8 of them! More recently a Reno racer, a Sea Fury named "Furias"has been fitted with a R-4360. It can be seen in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jEs5xKXgm6w.html. The air frame of the Sea Fury is very suited for high speeds and is very popular for air racing, and air racing is still very well dominated by WW2 era air frames, mainly P-51 Mustangs and Sea Furies, obviously they have not been able yet to build more than one new airframe for this type of racing yet, being it too costly. The last, and possibly the biggest mistake, as the other mistakes can only be seen by insiders in classic avaiation, is the Svetshov ASH-73 section. All of the planes shown don't have a pistopn engine at all, they are Ilyushin IL-18 with turboprop engines, Kuznetsov NK-4 or Ivchenko AI-20, the IL-18 never flew with piston engines. The ASH-73 were used in the Tupolev TU-4, which was a Russian B-29 copy and the Beriev BE-6 flying boat. Nice find however was the Messerschmitt ME-410 at 2:58, as this was the only surviving one restored to working (but not flying) order, it did some ground runs of the engines before being stored forever in the mueum at Cosford, UK..
You are correct that the B 29 did not have PW 4360. However the B 29 derivative KB 50 did. The Boeing B-50 Superfortress is an American strategic bomber. A post-World War II revision of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, it was fitted with more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 radial engines, stronger structure, a taller tail fin, and other improvements.
The engine at 6:01 is never a Bristol Centaurus (more likely a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 or similar). It has cylinder heads with standard poppet valves. Compare it to the sleeve 'valve' heads as seen on the engine before, then you see it.
That's correct, the clip begins with a Centaurus on a test stand, but turns to a Sea Fury that should have had a Centaurus, but had been converted to a Curtis Wright R-3350-26W....then to a proper clip of a Fury flying with its Centauras at full song.
Good video, needs a bit of polishing up though like all the previous comments suggest. Still I like looking at and listening to big radials. It is kinda hard to get some things past all the aviation history buffs.
The P&W R-4360 was used in the Boeing B-50 (aka B-29C) and my father flew one on the first non-stop around the world flight in 1949. See: Lucky Lady Ii flight. It was also used on the massive 6 engine B-36 Peacemaker, as a pusher prop design. Hardly stealthy with the noise it made!
The B-29 you showed doesn't have the 28 cylinder engine. The one having is the B-50, with a taller vertical stabilizer. B-29 FIFI - Commemorative Air Force Manufacturer Boeing Introduced May 1944 Produced 1943-1946 Power 4 × Wright R-3350 -23 and 23A Duplex-Cyclone turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp Greetings from Brazil.
what, no Rapier Sabre H block 24 cylinder engine? that thing was a monster ( Hawker Typhoon) pretty much 2 flat 12 cyl engine's pancaked... lotta problems.
A few searches on wikipedia (with sources of course) shows that there are errors in the video. For example, the P&W R-4360 wasp major did not equip the Saab scandia, which had two P&W R-2180-E twin wasp E engine, but was indeed use in military aircrafts such as the Convair B-36, which was not an anecdotal aircraft; and the plane shown at 9:04 cannot be a Saab Scandia (two engines civil plane, as mentionned) since it has four engines and a gun...
Well, so far, no mention of the biggest of them all. The Lycoming XR 7755. That's 7755 cubic inches, 36 cylinders, 5000 horsepower. Built around 1948. 2 were built and there is a photo of it and its development crew on Wikipedia. It never flew, but was successfully run up on the dyno, eventually producing 5000 hp. With the jets coming on the scene, its market disappeared.
I saw a Hawker Sea Fury with the real Bristol Centaurus race at Reno. They sound super smooth. Unfortunately Visio isn't much of a plane guy and showed planes refitted with ordinary radials and a modified Bearcat that never had a sleeve valve engine in it.
