Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sat Apr 27, 2024 4:13 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:51 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 pm
Posts: 1236
Location: Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
I'm assuming that "Doc" is running engines similar to those fitted to "Fifi", and I'm wondering if those engines are a low altitude only variant, or if they could operate up around 30 000 ft? Also, though I know that these two fly unpressurized, how was a B-29 pressurized? EDC's?

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:04 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:30 pm
Posts: 1129
Both have the same engines. Neither have turbos now so they won't make the high altitudes. I had FIFI at around 10,500-11,000 or so a few years back and she was really working hard. If I had the props turning a a few more rounds she would have gone a little further up. I'd say 12,500 would be pretty close to the limit. Originally the air for pressurization came from the inboard turbos on #2 and #3.

_________________
Brad


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:47 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3402
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Having just spent a bunch of time on researching the L-049/C-69 Constellation, it's interesting to note the performance of the hybrid engines. The L-049 with 2-speed supercharger usually switched to "high blower" around 13,000 feet as that was about where you ran out of throttle to hold 32" MAP. The original single speed engines fitted to the first few C-69s however maxed out at only 8000', limiting the airplanes to a service ceiling of just 14,000 feet. It seems that with their new power and fixed blower, the B-29's power is somewhere in between considering the power available on 100LL. I wonder what you'll be able to get out of them once 100UL is available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5258
Location: Eastern Washington
Brad...
-At 11,000 were you on oxygen?
-Do the superchargers automatically come on at various altitudes?

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 871
Brad wrote:
Both have the same engines. Neither have turbos now so they won't make the high altitudes. I had FIFI at around 10,500-11,000 or so a few years back and she was really working hard. If I had the props turning a a few more rounds she would have gone a little further up. I'd say 12,500 would be pretty close to the limit. Originally the air for pressurization came from the inboard turbos on #2 and #3.


Great information Brad, thanks for sharing!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 pm
Posts: 1236
Location: Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
Thanks for the info, Brad. How much power can you pull on takeoff with them? 42 inches or so?

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:30 pm
Posts: 1129
Dan Jones wrote:
Thanks for the info, Brad. How much power can you pull on takeoff with them? 42 inches or so?


44" and 2400 RPM is full power in this configuration. That is the standard for takeoff. We have used 40" before and she just hops off the ground. With shorter prop blades we could get more RPM because we have a lot of inches left in the engines.

_________________
Brad


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11282
JohnB wrote:
Brad...
-At 11,000 were you on oxygen?


"You have to use supplemental oxygen if you fly more than 30 minutes at cabin pressure altitudes of 12,500 feet or higher. That at cabin altitudes above 14,000 feet pilots must use oxygen at all times. And that above 15,000 feet each occupant of the aircraft must be provided supplemental oxygen. All of this is spelled out in Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91.211."

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safet ... n-aviation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 pm
Posts: 1236
Location: Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
bdk wrote:
JohnB wrote:
Brad...
-At 11,000 were you on oxygen?


"You have to use supplemental oxygen if you fly more than 30 minutes at cabin pressure altitudes of 12,500 feet or higher. That at cabin altitudes above 14,000 feet pilots must use oxygen at all times. And that above 15,000 feet each occupant of the aircraft must be provided supplemental oxygen. All of this is spelled out in Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91.211."

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safet ... n-aviation


Twenty-five years or so ago (back when I was still immortal) I used to be able to fly all day at 12 500', unpressurized, and smoke a pack of cigarettes while doing it. Ahh youth...

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11282
Dan Jones wrote:
Twenty-five years or so ago (back when I was still immortal) I used to be able to fly all day at 12 500', unpressurized, and smoke a pack of cigarettes while doing it. Ahh youth...

You meant 12,499' right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:00 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:39 pm
Posts: 1817
Location: Irving, Texas
In FIFI and Doc at about 12,000 feet we can pull about 30 inches manifold pressure with the throttles wide open. With the throttles wide open, the carburetor is operating at peak efficiency.

Neither aircraft is pressurized anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 311
I seem to remember reading that a poorly designed front exhaust collector ring contributed to the overheating problem. Can anyone elaborate on that? Also, did the B-32 use an improved version of the 3350 compared to the B-29? I've never read of any engine problems with the B-32, although granted, they weren't around very long.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:31 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3402
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
The early R3350's had 2 collector rings for the exhaust, one for the front row and one for the back row. The front row's collector ring was mounted in front of the cylinders. Wright's idea was that because the engine was intended for the next generation of high altitude aircraft, they thought the forward position would help provide heat into the engine during cruise to keep it from getting too cold.

With the B-29 though, the desire for extreme high altitude efficiency meant that it had very close fitting cowls and because of it, there was a serious airflow deficiency at low altitudes and speeds. This led to overheating. There were also metallurgy issues that exacerbated the problem.

I don't know if the B-32 had the same problems, but I also know that the L-049/C-69 which used the same engines didn't have the problem as bad because it had bigger cowlings which allowed more airflow. It wasn't a full fix, the rear row of cylinders still had heat issues that had to be watched when operating at high power settings, but it didn't have the same issue with overheating while idling.

Oh, and it's also important to note that the R4360 had the same problem on the B377, KC-97, and B-50 as well. In hot weather, if the cowl flaps weren't fully open or you got enough of a tailwind, the engines would overheat just as quickly as the R3350.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:39 pm
Posts: 1817
Location: Irving, Texas
With the new engines on FIFI and Doc we don't have a temperature problem. We had to remove some baffling to bring the cylinder head temperatures up a bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:37 am
Posts: 215
Location: Tx
CAPFlyer wrote:
The early R3350's had 2 collector rings for the exhaust, one for the front row and one for the back row. The front row's collector ring was mounted in front of the cylinders. Wright's idea was that because the engine was intended for the next generation of high altitude aircraft, they thought the forward position would help provide heat into the engine during cruise to keep it from getting too cold.

With the B-29 though, the desire for extreme high altitude efficiency meant that it had very close fitting cowls and because of it, there was a serious airflow deficiency at low altitudes and speeds. This led to overheating. There were also metallurgy issues that exacerbated the problem.

I don't know if the B-32 had the same problems, but I also know that the L-049/C-69 which used the same engines didn't have the problem as bad because it had bigger cowlings which allowed more airflow. It wasn't a full fix, the rear row of cylinders still had heat issues that had to be watched when operating at high power settings, but it didn't have the same issue with overheating while idling.

Oh, and it's also important to note that the R4360 had the same problem on the B377, KC-97, and B-50 as well. In hot weather, if the cowl flaps weren't fully open or you got enough of a tailwind, the engines would overheat just as quickly as the R3350.



If proper procedures were followed there was no problem on the ground with the 4360's on the K-97.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 353 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group