Warbird Information Exchange

Sorry for the late response to all the previous engine questions regarding FIFI, but here's a slightly more detailed version of what is planned...

The new engines will be a combination of two of the latest (and most reliable) 3350's. The engines will have (basic description here) the power section, blower section, and accessory section from the -26WD (Skyraider engine), and have the rotating assembly, nosecase, and cylinders from the -95W (from an AC-119 Gunship). This engine will essentially be a Rare Bear "Light" engine. It is built for 3,500 horsepower, but we will only run it at around the 2,400 horsepower range. That will give us 200 hp more per engine, which the airframe should absorb with no problem, but also gives us the luxury of having available horsepower, should we need it in an emergency.

And so far the FAA is VERY happy with our engine project. With the airplane being in Experimental Category, we're really able to do whatever we wish (within reason), but to have them on board is excellent. I've gone over my plans with them and they didn't have a single negative comment to make about it, other than asking why this hadn't been done sooner.

I'm not certain exactly what we're going to designate the engines as, but they'll likely be called the R-3350-B29, since they'll be custom built just for this airplane.

Anyway, I'm sure there'll be plenty of things we haven't thought of yet, but for over a year an a half, we've been working on this solution, so I'm confident that this is what will keep FIFI flying for years to come.

Gary

Thanks for the info Gary. A few questions:

1) Why the combination of 2 different dash numbers for the -3350? It seems like it would be easier to get off the shelf, complete -3350's, instead of having to build a new one each time an engine gets cased.

2) Will this new engine change the external looks of the airplane any? Will the cowlings look any different?

3) I believe you said in a previous post that Ezell and crew are going to be working on it. Is the plan for them to build the engines in B-ridge and transport them to Midland for installation and flight prior to delivery to Addison?

4) What is the expected TBO on these new engines? How does that compare to the current, original B-29 engines?

5) Have you guys decided on a new engine overhauler yet?

Thanks for the info and taking the time to answer these!

Good questions. I'll do my best to answer them...

1. Because there isn't just one engine that will simply fit into the B-29's engine mount and cowlings. The -26WD is the closest, but it's availability is getting more and more scarce (just ask the Skyraider and Sea Fury guys). We already have nine of the -95W engines and wanted to use them due to their strength (built for 3500 hp) so the combination of both engines leaves the hard to find parts of the 26WD to the other operators of that engine and we'll just use the easy to find parts, like the power sections, accessory sections, etc. I truly think this mixture of engines will be the best route to take.

2. NO! The idea is to make it look just like before...only we shouldn't be working on them every time the dang thing shuts down.

3. Nelson and crew are indeed working on it, although they're not actually building the engine. Jeff Abbott is building our first one. Ezell Aviation currently has a nacelle that Kermit Weeks was kind enough to let us borrow and is using that as a mock up for the exhaust and induction systems, among other things. They already have the old -57AM engine removed and have a 26WD mounted to a B-29 engine mount I've given them and should have all of that mounted to the nacelle this week.




The engines, when complete, will be test run at the engine facility, then brought to Midland, where we'll put them on Testiclese (our bad-*ss engine run-up trailer ) and we'll make a QEC out of them. We'll then run them up as a QEC to insure all is well and then install them on the airplane. It may seem like a bit of extra work to some, but it's cheap insurance should something be wrong that we need to resolve.

4. There never really was a "TBO" per say on any of these engines. However, with that being said, we'd like to shoot for a minimum of 1,000 hours on the engines, if not more. Only time will tell. But it's better than between 4-400 hours on the junk that the airplane currently has installed.

5. As mentioned earlier, Abbott Aircraft Services is doing the first engine, and will likely do at least one more for us. We've been in talks with Aircraft Cylinder & Turbine, but they've changed ownership recently and I need to sit down with them and bring everything back up to speed on what our plan is. However, we are NOT committed to just one or two different shops.

Please remember, although not everyone will agree with every single thing we're doing here, we've been trying to think of every possible way to make this work. And I'm confident we're on the right track.

Gary

How about R-3350-29-GA That sounds more appropiate

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Don't think that hasn't already been discussed.

Besides, I've already told them that although the "A" on one side of the tail of FIFI stands for Agather (Vic Agather), the other side stands for Austin.

Gary

Hey Gary,

That's great to hear. I really look forward to hearing updates from this project. Nothing like another winter of watching a 4-engine beast take to the air again.

By the way, I'm really happy to hear that the FAA is onboard with the project, too. It doesn't hurt to have the people watching over your shoulder being happy with the work you're doing.

Gary (and team), you're all doing a great job!

Cheers,

David

Injected or carbureted??

Carbureted!!! No more of that fuel injection mess. Woo-hoo!!! Now, before everyone starts wondering, "Well I thought it was the carbureted engines that gave B-29's so much trouble..." it was. HOWEVER, the late engines have much better cooling fins and baffles and the injection was not needed as a cooling method, like on the later B-29's. Have you ever heard of a Skyraider having carburetor and overheating issues like the B-29's did? Not likely. So to make things much more simple, we are sticking with carburetors.

Man, y'all are asking some good questions though.

Gary

I believe the supercharger/induction system was redesigned to correct the original problems. One question though, why did some of the CA versions have fuel injection such as the Connie?

High tension or low tension magnetos?

Ignition analizer?

Torque meters?

Is the change from fuel injection to carburator will require some change for indication and control in the flight deck?

Thanks

J-F

John (b29flteng), I dunno, low tension, hopefully, and yes.

J-F, no. The only difference will be how you start it. It is in Auto Lean to start for the fuel injected engines and Idle Cutoff for the carbureted ones.

I'm startin' to feel like I'm getting grilled here, but I ain't skeered...bring those questions on. Okay, maybe I'm skeered just a little bit.

Gary

Gary, Thanks for the good information and I join the others in hoping you keep it coming. My question; will the redesign do away with the front exhaust collector ring (exhaust heat to jug transferer) on the original installation?

_________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all, that counts.

Yes! No more front exhaust. YAY! That is yet another reason for the overheating problems on the early Dirty-Three-Filthys.

Gary

Okay, here's another couple of questions, how does the operation of the new engines differ from the old from the Flight Engineer's standpoint if at all other than the different starting procedure and the obligatory installation/operation of carburetor heat controls?

Also, I've heard in the past that some models of the R3350s can be kinda difficult to synch up, so I was wondering if this was a problem with the old engines and if so, do you think the new setup will be better?