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 Sun Jul 06, 2025 4:08 pm

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  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:03 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
CAPFlyer wrote:
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?


Hmmm, not sure about your second question. It shouldn't be anymore difficult to sync the props on the new engines than the old ones. I assume that's what you were asking about. :oops:

To answer your first question, we will be limiting the manifold pressure to 45" vs. the 48" that we limit the engines to now. That manifold pressure, along with 2400-2500 rpm on takeoff should give us right at 2400 horsepower (if the number crunchers guessed it right). So the Flight Engineer will just have some different numbers to limit things to. The instrumentation will be adjusted to match the changes. Obviously, there will be extra power available, if necessary.

We actually won't be running carburetor heat. Although not impossible, downdraft carburetors typically don't ice up like their updraft brethren do. I've discussed this heavily with engine builders and owner/operators/restorers of the Sea Fury with the 3350 installed and not a single person has had an icing incident with that installation. But that's not necessarily set in stone. There is still a possibility that we'll do some sort of alternate air or something, but right now we're not planning for it.

Okay, my brain hurts now. I"ll address more questions tomorrow. I find it very cool that y'al are so interested in this project. If you couldn't tell by now, I"ve put lots and lots of thought into this (lose sleep over it frequently) and its really exciting for me to get this project started. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, but there is likely not a person alive that wants to see that ol' B-29 back in the air more than me.

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:46 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm
Posts: 2760
Thanks for the answers, Gary, you are a wealth of information! A few more questions:

1) What are you guys going to be doing with the old -3350's? Are you going to keep them? Has anyone from "Doc" asked for the old engines? What about Kermit? Do you know if he realistically ever has plans of putting "Fertile Myrtle" back in the air?

2) Assuming the funding comes, what is the realistic time frame on when you expect "FiFi" to get back in the air?

3) With this new engine configuration, has the FAA said anything about limiting your ability to give donation paid "flight experiences" in the plane?

4) From everything I've read and researched on the topic, it seems like your original -3350 series engines are about the worst American made radials put on a production airplane for durability and reliability purposes? Do you agree with this statement? Are there any other series of American radials that are worse than the B-29 engines?

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ???
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:17 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 11:21 pm
Posts: 11471
Location: Salem, Oregon
Quote:
Are there any other series of American radials that are worse than the B-29 engines?

The only other motor I've heard really bad stuff about is the R-1300
on the T-28As. Were they ever on anything else?

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:32 pm
Posts: 697
Location: KBLI
Thanks for the info. Gary.

And if you end up with any extra -26WD bits and pieces, throw 'em our way :lol:

_________________
"They can teach MONKEYS to fly better than that"

http://www.heritageflight.org
http://www.bravo369.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 192
Location: Camdenton MO
retroaviation wrote:
CAPFlyer wrote:
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?


Hmmm, not sure about your second question. It shouldn't be anymore difficult to sync the props on the new engines than the old ones. I assume that's what you were asking about. :oops:

Gary


Just a hunch but I think the 'R3350 sync problems' mentioned were syncing the two fuel injection pumps on each engine to get 'em to run right. IIRC that is an art in itself. Prop syncing would be no different than on any other multi motored muther!

I remember a few years ago when FIFI vistied MKC with engine preformance problems, Colonel Breed, one of the HOA Squadron members who was also a retired TWA TC18/3350 Engine specialist brought out his toolbox and re-set/re-worked the fuel pump sync bars, etc. on the engines and a great improvement in performance was noted.

Now with no FI on FIFI, no sync problems either.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:39 pm
Posts: 1817
Location: Irving, Texas
As far as the FE is concerned, as Gary stated, the start procedures will differ quite a bit. We will have to be careful not to cause a backfire (that causes the FE to buy lots of beer for everyone and makes Gary angry), as the injected engines didn't have fuel in the induction system, but the carbureted engines will.

The injected carburetors will not cause ice due to evaporation, but will pick up impact ice. We don't fly FIFI through rain anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:20 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3413
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Thanks for answering my questions. While having a PPL, I've always been intrigued by (and loved to work as in the sims I've been privaledged enough to be able to try) the Flight Engineer's job. On pistons, it's even more interesting to me with the complexities and the need to really have a person watching and adjusting the engines full time unlike on a jet where once you set the panel up, for the most part you're just monitoring the fuel flow and making sure the PAX/crew stay comfortable.

Jack, thank you for the clarification. The guys I'd talked to were all ex-airline guys, so when they said "synch", I always figured that they meant that the prop controls had some sort of issue with not wanting to match each other easily. It makes more sense that it would be FI pumps.

Finally about the carb heat - that's good to know that the new engines won't be as suceptable to carb ice. I know that on the early Lockheed Constellations it was an issue during descents, but it was resolved by the time they transitioned into the Super Connie, so I'm glad to hear that the carb being used is not the same one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:51 am
Posts: 174
Location: Denver, CO
very cool and the best of luck - I have yet to see a B-29 fly and was beginning to think that I never would. 8)

_________________
Paul Filmer
skippyscage photography


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:17 am 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
Thanks JackFrost and b29flteng for answering some of those questions for me. Y'all are spot on with those answers.

And CAPFlyer...the Flight Engineer's position is the best seat in the house on the B-29. I love it, and I'd venture to say that b29flteng would agree with me. Heck, the FE is the only guy on the airplane doing anything. The pilot's just drive the thing around. :wink:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:37 am
Posts: 215
Location: Tx
retroaviation wrote:
Thanks JackFrost and b29flteng for answering some of those questions for me. Y'all are spot on with those answers.

And CAPFlyer...the Flight Engineer's position is the best seat in the house on the B-29. I love it, and I'd venture to say that b29flteng would agree with me. Heck, the FE is the only guy on the airplane doing anything. The pilot's just drive the thing around. :wink:

Gary


Careful now!! (double wink)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:09 am 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
b29driver wrote:
Careful now!! (double wink)


You should try it sometime. I put the comfortable cushions in the FE's seat. :lol:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ???
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:57 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11324
Jack Cook wrote:
The only other motor I've heard really bad stuff about is the R-1300 on the T-28As. Were they ever on anything else?
Are you dure you aren't thinking about problems with the AeroProducts props? I thought the R-1300 was essentially one row of an R-2600.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:02 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Valley Forge, Pa
Not a big deal (to Me) but just wondering if there will be a major difference in the sound these new engines will make?? Sure hope someone has recorded the sound of a B-29 with the original engines intact.
This might be very useful for future Hollywood Film projects, documentaries, etc.. Digger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:17 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:10 pm
Posts: 4173
Location: Pearland, Texas
Now Digger, you know that Hollywood would never use the coorect sound for any aircraft. Witness the sound of a 172 being used to simulate the Merlin, or that they use the sound of a Bell 47 for the sound of every helicopter to ever fly ! :lol:

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:02 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Valley Forge, Pa
Ha! Ha! Yeah, My favorite was the recent Ken Burns "THE WAR" Schlockumentary with Cessna Engines used to simulate a B-17... :roll: Digger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 53 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