FIFI's engines

[retroaviation]

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.

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

[warbird1]

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.

[Jack Cook]

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?

[Hal B]

Thanks for the info. Gary.

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

[Jack Frost]

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.

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.

[b29flteng]

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.

[CAPFlyer]

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.

[skippyscage]

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.

[retroaviation]

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.

Gary

[b29driver]

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.

Gary

Careful now!! (double wink)

[retroaviation]

Careful now!! (double wink)

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

Gary

[bdk]

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.

[DiggerWW2]

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

[RickH]

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 !

[DiggerWW2]

Ha! Ha! Yeah, My favorite was the recent Ken Burns "THE WAR" Schlockumentary with Cessna Engines used to simulate a B-17... Digger