Warbird Information Exchange

G'day,

What are the differences between the Wright Cyclone R-1820-76 (Grumman Albatross) vs R-1820-82C (Grumman Tracker) ?

I believe both are similar horsepower but I'm wondering if there are other differences such as engine mounting points etc ?

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

The last dozen or so Albatrosses that were built were equipped with the -82 series engines and at least on the Albatross, the -76 was rated at 1425 hp and the -82 was rated at 1525. One of the books that I have read about the Albatross refered to the -82's as Stoof (S2F) engines, so I assume that they were also rated 1525 on the S2F/C-1/E-1 series too.

On the Part 25 certified G-111 versions of the Albatross, the engines are rated at only 1475.

I don't know about mounting points, but the -82 versions of the Albatross can be recognized by the air scoop on top of the cowling (there is no such scoop on the regular/earlier versions of the Albatross) and the fact that the cowling is slightly bulged around the cylinder heads - I assume that means the -82 is slightly larger in overall diameter.

Because of the usage of both engines on the Albatrosses, I would assume that the mounting points are the same, but the cowlings were certainly different.

Have you talked to American Warbirds in Carson City, NV? Isn't that Dennis Buehn's outfit with all of the Albatross expertise?

Thanks Rajay,

We may be getting an Albatross out of Indonesia for a buyer and I've found 3 -82s in overhauled condition , unused and still in cans for the price of overhauling a -76

Regards

Tony

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

Why do I remember the C-1 having -82's and the Albatross having an -83A's or something like that. I am a little tired and may be remembering wrong.

The difference was the reversing propeller, if I remember correctly.

_________________
"Hindsight is usually 20% off!"

I've just spent a few minutes browsing Albatross pix on Airliners.net. According to a couple of my books, the only Albatrosses with -82 engines as factory installed original equipment were the last 16 airframes built by Grumman (c/n G-449 through G-464.) All of them were built either for Canada (9301 through 9310) or Japan (9051 through 9056). The aircraft for Japan were procured through a USN contract and as such were assigned USN Bureau nos. 148324 through 148329 respectively.)

N42MY (c/n G-464) was the very last Albatross built. It carried USN BuNo. 148329 and JMSDF No. 9056. It is currently for sale by Sherman Aircraft Sales in Florida; it was formerly operated by Mirabella Aviation for Mirabella Yachts (hence the "MY" N-number.) Before that, it was N26PR for Paragon Ranch in Colorado and before that was registered as PK-PAM when it was operated on behalf of Conoco Oil in Indonesia.

Here is a link to a 10-yr old photo of N42MY:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Grumman- ... b5a6291994

and a 23-yr old photo of the same aircraft as PK-PAM in 1986:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pelita-A ... f0118dde75

The photo of G-462 (148327/9054) on Airliners.net at:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan--- ... b5a6291994
clearly shows the bulged engine cowlings of the -82 series engines.

The odd thing is that I noticed several other Albatrosses which now have top scoops on their cowlings that shouldn't have them per above. I have to speculate that other people have encountered the same situation with availability and cost of the -76 engines versus the -82 engines and may have gotten an STC or field approval to install the -82's on Albatrosses that never had them before. See the following links:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Grumman- ... b5a6291994

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Row-44/G ... b5a6291994

In both of these cases however, the engine cowling doesn't look "bulged" to me, so they may have even used a third series of R-1820 to re-engine these Albatrosses.

Finally, here is a link to a photo showing a good profile of a standard (-76 engine) cowling on an Albatross:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Katanga/ ... b5a6291994

I don't know if it does, but I hope this helps you....

The R1820s are the same size , the biggest difference is the prop shaft, The -82 is 51 spline and the -76D is 50 spline. also the mounting is a little different, the -82 has a threaded case where the -76D uses a bolt and nut.


I hope this will also help..

_________________
Billy Packard

Anderson Aeromotive
Pratt & Whitney and Wright engine Overhaul and service
Warbird maintenance

Mr. P., thank you for weighing in.

Couldn't think of a better person to respond to the query than yourself with the knowledge ya'll would bring to the table.

Welcome to WIX.

- Rob

Thanks Rob

_________________
Billy Packard

Anderson Aeromotive
Pratt & Whitney and Wright engine Overhaul and service
Warbird maintenance

Thanks guys , all useful info !

It never fails to amaze me the knowledge of people on WIX

What's the function of the scoops on top of the cowl , where is it ducting cool air to ? Just to the back of the engine case or is there an oil cooler there ?

.

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia

There are several other things to consider if you are thinking of going to a -82 installation in an Albatross. The -82 version was called a CSR110 and was built originally for Canada because of their installed base of -82's in their Tracker fleet. It was also later sold to Japan. When they started the G-111 project around 1980, the CSR-110 was the natural choice because of reduced cabin noise coming from a slower-turning propeller on a slower turning nose case. Best guy to talk to is Andy McFee who did a conversion on Reid Dennis' Albatross. Props for the CSR-110 are virtually impossible to find and hugely expensive. Andy installed the -82's into the -76 QEC. The QEC for the G-111 was completely different and if you don't already have some, don't go down that path. Everything is different and again, extremely hard to find. You will need to modify exhaust for the wedge cylinders. Also, oil cooler air and carb air inlets that usually take air from between the mushroom cylinders on a -76 will need to be changed. Another difference with the -82 are the second-order balance weights that make it a 2800rpm engine. Lastly, the -82's are a great engine with lots of suds that make the Albatross a safer ( and more fun) airplane to fly. Call Andy.

_________________
Fly Safe

Hey Tony:

Another thought for you. I would look real closely at the overhaul dates on those -82's. It has been learned the hard way especially in the T-28 community that the 1820 Master rod bearings begin to delaminate and will be prone to failure after about 20 years. You can have the engine dissembled and the master rod reprocessed, engine reassembled and test celled usually for a resonalble price. Call it cheap insurance. There have been way too many 1820's that have failed out of the can after a long storage. This is an important time in any aircraft's history and we the caretakers must make wise decisions! Good luck.

_________________
Fly Safe

Hey Tony:

Another thought for you. I would look real closely at the overhaul dates on those -82's. It has been learned the hard way especially in the T-28 community that the 1820 Master rod bearings begin to delaminate and will be prone to failure after about 20 years. You can have the engine dissembled and the master rod reprocessed, engine reassembled and test celled usually for a resonalble price. Call it cheap insurance. There have been way too many 1820's that have failed out of the can after a long storage. This is an important time in any aircraft's history and we the caretakers must make wise decisions! Good luck.

_________________
Fly Safe

Given that fact, do you have any idea why Grumman felt that they had to re-shape (i.e. "bulge") the cowlings on their -82 powered Albatrosses? It wouldn't make any sense to go to that trouble in production without a good reason.

This is just a wild guess that I'll throw out there; is it possible that the apparent "bulge" on the -82 powered Albatrosses is the result not so much of larger diameter cowlings over the cylinders as it is of smaller diameter turtledecks on the aft portions of the nacelles?

Hey Rajay:

The different shape in the cowling if you look at the way Grumman built up the QEC is that the forward 1/2 (power section) is basically Tracker parts. The aft section (accessory section) is all unique parts that blend the power section into the Albatross firewall. The oil cooler and tank are in the same location, the motor mount is basically the same except it runs the RC-27 shock mounts instead of the RL-15's. (like a T-28) The -82 is different in that it runs the 2-in-one magneto and is a low-tension ignition system.
The exhaust exits on the sides and bottom of the QEC. The air intake is the scoop on top but several -76-powered Albatrosses have mod'ed their intakes to use the upper scoop in place of the pain-in-the-ass siamese ducts.

_________________
Fly Safe

Hi Lynn,

Yes , I heard about the bearing problems.

Still a long way off with this project , a lot of hurdles to cross but trying to do a quick sum of the economics first

ps my avitar is me sitting in the cockpit of the said Albatross

_________________
Aussie expat lost in Indonesia