# Douglas Skyraider....



## Lucky13 (Jan 20, 2010)

Considering that they planned to bring the AD back into production back in the day, they didn't only because it would have cost too much. How well does the Skyraider stand with other attack aircraft after WWII and how would she fair today, in air to ground combat?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 20, 2010)

In my humble opinion, the SkyRaider was the ultimate piston-engined grouud attack aircraft. A formidably strong airframe - very adaptable, a great engine, great range/loiter time, lots of payload.

The SkyShark, Douglas's effort to take the Spad into the jet-age would have been successful if Allison had developed a successful counter-rotating turbo prop engine. The SkyShark was actually twin-engined (2 smallish turbos) mounted side-by-side in the mid-section of the airframe (would it have had the flight characteristics of the P-39/P-63 ??)

Douglas A2D Skyshark - carrier-borne attacker

Having said all these glorious things about the Spad, could it do anything, handle any situation that the current WartHog Thunderbolt II does? (except hand on an aircraft carrier?

MM


----------



## renrich (Jan 20, 2010)

The Able Dog was a fine airplane in it's day but probably not a match for the A10. I would not be surprised if the A10 could be modified for carrier use.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 20, 2010)

A piston engine a/c would never make sense now because of the high maintenance cost, and removal of AVGAS from the logistics system of the military long ago.

In its last combat use, in 1974-75 by the RVNAF the Skyraider proved highly vulnerable to shoulder launched SAM's. The uncooled Lead-sulphide type IR seekers like Strela/SA-7 really liked the hot exhaust pipes of prop planes, and the kinematically limited missile could much more easily catch them than a jet. The A-1 went out with a wimper rather than a bang in that respect.

Nowadays the A-10, those upgraded to the A-10C standard capable of carrying JDAM, full targetting pod functionality and so forth, are not nearly as handicapped in the modern close support role as they were until then, but nothing really outstanding either. They are paid-for airframes, not especially expensive to run, that's their main practical advantage nowadays. But I don't see any reason nor have any expectation though that a similar a/c would be built new; there's no real need. I know that might divert the debate along a tangent about the A-10, but if you view the A-10 realistically it's all the more reason you wouldn't bring back an a/c like the A-1.

The real alternatives to fast jets in ground attack are UAV's, where you cut cost through very high utilization rate (plane in the air for many hours or whole day at a time then right back out after you refuel it) or a/c that are *really* a lot cheaper to buy and run than a fast jet, like a converted trainer or even converted ag-aircraft, not an A-1/A-10 type a/c.

Joe


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 20, 2010)

I could see the A1 in a drug interdiction role and perhaps in an anti-pirate capacity if range wasn't a factor.

would the maintainance hours on a single engined A1 be more than a twin engined plane like the Pucura?

One of these planes would be cheaper but not not near as robust:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/coin-comeback-10711.html

,


----------



## JoeB (Jan 20, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> would the maintainance hours on a single engined A1 be more than a twin engined plane like the Pucura?


Way more, if you're talking about literally the A-1's R-3350 18 cyl. radial engine, v comparatively very low maintenance modern turboprop engines as on a Pucara, not to mention a single engine turbine plane. At today's labor costs in a first world AF, maintaining the A-1's engine is out of the question, plus again gasoline is now a special item in military logistics (though Predator A does have a simple Rotax gasoline engine, the Army's Warrior version uses a diesel engine for just the logistical reasons mentioned; the larger Predator B/Reaper are turbine). The question should probably assume you re-engine the A-1 with a turbine; then I still don't see a compelling reason for such a plane, but actually bringing back the A-1 engine and all is just not realistic at all, IMO.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Way more, if you're talking about literally the A-1's R-3350 18 cyl. radial engine, v comparatively very low maintenance modern turboprop engines as on a Pucara, not to mention a single engine turbine plane. At today's labor costs in a first world AF, maintaining the A-1's engine is out of the question, plus again gasoline is now a special item in military logistics (though Predator A does have a simple Rotax gasoline engine, the Army's Warrior version uses a diesel engine for just the logistical reasons mentioned; the larger Predator B/Reaper are turbine). The question should probably assume you re-engine the A-1 with a turbine; then I still don't see a compelling reason for such a plane, but actually bringing back the A-1 engine and all is just not realistic at all, IMO.
> 
> Joe



AND - its a taildragger. More training, higher accident rates, etc.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2010)

Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 21, 2010)

renrich said:


> Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.




wow... now that's what i call "Ground Support".

or rather... Ground Excavation!

,


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 21, 2010)

"...Just for information, I went to school in around 1958 with a former Marine pilot who told of practise missions in ADs, long flights, many hours at low altitudes, under the radar, to deliver nuclear bombs.."

Yes, back then every platform was being explored to fly low, climb hard, "toss" a bomb and run like hell. Some years ago I read a similar account on the Internet --- what I found even more interesting was that on really long range operations the AD ran the risk of running dry on oil - fuel wasn't the concern, lubricating oil was.

Can anyone comment on the oil consumption of large radials ...?

MM


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 21, 2010)

nice photo:


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2010)

Nice pic ..... but it just doesnt look right with a SE Asian paint job on a snowy runway.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 21, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Nice pic ..... but it just doesnt look right with a SE Asian paint job on a snowy runway.



Maybe it defected to N. Korea...

.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2010)

I have always heard that the limiting factor on an AD's range was oil consumption rather than gas. Probably depends on load and other factors though. If memory serves the AD carried 38 gallons of oil. A story goes that a pilot unused to the AD was watching a tank truck pumping fluid into an AD and told the ground crew that where the truck was pumping was not where the gas went and was told that they were pumping oil not gas. In my recollection of my Marine friend's story, I did not mention how long the mission was or what altitude because I was afraid my memory was poor but I seem to remember 8 hours and under 500 feet. Another interesting at least to me tidbit is that the US carriers during the Korean war had no arrangements for two types of fuel and since the majority of the AC were F4Us and ADs and they could not burn jet fuel, the jets used 100 octane AvGas. The lead in the fuel caused white deposits in the jet engines.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2010)

High octane avgas being used in jet engines? I didnt think it was possible. 

Maybe Flyboy knows.


----------



## renrich (Jan 22, 2010)

Sys, I was amazed at that when I read it in Linnekin's "80 Knots to Mach Two" He did not just hear about this but flew Panthers off carriers in Korea.I followed your advice about reading " Shattered Sword" and throughly enjoyed it. Try to round up a copy of Linnekin's book and add it to your library. It is a treasure.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 23, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> High octane avgas being used in jet engines? I didnt think it was possible.


That's definitely true of carrier ops as of early Korean War, the carriers didn't have jet fuel stowage, so both jets and props burned AVGAS. The gasoline for the jets was mixed with some lube oil to ease wear on the engines' fuel pumps intended for kerosene type fuel. The Marines also did this ashore in Korea with a/c like F9F, though AF didn't AFAIK. Of course the same thing was also done on a/c like B-36, C-123, C-119, P2V etc, in versions which had both jet and piston engines. The planes didn't have two separate fuel systems, the jets just burned straight AVGAS in those cases.

The performance of jet engines, like for example in F9F in engaging MiG's in Korea, was slightly lower when burning gasoline.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2010)

All true - lead deposits on fuel nozzles and turbine blade, aside from that it burns right through.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All true - lead deposits on fuel nozzles and turbine blade, aside from that it burns right through.



Bit like the North American AJ-2 Savage - for which you read bad good and mixed reports so not sure what to think on that one !


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> The SkyShark, Douglas's effort to take the Spad into the jet-age would have been successful if Allison had developed a successful counter-rotating turbo prop engine. The SkyShark was actually twin-engined (2 smallish turbos) mounted side-by-side in the mid-section of the airframe (would it have had the flight characteristics of the P-39/P-63 ??)
> 
> MM



Well the Brits managed it with the *Double Mamba in the Gannet * *






* although by contrast the Wyvern was a flop from the engine point of view, although could have worked with an RR engine maybe - but that is another story


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Of course the same thing was also done on a/c like B-36, C-123, C-119, P2V etc, in versions which had both jet and piston engines. The planes didn't have two separate fuel systems, the jets just burned straight AVGAS in those cases.
> 
> 
> Joe



What about the Shackleton ? It too has 2 jet engines as well as four Griffon IC Prop engines

Armstrong Siddeley Viper Mk.203 turbojets - used primarily for Jato from what I can see

Anyone any ideas ? Did they use Kerosene or AvGas ?


----------



## Waynos (Jan 26, 2010)

Dunno, but I think the Wyvern is the only turboprop warplane to go into combat? Complete with contraprops

edit; apart from the FMA Pucara, DOH!


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2010)

Just read in a magazine, "Air and Space" about the A37, Dragonfly. Interesting that the A37, made by Cessna, was used to replace A1s that were becoming scarce. An advantage of the A37 was that pilots did not have to be retrained, like they did to fly A1s, to fly a tail dragger. Like Flyboy is always saying, tail dragger skill takes a while to mature and most AF pilots had trained on the A37s cousin, the T37. In fact when the A37 was deployed in VN the officer in charge wanted pilots who had no training necessarily in the A37 or in air to ground and the airplane itself had not been rigorously tested in the air to ground role. The article states that the A37 was highly successful, because it carried a huge load, for it's size, was very accurate, because it flew lower and slower than the fast movers, was hard to hit for the AAA because it was so low and slow( the bad guys kept overleading) and it averaged only two hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. It was cheap also. Not very sophisticated, like the A10, but effective. One does not hear much about it in VN because, the author states, the AC was not sexy and the AF likes sexy AC.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> Just read in a magazine, "Air and Space" about the A37, Dragonfly. Interesting that the A37, made by Cessna, was used to replace A1s that were becoming scarce. An advantage of the A37 was that pilots did not have to be retrained, like they did to fly A1s, to fly a tail dragger. Like Flyboy is always saying, tail dragger skill takes a while to mature and most AF pilots had trained on the A37s cousin, the T37. In fact when the A37 was deployed in VN the officer in charge wanted pilots who had no training necessarily in the A37 or in air to ground and the airplane itself had not been rigorously tested in the air to ground role. The article states that the A37 was highly successful, because it carried a huge load, for it's size, was very accurate, because it flew lower and slower than the fast movers, was hard to hit for the AAA because it was so low and slow( the bad guys kept overleading) and it averaged only two hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. It was cheap also. Not very sophisticated, like the A10, but effective. One does not hear much about it in VN because, the author states, the AC was not sexy and the AF likes sexy AC.



There are quite a few planes from 'Nam that seem to have disappeared down the plug hole of history there were in the COIN / Observation department.

Mohawk

Bronco

Cessna Skymaster

AC-119 Gunship (not the C130)

AC-47 Dakota Gunship


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> There are quite a few planes from 'Nam that seem to have disappeared down the plug hole of history there were in the COIN / Observation department.
> 
> Mohawk
> 
> ...



The Mohawk went away in the late 80s I believe. They served in Army intelligence units and served with the border patrol late in their career. The Bronco is still around, some of them serving with the US Forestry service. There is one Skymaster being used by the US Navy and there are still many used by civilian operators. The AC-119 and AC-47 went away because of the AC-130. C-119s have disappeared as they were expensive to operate and couldn't get out of their own way unless they had JATO pods. As far as the regular C-47/ DC-3? I think there's somthing like 300 of them still flying.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Mohawk went away in the late 80s I believe. They served in Army intelligence units and served with the border patrol late in their career. The Bronco is still around, some of them serving with the US Forestry service. There is one Skymaster being used by the US Navy and there are still many used by civilian operators. The AC-119 and AC-47 went away because of the AC-130. C-119s have disappeared as they were expensive to operate and couldn't get out of their own way unless they had JATO pods. As far as the regular C-47/ DC-3? I think there's somthing like 300 of them still flying.



Yes, true, but I was talking specifically Nam period

For example, if you say 'Gunship' people mostly think C130 - not AC47

Also, if you say ground attack you get Skyraider or Thud


Of couse some C47s are Turobprop now and seem to be performing Sterling service - Bassler and you know etc etc


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Yes, true, but I was talking specifically Nam period
> 
> For example, if you say 'Gunship' people mostly think C130 - not AC47


Not really - I remember AC-47s and the first AC-130s - both served in Nam



Cromwell said:


> Also, if you say ground attack you get Skyraider or Thud


I also think of F-5s and AC-37s



Cromwell said:


> Of couse some C47s are Turobprop now and seem to be performing Sterling service - Bassler and you know etc etc


Yep!


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really - I remember AC-47s and the first AC-130s - both served in Nam
> 
> 
> I also think of F-5s and AC-37s
> ...



F5 - you mean the Tiger ? did that get some use in Nam - I thought it was mostly export.

Also, don't forget that you are a. American and b. knowledgeable about military aviation (not that I am saying it is unusual to have that mix)


_By the way_ - one of my bug bears is that I find many of the Hoi polloi do not understand that the US forces WON the first battle of Saigon decisively and hammered the Viet Cong and NVA pretty badly.


In fact I think the US could have won Nam - but you Lost the Political War interally and internationally


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> F5 - you mean the Tiger ? did that get some use in Nam - I thought it was mostly export.


There were many used by US forces as well as the SVNAF. There were some even used by NVN after the fall of Siagon.


Cromwell said:


> Also, don't forget that you are a. American and b. knowledgeable about military aviation (not that I am saying it is unusual to have that mix)


Many thanks! 



Cromwell said:


> _By the way_ - one of my bug bears is that I find many of the Hoi polloi do not understand that the US forces WON the first battle of Saigon decisively and hammered the Viet Cong and NVA pretty badly.
> 
> In fact I think the US could have won Nam - but you Lost the Political War interally and internationally


Cromwell - you are a man wise beyond your years. If you look at the military aspect of the Vietnam War, there was much time and resources pissed away, but in the end MILITARILY the US won the war hands down. Politically it was a disaster.

The whole time the US military was never allowed to do its job. Lyndon B Johnson fought the war as if it was a game of chess between college chums, mainly because of the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara who although was probably one of the smartest men of his era, was also one of the dumbest. Nixon did not get serious until an election year was around the corner and bombed the NVA into submission. All these history revisionists forget that from the spring of 1973 until 1975, South Vietnam existed on its own. Had the NVA been treated in 1966 as they were in late 1972, we would have been out of there in 1967 with only a fraction of the losses sustained. Johnson was too worried about his "Global Image."

My brother did 2 tours in Vietnam, Silver Star recipient. He has a lot of resentment on how things played out but is very proud of his service. As he put it "I never got my ass kicked in Vietnam, had some tough fights but always came out ahead."


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were many used by US forces as well as the SVNAF. There were some even used by NVN after the fall of Siagon.
> Many thanks!
> 
> Cromwell - you are a man wise beyond your years. If you look at the military aspect of the Vietnam War, there was much time and resources pissed away, but in the end MILITARILY the US won the war hands down. Politically it was a disaster.
> ...



I am afraid that I do not think that the US has EVER really recovered from Vietnam - I think the 70s was the end of the hard working American, who made things work, and it also introduced the Credit Card mentality.

(note many Americans are hard-working, but at one time you had the Yankee Ingenuity ethos and people who would mend maked-do and believe being frugal was actually a good thing, and don't buy it if you can't afford it etc etc )

The people (at home I mean) were not mentality prepared or srtong enough to fight a war of attrition AND it cost the USA a LOT of money - it pushed you South financially - and so you started to Borrow, Borrow, Borrow and so on.

Financial Crisis - this is down to ONE main problem - Politicians in the US dodged the Tax Issue back in the 70s when you should have been paying more AND learning to be Frugal aka Austerity Measures.

The Fed President stated in 73 or 74 that unless the US accepted Taxes Frugal Living the country would be bankrupted in 30 years

Guess what ? Tada ! look where we are NOW


Note. I do not think WW2 - band of brothers etc - could be fought with the kind of mentality we now have in the US and the UK.

Those guys worked on farms, walked to work, had tough jobs, knew how to spin out money and they also had a good grounding in old fashioned values and 3Rs - read, write, arithmetic


(One thing about Churchill, he had been a soldier on the front line - which is why he is still respected here on both sides of the political divide)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I am afraid that I do not think that the US has EVER really recovered from Vietnam - I think the 70s was the end of the hard working American, who made things work, and it also introduced the Credit Card mentality.
> 
> (note many Americans are hard-working, but at one time you had the Yankee Ingenuity ethos and people who would mend maked-do and believe being frugal was actually a good thing, and don't buy it if you can't afford it etc etc )
> 
> ...



I could just about agree on almost all points. What did happen is many of us were being taxed to death, especially if we owned property so there were measures passed to limit property taxes. It was at that time that government on all levels should have learned to be frugal but as you pointed out, the generations sice Vietnam 'expected' certain things from our government without being willing to put anything into it, and the size of government just grew.

And here we are...


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could just about agree on almost all points. What did happen is many of us were being taxed to death, especially if we owned property so there were measures passed to limit property taxes. It was at that time that government on all levels should have learned to be frugal but as you pointed out, the generations sice Vietnam 'expected' certain things from our government without being willing to put anything into it, and the size of government just grew.
> 
> And here we are...



BTW I am not pointing the finger as if it was any better in the UK - the US sneezes, we get a Cold.

If anything it is far worse - we have something here called Council Tax on top of everything else you end up paying £130-200 per month just because you have home, rented or owned !

The Question is this : Do you put your faith in the things of this World, or the next ?


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2010)

Without getting into the politics too much, I second everything that Flyboy said about VN. There are a lot of beliefs about VN among people in the US. Most of these beliefs are based on misinformation fostered by the media and revisionist history. Interesting that someone thinks that it is somewhat unusual for an American to be knowledgeable about aviation. Maybe I misread that.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 28, 2010)

renrich said:


> Without getting into the politics too much, I second everything that Flyboy said about VN. There are a lot of beliefs about VN among people in the US. Most of these beliefs are based on misinformation fostered by the media and revisionist history. Interesting that someone thinks that it is somewhat unusual for an American to be knowledgeable about aviation. Maybe I misread that.



No actually you did mis-read that. My point was a 'Tom Jones' i.e Its NOT Unusual

Also some of the things Flyboy said about VN were seconding what I had previously said about VN - by the way - not that it matters, particularly.

Not that I am counting or offended or anything (much )


----------



## renrich (Jan 29, 2010)

I recently read some allegedly accurate statistics about the VN War and it is amazing how misconceptions about the war have proliferated.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 1, 2010)

renrich said:


> I recently read some allegedly accurate statistics about the VN War and it is amazing how misconceptions about the war have proliferated.



There was something about the 60s and 70s that made us very ashamed of VN - completely forgetting Korea before that, and also the many good reasons for being there.

Probably better reasons that Iraq of Afghanistan

I think we have completely forgotten to highlight the many successes by the US and its allies such as :-

Australian SAS - and Austrlian centurion tanks that performed remarkably well

Korean Tigers


----------



## The Fudgie Ghost (Feb 4, 2010)

How many people could be put in the Skyraider's rear compartment? On another board, someone stated that you could get 12 people in there. . . Is that correct?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2010)

The Fudgie Ghost said:


> How many people could be put in the Skyraider's rear compartment? On another board, someone stated that you could get 12 people in there. . . Is that correct?



If it was a "greenhouse" model - possibly. Some variants had a compartment on the side of the fuselage that sat one person - a radar operator.


----------



## The Fudgie Ghost (Feb 5, 2010)

Yes. I know about the models with the hatch---there are some pictures up at this other board showing the interior of this space. One of the photo's shows two seats. . .but it looks pretty tight. 

I can't imagine getting a dozen people in there. I looked up on Wiki, but I found nothing there. I came here figuring there would be people who know definitely one way or the other. .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2010)

I had a high school teacher that flew in AD4s as a radar operator. He told me there was barely enough room in the radar compartment for one person.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 11, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I had a high school teacher that flew in AD4s as a radar operator. He told me there was barely enough room in the radar compartment for one person.



The ones sold the Brit Fleet Air-arm and RAF were like that. You can see one or two preserved examples - with hatch - at Duxford IWM Museum.

BTW have you ever seen the Coal Hole in the Sea-Vixen or the PR Canberra ? 

Its amazing - you are 30,000 feet up but you never see the light and you can hardly swing a cat, or more at all !


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 12, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> ...Can anyone comment on the oil consumption of large radials ...?
> 
> MM


Not sure exactly what the consumption was on the SkyRaider, but the Martin Mars Hawaii has similiar engines (Pratt Whitney R3350-24WA) and they burn over 2 gallons an hour per engine.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Feb 12, 2010)

Cool pic GG. 8)


Wheels


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> The ones sold the Brit Fleet Air-arm and RAF were like that. You can see one or two preserved examples - with hatch - at Duxford IWM Museum.
> 
> BTW have you ever seen the Coal Hole in the Sea-Vixen or the PR Canberra ?
> 
> Its amazing - you are 30,000 feet up but you never see the light and you can hardly swing a cat, or more at all !



I've seen a Canberra an yes, very similar!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure exactly what the consumption was on the SkyRaider, but the Martin Mars Hawaii has similiar engines (Pratt Whitney R3350-24WA) and they burn over 2 gallons an hour per engine.


That's wrong my friend..

2 gallon an hour per engine would equal 8 gallons - what a Cessna 182 burns.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 12, 2010)

Even at 2gal/min that about 1000lbs of fuel consumed per engine per hour.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 13, 2010)

MM asked about the *oil* consumption of the round...


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 13, 2010)

Oops...


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 13, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've seen a Canberra an yes, very similar!



In fact the Nose Cone would _swing open _to let the photo-op wriggle in and out (I think that is right but correct me if I am wrong)

Now, my question is this, in the event of a bail-out how much chance does he have of making it out ?

[not much I suspect]


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 13, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's wrong my friend..
> 
> 2 gallon an hour per engine would equal 8 gallons - what a Cessna 182 burns.



I see a lot of aviation IC engines as essentially 'Lost Oil' engines - not even _trying_ to conserve oil loss - or that is how it seems

Imagine if a car burned oil like that ? Well I suppose that a diesel is also technically an 'oil-burner' but you know what I mean


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> In fact the Nose Cone would _swing open _to let the photo-op wriggle in and out (I think that is right but correct me if I am wrong)
> 
> Now, my question is this, in the event of a bail-out how much chance does he have of making it out ?
> 
> [not much I suspect]



The one I seen had a glass nose and the cremember crawled into the area through a small hatch on the side of the fuselage. I would say chances of getting out are slim and none durng an emergency.



Cromwell said:


> I see a lot of aviation IC engines as essentially 'Lost Oil' engines - not even _trying_ to conserve oil loss - or that is how it seems
> 
> Imagine if a car burned oil like that ? Well I suppose that a diesel is also technically an 'oil-burner' but you know what I mean



The Rolls Royce Viper is a lost oil engine. The L-29 I crewed at Reno with the Viper engine burned about a pint every flight, but that included being operated at 103% for 6 minutes.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 14, 2010)

Thanks GrauGeist. I'll take your answer (albeit on the Mars) as as close as I'll get to an answer 

"...Not sure exactly what the consumption was on the SkyRaider, but the Martin Mars Hawaii has similiar engines (Pratt Whitney R3350-24WA) and they burn over 2 gallons an hour per engine."

16 gal per eight hour mission....

MM


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 14, 2010)

Well, I've been told that the Skyraider was an oil-slinger too...

What the Mars' engines didn't burn, they slobbered all over the wings (as seen in the photo) and you don't want to be anywhere under the wings after it's been operated! (unless you're planning on getting degreased in the near future)


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 15, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, I've been told that the Skyraider was an oil-slinger too...
> 
> What the Mars' engines didn't burn, they slobbered all over the wings (as seen in the photo) and you don't want to be anywhere under the wings after it's been operated! (unless you're planning on getting degreased in the near future)



Call me simple (yes I know - its true) but is there not something _Wrong_ with an engine that cannot 'hold its waters' so to speak.

Is it to do with a. High tolerances on the parts because, hey, its a big engine anyhow - and so let the extra CI or Litres of capacity make up for the lack of machining precision

and b. Mixing alloy components with cast iron lumps ? i.e. different rates of expansion leading to gaps opening and closing 


But then again, I heard the SR71 used to leak like a sieve until it reached operating temperatures in flight

I understand the put trays underneath to collect the Jet-gas that poured out after it was refuelled on the ground.

( Imagine that - and then having to get into it and light it up so to speak - amazing it did not just fire-ball straight off the start up )


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The one I seen had a glass nose and the cremember crawled into the area through a small hatch on the side of the fuselage. I would say chances of getting out are slim and none durng an emergency.
> 
> The Rolls Royce Viper is a lost oil engine. The L-29 I crewed at Reno with the Viper engine burned about a pint every flight, but that included being operated at 103% for 6 minutes.




Is that the Albatross - the Czech one ? So it deliberately forced out some oil under pressure I suppose, a bit like the Gland on the prop shaft of ships I am guessing.

Did it really use a Viper engine (licence build I suppose) - wow, I thought that was consigned to the Shackleton for Jet Assist take-off

BTW is it true that some Jet-engines use high-pressure air to lubricate the rear bearings on the turbines in the efflux at the rear, due to high temps ?


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> But then again, I heard the SR71 used to leak like a sieve until it reached operating temperatures in flight
> 
> I understand the put trays underneath to collect the Jet-gas that poured out after it was refuelled on the ground.
> 
> ( Imagine that - and then having to get into it and light it up so to speak - amazing it did not just fire-ball straight off the start up )



Different animal Crom. The Blackbird had fuel cells that were specifically engineered to be under "sealing" tolerance at static operating (fueling) temperatures. When operating at Mach 3.4 to 3.6 (yes not 3.2 as common quoted, I meant to say that), areas of the fuselage would often encounter up to 900F temps and internally the fuel cells would expand and seal.

They also used a proprietary low flash point fuel.

But back to the Spad... I have read that they often went through 32gals of oil in a single mission. I suspect that was a tradeoff of huge horsepower vs minimizing maintenance. The tolerances necessary to prevent oil loss on such a powerful radial engine would likely result in VERY short MTBO figures.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Is that the Albatross - the Czech one ? So it deliberately forced out some oil under pressure I suppose, a bit like the Gland on the prop shaft of ships I am guessing.
> 
> Did it really use a Viper engine (licence build I suppose) - wow, I thought that was consigned to the Shackleton for Jet Assist take-off
> 
> BTW is it true that some Jet-engines use high-pressure air to lubricate the rear bearings on the turbines in the efflux at the rear, due to high temps ?


Actually it was a Delfin, L-29. the very first one built by the Czechs flew with a viper engine. After the test flights the Czechs put their own de-rated engine in aircraft as it was going to be a trainer. Some folks picked up on this and got their hands on a Viper and shoved it into an L-29 - 100 mph faster.

The one that I have crewed at Reno has a Viper 601. We could get about 530 mph out of it. There are several models of the engine, ours is out of a Hawker 125.

Never came across turbine bearings being lubed with high pressure air...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 15, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Different animal Crom. The Blackbird had fuel cells that were specifically engineered to be under "sealing" tolerance at static operating (fueling) temperatures. When operating at Mach 3.4 to 3.6 (yes not 3.2 as common quoted, I meant to say that), areas of the fuselage would often encounter up to 900F temps and internally the fuel cells would expand and seal.
> 
> They also used a proprietary low flash point fuel.
> 
> But back to the Spad... I have read that they often went through 32gals of oil in a single mission. I suspect that was a tradeoff of huge horsepower vs minimizing maintenance. The tolerances necessary to prevent oil loss on such a powerful radial engine would likely result in VERY short MTBO figures.



32 Gallons? DAM!


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Feb 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Call me simple (yes I know - its true) but is there not something _Wrong_ with an engine that cannot 'hold its waters' so to speak.
> 
> Is it to do with a. High tolerances on the parts because, hey, its a big engine anyhow - and so let the extra CI or Litres of capacity make up for the lack of machining precision
> 
> ...



Crommwell, your rite about the SR-71. I've seen one in my lifetime at Langley Airforce Base and if had several 5 gallon buckets under it catching fuel.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Feb 15, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Different animal Crom. The Blackbird had fuel cells that were specifically engineered to be under "sealing" tolerance at static operating (fueling) temperatures. When operating at Mach 3.4 to 3.6 (yes not 3.2 as common quoted, I meant to say that), areas of the fuselage would often encounter up to 900F temps and internally the fuel cells would expand and seal.
> 
> They also used a proprietary low flash point fuel.
> 
> But back to the Spad... I have read that they often went through 32gals of oil in a single mission. I suspect that was a tradeoff of huge horsepower vs minimizing maintenance. The tolerances necessary to prevent oil loss on such a powerful radial engine would likely result in VERY short MTBO figures.



The fuel for the most part was a hi-grade kerosene was it not Matt?


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 16, 2010)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> Crommwell, your rite about the SR-71. I've seen one in my lifetime at Langley Airforce Base and if had several 5 gallon buckets under it catching fuel.



Imagine climbing into one of those - half way up the steps - hang on - its leaking buckets of kerosene ! oh well lets just light em up, I am sure it will be OK - Ho hum another day at the office !

Wow - I have a diesel car, so, wait, if I worked in USAAF maintenance I could just tip the buckets into my car and never pay for fuel again !

BTW the SR71 engines I believe would gradually change from being 'classic' Turbojets to _*Ram-jets *_at higher speed ?

I mean there is no way an ordinary jet would chomp along at Mach 3.6 without stalling 

Or am I talking rubbish again ? (NOBODY answer that one or even agree thank you - Joking of course, I am a big softy at heart)


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 16, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Different animal Crom. The Blackbird had fuel cells that were specifically engineered to be under "sealing" tolerance at static operating (fueling) temperatures. When operating at Mach 3.4 to 3.6 (yes not 3.2 as common quoted, I meant to say that), areas of the fuselage would often encounter up to 900F temps and internally the fuel cells would expand and seal.
> 
> They also used a proprietary low flash point fuel.
> 
> But back to the Spad... I have read that they often went through 32gals of oil in a single mission. I suspect that was a tradeoff of huge horsepower vs minimizing maintenance. The tolerances necessary to prevent oil loss on such a powerful radial engine would likely result in VERY short MTBO figures.



When I read your posts, I think that the designers in both cases had to make a major Trade-Off !!

As in "Does it leak ? - Yep bucket-loads - does it work ? - Yep sure does - OK good enough, lets start production rolling"

32 Gallons - that is er, _*32 Fricking GALLONS man !!!!*_

Lord save the planet


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The one I seen had a glass nose and the cremember crawled into the area through a small hatch on the side of the fuselage. I would say chances of getting out are slim and none durng an emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Rolls Royce Viper is a lost oil engine. The L-29 I crewed at Reno with the Viper engine burned about a pint every flight, but that included being operated at 103% for 6 minutes.


----------

