Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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....Can anyone comment on the oil consumption of large radials ...?
MM
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 !
That's wrong my friend..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.
I've seen a Canberra an yes, very similar!
That's wrong my friend..
2 gallon an hour per engine would equal 8 gallons - what a Cessna 182 burns.
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]
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
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)
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.
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 )
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.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 ?
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.
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 )
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.