Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Yes they were both pretty much called the same thing, so its an understandable confusion.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I always associate the Fedden Mission as a investigation of aero engines in occupied Germany. Fedden wrote an article on Flight Global on these engines of enormous value to historians and non of his abrasiveness came through.
Was Fedden related to L.J. K. Setright? They seem to be the same person in different eras.Yes they were both pretty much called the same thing, so its an understandable confusion.
View attachment 613579
View attachment 613580
The Hercules was in production until 1968 when Rolls-Royce took over, and they refused the orders they received.P & W post war production of R-2800s helps explain the longevity/dominance of American engine engines in the commercial market.
1946-472
1947-1172
1948-956
1949-478
1950-546
1951-817
1952-1056
1953-2522
1954-2086
1955-764
1956-583
1957-691
1958-384
1959-3
1960-7
over 12,500 R-2800 engines.
I find it interesting that there are many who criticise the complicated, unreliable Hercules and there are quite a few examples of pilots flew them and mechanics who worked on them who say they are amazing reliable and easy to work on.
I wonder how the postwar SNECMA-manufactured Bristol Hercules 738 used on France's Nord Noratlas differed from the British-made engines.There were a number of different Hercules engines. Post war commercial engines may be a lot different than 1940-41 engines.
So 1.600 Bristol-powered types...compared to over 16,000 DC-3s. The DC-3 was, and remains, an all-time great aircraft and it was built in such huge quantities that there was always a plentiful spares supply. Economies of scale likely had a much greater impact on what so many DC-3s survived compared to other types, and hence why Curtiss and P&W engines were around a lot longer than Bristols. It's a lot easier to keep a type airborne if it's one of a production run of 16,000 compared to a production run of 425 for the most-produced of the types you listed. Again, you're not going to fit Bristols to a DC-3 if you have a plentiful supply of Curtiss or P&W alternatives...and there was that plentiful supply. Quantity has a quality all its own.
That's a name I haven't heard for a while.Was Fedden related to L.J. K. Setright? They seem to be the same person in different eras.
The Pegasus powered Sunderlands seem to have been a bit short on power. Aside from this, Lumsden's book mentions that operation over a significant range of rpm was not recommended because of vibration issues. It seems that it was necessary to run these engines more or less continuously at full throttle.Well, let's face it, folks. When the first PBY purchased by the British arrived in the U.K. a reporter attending the event said that it could not have flown very far because the nacelles were not covered with oil.
When the Short Sunderland Mk V came out the crews were delighted to find they could complete one of their long missions and come back with all four engines still running.
British radials often did not inspire confidence.
I suppose that's why the Blenheims were crated and shipped to Malaya rather than flown there, despite Britain having the necessary airfields. Here's the route, just ignore the stop in Lisbon needed to force the route to avoid Spain. Total 10,000 miles, at 198 mph cruise speed will require about fifty hours of flight time. Any reliable and well-designed radial would handle fifty flight hours without needing a tear down at the final destination.
No British engine inspires confidence. I had a 1969 Triumph twin, and while over 11 years of I loved that bike, I could never trust it.
His silliness just used to make me laugh, I gave up reading his "output" when he started arguing the huge positives of half ton motorcycles.That's a name I haven't heard for a while.
Was that the motorcycle that in one magazine referred to as the dumbest car ever built? I can't remember the name of bike. They wrote that it's a car that falls down in a car wash. It even had a reverse gear as it was so large.His silliness just used to make me laugh, I gave up reading his "output" when he started arguing the huge positives of half ton motorcycles.
He wrote all sorts of crap, I know some bikes did have reverse gears because they were made for side-cars. The article I was talking about was a lot of nonsense about un-sprung weight, weight and traction etc. Even in cars you don't increase cornering speed by increasing weight but he had his engineering principles like a latter day Fedder. At the time I was still recovering from an accident, if my Suzuki 380 fell over I couldn't pick it up back on its wheels. With a bike weighing half a ton, nothing could ever go wrong, coz you cant put it right.Was that the motorcycle that in one magazine referred to as the dumbest car ever built? I can't remember the name of bike. They wrote that it's a car that falls down in a car wash. It even had a reverse gear as it was so large.
He referred to his wife as "Lady Pam", right?
I know this was in jest, but is there Costal Command data available that indicates reliability (or lack there-of) of the Pegasus? (Waddington effect comes to mind, but I don't think it gives engine reliability data.)When the Short Sunderland Mk V came out the crews were delighted to find they could complete one of their long missions and come back with all four engines still running.
He wrote all sorts of crap, I know some bikes did have reverse gears because they were made for side-cars. The article I was talking about was a lot of nonsense about un-sprung weight, weight and traction etc. Even in cars you don't increase cornering speed by increasing weight but he had his engineering principles like a latter day Fedder. At the time I was still recovering from an accident, if my Suzuki 380 fell over I couldn't pick it up back on its wheels. With a bike weighing half a ton, nothing could ever go wrong, coz you cant put it right.
Sadly, we'll never know how it would have performed as a fighter - the most favoured design for the 4 x 20mm cannon spec. was the Boulton Paul P.88. The 'P.88a was the Hercules powered version, with the P.88b powered by a Vulture engine.. Apparently the Air Ministry ordered one prototype of each, but the Treasury didn't have the funds for all six prototypes selected - so in the event only the Whirlwind was proceeded with.
.
Thank you for a link to the artist. His stuff is new to me and I'm always interested in discovering new aviation artists (new to me at least).Bristol Type 153, intended for the cannon-fighter spec won by the Whirlwind, but never built.
View attachment 613419
Picture by John Dell: John Dell's Aviation Art
Sounds like a group build theme.Was that the Quasar bike. It had a wheezy Reliant engine, a tubular frame that looked like it was welded by a blind man on a trampoline, acres of wobbly crack prone glass fibre and a windscreen wiper that flew off at regular intervals.