Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was taught ultrasonic testing by a guy who pioneered it post war, his name still thows up results on google searches, C.J. Abrahams. Once in the practical class a guy said "I have found a defect" and got a prompt slap "upside the head". Mr Abrahams informed his student that he had found an indication, it is engineers who decide what is a defect, not technicians.Reminds me of the crusty old Chief Avionics Technician who woke us up on the first morning of antennas and transmission lines phase in A School.
"Any you maggots got any clue to what the letters F M stand for?"
(Class hotshot): "Sure, Chief that's Frequency Modulation, where the carrier wave is modu--"
"Wrong, Sailor! You believe that bullpucky? What, you some kinda engineer or somethin? Any right thinkin' tweet knows it stands for f--kin' magic! You think those test rigs them engineers design with all their fancy formulas actually WORK when they build 'em? 'Course not! They tweak this and try that, and finally go back to their drawin' boards in disgust and tell the techs to tear down and dispose of the rig. Well no tech worth his salt tears down a perfectly good rig without first applying a little "FM" just to see what might happen. Sooner or later, word filters up to Engineering that the techs have a new toy down in the shop, and it works good. That, son, is F. M.!"
The jump from theory to function can be a big one and seldom goes as planned.
Cheers,
Wes
On a dark, pitching, wet, windswept deck, you're third in line for catapult two, on a hot scramble with bogies inbound and your AI radar fails its BIT checks, you've got more than an INDICATION! And no engineers to be found; you better hope your tech has his FM on.it is engineers who decide what is a defect, not technicians.
As for funding, the hyper program was funded by the USAAC Materiel Division. The basic cylinder was developed by Sam Heron at Wright Field, Ohio.
Who did you think funded them?
That makes more sense actually...
Well you said USAAC Material Division...
As for the cylinder-design: Why not just use an off the shelf cylinder while the new one is being developed? It might require restrictions on the engine, but at least the rest of the machinery can be run and ironed out.
I understand that they funded them, but if you have budgetary problems -- you either have to throttle back all designs you have (and if you have a lot, all go to a crawl), throttle back some selectively (and risk getting accused of impropriety), or cut some designs and allocate funding to the best.
So it had to go up a lot of layers to make approval or rejection; then go back down all those layers?
Also, was this a 1-way system (Army tells them what to do, the company does it), or 2-way (Army tells them what to do, Company does it; Company submits ideas of their own/Army listens and tells them yes/no).
I'm still surprised it took them so long to realize other engine developments at the time (NACA cowling for starters, improved radiator designs) meant the flat cylinder was unneded.
Yeah...In any case, I should have just said the USAAC funded the programs.
That's a good point: I just was wondering if it was possible to use off the shelf components.What existing cylinder?
Okay, so Lycoming was partially on internal funds, and later on USAAC funding?In the beginning there was only the Continental hyper engine supported by the USAAC. Lycoming started their development a year or two later, using their own funds for development until the USAAC started funding them a few years later.
Which engine was this?Chrysler started their program some years later, not sure how they were funded.
Okay...In any case, the USAAC was initially funding only one hyper engine for the first few years.
Did this have to reach Congress each time?I don't know about the number of "layers", but funding had to be approved before Continental would move onto the next development stage.
That's goodMost likely 2 way, but he who signs the check has the last say.
And the nacelle protrusion was minimal so it wasn't worth it. When did they realize this?The theory with flat engines was that the engine could be buried in the wing of a multi-engine aircraft, and only a small protrusion carrying the prop shaft would be external. The theory was that the drag would be reduced in this manner.
Different fields and different discussions. What is a problem in one place, is not in others but sometimes is a disaster one time and one place. With regard to my post , what is defective is decided by engineers, I attach a link discussing a 6 inch crack in a pipeline. There is, I would stake my life on it no crack, especially a 6 inch crack in any pipeline. All pipe line specs are simple in this regard "No cracks are allowed" and that doesn't have a minimum size limit. On an operating pipe line no cracks can be allowed but in other areas of pipeline technology like pump stations they are allowed up to a certain limit and other technologies are developed to cope or monitor. The previously mentioned C.J. Abrahams developed fixed ultrasonic systems which monitor cracks to see if they are propagating or "as built" in a casting.On a dark, pitching, wet, windswept deck, you're third in line for catapult two, on a hot scramble with bogies inbound and your AI radar fails its BIT checks, you've got more than an INDICATION! And no engineers to be found; you better hope your tech has his FM on.
Cheers,
Wes
Did this have to reach Congress each time?
ThanksDoubt it went to Congress at all, except, maybe, for yearly appropriations.
That engine started development in 1940: Which seems well after the Continental O-1230/IV-1430 and Lycoming O-1230 designs; Pratt & Whitney submitted several ideas as well right?
I'm curious about two things: Firstly, how did the USN compare? Secondly: Could the US Army alter the contract partway along?The Army's "method" of funding these programs was to specify a certain goal or performance level. Like saying a test cylinder had to run at a certain level of power for a specified time. Let's assume a goal 75hp for the cylinder (ultimate goal would be about 100hp per cylinder) for 20 hours. If the engine failed ( broke connecting rod for example) at the 19th hour the Army would pay nothing until the engine was repaired, rebuilt and the test started again from zero hours and successfully completed. No extra funds would be paid for the rebuild or the extra hours of testing. Then the Army could decide the next test would be at the same level of power for more hours or raise the power level or decide that a bigger valves are required or some other change and issue a new contract with details of the new test. You could have a number of different tests/contracts in one year.
Why?Army apparently didn't think of the complications of sticking 6 pairs of cylinders together. To be fair a lot of engine designers failed to appreciate the complexities of adding cylinders or running engines at different rpms that originally designed for.
Perhaps it wasn't immediately obvious that a demo of one or two cylinders working on a test bed gave very limited information on how a complete engine would work at 25,000 ft.The Army's "method" of funding these programs was to specify a certain goal or performance level. Like saying a test cylinder had to run at a certain level of power for a specified time. Let's assume a goal 75hp for the cylinder (ultimate goal would be about 100hp per cylinder) for 20 hours. If the engine failed ( broke connecting rod for example) at the 19th hour the Army would pay nothing until the engine was repaired, rebuilt and the test started again from zero hours and successfully completed. No extra funds would be paid for the rebuild or the extra hours of testing. Then the Army could decide the next test would be at the same level of power for more hours or raise the power level or decide that a bigger valves are required or some other change and issue a new contract with details of the new test. You could have a number of different tests/contracts in one year.
Anything over and above what the Army wanted/ was willing to pay for, was at the manufacturer's risk. Like building a two cylinder test rig, very useful for figuring out the crankthrow and connecting rods on any engine using two cylinders per crankthrow. Army did move to two cylinder test rigs.
Army apparently didn't think of the complications of sticking 6 pairs of cylinders together. To be fair a lot of engine designers failed to appreciate the complexities of adding cylinders or running engines at different rpms that originally designed for. Or the fact that higher rpm engines over more opportunity for harmonic vibration. As a result the army didn't "fund" a 12 cylinder engine until very late in the development cycle.
Perhaps it wasn't immediately obvious that a demo of one or two cylinders working on a test bed gave very limited information on how a complete engine would work at 25,000 ft.
Let me guess. The test mule was fed compressed air at room temperature and the mule wasn't driving the compressor?Or even at all.
Cue the Ford V-1650 - two cylinder test mule worked great, however the complete V12 produced less than half of projected power.
There was only one engine called "HYPER" and that was the Continental I-1430. This turm has since come to mean any of the high performance liquid cooled engine of the period. But no period document will do so.
It should be noted that, unlike the other liquid cooled engines, the I-1430 was actually designed by the army. Continental was a subcontractor hired to build and develop the engine. This is why they spent four years on single cylinder testing. There was a considerable amount of extra red tape in the way.
I don't doubt that at all, I was just making the point about the scale of research needed. Research may be based on single or twin cylinder prototypes but not just one and that research just gives background info for a multi cylinder engine.Engine development starts with a single cylinder development engine to this day.
The Crecy was based on Ricardo's single cylinder test engine, though with some changes.
The V2 development engines were produced to test the sleeve drive mechanism, which could not be done with a single cylinder engine. At least the first V2 was before the first V12.
There was only one engine called "HYPER" and that was the Continental I-1430. This turm has since come to mean any of the high performance liquid cooled engine of the period. But no period document will do so.
It should be noted that, unlike the other liquid cooled engines, the I-1430 was actually designed by the army. Continental was a subcontractor hired to build and develop the engine. This is why they spent four years on single cylinder testing. There was a considerable amount of extra red tape in the way.