Who likes the Sea Fury ?

[Phil Allison]

Hi,

super high def vid and spectacular flying by an ex RAN Sea Fury.

Hawker's (belated) reply to the Supermarine Spitfire.

Enjoyed watching one displayed at Scone in the late 1980s - climbed like a lonely angel and was soooo very quiet, even at full power and low to the ground. Woooooshhhhh......

Sleeve valve, radial engine being the main reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsujZ6994g&t=549s



..... Phil

[Xeno]

On 28/6/20 11:12 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> super high def vid and spectacular flying by an ex RAN Sea Fury.
>
> Hawker's (belated) reply to the Supermarine Spitfire.
>
> Enjoyed watching one displayed at Scone in the late 1980s - climbed like a lonely angel and was soooo very quiet, even at full power and low to the ground. Woooooshhhhh......
>
> Sleeve valve, radial engine being the main reason.

Bullshit. It was the power to weight ratio that effected the high climb
performance.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsujZ6994g&t=549s
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
The sleeve valve engine had a number of advantages *in the era* of its
heyday. Volumetric efficiency being the main one. These advantages
disappeared when sodium cooled poppet valves entered the scene along
with higher octane fuels. The disadvantages, however, were many.
Complexity in the valve operating mechanism was one such and complexity
means less reliability, not a desirable attribute in an aircraft engine.
Another disadvantage being high oil consumption along with relatively
low *reliable* RPM limits. Cars with sleeve valve engines, and I've seen
a few, were always noticeable for their wispy trails of blue smoke in
the exhaust. The single sleeve engine in the Seafury did improve the oil
consumption markedly over its predecessor, the double sleeve, but it was
still quite significant.
Once the sodium cooled valves became available and valve materials more
heat resistant, the advantages of the sleeve valve were hugely
outweighed and all development stopped.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Phil Allison]

Fuck off MORON TROLL Xeno :


---------------------------

> > Hi,
> >
> > super high def vid and spectacular flying by an ex RAN Sea Fury.
> >
> > Hawker's (belated) reply to the Supermarine Spitfire.
> >
> > Enjoyed watching one displayed at Scone in the late 1980s - climbed like a lonely angel and was soooo very quiet, even at full power and low to the ground. Woooooshhhhh......
> >
> > Sleeve valve, radial engine being the main reason.
>
> Bullshit.
>

** Fact, you illiterate retard.

Sleeve valve, radial engines are smooth very quiet.

Rest of you bullshit flushed were it belongs.


..... Phil

[Xeno]

That wasn't the point in dispute.

>
> Rest of you bullshit flushed were it belongs.
>
>
> ..... Phil
>

[Phil Allison]

Xeno is a fucking IDIOT wrote:

>
> That wasn't the point in dispute.
> >
>

** There was no such point to dispute - fuckwit.

[Xeno]

Whatsamatta Phil? Getting lonely in here by yourself?

[keithr0]

Bristol Hercules timing gears

http://bristol-hercules.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8-June-2014-009.jpg

For those who don't know, the Hercules is a sleeve valve radial engine
similar to the Centurus that powered the Fury. The main advantage of a
sleeve valve radial is that it is more compact than one with valves in
the culinderhead.

[Phil Allison]

keithr0 wrote more absurd bullshit:

------------------------------

>
>
> For those who don't know, the Hercules is a sleeve valve radial engine
> similar to the Centurus that powered the Fury.
>

** But 4 less cylinders, 1/2 the power and 13L smaller.

> The main advantage of a
> sleeve valve radial is that it is more compact than one with valves in
> the culinderhead.
>

** Not true, HP for HP they are near the same diameter.

Both are good, but warplanes fitted with sleeve valve engines regularly earned the title: Whispering Death.



..... Phil

[Xeno]

An awful lot of complexity there. Given they are straight cut gears,
they must generate a hell of a noise - no doubt drowned out by the
exhaust noise.

>
> For those who don't know, the Hercules is a sleeve valve radial engine
> similar to the Centurus that powered the Fury. The main advantage of a
> sleeve valve radial is that it is more compact than one with valves in
> the culinderhead.

[Lindsay]

Oh look. Tomas has been to google again.... Jesus, what a silly old
broken down auto mechanic will do to try and gain relevance... (shakes
head..) Oh, I forgot, you know all about any engine.... except when
called to task, and you ran away... remember your vomit about 4 stroke
outboard oil injection removal kits, and you suddenly became an outboard
expert, but suddenly with no answers?

I do, you silly old relevance deprived cunt.


--
First xeno says "They were deleted. Noddy deleted them".
Then he was asked to show the threads the deleted posts were in.
"I know where the threads are. The posts are no longer there." he said.
So show us the threads, we asked. This is where he goes real quiet..
Then we laughed at the liar who snookered himself with his own lies :-D
"I have redressed it and it's no longer an issue. Simple as that."

[Lindsay]

On 29/06/2020 1:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 29/6/20 1:29 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>   Xeno is a fucking IDIOT wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That wasn't the point in dispute.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ** There was no such point to dispute - fuckwit.
>>
> Whatsamatta Phil? Getting lonely in here by yourself?

So why have you re-appeared here, Tomas Clasener?

Got sick of being slapped stupid in aus.cars, thought you'd ply your
googling expertise in here? Again, Jesus, anyone would need to
re-evaluate their position after this:

> Phil Allison wrote:

PA: "The voice recorder quite probably contains nothing useful, because
it records only for a limited time."

Xeno: "It will show *how* the plane ended its flight and that is the
significant finding - manual control or autopilot plus fuel
levels/engine operational status." 19/01/17

PA: "** No way will the CVR ever do that."

Xeno: "The CVR, no, it's not intended to do that."

PA: "Then why did you say it could ??"

And then the "silence"...

Whataflog, Tomas. :-D

[Lindsay]

Wow. Whooopee! So what? Never heard of a stealth Herc...

Have you overdosed on your medication? Or stopped taking it?

>> For those who don't know, the Hercules is a sleeve valve radial engine
>> similar to the Centurus that powered the Fury. The main advantage of a
>> sleeve valve radial is that it is more compact than one with valves in
>> the culinderhead.
>
>


--

[keithr0]

On 6/29/2020 5:18 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> keithr0 wrote more excellent information:

>
> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> For those who don't know, the Hercules is a sleeve valve radial engine
>> similar to the Centurus that powered the Fury.
>>
>
> ** But 4 less cylinders, 1/2 the power and 13L smaller.

I said similar not the same, it is a Bristol sleeve valve radial, the
internal design is very similar.

>> The main advantage of a
>> sleeve valve radial is that it is more compact than one with valves in
>> the culinderhead.
>>
>
> ** Not true, HP for HP they are near the same diameter.

At our museum we have a Hercules and a Pratt and Whitney R2000, a
similar 14 cylinder 2 bank radial, the R2000 is distinctly bigger in

[Phil Allison]

keithr0 is so full of shit wrote:


=================================

> >>
> >> For those who don't know, the Hercules is a sleeve valve radial engine
> >> similar to the Centurus that powered the Fury.
> >>
> >
> > ** But 4 less cylinders, 1/2 the power and 13L smaller.
>
> I said similar not the same,
>

** And I removed the ambiguity in your words as to what was similar.

>
> >> The main advantage of a
> >> sleeve valve radial is that it is more compact than one with valves in
> >> the culinderhead.
> >>
> >
> > ** Not true, HP for HP they are near the same diameter.
>
> At our museum we have a Hercules and a Pratt and Whitney R2000, a
> similar 14 cylinder 2 bank radial, the R2000 is distinctly bigger in
> diameter.
>

** OK, and the comparable R2800 is the very near the same diameter the Centurus, has same number of cylinders but slightly less powerful. QED.

The advantages of the sleeve valve design area many, but that is not one.

FFS go look it up.


..... Phi

[Xeno]

There might well have been design advantages in the past but there
haven't been any for 60 or 70 years now. The poppet valve is ubiquitous
and reigns supreme, the sleeve valve - relegated to the dust of history.

[keithr0]

Nobody uses radials these days, even many old originally radial powered
planes have been converted to turbos.

[Daryl]

Getting rarer but Buffalo Airways in Canada's North West Territories
still commercially use radials on their DC3's and Curtis C46's,
apparently their biggest problem isn't the engines but a shortage of Avgas.
They also lease Basler turbine DC3's but don't own any because of the cost.
Still lots of radials around but mostly museums and private use of old
warbirds.


--
Daryl

[Phil Allison]

Daryl wrote:

============

>
> >
> > Nobody uses radials these days, even many old originally radial powered
> > planes have been converted to turbos.
>
>
> Getting rarer but Buffalo Airways in Canada's North West Territories
> still commercially use radials on their DC3's and Curtis C46's,
> apparently their biggest problem isn't the engines but a shortage of Avgas.
> They also lease Basler turbine DC3's but don't own any because of the cost.

** There is no cargo transport cheaper to operate or more versatile than a DC3. You know the famous saying.

> Still lots of radials around but mostly museums and private use of old
> warbirds.
>

** Google tells me round about 1000 DC3s are still airworthy - nearly all with their big radial engines.

I can still remember details of my trip to Launceston in a creaking TAA DC6B.


.... Phil

[Daryl]

On 1/7/20 6:51 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
> ============
>>
>>>
>>> Nobody uses radials these days, even many old originally radial powered
>>> planes have been converted to turbos.
>>
>>
>> Getting rarer but Buffalo Airways in Canada's North West Territories
>> still commercially use radials on their DC3's and Curtis C46's,
>> apparently their biggest problem isn't the engines but a shortage of Avgas.
>> They also lease Basler turbine DC3's but don't own any because of the cost.
>
> ** There is no cargo transport cheaper to operate or more versatile than a DC3. You know the famous saying.

Especially so in remote areas like Canada's NWT that have short gravel
runways where most jets can't operate.

>
>> Still lots of radials around but mostly museums and private use of old
>> warbirds.
>>
>
> ** Google tells me round about 1000 DC3s are still airworthy - nearly all with their big radial engines.
>
> I can still remember details of my trip to Launceston in a creaking TAA DC6B.

Never flown in a radial equipped aircraft but I would certainly like to.


--
Daryl

[keithr0]

There are plenty of old radial powered aircraft around, but there hasn't
been a new radial powered design for years, and many of the old ones
have been turboed usually with PT-6 engines. Smaller, lighter, more
economical, and much much less maintenance.

There is an exception, Sukhoi still make small radial powered aerobatic
aircraft, but the designs are 30+ years old.

[Phil Allison]

keithr0 is a cluless pommy LIAR wrote:

=====================================

>
>
> There are plenty of old radial powered aircraft around, but there hasn't
> been a new radial powered design for years, and many of the old ones
> have been turboed usually with PT-6 engines. Smaller, lighter, more
> economical, and much much less maintenance.
>

** More stupid lies - those claims are merely for the jet engines.

Cost of a complete DC3 jet *conversion* is almost US$4,000,000 !!!!!

The result goes barely any faster and no further while a very good condition normal DC3 sells for under US$1M.

https://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/AircraftOperatingCosts/671/Basler+BT-67-DC3+Conversion

> There is an exception, Sukhoi still make small radial powered aerobatic
> aircraft,

** And what a stunning design the Sokoi 26 is - saw one at Shoefields in 1981 as part of the world aerobatic championships flown by Russian Victor Smolin.

Pure aerial ballet accompanied by the sweetest, slow revving piston engine sound you ever heard.


..... Phil

[Daryl]

On 1/7/20 9:43 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> keithr0 is a cluless pommy LIAR wrote:
>
> =====================================
>>
>>
>> There are plenty of old radial powered aircraft around, but there hasn't
>> been a new radial powered design for years, and many of the old ones
>> have been turboed usually with PT-6 engines. Smaller, lighter, more
>> economical, and much much less maintenance.
>>
>
> ** More stupid lies - those claims are merely for the jet engines.
>
> Cost of a complete DC3 jet *conversion* is almost US$4,000,000 !!!!!
>
> The result goes barely any faster and no further while a very good condition normal DC3 sells for under US$1M.
>
> https://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/AircraftOperatingCosts/671/Basler+BT-67-DC3+Conversion

Cost is certainly a factor but the availability of Avgas in remote areas
is why operating large petrol engine d commercial aircraft is becoming a
problem.
Maintenance cost is also an issue, there is no doubt the Basler is
better in many ways than a DC3 but the question for operators is are the
benefits worth 4+ times the price?
Only someone in the market for that sort of aircraft can answer that
question and its dependent of their particular intended use.
"Plane Savers" YouTube channel is produced by Mikey McBryan who is the
general manager of Buffalo Airways and he frequently gets asked why they
don't own any Baslers and the answer is always the buy price.
They also have one of the worlds largest stocks of DC3 parts plus
mechanics very experienced on that type so it makes sense for them to
continue using radials but not everyone is the same boat.



--
Daryl

[Rod Speed]

"Daryl" <dwal...@westpine.com.au> wrote in message
news:hm2uqe...@mid.individual.net...

Weird operation. It would be interesting
to see a full breakdown of their financials.

[Daryl]

They are certainly unusual, they have stated their reasons for
continuing with those aircraft many times on the "Plane Savers" YouTube
channel and its mostly cost in that its cheaper to keep operating their
existing fleet than replace them which seems to be suggesting that their
margins aren't that high.
They have probably the worlds biggest stock of spares for those aircraft
plus a lot of expertise with maintenance which also helps them keep
operating.
Also they often need to operate into short gravel airfields and DC3's
and C46's are far better suited for that type of operation, there are
plenty of aircraft that can land and takeoff from those places but not
many have the same cargo capacity as the old war birds.
They also operate a couple of "modern" turbo prop Lockheed Electras
which are much faster and have a bigger cargo capacity but they can't
operate in and out of the poorer strips.



--
Daryl

[Phil Allison]

Daryl wrote:

==============

>
> Also they often need to operate into short gravel airfields and DC3's
> and C46's are far better suited for that type of operation, there are
> plenty of aircraft that can land and takeoff from those places but not
> many have the same cargo capacity as the old war birds.
>

** Strictly speaking the DC3 is a civil airliner pressed into war service as a transport and for delivering paratroops. The C46 was much the same - the cabin was pressurised for passenger comfort.

> They also operate a couple of "modern" turbo prop Lockheed Electras
> which are much faster and have a bigger cargo capacity but they can't
> operate in and out of the poorer strips.
>

** One plane intended to replace the DC3 was the F27 - aka Fokker Friendship. They could operate from pretty basic runways, even dirt strips. On my one trip from from Launceston to Melbourne in the 1960s, the runway was sandy coloured gravel.

But the F27 was no replacement, purchases and running costs were high in comparison and being a modern type was subject to all kind of aviation regulations the DC3 was not. These added even more costs that put it in another league.

The famous saying still applies.



.... Phil

[keithr0]

On 7/1/2020 9:43 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> keithr0 is a cluless pommy LIAR wrote:
>
> =====================================
>>
>>
>> There are plenty of old radial powered aircraft around, but there hasn't
>> been a new radial powered design for years, and many of the old ones
>> have been turboed usually with PT-6 engines. Smaller, lighter, more
>> economical, and much much less maintenance.
>>
>
> ** More stupid lies - those claims are merely for the jet engines.
>
> Cost of a complete DC3 jet *conversion* is almost US$4,000,000 !!!!!

Thats not just reefing out the radials, and gluing on a pair of PT-6s,
they do a complete airframe rebuild essentially back to zero hours.

https://www.baslerturbo.com/manufacturing.html

For instance this is the cockpit after conversion, nothing like an
original DC-3

https://www.baslerturbo.com/uploads/2/0/9/4/20945572/5802154_orig.jpg

> The result goes barely any faster and no further while a very good condition normal DC3 sells for under US$1M.

It is significantly faster than the original, has a higher MTOW, and
most significantly much less maintenance.

> https://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/AircraftOperatingCosts/671/Basler+BT-67-DC3+Conversion

For engines the time between overhauls is generally a function of the
complexity of the engine and how it is used.[1] Piston-based engines are
much more complex than turbine-powered engines, and generally have TBOs
on the order of 1,200 to 2,000 hours of running time. They tend toward
the lower number if they are new designs, or include boosting options
such as a turbocharger.[3] In comparison, jet engines and turboprops
often have TBOs on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 hours.[4]

>> There is an exception, Sukhoi still make small radial powered aerobatic
>> aircraft,
>
> ** And what a stunning design the Sokoi 26 is - saw one at Shoefields in 1981 as part of the world aerobatic championships flown by Russian Victor Smolin.
>
> Pure aerial ballet accompanied by the sweetest, slow revving piston engine sound you ever heard.

I saw Jurgis Kairys flying his self modified SU-31 at Warbirds over
Wanaka. An amazing display, then he raced a V8 super car to the end of
the runway and back and beat it. I've done aerobatics a couple of times
but nothing like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOrW2QX_uak

[keithr0]

If you look at this web page, you'll see that Buffalo want to buy a
turbo DC-3 and sell a normal DC-3 and a bunch of piston aircraft, manly C54s

https://www.buffaloairways.com/index.php?page=wanted-for-sale

[Rod Speed]

"Daryl" <dwal...@westpine.com.au> wrote in message

news:hm4icm...@mid.individual.net...

Wonder what the total cost of that is.

> plus a lot of expertise with maintenance which also helps them keep
> operating.

But weirdly there too. I lost track of the number of times
in the reality TV series that they had to wait till one of the
not in use aircraft was made ready to fly when one of the
ones in use had failed due to a component failure, rather
than having the not in use one ready to fly when needed.

> Also they often need to operate into short gravel airfields and DC3's and
> C46's are far better suited for that type of operation,

Yeah, that bit is very obvious why they do it like that.

> there are plenty of aircraft that can land and takeoff from those places
> but not many have the same cargo capacity as the old war birds.

> They also operate a couple of "modern" turbo prop Lockheed Electras

I did wonder why they still used stuff that ancient
too when it was viable to use that class of aircraft.

[Phil Allison]

keithr0 cluess pommy LIAR wrote:

===============================

>>
> >> been a new radial powered design for years, and many of the old ones
> >> have been turboed usually with PT-6 engines. Smaller, lighter, more
> >> economical, and much much less maintenance.
> >>
> >
> > ** More stupid lies - those claims are merely for the jet engines.
> >
> > Cost of a complete DC3 jet *conversion* is almost US$4,000,000 !!!!!
>
> Thats not just reefing out the radials, and gluing on a pair of PT-6s,

** Which cannot be done anyway.

> they do a complete airframe rebuild essentially back to zero hours.

** Reskinning is standard for old DC3s, if and when needed.

> > The result goes barely any faster and no further while a very good condition normal DC3 sells for under US$1M.
>
> It is significantly faster than the original,

** Weasel words, it's about 10%.

> has a higher MTOW,


** More weasel words, only 15%.

> and most significantly much less maintenance.

** But running cost is way up.

>
> For engines the time between overhauls is

** Fake issue.

Fuck off pommy troll.

[Daryl]

Interesting but obviously its not a Basler so it would be much cheaper.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

I doubt if they would even know, they certainly have a lot of parts.

>
>> plus a lot of expertise with maintenance which also helps them keep
>> operating.
>
> But weirdly there too. I lost track of the number of times
> in the reality TV series that they had to wait till one of the
> not in use aircraft was made ready to fly when one of the
> ones in use had failed due to a component failure, rather
> than having the not in use one ready to fly when needed.

Most likely due to cost, I get the impression that they don't make a lot
of money and it doesn't take too many problems to send them into the red.
Not long ago one of their DC3's crashed due to a mechanical failure, the
aircraft was a write off but luckily no one was seriously injured, to me
the odd thing about that incident is their reluctance to ever talk about it.

>
>> Also they often need to operate into short gravel airfields and DC3's
>> and C46's are far better suited for that type of operation,
>
> Yeah, that bit is very obvious why they do it like that.
>
>> there are plenty of aircraft that can land and takeoff from those
>> places but not many have the same cargo capacity as the old war birds.
>
>> They also operate a couple of "modern" turbo prop Lockheed Electras
>
> I did wonder why they still used stuff that ancient
> too when it was viable to use that class of aircraft.

What they fly seem dependent on what suitable aircraft they can afford
to buy, 737 200's can be fitted with "gravel" kits so they would be
suitable for some of their applications but I suspect that don't own any
simply because of the cost.
The Electras must be expensive to operate but they must have bought them
cheaply so overall they are in front?


--
Daryl

[Rod Speed]

"Daryl" <dwal...@westpine.com.au> wrote in message

news:hm62ut...@mid.individual.net...

Cant see why that would cost more given the loss of
income when there is no plane to fly for a particular task.

> I get the impression that they don't make a lot of money

Yeah, one of the early eps in Plane Savers says that
they could only afford to restore the D Dayer because
they had had a good year with the the electras.

> and it doesn't take too many problems to send them into the red.
> Not long ago one of their DC3's crashed due to a mechanical failure, the
> aircraft was a write off but luckily no one was seriously injured, to me
> the odd thing about that incident is their reluctance to ever talk about
> it.

Yeah, likely someone fucked up significantly.

>>> Also they often need to operate into short gravel airfields and DC3's
>>> and C46's are far better suited for that type of operation,
>>
>> Yeah, that bit is very obvious why they do it like that.
>>
>>> there are plenty of aircraft that can land and takeoff from those places
>>> but not many have the same cargo capacity as the old war birds.
>>
>>> They also operate a couple of "modern" turbo prop Lockheed Electras
>>
>> I did wonder why they still used stuff that ancient
>> too when it was viable to use that class of aircraft.
>
> What they fly seem dependent on what suitable aircraft they can afford to
> buy,

Spose so. It will be interesting to see what effect
the virus has on that and on their operation as well.

Lots of marginal operations wont survive it.

> 737 200's can be fitted with "gravel" kits so they would be suitable for
> some of their applications but I suspect that don't own any simply because
> of the cost.

> The Electras must be expensive to operate but they must have bought them
> cheaply so overall they are in front?

That’s what I meant about it would be interesting to see the books.

[Daryl]

They seem to be doing OK because their income is from freight and fire
fighting, the people who live in remote parts of Canada still need their
freight delivered and in a lot of cases airfreight is the only way.

>
> Lots of marginal operations wont survive it.

No doubt about that, they are going down at an alarming rate.

>
>> 737 200's can be fitted with "gravel" kits so they would be suitable
>> for some of their applications but I suspect that don't own any simply
>> because of the cost.
>
>> The Electras must be expensive to operate but they must have bought
>> them cheaply so overall they are in front?
>
> That’s what I meant about it would be interesting to see the books.
>

Very interesting indeed.
Despite being around for 50yrs its still run as a family business, as
long as they can pay their bills and make enough money to live most
likely the business will survive.


--
Daryl

[Rod Speed]

"Daryl" <dwal...@westpine.com.au> wrote in message

news:hm7vjj...@mid.individual.net...

Yeah, essentially because as you say the freight has no alternative.

[keithr0]

I found some pictures that I took of Jurgis at work at Warbirds over wanaka

https://imgur.com/a/yP0PK4T