R-4360 Engine reliability
Jon Krocker
>Does anyone have any opinions about the R-4360 radial?
I got to change the plugs once on a R-4360 (56 plugs), amazing engine.
The grizzled old mechanic who let me do this said they were pretty
reliable once you got to know them and mumbled something about how the
cooling on the magnetoes was better now? He also mentioned that only the
pilots seemed to have reliablity problems with the engines.;-)
Ever see an induction fire on an R-3350, now thats interesting
Jon Krocker
jkro...@mbnet.mb.ca
George Gonzalez
On the surface it sounds like a great powerplant, lots of power in one
package.
But everytime I run across a discussion of an airframe that has carried
it, there almost always is some pretty blunt criticism of the engine:
Reading one of James Harriot's books about being a vet (veterinarian,
not a war vet!), he has a chapter where he escorts some cows on a
GlobeMaster, said plane powered by R-4360's I believe. One of the engines
leaks oil while in flight and upon landing there is some problem found with
the crankcase seals. They land in Istanbul and not surprisingly do not find
any great expertise in repairing those engines in the area.
Reading a history of NorthWest Airlines (A real yawn), they mention giving
special awards to maintenance folks that figured out how to better maintain
the crankcases on their Stratocruisers (4360's again). Also a pilot groused
about full rated power being unusable in because it lowered engine
reliability too much.
A B-36 crewman's reminisinces included something like "It was great having 6
of those, you could lose one and not worry too much".
Was this a poor design, or just pushing radial technology a bit too far?
Richard DeCastro
to stop a design series is usually one from the "top". There's a limit to what a turbo-compund radial can do, and that was it.
But, stray engine fires burning the magnesium cases aside, it's great to
see those engines fire up - it's almost biblical. "A columnd of smoke during
the day, a pillar of fire at night".
--
Rick De Castro
At, but not for, Quarterdeck
But not for much longer.
Donald W. Leininger
: Does anyone have any opinions about the R-4360 radial?
I have about 2,000 hours in the C-124 with the R4360s and though never
having an engine fire spent many hours on three engines and on one
occassion on two. One nice thing about the C-124 was there were tunnels
in the wings that a scanner could, and quite often did, go out and change
an alternator or generator that had burnt out. He would have to climb
over the retracted landing gear to go to an outboard engine and the gear
handle was always taken out of the neutral position and put in the up
position. keeping positive hydralic pressure on the gear while he was
out there. A placard that said something to the effect "scanner in
tunnel, do not move gear lever" was hung over the gear handle. The
scanner had a loonngg communcations cord so he was in voice contact
with the cockpit at all times. As I remember, alternator and
generator failures were probably the prime reasons for shutting an
engine down and it was comforting to know when you were sitting out
over the middle of the Atlantic you would have the engine back in
30 to 45 minutes.
: Was this a poor design, or just pushing radial technology a bit too far?
As someone pointed out, I think they just pushed radilal technology a
bit to far.
--
Don Leininger Shifting into second cruising down
a...@sashimi.wwa.com the Information Super Highway
Andrew McNeil
engine fires. It is amazing that the back row stays
cool.
I always thought the wright-cyclone r-3350 was better.
It is listed as high as 3700 hp, and it powered the
world's fastest piston/prop plane, Rare Bear (528 mph).
The 3350 got a sig amount of power from turbo-
compounding, so you could almost call it a
turbo-prop of sorts. kinda. sorta.
Andrew McNeil 'Vincere vel mori' *****************
* These are my
'Every time the legislature meets every man's * opinions, not
life, limb, & property are in danger' * my employers
Thomas Jefferson *****************
Emmanuel.Gustin
: Was this a poor design, or just pushing radial technology a bit too far?
I've read description from a Stratocruiser pilot. He wasn't too happy
about the engine; there were cooling problems, especially with the third
row.
About 'pushing too far': probably not. There were earlier, less powerful
designs that suffered similar problems. The R-4360 seems on the edge now,
but that's only because powerful piston engines were replaced by jet
engines in the next generation of aircraft. There were several 4000hp
engines on the drawing board at the end of WWII, but these were
abandoned. It is interesting that some of these (BMW 803, Jumo 222) were
*liquid-cooled* radials.
Emmanuel Gustin
Larry Champion
I flew over 3000 hours in the C-124. We had many engine failures and in-flight
repairs, but I never experienced an engine fire. Maybe our engineers were too quick to
shut one of them down...before the fire could start.
Yeah, we kicked out a lot of smoke on engine start!!
regards,
Larry
--
===========================================================================
Larry Champion
ch...@access.digex.net
===========================================================================
Larry Champion
>
>George Gonzalez (g...@boombox.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>: Does anyone have any opinions about the R-4360 radial?
>
>I have about 2,000 hours in the C-124 with the R4360s and though never
>having an engine fire spent many hours on three engines and on one
>occassion on two. One nice thing about the C-124 was there were tunnels
>in the wings that a scanner could, and quite often did, go out and change
>an alternator or generator that had burnt out. He would have to climb
>over the retracted landing gear to go to an outboard engine and the gear
In the winter, those tires had little steel wires impedded in them...they could sure
tear up a flightsuit. I was part of the "upstairs crew", but I occasionally went out
into the wing just for "fun". It was even noisier out there.
<snip>
> As I remember, alternator and
>generator failures were probably the prime reasons for shutting an
>engine down
That's the way I remember it too.
Regards,
Len Reiss
: Does anyone have any opinions about the R-4360 radial?
Stuff deleted........
As a crewman on a C-119C ( I hear everyone laughing...quit it! ), I
got to spend many hours on "corncob" power. Because we had excellent
maintenance, we had very few close calls. On the other hand, my very first
flight when we converted to the 119G ( R-3350-89A ), was a near death
experience. Comparing the two, the pilots said that the 4360 gave you
almost instant power. The 3350, being a compound engine, had a slight
delay until the turbines ( three on this model ) contributed their full
share of power. Of more importance was the fact that an R-4360-20WD could
run at METO power till the fuel ran out. In an engine out situation, the
3350 would only tolerate about an hour of this treatment.
For those who are interested in this sort of thing, I would recomend
reading "Aircraft Piston Engines" by Herschel H. Smith- McGraw Hill-1981.
He gives good coverage to the engines of the WW II era.
A happy holiday to all
Len
--
==============================================================================
Leonard J.Reiss Washington & Lee University
KF4JT Tech Services
___|___
o------O(_)O------o
==============================================================================
Andrew McNeil
Last year I was at the Phoenix 500 air races and someone was racing
an F2G-1 Corsair, powered by, you guessed it, a 4360 corncob. Only
5-6 of these were built at end of WW-II, supposedly to knock out
Kamikazes. These are priceless planes.
During qualifying the engine started spewing flames, and the
plane went down in a fireball, all in direct view of the
crowd and TV cameras. The pilot bailed out, thank God.
As a side note, after bailing out the pilot got a nasty
compound fracture from hitting the tail. As he fell
towards the ground in his chute, he looked at the boned
protruding from his leg and thought "It is going to
hurt when I land".
Yeah, I'd say so.
Scott Chan
(Emmanuel.Gustin) writes:
|> "George Gonzalez" (g...@boombox.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
|>
|> : Was this a poor design, or just pushing radial technology a bit too
|> far?
|>
|> |> designs that suffered similar problems. The R-4360 seems on the edge
|> now,
|> but that's only because powerful piston engines were replaced by jet
|> engines in the next generation of aircraft. There were several 4000hp
|> engines on the drawing board at the end of WWII, but these were
|> abandoned. It is interesting that some of these (BMW 803, Jumo 222) were
|> |> *liquid-cooled* radials.
|>
|> Emmanuel Gustin
|>
Gathering dust in the Smithsonian/National Air & Space Museum's Restoration
facility in Maryland there is an enormous prototype radial engine which
"pushed too far".
I don't remember the statistics (#cylinders, displacement, etc) but I
think
it was built by Wright at the end of WWII. That sucker is huge, much
bigger than the R-4360. Fortunately, it was cancelled in favor of jet
technology.
--
Scott Chan
Dale Saukerson
r16...@email.mot.com (Andrew McNeil) wrote:
> I am reminded of a spectacular r-4360 failure.
>
> Last year I was at the Phoenix 500 air races and someone was racing
> an F2G-1 Corsair, powered by, you guessed it, a 4360 corncob. Only
> 5-6 of these were built at end of WW-II, supposedly to knock out
> Kamikazes. These are priceless planes.
>
> During qualifying the engine started spewing flames, and the
> plane went down in a fireball, all in direct view of the
> crowd and TV cameras. The pilot bailed out, thank God.
>
> As a side note, after bailing out the pilot got a nasty
> compound fracture from hitting the tail. As he fell
> towards the ground in his chute, he looked at the boned
> protruding from his leg and thought "It is going to
> hurt when I land".
>
> Yeah, I'd say so.
>
>
> Andrew McNeil 'Vincere vel mori'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A friend of mine has pictures (quite distant) of this plane in its death
dive. And of the remains afterwards.
The remains literally fit into a medium sized box, and was on display for
the spectators to see close up.
Staleface
rows, etc. Some years back I was working at an airport where a forest
fire nearby brought in several C-119's with (R-4360's?) and I damn near
lost my job by standing outside listening to the thumping of those
beautiful radial engines. What a show!
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/
I'd rather be right than politically correct
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\
Andrew McNeil
stal...@aol.com (Staleface) writes:
> Please list again the specifications for the R-4360, number of cylinders,
> rows, etc.
The R-4360 was built by Pratt n Whitney, and had 4 rows of 7 cylinders,
for a total of 28. The 4360 refers to displacement in cubic inches,
thus each cylinder had 155 cubic inches, the size of a decent auto
4 banger.
It produced from 3000 to 3800 HP, and was used on
Spruce Goose (8 engines, 448 spark plugs!)
B-50 (modified b-29)
Some C-119's
C-124 Globemaster
Andrew McNeil
R-3350 was a superior engine to the Pratt and Whitney R-4360.
Here are my reasons:
The R3350 was able to produce similar power (2800-3700 hp,
vs 3000-3800 for 4360) with less displacement. I seem
to remember it weighed less. (advantage to turbocompounding?)
R3350 was used on many more airplanes (production numbers?)
R3350 was used in the most advanced piston airliners, I
don't know of a late airliner that used it (consider
the DC-7 and constellation)
R3350 is used in world's fastest prop/piston plane,
rare bear (528 mph)
Any other discussion would be welcome.
Geoff Miller
In article <1994Dec31....@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
r16...@email.mot.com (Andrew McNeil) writes:
>R3350 was used in the most advanced piston airliners, I
>don't know of a late airliner that used it (consider
>the DC-7 and constellation)
According to what I've read, the Turbo Compound version of
the R-3350 that was used on the DC-7, Super Constellation,
P-2 Neptune and Canadair Argus was somewhat troublesome,
at least initially. They tended to catch on fire a lot,
for one thing. Still, the concept of the Turbo Compound
has always fascinated me.
The all-around best (as in "reliable") and most widely
used large radial engine is probably the Pratt & Whitney
R-2800. It powered the DC-6, the Convair series (240/340/440),
and quite a few other airplanes both widely known and esoteric.
In terms of sheer numbers, it could be said to have been the
Volkswagen Beetle of radial engines.
That's why so many more DC-6s than DC-7s survive today as
freighters and fire bombers. It's also my understanding
that the R-2800 is happier with today's lower octane AVGAS
that the R-3350 is. The old 115/145 stuff isn't available
anymore.
By the way, a minor nit: unlike the custom with turbine
engines, the designations for piston engines employ a
hyphen following the initial letter, e.g., "R-3350," not
"R3350."
Geoff
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
"Running With Scissors Down the Hallway Of Life"
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller
In article <1994Dec31....@newsgate.sps.mot.com> r16...@email.mot.com
(Andrew McNeil) writes:
[regarding the R-4360]
>It produced from 3000 to 3800 HP, and was used on
>Spruce Goose (8 engines, 448 spark plugs!)
>B-50 (modified b-29)
>Some C-119's
>C-124 Globemaster
Also the Convair B-36, the Boeing Stratocruiser/(K)C-97, and an
almost forgotten late-1940s U.S. Navy torpedo bomber called the
Martin Mauler. (I couldn't find a designation for that one in
any of my references.)
Harvey Grubbs
SC> Gathering dust in the Smithsonian/National Air & Space Museum's
SC> Restoration facility in Maryland there is an enormous prototype radial
SC> engine which "pushed too far".
SC> I don't remember the statistics (#cylinders, displacement, etc) but I
SC> think
SC> it was built by Wright at the end of WWII. That sucker is huge, much
SC> bigger than the R-4360. Fortunately, it was cancelled in favor of jet
SC> technology.
There may have been one of about 5000 cu in.
At the Museum of Aviation near here, there is a R-4360 that
has parts cut away so you can see the inner workings of it.
The thing is a marvel. Can't believe it was designed and
built so long ago.
Overhead cams and FI haven't been in autos all that long...
but WWII a/c engines had it 50-60 years ago.
... *******************************
---
. Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 .
Scott Olson
: Also the Convair B-36, the Boeing Stratocruiser/(K)C-97, and an
: almost forgotten late-1940s U.S. Navy torpedo bomber called the
: Martin Mauler. (I couldn't find a designation for that one in
: any of my references.)
Martin AM-1 Mauler, first flight August 26, 1944. The book I
got that from has a photo of a Mauler in flight with 6 smallish
(250 lbs or so) bombs under each wing and 3 (!!) torpedoes hung
from the centerline and inner wings.
Scott
Rev. Trashcan Man
Harvey Grubbs <harvey...@lightspeed.com> wrote:
>Overhead cams and FI haven't been in autos all that long...
>but WWII a/c engines had it 50-60 years ago.
The first production American car with OHC was the DeLorean designed '66
Pontiac Tempest. My dad had one of those. OHC had been avalable in some
production europeand well before that. As for fuel injection, that was
around also since the 50's in production vehicles, i.e. the Chevy
Corvette, and hell, my old '73 VW Fastback had MPFI since 1967.
Just pointing out FI and OHC has been in car engines longer than you think.
But yes, aircraft engines have always been hotrods.
Rev. Trashy.
--
Rev. Trashy is Constantino Tobio, Jr. Head Manager, CUMB G(tb)^2
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler
Richard J. Latshaw
>used large radial engine is probably the Pratt & Whitney
>R-2800. It powered the DC-6, the Convair series (240/340/440),
>and quite a few other airplanes both widely known and esoteric.
>In terms of sheer numbers, it could be said to have been the
>Volkswagen Beetle of radial engines.
Quite a few including the P-47 and the (ugh-I flew it) C-123. I also went
many places in the C-118 (aka DC-6) and even flew a T-29 from Osan to GD-
Ft. Worth. For piston engine reliability, you couldn't beat an R-2800.
Now, for all around reliability, my favorite has to be the C-141. Of course,
I flew them when they were new.
Former MATS and MAC AC (and Gooney IP, too)
--
Regards, lat...@firnvx.firn.edu
Dick ***Sunny Tampa, Florida***
mike halem
: Ft. Worth. For piston engine reliability, you couldn't beat an R-2800.
: Now, for all around reliability, my favorite has to be the C-141. Of course,
: I flew them when they were new.
...cut
There are probably more R-1340's flying today than any other western built
radial. Its reliable, easy to maintain, cheap to overhaul, but not terribly
fuel efficient. It's use for agricutural spray aircraft assures the
availibility of newly manufactured parts well into the next century.
I believe that it's simplicity (single row), smaller size, and lower
manifold pressure makes this a more reliable engine. However, I do not have
comparative statistics with its larger derivative, the R-2800.
-mike halem
roc...@panix.com
Happy T-6 Owner
IanMaclure
>In article <1994Dec31....@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
>r16...@email.mot.com (Andrew McNeil) writes:
[SNIP]
>According to what I've read, the Turbo Compound version of
>the R-3350 that was used on the DC-7, Super Constellation,
>P-2 Neptune and Canadair Argus was somewhat troublesome,
>at least initially. They tended to catch on fire a lot,
>for one thing. Still, the concept of the Turbo Compound
[SNIP]
A Canadair Argus was basically the wings and Tail off a Bristol
Britannia with a new fuselage and R-3350's hung on instead of
Tynes (?). Reliability was actually pretty good from what I
understand. R2800s were just too small for the Argus.
I got to fly in the nose bubble of one of these beasts at low
level over land in 1972, awesome ride.
I've also had my hands on an R-3350 at CFSAOE at CFB
Borden. The instructors and maintenance personnel I met over the
years seem to have retained their sanity so life couldn't have
been too bad.
IBM
--
################ No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ######################
# IBM aka # Ian_M...@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) #
# Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/eos).arc.nasa.gov (currently) #
########## Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine. ###############
Geoff Miller
ax...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Daniel Hilliker) writes:
> Yawn ?
The thing is, Barbers Point was home to six P-3 squadrons anyway, so
seeing another version of the plane was hardly exciting. Besides,
the Aussies and the New Zealanders both brought Orions as well. That
second year, the only interesting planes were the Kawasaki-built
turboprop P-2 Neptunes of the JASDF.
> Ok, the CP-140 can't stay up as long as the Argus could, but at
> least it has a toaster... :) and carpeting... (yucky brown...)
I could've tagged along on a flight, but the plane was going to stay
up for some unbelievable length of time, and it would've been too
much of a good thing, even for me.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Curt Reimer
>Overhead cams and FI haven't been in autos all that long...
>but WWII a/c engines had it 50-60 years ago.
I think the 400 HP liberty V-12 of WWI fame had overhead cams. That means
a/c have had them for like 75 - 80 years!
Curt Reimer
Scott Carter
>In article <9651.20...@lightspeed.com>,
>Harvey Grubbs <harvey...@lightspeed.com> wrote:
>
>>Overhead cams and FI haven't been in autos all that long...
>>but WWII a/c engines had it 50-60 years ago.
>
>The first production American car with OHC was the DeLorean designed '66
>Pontiac Tempest. My dad had one of those. OHC had been avalable in some
>production europeand well before that. As for fuel injection, that was
>around also since the 50's in production vehicles, i.e. the Chevy
>Corvette, and hell, my old '73 VW Fastback had MPFI since 1967.
>
<but, with reference materials being away, being a bit less positive than might
otherwise be the case>
I believe it is correct that the first postwar US production OHC was the Tempest
although I'm fairly sure the OHC was in the original Tempest (63 1/2 with the
transaxle).
But, there were many production OHCs in the US much, much earlier. Famous
makes include Duesenberg, Cord (Auburn too, I'm pretty sure), Stutz, a few
prewar Mercers, and many other I've forgotten about. I *think* the first US
series production OHC was the Welch ca 1907-1909.
>Just pointing out FI and OHC has been in car engines longer than you think.
And longer than you think, too.
Geoff Miller
mac...@eos.arc.nasa.gov (IanMaclure) writes:
> A Canadair Argus was basically the wings and Tail off a Bristol
> Britannia with a new fuselage and R-3350's hung on instead of
> Tynes (?).
Bristol Proteus. Of the airliners of that general era, it was
the Vickers Vanguard that used the Tyne.
> I got to fly in the nose bubble of one of these beasts at low
> level over land in 1972, awesome ride.
I can well imagine. I went aboard an Argus at NAS Barbers Point,
Hawaii, during the multinational RIMPAC exercises in 1980. I saw
the plane land from my vantage point over on the Coast Guard side
of the base, and drove over to check it out the first chance I got.
It was a very impressive airplane, not just by its size (those things
were *big*), but by its condition. This particular aircraft, a
Mark 1, was manufactured in 1957, and it looked brand new. I crawled
down into the nose compartment briefly, and I remember thinking that
it looked like a great place to ride.
The crew members I talked with told me that the engines were actually
quite reliable (although I noted that a Herk had flown in a QEC just
in case). Of course, I'd think that by that time all the bugs would've
been taken care of.
The next time RIMPAC was held, two years later, the Canadian Forces
brought an Aurora. <yawn>
Daniel Hilliker
> This particular aircraft, a
> Mark 1, was manufactured in 1957, and it looked brand new.
One thing we do very well is take care of our birds... With our
system, they have to last forever...
> The next time RIMPAC was held, two years later, the Canadian Forces
> brought an Aurora. <yawn>
Yawn ? Ok, the CP-140 can't stay up as long as the Argus could, but
at least it has a toaster... :) and carpeting... (yucky brown...)
--
Dan Hilliker - Engineers rule the World -
ax...@freenet.carleton.ca Per Ardua Ad Astra
<my opinions only, not my employer's>
Len Reiss
: I don't claim to be an expert, but I suspect the Wright Cyclone
If I had to choose between the R-3350 and the R-4360, I would choose
the R-4360. I base this on the opinions of the pilots and flight mechanics in
our squadron. Assuming that we are dealing with competent maintenance
troops, the corncob should be a more rugged engine.
The R-3350 was a lighter, less maintenance intensive engine. The
C-119-G and later models were equipped with them - resulting in a greater
useful load. Fuel burn on the G's was 1400 lb/hr, as opposed to 1600
lb/hr on the C model.
The best large radial engine? Without a doubt, the P&W R-2800. A
three hour flight on a C-118 (DC-6) was a revealation. No parachute or ear
plugs.
Does anyone have any opinions on the reliability of the R-2600,
which powered the B-25 and possibly the Navy TBF.
Len
==============================================================================
Leonard J.Reiss Washington & Lee University
KF4JT Tech Services
___|___
o------O(_)O------o
Trust in God and Pratt and Whitney
==============================================================================
Analytical Methods {NWNet}
was a F4U/F1G hybrid converted to have a R-4360, but lacking the bubble
canopy of the F2G. True to form, a jug blew off, dumping fuel in the
cowl and starting a fire of the magnesium case.
I've been working on a new Unlimited Racer and we considered the
R-3350 and the R-4360. After a lot of consideration, we ended up taking
a R-3350 Turbo Compound and ripping off the Compound units. We expect
to get 4200 hp from it. The aircraft is mostly complete and if we
resolve a $ chrisis, we should be at Reno in 95.
-Dave Lednicer
da...@amiwest.com