Is there a DC7C Flight Engineer in the house ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Is there a DC7C Flight Engineer in the house ?
Learned contributors,
I am hoping to contact a DC7C flight engineer or similarly turbo compound experienced flight engineer.
I am trying to write a novel and require some inside information.
Is there anyone willing to help or who can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for your time and trouble,
Be lucky
David
"The AvgasDinosaur"
I am hoping to contact a DC7C flight engineer or similarly turbo compound experienced flight engineer.
I am trying to write a novel and require some inside information.
Is there anyone willing to help or who can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for your time and trouble,
Be lucky
David
"The AvgasDinosaur"
If you want to ask your questions here there may be some one with the requisite knowledge. And it will enlighten us all as well. Have a little info on the bookshelf, but no first hand knowledge.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,614
Received 289 Likes
on
158 Posts
Great shame 411A has gone to his maker, I'm sure he would have been able to help.
always had it in for the DC7 due to it's Wright engines, and said the previous DC6B was a way better machine.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,614
Received 289 Likes
on
158 Posts
"The old Lockheed Constellation sat on the ramp. Passers by fled in panic as its four Wright Turbo Compounds burst into flames"
Wright never really had the resources to sort out the Turbo-Compound, although airframers continued to buy it, just because it packed more power into the space than P&W managed. Of course, in the way of the 1940s-50s, each time they appeared to get to grips with something a higher power version was launched and problems continued.
But the issues by the time of the DC7C were nothing compared to those of the B29 in the Pacific in WW2, with earlier versions of the same engine. Read a fascinating detailed account by a subsequent US 1960s airline pilot of the issues he had experienced with the B29 Superfortress, where almost as many men were lost to B29 catastrophic engine failures as to enemy action. Apparently at Guam there was a forward maintenance base where they just junked failed/seized/blown Turbo-Compounds in a huge heap, getting to about 20 feet high, engines being added to the top by a large fork-lift.
I don't think Boeing ever used a Wright engine again after the wartime B29.
But the issues by the time of the DC7C were nothing compared to those of the B29 in the Pacific in WW2, with earlier versions of the same engine. Read a fascinating detailed account by a subsequent US 1960s airline pilot of the issues he had experienced with the B29 Superfortress, where almost as many men were lost to B29 catastrophic engine failures as to enemy action. Apparently at Guam there was a forward maintenance base where they just junked failed/seized/blown Turbo-Compounds in a huge heap, getting to about 20 feet high, engines being added to the top by a large fork-lift.
I don't think Boeing ever used a Wright engine again after the wartime B29.
The B-29 didn't use the turbo compound, but was turbo supercharged.
War time required the -29 and it's engine to be rushed into service before proper development could take place. The early engine had the exhaust on the front of the engine on the front bank of cylinders, so overheating from escaping exhaust gases impinged on the front cylinders resulting in overheating. It was found too, that particular attention had to be paid to maintenance of the cylinder cooling baffles. 100 hours was all they were getting out of an engine initially, but reached 400 hours at the end of the war, which was comparable with other combat engines, in airline service the TBO stretched into the thousands as the lessons were learnt. The -29 was closely cowled and take off was not to be attempted if the CHT was beyond a certain temp. The take off was begun with the cowl flaps fully open and it was the flight engineers job to progressively close the flaps as they accelerated down the runway. Such were the cooling demands.
Aircraft to use the turbo compound were the Neptune, Constellation, DC-7, Canadair Argus, Fairchild C-119, Martin Marlin.
A bit of bedtime reading Avgas.
http://aviatechno.net/files/wright_r...ASH/index.html
War time required the -29 and it's engine to be rushed into service before proper development could take place. The early engine had the exhaust on the front of the engine on the front bank of cylinders, so overheating from escaping exhaust gases impinged on the front cylinders resulting in overheating. It was found too, that particular attention had to be paid to maintenance of the cylinder cooling baffles. 100 hours was all they were getting out of an engine initially, but reached 400 hours at the end of the war, which was comparable with other combat engines, in airline service the TBO stretched into the thousands as the lessons were learnt. The -29 was closely cowled and take off was not to be attempted if the CHT was beyond a certain temp. The take off was begun with the cowl flaps fully open and it was the flight engineers job to progressively close the flaps as they accelerated down the runway. Such were the cooling demands.
Aircraft to use the turbo compound were the Neptune, Constellation, DC-7, Canadair Argus, Fairchild C-119, Martin Marlin.
A bit of bedtime reading Avgas.
http://aviatechno.net/files/wright_r...ASH/index.html
Last edited by megan; 7th Apr 2017 at 17:23.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megan, An interesting read and just to add a few points :-
1] The B-29 R3350 was a carburetor engine and so I was told this was a source of the engine fires on that particular installation. Once the engine became a fuel injector engine the engine fire problem was much reduced.
2] The Wright R3350 in all cases was a supercharged engine where the supercharger was directly driven from the crankshaft via a high or low gear. It was not a turbo supercharged engine.
The turbo term was used when turbo driven recovery turbines [ 3 off] were fitted to the engine . These recovery turbines were driven by the engines exhaust and each one recovered about 60 hp [ Total 180 hp per engine] . These turbines returned their recovered hp direct to the crankshaft , but had nothing to do with the supercharger
Brit312
1] The B-29 R3350 was a carburetor engine and so I was told this was a source of the engine fires on that particular installation. Once the engine became a fuel injector engine the engine fire problem was much reduced.
2] The Wright R3350 in all cases was a supercharged engine where the supercharger was directly driven from the crankshaft via a high or low gear. It was not a turbo supercharged engine.
The turbo term was used when turbo driven recovery turbines [ 3 off] were fitted to the engine . These recovery turbines were driven by the engines exhaust and each one recovered about 60 hp [ Total 180 hp per engine] . These turbines returned their recovered hp direct to the crankshaft , but had nothing to do with the supercharger
Brit312
The B-29 was most definitely turbo-stumper charged. Fortunately the Constellations and DC-7 were not. The turbo-supercharger used a back pressure and thus put a load on the cylinder. The DA an EA series engine that were "Turbo-Compounds" used a blow-down turbine utilizing the exhaust gas velocity and imposed no back pressure on the cylinders.
The BA series of engines used on the B-29 an L-049/149 Constellations was a difficult engiNe to work. I never worked the b-29 but knew many vets who had. The power section cowling on both was poor. The fuel injection lines were an add-on. The engine leaked oil and made sludge. If you had a clean engine it probably had developed an injection line pinhole leak. Did I mention the engine mounting system? The attached to the engine by the rear cylinder heads, High-tension ignition added to the problems.
The BD and later series engines had little relation to the BA series. The final series, the EA were on later L-1049 , L-1649 and DC-7 including the C. Good engines but too late to save Wright's reputation.
The BA series of engines used on the B-29 an L-049/149 Constellations was a difficult engiNe to work. I never worked the b-29 but knew many vets who had. The power section cowling on both was poor. The fuel injection lines were an add-on. The engine leaked oil and made sludge. If you had a clean engine it probably had developed an injection line pinhole leak. Did I mention the engine mounting system? The attached to the engine by the rear cylinder heads, High-tension ignition added to the problems.
The BD and later series engines had little relation to the BA series. The final series, the EA were on later L-1049 , L-1649 and DC-7 including the C. Good engines but too late to save Wright's reputation.
G'day Brit. You're correct re (1), the carburettor versions were prone to induction fires.
With respect to (2) you are correct depending on the particular aircraft, the B-29 had an engine driven supercharger plus two turbo chargers per engine.
With respect to (2) you are correct depending on the particular aircraft, the B-29 had an engine driven supercharger plus two turbo chargers per engine.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tonytales and Megan for the corrections regarding the earliest B-29.
My limited experience is with R3350 BD engines, which had no turbo chargers just a straight supercharger. Tonytales I would agree with you they certainly used a lot of oil with engine top ups being by the gallon rather than the quarts and always be careful of hydraulic lock prior to starting
My limited experience is with R3350 BD engines, which had no turbo chargers just a straight supercharger. Tonytales I would agree with you they certainly used a lot of oil with engine top ups being by the gallon rather than the quarts and always be careful of hydraulic lock prior to starting
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have some experience in the 1049H as a copilot and time in the DC6B as a FE if that will help. Unlike 411A my memory is not as keen as his was regarding specific details. Also, as I recall, his father was a Douglas engineer.
This thread from a while ago had some contributions by those with some working knowledge of the Wright engine.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/36275...on-vs-dc4.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/36275...on-vs-dc4.html
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wiltshire U.K.
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B-29 didn't use the turbo compound, but was turbo supercharged.
War time required the -29 and it's engine to be rushed into service before proper development could take place. The early engine had the exhaust on the front of the engine on the front bank of cylinders, so overheating from escaping exhaust gases impinged on the front cylinders resulting in overheating. It was found too, that particular attention had to be paid to maintenance of the cylinder cooling baffles. 100 hours was all they were getting out of an engine initially, but reached 400 hours at the end of the war, which was comparable with other combat engines, in airline service the TBO stretched into the thousands as the lessons were learnt. The -29 was closely cowled and take off was not to be attempted if the CHT was beyond a certain temp. The take off was begun with the cowl flaps fully open and it was the flight engineers job to progressively close the flaps as they accelerated down the runway. Such were the cooling demands.
Aircraft to use the turbo compound were the Neptune, Constellation, DC-7, Canadair Argus, Fairchild C-119, Martin Marlin.
A bit of bedtime reading Avgas.
Wright R3350-TC18EA Service Manual
War time required the -29 and it's engine to be rushed into service before proper development could take place. The early engine had the exhaust on the front of the engine on the front bank of cylinders, so overheating from escaping exhaust gases impinged on the front cylinders resulting in overheating. It was found too, that particular attention had to be paid to maintenance of the cylinder cooling baffles. 100 hours was all they were getting out of an engine initially, but reached 400 hours at the end of the war, which was comparable with other combat engines, in airline service the TBO stretched into the thousands as the lessons were learnt. The -29 was closely cowled and take off was not to be attempted if the CHT was beyond a certain temp. The take off was begun with the cowl flaps fully open and it was the flight engineers job to progressively close the flaps as they accelerated down the runway. Such were the cooling demands.
Aircraft to use the turbo compound were the Neptune, Constellation, DC-7, Canadair Argus, Fairchild C-119, Martin Marlin.
A bit of bedtime reading Avgas.
Wright R3350-TC18EA Service Manual
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might want to have a look at this thread
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...llation-2.html
I had the manual that I referenced but auctioned it off in 2009. It was a very good read however. If you can find a copy you would enjoy.
One here if the link but I don't know how old the link is.
https://www.advancedpilot.com/store.html
I had the manual that I referenced but auctioned it off in 2009. It was a very good read however. If you can find a copy you would enjoy.
One here if the link but I don't know how old the link is.
https://www.advancedpilot.com/store.html
Ref 411A:
So very true. His input was a special treasure, as indeed is the counsel of several members with thousands ( even 10's of thousands) of posts to their esteemed credit. Such erudite and garrulous contributions from prolifically sage like posters is a thing of serendipitous wonder. Always a joy to read. Do please keep posting.
Indeed .. his counsel is sorely missed.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello, my father was a crew chief on the B-29.
He once told me that if the turbo wastegate stuck,
then an engine overspeed was immediate. Then the propellor
would depart the aircraft, upwards, then the now unloaded
engine would overspeed a lot more, and also depart the aircraft.
Apparently happened so fast not possible to stop.
Regards, John
He once told me that if the turbo wastegate stuck,
then an engine overspeed was immediate. Then the propellor
would depart the aircraft, upwards, then the now unloaded
engine would overspeed a lot more, and also depart the aircraft.
Apparently happened so fast not possible to stop.
Regards, John
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The average airframe life in WWII was between 100-300 hours before being written off. It wasn't economic to use expensive material or components to build an engine which would last longer than the airframe it was attached to; those could be used more productively elsewhere.
Callous? In war with conscription lives and maintenance hours are cheaper than precious metals and production hours which can be spent on higher tech weapons and products.
Callous? In war with conscription lives and maintenance hours are cheaper than precious metals and production hours which can be spent on higher tech weapons and products.
