were any big radials reliable
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
were any big radials reliable
can anyone remember flying with big radials, they had a reputation for overheating,being terribly complicated , fires and parts breaking, several ocean ditchings resulted
were any of them more reliable than others? I think some had fans blowing air over the fins, some didnt
it seems very few are sad they have gone
as a small boy I was very impressed by stratocruisers going over a relatives house on a ridge near sydney airport, they complained about them being so low, it never occured to us that they pilots were doing the best they could and would have liked to be higher
the oil leaks back under the wings impressed me
were any of them more reliable than others? I think some had fans blowing air over the fins, some didnt
it seems very few are sad they have gone
as a small boy I was very impressed by stratocruisers going over a relatives house on a ridge near sydney airport, they complained about them being so low, it never occured to us that they pilots were doing the best they could and would have liked to be higher
the oil leaks back under the wings impressed me
Most people will say the 2800 was the most reliable. We had a 2400 hour TBO and we could get two 100 hour extensions. I think maint pulled the screens, checked compression and did a valve lash check for each extension. Had many pulled at 2600 still going strong.
The 3350 and 4360 just had too much going on. There were plans to make a turbo-compound 4360 pushing 5000 hp.
The 1830 does OK, I never had much luck with 1820s. Figure each cylinder on a 1820 does the work of a C-150's engine and is bigger.
They took a lot of work to operate but that's all we knew. Then I met a RR Dart.
The 3350 and 4360 just had too much going on. There were plans to make a turbo-compound 4360 pushing 5000 hp.
The 1830 does OK, I never had much luck with 1820s. Figure each cylinder on a 1820 does the work of a C-150's engine and is bigger.
They took a lot of work to operate but that's all we knew. Then I met a RR Dart.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As some others have already posted we really didn't have many problems with the 2800, which was on a Howard 350 and Convair that I flew many years ago. I did operate a DC-3 with 1830's for a few years and had no problems with those engines as well.
Must say I have head horror stories about the 4360 if not maintained correctly.
I do miss the sounds of those big radials.
Must say I have head horror stories about the 4360 if not maintained correctly.
I do miss the sounds of those big radials.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In an Airplane
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have time behind the Pratt 985, 1830, and 2800. Also the Wright 1820.
As Markerinbound said....the 1820 was fairly reliable at 1000HP but once it got much past that it was a hand grenade.
I thought RR darts were cool once.....then I met an Allison 501D-13
As Markerinbound said....the 1820 was fairly reliable at 1000HP but once it got much past that it was a hand grenade.
I thought RR darts were cool once.....then I met an Allison 501D-13
My (limited) recollection is that the P&W R1830 and R2000 operated by Charlie Q were very reliable but quite maintenance intensive. I was usually the poor silly bugger working on the lower cylinders. Oh well, what else are apprentices for??
What I heard from the other (old) guys was that the big Wright TC engines on the L1049s were also reliable until the company pushed the range and tried to run them 12 1/2% lean. This led to the need for (I think) 3 different heat range plugs on each engine and very, very careful handling. The consensus was that they were a solid engine until you tried to push the envelope for range.
AFAIK the HARS Connie has very few engine issues, although she never gets above 75% power ever. And the sound of her.......
What I heard from the other (old) guys was that the big Wright TC engines on the L1049s were also reliable until the company pushed the range and tried to run them 12 1/2% lean. This led to the need for (I think) 3 different heat range plugs on each engine and very, very careful handling. The consensus was that they were a solid engine until you tried to push the envelope for range.
AFAIK the HARS Connie has very few engine issues, although she never gets above 75% power ever. And the sound of her.......
Last edited by mustafagander; 23rd Mar 2010 at 21:16.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 1820 was fairly reliable at 1000HP but once it got much past that it was a hand grenade
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: utah usa
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dreaded 3 Engine Approach
Had a DC6 FE on our jumpseat several years ago from ANC to the lower 48. We asked him if he'd ever had to shut down an engine. He said, funny thing, been flying them for 3 years, and had shut down his 20th engine that morning.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In an Airplane
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think alot of later failures of Radial engines were due to 2 factors.
Lack of new parts as opposed to overhauled.
Lack of experience in pilots, mechanics and overhaul facilities.
It has become damn hard to find qualified personel in any of the above catagories.
I'd be curious to know what the military records show regarding the 1820 failure rate or replacement rate vs hrs operated. As it relates to engine model and horsepower ratings.
My experience on DC-3's with the pratt vs wright was about equal in terms of reliability. Not too bad at 1200 hp
However on the Super DC-3 with the 1820-80 it was a completely different story.
Lack of new parts as opposed to overhauled.
Lack of experience in pilots, mechanics and overhaul facilities.
It has become damn hard to find qualified personel in any of the above catagories.
I'd be curious to know what the military records show regarding the 1820 failure rate or replacement rate vs hrs operated. As it relates to engine model and horsepower ratings.
My experience on DC-3's with the pratt vs wright was about equal in terms of reliability. Not too bad at 1200 hp
However on the Super DC-3 with the 1820-80 it was a completely different story.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pratt & Whitney, R2800CB16...utterly reliable.
3000+ hours until overhaul.
R4360.
Very smooth in operation, however...used a lot of oil.
Reasonable reliability.
Did I say...smooooth?
CurtisWright R3350TC...the turbocompound design.
Used even more oil than the 4360, and...the power recovery turbines burned up with some regularity.
In addition, the nose case was just a tad underdesigned...goodbye prop was not funny.
The best of the best...R2800, without a doubt.
Ahhh, the good 'ole days.
3000+ hours until overhaul.
R4360.
Very smooth in operation, however...used a lot of oil.
Reasonable reliability.
Did I say...smooooth?
CurtisWright R3350TC...the turbocompound design.
Used even more oil than the 4360, and...the power recovery turbines burned up with some regularity.
In addition, the nose case was just a tad underdesigned...goodbye prop was not funny.
The best of the best...R2800, without a doubt.
Ahhh, the good 'ole days.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R-4360 Service History C-97 and KC-97 Aircraft in Air National Guard Units. Gives a breakdown of hours of engine life and reasons for removal.
R-4360 Service
History of the Development of R-4360 Engines
http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-4...360History.pdf
“R-2800 Pratt & Whitney’s Dependable Masterpiece”, Graham White. Operating and maintenance procedures are the key to longevity. Unlike the gas turbine which can withstand ham fisted throttle movements and less than stellar maintenance, a sensitive device such as a radial demands an equally sensitive operator. The R-2800 could survive 3,000 hours between overhauls when in regular use and subject to skilled operation and good maintenance, though 2,000 hours was more typical. During this time it was not unusual for a number of cylinders to be replaced.
Like any high performance piston engine, the R-2800 needs to be taken care of, and in return it will give hours of trouble free running. Unlike turbines the R-2800 had charisma and personality. On a cold morning many a flight engineer or pilot has fussed and cussed at the R-2800 as it took its own sweet time to come to life. The pilot or flight engineer needed the dexterity of an organ player, the skill of an engineer and a little luck to operate this charismatic engine. Yes, this pampered lady could be a monumental pain in the rear but treated nicely would reward with its own brand of mechanical music.
It still sends chills down the spine of aviation enthusiasts to watch the wonderful acoustical, pyrotechnic, and smoke screen antics of this wonderful old engine being brought to life. Sensitivity to machinery is a prerequisite for operating the R-2800. Abused and it will bite back in the form of low time between overhaul, high fuel consumption, and other maladies. This is an old lady that does not take well to mistreatment.
R-4360 Service
History of the Development of R-4360 Engines
http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-4...360History.pdf
“R-2800 Pratt & Whitney’s Dependable Masterpiece”, Graham White. Operating and maintenance procedures are the key to longevity. Unlike the gas turbine which can withstand ham fisted throttle movements and less than stellar maintenance, a sensitive device such as a radial demands an equally sensitive operator. The R-2800 could survive 3,000 hours between overhauls when in regular use and subject to skilled operation and good maintenance, though 2,000 hours was more typical. During this time it was not unusual for a number of cylinders to be replaced.
Like any high performance piston engine, the R-2800 needs to be taken care of, and in return it will give hours of trouble free running. Unlike turbines the R-2800 had charisma and personality. On a cold morning many a flight engineer or pilot has fussed and cussed at the R-2800 as it took its own sweet time to come to life. The pilot or flight engineer needed the dexterity of an organ player, the skill of an engineer and a little luck to operate this charismatic engine. Yes, this pampered lady could be a monumental pain in the rear but treated nicely would reward with its own brand of mechanical music.
It still sends chills down the spine of aviation enthusiasts to watch the wonderful acoustical, pyrotechnic, and smoke screen antics of this wonderful old engine being brought to life. Sensitivity to machinery is a prerequisite for operating the R-2800. Abused and it will bite back in the form of low time between overhaul, high fuel consumption, and other maladies. This is an old lady that does not take well to mistreatment.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In this very moment of a short life.
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many reliabilty issues were maintenance and crew and witchcraft old wives tales related. It has beggared belief what some of the idiots I have met have done and said with /about radial engines. I tell them set them up as per the manual and fly them so and they will give good service. They might look steam traction engines but they require precise adjustment and management.
For me:
R 1830 is bullet proof
R 2000 dont like any abuse.
R 2800 is bullet proof.
Of course any fool can break them with witchcraft and old wives tales.
For me:
R 1830 is bullet proof
R 2000 dont like any abuse.
R 2800 is bullet proof.
Of course any fool can break them with witchcraft and old wives tales.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chills down the spine of aviation enthusiasts to watch the wonderful acoustical, pyrotechnic, and smoke screen antics of this wonderful old engine being brought to life.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or any of the others.
In over twenty one thousand flying hours (just with Rollers, never mind anything else
), I never had one actually fail...just precautionary shutdown.Rollers are good engines.
We don't seem to hear the same stories about the linear engines like the Rolls-Roce Merlin that you do about the radials. Did the Merlin really have a better reliability record ?
Reading WW2 accounts of the B-29 really is amazing, it seems they lost just about as many crew to mechanical failures (principally engines) as they did to enemy action. The Wright R-3350 in it was a real achilles heel. Unbelievable that it was entrusted with the atomic bombs, although I once read that the engines for Enola Gay were specially hand built by development engineers rather than just taken from the standard assembly line. Wright never did seem to get their engines working properly right through to the end of the piston era, despite appearing to have a more compact and powerful design than Pratts.
I read an account by an ex B-29 crewmember who described returning to Guam and there was an enormous pile of junked R-3350s on the edge of the field taken as failures from B-29s (those that managed to get back in this condition), which they had built up with a crane into a single long heap some 20 or 30 feet high, must have been hundreds of engines in there. Would it be unkind to suggest that after 1945 they were all sold back to Lockheed for the Constellation ?
The Pratts R-4360 also seems to have been an engine too far, but appears to have had a lot of prop problems, shed blades, etc, which seems to indicate that it was developing too much power for the prop to handle.
Reading WW2 accounts of the B-29 really is amazing, it seems they lost just about as many crew to mechanical failures (principally engines) as they did to enemy action. The Wright R-3350 in it was a real achilles heel. Unbelievable that it was entrusted with the atomic bombs, although I once read that the engines for Enola Gay were specially hand built by development engineers rather than just taken from the standard assembly line. Wright never did seem to get their engines working properly right through to the end of the piston era, despite appearing to have a more compact and powerful design than Pratts.
I read an account by an ex B-29 crewmember who described returning to Guam and there was an enormous pile of junked R-3350s on the edge of the field taken as failures from B-29s (those that managed to get back in this condition), which they had built up with a crane into a single long heap some 20 or 30 feet high, must have been hundreds of engines in there. Would it be unkind to suggest that after 1945 they were all sold back to Lockheed for the Constellation ?
The Pratts R-4360 also seems to have been an engine too far, but appears to have had a lot of prop problems, shed blades, etc, which seems to indicate that it was developing too much power for the prop to handle.
"I thought RR darts were cool once.....then I met an Allison 501D-13.'
That's the one part of the CV trifecta I never got to fly. And yes, most of my 1820 time was the -80s on the DC-3S.
That's the one part of the CV trifecta I never got to fly. And yes, most of my 1820 time was the -80s on the DC-3S.