A fun video
- Thread starter WacoFan
- Start date
Kestrel452
Well-Known Member
That doesn't really look like a place someone should bring a Bonanza to.
WacoFan
Bigly
Many Bonanza's have been to Antique Airfield. "Modern" airplanes have to park somewhat far away so as not to interfere with parking spaces for neat airplanes, but many people bring 210's, Bonanza's, etc. One guy brought a Queen Air once.
Also - B-25's, Avengers, Wildcat's, and other "big" iron have been there. I mean, you see the Beech 18 operating out of there, what makes you think a Bonanza wouldn't be able to?
Kestrel452
Well-Known Member
Because they just strike me as kind of the philosophical opposite of what those pilots are flying. The space age looks and avionics up the arse (at least for most bonanzas) probably wouldn't go over too well.
WacoFan
Bigly
As long as the spam-can drivers know their place and can assimilate with the others (as well as have their planes parked in a hollow on the other side of the runway...well away from viewing or even eyeshot) then they are welcome.
We had one guy approach my Grandpa and I while we were wiping oil off the Howard one year. He said we sure had a pretty airplane and that it was pretty enough that he would trade us his Bonanza for the Howard if we also included a little cash with it. The laughter irritated the Bonanza pilot I think.
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
Depends...
If the mechanic and pilot both "understand" radial engines, they can be easy to service and maintain, and over the life of the engine, probably not that much more in cost.
WacoFan
Bigly
Depends - small Wright's can be pricey because of their relative rarity and lack of shops that you would want doing the overhaul - they charge accordingly.
Small Pratts (450 and 650) are plentiful and not as difficult to find parts for or overhaul, and Jacob's engines are really simple. Continental radials are not as easy as Jacobs but better than many and there were a ton of them built. Radial Lycomings are probably harder than Jacobs and Continentals, but easier than small Wrights. Of course, more arcane engines - Warners, Kinners, Szekelys and such can be difficult.
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
One word...
Younkin
I saw Bobby fly the Twin Beech routine years back. Not only do the twin smokers look cool, it sounds awesome!
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
What do you mean by "understand?"
I'm really ignorant on aircraft engines. All my exposure has just been on the bits you learn during the PPL and a little reading here and there. The Lycomings that power the Cessnas and the one Piper I've flown are relatively simple air-cooled engines. I understand that radials are physically different, but I don't know much about their properties in terms of complexity or performance.
texas_pilot
Well-Known Member
I thought the radials require 130 octane for perfrmance.
Full power on LL = melted pistons
Full power on LL = melted pistons
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
Not hardly.
They run just fine on 100LL.
Physically different in how they look, yes. Radials are still reciprocating internal combustion engines, most using pushrods and lifters to operate overhead valves, just like the horizontally opposed engines you are accustomed to.
To start to understand the radial, you have to look at the time period when it was extremely popular and in use. During that time, inline air-cooled engines suffered from cooling issues, something that a radial did not have (side note: cooling issues with inlines is what led to the liquid cooled inlines like the Merlin). In competetion with an inline of similar horsepower, the radial gave more horsepower per pound, more efficient in combat (didn't lose coolant, overheat and seizure), plus the radial is more mechanically efficient (think of it this way... a radial would have two crankshaft bearings as opposed to multiple bearings in an inline. Cut down weight, increase efficiency). With the advantages of the radial, also came the aerodynamic inefficiency of a large frontal area. That, along with the less horsepower needed for the Cessna and Piper designs helped lead to the emergence of the horizontally opposed engine as your "everyday engine" in aircraft manufacturing.
As far as "understanding"... this design is about 100 years old. Truth be told, the Wright Whirlwind (J-5) is considered to be the first truly reliable aircraft engine was introduced in 1925 (this engine powered Lindbergh's Ryan NYP). With that in mind, there are fewer and fewer mechanics and pilots with experience operating a radial engine. That is where the "understanding" part comes in. Even though they operate the same as a horizontally opposed engine mechanically, if you treat it the same, you are probably going to shorten the overhaul interval of the engine.
One of the biggest "gotchas" is that radials often suffer from hydraulic lock, a condition cause by oil seeping into the rocker cover area, and in severe cases, into the cylinder between the valves and the piston. This condition is the reason you see pilots or ground crews pulling the prop through several times before they start the engine. If you try and start a radial with a severe enough hydraulic lock, you are pretty much going to blow a cylinder off the airplane. (Note: this oil seepage is what causes the smoke on startup). Furthermore, even though radials can be fairly simple mechanically to work on (some are not - see Waco's post) they do require some extra attention that a horizontally opposed engine generally does not.
WacoFan
Bigly
Great run-down.
Further, I'd rather work on a radial than a flat engine. Generally there is a lot of room to work with and the parts are bigger. The radials are generally higher displacement per horsepower so the cylinders, pistons, etc are bigger. Kind of like Lego's for really young kids are bigger. The 275 HP Jacobs has a displacement of 755 cubic inches - an IO-540 puts out more hp on much less displacemnt. A 450hp P&W is 985 cubic inches whereas a lycoming 0720 can put out 400hp. The radials aren't generally working as hard.
WacoFan
Bigly
Prefered fuel would be 80 octane for most of the airplanes in the video.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Wow, great posts - thanks!
So...since the radials aren't working as hard, do they generally have a longer lifespan and longer TBO times?
As far as engine management, do they have to be flown differently with regard to the settings the pilot employs?
WacoFan
Bigly
No on the TBO. I think a brand new Jacobs is around 1200 hours (about $25k overhaul).
I think it just needs to be understood - like the hydraulic lock thing. Radials can be incredibly durable - there are pictures of P-47's and Corsairs that had entire cylinders blown off and returned home with the rod simply flapping in the breeze.