More Radial Engine Questions...

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Decided to pop this out from the "fun video" thread. This stuff is fascinating...

Do the older radial engines have the same issues with needing a lead "cushion" in the valve seats that auto engines needed when we still had leaded gas?

A lot of car builders these days rebuild motors with stainless steel valve seats so that they can run modern fuels without damaging the valves or putting in lead additives. Wondering if the same holds true on radials?
 
Decided to pop this out from the "fun video" thread. This stuff is fascinating...

Do the older radial engines have the same issues with needing a lead "cushion" in the valve seats that auto engines needed when we still had leaded gas?

A lot of car builders these days rebuild motors with stainless steel valve seats so that they can run modern fuels without damaging the valves or putting in lead additives. Wondering if the same holds true on radials?


After 9 years as an auto mech., these stainless steel valve seats you talk of are new to me. Granted I've been out of it now for about 3 years, but I have never seen or heard of one. I do know that some use stainless valves. They usually use powdered metal.
 
After 9 years as an auto mech., these stainless steel valve seats you talk of are new to me. Granted I've been out of it now for about 3 years, but I have never seen or heard of one. I do know that some use stainless valves. They usually use powdered metal.

Perhaps I am mistaken. We built this car in 1990-1993 and I may be hazy on the details there. It might be stainless steel VALVES as opposed to valve seats. Will confirm.
 
Decided to pop this out from the "fun video" thread. This stuff is fascinating...

Do the older radial engines have the same issues with needing a lead "cushion" in the valve seats that auto engines needed when we still had leaded gas?

A lot of car builders these days rebuild motors with stainless steel valve seats so that they can run modern fuels without damaging the valves or putting in lead additives. Wondering if the same holds true on radials?

Do you have a link to the video that you referenced?

As for valve seats, there is nothing special about them regarding radial engines. After all, a radial is still just a push rod engine like a horizontally opposed engine. As for types of metals used in the seats, it is typically a bronze alloy or an "austenitic steel". The bronze alloy is utilized in the intake valve seat, but in some applications may also be used in the exhaust valve seat.

Now, I am not a metallurgist. It is my understanding that austenitic steels are stainless. Your question lead me to do a lot of reading on the internet, and I can't find anything to refute that an "austenitic steel" is anything other than a type of stainless. My A&P instructor used to just always classify "austenitic steel" as being non-magnetic.

Alright, so the exhaust valve and seat of any engine is subjected to higher temperatures than the intake valve. This is due to the exposure to the hot exhaust gases scavenged during the exhaust stroke. In addition, the intake valve runs cooler as it is cooled by the incoming vaporized fuel/air mixture. So the exhaust valve and seat need to be able to withstand higher temperatures. Thus, often the seats are made of "austenitic steel". Also, the exhaust valves themselves may be sodium filled to aid in heat dissipation.

Lead as a valve cushioning property is a little overstated. Yes, that is a property, but it is not the primary purpose of lead in avgas. In fact, 100LL is much higher in lead content than the older 80/87 that many older engines were certified to run. This contributes to excessive lead build up which can lead to valve sticking! This is especially an issue at prolonged running at low power, think taxiing, where the scavenging effect is low. Most people are not taught to lean for taxi, primarily I suspect to prevent them from trying to take off in a overly lean condition.

No, the PRIMARY purpose of lead in aviation fuels is to prevent detonation! All fuels have a critical temperature & pressure. Tetra-Ethyl Lead raises the threshold for gasoline, allowing for higher effective pressures within the cylinder without risking detonation. Of course there are other variables too, including mixture setting & power setting, that effect the propensity of the fuel to detonate within the combustion chamber. However, the fact remains that the addition of TEL to avgas is primarily to prevent detonation, regardless of the manner of the arrangement of the cylinders around the crankshaft.

Hope this helped!
 
After 9 years as an auto mech., these stainless steel valve seats you talk of are new to me. Granted I've been out of it now for about 3 years, but I have never seen or heard of one. I do know that some use stainless valves. They usually use powdered metal.

many years ago I had the engine rebuilt on a '66 Mustang and the shop insisted that I needed stainless steel valve seats in the re-build to use unleaded fuel. No stainless valve seats, no warranty on the re-build.

Are you telling me they were crooks?
 
many years ago I had the engine rebuilt on a '66 Mustang and the shop insisted that I needed stainless steel valve seats in the re-build to use unleaded fuel. No stainless valve seats, no warranty on the re-build.

Are you telling me they were crooks?


No, hardened steel seats are definitely recommended these days. I think the unleaded fuel used today must burn hotter with all the additives in it.

On my Ranger I had a valve job done because the valves were beginning to sink into the head. The original seats were just machined out of the casting, I had them machine the original seats out and install hardened steel inserts.
 
The short answer is, yes, there are issues with big radials and low lead fuel.

How much of an issue, nobody really knows. It's a hotbed topic of discussion in the warbird community with no real answer and conflicting data on both sides.

I haven't seen anyone spending the $ to significantly modify the engines to wear better on unleaded fuel. Rather, there is a lot of discussion on how to operate the engines on unleaded fuel in order to extend the TBO.
 
The short answer is, yes, there are issues with big radials and low lead fuel.

How much of an issue, nobody really knows. It's a hotbed topic of discussion in the warbird community with no real answer and conflicting data on both sides.

I haven't seen anyone spending the $ to significantly modify the engines to wear better on unleaded fuel. Rather, there is a lot of discussion on how to operate the engines on unleaded fuel in order to extend the TBO.

I spent three years maintaining R-3350's. What's the issue that you're speaking about?
 
I spent three years maintaining R-3350's. What's the issue that you're speaking about?

Specifically, the issue has to do with valve and piston ring/liner wear.

The "problem" is that people believe that the reduced lead in 100LL is leading to premature wear-out of these items, leading to overhauls inside of the normal TBO (pretty damn expensive on a 3350, as you probably know).

So, some of the operators decided they would operate using lower MPs, reduced-power takeoffs, etc, to try and combat the increased wear. The idea being that lower power settings will reduce the internal pressures and thus reduce wear.

Then came the discussion about power-enrichment valves when at takeoff power...then came the discussion about just how "low lead" is "100 LL" when compared to 100/130 and 115/145...then came the discussion about the quality of fuel blends in the 1940s/50s as compared to now, and the quality of octane measurement and ratings back then as compared to now....

It's a never-ending lufbery of a discussion with valid arguments on both sides.
 
As for types of metals used in the seats, it is typically a bronze alloy or an "austenitic steel". The bronze alloy is utilized in the intake valve seat, but in some applications may also be used in the exhaust valve seat.

Now, I am not a metallurgist. It is my understanding that austenitic steels are stainless. Your question lead me to do a lot of reading on the internet, and I can't find anything to refute that an "austenitic steel" is anything other than a type of stainless. My A&P instructor used to just always classify "austenitic steel" as being non-magnetic.

I'm not a metallurgist either, but happened to take a test on this topic in my lower division materials science class the day of this post (it's been an interesting class!). FWIW, Austenitic refers to a phase in an Iron-Carbon system (i.e. steel) called Austenite, which is found when the iron is heated up past a certain temperature (~800 C) with a certain weight percent of Carbon (~0.7) dissolved in. This changes the atomic structure from BCC to FCC and yields some favorable hardness or ductility characteristics. I guess to retain the microscopic Austenite structure at room temperature they alloy it with manganese or nickel which produces Austenitic Stainless Steel.

Please correct me if I'm wrong since I only learned about all this in the last two weeks.

You can find it on this graph, which relates temperature to weight percent carbon:

MetastableFe-CPhaseDiagram.gif

[/7500]
 
Originally Posted by Mike H
many years ago I had the engine rebuilt on a '66 Mustang and the shop insisted that I needed stainless steel valve seats in the re-build to use unleaded fuel. No stainless valve seats, no warranty on the re-build.

Are you telling me they were crooks?

No, hardened steel seats are definitely recommended these days. I think the unleaded fuel used today must burn hotter with all the additives in it.

On my Ranger I had a valve job done because the valves were beginning to sink into the head. The original seats were just machined out of the casting, I had them machine the original seats out and install hardened steel inserts.

Just for the record- they were still crooked. Really crooked.
 
Specifically, the issue has to do with valve and piston ring/liner wear.

The "problem" is that people believe that the reduced lead in 100LL is leading to premature wear-out of these items, leading to overhauls inside of the normal TBO (pretty damn expensive on a 3350, as you probably know).

So, some of the operators decided they would operate using lower MPs, reduced-power takeoffs, etc, to try and combat the increased wear. The idea being that lower power settings will reduce the internal pressures and thus reduce wear.

Then came the discussion about power-enrichment valves when at takeoff power...then came the discussion about just how "low lead" is "100 LL" when compared to 100/130 and 115/145...then came the discussion about the quality of fuel blends in the 1940s/50s as compared to now, and the quality of octane measurement and ratings back then as compared to now....

It's a never-ending lufbery of a discussion with valid arguments on both sides.

Gotcha. I can't speak of premature wear, as I didn't maintain large radials prior to 100LL. I'm not that old! But again, the cushioning effect of TEL is a little overstated.

I was trying to find the reference for this, as I haven't worked on a 3350 in a few years. But, if I recall correctly we changed a cylinder if the compression was less than 60 past the valves, and nothing past the rings. The Navy actually had lower tolerances, I want to say their threshold was 40 on a compression check, and as low as 20 in war time. I'll talk to some of my old buddies and confirm this.

It is an issue of reducing BMEP/Torque (depending on engine/airframe combination). The number one purpose of TEL is to prevent detonation, and we operated with a flight manual supplement that gave us approved material for operating on 100LL.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I'm getting ready to head back up to Alaska to work on a DC-6 for the season. When asked if I've ever worked on R-2800's, I responded "I've never worked on a radial engine that small."
 
I'm not a metallurgist either, but happened to take a test on this topic in my lower division materials science class the day of this post (it's been an interesting class!). FWIW, Austenitic refers to a phase in an Iron-Carbon system (i.e. steel) called Austenite, which is found when the iron is heated up past a certain temperature (~800 C) with a certain weight percent of Carbon (~0.7) dissolved in. This changes the atomic structure from BCC to FCC and yields some favorable hardness or ductility characteristics. I guess to retain the microscopic Austenite structure at room temperature they alloy it with manganese or nickel which produces Austenitic Stainless Steel.

Please correct me if I'm wrong since I only learned about all this in the last two weeks.

You can find it on this graph, which relates temperature to weight percent carbon:

MetastableFe-CPhaseDiagram.gif

[/7500]

That is some cool, good to know information, inigo! What are you majoring in?
 
Back
Top