@@DrJaneLuciferian Thank you very much for subscribing, glad to help you learn about an obscure, but interesting topic! The way I look at it, evolving aircraft engine technology, like the railroad and utility infrastructure, is one of those complex (and largely invisible) things on whose shoulders the world sits today J.A. Reed
I cannot thank you enough for your kind comment and for ordering the book! I know you will enjoy it--or your money back as they say! Yes, this particular video was an exhausting project. Thanks for watching it! J.A. Reed
As a tour guide at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum, never again will I point our stand - mounted R 1820 from our H-34, and state it's the same as a B-17. Next time I'm there, I will take a close look at the cylinder head design. Videos like this are what keeps retirees like me on TH-cam at 2AM! BTW, Amazon advises I'll receive your book on 9/27, looking forward to reading it.
Thank you for watching and for ordering the book! I am sure you will enjoy it. I suppose you could tell museum visitors that the H-34 engine is a "re-designed and more powerful version" of the engine that powered the B-17. Continuing to make the connection with the B-17 might not be a bad idea because that plane is universally recognized and cherished. Also, I am ready for your P-61 Black Widow !! J.A. Reed.
Fantastic episode on the 9 Series heavy piston engine design and how it reset all heavy radials manufactured in the post-World War II decade. This is a must see engine video!!!!
A few things to consider: - More specific power per cylinder will require higher cylinder pressures at exhaust valve opening so they will sound harsher because the higher frequencies this generates will become louder. - First and second order balance is a radial force compensation required due to the reciprocating mass, not torsional vibration whose orders are determined by the torsional stiffness of the crankshaft and drive components and equivalent rotational inertias of other rotating and reciprocating components. The master/link rod arrangement of most radials complicates this whole show because n-1 cylinder are running with elliptical big-end motion rather than circular. Also torsional resonance will occur at generally fixed frequencies rather than related to engine speed (like reciprocating balanace does) which is why you wind up with RPM avoid areas on the tach. - With exhaust turbines, be it turbocharged or turbo-compounded, the exhaust pressure will be much higher therefore with more energy so more heat will need to be rejected from the exhaust ports which will be one of the main drivers for the extra finning you see on 3350s and later cylinders.
Thanks for your excellent feedback--which is exactly the good information I'm looking for. Sounds like you have some serious direct experience with the big round engines. I know there is extra back pressure in the cylinders from turbocharging which uses PRESSURE turbines, but I think the VELOCITY turbines in the PRT assemblies minimized this. Non-PRT late model R-3350s like the ones that powered the A1 Skyradiers had similar fin areas and patterns as PRT models, but I'm guessing the fin design may have been altered somewhat to suit the application. You sure leave me in the dust on the vibration dampening--I'm wondering if some of the Navy's problems with the engine have to do with the cumulative effects of some of the pilots not adhering to the tachometer limitations over time. J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur You're welcome. Regarding the turbine thing, they all operate in the same way, like every machine that uses a gas working fluid. You're taking high energy gas (pressure and temperature) and converting it to low energy gas by extracting that energy into a mechanical device. All turbines convert the high energy gas into gas velocity before firing it at the turbine by passing it through a nozzle In the case of a piston engine, the nozzle is basically the exhaust valve/port/manifold which is usually less than ideal because it allows for a lot of expansion that doesn't create gas kinetic energy prior to reaching the turbine. That's why we have multi-scroll turbines on turbochargers these days to minimize this effect. The job of the turbine and guide vanes etc is to make the expansion happen with a minimum of turbulence all while collecting some mechanical energy from it by moving.
I consider myself fortunate to have flown behind one of these engines. When I reported for training, VT-6 (my Squadron) was one of the last USN Training Squadrons to operate the T-28 Trojan. They actually asked for volunteers to fly it. Most of the other Squadrons had already transitioned to the T-34C Turbo Mentor - a turboprop - and reportedly a much easier airplane to fly.
Thanks for watching and glad to reach T-28 guys like you. It's funny how in the end they asked for volunteers--I did not know that! Thank you for your service and best regards, J.A. Reed
Thanks! I've been trying to increase our release frequency but all kinds of life's junk gets in the way! Thanks for watching and your continued interest! J.A. Reed
Nice coverage of the old Radical Round Motors. I was stationed at NAS Corpus Christi Tex. in VT-28 squadron. We had TS2A Tracker's with 1820-9. I had a turn card for Hydraulic shop, so was authorized to start and run engines to verify Hydraulic system repair and maintenance. I loved starting those things, I only blew the stacks of once. blowing stacks off sucks because no body going to help you reinstall them.
Thanks for your nice comments and sharing your experience-glad to reach real Tracker guys. I used to see them doing endless touch & goes at North Island San Diego and was always impressed by them. Will talk more about Trackers in the next episode, so let me know if you have anything you'd like me to share. J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur Thank you for your reply. All can think to add is I was NOT high power rated for running engines. Just low power for Hydraulic checks. But there is something magic watching 2 1820-9s putting out 1525 at night. sucking the moisture from the humid Texas air, mix in the blue exhaust and flashing red marker lights was awesome to watch. This is 1972-1976 time frame and Trackers were getting replaced by Beech King airs. Also we were stupid 18-24 year old, Who Needs ear plugs. paying for it now. Keep up the great episodes on Radials. Say Radial now and the young say, WHAT? I also think I could start one right now.
@@richarderickson8840 Well, I never started one so you would have to teach me! I echo your sentiments on the S2--they had me hypnotized. Ear plugs would only ruin it.
Really enjoyed this episode. The WW2 Navy F4F-8/FM-2 R-1820 was rated at 1350 hp. Navy FM-2 ace, Joe McGraw, stated to me that their mechanics "tweaked" the engines to get more power out of them. He didn't say specifically what they did to "tweak" the engines but it likely involved an increase in either or both the max RPM and MAP. In any case, Joe was able to beat an experienced Zero pilot in a fight during the Leyte Gulf battle. The 9 series engines in the T-28B and C and C-1 that I was able to get time in were great engines, The E-1 used the 1575 hp version and the prototype with the twin tails and raydome removed was the fastest of all the S-2/C-1/E-1 type aircraft. As I recall, the C-1 had the 1425hp versions rated on purple 115/145 fuel. The max hp on 100/130 (green) fuel and 100LL (blue) was somewhat less.
Glad you enjoyed the episode and thanks for the info! Nothing beats your actual experience. Apparently, the 9 Series was also offered in "de-rated" versions as low as 1,100 hp, but I am not sure if those ever found applications. I think one of the last B-17 versions built used 1,350 hp R-1820s, but I don't have details on that engine construction.
Wonderful, informative video on the postwar Wright 1820. I always wondered why this radial engine was used on numerous aircraft such as the Grumman Tracker and the North American T-28. Your story sets the record straight. Thanks, John, for sharing and I also ordered your book from Amazon. Looking forward to reading it and "Happy Landings!"
Hey Dan, great to hear from you again! After more than 35 years glad us old retirees can still "touch base." Also, thanks for ordering my "Second Wind" book. I am 100% sure you will love it or I'll drive all the way up I-55 to personally double your money back! Best regards, John.
@AeroDinosaur Talking about old aeroplanes ... my father used to tell us about the time that he flew across the Southern Alps from his native West Coast to Christchurch, ss a passenger in a Fox Moth. It was not until I watched one of Mikey McBryan's video interviews with his father that I realized exactly how scary that flight would have been😁. Story #2; My father was born in February, 1930 and when WW2 started, he persuaded his school to set up an ATC unit instead of an army affiliated unit as all the other Greymouth schools chose. This meant that whilst pupils in other schools were doing a fair amount of 'square bashing' and probably short route marches, etcetera; he and his mates were mostly attending aircraft recognition classes and also making visits to aerodromes! I told that story at his funeral and one of his nieces said that she would tell it to her son who was a pilot🙂!
@@michaelguerin56 Your father was brave. I'm not sure if I would get into a Fox Moth to fly 10 feet high over flat land! Otherwise, it looks like your dad was a persuader and forged his own destiny! Thanks for watching. J.A. Reed
I too thought that would be insane, but then I'm thinking...the later model 1820s put out a LOT of heat. (as was well-covered in the video) Would an An-2 lumbering along at 100 kts be able to sufficiently keep the engine cool? Doubt it.
@@aircraftadventures-vids I trained in them in Romania at a friend's airstrip and he operated with cowl flaps open and oil cooler open as well, getting off a 700'-800' strip with a full hopper load (3000 lb.) was no problem for the heat. If so, you can always pull 'er back, the takeoff performance with reversing capability is where that engine would really shine. It wouldn't have to work too hard to do its job. ASh-62 does well too. They run in the most horrible conditions.
Sounds like a great idea, but I guess you might need to add a cooling fan behind the propeller or limit the power, as the viewer below kind of hinted. I guess that might be a major modification. J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur Yes indeed. Fan on the prop shaft like the FW-190 would help in ground operations, weight might be a problem as forgings (heads) might be heavier than castings, being more dense, but the more fins cut in them might negate that; also, other beef ups might add weight too. Fortunately AN-2s are experimental here in the US, so there are more latitudes to use US powerplants. Even a 1200 horse 1820 from a Bull Thrush crop duster would be great. B-17 propeller too. I wonder if a reversing prop would work on an earlier 1820. That would be fantastic for landing. AN is one of my favorites and I want to own one despite 60 gph. I guess plane is an acronym for permanent loss and negative equity.😂 . Hell, P-51 burns that and has one seat, no baggage, and cannot carry a load and cannot land on rough strips. If I'm gonna spend the money on gas and oil, Antonov ticks all boxes for me. Love your vids. Wouldn't mind talking airplanes. Message if you want. Aaron.
@@huskyflylangley6053 Aaron-Thanks. Just send me an e-mail to the address shown on this written video description or channel description. Would love to talk. J.A. Reed
If there is a training course for YT content creators they should certainly use this excellent channel as an exemplar: the level of information density works because of the unerring fluency of the commentary.
A better piston engine conversion for the DC-3 would've been what they did for the PBY Catalina when they swapped the R-1830's for a pair of Wright 2600's
Thanks for watching and commenting. I know the people who held the STC for the R-2600 conversion on the PBY. The Douglas B-23 Dragon bomber (many converted to transports after the war), had a similar but a slightly beefier/larger wing than the DC-3 and was powered by R-2600s. I am wondering if the DC-3 wing was not strong enough for such an STC. J.A. Reed
Actually, the R-3350 BORE wasn't 6 5/8" (6.3125"), but 6 1/8" (6.125"). The STROKE, not the BORE of the R-3350 was 6 5/8" (6.3125"). Before checking any other reference I always go to Jane's 'All The World's Aircraft' 1949 edition in the "Engines in Production" section. Only after checking that do I check later references. Both the R-1820 and R-3350 are specified in Jane's at 6.125" bore. On page 356 of your excellent book--and one of my cherished references, "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II" you state, "The R-3350 shared the same bore and stroke as the R-2600, that is, 6.125-in bore and 6.3125-in stroke; . . ." So, I just go with what I see! I still can't figure out how you got your ground-running aircraft engines to run so successfully--I would not know where to begin. Thanks for watching--an honor! J.A. Reed
in 1970 I had the pleasure of flying in what I thought was a DC-3 / C-47 on a short hop from Bien Hoa to Can Tho, Vietnam. Now, I wonder which variant Air America was using on that route. Any ideas?
I think Air America just flew standard C-47s with R-1830s. But, I could be wrong, Air America flew EVERYTHING! I have not seen any evidence of them flying a C-117D, but that's only me! Thanks for watching. J.A. Reed
I am familiar with this engine -- sort of. I was an "air attack" wildfire control pilot for a state forest service in the southeast US for a while. The state owned three Mialec M-18 Dromader single engine air tankers* manufactured by PZL-Mialec in Poland. These aircraft (built about 1994) were powered by a Polish-built PZL Kalisz ASz-621R 9-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, with 980 hp. This engine was a semi-bootleg copy of the Russian Schvetsov M-25/ASz 62IR, a version of the R-1820 licensed the Soviet Union. The M-25 first flew in Russia in 1937 and was "improved" into the ASh-62. Quality control and performance was ... umm, let's say, an unusual experience. These aircraft were fitted with a 3.3 meter diameter four-bladed propeller made by PZL; it had skinny blades, was marvelously inefficient, and had seals on the pitch controllers that leaked more when seals were fitted than it did if it was run with the seals left out. A quick fix was to fit DC-3 propeller blades but a more comprehensive upgrade was fitting a complete DC-3 propeller with pitch controller. This was a complex engineering operation consisting of fitting thin-walled cylindrical spacers on the metric studs on the engine front section to adapt the inch-sized bores on the controller housings -- nothing else was needed. The greater efficiency and better balance made the aircraft much easier to fly but really it was lipstick on a pig. When the aircraft landed, they were met with a fuel truck and an oil truck, while the fuel was added to the wing tanks a similar nozzle filled the engine oil tank -- consumption was measured in gallons per hour for both. We'd joke that piston rings were tested by dropping a dime into the spark plug hole on the top cylinder, if it dropped out of the spark plug of the bottom cylinder then the rings were worn out and needed to be replaced. The aircraft were appalling in many ways but the sound of the inertial starter spinning up, then the coughs and barks of the first cylinders firing, and then the sound of the engine on takeoff was thrilling music not heard at many modern airfields today. (The aircraft were sold off with TBO timed out engines to ag contractors about 2019 to be replaced by turbine-powered "Air Tractors". A great leap forward but sad to see them go - I loved those big old round engines.) * There were four aircraft purchased about 1994 but one swallowed a valve caused by a dropped valve seat on takeoff after about 40 hours of time in service. The aircraft was destroyed and the pilot fatally injured.
Thanks for sharing your interesting details/experiences with the Eastern Bloc engines/aircraft. I had no idea that PZL Dromaders were operated in North America. You certainly confirm that those Eastern copies were NOT the originals!
@@AeroDinosaur I felt a deep connection to the past when everyone (bomber pilots, air attack pilots, mechanics) would be called out on the flight line before startup. Besides removing the tiedowns and control gust locks, we would take the propeller tips and "walk" the engines through 6 - 8 compression cycles to clear oil out of the cylinders. As the propeller moved to the next blade, another person would take that one and push it through, then walk away from the prop on the other side in a continuous chain. It was just like the videos of the B-17s being prepared for takeoff. We all pitched in to do maintenance and repair work, I have felt very privileged to have been involved with them. Just following the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Polish government was attempting to find markets for the PZL aircraft. An importing company was established in the early - mid 90s in Wilmington, NC with a certified maintenance/repair facility at Burlington, NC. That's how the Dromaders got to the Forest Service. There was a push to sell the aircraft for ag flying with uncertain success, but at least some were sold. A Canadian man living on the panhandle coast of Florida had a fleet of several (less than half a dozen) for agricultural work; he had contract with growers of "pulp wood" for paper making and he and his Dromaders would apply fertilizer to vast tracts of pine tree growing land in many states across the southeastern US. I must add that by the time that I became familiar with him and his operation, most of his Dromaders were converted to PT-6 turbos and that change continued into the 20-teens. But, yes, there were some Dromader operators in the US, late 90s/early 00s, at least.
@@brucebear1 You remind me of some of the A1 Skyraider pilots I've talked to who in the early '70s flew the last single-engine piston combat missions in Vietnam or any war after that. They felt a unique kinship with the P-51, Spitfire, TBM, Hellcat, and Corsair pilots of World War II and considered it a privilege to fly the smoky, greasy, noisy Skyraider. By the 1970s perhaps 99% of their flying peers did not know how to handle a heavy taildragger. J.A. Reed
Did the 9 series have higher compression? Usually increasing power output from the same displacement is accomplished by improved breathing (including more boost), more rpm, or higher compression. You didn't go into how the extra power was achieved……..
I mentioned the longer stroke which pulled in more air for compression, but I should have mentioned the compression ratio of 6.8:1 for the 9 Series versus 6.5: 1 -- 6.7:1 for most other large radial engines.
Thanks for sharing your deep dive into the great American engineering feats.
You bet! It is certainly not for everybody--but I enjoyed making it. Thanks for watching! J.A. Reed
Wow, never knew these hidden gem details!
I suppose our details are not for everybody, but at least we're now "on the record!" Thanks for watching! J.A. Reed
Just stumbled across this. Definitely going back to watch the previous videos in this series! Great detail
Thank you so much for checking us out, I'm sure you will enjoy the earlier episodes too! J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur Ya, I've already watch a few and have subscribed. I love hearing the gory details of radial engine design in operation :^)
@@DrJaneLuciferian Thank you very much for subscribing, glad to help you learn about an obscure, but interesting topic! The way I look at it, evolving aircraft engine technology, like the railroad and utility infrastructure, is one of those complex (and largely invisible) things on whose shoulders the world sits today J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur And they're on all my favourite planes :^)
A lot of work went into making this video so thank you for making it. Just ordered your book as well.
I cannot thank you enough for your kind comment and for ordering the book! I know you will enjoy it--or your money back as they say! Yes, this particular video was an exhausting project. Thanks for watching it! J.A. Reed
As a tour guide at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum, never again will I point our stand - mounted R 1820 from our H-34, and state it's the same as a B-17. Next time I'm there, I will take a close look at the cylinder head design.
Videos like this are what keeps retirees like me on TH-cam at 2AM!
BTW, Amazon advises I'll receive your book on 9/27, looking forward to reading it.
Thank you for watching and for ordering the book! I am sure you will enjoy it. I suppose you could tell museum visitors that the H-34 engine is a "re-designed and more powerful version" of the engine that powered the B-17. Continuing to make the connection with the B-17 might not be a bad idea because that plane is universally recognized and cherished. Also, I am ready for your P-61 Black Widow !! J.A. Reed.
Fantastic episode on the 9 Series heavy piston engine design and how it reset all heavy radials manufactured in the post-World War II decade. This is a must see engine video!!!!
Thank you Lets Fix It Right for watching! We're getting very good constructive feedback.
A few things to consider:
- More specific power per cylinder will require higher cylinder pressures at exhaust valve opening so they will sound harsher because the higher frequencies this generates will become louder.
- First and second order balance is a radial force compensation required due to the reciprocating mass, not torsional vibration whose orders are determined by the torsional stiffness of the crankshaft and drive components and equivalent rotational inertias of other rotating and reciprocating components. The master/link rod arrangement of most radials complicates this whole show because n-1 cylinder are running with elliptical big-end motion rather than circular. Also torsional resonance will occur at generally fixed frequencies rather than related to engine speed (like reciprocating balanace does) which is why you wind up with RPM avoid areas on the tach.
- With exhaust turbines, be it turbocharged or turbo-compounded, the exhaust pressure will be much higher therefore with more energy so more heat will need to be rejected from the exhaust ports which will be one of the main drivers for the extra finning you see on 3350s and later cylinders.
Dang you know your engines
Thanks for your excellent feedback--which is exactly the good information I'm looking for. Sounds like you have some serious direct experience with the big round engines. I know there is extra back pressure in the cylinders from turbocharging which uses PRESSURE turbines, but I think the VELOCITY turbines in the PRT assemblies minimized this. Non-PRT late model R-3350s like the ones that powered the A1 Skyradiers had similar fin areas and patterns as PRT models, but I'm guessing the fin design may have been altered somewhat to suit the application. You sure leave me in the dust on the vibration dampening--I'm wondering if some of the Navy's problems with the engine have to do with the cumulative effects of some of the pilots not adhering to the tachometer limitations over time. J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur You're welcome. Regarding the turbine thing, they all operate in the same way, like every machine that uses a gas working fluid. You're taking high energy gas (pressure and temperature) and converting it to low energy gas by extracting that energy into a mechanical device. All turbines convert the high energy gas into gas velocity before firing it at the turbine by passing it through a nozzle In the case of a piston engine, the nozzle is basically the exhaust valve/port/manifold which is usually less than ideal because it allows for a lot of expansion that doesn't create gas kinetic energy prior to reaching the turbine. That's why we have multi-scroll turbines on turbochargers these days to minimize this effect. The job of the turbine and guide vanes etc is to make the expansion happen with a minimum of turbulence all while collecting some mechanical energy from it by moving.
I consider myself fortunate to have flown behind one of these engines. When I reported for training, VT-6 (my Squadron) was one of the last USN Training Squadrons to operate the T-28 Trojan. They actually asked for volunteers to fly it. Most of the other Squadrons had already transitioned to the T-34C Turbo Mentor - a turboprop - and reportedly a much easier airplane to fly.
Thanks for watching and glad to reach T-28 guys like you. It's funny how in the end they asked for volunteers--I did not know that! Thank you for your service and best regards, J.A. Reed
Fascinating minutia on those incredible engines and eye-catching visuals. Thank you!
And thanks for your help on this, Nick! You added some nice depth.
Another great video, thank you.
Thanks, Harry, we need to get caught up! I'll call you over the weekend or next week.
Still love all the detail you cram into these videos. Definitely worth the wait.
Thanks! I've been trying to increase our release frequency but all kinds of life's junk gets in the way! Thanks for watching and your continued interest! J.A. Reed
Nice coverage of the old Radical Round Motors. I was stationed at NAS Corpus Christi Tex. in VT-28 squadron. We had TS2A Tracker's with 1820-9. I had a turn card for Hydraulic shop, so was authorized to start and run engines to verify Hydraulic system repair and maintenance. I loved starting those things, I only blew the stacks of once. blowing stacks off sucks because no body going to help you reinstall them.
Thanks for your nice comments and sharing your experience-glad to reach real Tracker guys. I used to see them doing endless touch & goes at North Island San Diego and was always impressed by them. Will talk more about Trackers in the next episode, so let me know if you have anything you'd like me to share. J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur Thank you for your reply. All can think to add is I was NOT high power rated for running engines. Just low power for Hydraulic checks. But there is something magic watching 2 1820-9s putting out 1525 at night. sucking the moisture from the humid Texas air, mix in the blue exhaust and flashing red marker lights was awesome to watch. This is 1972-1976 time frame and Trackers were getting replaced by Beech King airs. Also we were stupid 18-24 year old, Who Needs ear plugs. paying for it now. Keep up the great episodes on Radials. Say Radial now and the young say, WHAT? I also think I could start one right now.
@@richarderickson8840 Well, I never started one so you would have to teach me! I echo your sentiments on the S2--they had me hypnotized. Ear plugs would only ruin it.
@@richarderickson8840 You got one up on me--I've watched them being started from the flight deck, but never started a big radial myself!
Really enjoyed this episode. The WW2 Navy F4F-8/FM-2 R-1820 was rated at 1350 hp. Navy FM-2 ace, Joe McGraw, stated to me that their mechanics "tweaked" the engines to get more power out of them. He didn't say specifically what they did to "tweak" the engines but it likely involved an increase in either or both the max RPM and MAP. In any case, Joe was able to beat an experienced Zero pilot in a fight during the Leyte Gulf battle. The 9 series engines in the T-28B and C and C-1 that I was able to get time in were great engines, The E-1 used the 1575 hp version and the prototype with the twin tails and raydome removed was the fastest of all the S-2/C-1/E-1 type aircraft. As I recall, the C-1 had the 1425hp versions rated on purple 115/145 fuel. The max hp on 100/130 (green) fuel and 100LL (blue) was somewhat less.
Glad you enjoyed the episode and thanks for the info! Nothing beats your actual experience. Apparently, the 9 Series was also offered in "de-rated" versions as low as 1,100 hp, but I am not sure if those ever found applications. I think one of the last B-17 versions built used 1,350 hp R-1820s, but I don't have details on that engine construction.
Wonderful, informative video on the postwar Wright 1820. I always wondered why this radial engine was used on numerous aircraft such as the Grumman Tracker and the North American T-28. Your story sets the record straight. Thanks, John, for sharing and I also ordered your book from Amazon. Looking forward to reading it and "Happy Landings!"
Hey Dan, great to hear from you again! After more than 35 years glad us old retirees can still "touch base." Also, thanks for ordering my "Second Wind" book. I am 100% sure you will love it or I'll drive all the way up I-55 to personally double your money back! Best regards, John.
Thank you John. I have subscribed. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
Thank you sir! I love NZ--one of the biggest and best contributors to legacy aviation anywhere! J.A. Reed
@AeroDinosaur Talking about old aeroplanes ... my father used to tell us about the time that he flew across the Southern Alps from his native West Coast to Christchurch, ss a passenger in a Fox Moth. It was not until I watched one of Mikey McBryan's video interviews with his father that I realized exactly how scary that flight would have been😁.
Story #2; My father was born in February, 1930 and when WW2 started, he persuaded his school to set up an ATC unit instead of an army affiliated unit as all the other Greymouth schools chose. This meant that whilst pupils in other schools were doing a fair amount of 'square bashing' and probably short route marches, etcetera; he and his mates were mostly attending aircraft recognition classes and also making visits to aerodromes! I told that story at his funeral and one of his nieces said that she would tell it to her son who was a pilot🙂!
@@michaelguerin56 Your father was brave. I'm not sure if I would get into a Fox Moth to fly 10 feet high over flat land! Otherwise, it looks like your dad was a persuader and forged his own destiny! Thanks for watching. J.A. Reed
Excellent information.
Thanks for the nice comment and for checking us out! Much appreciated. J.A. Reed
I want to put a 1525 horse on an AN-2. They had license built 1820s of 1050 hp. With a reversible prop, that would be a great ship!
I too thought that would be insane, but then I'm thinking...the later model 1820s put out a LOT of heat. (as was well-covered in the video) Would an An-2 lumbering along at 100 kts be able to sufficiently keep the engine cool? Doubt it.
@@aircraftadventures-vids I trained in them in Romania at a friend's airstrip and he operated with cowl flaps open and oil cooler open as well, getting off a 700'-800' strip with a full hopper load (3000 lb.) was no problem for the heat. If so, you can always pull 'er back, the takeoff performance with reversing capability is where that engine would really shine.
It wouldn't have to work too hard to do its job.
ASh-62 does well too. They run in the most horrible conditions.
Sounds like a great idea, but I guess you might need to add a cooling fan behind the propeller or limit the power, as the viewer below kind of hinted. I guess that might be a major modification. J.A. Reed
@@AeroDinosaur
Yes indeed. Fan on the prop shaft like the FW-190 would help in ground operations, weight might be a problem as forgings (heads) might be heavier than castings, being more dense, but the more fins cut in them might negate that; also, other beef ups might add weight too. Fortunately AN-2s are experimental here in the US, so there are more latitudes to use US powerplants. Even a 1200 horse 1820 from a Bull Thrush crop duster would be great. B-17 propeller too. I wonder if a reversing prop would work on an earlier 1820. That would be fantastic for landing. AN is one of my favorites and I want to own one despite 60 gph. I guess plane is an acronym for permanent loss and negative equity.😂 . Hell, P-51 burns that and has one seat, no baggage, and cannot carry a load and cannot land on rough strips. If I'm gonna spend the money on gas and oil, Antonov ticks all boxes for me.
Love your vids. Wouldn't mind talking airplanes. Message if you want. Aaron.
@@huskyflylangley6053 Aaron-Thanks. Just send me an e-mail to the address shown on this written video description or channel description. Would love to talk. J.A. Reed
If there is a training course for YT content creators they should certainly use this excellent channel as an exemplar: the level of information density works because of the unerring fluency of the commentary.
Wow, what and endorsement! Thank you very much! We are very glad you seemed to enjoy the content and thanks for watching it. J.A. Reed
A better piston engine conversion for the DC-3 would've been what they did for the PBY Catalina when they swapped the R-1830's for a pair of Wright 2600's
Thanks for watching and commenting. I know the people who held the STC for the R-2600 conversion on the PBY. The Douglas B-23 Dragon bomber (many converted to transports after the war), had a similar but a slightly beefier/larger wing than the DC-3 and was powered by R-2600s. I am wondering if the DC-3 wing was not strong enough for such an STC. J.A. Reed
I believe the cylinder bore of the 3350, quoted as 6.125" incorrect. If memory serves me correctly the correct dimension is 6-5/16"
Actually, the R-3350 BORE wasn't 6 5/8" (6.3125"), but 6 1/8" (6.125"). The STROKE, not the BORE of the R-3350 was 6 5/8" (6.3125"). Before checking any other reference I always go to Jane's 'All The World's Aircraft' 1949 edition in the "Engines in Production" section. Only after checking that do I check later references. Both the R-1820 and R-3350 are specified in Jane's at 6.125" bore. On page 356 of your excellent book--and one of my cherished references, "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II" you state, "The R-3350 shared the same bore and stroke as the R-2600, that is, 6.125-in bore and 6.3125-in stroke; . . ." So, I just go with what I see! I still can't figure out how you got your ground-running aircraft engines to run so successfully--I would not know where to begin. Thanks for watching--an honor! J.A. Reed
in 1970 I had the pleasure of flying in what I thought was a DC-3 / C-47 on a short hop from Bien Hoa to Can Tho, Vietnam. Now, I wonder which variant Air America was using on that route. Any ideas?
I think Air America just flew standard C-47s with R-1830s. But, I could be wrong, Air America flew EVERYTHING! I have not seen any evidence of them flying a C-117D, but that's only me! Thanks for watching. J.A. Reed
I am familiar with this engine -- sort of. I was an "air attack" wildfire control pilot for a state forest service in the southeast US for a while. The state owned three Mialec M-18 Dromader single engine air tankers* manufactured by PZL-Mialec in Poland. These aircraft (built about 1994) were powered by a Polish-built PZL Kalisz ASz-621R 9-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, with 980 hp. This engine was a semi-bootleg copy of the Russian Schvetsov M-25/ASz 62IR, a version of the R-1820 licensed the Soviet Union. The M-25 first flew in Russia in 1937 and was "improved" into the ASh-62.
Quality control and performance was ... umm, let's say, an unusual experience. These aircraft were fitted with a 3.3 meter diameter four-bladed propeller made by PZL; it had skinny blades, was marvelously inefficient, and had seals on the pitch controllers that leaked more when seals were fitted than it did if it was run with the seals left out. A quick fix was to fit DC-3 propeller blades but a more comprehensive upgrade was fitting a complete DC-3 propeller with pitch controller. This was a complex engineering operation consisting of fitting thin-walled cylindrical spacers on the metric studs on the engine front section to adapt the inch-sized bores on the controller housings -- nothing else was needed. The greater efficiency and better balance made the aircraft much easier to fly but really it was lipstick on a pig.
When the aircraft landed, they were met with a fuel truck and an oil truck, while the fuel was added to the wing tanks a similar nozzle filled the engine oil tank -- consumption was measured in gallons per hour for both. We'd joke that piston rings were tested by dropping a dime into the spark plug hole on the top cylinder, if it dropped out of the spark plug of the bottom cylinder then the rings were worn out and needed to be replaced.
The aircraft were appalling in many ways but the sound of the inertial starter spinning up, then the coughs and barks of the first cylinders firing, and then the sound of the engine on takeoff was thrilling music not heard at many modern airfields today. (The aircraft were sold off with TBO timed out engines to ag contractors about 2019 to be replaced by turbine-powered "Air Tractors". A great leap forward but sad to see them go - I loved those big old round engines.)
* There were four aircraft purchased about 1994 but one swallowed a valve caused by a dropped valve seat on takeoff after about 40 hours of time in service. The aircraft was destroyed and the pilot fatally injured.
Thanks for sharing your interesting details/experiences with the Eastern Bloc engines/aircraft. I had no idea that PZL Dromaders were operated in North America. You certainly confirm that those Eastern copies were NOT the originals!
@@AeroDinosaur I felt a deep connection to the past when everyone (bomber pilots, air attack pilots, mechanics) would be called out on the flight line before startup. Besides removing the tiedowns and control gust locks, we would take the propeller tips and "walk" the engines through 6 - 8 compression cycles to clear oil out of the cylinders. As the propeller moved to the next blade, another person would take that one and push it through, then walk away from the prop on the other side in a continuous chain. It was just like the videos of the B-17s being prepared for takeoff. We all pitched in to do maintenance and repair work, I have felt very privileged to have been involved with them.
Just following the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Polish government was attempting to find markets for the PZL aircraft. An importing company was established in the early - mid 90s in Wilmington, NC with a certified maintenance/repair facility at Burlington, NC. That's how the Dromaders got to the Forest Service. There was a push to sell the aircraft for ag flying with uncertain success, but at least some were sold. A Canadian man living on the panhandle coast of Florida had a fleet of several (less than half a dozen) for agricultural work; he had contract with growers of "pulp wood" for paper making and he and his Dromaders would apply fertilizer to vast tracts of pine tree growing land in many states across the southeastern US. I must add that by the time that I became familiar with him and his operation, most of his Dromaders were converted to PT-6 turbos and that change continued into the 20-teens. But, yes, there were some Dromader operators in the US, late 90s/early 00s, at least.
Thank you for a most complete and thorough review of such an interesting workhorse engine.
@@brucebear1 You remind me of some of the A1 Skyraider pilots I've talked to who in the early '70s flew the last single-engine piston combat missions in Vietnam or any war after that. They felt a unique kinship with the P-51, Spitfire, TBM, Hellcat, and Corsair pilots of World War II and considered it a privilege to fly the smoky, greasy, noisy Skyraider. By the 1970s perhaps 99% of their flying peers did not know how to handle a heavy taildragger. J.A. Reed
@@brucebear1 Thank you very much and thanks for checking us out! J. A. Reed
Did the 9 series have higher compression? Usually increasing power output from the same displacement is accomplished by improved breathing (including more boost), more rpm, or higher compression. You didn't go into how the extra power was achieved……..
I mentioned the longer stroke which pulled in more air for compression, but I should have mentioned the compression ratio of 6.8:1 for the 9 Series versus 6.5: 1 -- 6.7:1 for most other large radial engines.
"Damping," not "Dampening." Thanks.
Got it, slipped by me, thanks.