Consider the complexity of that beastly thing. Now consider the engineers who designed it. No CAD. No computers. No calculators beyond slide rules. Consider the men who produced them. No CNC. Just men who were crackerjack machinists, blacksmiths, and foundry men. The skill required to make the casting patterns was quite impressive. I did my engineering during the last gasps of old-world manufacturing. Compared with the youngins, I feel like I am as far beyond their meager capabilities as I felt I was behind those whom I considered to be REAL engineers - tool and die men of such skill that I used to wish I knew what they'd forgotten. My dad was such a man and I was always very proud of him. He and a handful of other instrument makers produced all the gyros for the Norden bombsights during the war. I know that CNC has made the world better in practical terms, but in those of pure art, the old ways were best... at least for this old fart.
Do you have any experience with Cnc? It is just as much an art form as any of the manual stuff. It’s just using g code instead of manual labor. It’s easy to sit back and think all you have to do is push a button and let it run but on most parts that is the shortest time of the job. Watching someone hand right G code is an awesome thing to watch. Go watch some 3d contouring or hand programmed Cand cycles. Why is it better they didn’t have modern tools and science? You are looking at it the wrong way. The people that did this stuff actually created the manufacturing world we know today. What they did is take a very long and drawn out process and simplify it and remove as much human variable as possible to create the best parts possible.
@@iBLOODBATHproduction Being a retired machinist of 30 years, I can certainly appreciate everything you mentioned. That said, there are just as many differences as there are similarities when it comes to how things were made versus how things are done now. This newer generation has so much more at their disposal as far as tooling options and even tool materials. One can't deny the fact that the people that used to make the parts for these things had to have tribal knowledge and a "feel" for how to set up a manual machine, -each one is different. I have huge respect for the way people were able to make the things they did without the tooling and machines we have today. I was trained by two retired Navy machinists who taught me every aspect of setting up manual machines, and over the years, that knowledge has paid off in spades. One might consider me to be slightly biased, -but I can assure you it is for good reason!
That's about the best, smoothest running 4360 ever, certainly the start-up was faster/better than most. The guy in the test cell's operator's booth sure has a great technique.
SAC mandated that there be at least one mechanic trained to work on the r4360 for every individual engine the US had flying in its possession. So, each B36 bomber needed 6 trained individual Pratt &Whitney mechanics to be on staff wherever the bomber was based. - That’s what it took just to keep these things running.
Those 4360s are so complex, and have so many internal moving parts, that it is a tremendously daunting task for any 1 mechanic to tend to. Taking care of your own airplane is easier. *i work on 6 cylinder turbocharged airplane piston engines for a living!* And if it were up to me, i would have 2 trained mechanics to each 4360. I could not, in good conscience, leave 1 mechanic alone with one. Regardless of his skill level or competence. Too much. Just to ram the scope of this home. 28 cylinders. 7 magnetos 28 fuel injector distribution lines. One *monster* of a carburetor. To list a few routine checks: 28 compression checks after x number of hours in use. Each compression check requiring that gigantic 4 blade propeller to be turned a certain amount for the check to be done. (I'll explain a compression check if anyone replies asking for it.) 56 spark plugs. (2 per cylinder for redundancy) All of which, periodically, need to be cleaned in a specific way, gapped to a very specific size, and replaced if they're worn down too much. 7 magnetos. (Component that generates ignition sparks.) Placed at the very front of the engine, each sparking the 4 cylinders directly behind it. All these magnetos have to, periodically, have their timing adjusted, so each of their corresponding cylinders fires up at the exact moment it's designed to. AND, each magneto has to be timed up *with each other.* So the engine has symmetric firings at all times. As their timing drifts out of sync with use. (I'm gonna guess 7 cylinders are synchronistically firing at any given moment, given it's a 4-stroke engine. ) An engine this big and heavy *Has to be* turbocharged. Otherwise it would be a glorified brick in terms of power-to-weight. (This is why turbine engines are better at this size. *Much* more power for the size & weight of the engine) That turbo must be absolutely *gargantuan, to provide the necessary compressed air to all those cylinders. Turbocharging increased the complexity of the air induction system. And the exhaust system. Lots of piping running all around the engine. 2 connected to each and every cylinder. 56 valves. 28 intake, 28 exhaust. All of which need to, once in awhile, be checked for wear with a small inspection mirror. Or, in more modern times, a borescope would be used. I have no doubt that the aft-most bank of cylinders got the least amount of cooling air run over them, ran the hottest, and had to be replaced most often. And i also have no doubt that those are the hardest cylinders to change. And i can't even IMAGINE how much oil this beast needs. Probably around 10 gallons. Maybe even more. These are the commonplaces procedures that would have to be done to keep this engine running relatively well. I feel for the overhaul shop that has to do the full inside-and-out overhaul of a 4360. I love vintage engines, but Nooooo thank you.
The B-36 had six of the R-4360s. As all know this was a monster of a plane. It might be the plane that used the 4300 hp upgraded engines. The B-36 also had four jet engines. Even with all this power the B-36 lumbered off the ground like an elephant trying to fly, but fly it did.
One little known fact is that, in flight, the B-36’s J-47 jet engines ran on the same high-octane gasoline/petrol as did the R-4360s. This helped prevent a good deal of misfueling incidents.
Well, some of them weighed as much as a 747, so of course they lumbered off the ground. Think of all of the heavy vacuum tube electronics inside of the things. A modern replica would actually be over-powered with modern electronics, etc.
These 4360s are so complex, and have so many internal moving parts, that it is a tremendously daunting task for any 1 mechanic to tend to. Taking care of your own airplane is easier. *i work on 6 cylinder turbocharged airplane piston engines for a living!* And if it were up to me, i would have 2 trained mechanics to each 4360. I could not, in good conscience, leave 1 mechanic alone with one. Regardless of his skill level or competence. Too much. Just to ram the scope of this home. 28 cylinders. 7 magnetos 28 fuel injector distribution lines. One *monster* of a carburetor. To list a few routine checks: 28 compression checks after x number of hours in use. Each compression check requiring that gigantic 4 blade propeller to be turned a certain amount for the check to be done. (I'll explain a compression check if anyone replies asking for it.) 56 spark plugs. (2 per cylinder for redundancy) All of which, periodically, need to be cleaned in a specific way, gapped to a very specific size, and replaced if they're worn down too much. 7 magnetos. (Component that generates ignition sparks.) Placed at the very front of the engine, each sparking the 4 cylinders directly behind it. Those black stubby things with the tin caps sitting afront each row. All these magnetos have to, periodically, have their timing adjusted, so each of their corresponding cylinders fires up at the exact moment it's designed to. AND, each magneto has to be timed up *with each other.* So the engine has symmetric firings at all times. As their timing drifts out of sync with use. (I'm gonna guess 7 cylinders are synchronistically firing at any given moment, given it's a 4-stroke engine. ) An engine this big and heavy *Has to be* turbocharged. Otherwise it would be a glorified brick in terms of power-to-weight. (This is why turbine engines are better at this size. *Much* more power for the size & weight of the engine) That turbo must be absolutely *gargantuan,* to provide the necessary compressed air to all those cylinders. Turbocharging increased the complexity of the air induction system. And the exhaust system. Lots of piping running all around the engine. 2 connected to each and every cylinder. 56 valves. 28 intake, 28 exhaust. All of which need to, once in awhile, be checked for wear with a small inspection mirror. Or, in more modern times, a borescope would be used. I have no doubt that the aft-most bank of cylinders got the least amount of cooling air run over them, ran the hottest, and had to be replaced most often. And i also have no doubt that those are the hardest cylinders to change. And i can't even IMAGINE how much oil this beast needs. Probably around 10 gallons. Maybe even more. These are the commonplaces procedures that would have to be done to keep this engine running relatively well. I feel for the overhaul shop that has to do the full inside-and-out overhaul of a 4360. I love vintage engines, but Nooooo thank you.
I think most reliable high pref piston aircraft engines are supercharged. Turbos are not good because with sustained high throttle they back heat up into the piston and valves. Supercharged pistons run cooler. Nothing is restricting exhaust flow. Can run higher duty cycle at higher boost pressure lower piston And egt temperatures
Think about it in terms of HP per cubic inch. The R-2800 program matched the 4360 in output power production - Read 'Dependable Masterpiece' on the 2800 by Graham White, who also wrote the omnibus reference on the 4360, 'R-4360 P&W's Major Miracle'
Commercial airliners equipped with those engines were actually capable of flying at the same cruising speed as modern commercial jets today. If you fly from Seattle to Los Angeles on a 737 you're cruising speeds going to be about 300 to 350 mph
Yes, and it's too bad that none of us will ever hear the sounds of the six(!!) 4360's on a B-36- except in, maybe one movie(Jimmy Stewart's"Strategic Air Command").
I worked on these when they were new and for many years afterwards with the Kansas Air National Guard. Pratt & Whitney designed these engine's air cooling systems to work as seven separate Inline 4 cylinder engines literally "with a twist". You may look at several different inline air cooled engines and if you imagine prop-blast doing the job of the belt-driven fan on those other engines, and when installed in an aircraft (like this one isn't) the plane's cowling being the "roof" of the cooling air ductwork - then you can see what PW did here. Instead of the air going straight back through say two rows of cylinders - PW directed the air to pressurize a "lane" between each semi-inline "bank" of cylinders, made it turn SIDEWAYS to feed air over four cylinders, then directed the hot air to turn again and go out the engine. Here - let me see if I can find you a picture of an air cooled inline engine. th-cam.com/video/lWNr1AuCYJk/w-d-xo.html Inline 6 Deutz air cooled turbo diesel - but it shows the method of cooling pretty well. Probably the most famous radial engine for catching fire was the early Curtis Wright R-3350 used in the B-29 bombers. There was a war on, there was an atom bomb to be dropped, and CW cheaped out and used cast aluminum cylinder heads. 1) The metal can have pinholes in it 2) It's less dense and weighs less per cubic inch and cant have as much silicon in it for strength, 3) The cylinder fins cant be as smooth, thin and closely spaced as what PW did on all their newer engines - which was to smash (forge) aluminum into the shape they wanted (hi dollar pistons are made this way) and then use UBER-FANCY gangs of slitting saws to whittle cooling fins out of solid metal. Nowadays of course we would use CNC to make those cooling fins - but artistic mechanically cam-actuated rows of gang saws were used in a completely automated machining center. They would load the machine center with cylinder head forgings, shut the lights out and come back the next morning to see them all done. Power goes out overnight? No problem. No need to reset anything, Machine stopped moving at power-off - - then resumed right where it left when power came back on. Cant do that with CNC EVER, lol.
26MAR2021 - Wonderful in every respect. A work of art never to be exceeded in its class. Now for the cherry on top, give Vance and Hines a blank check and let them build an exhaust.
You know... ...the powercases were attached to each other with dozens of "torque to yield" bolts. They were not torqued to a specific torque. They were tightened and measured until they reached the proper stretch. Building a corncob engine was not something that could be done in a rush.
I worked on these when I was in the AF, the engine was most reliable when used as intended which was hours and hours at a cruise power setting, we lost most of our engines during pilot training, mainly touch and go landings. I worked on the C124, it had electric props for pitch control which was slow. One day on a landing the pilot went into reverse thrust when the blade were still in flat pitch and he overspend 3 of the 4 engines which required an immediate engine change, we think he lied about the 4th engine because it had an airborne mechanical failure a week later. This engine could could be over boosted but not overspend for obvious reasons...the complexity of the design.
@@24100mw thanks for the reply! I love hearing from the men who worked on these incredible machines. The C124 looked like what would happen if a ww2 airframe became clinically obese and developed a thyroid problem. Weren’t these engines also prone to severe carb ice?? I think I heard that from someone.
@@24100mw I believe the icing issues was due to the pusher configuration of the B-36 the carburetor I believe didn’t have the luxury of warm air from being behind the engine where it is nice and warm..there was a crash in BC that affected several of the engine and the crew bailed out. Some question what they did with the atom bomb on board though.engine fires due to carb icing were a distinct possibility with this aircraft.
Actually the Engine ran perfectly, its Turbo exhaust system on the other hand... was the issue. Metallurgy was not up to snuff for those high temps when it was built. Today we could do it no problem. I wonder what its specific fuel consumption is compared to turbines today of equivalent power. I'll bet it is better. Now its weight compared to a modern turbine is woefully bad making its fuel + engine weight inferior I'll bet.
The 4360s were actually fairly reliable compared to the alternative Wright 3350s. More work when something breaks but I bet the mean time between overhauls is longer on the 4360.
Beautiful engine. I never understood how the lower half of the radial engines are able to work without any problem. Doesn't the oil have to be drained from those cylinders before start up? Do these engines have oil pan?
Yes they do, the prop has to be turned over by hand to avoid hydro lock. No oil pan. Some, depending on the engine they have a 35 to 45 gallon oil tank.
@@juanramirez3566 I heard that aside from Mechanical issues that crop up, you were not necessarily limited by fuel but more by oil supply for the radial engines. Jet engine only have a fraction of the oil supply and hardly burn it, little different store for the rotaries.
Yea; if it sits for a few days have to pull plugs n drain lower cylinders...then pull em through 8 12 blades before start....hydro lock can break rods everytime !
How about the Napier Deltic with 18 Cylinders, 36 Pistons and three Crankshafts or that Russian Radial Diesel with 42 Cylinders that basically is six I6 Engine arranged like a Radial? Large Marine Two Stroke Diesels are insanely complex too.
If it ain’t smoking’, it’s out of oil! 28 cylinders, 56 spark plugs, what could go wrong? I have 4,000 hours flying radial engine airplanes and loved every minute, even when they failed.
@@BKD70 Not familiar with this one in particular, but big radials usually ran a max rpm of around 2600-2800 RPM with the Wright 3350 Turbo-Compound at 2900, if memory serves. Using the figures from @88SC above, your guess is pretty close.
RakinBill TH-camr Mike Nieman has several videos of his R-4360-20 with a collector ring, that came off a C-119 (which you probably saw). Certainly a difference. This one is a stock F2G exhaust set up.
Not that familiar with the R-4360, but I suspect it had a BMEP gauge for each engine at the engineer's station. Brake Mean Effective Pressure is directly related to torque, so the engineer could monitor engine torque in real time. The sensor was probably in the gear reduction case, with some sort of ring gear attempting to rotate in reaction to the torque applied to it. The gear would be free to turn a tiny distance, but an actuator pressurized by engine lube oil would automatically push back to keep it in a set position. The pressure needed to maintain position varied with torque, and that pressure was fed to a pressure sensor that transmitted a signal to the appropriate BMEP gauge. With the BMEP providing a reliable torque indication, and engine RPM on the tach, actual horsepower delivered was evident to the engineer. He would crosscheck with MAP (manifold pressure) and fuel flow to make sure all was well. Of course, he also monitored engine oil pressure and temperature, cylinder head temp, intake air temperature, cowl flap position, and the position of all the engine control levers in relation to those on the other engines. Probably, he had an ignition analyzer to check the waveforms of magneto primary current on any selected engine/mag. If he detected indications of shorted secondaries on both spark plugs in one cylinder, an emergency condition existed because those plugs would most likely be shorted by metal in the combustion chamber, and an engine failure could follow quite soon.
@@Hopeless_and_Forlorn Yes, this is how the P&W 2800 measured the torque value. The ring gear and the support it sits in each had helical splines. If the gear, because of torque, moves forward within the supports helical splines, six evenly positioned torque meter pistons are pushed deeper in their sleeves allowing a greater supply of boosted oil pressure to act against the gears movement. And as you said this oil pressure reading along with rpm, manifold press. BP, temps of fuel and air, and fuel flow give the BMEP reading. A static ground test would determine the effective BMEP.
@@24100mw Nope... Somebody explained that the "chord" or width of the propellers was probably big reason why both planes sounded the same in addition to similar engines.
@@JungleYT Big props all turn at about the same rpm because of tip speed limits. Also, the C-133 and the B-36 each flew at high altitudes that blessed large land areas with that unforgettable sound. Although I once witnessed a C-133 arriving at Spangdahlem AFB in Germany, I never had the opportunity to hear it pass over at altitude. I do, however, remember the sound of the B-36 at high altitude over Dallas in the late 1940s. Never figured out why they were so high, when Carswell was only about 35 miles from our house. Hardly distance enough to climb from takeoff or descend for approach to landing.
@@Hopeless_and_Forlorn My late Uncle used to watch B-36s depart out of Kelly AFB in the 1950s. He said they'd pretty much "corkscrew" to altitude which might explain the high altitude at only 35 miles distance? At any rate, even at LOW altitude the C-133 and B-36 sound the same!
From the Wiki page for the Jumo engine, a quote: "... a massive and very costly failure." The R-4360 still exists in the 21st century, a few of them on airworthy airplanes. The Jumo was a super engine just as the German soldier was a super soldat.
The R-2800 matched everything the R-4360 ever did in power during testing and development. A internal competition which existed at P&W. Reference: R2800 P&W's Dependable Masterpiece by Graham White
Our guys groups aeronautical not that slow but you may be right I may be wrong but the planes will keep going anyway I've seen these aircraft com back mising motors mising aircraft insignia mising motors before take off kinda pised me and employed right fuck off did notice our mising moter fore few minutes employ filed equipment loss expenditures
Consider the complexity of that beastly thing. Now consider the engineers who designed it. No CAD. No computers. No calculators beyond slide rules.
Consider the men who produced them. No CNC. Just men who were crackerjack machinists, blacksmiths, and foundry men. The skill required to make the casting patterns was quite impressive.
I did my engineering during the last gasps of old-world manufacturing. Compared with the youngins, I feel like I am as far beyond their meager capabilities as I felt I was behind those whom I considered to be REAL engineers - tool and die men of such skill that I used to wish I knew what they'd forgotten. My dad was such a man and I was always very proud of him. He and a handful of other instrument makers produced all the gyros for the Norden bombsights during the war.
I know that CNC has made the world better in practical terms, but in those of pure art, the old ways were best... at least for this old fart.
Andrew Vida you hit the nail on the head
i was about to say the very same thing... that is incredible!
Fueron motivados por la guerra
Do you have any experience with Cnc? It is just as much an art form as any of the manual stuff. It’s just using g code instead of manual labor. It’s easy to sit back and think all you have to do is push a button and let it run but on most parts that is the shortest time of the job. Watching someone hand right G code is an awesome thing to watch. Go watch some 3d contouring or hand programmed Cand cycles.
Why is it better they didn’t have modern tools and science? You are looking at it the wrong way. The people that did this stuff actually created the manufacturing world we know today. What they did is take a very long and drawn out process and simplify it and remove as much human variable as possible to create the best parts possible.
@@iBLOODBATHproduction Being a retired machinist of 30 years, I can certainly appreciate everything you mentioned. That said, there are just as many differences as there are similarities when it comes to how things were made versus how things are done now. This newer generation has so much more at their disposal as far as tooling options and even tool materials. One can't deny the fact that the people that used to make the parts for these things had to have tribal knowledge and a "feel" for how to set up a manual machine, -each one is different. I have huge respect for the way people were able to make the things they did without the tooling and machines we have today. I was trained by two retired Navy machinists who taught me every aspect of setting up manual machines, and over the years, that knowledge has paid off in spades. One might consider me to be slightly biased, -but I can assure you it is for good reason!
That's about the best, smoothest running 4360 ever, certainly the start-up was faster/better than most. The guy in the test cell's operator's booth sure has a great technique.
SAC mandated that there be at least one mechanic trained to work on the r4360 for every individual engine the US had flying in its possession.
So, each B36 bomber needed 6 trained individual Pratt &Whitney mechanics to be on staff wherever the bomber was based. - That’s what it took just to keep these things running.
Those 4360s are so complex, and have so many internal moving parts, that it is a tremendously daunting task for any 1 mechanic to tend to. Taking care of your own airplane is easier.
*i work on 6 cylinder turbocharged airplane piston engines for a living!*
And if it were up to me, i would have 2 trained mechanics to each 4360. I could not, in good conscience, leave 1 mechanic alone with one. Regardless of his skill level or competence.
Too much.
Just to ram the scope of this home.
28 cylinders.
7 magnetos
28 fuel injector distribution lines.
One *monster* of a carburetor.
To list a few routine checks:
28 compression checks after x number of hours in use. Each compression check requiring that gigantic 4 blade propeller to be turned a certain amount for the check to be done. (I'll explain a compression check if anyone replies asking for it.)
56 spark plugs.
(2 per cylinder for redundancy)
All of which, periodically, need to be cleaned in a specific way, gapped to a very specific size, and replaced if they're worn down too much.
7 magnetos. (Component that generates ignition sparks.) Placed at the very front of the engine, each sparking the 4 cylinders directly behind it.
All these magnetos have to, periodically, have their timing adjusted, so each of their corresponding cylinders fires up at the exact moment it's designed to. AND, each magneto has to be timed up *with each other.* So the engine has symmetric firings at all times.
As their timing drifts out of sync with use. (I'm gonna guess 7 cylinders are synchronistically firing at any given moment, given it's a 4-stroke engine. )
An engine this big and heavy *Has to be* turbocharged. Otherwise it would be a glorified brick in terms of power-to-weight. (This is why turbine engines are better at this size. *Much* more power for the size & weight of the engine)
That turbo must be absolutely *gargantuan, to provide the necessary compressed air to all those cylinders.
Turbocharging increased the complexity of the air induction system. And the exhaust system. Lots of piping running all around the engine. 2 connected to each and every cylinder.
56 valves. 28 intake, 28 exhaust. All of which need to, once in awhile, be checked for wear with a small inspection mirror. Or, in more modern times, a borescope would be used.
I have no doubt that the aft-most bank of cylinders got the least amount of cooling air run over them, ran the hottest, and had to be replaced most often. And i also have no doubt that those are the hardest cylinders to change.
And i can't even IMAGINE how much oil this beast needs. Probably around 10 gallons. Maybe even more.
These are the commonplaces procedures that would have to be done to keep this engine running relatively well. I feel for the overhaul shop that has to do the full inside-and-out overhaul of a 4360.
I love vintage engines, but Nooooo thank you.
Absolutely awesome symphony of mechanical engineering
The B-36 had six of the R-4360s. As all know this was a monster of a plane. It might be the plane that used the 4300 hp upgraded engines. The B-36 also had four jet engines. Even with all this power the B-36 lumbered off the ground like an elephant trying to fly, but fly it did.
One little known fact is that, in flight, the B-36’s J-47 jet engines ran on the same high-octane gasoline/petrol as did the R-4360s. This helped prevent a good deal of misfueling incidents.
Well, some of them weighed as much as a 747, so of course they lumbered off the ground. Think of all of the heavy vacuum tube electronics inside of the things. A modern replica would actually be over-powered with modern electronics, etc.
@@Vektorer I was really shocked when I found that out. How can you run that much lead through a jet engine?
@@soaringvulture I'm told that jet engines will burn most anything. One of their many advantages.
There’s one of those monsters parked ar the Pima Air Museum up in Tucson, also they have an R-4360 engine on display.
That engine looks like it's got enough power to spin that prop right into a centrifugal explosion. Wow...
These 4360s are so complex, and have so many internal moving parts, that it is a tremendously daunting task for any 1 mechanic to tend to. Taking care of your own airplane is easier.
*i work on 6 cylinder turbocharged airplane piston engines for a living!*
And if it were up to me, i would have 2 trained mechanics to each 4360. I could not, in good conscience, leave 1 mechanic alone with one. Regardless of his skill level or competence.
Too much.
Just to ram the scope of this home.
28 cylinders.
7 magnetos
28 fuel injector distribution lines.
One *monster* of a carburetor.
To list a few routine checks:
28 compression checks after x number of hours in use. Each compression check requiring that gigantic 4 blade propeller to be turned a certain amount for the check to be done. (I'll explain a compression check if anyone replies asking for it.)
56 spark plugs.
(2 per cylinder for redundancy)
All of which, periodically, need to be cleaned in a specific way, gapped to a very specific size, and replaced if they're worn down too much.
7 magnetos. (Component that generates ignition sparks.) Placed at the very front of the engine, each sparking the 4 cylinders directly behind it. Those black stubby things with the tin caps sitting afront each row.
All these magnetos have to, periodically, have their timing adjusted, so each of their corresponding cylinders fires up at the exact moment it's designed to. AND, each magneto has to be timed up *with each other.* So the engine has symmetric firings at all times.
As their timing drifts out of sync with use. (I'm gonna guess 7 cylinders are synchronistically firing at any given moment, given it's a 4-stroke engine. )
An engine this big and heavy *Has to be* turbocharged. Otherwise it would be a glorified brick in terms of power-to-weight. (This is why turbine engines are better at this size. *Much* more power for the size & weight of the engine)
That turbo must be absolutely *gargantuan,* to provide the necessary compressed air to all those cylinders.
Turbocharging increased the complexity of the air induction system. And the exhaust system. Lots of piping running all around the engine. 2 connected to each and every cylinder.
56 valves. 28 intake, 28 exhaust. All of which need to, once in awhile, be checked for wear with a small inspection mirror. Or, in more modern times, a borescope would be used.
I have no doubt that the aft-most bank of cylinders got the least amount of cooling air run over them, ran the hottest, and had to be replaced most often. And i also have no doubt that those are the hardest cylinders to change.
And i can't even IMAGINE how much oil this beast needs. Probably around 10 gallons. Maybe even more.
These are the commonplaces procedures that would have to be done to keep this engine running relatively well. I feel for the overhaul shop that has to do the full inside-and-out overhaul of a 4360.
I love vintage engines, but Nooooo thank you.
I think most reliable high pref piston aircraft engines are supercharged. Turbos are not good because with sustained high throttle they back heat up into the piston and valves. Supercharged pistons run cooler. Nothing is restricting exhaust flow. Can run higher duty cycle at higher boost pressure lower piston And egt temperatures
The R4360 was supercharged and water injected
The interesting part about these engines was the fact that so long ago they produced performance which was unheard of in the automotive industry.
Think about it in terms of HP per cubic inch. The R-2800 program matched the 4360 in output power production - Read 'Dependable Masterpiece' on the 2800 by Graham White, who also wrote the omnibus reference on the 4360, 'R-4360 P&W's Major Miracle'
Well you can't really put that in a car you know lol
Commercial airliners equipped with those engines were actually capable of flying at the same cruising speed as modern commercial jets today. If you fly from Seattle to Los Angeles on a 737 you're cruising speeds going to be about 300 to 350 mph
What a stunning piece of kit.
I recognize that, it's a BAE, Big Ass Engine. I would love to have been around for the early days of aviation. 4000 unbridled horsepower.
Beautiful restoration BTW.
Dear God it's... Beautiful
That's the way God intended aircraft powerplants to sound.
I guarantee these will be in heaven
Haha. Then why didn't it sound like bird wings?
Yes, and it's too bad that none of us will ever hear the sounds of the six(!!) 4360's on a B-36- except in, maybe one movie(Jimmy Stewart's"Strategic Air Command").
Now that is a great comment sir! Wish I had thought of it. However I will appropriate it for my own devilishly needs.
@@ervinthompson6598 oh what a movie. 36,47,&52 all in one place!
Amazing! Although I imagine the rear cylinders struggled for air, hence reported fires.
I worked on these when they were new and for many years afterwards with the Kansas Air National Guard. Pratt & Whitney designed these engine's air cooling systems to work as seven separate Inline 4 cylinder engines literally "with a twist".
You may look at several different inline air cooled engines and if you imagine prop-blast doing the job of the belt-driven fan on those other engines, and when installed in an aircraft (like this one isn't) the plane's cowling being the "roof" of the cooling air ductwork - then you can see what PW did here. Instead of the air going straight back through say two rows of cylinders - PW directed the air to pressurize a "lane" between each semi-inline "bank" of cylinders, made it turn SIDEWAYS to feed air over four cylinders, then directed the hot air to turn again and go out the engine.
Here - let me see if I can find you a picture of an air cooled inline engine.
th-cam.com/video/lWNr1AuCYJk/w-d-xo.html
Inline 6 Deutz air cooled turbo diesel - but it shows the method of cooling pretty well.
Probably the most famous radial engine for catching fire was the early Curtis Wright R-3350 used in the B-29 bombers. There was a war on, there was an atom bomb to be dropped, and CW cheaped out and used cast aluminum cylinder heads. 1) The metal can have pinholes in it 2) It's less dense and weighs less per cubic inch and cant have as much silicon in it for strength, 3) The cylinder fins cant be as smooth, thin and closely spaced as what PW did on all their newer engines - which was to smash (forge) aluminum into the shape they wanted (hi dollar pistons are made this way) and then use UBER-FANCY gangs of slitting saws to whittle cooling fins out of solid metal.
Nowadays of course we would use CNC to make those cooling fins - but artistic mechanically cam-actuated rows of gang saws were used in a completely automated machining center. They would load the machine center with cylinder head forgings, shut the lights out and come back the next morning to see them all done. Power goes out overnight? No problem. No need to reset anything, Machine stopped moving at power-off - - then resumed right where it left when power came back on. Cant do that with CNC EVER, lol.
@@patrickshaw8595 Thanks. Nice description.
26MAR2021 - Wonderful in every respect. A work of art never to be exceeded in its class. Now for the cherry on top, give Vance and Hines a blank check and let them build an exhaust.
Now, as an A&P Mechanic, that is the sound of power. An immensely complex machine, but doesn't she sound good.
HOW DARE YOU MISGENDER THAT MACHINE. Maybe it identifies as an elephant today. lol?
@@clutch5sp989 HURRRRR DURRRRR LIBS REKT TWO GENDERS TAKE THAT NACY PELUSO
You know...
...the powercases were attached to each other with dozens of "torque to yield" bolts. They were not torqued to a specific torque. They were tightened and measured until they reached the proper stretch. Building a corncob engine was not something that could be done in a rush.
The video made the hair on my neck tingle. Imagine being there in real life ! WOW !
These things had a lot of reliability issues, but one look at the beast and you think: “I can’t believe it’s as reliable as it is!”
I worked on these when I was in the AF, the engine was most reliable when used as intended which was hours and hours at a cruise power setting, we lost most of our engines during pilot training, mainly touch and go landings. I worked on the C124, it had electric props for pitch control which was slow. One day on a landing the pilot went into reverse thrust when the blade were still in flat pitch and he overspend 3 of the 4 engines which required an immediate engine change, we think he lied about the 4th engine because it had an airborne mechanical failure a week later. This engine could could be over boosted but not overspend for obvious reasons...the complexity of the design.
@@24100mw thanks for the reply! I love hearing from the men who worked on these incredible machines.
The C124 looked like what would happen if a ww2 airframe became clinically obese and developed a thyroid problem.
Weren’t these engines also prone to severe carb ice?? I think I heard that from someone.
@@24100mw I believe the icing issues was due to the pusher configuration of the B-36 the carburetor I believe didn’t have the luxury of warm air from being behind the engine where it is nice and warm..there was a crash in BC that affected several of the engine and the crew bailed out. Some question what they did with the atom bomb on board though.engine fires due to carb icing were a distinct possibility with this aircraft.
Actually the Engine ran perfectly, its Turbo exhaust system on the other hand... was the issue. Metallurgy was not up to snuff for those high temps when it was built. Today we could do it no problem. I wonder what its specific fuel consumption is compared to turbines today of equivalent power. I'll bet it is better. Now its weight compared to a modern turbine is woefully bad making its fuel + engine weight inferior I'll bet.
The 4360s were actually fairly reliable compared to the alternative Wright 3350s. More work when something breaks but I bet the mean time between overhauls is longer on the 4360.
Beautiful engine!!! Just one hell of a lot of maintenance!!
I like the sound of radial engine the R 1800 and R 2800 series engine sound is fantastic 👌
At 1:32 walking close past the prop arc of a unit that has not been run for a long time. A very trusting soul. I hope your number never comes up.
I hate the over-used word “awesome…” but this really is! Love the slower shutter speed so the propeller looks like it’s turning.
Beautiful engine. I never understood how the lower half of the radial engines are able to work without any problem. Doesn't the oil have to be drained from those cylinders before start up? Do these engines have oil pan?
Yes they do, the prop has to be turned over by hand to avoid hydro lock. No oil pan. Some, depending on the engine they have a 35 to 45 gallon oil tank.
@@juanramirez3566 I heard that aside from Mechanical issues that crop up, you were not necessarily limited by fuel but more by oil supply for the radial engines. Jet engine only have a fraction of the oil supply and hardly burn it, little different store for the rotaries.
Yea; if it sits for a few days have to pull plugs n drain lower cylinders...then pull em through 8 12 blades before start....hydro lock can break rods everytime !
Wow! A thing of beauty!
So Many different applications this powerplant was used on, B-36, B-50, C-119, XC-120, F2G Super Corsair, C-121 Connie & Aero Spacelines mini Guppy
No C-121 Connies with this eng.
Probably the most complex piston engine ever produced.
Gentleman I give you the Napier Nomad flat 12, 2 stroke Diesel-turbo compound en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Nomad
How about the Napier Deltic with 18 Cylinders, 36 Pistons and three Crankshafts or that Russian Radial Diesel with 42 Cylinders that basically is six I6 Engine arranged like a Radial? Large Marine Two Stroke Diesels are insanely complex too.
@@alan-sk7ky Impractical
If it ain’t smoking’, it’s out of oil! 28 cylinders, 56 spark plugs, what could go wrong? I have 4,000 hours flying radial engine airplanes and loved every minute, even when they failed.
THE LARGEST AND MOST BUITYFULL GAS ENGINE PRODUCED. 20 MILLION PARTS FIGHTING TO GET OUT.
I love that comment so much.
would really love to watch one of these on a dyno pull..
A/C's equipped with these likely had torque meters (BMEP) indicators in the cockpit.
Music by 28 cilinders .
Ya !!!!
Juan Ramirez, do you know if the 4360 is a direct drive prop, or does it go through a gear reduction, and if so, what is the ratio?
Not direct drive. This -20 model has .425:1 (prop to crankshaft). They were geared as low as .375:1 for the later, more powerful versions.
@@88SC Thanks!! Do you know what the typical prop RPMs are? I'm assuming with the big props these engines would run, probably 1400-1500, or less?
@@BKD70 Not familiar with this one in particular, but big radials usually ran a max rpm of around 2600-2800 RPM with the Wright 3350 Turbo-Compound at 2900, if memory serves. Using the figures from @88SC above, your guess is pretty close.
Mechanical power house, could put out over three thousand horse power, worked on them for four years in the AF.
Some variants were over 4300 hp, as I recall.
The epitomy of radial bank engines 😀👍
Ahhhhhhh love that sound and smell of burning 90wt oil.
A long time past, but I believe it was 50W oil.
American muscle!
Punishment used to be either guard duty or kp.....then it became changing all the B- 36's sparkplugs.
I want one in my back yard...
The awesome "corn cob" motor !!!!!!!! :-)
That beast would have sounded so much better with the collector ring on it.
RakinBill TH-camr Mike Nieman has several videos of his R-4360-20 with a collector ring, that came off a C-119 (which you probably saw). Certainly a difference. This one is a stock F2G exhaust set up.
Sounds a lot like a locomotive starter motor
Wonder if I could install that beast in my pickup truck? I can't even begin to imagine the racket that thing must make at full throttle.
All I can hear is the sound of a whirlpool in the fuel tank
3,000 horse power..
Wow! Is that 4 or 5 banks of cylinders that animal has?
4 rows of 7. 4360 cubic inches
@@craigroth8710 Yup. And 56 spark plugs.
I wonder how much hp it takes to start the beast.
Dash 20, right?
Damn. That engine sounds angry.
Looks like the test cell in aviation school!!
I'm going to put one in a cessna 150
better then a honda v-tec!!
ARRRR more power!!!!!!
Like music.
336 spark plugs to change on one B36.
Thats an ALL DAY job!!!
And they were changed after every long flight.
My god…. And I bitch about pulling/cleaning 24 plugs… Can you imagine the work of art their safety wiring was?
Think of the people who gave the propellers the first move, who knows how many were smashed.
Very cool
Wonder what kinda torque these monstrous engines made?
All the torques
yes
4300 HP and 8000+ ft-lbs
Not that familiar with the R-4360, but I suspect it had a BMEP gauge for each engine at the engineer's station. Brake Mean Effective Pressure is directly related to torque, so the engineer could monitor engine torque in real time. The sensor was probably in the gear reduction case, with some sort of ring gear attempting to rotate in reaction to the torque applied to it. The gear would be free to turn a tiny distance, but an actuator pressurized by engine lube oil would automatically push back to keep it in a set position. The pressure needed to maintain position varied with torque, and that pressure was fed to a pressure sensor that transmitted a signal to the appropriate BMEP gauge. With the BMEP providing a reliable torque indication, and engine RPM on the tach, actual horsepower delivered was evident to the engineer. He would crosscheck with MAP (manifold pressure) and fuel flow to make sure all was well. Of course, he also monitored engine oil pressure and temperature, cylinder head temp, intake air temperature, cowl flap position, and the position of all the engine control levers in relation to those on the other engines. Probably, he had an ignition analyzer to check the waveforms of magneto primary current on any selected engine/mag. If he detected indications of shorted secondaries on both spark plugs in one cylinder, an emergency condition existed because those plugs would most likely be shorted by metal in the combustion chamber, and an engine failure could follow quite soon.
@@Hopeless_and_Forlorn Yes, this is how the P&W 2800 measured the torque value. The ring gear and the support it sits in each had helical splines. If the gear, because of torque, moves forward within the supports helical splines, six evenly positioned torque meter pistons are pushed deeper in their sleeves allowing a greater supply of boosted oil pressure to act against the gears movement. And as you said this oil pressure reading along with rpm, manifold press. BP, temps of fuel and air, and fuel flow give the BMEP reading. A static ground test would determine the effective BMEP.
Wow USA power .
Wonder how much fuel was needed per engin hour
600 gph....
With high gas prices today if we still flew the b36 Joe Biden would have grounded the air force.
And be sniffing the pilot’s kids
Hammers of Hell !!!
How come the C-133 Cargomaster sounded so much like a B-36??? The T34-P-9W similar?
The C-133 was a turbo prop.
@@24100mw Nope... Somebody explained that the "chord" or width of the propellers was probably big reason why both planes sounded the same in addition to similar engines.
@@JungleYT Big props all turn at about the same rpm because of tip speed limits. Also, the C-133 and the B-36 each flew at high altitudes that blessed large land areas with that unforgettable sound. Although I once witnessed a C-133 arriving at Spangdahlem AFB in Germany, I never had the opportunity to hear it pass over at altitude. I do, however, remember the sound of the B-36 at high altitude over Dallas in the late 1940s. Never figured out why they were so high, when Carswell was only about 35 miles from our house. Hardly distance enough to climb from takeoff or descend for approach to landing.
@@Hopeless_and_Forlorn My late Uncle used to watch B-36s depart out of Kelly AFB in the 1950s. He said they'd pretty much "corkscrew" to altitude which might explain the high altitude at only 35 miles distance? At any rate, even at LOW altitude the C-133 and B-36 sound the same!
Is this what the b29 had in them ?
No....the b50
The -29 have the R-3350
There was only one radial engine bigger, made by Lycoming.
But never put into production. They made over 18,000 4360's!
The Wasp Major: please be gentle with me?
And what major engineering fault destroyed this motor ?????
28 cylinders / 4 banks
Wow !!!!
Wow !
Wow .
Imagine trying to find the fouled spark plug . LOL.
That's what good flight engineers and Bendix ignition analyzers were for.
Id imagine that prop would suck you through it like a blender
Couple cylinders smoking
You know whats funny?
The Jumo 222 could deliver the same power in 1/3 the size!
From the Wiki page for the Jumo engine, a quote: "... a massive and very costly failure." The R-4360 still exists in the 21st century, a few of them on airworthy airplanes. The Jumo was a super engine just as the German soldier was a super soldat.
The R-2800 matched everything the R-4360 ever did in power during testing and development. A internal competition which existed at P&W. Reference: R2800 P&W's Dependable Masterpiece by Graham White
This thing literally sounds like a fraight train 🚆 🤔
Chrome headers? That's not factory.
Well...walking so close of that propeller doesn’t look very safe.
it's ok as long as you don't touch the prop
@@michaelwallbrown3726 Hahaha that's like saying it's perfectly fine to shoot someone at their feet as long as you don't actually hit them
Our guys groups aeronautical not that slow but you may be right I may be wrong but the planes will keep going anyway I've seen these aircraft com back mising motors mising aircraft insignia mising motors before take off kinda pised me and employed right fuck off did notice our mising moter fore few minutes employ filed equipment loss expenditures
A lot of moving parts there
You really have to worry about the 4 moving parts in the front. They could be a real killer if you're not careful.
understatement of the year
Yup over 10,000 parts