Radial engine ownership

Grum.Man

En-Route
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
4,017
Location
Sanford NC
Display Name

Display name:
Grum.Man
Im curious for no specific reason what the ownership experience is like for radial engines. Nothing crazy like the multi row wasp but the ones in the 220-300 hp range like the Jacob’s, R, and W’s. What kind of oil use per flight out to include what leaks between flights? How do the cylinders and internals hold up compared to traditional flat Lycoming and continental engines? I know there are extra preflight requirements, I’m more interested in if you fight stuck valves like small continentals, bad cams like Lycoming, or general cylinder wear like the others?
 
I’m more interested in if you fight stuck valves like small continentals, bad cams like Lycoming, or general cylinder wear like the others?
In my opinion and experience from the maintenance side, radials are more bulletproof than opposed-inlines so don't usually suffer the same problems. Some of the main reasons is equal cooling of the cylinders, the internal design, and their inherent smoothness. The main issue I had was finding parts for some engine models or someone to overhaul. A well built and maintained radial is no more hassle than a flat engine and the only real extra pre-flight issue is to pull the prop through before start. I would prefer to maintain a radial over an inline any day except it doesn't quite fit in front of a C182 or PA-28 very well.;)
 
One thing I’ve noticed is that radial engine mechanics always assume their fingers are greasy…they hike up their pants with their forearms, don’t touch anything shiny, stuff like that.

I don’t think the engines are any greasier, I think the mechanics just dig in farther.
 
Im curious for no specific reason what the ownership experience is like for radial engines. Nothing crazy like the multi row wasp but the ones in the 220-300 hp range like the Jacob’s, R, and W’s. What kind of oil use per flight out to include what leaks between flights? How do the cylinders and internals hold up compared to traditional flat Lycoming and continental engines? I know there are extra preflight requirements, I’m more interested in if you fight stuck valves like small continentals, bad cams like Lycoming, or general cylinder wear like the others?
Currently own the care and feeding of 3 radial engines (two P&W R-985s on the Twin Beech and one R-1340 on the T6). Have also owned and flown behind several Continental W-670s and a Jacobs.

The Jake is my least favorite, but I acknowledge that my feelings toward the motor may be colored by the fact that it is mounted on a POS Waco YMF-5 that I fly, so there may be some bad feelings due to the association with that particular airframe.

Rough estimate is that 80% of my last 1000 hours have been flying behind radials.

Goods - like Bell206 said, when well maintained, they are very reliable. They also cool, they sound awesome and they are attached to my favorite airplanes.

Downside is they are generally a little more expensive to overhaul (more cylinders). Burn more fuel than flat engines and they intimidate many A&Ps for no good reason other than they just have little experience with them. They are actually fairly easy to maintain, but you need to find people that aren't intimidated. They are every bit as reliable as any flat engine, but IF you do have an issue on the road, expect that it will take longer to fix both from the standpoint of finding someone to trouble shoot and get the appropriate parts/tools (I actually carry my cylinder removal tool kit in the Beech 18 at all times).

I've only had to leave my Beech 18 at an airport and airline home once and that was for a cylinder head failure (head completely separated form the barrel over the mountains of Northern AZ - engine was running a 'little rough').

Like I said above, they are less fuel efficient. The 220hp Continental burns 13 gph. The 450 hp R-985 22-23 gph and the 600 hp R-1340 burns 33 gph.

Oil consumption also higher than flat engines. A typical oil consumption for a lower to mid time radial is 1 qt per hour. My Beech 18 has been pretty consistent at 1 qt per hour per engine. My Waco also used about a qt per hour. My T-6 with a Covington overhaul is more like 3/4 of a qt per hour.

As far as issues or failures I've experienced, I've had the one cylinder head failure and one exhaust valve failure. One attached fuel pump going bad. Some induction system issues (loose induction pipe) and one carb issue that turned out to be just a bad case of carb ice. Interestingly, the only time I ever declared an emergency was for what turned out to carb ice. Carb ice in the T-6 was not like any carb ice I've ever experienced in a flat engine!
 
Currently own the care and feeding of 3 radial engines (two P&W R-985s on the Twin Beech and one R-1340 on the T6). Have also owned and flown behind several Continental W-670s and a Jacobs.

The Jake is my least favorite, but I acknowledge that my feelings toward the motor may be colored by the fact that it is mounted on a POS Waco YMF-5 that I fly, so there may be some bad feelings due to the association with that particular airframe.

What's the issue with the Waco YMF-5? Looks like a cool bird...
 
What's the issue with the Waco YMF-5? Looks like a cool bird...
Keep in mind I've only flown one 90s built Classic Waco YMF-5s, so can't say it isn't a matter of the airplane being a lemon, but until this year I also owned a 1933 Waco UBF-2. The YMF-5 is like driving a Dodge truck compared to the sportscar that the UBF-2 was.

The YMF-5 climbs about as well as a Stearman. Stiff controls, no real grace compared to the F-2. The one we haul rides with has about a 50% operational availability, meaning it is down for maintenance roughly half the time (big reason they are getting rid of it). It's overly complicated compared to the original Wacos and it lands at an unusual high speed. Waco tells you to maintain 80mph on short final. Compared to the other biplanes I've flown, it just isn't a pleasant airplane to fly. I often wonder why they chose that model to be the basis of the new builds when the original Waco had so many other fine airplanes.
 
the only real extra pre-flight issue is to pull the prop through before start.

Is this to remove oil from the bottom cylinders before starting? If so, are there any extra lubrication steps to take if an engine has been sitting for a while?
 
Is this to remove oil from the bottom cylinders before starting? If so, are there any extra lubrication steps to take if an engine has been sitting for a while?
It is to verify that oil has not collected in the the bottom cylinders. One design downside to radials. Because of the cylinder arrangement, over time you can have oil slip past the piston rings while it sits and collect in the cylinder. If you start the engine with enough oil in the bottom cylinder(s), you run the risk of bending the rod.

Most of the single row 600 hp and below radials have aftermarket STCs that allow oil to drain from the rockers so that you can collect it for re-use. It significantly reduces the chance of getting a hydraulic lock in a cylinder. IF you do discover that you have oil collected in a cylinder on preflight, you have to pull the plugs from the bottom cylinders to drain.
 
They drink/leak more oil.
Not necessarily true…while Pratt said a gallon an hour wasn't excessive consumption, at one point I know the Red Baron Stearmans had five R-985s averaging less than 1/4 qt per hour.
of course, they flew every day, and had a mechanic on the road with them.
 
Not necessarily true…while Pratt said a gallon an hour wasn't excessive consumption, at one point I know the Red Baron Stearmans had five R-985s averaging less than 1/4 qt per hour.
of course, they flew every day, and had a mechanic on the road with them.
Most of the ones I've read about were in the range of 1qt/hr. Granted they were usually the larger single-row variants, but I generally don't see many flat engines burning oil at that rate. There's always exceptions to the rule though.
 
Most of the ones I've read about were in the range of 1qt/hr. Granted they were usually the larger single-row variants, but I generally don't see many flat engines burning oil at that rate. There's always exceptions to the rule though.

And you made a true general statement. I have no doubt that there may be some individual motors that get better oil consumption, but 1 qt per hour is considered good for a radial.
 
They say buy oil stock.
Not a bad idea. I buy my oil in 55 gallon drums.

One challenge that I didn’t mention earlier is most radial folks are using 25W-60. You wont likely be able to find that on the road, so I also bring enough replenishment oil with me.
 
Not a bad idea. I buy my oil in 55 gallon drums.

One challenge that I didn’t mention earlier is most radial folks are using 25W-60. You wont likely be able to find that on the road, so I also bring enough replenishment oil with me.
Was the only difference between the 245 hp Jacobs and the 300 hp Jacobs the governed RPM? I read one article that said the 245 hp version was limited to 2200 rpm while the 300 hp version was 2500 rpm.
 
Although I was worried the mechanic was going to get a haircut a few times there.
It's not as close at it looks but sometimes you need to get up and personal to finish the job. For example, was a time when checking the track of main rotor blades, one would purposely touch the running blades with a tracking pole and tape to see if blades were in same plane. Some still use it. Fun times but it took a little practice not to break the tape.
 
Back
Top