Radial Engines

Scotty78

Scotty78

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
191
Location
Philadelphia NY
Display Name
Display name:
Scott
Any radial guys here? In my book you just can't beat the sight, sound, and feel of one starting and running up, from a small Jacobs all the way up to a 4360. Not to mention the miracle of mechanical engineering that makes them tick.
 
As an old friend once said "The only people in love with radials are the ones who never tried to make a living with them".
 
RotorAndWing said:
As an old friend once said "The only people in love with radials are the ones who never tried to make a living with them".
Click to expand...

I'd love to have another radial. Expensive as all get out, but somethings you never fall out of love with.
 
What's cool is overhauling one and opening a brand new part made in the 1940's packed in old newspapers. It's also amazing that here we are, 90 years after the first P&W Wasp, and they are still in commercial service. Just shows what can be accomplished with just a slide rule and a bit of smarts.
 
I'd love to have a radial at all lol. They do seem to increase in price/maintenance cost every year, now that the military surplus of parts/spare engines is about exhausted. I remember the Hawkins & Powers auction about 10 years ago, I was extremely tempted to make a couple bids on some of their engine inventory...
 
Ever since I started flying 11 years ago I always wanted a radial. I finally got a Pitts Model 12 this year with the M14P 360HP supercharged Russian radial. IT IS AWESOME! You have to treat it a little different than a Lycoming but don't see and issues that surprise me. There is a video of it starting up in the aerobatic section here.
This thing draws a crown each time I fly it.
 

Attachments

  • model124.jpg
    model124.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 84

Attachments

  • warner fittings.JPG
    warner fittings.JPG
    40.4 KB · Views: 76
  • Warner 2.JPG
    Warner 2.JPG
    70 KB · Views: 73
  • Warner back.JPG
    Warner back.JPG
    72.3 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
The accessory section.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN2269.jpg
    DSCN2269.jpg
    217.1 KB · Views: 55
  • DSCN2270.jpg
    DSCN2270.jpg
    221.5 KB · Views: 54
  • DSCN2271.jpg
    DSCN2271.jpg
    218.1 KB · Views: 50
  • DSCN2272.jpg
    DSCN2272.jpg
    221.2 KB · Views: 46
Scotty78 said:
I'd love to have a radial at all lol. They do seem to increase in price/maintenance cost every year, now that the military surplus of parts/spare engines is about exhausted. I remember the Hawkins & Powers auction about 10 years ago, I was extremely tempted to make a couple bids on some of their engine inventory...
Click to expand...

With our ability to machine new parts and the regulations that allow us to have owner manufactured parts we pretty much can make any thing we need. Some clubs are overhauling OX5s to new standard.

It's just a matter of money.

The two new magneto gears in the pictures above were only 150.00 each.
 
pigpenracing said:
Ever since I started flying 11 years ago I always wanted a radial. I finally got a Pitts Model 12 this year with the M14P 360HP supercharged Russian radial. IT IS AWESOME! You have to treat it a little different than a Lycoming but don't see and issues that surprise me. There is a video of it starting up in the aerobatic section here.
This thing draws a crown each time I fly it.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, every show we took the 24 to it drew a crowd.
 
more pictures of the warner internals.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN2264.jpg
    DSCN2264.jpg
    220.9 KB · Views: 36
  • DSCN2266.jpg
    DSCN2266.jpg
    213.7 KB · Views: 33
  • DSCN2267.jpg
    DSCN2267.jpg
    215.9 KB · Views: 40
  • DSCN2268.jpg
    DSCN2268.jpg
    221.6 KB · Views: 42
when we parked the DC3's and started running caravans, everyone rejoiced. Management, accountants, mechanics, pilots, customers. It was a great change for everyone.
 
No greater feeling of joy than hanging your R1830 rebuilt by Anderson aeromotive on your personal Dc-3


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1435123819.059235.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1435123819.059235.jpg
    541.3 KB · Views: 81
JHW said:
when we parked the DC3's and started running caravans, everyone rejoiced. Management, accountants, mechanics, pilots, customers. It was a great change for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes... but somewhere a romantic aviation nerd cried a little bit like an old Indian cries about pollution. ;)
 
Scotty78 said:
Any radial guys here? In my book you just can't beat the sight, sound, and feel of one starting and running up, from a small Jacobs all the way up to a 4360. Not to mention the miracle of mechanical engineering that makes them tick.
Click to expand...

I believe my company logo will answer the question about whether or not I love radials... :)
 
I do enjoy cool mornings and watching the Beavers start up. I enjoy it best as a disassociated spectator. I don't want one.
 
High maintenance - that comes from age or design? Would it still apply to the Rotec Radials from Australia? Or are they expensive just because of shipping the parts?
 
Stewartb said:
I do enjoy cool mornings and watching the Beavers start up. I enjoy it best as a disassociated spectator. I don't want one.
Click to expand...
I would do horrible, horrible things for a dehavilland.
 
The funny thing about radials is, everyone enjoys watching them and hearing them, but clearly most do not want to take on owning and operating them. The market place has always had reasonably affordable vintage radials available and now, the experimental category has many choices, yet most select otherwise.

When the Russian M14P showed up, I thought we would be seeing lots of new designs spring up around it a many adopting it, but that has not really been the case. The few kit manufacturers that have designed kits around the radial, have not enjoyed great sales. I guess it is precieved that the radial engine is not suitable for a practical, everyday use kind of airplane.

Tons of people will say the Beech Stagger Wing, or the Spartan Executive are the most beautiful airplanes, but nobody really wants a plane like that, otherwise we would see the Vans RV-15, an evolution of the RV-10 with a M14P on the front and somehow, I don't see that coming.
 
brian];1814672 said:
must


ignore


this


thread


...
Click to expand...

:lol: Radials have a place in aviation still because of the HP/Cost ratio. If you need more than 400hp and can't afford a turbine, you basically have no option; that's why you still see them in commercial operation. Turbines for a busy operation are definitely preferred because comparatively they require next to no maintenance and have very little down time. In commercial operations it's the lost revenue (and contracts) of down time that kills you, and radials you end up with a lot of down time on a busy schedule. That's why Ag operators still running radials will have a spare engine ready to bolt on. Any repairs that will take more than overnight, you swap engines and fix the old on the stand ready to swap back. Operating radials basically the pilot flies it all day and the mechanic works on it at night. Turbines you just park the plane and pull it back out in the morning with the typical evening engine service consisting of checking the oil and giving it a good looking at.
If you don't have a busy operation though, you just can't afford a turbine, but you still need 600-1200hp to work the load, so you're stuck with a radial. There is the 600hp Orenda which is a certified BB Chevy, but I have never seen one on an Ag plane and I think the only thing currently flying them is a Twin Commander.

As a pilot I like radials for the sound and smell (I choke on JetA fumes) but at the end of the day I can feel the difference in fatigue between radials and turbines, the vibrations of a radial are very wearing after a full day.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
I do enjoy cool mornings and watching the Beavers start up. I enjoy it best as a disassociated spectator. I don't want one.
Click to expand...

Many years ago, the dropzone that I was doing a little skydiving at had two Cessna 180s and a Beaver. We beginning jumpers were there first thing in the morning because we needed calm conditions, so we saw the DZ wake up. About midmorning, the Beaver pilot (what a job title!) would go out to the aircraft, which was parked at the end of the runway, probably 1000 feet from the hangar, to get it ready. It seemed he spent about 30 minutes preflighting it, and apparently it had an inertia starter, because you could hear it winding up, and then he'd engage it. It would turn over about three blades and then stop. He'd get out, walk back to the hangar, and get a cart that was about three feet square and was covered with large batteries, haul it out to the Beaver, plug the batteries in, and get it to start. Then he'd warm the engine up for a few minutes, and then finally taxi it in and load it with jumpers. Then he'd take off. It would take about 45 minutes to climb to altitude, and another 10 minutes to get back down.

Nowadays most of the drop zones have turbine equipment that starts easily and gets to altitude in 10 minutes. It's great to see and hear the old stuff at an airshow, but to deal with it on a day to day basis, oy.
 
Henning said:
:lol: Radials have a place in aviation still because of the HP/Cost ratio. If you need more than 400hp and can't afford a turbine, you basically have no option; that's why you still see them in commercial operation.
Click to expand...

This is now and always has been the case. The only reason they have enjoyed a long history is they can make a lot of HP cheaper. Other engine designs help the airplane slice through the air efficiently. The radial pushes the airplane through the air with brute force.
 
Without radials, buffalo joe would have perished. He bought his dc3s, c47s ,c46s cheap and has flown the wings off them, but it looks like the end is in site. They worked very well for his type of flying. And yes, I really liked my Stearman, the cont. Radial performed perfectly once I found a decent mechanic . I always wanted but could not afford a beaver. Great airplane.
 
Flying and earning a living with a radial right now

Sikorsky S-55 refitted with the Wright engine
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20150530_194516102.jpg
    IMG_20150530_194516102.jpg
    3.6 MB · Views: 56
  • IMG_20150531_150209866_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20150531_150209866_HDR.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 70
jaybee said:
Flying and earning a living with a radial right now

Sikorsky S-55 refitted with the Wright engine
Click to expand...

Cool! I had never seen that engine mounting before. Seems like it might make for an interesting annual. What do you do with it to earn a living? I'm guessing comparable, newer turbine powered helicopters are far greater operating costs?
 
That's gotta be one of the homeliest aircraft I've ever seen. So homely it actually looks kinda good - in a strange way.
 
Dav8or said:
Cool! I had never seen that engine mounting before. Seems like it might make for an interesting annual. What do you do with it to earn a living? I'm guessing comparable, newer turbine powered helicopters are far greater operating costs?
Click to expand...

Many of those have been re powered with turbines as well, still good heavy lift airframes. I used to see them setting air conditioners on buildings and erecting radio towers. Cool to watch those guys work.
 
Dav8or said:
Cool! I had never seen that engine mounting before. Seems like it might make for an interesting annual. What do you do with it to earn a living? I'm guessing comparable, newer turbine powered helicopters are far greater operating costs?
Click to expand...

The owner's actually have a few converted to a Garret turbine (they have 8 S55s in total ). They are used for agricultural purposes. Specifically at this time of year for two months time they are used to dry cherries. If it rains and the cherries absorb too much water they will split open and the farmers can't sell them. The combination of the weight of the aircraft, size of the rotor blades ( can hover pretty high and still kind of sort of be "in ground effect"), the low rotor speed and the lift distributed among three blades makes it ideal for the task. A lot of operators use other kinds of ships - R44, Jet Ranger, Huey - however, the high hover height we can do and still get the job done gets us above the power lines and wind machines. Operating costs are comparable I am told. :)

PS - yes the engine mounting has quick disconnects and when you loosen the lower mounts it hinges on the upper mounts. I was told an engine swap can be accomplished in a few hours by an experienced crew.

brian];1814975 said:
That's gotta be one of the homeliest aircraft I've ever seen. So homely it actually looks kinda good - in a strange way.
Click to expand...

I hear that. It is one cool machine to fly. It also pretty cool getting to fly something that first saw use in the Korean War. So between that and the Bell 47 I've gotten to fly both Korean War helicopters. The H-19 Chickasaw was the first AF SAR helicopter. Very cool history and a very cool machines. After several years of flying helicopters with short skids its kind of weird sitting 10' off the ground ! :goofy:
 
Last edited:
PeeGee said:
how does the cooling work?
Click to expand...

The engine mounted in the nose is connected to the transmission on top of the airframe via a drive shaft with a free wheeling unit. On that drive shaft before the free wheeling unit is a very large fan. The fan draws air in the upper cowling, blows through the cylinders and out through the bottom. In the picture the fan would be behind the engine cylinders and baffling you can see. You can get a glimpse of it through the mesh screen on the side of the fuselage or through an inspection panel accessed through the passenger/cargo compartment below where the pilot sits.
 
Henning said:
Many of those have been re powered with turbines as well, still good heavy lift airframes. I used to see them setting air conditioners on buildings and erecting radio towers. Cool to watch those guys work.
Click to expand...

More likely you saw a S-58 which is very similar in appearance. Twice the horsepower, twice the max gross.
 
My bro-in-law had a Beaver for personal use for several years. Sold it about 15 years ago. At the time it was cheaper to have a 985 overhauled than an IO-520. But that's where economy stopped. Beavers are old and the majority have tons of hours. 20,000 plus is common. Nothing good maintenance can't deal with but maintenance on old aluminum airplanes ain't cheap.
 
Last edited:
mrindian said:
No greater feeling of joy than hanging your R1830 rebuilt by Anderson aeromotive on your personal Dc-3
Click to expand...
Nope. But standing next to one in full boogie after months spent building it comes close.

 
In the mid-late '70s the folks I worked for at the time took a C Model AgCat and removed the PW 600hp R1340 and installed a 1200hp Wright R1820 to make the first "KingCat"

(from Wikipedia,
Mid-Continent King Cat This aftermarket conversion of the Super Ag Cat C/600 replaced the 600 hp (450 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-1340 engine with a Wright R-1820-202A radial engine that produces 1,200 hp (895 kW).[6]. )

Quite an aircraft with an empty weight of 5,000# and a max gross of 10,200#.

I was tasked with making the first demo trip from Hayti, MO through
NB, WY, ID, OR, CA, and ended up in Phoenix. I was never so tired of an airplane by the time that trip was completed.

The standard fuel capacity was 80gal in the top wing center section. Not enough range for a long cross country so the guys in the shop sealed the hopper to hold additional fuel and installed an electric transfer pump to transfer fuel to the standard tank. Burn down the standard tank for about 45 minutes and turn on the transfer pump. It transferred at about the same rate as the engine consumption. Worked good for the 2 weeks the trip lasted.

Fun times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top