Mustang Air to Air: The Sequel
/forum/topic/600984/3679

1       2       3              3679      
3680
       3681              4532       4533       end

Jan-Arie
Registered: Dec 24, 2005
Total Posts: 4096
Country: Netherlands

Jay were you planning on attending the symposium?



Tim Adams
Registered: Jan 01, 2004
Total Posts: 2887
Country: United States

JWilsonphoto wrote:
Wow! That's a project!


As the Fifi guys have found out, keeping four 3350's in working order is not easy.



Jan-Arie
Registered: Dec 24, 2005
Total Posts: 4096
Country: Netherlands

Are there still 3350's in the B29 or do they have other more maintenance friendly engines?



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

Jan-Arie wrote:
Jay were you planning on attending the symposium?


As much as I'd love to be able to J-A, I have other budgetary fish to fry later in the year and as such, my major trip dollars are already spoken for...



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

Jan-Arie wrote:
Are there still 3350's in the B29 or do they have other more maintenance friendly engines?


Found this info on the Warbird Information Exchange:
"As with most projects that so many people have an interest in, there have been some welcome questions regarding what we have planned and why we chose the engines we have, where they came from, what they were on, how old they are, etc. We will be utilizing parts from the R-3350-95W and the R-3350-26WD engines in order to make our own engine for the B-29. Perhaps we should call it the R-3350-B29. One of the things I find interesting about this business is that we are able to make great airplanes even better. This requires some ingenuity and exploration. Sometimes plans work without a hitch, other times there are problems that have to be worked out. It’s this reason that I must say that although we are very happy with our current plans, we are also very interested in hearing input from others that may bring up an issue we haven’t foreseen. We are prepared to make whatever small adjustments we need in order to make this project a safe and reliable one. The reason we chose the -95W engines are because we have them. In fact, we already have nine of them. They are a late (1965 or so) manufactured engine that went on AC-119K Gunships (attack version of the Boxcar). These are turbo-compound engines that are very similar to the DC-7 engine and were rated at 3,500 horsepower. We obviously cannot use the turbo compound portion of these engines, as they simply would not fit in the B-29 cowlings & nacelles. This is where the -26WD engine comes in.
This engine [-26WD] is what was used on the Douglas Skyraider. This particular dash number was manufactured from the early 1960’s until the early to mid 1970’s (depending on what information you read). These were EXCELLENT engines, just ask any Skyraider pilot or Sea Fury racer at Reno. The reason we need them is because the power section, blower section, and accessory section will simply bolt right up to our existing B-29 engine mounts. This will save us tremendous amounts of time since we won’t have to design, test, and manufacture new engine mounts. We plan on using the “guts,” cylinders, and nosecase of the -95W in the “block” of the -26WD so that we can fabricate a strong and reliable engine with the least amount of work and money. We have no intention of trying to use the full 3500 horsepower of the -95W engine, as the B-29 airframe simply was not designed to take that kind of power. In addition, we intend on using the stock B-29 propellers, so we could not turn this “new” engine of ours up high enough to get that horsepower anyway. Our estimates show the following: Takeoff setting: 2,400 rpm and 44" of manifold pressure (roughly 2,400 h.p.) Cruise setting: 2,000 rpm and 30" of manifold pressure. This is the same power setting that we use now and the same setting that the engine builders recommend for cruise flight. This should allow for the engines to be operated in a “normal” capacity, while still allowing more horsepower across the board. This is obviously an important figure when figuring the safety of flight if we were to lose an engine. Since our takeoff power is merely the normal METO power of the -95W engine, we could (in theory) fly at that power setting for sustained periods of time. Again, not a bad thing to have if we were not flying on all four engines...plenty of “reserve power.” We will more than likely also see an increase in cruising speed for lower altitudes. At 30"/ 2000rpm the props will be turning faster than our old cruising prop speeds. FIFI will definitely have a different (more powerful) sound as well. Higher blower ratios should give us better cruising altitude capabilities too, if needed. We may have to clip the wings on Diamond LIL so she can keep up (grin).
Our first plan of attack is to build up a mock up that will include the external parts of our proposed engine, installed in a B-29 nacelle and cowling. Jeff Abbott is building up this “dummy” engine, while Kermit Weeks was kind enough to allow us to borrow the nacelle and cowling to save us time. Nelson Ezell will be working with this mock up to start with the fabrication of a new exhaust system and cowling modifications. I could go on and on about this engine combination and if you’d like some more info on it, I’d be happy to get into more detail. As always, we very much appreciate any input you or any of our Squadron members or Warbird buffs might have. We have not thought of everything, but I can assure you, we have been thinking of everything we can."



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 19268
Country: United States

This symposium will be one for the record. Larry has really done an incredible job raising ISAP from the ashes. I have absolutely no idea where he finds the time and energy to do what he does on the organization's behalf . He is forging sponsor and speaker relationships that version 1.0 never even dreamed of, he's tireless. M

I am really going to do my best to be there for the whole event this year. Hoping lots of you are able to attend so we can chill together. I'm going to be more than ready for a few days of R&R by April! No complaints, January closed out as the best one in decades, and February has more on the schedule than January. Very grateful.



Jan-Arie
Registered: Dec 24, 2005
Total Posts: 4096
Country: Netherlands

Thanks for the info Jay..



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 19268
Country: United States


FlyingPhotog wrote:
Jan-Arie wrote:
Jay were you planning on attending the symposium?


As much as I'd love to be able to J-A, I have other budgetary fish to fry later in the year and as such, my major trip dollars are already spoken for...


Is there a "don't like" button?



Glenn Watson
Registered: Nov 13, 2007
Total Posts: 3835
Country: United States

FlyingPhotog wrote:
stevez wrote:
Adding to the full-disk tutorial:

1. Radial engines turn slower than other engines, whether piston or turbine.
2. The more prop blades, the easier it is to get a full disk (T-6 engines swing only a two-blade prop, while a P-47 engine, which turns at similar rpm's, has a four-blade prop).
3. Takeoff is easier than landing or a photo pass (because engine rpm is higher).
4. Shooting with the sun behind you (or at least on your side of the subject) makes the prop disk more visible; c.f. Glenn's splendid example at the top of this page.
5. If you want a full disk of a helicopter's rotor, better start at 1/15 sec and work down from there. Oh, and see #2, above.


I would throw a caveat on #1 regarding radials: Gear Reduction or Direct Drive?



I would throw caveat #2: my post was hopefully received as mostly a joke..(although 1/80 will get a disk on almost any fixed wings at high power setting) - didnt say it would be in focus though! Shoot a lot of frames should be step 2.5




Glenn



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

FlyingPhotog wrote:
stevez wrote:
Adding to the full-disk tutorial:

1. Radial engines turn slower than other engines, whether piston or turbine.
2. The more prop blades, the easier it is to get a full disk (T-6 engines swing only a two-blade prop, while a P-47 engine, which turns at similar rpm's, has a four-blade prop).
3. Takeoff is easier than landing or a photo pass (because engine rpm is higher).
4. Shooting with the sun behind you (or at least on your side of the subject) makes the prop disk more visible; c.f. Glenn's splendid example at the top of this page.
5. If you want a full disk of a helicopter's rotor, better start at 1/15 sec and work down from there. Oh, and see #2, above.


I would throw a caveat on #1 regarding radials: Gear Reduction or Direct Drive?


Of course! I was thinking of geared, V-12 Merlins, but forgot that some of the radial installations reduce prop seed through the use of planetary reduction gearing, too. How many reduction-geared radials do you know of?



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

JWilsonphoto wrote:

FlyingPhotog wrote:
Jan-Arie wrote:
Jay were you planning on attending the symposium?


As much as I'd love to be able to J-A, I have other budgetary fish to fry later in the year and as such, my major trip dollars are already spoken for...


Is there a "don't like" button?


I don't like it much, myself. But even worse, at least from my point of view, is that I won't be able to attend ISAP this year, either. We depart for New Zealand on Sunday that same week, and I can't reconcile either the additional hit to my wallet (NZ is expensive!), or the wear and tear of a four-hour turnaround leading into a 24-hour flight (including a sixteen hour, non-stop leg from LAX to Auckland). I'd lose the whole first week in NZ trying to recover, and that's just not in the plan.



Jan-Arie
Registered: Dec 24, 2005
Total Posts: 4096
Country: Netherlands

Cool stuff going to NZ but you will be coming to Texas in October in your plane
Already looking forward to your photo's of the coming trip....
We will hold up the fort in Florida



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 19268
Country: United States

Don't like................
Don't like................
Don't like................



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 19268
Country: United States

Jan-Arie wrote:
Cool stuff going to NZ but you will be coming to Texas in October in your plane
Already looking forward to your photo's of the coming trip....
We will hold up the fort in Florida


Do like...........



MMcGrath
Registered: Apr 15, 2006
Total Posts: 2649
Country: United Kingdom

No ISAP for me - no longer a member.



futurshox
Registered: Feb 15, 2008
Total Posts: 2777
Country: United States

I'd like to go to ISAP (and Sun'n'Fun, for that matter) but it would be immediately after a 2.5 week road trip for me. Not sure I'll have enough time or budget left over. (Dammit).



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

stevez wrote:
Of course! I was thinking of geared, V-12 Merlins, but forgot that some of the radial installations reduce prop seed through the use of planetary reduction gearing, too. How many reduction-geared radials do you know of?


Per Doug Rozendaal: Essentially anything bigger than a T-6 or a Stearman will be geared and anything similar will be direct drive.



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

One of my "Fish" for later in 2014 is, of course, Alliance...



JakeB17
Registered: Mar 03, 2013
Total Posts: 324
Country: United States

Tim Adams wrote:
Full disc is fine for air to air. Ground to air, for me, I want something I can use that is sharp. 1/125 to 1/250, or 1/320 for aero acts or F1's which spin the crap out of their props. I would hate to spend 10 days in Reno trying to shoot full discs. All I would have is a bunch of junk.

1/160 here.






Indeed. +1 to that. Especially when going handheld with a 500/4 or 600/4. On takeoff or landing, when you can drop onto a gimbal head or monopod, it's a good time to drop the shutter speed though.

I do want to get my hands on a Nikon mount tamron 150-600 to see if the lighter weight of a super zoom makes it easier to get full disk panning shots for ground to air.


msalvetti
Registered: Dec 20, 2003
Total Posts: 3167
Country: United States

FlyingPhotog wrote:
stevez wrote:
Of course! I was thinking of geared, V-12 Merlins, but forgot that some of the radial installations reduce prop seed through the use of planetary reduction gearing, too. How many reduction-geared radials do you know of?


Per Doug Rozendaal: Essentially anything bigger than a T-6 or a Stearman will be geared and anything similar will be direct drive.


You can see some of the gearing in this cutaway of a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp:


Mark



1       2       3              3679      
3680
       3681              4532       4533       end