a Centaurus engined Sea Fury racer needed

I wouldn’t have thought that there needed to be any trials regarding the injestion of abrasives, as no engine will tolerate it ,as obviously the grit “scours” the bores reducing the compression; with a sleeve valve engine ,it will probably prematurely wear the sleeves as well.

The Napier Sabre’s fitted to Typhoons used in Normandy suffered dreadfully from wear caused by the very fine gritty dust found in the region, some engines had so much bore/sleeve that they were way down on power and used large amounts of oil.
Cant remember where but recall reading about squadrons being recalled to New Forest airfields to have new engines fitted. before returning to France, think Vokes designed a better filter.

The Merlin suffered in the same way as the Sabre with dust, but many Spitfires where already being manufactured with the revised air intake that could be retrofitted or was already fitted with an air filter. This came as a result of experience in the Middle East. No such body of experience with the Typhoon existed although three aircraft had gone to Egypt for tropical trials.

The Napier Sabre’s fitted to Typhoons used in Normandy suffered dreadfully from wear caused by the very fine gritty dust found in the region, some engines had so much bore/sleeve that they were way down on power and used large amounts of oil.
Cant remember where but recall reading about squadrons being recalled to New Forest airfields to have new engines fitted. before returning to France, think Vokes designed a better filter.

Hi Tempest Nut
I agree that flak(and also of course friendly fire!!) were extremely dangerous for Typhoon Pilots but I do wonder how many engines your friends aircraft went through to complete 60+ sorties.
A short TBO(time between overhaul) does not necessarily mean more airborne engine failures but it may be a pointer to over complex and/or unwise engine design/layout.
Also the Sabres were an absolute nightmare for the groundcrew to look after(and that is putting it politely!!)

No argument about the B29 engines!!

Hello all,
I just got back from the Reno air races.The Unlimited Gold races were dominated by Hawker Sea Furies.Of course these had all been re-engined with either Wright R-3350 or Pratt and Whitney R-4360 radial engines.As fine as these planes perform with these engines.Its just not right to have a 4 bladed prop on a Sea Fury.They look oh so right with the 5 bladed( Rotol?)unit used with the Centaurus engine.So I got to thinking,Why not have a British backed,British built,Bristol Centaurus engined Unlimited Air racer and team?They Yanks say that they replaced the Bristol engines due to lack of usable spare parts and that they always need repair/maintenance.Ok ,maybe this is true for day to day purposes but maybe not so for a purpose built racer.Surely the parts and needed knowhow must exist somewhere in England?.Show the world that Napier and Bristol werent both chasing dead ends with sleeve valve technology.Someone must have the skills needed to build a monster Centaurus powerplant.Remember ,the UNLIMITED air races are truely UNLIMITED as far as engine mods go.Added cooling with spraybars,added manifold pressures,A.D.I.,Nitrous oxide,etc,etc.This would be the chance for some determined Brits to wave the flag and show them Yanks that they were wrong about Bristols finest reciprocating engine.It wouldnt be cheap nor easy but what good is?It can be done.All that is needed is the will.

Nice idea but apart from all the supply difficulties and knowledge of the engine being thin on the ground I don’t think the Centaurus lends itself to being modified in a way that would allow huge increases in power. This is due to the unusually long stroke of the engine. If you look at all of Roy Feddens Bristol engine designs they have a long stroke. Under normal circumstances this would increase the diameter of the engine but because the Hercules and Centaurus had no overhead valve gear they were compact for their Cubic capacity. This gave the engine great torque but at the same time piston speeds were already high compared to R2800’s R3350’s and R4360’s (same cylinder as R2800) This means that increased revs to increase hp would not be an option and increased boost would be the only option, increasing the risk of detonation, the usual cause of most big Reno failures. If my memory serves me correctly, in simplistic terms the Centaurus was a Hercules with 4 additional cylinders and a inch added to the stroke. Bore remained the same.

I totally agree with Stuart G….
The centaurus was engineering madness but at least it ran well most of the time.
The Napier sabre engines were just plain dangerous and (rightly) not many survived in service any longer than strictly necessary,they surely had the shortest TBO time of any WW2 production piston engine.

Bazv Not quite true and a case of reputation exceeding factual information. I know personally a pilot that flew 60 or so missions in the same Typhoon during 1944, Flak being the greater danger, not his engine. Yes he had one or two engine failures but they were of a similar nature to those every service pilot might suffer, not sleeve failures. Yes the Sabre had a rough time getting into production, but it had to do this in 1/4 the time the Merlin had to get right, and its worth noting that the early Tempests were running increased boost chasing V1’s at power levels that went way beyond any other engine running at the time, and reliably when using the measures of the day. Engineering madness I think not. Find another 36 litre engine that ran at 2600hp in service. And some engines even ran at 3000hp in service. Only the 27 litre Merlin was in the same class with the Merlin 66 running at 2000hp at low level on 150 fuel

Just look at the B29 FiFi. They have finally given up on her B29 spec R3350’s and are looking to fit 4 post War spec engines, maybe ex DC7 or Constellation units, similar to those fitted to the Racing Bear Cats and Furies. The B29 program nearly failed because the original R3350 was so poor and more B29’s were lost or failed to complete their missions due to engine failure than enemy action. Paul Tibbets refused to allow the first atomic mission to fly until modified fuel injected R3350’s had been fitted the aircraft.

The same pilot that flew the Typhoons then flew Tempest IIs and thought that the Centaurus a marvellous engine. It just depends on your point of view at the time and what you have to compare it with. I believe that the late Paul Morgan was investigating using the manufacturing skills of his organisation the manufacture Centaurus parts before his untimely death.

I totally agree with Stuart G….
The centaurus was engineering madness but at least it ran well most of the time.
The Napier sabre engines were just plain dangerous and (rightly) not many survived in service any longer than strictly necessary,they surely had the shortest TBO time of any WW2 production piston engine.

Agreed…. It would be utter sacrilage to run a Centaurus at reno, I suspect Agent86 is not aware just how rare these engines are…. To contemplate racing a Centaurus simply because a 4 blade prop does’nt look right on a Fury???? it has one of the most compicated valve drive trains known to man… just take a look!
the chances of it losing part of the valve gear or sleeve crank is a dead cert! Result… a ton of scrap metal.
The only thing to compare in complexity is the Naiper 24cylinder unit.
Would’nt you rather see a usable unit go towards a ‘genuine’ warbird restoration, at least if only for spares?
4 bladers are better than 5 if it means keeping the few running examples of these engines in the air in authentic warbirds, I think many would agree here.
Besides… the 3350 and 4360 units are still quite plentifull.. you only have to look at Davis Monthan AFB to see them stacked up row apon row, there are even manufacturers making ‘new build’ components to full race spec so it makes sense to re-engine given the (lack of) availability of spares for Bristol units.
There…. I’ve said my bit. rant over… apologies
Now i’m off to run my 1912 Le-Rone at full throttle till it blows up….. Wish me luck!

Mr.Buckshot claims that these engines are as rare or almost as rare as a Napier Sabre.Are you sure about that?

Dear Mr Agent Something Or Other….. May i suggest you take the time to read my post again and show me where i make that specific claim to which you refer.

I cited the Naiper Sabre as an engine of comparable complexity NOT rarity!

Nobody likes others to claim they have said something when they haven’t, neither do we like to be mis-quoted….. Read it through next time, Thank you

It was always my understanding that the Centaurus 173 from a Beverley would neither service nor fit dimensionally the Centaurus 18 installation of the Seafury. That said I would imagine there would be some common parts.

Mark

Yes ,I’ve heard that too; although I’ve only seen the one I mention so no comparison is available; weren’t the later centaurus engines fuel injected? maybe they are physically longer as a result of that.

I’ve been told that its the sleeve valves that seize ,which seems reasonable as the inlets are exposed to air (damp) penetration; nice sounding engines but engineering madness, (although less so than the sabre).

Theres a centaurus from one of the Beverleys in a field about 2 miles from me, I looked at it a few years ago ,apparently it is seized, which seems to be an afliction of these engines; he had it on ebay with a starting bid of £450- ,but no takers.

It was always my understanding that the Centaurus 173 from a Beverley would neither service nor fit dimensionally the Centaurus 18 installation of the Seafury. That said I would imagine there would be some common parts.

Mark

Mr.Buckshot claims that these engines are as rare or almost as rare as a Napier Sabre.Are you sure about that?This past weekend I saw at least 7 Sea Furies with U.S. built engines in front.What Happened to the Original “Rare” Bristols? Probably tossed in the core motor pile behind the hangar.I think that the Napier is just a little more rare.

In terms of flying aircraft there’s a handful of (Sea) Furies flying with Centauri up front, and no running airworthy Napier Sabres anywhere in the world (and no benched-runners either IIRC) so yes, it’s rare and very rare respectively.

However there’s no great secret supply of Centauri suitable even for use by those who’d like to fly Sea Furys moderately – such as the RNHF, who’ve found getting, restoring and running their engine a challange. Done some homework on their efforts? It’s an education.

As for “Probably tossed in the core motor pile behind the hangar.” Yup, possibly. You go ahead and find one and get it running, and my hat’s off to you…

Sure, you can do a lot with money and enthusiasm, but you’d also be taking the hard road with trying a ‘racing’ Centaurus. The main achievement at Reno would be to prove to the Americans that British engines blow up…

Theres a centaurus from one of the Beverleys in a field about 2 miles from me, I looked at it a few years ago ,apparently it is seized, which seems to be an afliction of these engines; he had it on ebay with a starting bid of £450- ,but no takers.

Agreed…. It would be utter sacrilage to run a Centaurus at reno, I suspect Agent86 is not aware just how rare these engines are…. To contemplate racing a Centaurus simply because a 4 blade prop does’nt look right on a Fury???? it has one of the most compicated valve drive trains known to man… just take a look!
the chances of it losing part of the valve gear or sleeve crank is a dead cert! Result… a ton of scrap metal.
The only thing to compare in complexity is the Naiper 24cylinder unit.
Would’nt you rather see a usable unit go towards a ‘genuine’ warbird restoration, at least if only for spares?
4 bladers are better than 5 if it means keeping the few running examples of these engines in the air in authentic warbirds, I think many would agree here.
Besides… the 3350 and 4360 units are still quite plentifull.. you only have to look at Davis Monthan AFB to see them stacked up row apon row, there are even manufacturers making ‘new build’ components to full race spec so it makes sense to re-engine given the (lack of) availability of spares for Bristol units.
There…. I’ve said my bit. rant over… apologies
Now i’m off to run my 1912 Le-Rone at full throttle till it blows up….. Wish me luck!

Mr.Buckshot claims that these engines are as rare or almost as rare as a Napier Sabre.Are you sure about that?This past weekend I saw at least 7 Sea Furies with U.S. built engines in front.What Happened to the Original “Rare” Bristols? Probably tossed in the core motor pile behind the hangar.I think that the Napier is just a little more rare.

[
Now: will someone please try the same transplant in the slightly earlier Tempest? Same number of blades this time, and who cares if they spin in the wrong direction if it gets one of those glorious beasts into the air? C’mon somebody…”do Wright” by the longsuffering Tempest! :rolleyes:

S.[/QUOTE]
i thougth that was what autocraft intended to do with one of theirs
paul

Hi–

There was an instance of the sort of thing suggested here, back in the mid-eighties, that hasn’t been mentioned: T-6 racer Jim Mott’s foray into the Unlimited field with Sea Fury “Super Chief”. Instead of an R4360 “corncob” as powered “Dreadnought” to victory in ’83, or the subsequently much more common Skyfury setup with an R3350 in a semistock cowl, “Super Chief” flew behind an ex-Beverley Centaurus that spun a square-tipped four-blader of colossal diameter (presumably also ex-Bev). Not much success followed, but at least Mr Mott gave it a good try and the Fury was impressive if nothing else. Like nearly all Furies this side of the Atlantic, the former “Super Chief” is now R3350-powered.

Now: will someone please try the same transplant in the slightly earlier Tempest? Same number of blades this time, and who cares if they spin in the wrong direction if it gets one of those glorious beasts into the air? C’mon somebody…”do Wright” by the longsuffering Tempest! :rolleyes:

S.

(1)I don’t know how many times you have been to reno but these guys blow up engines on a fairly regular basis,some years the ambient temp is so high that they cannot use full race power.
(2)The centaurus must be one of the most complex radials ever built,and even if it could stand up to the punishment of racing conditions the maintenance costs would be horrendous,and there would be no such thing as an off the shelf replacement engine or component.

Agreed…. It would be utter sacrilage to run a Centaurus at reno, I suspect Agent86 is not aware just how rare these engines are…. To contemplate racing a Centaurus simply because a 4 blade prop does’nt look right on a Fury???? it has one of the most compicated valve drive trains known to man… just take a look!
the chances of it losing part of the valve gear or sleeve crank is a dead cert! Result… a ton of scrap metal.
The only thing to compare in complexity is the Naiper 24cylinder unit.
Would’nt you rather see a usable unit go towards a ‘genuine’ warbird restoration, at least if only for spares?
4 bladers are better than 5 if it means keeping the few running examples of these engines in the air in authentic warbirds, I think many would agree here.
Besides… the 3350 and 4360 units are still quite plentifull.. you only have to look at Davis Monthan AFB to see them stacked up row apon row, there are even manufacturers making ‘new build’ components to full race spec so it makes sense to re-engine given the (lack of) availability of spares for Bristol units.
There…. I’ve said my bit. rant over… apologies 🙂
Now i’m off to run my 1912 Le-Rone at full throttle till it blows up….. Wish me luck! :diablo: :diablo:

Good luck getting engines out of museums. I tried and the answer was “we don’t want to diminish the value of our exhibition”. BTW this included swapping the engines for the same variety, but unusable. Undetectable to the eye of the observer.

G’day 😉

I remember it, Centaurus 173 or something similar. The aircraft never flew with that set up and is now flying with a 3350 up front with the Commemorative Air Force in America.

I seem to recall that somebody intended to restore the ex-HAM Sea Fury FB.11 with an ex-Beverley Centaurus and go for an attempt on the World Air Speed Record. This must have been in the early 1980s and I think the airframe was taken to Lympne or Lydd. Anybody else remember this or able to add more info?

So, what Centauras engines are now currently rotting away on unloved airframes, not suggesting that it is unloved, but what about the Beverley, they are never going to be fired up are they, as well as the Ambassador at DX, I can’t think of any other extant Centauras powered a/c and I’ve just gone through me 1952 copy of the Observers Book of Aircraft, sorry, missed out Firebrand, but does not that suggest that there are only 6 Centauri in museums, what happened to the engines from the Southend and Hendon Beverlies, surely they weren’t flogged off to the scrapman.