Page 16 – Key Publishing

keithmac

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 259 total)

← 1 2 3 … 15 16 17 18 →

Author

Posts
February 15, 2002 at 9:25 pm in reply to: Uncle KeithMac, one for the weekend! #2114822

keithmac
Participant

RE: Uncle KeithMac, one for the weekend!

Hi Chister, Firstly there was nothing wrong with the engine while it was being supported by the company and spares were available. However the engine went out of production in the late 1950’s and product support ended in the mid 60’s, there just were’nt enough engines in service to make it an economic prospect. Plus of course, Rolls Royce took over the company and had no real interest in keeping the Bristol name alive. I suspect the main problem now is finding sleeves that are not worn to limits. A worn sleeve is about as much use as a chocolate teapot! By contrast there are thousands of American radials still in service, and as far as I know the companies still provide good product support. Flying your aeroplane with an American engine is not a problem if you have hard cash!
I can’t give you a definate answer on the second part of you’re question, I don’t know the particular installation. But to the best of my knowledge all the engines were pretty much the same in terms of weight and dimentions. The main changes were in the accessory gearboxes mounted on the rear of the crankcase, and of course the accessories mounted on them for the different installations. My feeling is that you could mount any Centaurus in any installation with just a little modification to either the engine or the installation. But in terms of having an aeroplane to fly, regrettably the US engine conversion is the only way ahead.

KeithMac

February 15, 2002 at 8:47 pm in reply to: Request for Uncle Keithmac! #2114853

keithmac
Participant

RE: Thanks Uncle 😉

NO! But I’ll leave the answer a little while to see if anyone else has any thoughts.

February 15, 2002 at 8:39 pm in reply to: raf #2114857

keithmac
Participant

RE: RAF

This is a question which any RAF Careers office will answer, why not ask them!
KeithMac.

February 13, 2002 at 11:51 pm in reply to: Fighter Command V.C. in World War Two. #2114983

keithmac
Participant

RE: Fighter Command V.C. in World War Two.

I don’t know about the percentage chance of getting killed being valid, but for any military decoration two things have to happen, firstly the act has to be witnessed, and secondly someone has to make a recommendation. For a fighter pilot to have his act seen by someone else is probably the most difficult bit, air combat tends to be one on one, or one against a load of opposition when your mates are too busy fighting to be paying much attention to what anyone else is doing! Secondly comes the recommendation. Pilots who flew a lot of combat and survived, were recognised by the award of other decorations which could be recommended by scrutiny of combat records. But these would not qualify for a VC which required a particular act of courage in one particular action.

KeithMac

February 13, 2002 at 11:40 pm in reply to: Request for Uncle Keithmac! #2114987

keithmac
Participant

RE: Request for Uncle Keithmac!

Hi Nephew, I’ve been away for a while. Here’s one for your friend, hope she likes it! On an aircraft with contra rotating co axial props (ie Wyvern, Gannet Shackleton etc.) what are the differences between the front and rear propellers, and why are they different?

January 26, 2002 at 12:11 am in reply to: Flying experience #2116943

keithmac
Participant

RE: Flying experience

Anson – Stn Flt RAF Scampton
Chipmunk – RAF and Kenya AF
Beaver – KAF
Caribou – KAF
Beverley – RAF 84 Sqn
Whirlwind – RAF 28 Sqn
Wessex – RAF 28 Sqn
Hercules – RAF various
VC-10 – RAF 10 Sqn
Puma – RAF 18 Sqn
Chinook – RAF 18 Sqn
UH-1 Canadian AF Goose Bay Rescue Flt
Britannia – RAF & Transglobe
Tornado – 12 Sqn -(My retirement ride with the Sqn boss!)
and many airliners of assorted types, the best of which was Raffles Class Singapore Airlines 747 to Singapore & back paid for by you taxpayers!!

January 25, 2002 at 11:59 pm in reply to: Another for Keithmac #2116947

keithmac
Participant

RE: Another for Keithmac

Nice one, what size telephoto were you using?
KeithMac

January 24, 2002 at 7:18 pm in reply to: A little something for everyone? #2117061

keithmac
Participant

RE: A little something for everyone?

Hi GZYL. It’s the prone pilot experimental Meteor. It was an attempt to get over the problem of pilots blacking out under G forces by lying them on their stomach and flying the aircraft prone. It was not a success. I have another close up photo of this aircraft which I can scan in and post if it is of interest.
KeithMac.

January 24, 2002 at 7:11 pm in reply to: Keithmac- If you liked that you will like this #2117064

keithmac
Participant

RE: Keithmac- If you liked that you will like this

Reminds me of a story! Back in the 70’s the local pub near Church Fenton changed hands. The new owner re decorated and wanted a new name and pub sign. So a competition was held on the station to come up with idea’s. It landed up with a Bulldog (Scottish Aviation variety) and the name “The Fenton Flyer”. However this was not the winner with the rank and file airmen of 2 FTS. Their choice was one of the above leaning on a fence asleep, and the pub named “The Lazy Fokker”.
KeithMac.

January 24, 2002 at 6:48 pm in reply to: Technical Teaser #2117080

keithmac
Participant

RE: Technical Teaser

Hi Christer, It’s never been a problem I have encountered very much. Radials slow run around 600-700 RPM, and Max at around the 3,000 RPM area. Power pulses are damped by having a large counterweighted crankshaft with floating steel balls called solomon dampers, these change position with varying centrifugal force. The clever guys who design these things have eliminated most of the problems. All radials since around the mid 1930’s have a bevel epicyclic reduction gear at the front that drops the propshaft speed by about 3:1, but this is to keep the prop tip speed subsonic. Hope this answers your question.
KeithMac.

January 23, 2002 at 11:03 pm in reply to: Keithmac- If you liked that you will like this #2117150

keithmac
Participant

RE: Keithmac- If you liked that you will like this

Looks like I got beaten to an answer, but I would agree with Ant. Love the picture!

January 23, 2002 at 10:59 pm in reply to: How's this for an early aeroplane? #2117153

keithmac
Participant

RE: How’s this for an early aeroplane?

Well Hi nephews! The system for controlling this engine was by manually advancing the ignition to run the engine faster, and retarding it to go slower. A bit of a fiddle when your trying to fly the thing! Unfortunately this aeroplane belongs to the Air Force, and as I’m an engineer not a pilot they would’nt let me fly it. Still running the engine was fun. There was no exhaust valves on the engine, everything blew out of a ring of holes at the base of the cylinders, including oil, I found out to my cost the laxative power of inhaling castor oil!!
Uncle KeithMac.

January 23, 2002 at 9:07 pm in reply to: How's this for an early aeroplane? #2117222

keithmac
Participant

RE: How’s this for an early aeroplane?

Hi Tony, correct, correct and no!

January 22, 2002 at 10:50 pm in reply to: Technical Teaser #2117365

keithmac
Participant

RE: Technical Teaser

Hi Christer, Ouch! Explaining this one is difficult. I always had a model to help. There is a difference, but it’s mostly in ignition and valve timing as opposed to compression ratio. The master rod follows a circular track as the crankshaft revolves, the articulating rods follow an ellipitical path, so there is a few degrees of error. However everything is set up on the master rod and the errors, which are very small, are ignored for all practical purposes. All radial engines have a master rod and articulating rods, it’s the only way to connect them to the crankshaft. Trying to show how it works on a diagram takes a lot of imagination, if I had an animated graphic it would be as clear as day, unfortunately I’m not clever enough to produce one!

January 22, 2002 at 8:09 pm in reply to: Technical Teaser #2117429

keithmac
Participant

RE: Technical Teaser

Hi Christer. Everything you have on hydraulic lock, or “Hydraullicking” as we called it is basically correct. Normal procedure was to pull the prop through at least 2 revs in the normal direction of rotation, feeling for a lock as you went. If you got an abnormal amount of resistance, then you pulled the lower cylinder plugs to drain any accumulated oil. It was standard procedure on all radials. There was more than one engine which failed because this procedure was not carried out prior to the engines being started. On quite a few occasions the damage was not noticed on start up, then a cylinder would come off in flight. If you go to http://members.tripod.co.uk/esar/accidents.html you’ll see what happened to Pembroke WV737 when the crew failed to carry out the check on a “landaway”. If your interest is in piston engines I can highly recommend “Piston Aero Engines” by Bill Gunston, it’s one of the best books on the subject.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 259 total)

← 1 2 3 … 15 16 17 18 →