Creaking DoorDon’t count your chickens…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7055644.stm
Creaking DoorI did a quick sketch today of the gearbox arrangement of the DB610 from a He177 and it is a lot more complicated than I imagined.
This photo is probably of the more complicated ‘port’ DB610 as it looks like there is an idler gear between the crank and the reduction gear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aircraft_engine_DB_610_front.jpg
Gears (or anything else for that matter) not drawn to scale! :confused:
Creaking DoorAs to the aircraft it was fitted to…. Valiant
Well it’s a big thing, whatever it is!
13,000lb of fuel (about six tons) is quite a lot and surely not in a single tank.
Why the two scales 0-5 and 0-13? Is there a switch that gives a ‘full-scale’ reading for the last 5000lb for more accuracy?
Having said that if you’re worried about how fast you are using your last 5000lb of fuel it must be from a jet. 😀
Well, I wasn’t too far out! 😀
Any idea about the two scales and size of tank(s)?
Creaking DoorI vaguely remember reading somewhere that from factory fresh to scrap was approx. 10-15 hours for Me-262 engines depending on usage.
Estimates vary but you’re in the right area. See this thread for a recent discussion:
Creaking DoorMmmm. That’s a bit ‘count the engines’ which even with Goering in charge seems a little simplistic…
Personally, with Göring, I think it is bang on the money…
Doesn’t say much for the opinion Heinkel had for Göring – “Just count the propellers Reichsmarschall…” 😀
Technically, or tactically, I’ve not heard a good word said for him but (luckily for the allies) he was a good politician.
Typically for a politician he probably just got fixated with some oversimplification such as: “…two engined bombers are cheaper than four engined bombers…” which can be true but certainly isn’t if you write the sort of specification that the He177 had.
Much more significant was that the Luftwaffe was always a tactical air force, part of the Blizkrieg concept, and never understood or used a strategic bomber…
I agreed about the Luftwaffe philosophy…but then they went and asked for a ‘strategic-tactical’ bomber!
Creaking DoorI’m convinced now that the He177 could be run on three engines.
I don’t think so as I think you’ll find there was no way to disengage the dead engine from the drive train.
Sea Hawk posted a nice photo of a surviving DB610 in this thread and there is a good head-on view in the link below:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=74115
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aircraft_engine_DB_610_front.jpg
There are two large levers mounted in round housings on the front of the gearbox casing either side of the prop-shaft. These seem to be co-axial with the crankshafts of the two DB605 engines.
I think these levers operate a clutch to disengage either of the engines. What do you guys think?
The photos also give a good idea of how close the ‘inner’ exhausts were on this set-up!
…the Brabazon…had a pair of engines driving one set of contra rotating propellors…
So on a Brabazon would both (contra) props on one ‘nacelle’ run on only one Centaurus engine?
If that is the case wouldn’t that make it an almost identical (in operation) set-up to the He177 (except no contra-props)? 🙂
Creaking DoorBoth a/c had 2 sets of two engines coupled together to make a powerful twin propeller aircraft.The 177 had two DB’s coupled at the gearbox,the Manchester had two Peregrines coupled at the crankshaft,result for both sets of Aircrews…….Misery !!!!
I can’t dispute the number of props. I suppose it depends on what definition of ‘engine’ we use in this case. For me if a Vulture can’t run on 12 cylinders then it’s just one engine.
I dont thinks it’s the same thing, the Vulture is a single 24 cylinder engine, derived from two upper vees of the Peregrin engine but turning one crank. It is one engine though. The Greif installation is two distinct and seperate engines, with their own individual starting and cut off controls, running one gearbox.
The gearbox was the weakpoint, on the Manchester the engine was the bad bit.
I’d have to agree with all of this except about the gearbox…or should I say gearboxes as there has to be two different gearboxes on a He177 (so it will be possible to tell if the RAFM have a ‘set’).
As far as I know the problems stemmed from the cooling and installation of the engines (all four of them).
The aims of the design teams were similar, just different design philosophy!!
I’d agree about the different design philosophy.
Avro chose the Vulture, a powerful but undeveloped engine and Heinkel, with a far more demanding specification, chose the DB601 (later DB605), a more developed engine (or was it) but four of them. Anyway an engine with enough power simply did not exist in Germany at the time.
Interestingly both specifications required two engined aircraft. I think Heinkel ‘pulled a fast one’ over Göring (?) because the He177 was a four-engined aircraft made to look like a two-engined aircraft (the DB610 ‘engine’ name was misinformation) but the He177 still remained a four-engined aircraft…not that it did it much good!
Doesn’t say much for the opinion Heinkel had for Göring – “Just count the propellers Reichsmarschall…” 😀
Creaking DoorAccording to ‘Heinkel He 177-277-274’ by Griel and Dressel the first Daimler Benz’s fitted were the DB606V manufactured from Febuary 1937 a coupled powerplant consisting of 2xDB601V each having 12 cylinders with fuel injection and supercharger,common reduction gearing and separate cut-off devices for each engine. The latter is not mentioned for any of the later engines used so I do not know if this was a standard fitting.
They must surely have retained this feature due to the number lost through ‘engine failure’.
Just to add to the complications the props turn in opposite directions…but the engines don’t!
Creaking DoorAbsolutely superb photographs…thanks for posting.
Just look at the size of that fuel tank!
Creaking DoorI’ve always thought Greif translated as ‘Griffin’(or griffon)…the same as was painted on the side of Rommel’s command half-track.
It would be ironic if it was ‘griffon’ as in Rolls-Royce Griffon…which is named after the bird-of-prey as are all Rolls-Royce aero-engines.
It was years before I realised that the Merlin wasn’t named after that friend of King Arthur! 😀
Creaking DoorI take it the sections of Merlin on the memorial were left behind…
…if so scrap value of the metal was probably not the motive.
I know scrap is valuable…but it’s not that valuable…unless it’s copper or brass (cables, statues and such).
It probably rules out ‘heavy lifting gear’ also. I’d say somebody knows the value of this as a historic relic and stole it as such. I doubt they would sell it now but it’s worth keeping our eyes open.
Where would I send them if they are caught…how about Afghanistan?
I’m sure they will be able to convince our troops out there how they were forced to commit such a crime and in return I’m sure our troops will sympathise with them and protect them should they find their way into any danger.
Creaking DoorNo, you can’t have the Gannet as each engine drove it’s own prop, 🙂
Was the Princess separate props for each engine (except the outers) or a contra-prop through a gearbox? The latter I believe but I’m not certain.
Damn! 😀
You’ve got me doubting the Brabazon now…contra-prop also but could both props be run from one engine? :confused:
I looked up the Allison twin V-1710, called the V-3420 (of course), but this seems to be arranged as a single 24 cylinder engine and cannot be run on 12 cylinders.
I’m convinced now that the He177 could be run on three engines.
Not sure about the Princess.
Creaking Door…the Avro Manchester had similar engine design and suffered similar problems.
The problem with the Avro was rectified by converting to 4 Merlins fairly quickly,however Heinkel persevered for most of the war to sort out the 177’s problems when a similar conversion would have given them a decent enough long range bomber.They did of course eventually make a 4 engine a/c but by then it was too late!!
Not sure I’d agree there…the Manchester was only a twin-engined aircraft whereas the He177 was a four-engined aircraft.
I’m not sure if the He177 could even fly on three engines since a pair of engines shared a common gearbox (but not a common crankshaft). My thoughts are that it was probably designed to but since most engine failures caused (or were caused by) fires it was probably academic.
If memory serves the manufacture was desperate to move to four engines but was forbidden by the German air-ministry. Many of the problems of the He177 were caused by a bad specification that called for, amongst other things, a dive-bombing capability. Ridiculous, but it may help strength-wise if anybody did try to raise one off the seabed! 😀
The whole reason for the engine arrangement was to reduce drag but that saving was more than offset by the extra weight caused by that very arrangement.
Can’t think of many other aircraft with similar arrangements apart from the Brabazon but Allison had an almost identical arrangement to the He177 with twin V-1710 engines but I don’t think it ever flew.
Oh…and I forgot the Gannet of course!
Creaking DoorCommon Ground?
This is a difficult one…it certainly seems to have aroused passions on both sides of the fence (excuse the pun).
On the one hand the UE site is interesting and the ‘spirit’ of the site seems to be in the right place. Posters on the site seem to be concerned about the fate of (in this case) aircraft and have a ‘code’ that states that there should be no ‘breaking-and-entering’, no theft and no vandalism.
On the other hand some ‘explores’ clearly visit sites that are open to the (paying) public such as Brooklands where the Concorde was ‘visited’. However it was visited at night and the Concorde was described as ‘abandoned’ when clearly it wasn’t and those that visited it gave details of the security arrangements.
If these people really care about the preservation of these aircraft perhaps they should, in the case of Brooklands, visit during the day when their entry fee would help the dedicated volunteers preserve the aircraft they claim they care so much about.
The other problem is that the UE site is open to anybody and can lead to sites being visited by those who are intent on nothing but breaking-and-entering, theft and vandalism!
Some on this thread have admitted that they have taken part in this sort of exploration. I have done it myself when I ‘strayed’ from the footpath through RAF Predannack but I’ve only ever got into a museum site by paying.
There is an archived Concorde ‘visit’ linked below. The comments of their ‘senior member’ are interesting.
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2713
So far attempts to talk to these people have resulted in Peter being banned from their website. I don’t know what Peter posted but I suspect the worst he did was to disagree with their point of view.
I wonder if anybody from the UE site is reading this thread. If you are why don’t you become a member of this forum and post your views here. If you abide by our forum rules you will not get banned (or will they moderators?) and we may all find that there is some common ground.
You can even post in the middle of the night when nobody is watching. 😀
Creaking DoorWell it’s a big thing, whatever it is!
13,000lb of fuel (about six tons) is quite a lot and surely not in a single tank.
Why the two scales 0-5 and 0-13? Is there a switch that gives a ‘full-scale’ reading for the last 5000lb for more accuracy?
Having said that if you’re worried about how fast you are using your last 5000lb of fuel it must be from a jet. 😀
Sign In
