I think most would agree that this individual is not the best advertisement for responsible behaviour when operating a potentially dangerous piece of equipment but IMHO we should not get carried away here.
Apart from possibly burning his own hand (twice) was he guilty of any great negligence?
In our increasingly ‘health and safety’ conscious ‘nanny state’ my fear is that an over-zealous attitude will lead to more restriction of ‘minority’ interests but will leave the irresponsible free to harm themselves (and others) with more mainstream interests.
I’m sure this individual will have a similar attitude towards his barbeque, chainsaw, patio-heater and quad-bike but I don’t see any of those being banned any time soon.
WA$.
I should have phrased that better.
I was wondering why there were two oil jets, and two different ones at that?
Anybody know?
WA$.
Nice drawing.
Any idea why the two oil jets?
WA$.
As an educated guess I would say it’s an oil spray jet to lubricate the reduction gear (or bearing).
In your second photo there appear to be two similar (hollow) rods and they look in the right place to spray oil between the gears as they mesh (and onto the bearing).
WA$.
Port Stanley?
WA$.
Have found a serial number on it – not on the actual propellor hub but on the front of the large gear just behind it – reads;-
N39/334 6 (or an f) 81 (or 7) 46FW4
Martin,
I’m amazed you were able to find any numbers at all after 60 years in salt water.
6 (or an f) 81 (or 7) 46FW4
This looks suspiciously like a part number. Bristol Engine part numbers start with ‘FB’ (or SFB) followed by five or six digits (usually starting with 1 or 2). Earlier engines seem to have five digits later (Hercules or Centaurus) engines six.
So the part number of this gear would be something like:
FB146??4
Which would not be out of place on a Centaurus.
Not sure about N39/334 but it is probably a batch number used to track parts during manufacture, inspection and service.
Unfortunately you will not find the aircraft serial number on individual engine parts but this does seem to confirm that it is a Centaurus.
WA$.
Yes, it looks like where we are collectively going this way.
How about the Warwick GR Mk.II (+ GR Mk.II Met) or GR Mk.V as a likely candidate?. Both saw service during the war with Centaurus engines and four bladed Rotol (most probably) wooden props?
Thanks Galdri, didn’t know that about Warwick II & V.
Not as glamorous as a Tempest II perhaps (and not necessarily a wartime loss) but more likely I think.
Got a serial number for us Ross?
WA$.
It’s not from a P-47.
The Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp has a ‘planetary’ type of reduction gear not the Farman type that this relic has.
Don’t underestimate the strength of wood. This prop had to deal with 2300-2500hp from a Centaurus and it’s made of…wood!
WA$.
Me110
WA$.
Have been down and counted the bolts – theres 18 of them…
Centaurus it is then.
Thought it looked like a Centaurus from the reduction gear ratio. Almost all Hercules had a ratio of 0.444:1 and almost all Centaurus had a ratio of 0.400:1 so not much point in counting the teeth.
where do i go from here. ?????????
Back to identifying propeller blades!
WA$.
Me262?
WA$.
Lightning!
B^gger, I was desperately trying to recognise that fat belly with the spindly main gear in the background.
Blo^dy obvious now.
Thanks.
WA$.
Just speculating but, couldn’t the prop be from Bristol Freighter G-AIFF?
Care to supply any more details.
Excellent picture; if it had wooden blades I’d say that was bang-on.
Where was it taken?
WA$.
Martin,
See the excellent picture posted (by Steve P) on the other thread:
“…and Spitfire relic trawled from the Channel”.
Does that look familiar?
WA$.
…only Merlin engined Halifaxes that had four bladed props, and mostly the Coastal Command ones. I do not remember to have ever come a cross a reference to a four bladed Hercules model.
Yes, I’m probably confusing the issue by suggesting four-bladed (Halifax) Hercules.
Wasn’t the Halifax four-blade prop a cure for failed (Merlin) reduction gears?
WA$.