dark light

TempestNut

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 453 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2014 – RNHF Sea Fury incident at Culdrose #923604
    TempestNut
    Participant

    That is a Napier Sabre in that Aircraft of 3000hp making this Fury or Tempest light fighter prototype LA610 the fastest of all the Hawker piston engine power fighters. This is when it was fitted with the Griffon, not quite so elegant I would say.[ATTACH=CONFIG]230735[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: 2014 – RNHF Sea Fury incident at Culdrose #923625
    TempestNut
    Participant

    I don’t get this whole ‘Pratt and Whitney’ obsession. Most of the Furies in the US have been fitted with Wright R-3350s, not P&Ws.

    And just to reinforce the point that Mike made, the early birth of the Wright R3350 made the Napier Sabres birth look a dream. Paul Tibbits refused to fly the first atomic mission until specially modified 3350’s had been fitted to his Aircraft. A friend of my who flew many missions over northern Europe in a Typhoon later commanded a squadron of Tempest II’s and thought the Centaurus was marvellous. Everything is relative and this should be borne in mind. By the way a P&W R2800 C version of 2500hp to match the Centaurus or 3350 is a very rare beast. The R2800 of P47, F4U-1 etc is underpowered for the Sea Fury IMHO.

    I am very relieved that Chris Goate managed to pull of the forced landing. As has been mentioned we can repair the metal.

    in reply to: Bristol Centaurus for sale #924415
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Its from a Bristol freighter, I discussed this with the owner and restorer of this engine. The Centaurus has wider diameter cylinder fins as the cylinders mask each other as you will see in this photo and the incoming air is necessarily compressed further to allow it to do the extra cooling. I was talking about the video as well not the subject of the sale

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]230704[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Bristol Centaurus for sale #924470
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Its only got 14 cylinders. Seen this engine at Duxford last year

    in reply to: Instrument radiation? #929514
    TempestNut
    Participant

    This gross stupidity about the dangers of radiation from instruments demonstrates the disengagement between regulators and imperially proven science, (not consensuses science which is not science at all). When regulations were drawn up to regulate the nuclear power industry they used a graph call the “linear no-threshold graph” as the basis of setting levels of safe radiation. This was not a scientific graph of safe know levels but just a strait line graph from zero to high levels. It was never intended for anything other than as an aid to regulation of the nuclear power industry. This got leaked to the environmental lobby who immediately seized on it as proof that all radiation no matter what the level was bad. That’s the background.

    Wind forward to today, everyone who lives in the south west of England, or flies in a modern passenger aircraft or lives above a few thousand feet in altitude (and many many other situations) regularly gets more radiation than if they spent the rest of their lives siting in a spitfire cockpit. And the delicious irony is those who regularly receive higher doses of low level radiation generally have a higher life expectancy. So it is scientifically proven that low dose radiation is necessary for a healthy life. Getting the message out though is an altogether different matter when we are blessed with politian’s with little life education and agenda’s to keep us all ignorant.

    in reply to: Duxford Diary 2014 #880364
    TempestNut
    Participant

    What’s the going rate for a rebuilt Merlin these days? £100K maybe? A rebuilt Lycoming O-235 (115 hp) for my aircraft is North of £20K so a Merlin won’t be cheap.

    New/another engine more like. Crankcase and crank shaft would be toast, and then you have the unknown damage from the metal that got to every pore in the engine. Not sure how the oil is cooled on the merlin but usually the cooler core needs to be thrown otherwise bits of metal that won’t come out with cleaning come out usually on the first test flight. Very often shards of metal score the bores in and around the failure. All in all the worst kind of failure.

    TempestNut
    Participant

    Stuart many of those big marine engines that you can remove a rod from are 2 stroke diesels many with a max rpm of about 120. Some large 4 strokes (less than 250 rpm )you can do this to but again the rpm has to be kept very low. I wouldn’t like to remove a rod on any of the large high speed diesels (over 900rpm) If you removed a piston and rod from a merlin it may last only seconds especially if it was the fork rod you removed

    in reply to: Duxford Diary 2014 #881084
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Just seen a video of him landing with the engine still running. Lucky man, connecting rod failure can be terminal and see an engine seize very quickly

    in reply to: Duxford Diary 2014 #881512
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Very good effort from John. If the comments about the con-rod are true, and the large amount of oil tends to support this, then the oil pressure would have dropped very quickly preventing him from feathering the prop, which makes the landing even harder. So a double well done. I’m sure they must have anticipated this scenario many times and whilst its not easy or wise sometimes to do real dead stick landings in certain historic aircraft, John was obviously well aware of what he needed to do.

    in reply to: Hawker Tempest on the move? #916507
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Thanks Easy Tiger. She is a big aeroplane not far of the size of the thunderbolt. I have known several pilots who flew the Tempest (all sadly gone now) and all loved it. Funny thing was not a single one was any more concerned about flying the Tempest with a sabre than flying any of the Merlin powered aircraft of the day. One also flew the Tempest II post war and thought it a step up from the V.

    in reply to: Hawker Tempest on the move? #916602
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Unless those P&W’s are R3350 Wright Cyclones or at the very least C model R2800 Pratts à la Corsair F4U-4 (can be rare) they would be a bit underpowered for the Tempest I would guess. But I can’t wait 😀

    in reply to: James Goodson RIP #927859
    TempestNut
    Participant

    King of the Strafers RIP

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster planned maintenance 2015 #928433
    TempestNut
    Participant

    VX927, My last word. Onshore wind is subsidised 2 fold, offshore three fold and solar on homes 4 to 5 fold. That is not sustainable. It does not take very long if you have your eyes open to see “renewable” is a sham, in fact a reverse “robin hood” of robbing from the poor to benefit the rich.

    As I say engineering exists in the reality of the real world, some (much) of our science is in the world of make believe. I think that even those without the benefit of my education in science and engineering are moving to the same opinion.

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster planned maintenance 2015 #928483
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Why?

    Oh I would have thought that was obvious. To do engineering to the precession needed to get any aircraft in the air require absolute adherence to reality. We all know what is likely to happen if we kid ourselves.

    Renewable energy is an oxymoron. Energy can neither be created or destroyed and in the real world there is no such thing as “renewable energy”. We know wind doesn’t work, and the turbines are failing well before they should. If you have your eyes wide open and ear to the ground you will know that solar has no part to play in providing power to our grid and solar panels are barely lasting 5 years, let alone the 25 planners kid themselves they last. As for bio fuel the less said the better. Just image I supply a set of Merlin pistons that should last 1000 hrs, but I know only 10% get that far, yet produce documentation that says this is so. I can only do this fraudulently out of greed. Do I need to explain it any further or do I have to remind you the of the platinum plated diamond encrusted subsidy trough that you and I pay for that creates this greed.

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster planned maintenance 2015 #928654
    TempestNut
    Participant

    The UK really has sunk to the depths of absurdity when complete nonsense of the type contained in that renewable energy planning paper are need to be presented to get a hanger built. Renewable energy engineering in such as wind, solar and bio fuels is at the polar opposite of reality as compared to what ARCo/HFL have to comply with to do their aero restoration work and have it certified. One is complete make believe, and one is a the pinnacle of modern manufacturing and maintenance methods.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 453 total)