Yes, I understand that too. My point is there is allways an alternative. Bismuth would be a non-toxic replacement for lead that would work quite well in all probability. Also radials can be desgned to run on anything. Just because they were desined 60 years ago to run on 130 AVGAS doesn’t mean that is set in stone. As technology improves so does the design(at least it should!).

Cheers
Gary

So how much would it cost… or i should say…. how profitable would it be to redesign a “radial” engine to pump out 1500HP or so, including certification, etc… for a small batch to fit “one” aircraft in a limited market in a world where AVGAS will be gone in a few years.

Hardly worth the effort is it?

Again the wasted millions could be saved on strapping on a turbo-prop to a weary 40yr old airframe……

Jamming pod, who designation eludes me for now…

Ah yes the good old clock… sometimes forgotten about due to the “digital” age.

The RED hands arent connected to the clock at all. They are simply movable hands so the pilot can set departure time, etc…

Actually I have had the pleasure of working on radials and yes they are a pain in the a**. But they work and work well. As far as AVGAS goes, refineries can spool up for avgas in 24 hours. If there is a need they can make it quite easily.
And clearly I was talking about a new build airframe. With modern tooling and C and C mills the jigs can be remade fairly easily along with the other tooling. Design takes months or years, but that job has allready been done.
We are after all just having fun are we not?

Gary

….

The lead in the AVGAS is why its being phased out.
From memory there are only two refineries left who actually add the lead to AVGAS.
The other problem is that is that AVGAS WILL BE phased out in a few years.

The use of lead is banned in fuel production in most placed around the world and AVGAS is the exception.

Most radials i know of were designed to run on 130 with lead. Running them on 100 means a standard engine needs to run on lower boost and or lower throttle. This means less power…

And its a simple fact of life that a radial takes 10times the man hours to service then a turbine.

I take it you are talking about the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone? I’m not in a position to judge the combat damage resistance of a turoprop but from what I hear the radial would probably be the better choice. I know of cases were FW-190s and various other radial engined WWII fighters returned to base shot to pieces with bullets and shrapnel embedded in the engine, split cylinders, bleeding oil etc. That has to count as five star reliability. The problem with the Wright R-3350 engine is that it is out of production since what the 50s or 60s? Is there even anything similar still in production in the West? I know the Russians still make radials but that’s hardly an acceptable engine source for a western military aircraft for political reasons. So if you use an R-3350 you would be limited to a finite supply of engines. It seems that purely for reasons of cost, if the Skyraider was to be resurrected, it would probably be with a Turboprop wouldn’t it? How easy is it to find R-3350 certified mechanics? Turboprops have pretty much taken over much of the civilian aircraft industry and maintenance specialists are easy to find. Then there is the issue of jigs and production gear needed for Skyraider productions presumably these have long since been scrapped… but then recreating new jigs and tooling for the Skyraider wouldn’t be that more expensive than creating the same for a new design from scratch and the Skyraider is a proven desing. Personally I’ll still pick a twin if I can get one.

Originally Posted by Gary Cain
All of your comments are true but the R3350 is pretty damn robust capable of having two cylinder heads shot off and still getting the A/C home. This happened on multiple occasions so is not a random occurence. ….

Gees … obviously no one here has had the mis-fortune of working on a radial engine?

I thought this was going to be a serious discussion here?

ANY radial engine is a labour intensive piece of machinery which is prone to destroying cyclinder heads. Its at least 10 times more work during a service then it would be a turbo-prop.

Not to mention that AVGAS is going to disappear soon from the aviation scene and that high octane 130 hasnt been around for 15 to 20 yrs(?)

The mere fact the airframe is a minimun of 40yrs old shouldve ended this debate as soon as it started….

“Closing the throttle” doesn’t turn off the engine in most cases so it will keep going as long as you have fuel going to it…..

But in any case…. A large turbofan will keep windmilling for several minutes.
A small turbine will windmill for less time, but it wont be “seconds”.

A turbo prop powered aircraft like a herc (which isnt a free turbine) will be stopped quicker over a free turbine (eg PT6 powered trainers).

Jeez. Almost looks like they’re using a tailfin for a brace. 😮

Ok the person who posted a link said it was an engineering mockup??
I sure hope it is!

There appears to a “rub strip” on the door though where the rear tailfin of the AIM-120 rubs up against the bay door?!?

I REALLY hope this is just a mock up!

I understand the problem was with systems integration (new electronics) not the helicopter itself.
BTW: IIRC the Aussie SeaSprites were new-build.
NZ likes theirs….

They were not NEW build aircraft. The youngest airframe was approximately 20yrs old. They were all taken from stocks sitting out in the dessert sun.

Yes the intergration was the main problem…. but also simple things like the Auto-pilot and the inability to fly at night or in IFR conditions as it was deemed unsafe to do so.

Airframe wise it was also a nightmare to stuff all those wonderful goodies into spaces which werent designed for it.

Rebuilding an aircraft to airworthyness standards is one thing…