Feeds-Simple And Complex

[Pen Engineer]

There was the old drive 6 hours in Texas for a pizza....is, I guess fly 6 hours in Australia.

If you overcook the pizza just marginally, a bit of a crust around the perimeter, it improves its aerodynamics, significantly, would surely cut the time in half

[Bo Bo Olson]

The problem is you can only get lift with an upside down pizza....which will get lighter the more times you try to reach the outback for a 3 hour delivery.....well, that would take care of both the unemployed and Olympics.

Sigh, no matter what you order all you get is a cheese pizza.

[Pen Engineer]

are you sure? According to Signore Bernoulli, the thicker part of the flying object must be on the top, that's what causes the lift... also see Aeroplanes can't fly

 

some people like extra cheese... after three days the pizza would be cold, very cold, indeed, even on a hot day.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Frisbee....discovered at Yale from old pie plates.

 

I had a nice long talk with Signore Bernoulli back in '67.....as I learned how to repair Autopilots.

Because the F-4 and other fighter planes like to turn fast....Signore Bernoulli was astounded that so much of his law could be disregarded if the autopilot was fast enough.

 

The rest deleted in I bored folks.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bo Bo Olson

[Bo Bo Olson]

Same here...no answers of others, than Pemingeneer =boring....I do have a couple of 'clipper' pens with the three tailed Clipper on the nib.

 

I did get an artistic screen saver out of it.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bo Bo Olson

[Pen Engineer]

it's a bit like aerodynamics in cars... just put a turbo V8 in it and forget it.

[Bo Bo Olson]

I didn't know we couldn't recycle jet engines. ...The price of tungsten is not high enough.

I had to know some of the theory Jet engines even though I only worked with props. And props is a different theory. High speed jet fighters wings are a bit different/shallower than slow thick air wings. Slightly different air flow over Flaps/ailerons and different one of them too...more in one ear and out the other in reality, in design of autopilot was not my job. (and it has been nearly 40 years ....and none of the planes I worked on landed short of it's goal.)

 

With tubes the first thing one did was give big gray box a solid kick....worked 10% of the time. One of course had to know where to kick it....right quarter just under that side's handle.....

 

I do not like flying by wire....the first civilian plane, a three system Autopilot decided to land just after take off and the two best pilots in France could do nothing. Some plane over Belgium nosed in, on the autopilot's orders. Fly by wire means you can not turn the autopilot off.

I want a wheel where the pilot can put both feet on the instrument panel and make like Schwarzenegger.

 

I have good solid reasons to like 4 engines too. No three jet engine passenger plane is safe over oceans and no two jet engine passenger plane is 'safe' more than 100 miles from a runway.

 

 

The first man to fly with an engine was some German who moved to Connecticut...1900 or a bit before. Witnessed by even a newspaper reporter.

Why is he unknown?

It is a conspiracy by the Smithsonian Museum.

@1903/4 some famous professor attached to the Smithsonian attempted to fly with a rocket launched plane from a boat....in water was softer than ground....he failed three times or so....his wings were on upside down!!!!!!

 

For years Smithsonian had him as the guy who flew with a motor first...and didn't acknowledge the Wright brothers at all....in to really prove beyond a doubt...took them to 1907-8.

In order to get and display the Wright brother's plane as the first flown into the museum; with a written contract, the Smithsonian had to acknowledge and keep acknowledging the Wright brothers were first.

 

It was known to the Wright brothers that the other guy claimed to fly before them....and of course they said he couldn't have....in writing. The Smithsonian backed the Wrights as per contract.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bo Bo Olson

[Pickwick]

I didn't know we couldn't recycle jet engines. ...The price of tungsten is not high enough.

I had to know some of the theory Jet engines even though I only worked with props. And props is a different theory. High speed jet fighters wings are a bit different/shallower than slow thick air wings. Slightly different air flow over Flaps/ailerons and different one of them too...more in one ear and out the other in reality, in design of autopilot was not my job. (and it has been nearly 40 years ....and none of the planes I worked on landed short of it's goal.)

 

With tubes the first thing one did was give big gray box a solid kick....worked 10% of the time. One of course had to know where to kick it....right quarter just under that side's handle.....

 

I do not like flying by wire....the first civilian plane, a three system Autopilot decided to land just after take off and the two best pilots in France could do nothing. Some plane over Belgium nosed in, on the autopilot's orders. Fly by wire means you can not turn the autopilot off.

I want a wheel where the pilot can put both feet on the instrument panel and make like Schwarzenegger.

 

I have good solid reasons to like 4 engines too. No three jet engine passenger plane is safe over oceans and no two jet engine passenger plane is 'safe' more than 100 miles from a runway.

 

 

The first man to fly with an engine was some German who moved to Connecticut...1900 or a bit before. Witnessed by even a newspaper reporter.

Why is he unknown?

It is a conspiracy by the Smithsonian Museum.

@1903/4 some famous professor attached to the Smithsonian attempted to fly with a rocket launched plane from a boat....in water was softer than ground....he failed three times or so....his wings were on upside down!!!!!!

 

For years Smithsonian had him as the guy who flew with a motor first...and didn't acknowledge the Wright brothers at all....in to really prove beyond a doubt...took them to 1907-8.

In order to get and display the Wright brother's plane as the first flown into the museum; with a written contract, the Smithsonian had to acknowledge and keep acknowledging the Wright brothers were first.

 

It was known to the Wright brothers that the other guy claimed to fly before them....and of course they said he couldn't have....in writing. The Smithsonian backed the Wrights as per contract.

When was the Autopilot first introduced?

 

An incident involving an Autopilot reminded me of an accident during WW2 in 1944. A USAAF Liberator bomber was on a mission. When they reached the English channel the Liberator ran into engine trouble and the crew had to abort, because they couldn't return to base loaded with bombs. The Pilot set the Autopilot in order to let the plane fly on out to sea until it ran out of fuel, and the crew bailed out. Unfortunately the plane banked and came back inland losing height until it crashed on a laundry in my home town, it exploded damaging 750 houses.

 

When the plane banked, how was it possible for the Autopilot to trim the plane but losing height?

[Bo Bo Olson]

Strange they couldn't dump the bombs over the Channel....which was what killed Glenn Miller.

 

Just motor damage....so this don't quite count.

 

Depending on what damage was done to the wing, ailerons or rudder.

And it was a hydrolic autopilot with an 8,000 rpm wind driven gyro.....with wing damage the rpm's could be less letting the compass wander. (Modern...to my time, Electronic gyros were 24,000 rpm.)

 

As I mentioned in the deleted posts....something like the C-47/DC-3 trimmed up so good a bungie cord could be an ersatz autopilot.

 

They had to have lost three motors...in with two they should have been able to lower the bomb bay doors or send the navigator down to hand crank them down.

 

Ah, Ha..... with less motors = less power to the hydrolic pump for the autopilot....= more than likely a shut down. They were fragile due to electric surges or lessing of power, compared to electronic autopilots, who were better buffered....

You also had electrical/mechanical servo motors helping with the ailerons and rudder. An aileron could be cocked or the rudder bumped and kept bumped out of straight line by a servo motor shutting down, due to lack of power and no one on the wheel to correct.

 

First my mother who was in England waiting to invade France told me this...I didn't quite believe but I think I remember later reading of a B-17 that landed on it's own airfield with no one on it or long dead pilots and no one flying. I hadn't thought of the auto pilot.Below....it is even more astounding in where did the crew go with out parachutes?

B-17 Flying Fortress landed perfectly at an RAF airbase and completes the full landing pattern as well. The bomber comes to a full stop; the crew at the airbase waits……. but nobody is seen exiting the plane.

As emergency crews climb aboard and look around; to their shock and surprise, they find no one inside. The only thing that is found is copies of radio communications and the written pilot’s log.

In the log, the pilot wrote that the bomber was severely damaged and the crew was badly injured. But the Flying Fortress was not damaged at all and as impossible as it may seem, the RAF crew saw the plane flying and saw it land.

They could never have imagined that the bomber was doing this unmanned!

The airbase crew was startled to see a B-17 approaching their position with the wheels down. The B-17 landed just as they called their superiors.

During the landing one wing tip dug into the ground, causing the plane to come to a bouncing stop about 90 feet from one of the gunnery positions.

One of the propellers crumpled and stopped, while the other three kept working.

20 minutes after the B-17 landed, John V. Crisp arrived at the site. The propellers continued whirling, but even after this amount of time, nobody had embarked from the plane. Crisp went into the plane and apprehensively looked around.

There was absolutely no one in there. However, there were signs of recent occupation. After some trial and error manipulations, Crisp successfully managed to shut the remaining engines down.

Crisp wrote, “I then went to the navigator’s station. The bomber’s log was lying open on the navigator’s desk and written in the log was these last words – ‘Bad Flak’”.

‘During our search of the fuselage we found parachutes neatly wrapped, about twelve of them, and ready to clip on. This only added to the mystery and made the whereabouts of the crew even more inexplicable. In the Perspex nose of the B-17, the Sperry bombsight remained totally intact, with its cover sitting neatly beside it.

Also on the navigator’s desk was the daily code book. This code book provided the crew with identifying colors and letters of the day for communication purposes. In the fuselage, there were several flying jackets with their distinctive fur collars laying together with a few chocolate bars, partially eaten in some instances.’

The US 8th Air Force Service Command, headquartered in Belgium, sent a crew of service personnel to investigate. When they checked the bomber’s serial number, they find out that the B-17 belongs to the US 91st Bomber Group and astonishingly, the crew is already at their base in England.

The B-17 Flying Fortress was on a mission to the Merseburg oil targets, including the Leuna oil refinery. The bomber developed trouble just before reaching the target area.

The B-17 wasn’t able to stay at the same altitude as the other bombers in the group and in addition, the bomb racks were malfunctioning. The B-17 took a direct hit that put #3 engine out of commission and another hit to the center of the plane caused a tremendous flash of light.

“We’ve taken a direct hit in the bomb bay,” said pilot Harold R. DeBolt, “and, for the life of me, I don’t know why the bombs didn’t blow up.”

With bad weather coming and one propeller twisted, DeBolt headed for England. The B-17 obviously wasn’t going to make it back to Eastern England, the East Anglia landing zone, so he changed his mind. He set the coordinates for Brussels.

The pilot ordered the crew to ditch all loose equipment and supplies to lighten the weight the plane was carrying. It was at this time that two engines stopped. DeBolt ordered the crew to bail out while he was putting the B-17 on automatic pilot; the last one to leave the plane.

The B-17 bomber crew all landed safely and, believe it or not, so did their stricken B17. What the crew thought had happened after they jumped, was that, somehow, the engine trouble cleared up and the reliably designed, stable B-17 flew itself.

The failing engines, however, couldn’t sustain altitude and the Flying Fortress came down as described by the British gun crew at the air base.

To an uneducated eye the B-17 looked as though it was undamaged and what was thought to be the flight crew’s parachutes were probably additional chute packs.

Throughout the war, there were several other accounts of B-17s that flew without a pilot, but the Phantom Flying Fortress was the only one that landed successfully, more or less intact – by itself!

 

 

Navy model of my EC-121...

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/boboolson1/Lockheed_EC-121M_with_F-4B_zpsnx5edkyk.jpg

 

 

Did you see the posts before with more than this photo? Navy model....better Art Shot....ours was dull gray.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bo Bo Olson

[Pickwick]

Strange they couldn't dump the bombs over the Channel....which was what killed Glenn Miller.

 

Just motor damage....so this don't quite count.

 

Depending on what damage was done to the wing, ailerons or rudder.

And it was a hydrolic autopilot with an 8,000 rpm wind driven gyro.....with wing damage the rpm's could be less letting the compass wander. (Modern...to my time, Electronic gyros were 24,000 rpm.)

 

As I mentioned in the deleted posts....something like the C-47/DC-3 trimmed up so good a bungie cord could be an ersatz autopilot.

 

They had to have lost three motors...in with two they should have been able to lower the bomb bay doors or send the navigator down to hand crank them down.

 

Ah, Ha..... with less motors = less power to the hydrolic pump for the autopilot....= more than likely a shut down. They were fragile due to electric surges or lessing of power, compared to electronic autopilots, who were better buffered....

You also had electrical/mechanical servo motors helping with the ailerons and rudder. An aileron could be cocked or the rudder bumped and kept bumped out of straight line by a servo motor shutting down, due to lack of power and no one on the wheel to correct.

 

First my mother who was in England waiting to invade France told me this...I didn't quite believe but I think I remember later reading of a B-17 that landed on it's own airfield with no one on it or long dead pilots and no one flying. I hadn't thought of the auto pilot.Below....it is even more astounding in where did the crew go with out parachutes?

B-17 Flying Fortress landed perfectly at an RAF airbase and completes the full landing pattern as well. The bomber comes to a full stop; the crew at the airbase waits……. but nobody is seen exiting the plane.

As emergency crews climb aboard and look around; to their shock and surprise, they find no one inside. The only thing that is found is copies of radio communications and the written pilot’s log.

In the log, the pilot wrote that the bomber was severely damaged and the crew was badly injured. But the Flying Fortress was not damaged at all and as impossible as it may seem, the RAF crew saw the plane flying and saw it land.

They could never have imagined that the bomber was doing this unmanned!

The airbase crew was startled to see a B-17 approaching their position with the wheels down. The B-17 landed just as they called their superiors.

During the landing one wing tip dug into the ground, causing the plane to come to a bouncing stop about 90 feet from one of the gunnery positions.

One of the propellers crumpled and stopped, while the other three kept working.

20 minutes after the B-17 landed, John V. Crisp arrived at the site. The propellers continued whirling, but even after this amount of time, nobody had embarked from the plane. Crisp went into the plane and apprehensively looked around.

There was absolutely no one in there. However, there were signs of recent occupation. After some trial and error manipulations, Crisp successfully managed to shut the remaining engines down.

Crisp wrote, “I then went to the navigator’s station. The bomber’s log was lying open on the navigator’s desk and written in the log was these last words – ‘Bad Flak’”.

‘During our search of the fuselage we found parachutes neatly wrapped, about twelve of them, and ready to clip on. This only added to the mystery and made the whereabouts of the crew even more inexplicable. In the Perspex nose of the B-17, the Sperry bombsight remained totally intact, with its cover sitting neatly beside it.

Also on the navigator’s desk was the daily code book. This code book provided the crew with identifying colors and letters of the day for communication purposes. In the fuselage, there were several flying jackets with their distinctive fur collars laying together with a few chocolate bars, partially eaten in some instances.’

The US 8th Air Force Service Command, headquartered in Belgium, sent a crew of service personnel to investigate. When they checked the bomber’s serial number, they find out that the B-17 belongs to the US 91st Bomber Group and astonishingly, the crew is already at their base in England.

 

The B-17 Flying Fortress was on a mission to the Merseburg oil targets, including the Leuna oil refinery. The bomber developed trouble just before reaching the target area.

The B-17 wasn’t able to stay at the same altitude as the other bombers in the group and in addition, the bomb racks were malfunctioning. The B-17 took a direct hit that put #3 engine out of commission and another hit to the center of the plane caused a tremendous flash of light.

“We’ve taken a direct hit in the bomb bay,” said pilot Harold R. DeBolt, “and, for the life of me, I don’t know why the bombs didn’t blow up.”

With bad weather coming and one propeller twisted, DeBolt headed for England. The B-17 obviously wasn’t going to make it back to Eastern England, the East Anglia landing zone, so he changed his mind. He set the coordinates for Brussels.

The pilot ordered the crew to ditch all loose equipment and supplies to lighten the weight the plane was carrying. It was at this time that two engines stopped. DeBolt ordered the crew to bail out while he was putting the B-17 on automatic pilot; the last one to leave the plane.

The B-17 bomber crew all landed safely and, believe it or not, so did their stricken B17. What the crew thought had happened after they jumped, was that, somehow, the engine trouble cleared up and the reliably designed, stable B-17 flew itself.

The failing engines, however, couldn’t sustain altitude and the Flying Fortress came down as described by the British gun crew at the air base.

To an uneducated eye the B-17 looked as though it was undamaged and what was thought to be the flight crew’s parachutes were probably additional chute packs.

Throughout the war, there were several other accounts of B-17s that flew without a pilot, but the Phantom Flying Fortress was the only one that landed successfully, more or less intact – by itself!

 

 

Navy model of my EC-121...

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/boboolson1/Lockheed_EC-121M_with_F-4B_zpsnx5edkyk.jpg

 

 

Did you see the posts before with more than this photo? Navy model....better Art Shot....ours was dull gray.

 

Thank you for writing the very detailed and interesting account. The B17 was probably one of the toughest aircraft ever built given the punishment a number of them took and still flew. I remember one afternoon playing in my Grandmother's bac k garden. I heard a terrific roar in the sky. Looking up I saw three B17s flying extremely low, the middle one had black smoke billowing {the memory is so vivid I see the sun glinting off the fuselages and decal markings as I write} out of the two inboard engines and the propellers motionless. The other two were attempting to keep the stricken B17 aloft by flying just below with the wing of each plane under its wing. I watched as they flew over the horizon toward their base in East Anglia.

 

When I came to the USA I met an American who was a Pilot flying B17 bombers stationed in England. I told him about my experience, and he said pilots were trained to perform this feat in order to help damaged planes unable to maintain height. None of the wings touched the other and I now assume the idea was to help maintain better airflow. You're more familiar with the theory of that than I am.

 

I watched an interesting TV documentary a few years ago interviewing a surviving German fighter pilot flying an ME f109 in combat. He spotted a B17 badly damaged and flew after it. As he got closer he was astonished that it was still flying. He noticed the rear gunner was dead. He told the interviewer that he could not bring himself to shoot it down. However he wanted to add another "kill" to his score and flew alongside to get the B17 pilot to land his plane on German soil. The B17 pilot just looked at him, and shaking his head flew on toward England.

 

He said he had so much respect for the American pilot, he decided to stay with him until they got to the North Sea, then saluted the American and turned back toward Germany. The interviewer had managed to find the surviving members of the B17 who were at the interview with the German pilot..

[Bo Bo Olson]

The P-47 was another plane that was very hard to shoot down....was not liked ... a flying brick with three props...when it got 4 instead very well liked.

 

Back in the day....the cold war kept the rest of the story from us. I'd never heard of any Russian plane and I studied as well as possible for a kid....10-14 or so....Something ...very little if, about the Mig 1 at the end of the war....more than likely in Mig 3 was on the whole better than the early f-86 Sabre Jets.

 

 

Soviet Yakovlev Yak-3

In the end it was the opinion of pilots that matter. When the German pilots were told to "avoid combat below five thousand metres with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler intake beneath the nose! ", it is obvious the Germans were terrified of this plane. When it came to most other planes they had a plan of attack which was effective, but against the Yak 3 it was simply: 'RUN! '

 

Additionally when the French pilots serving with the Soviet Air Force were offered any British, American or Russian airplane to fly and chose the Yak-3 over all others. Albeit I don't know if these pilots were the best ever, they may have developed bias for the plane they few in the soviet front, but it is still a great testimonial for the plane. Because of these reasons I will always consider the Yak-3 to be the best fighter of WW2.M+1

Regarded as the best dogfighter on the Eastern front. Tight turn radius (it could turn inside most fighters) and highly maneuverable.
TOP SPEED: 412MPH. (428 @ 20k feet)
ENGINE: 1,600HP V-12 radial.
ARMAMENT: 1-20MM cannon. 2-. 50cal guns all in the nose.
RANGE: 558 miles. - corebare32M+9

The YAK-3 was reported by many to be the best handling and most maneuverable of WWII fighters. It was comparable to the rest of the best in other areas. From what I understand, maneuvering in air combat trumps all. I like it's look too.M+4

Once this plane came along air superiority was lost for germany.

 

Well Hauptman Houfmann had 365 kills on the Eastern front....now I can understand he was not impressed by the Allied planes. So my memory is not golden....352.

He was imprisoned by the Soviets....I have seen reports he did not fly Migs for the Russians....then again there were always rumors, he did. He lived in Mannheim when I was a teenager. He was said to hate Americans....so I never thought to go talk to him.

He claimed, and was credited with, shooting down 352 Allied aircraft—345 Soviet and 7 American—while serving with the Luftwaffe. During the course of his career, Hartmann was forced to crash-land his fighter 14 times due to damage received from parts of enemy aircraft he had just shot down or mechanical failure. Hartmann was never shot down or forced to land due to enemy fire.

 

A better amn than most...resigning about the F-104/Starfighter...better named the Widowmaker, by the Germans..and it killed some hundred and more German pilots. 200 wrecks....mostly low altitude with a high altitude interceptor that ejected though the bottom instead of the top.

The Germans were trying to fly it as a dogfighting and ground support plane.....

 

It was the wrong plane for the task.....if the task was defending Germany. A good plane for America or Japan where one has all that water to get a good high running start at intercepting some one way up in the sky.

Not where they have power lines and narrow mountain valleys where one had grapes on the wing after a good flight.

[Pen Engineer]

BoBo said: "The first man to fly with an engine was some German who moved to Connecticut...1900 or a bit before. Witnessed by even a newspaper reporter. Why is he unknown?"

His name was Gustave Weißkopf, a German who emigrated to the U.S., where he became Whitehead. The Bridgeport Sunday Herald local newspaper reported the flight of his Number 21 monoplane on August 14, 1901. See in picture 33 in my report Aeroplanes can't fly

BoBo said: "Throughout the war, there were several other accounts of B-17s that flew without a pilot, but the Phantom Flying Fortress was the only one that landed successfully, more or less intact – by itself!"

May I kindly refer to the above mention article on Aeroplanes can't fly? There is a chapter on guardian angels...

Pickwick said: " He said he had so much respect for the American pilot, he decided to stay with him until they got to the North Sea, then saluted the American and turned back toward Germany. The interviewer had managed to find the surviving members of the B17 who were at the interview with the German pilot..

Touching story... I guess, pilots were the last "Gentlemen at War"

BoBo said: " Yak 3 ENGINE: 1,600HP V-12 radial.

What does radial stand for?

[Pickwick]

 

BoBo said: "The first man to fly with an engine was some German who moved to Connecticut...1900 or a bit before. Witnessed by even a newspaper reporter. Why is he unknown?"

His name was Gustave Weißkopf, a German who emigrated to the U.S., where he became Whitehead. The Bridgeport Sunday Herald local newspaper reported the flight of his Number 21 monoplane on August 14, 1901. See in picture 33 in my report Aeroplanes can't fly

BoBo said: "Throughout the war, there were several other accounts of B-17s that flew without a pilot, but the Phantom Flying Fortress was the only one that landed successfully, more or less intact – by itself!"

May I kindly refer to the above mention article on Aeroplanes can't fly? There is a chapter on guardian angels...

Pickwick said: " He said he had so much respect for the American pilot, he decided to stay with him until they got to the North Sea, then saluted the American and turned back toward Germany. The interviewer had managed to find the surviving members of the B17 who were at the interview with the German pilot..

Touching story... I guess, pilots were the last "Gentlemen at War"

BoBo said: " Yak 3 ENGINE: 1,600HP V-12 radial.

What does radial stand for?

 

 

I found the account on the internet. The German Pilot was Franz Stigler, and the American Charlie Brown. A book titled "A Higher Call" by Adam Marcos is also available. I wrote the account from memory, 5o years after the event Charlie Brown searched for Franz Stigler and found him living in Canada. It was an emotional meeting.

[Bo Bo Olson]

To me a Radial motor is cylinders in a circle, best in opposition....(well they had big clunky motors 18 cylinder round motors on the the Connie....had a PRT turbine, whose 2cm armor was not enough!!!! Part of my best war story.. Parts Recovery Turbines in it ate it's own values...I only helped chance out a motor once...thankfully. Had my hand on what almost killed me...that PRT Turbine.

The motor if over heated had magnesium fires.... With luck fell off.

 

The Yak was great..................The article calls it a V-12 is 'normal' in Fighters then....but I can't see how you could make a V-12 as a radial motor.

The Yak was oil cooled when most were air cooled.

 

With the fat snout of the F@W-190 and P-47.....a circle of cylinders could be possible. But weren't.

Focke-Wulf FW 190

The new fighter was powered by a BMW 14-cylinder twin row air-cooled radial engine.

The P-47 was also twin row air-cooled radial engine....the 1945 analysis on the net didn't say how many cylinders it had.

 

So a radial engine was one with opposing cylinders like a BMW motorcycle. ....if so some one made a mistake in calling a Yac a V-12 radial motor.....it was either a V-12 or a 12 Cylinder Radial motor like the FW-190 or P-47.

Somewhere else I found it just listed as a V-12.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Bo Bo Olson

[Pen Engineer]

Same here... radial motor. I can't see how they fit a radial motor into the Yak but a V12 because its nose is long and sleek not like the FW. In German the radial engine seems to be called a star engine. Have no idea what a radial V12 arrangement would look like. So, a twin row radial... are these two radials one behind the other?

[Pen Engineer]

 

I found the account on the internet. The German Pilot was Franz Stigler, and the American Charlie Brown. A book titled "A Higher Call" by Adam Marcos is also available. I wrote the account from memory, 5o years after the event Charlie Brown searched for Franz Stigler and found him living in Canada. It was an emotional meeting.

Gee, wizzz! I admire your memory. Wish I had one like you.

[Bo Bo Olson]

In I can't see 14 little BMW single opposed motors in a row....I'd guessed twin cylinders**....but for the fact....1980's BMW was going to come out with a opposed doubled twin, when Honda beat them to the punch.

I really don't know.

** Problem with pure air cooled....needed oil cooled in bikes.

 

Well the Germans always had a high horsepower tax, + motor volume tax....but that don't explain why they didn't when they could have.

A BMW 500 opposed had under 30 hp vs 40 for a Triumph or Bonnie....the 750 near 40 vs 50 for the bigger Triumphs. 60 for the 1,200 Harley. (Of course the 500/750 BMW was change the rings every 100,000 miles instead of 15,000 of the other twins...that pushed the engine harder.)

[Pen Engineer]

lost me

[FarmBoy]

My favorite radial engine is the Pratt and Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp

 

[Bo Bo Olson]

My Connie had an 18 cylinder motor similar to that. Pratt and Whitney also.

The R-3350-972-TC18DA-1 turbo-compound engine with a PRT turbine system, the Power Recovery Turbines . Each engine's exhaust gas flowed through three turbines, increasing power by 550 hp (410 kW).

 

 

Actually I only worked on the motors twice...and had I been smart the first time I helped someone change the PRT Turbine, I'd put the other boot toe under the hot oil in I ended up with one no shine waterproof boot....and the other that wasn't.

 

This one looks dainty....http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/boboolson1/1024px-SCFA-Connie_zpskiprynlc.jpg

This one....sigh....is no longer 'pretty'. Three radomes, nose, belly and top.

We had a three foot high foot wide, buried in massive shielding tube in the middle of the plane...that had to do with Radar. That was one hell of a Tube! Power pure.

I was still working with tubes....which were not as bad as you think, in tubes were each designed to do different things, and there were so so many of them...in each was it's own circuit.

 

Max flight time 14 hours on fumes. 12 was normal. So pilots really liked a working autopilot.

 

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/boboolson1/19988_1169588949_zpszayjbx2q.jpg

Edited November 21, 2016 by Bo Bo Olson