RCU Forums - View Single Post - 2 vs. 4 Stroke
View Single Post
Old 01-26-2007 | 01:09 PM
  #28  
NM2K
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,488
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Ringgold, GA
Default RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke


ORIGINAL: skiman762


ORIGINAL: Ed Cregger


ORIGINAL: skiman762

ORIGINAL: Ed Cregger


ORIGINAL: skiman762


ORIGINAL: 8178

Nine cylinders are pretty wimpy compared to the mother of all radials, the Wright R-3350 with eighteen cylinders plus power recovery turbines.
We must not forget the Mac Daddy of them all the P&W R-4360 28cyl Wasp Major pumping out 4300 horsepower a tad more the Wrights 2800hp
and I believe the Russians had a radial diesel boat engine that was 42 cyl and put out 6000hp not a plane engine but a radial none the less

------------


Don't forget the three row, 27 cylinder radials that powered the B-29 & B-50.


Ed Cregger
Ed
I'm pretty sure the B-29 used the Wright R-3350-23 & 57 Cyclone 18 Cylinder rated at 2200hp each depending on the model year
and the upgraded B-50 used the P&W R-4360 28 rated at 3500hp each

------------------


I've slipped into another universe - that's all there is to it! <G>

I do remember a triple row WWII era radial engine. If not the B-29 and B-50, then what? The B-36?


Ed Cregger

The B-36 also used the 4360
not sure on a three row it may have not been American since Wright and P&W where the two major engine makers of the time
Lycoming did make a 36 cyl 5000 hp engine in 1943 the XR-7755 but I don't think it ever saw service


------------------


I defer to your superior knowledge.

I saw mention of a single engined aircraft that was fitted with this triple row 9-cylinder per row engine some years ago. Can't remember the single engined plane nor the multi-engined donor plane now-a-days.


Ed Cregger