2 vs. 4 Stroke
01-26-2007 | 01:06 PM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
ORIGINAL: skiman762
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
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.
Nine cylinders are pretty wimpy compared to the mother of all radials, the Wright R-3350 with eighteen cylinders plus power recovery turbines.
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
---------------
I would love to have a .wav file of that thing running!
Ed Cregger
01-26-2007 | 01:07 PM
#27
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
ORIGINAL: B.L.E.
The Lone Star Museum of Flight located at the Galveston TX airport (Scholes Field) has a P&W R-4360 on display in cut away form so you can see all the moving parts. Let's see, 28 cylinders = 56 valves that need adjusting, and 56 spark plugs (dual ignition I assume) to change, HOO BOY!!!
This engine had the misfortune of being invented just in time to be made obsolete by jet propulsion.
ORIGINAL: skiman762
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
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.
Nine cylinders are pretty wimpy compared to the mother of all radials, the Wright R-3350 with eighteen cylinders plus power recovery turbines.
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
This engine had the misfortune of being invented just in time to be made obsolete by jet propulsion.
-------------
Four rows of seven cylinders? Wow!
Ed Cregger
01-26-2007 | 01:09 PM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
ORIGINAL: skiman762
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
ORIGINAL: Ed Cregger
------------------
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
ORIGINAL: skiman762
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
ORIGINAL: Ed Cregger
------------
Don't forget the three row, 27 cylinder radials that powered the B-29 & B-50.
Ed Cregger
ORIGINAL: skiman762
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
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.
Nine cylinders are pretty wimpy compared to the mother of all radials, the Wright R-3350 with eighteen cylinders plus power recovery turbines.
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
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
01-28-2007 | 09:56 PM
#30
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
I just got back from a swap meet this weekend and got rid of my last 2 stroke! The last 2 were cheap chinese 2 strokes that didn't make that much power or run that good. The new Saito that replaced them is ready to start the break in the next warm afternoon. For my type of flying 3d and everyday sport flying the 4 strokes suit me better. I won't say I will never buy another 2 stoke but it will only be for cheap combat planes or fast pylon racers.
01-30-2007 | 09:24 PM
#31
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston ,
TX
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
ORIGINAL: TopThumbs
For me it's almost all about the sound.
Who wouldnt want to fly a miniature harley
Bill
For me it's almost all about the sound.
Who wouldnt want to fly a miniature harley
Bill
01-30-2007 | 09:42 PM
#32
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
ORIGINAL: CRAZYRYAN
same with me i have a ft1.60 flat twin os on a sig 1/4 scale cub man it sounds so awesome
ORIGINAL: TopThumbs
For me it's almost all about the sound.
Who wouldnt want to fly a miniature harley
Bill
For me it's almost all about the sound.
Who wouldnt want to fly a miniature harley
Bill
---------------
I just ordered the Magnum 1.60 twin. I was concerned that it wouldn't sound different enough to singles, if both cylinders fired at the same time. Glad to hear that it has a distinctive sound. Would have bought the OS, but I'm holding out for their 300 twin, or maybe the Saito 300 twin. Don't know which yet.
Ed Cregger
01-30-2007 | 10:07 PM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston ,
TX
RE: 2 vs. 4 Stroke
from what i heard another pilot at my field had a ft300 twin on a uglystick and he said that the engine was getting unreliable,and took it off put in place a two stroke i dont know why he would do that, i think its due to not cleaning it up after each use or that he doesnt quite know how to adjust the needles correctly, if you dont clean it up around the carb the fuel will become jelly like and clog up the needles i use wd40 once in a great while to help break up the jell and it really works plus i use an aircompressor to blast the stuff out make sure that no dirt is around the opening of the throttle carb clean most with a clotch first then air it out.
oh and by the way my o.s engine is 14 years old and starts from the first spin on the starter! im the 3rd owner
oh and by the way my o.s engine is 14 years old and starts from the first spin on the starter! im the 3rd owner
