Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Register FAQ Advertising Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums

    Already registered? Login above

OR
 
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of airline pilots in the U.S. and beyond.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.

Join the Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-25-2008, 05:19 PM   #1 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Longbow64's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: PA-44 Left
Posts: 221
Default Radial Vs. Piston

How does a radial engine differ from a normal piston. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages. I guess a radial has more moving parts.
Longbow64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Old 05-25-2008, 05:52 PM   #2 (permalink)
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: CRJ
Posts: 15,404
Default

A radial had a few advantages I suppose...

You can have multiple cylinders, each of which has good exposure to cooling airflow. Inline/opposed engines have some cylinders hiding behind other cylinders, so it's harder to get good consistent airflow to everybody...the rear cylinders tend to get pre-heated air from the front cyclinders.

Ultimately radials create a lot of form drag...it turns out that you don't normally need each cylinder to have full-frontal airflow from the slipstream. An inline design allows you to minimize the frontal drag, and duct only as much cooling air as you need to the cyclinders (in theory).

Also it's probably easier to start and manage combustion, and lubrication when all the cylinders are oriented in the same direction.

I can't think of any reason why a radial would have more parts though...it should have the same parts as other piston engines, just oriented differently.
rickair7777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 07:14 PM   #3 (permalink)
First Rule of Fight Club
 
BoredwLife's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: My seat smells like cat pee
Posts: 1,504
Default

Radials just look AMAZING!! There is something about them that just remindes me of the "good ole' days" of flying which we will never see again. Classy.
__________________
The usefulness of a cup is its emptiness.
BoredwLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 10:26 PM   #4 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 683
Default

The old radials actually spun around with the prop (think Sopwith Camel) and didn't have carburetors, they would cut out the ignition to reduce power. In the later years of radials they made some huge ones- 3350's etc. Nothing beats the sound of a round motor.
Rama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 04:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 47
Default

I worked on Lockheed P2V's as a crew chief for an airtanker operator that contracted with the Forest Service. We had two Curtiss-Wright R-3350's inboard, with two Westinghouse J-34 turbojets outboard.

A radial, especially one like the R-3350, has a lot more parts. Other than the increase in scale going from four or six cylinders to eighteen, you have the internal supercharger (blower), the reduction gear box, and in the case of the R-3350 the three power recovery turbines which make it a "Turbo-Compound Radial Engine." The PRT's are turbines that are spun by the exhaust, similar to how a turbocharger is spun. However, instead of using that power to compress the induction air charge (which is already done in this case by the internal supercharger), the turbines instead spin shafts that are connected through gearing to the crankshaft itself. This "recovers" approx. 100-150 hp per prt.

The ignition systems on large radials are more complex, utilizing a low tension system, rather than a high tension system like most small flat engines. Oil systems are more complex, especially around the bottom rows of cylinders.

Round engines are great. They look cool, sound awesome, and maintaing them is satisfying (but hard and dirty work). Starting them takes finesse, however. Basically, it goes something like this on a warm day with a 3350:

Mags off, Mixture cutoff, throttle open approx. one inch
Depress and hold starter switch, count eight blades
Mags on "Both"
This is where technique comes into play, there are variations that guys swear by. I swear by my technique!
Keeping one finger pressing on the starter toggle switch, with another finger depress the primer toggle switch for a count of four
Primer off for a count of four
Primer on for a count of four
At this point she should be coughing, puffing, belching and farting and should catch her breath. When she does, hold the primer toggle swith down while taking your finger off the starter switch.
Now, you can run her all day like this, with your one finger on the prime (different fuel circuit then mixture) and one hand on the throttle adjusting the amount of air coming in. But now, you want to bring the pressure carb in, so when she has smoothed out, bring the mixture forward (easy, or she'll flood and now you've lost her and have to start all over again), and you should get a drop in RPM as you've got fuel running from both circuits. This tells you theat the Carb is "on" and you can take your finger off of the prime.

Starting on a cold day, starting a floooded engine, etc., are whole other procedures, but you get the idea. I once saw a little sign hanging in the nose of a B-25 at an airshow. It read "Jets are for Kids". I agree! There is an "Ode to a Radial Engine" out there that i'll have to find and post here. It explins the difference between starting a jet engine, and starting a radial engine.

The first start of the day was always fun to watch peoples reactions, as she REALLY belched smoke, people would say "Is it on fire?" No, and yes the brakes are supposed to screech and squeal like that too when taxiing, that's how you know they're working!

Fun stuff!

Stonefly
Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 04:58 AM   #6 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 86
Default

Hey RAMA the engine on the Sopwith Camel was a rotary not a radial. The crank shaft was bolted to the firewall and the prop was bolted to the engine making them one unit. Also most early rotary engines had no throttle. Engine ran at max power rpm's were controlled by turning mags on and off.
gtippin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 05:08 AM   #7 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 86
Default

There was a bigger radial than the R3350, Pratt & Whitney built the R4360. Four rows of 7 cylinders if you ever hear for the " corn cob " radial they are talking about the 4360. The B-36 bomber had 6 of them the KC97 tanker had 4 as well as the B-50 bomber. The very last model of the F4U Corsair WW2 fighter had one as well. If you really want to see some cool old engines the Udar Hazy Museum at the Dulles airport has a big display of engines as well as devlopment history. I think the airforce museum has like one entire hangar dedicated to powerplants
gtippin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 05:28 AM   #8 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 47
Default

Yes, the 4360 had more, albeit individually smaller, cylinders. It also was not a turbo-compund radial, thus reducing it's complexity. A very cool engine, nonetheless!

Yes, The Udvar-Hazy museum is very good. However, I went there with a fellow pilot, who wasn't an A&P like myself and he wasn't as interested as I to look at everything from Curtiss OX-5 on up like I was. I'll have to do it again sometime.
Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 05:54 AM   #9 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 86
Default

Yeah the 4360 is basically 2 R2800's. I learned to operate radials on a howard 500 with 2 R2800cb16's
gtippin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 06:04 AM   #10 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtippin View Post
Yeah the 4360 is basically 2 R2800's. I learned to operate radials on a howard 500 with 2 R2800cb16's
Howard 500, very cool.

I actually googled largest reciprocating engine, as I knew there was something by Lycoming, but I couldn't remember what the displacement was, and it was the Lycoming R-7755. It never was successful, as by that time the development of radials had reached it's zenith, and hair dryers, er, jet engines took over.
Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/26719-radial-vs-piston.html
Posted By For Type Date
Zenith Carburetor, Twin Cam 88 Carburetor, Walbro Carburetor For Jonway 50Cc Scooter - Mistresslifestyle This thread Refback 03-11-2009 05:19 AM
PW+R2800+firewall | VIRGILIO Ricerca | Web This thread Refback 02-06-2009 07:57 AM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Radial jungle Your Photos and Videos 20 06-03-2008 12:55 AM
For Radial Lovers Sioux39 Hangar Talk 4 03-25-2008 09:43 AM
208 v.s. piston twin SuperD Corporate 7 02-26-2008 06:57 PM
Piston Type Ratings...do they help??? BomberGuy Regional 26 12-23-2007 09:42 PM
headsets again Cubdriver Technical 0 06-25-2007 04:55 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 AM.


vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright 2000 - 2012 Internet Brands, Inc.