mookaloid
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 05:28 PM |
|
|
Upside down engines
Just been to the RAF Museum at Cosford - very jolly - lots of planes.
It struck me though, quite a few aircraft have upside down engines - tiger moths, Messerschmitts etc.
Why is this? are they better upside down? Obviously they will be dry sumped but why doesn't the oil just drop into the cylinders where the
scavenge pump presumably wont get it?
Cheers
Mooky 
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
|
|
T66
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 05:38 PM |
|
|
with the crank ontop of the engine, it creates a higher prop height.
|
|
|
tomgregory2000
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 05:39 PM |
|
|
I would guess its so the crank shaft is nice and high and therefore you can have the prop high up as well
|
|
|
T66
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 05:41 PM |
|
|
I did Cosford a while back for the Midlands Breakfast club - I enjoyed the museum more than the cars, the static engine display is excellent !
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 06:21 PM |
|
|
I saw the Messerschmitt enginers in the Science museum in Munich a few years ago and wondered the same. Seem to remember they were deisels as well.
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
Talking engines and positioning, RAF Binbrook, (home of the Lightning), was my last posting ('86).
Ever wondered why you've never seen another aircraft with the 'over/under' engine configuration?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bobinspain
Talking engines and positioning, RAF Binbrook, (home of the Lightning), was my last posting ('86).
Ever wondered why you've never seen another aircraft with the 'over/under' engine configuration?
Because it used up a lot of internal space that could have been better used for fuel tanks. Lightnings particularly the pre big ventral pack ones
were so short of fuel capacity that some were lost because they ran out of fuel.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 09:16 PM |
|
|
Not to mention that if you got a catastrophic failure in engine-one, (fuel leaks, fires etc), it invariably screwed engine-two, directly beneath
it.
Several mates banged out as a direct consequence of this inherent design fault which led to predictable aircraft loss.
|
|
|
Andy D
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 10:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mookaloid
Just been to the RAF Museum at Cosford - very jolly - lots of planes.
It struck me though, quite a few aircraft have upside down engines - tiger moths, Messerschmitts etc.
Why is this? are they better upside down? Obviously they will be dry sumped but why doesn't the oil just drop into the cylinders where the
scavenge pump presumably wont get it?
Cheers
Mooky
The answer must be there somewhere.  I did read on Wiki, the Gypsy Major burns four pints of oil per hour!
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 12/2/12 at 11:33 PM |
|
|
didnt the lightning damage fuselages if the pilot used too much throttle on take off ?
how many engines does a vulcan have ?
which flight carries on after the landing ?
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 08:35 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
didnt the lightning damage fuselages if the pilot used too much throttle on take off ?
No, it wasn't a throttle consideration.
If the pilot pulled hard on the stick to do a "rotation takeoff", then the bottom rear of the No2 engine jet-pipe could indeed strike the
runway Dave. A 'bumpstop' was fitted to prevent this happening, as rotation takeoffs were a sight to behold in display flying, though not
the most efficient method of gaining height as quickly as possible.
Thrust to weight ratio was generally around 0.8 so a vertical climb wasn't sustainable for long, hence you'd see the pilot 'rolling
off the top' into level accelerating flight.
(Latest generation stuff, (F22 Raptor) has a max thrust to weight of 1.6 for comparison. However, remember the Lightning was conceived in the 1940s
and first flew nearly 60 years ago--1954).
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
i never saw the lightnings flying , but them vulcans were noisy taking off at waddo.
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 11:28 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
i never saw the lightnings flying , but them vulcans were noisy taking off at waddo.
The Vulcan was an Amazing Aircraft.
I used to like the way the Victor used to crackle and pop when powering up for take off.
But not as scary as standing on the grass about 50 metres away (and 30 metres to one side) from the back of a B52 taking off. Nearly blew me off my
feet. But I always thought the B52 was a fairly quiet aircraft in comparison to the Victor, or Tornado's.
Oh those happy days!
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 11:56 AM |
|
|
To me the Buccaneer was the most amazing aircraft of that generation I remember first time I saw one was when the B2 was just coming into
service I standing halfway up the cliffs at Bennane Head south of Lendalfoot, I was amazed to be eye level with the pilot with the aircraft only
about 200 ft away.
A lot of money was wasted on the TSR2 and F111 that could have been saved by ordering an improved Buccaneer from day1.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 12:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
i never saw the lightnings flying , but them vulcans were noisy taking off at waddo.
The Vulcan was an Amazing Aircraft.
I used to like the way the Victor used to crackle and pop when powering up for take off.
But not as scary as standing on the grass about 50 metres away (and 30 metres to one side) from the back of a B52 taking off. Nearly blew me off my
feet. But I always thought the B52 was a fairly quiet aircraft in comparison to the Victor, or Tornado's.
Oh those happy days!
Can't remember whether it was Guam or Wake AFB (Guam I think) watching B52s just get themselves into the air with a full load en-route to
Vietnam in 1971/72. Muck 'n' crap everywhere and this lumbering BUF would lurch off the cliff at the end of the runway and disappear from
sight for what seemed like ages until it picked up enough airspeed for a safe climbout.
A few of my students (navigator) in the 70s ended up on Vulcans. Looked great from the outside when displaying, but highly unpopular from the survival
side in the event of a catastrophic failure. Only the two pilots had 'bang seats.' A moral dilemma as well as an in-flight emergency
wouldn't be a good thing!
Back then, the Shackleton was already ancient and part of folklore. Referred to variously as '10,000 rivets in close formation,' 'a
shacking great Fuc*leton' and my favourite, 'The Elephant's Ar*e.' ---because it was grey and wrinkled on the outside, and
brown and smelly on the inside. (The former because of it's grey over-water livery in its fighter-control role, and the later because the old
brown leather trim was maintained inside. The smell of that, added to the in-flight 'Vesta' chow miens and Madras curries heated up whilst
on 12 hour sorties made for a 'heady perfume.' Not to mention 8 guys cooped up and farting for 12 hours).
Happy days indeed !
[Edited on 13/2/12 by bobinspain]
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
To me the Buccaneer was the most amazing aircraft of that generation I remember first time I saw one was when the B2 was just coming into
service I standing halfway up the cliffs at Bennane Head south of Lendalfoot, I was amazed to be eye level with the pilot with the aircraft only
about 200 ft away.
A lot of money was wasted on the TSR2 and F111 that could have been saved by ordering an improved Buccaneer from day1.
Trident. The Bucc was my first posting following flying training. Stable as you like 50ft above the North sea at 500kts. I kid you not.
As a navigator though, you need a 'sympathetic' pilot when on bombing runs. Tip in at 4000 ft to a 'bunt dive' without giving
you 'passenger' notice, and it's bye-bye breakfast. If you don't part company with your eggs and bacon on the tip-in,
it'll be certain to emerge when he pulls like bast**d at the bottom of the dive and 'bomb-gone' with a 5g recovery. After 3 or four
'dry' runs, you'd then do 3 or 4 'hot' ones.
Regrettably, I suffered from the problem for my 25 sorties and even a trip to the Aeromed' centre at RAF Farnborough couldn't cure me of
it.
Still, 'every cloud has a silver lining.' I was re-assigned to VC10s and flew around the world for six years in slacks, shirt
'n' tie, instead of a smelly flying suit and 'turning trousers.' (G-suit).
Strangely, I was never ill in the Lightning. Possibly because, being sat side by side, everthing the pilot did to the aircraft, you were aware of as
it was happening. The tandem seating in the Bucc however, meant that any pilot could make any navigator ill if he so chose, by any surprise/violent
manouevre.
Regards, Bob.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 13/2/12 at 06:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
To me the Buccaneer was the most amazing aircraft of that generation I remember first time I saw one was when the B2 was just coming into
service I standing halfway up the cliffs at Bennane Head south of Lendalfoot, I was amazed to be eye level with the pilot with the aircraft only
about 200 ft away.
A lot of money was wasted on the TSR2 and F111 that could have been saved by ordering an improved Buccaneer from day1.
Partial agreement, YEP the Buccaneer was good but pushed through by I believe by the then First Lord of the admiralty, Mountbatten (god rest his soul)
as it WAS designed as a fleet aircraft.
The TSR2 how ever was designed as a Land based aircraft to a very advanced spec. SO advanced that the Americans (god bless them) got scared by it and
put our government into a possition that we had no choice to ditch it and buy the F111 or they would have alledgedly called in the 'loan'
that we owed them for the second world war. The fact was that the TSR2 was probably about 20 years ahead of anything the yanks had at the time and
they wanted to numero uno. End of. Such far sighted-ness by our then politicians means that we now have no real aero industry. Also the yanks took the
design from us for the Bell X1 from all the research and development that Miles Aircraft corporation had done.
Miles linky
Usual thing really, we solve the Yanks problems for them and they give us owt in return.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
