This is an opposed piston engine (commonly called a "flat engine"), commonly used in the vast majority of piston-engined airplanes flying within the US.
This is a radial engine. They were widely used for high-power applications before the turbine engine was developed. This one is a Russian engine that is equivalent to a high-power flat engine.
This is a Pratt & Whitney R-2800, arguably the most successful radial engine produced in the US:
As you might imagine, the crankshaft look different. On a radial engine, there is one "master connecting rod" riding on a very large crankshaft throw . All of the other connecting rods in that bank of cylinders are bolted to the master rod.
This is a graphic of how the major parts of a R-2800 fit together:
The drawing was done by Ralph Jones, this is from a series of animations by him of the operation of a R-2800 (which is no longer available [edited to add 8/2020]).
This is a drawing of a crankshaft of a flat engine, which doesn't look a heck of a lot different from an automotive crankshaft.
Radial engines produce a lot of power, which require large propellers. That has two implications. First, the props have several blades to absorb the horsepower. Second, propellers do not do well if the tips are moving so fast to go supersonic. Also, a supersonic prop makes a lot of noise (look up the XF-84H "Thunderscreech"). So radial engines are geared down so they can drive large props.
An AN-2:
The AN-2's engine is essentially an evolution of the Wright Cyclone engine, which the Russians built under a license from Curtiss-Wright. The Wright Cyclone 1820 was used in a lot of DC-3s.
(As an aside, the Wrights and the Russian clones use a mixture control that is bass-ackwards from almost all others, in theat you push the control forward for lean and pull back for rich. A wise pilot makes damn sure whether the engine on a DC-3 is a Wright or a Pratt.)
F8F Bearcat and F6F Hellcat:
Constellation:
A-1 Skyraider, which the Navy called a "Spad":
FG-1 Corsair, which had much larger engines than the F4Us. FG-1s were made by Goodyear:
DC-6:
DC-6s had R-2800s, which were very reliable.
DC-7s had turbo-compound R-3350s, which also included "power recovery turbines", which were spun by the exhaust gasses and, through a fluid coupling, fed power to the crankshaft. Power recovery turbines were also known as "parts recovery turbines."
Dc-7s were known for requiring an engine shutdown, which probably is why some old hands referred to DC-6s as "four-engined airplanes with three-bladed props" and DC-7s as "three-engined airplanes with four-bladed props. Note, though, that the higher output of the R-3350 required an additional propeller blade to make use of the additional horsepower.
Flat engines do not require as large props, so the props can be bolted directly to the crankshaft. Most are two-bladed. For most applications, changing to a 3-bladed prop is more a question of vanity than practicality.
All this leads to a discussion of operating the propeller. (This only applies to airplanes with adjustable-pitch propellers. ) Generally, there are three controls: the Mixture control (a red knob) that controls the fuel-air ratio; the propeller control, which controls the prop pitch (blue knob); and the throttle, which controls the power output.
Constant-speed propellers are set so that rather than directly controlling the pitch, you set the prop RPM and a governor adjusts the pitch to get to the desired RPM. The throttle controls the power output as measured by manifold pressure.
The gearing of a large-power engine is set to push power one way; from the engine to the propeller. A major sin in operating a geared engine is to "let the prop drive the engine". This happens when the throttle is brought back and the propeller control is not. The airflow "windmills" the propeller. The thrust loads go the wrong way and the load bears on surfaces, especially the crankshaft, that are not designed for lubrication under loads.
What you do is that you do not put the prop control all the way forward until the airplane is on final approach to the runway. At that point, the airplane is moving slowly and there is not the same windmill effect that would happen earlier. You'll know that is working because the engine RPM will not change as there is not the airflow to change the angle of the blades of the propeller, as there is not enough power to change the setting of the governor. If you need to go around (abort the landing), you just move the throttle to cruise power, level off, clean up the airplane (flaps, gear), gain a little speed and then go to full power.
(You should do it this way in the event that you ever realize your dream of flying a WW2 fighter. If you are on short final and you need to go around, reflexively slamming the throttle all the way forward will cause the aircraft to "torque-roll" and that will kill you in a heartbeat.)
There is another reason to not push the prop control in on most engines and that is called being a good neighbor. On the largest flat engines, and especially on long propellers such as floatplanes, the propellor's tips do go supersonic at high RPMs. When someone approaches the airport and pushes the prop control in then, the prop goes to flat pitch and speeds up to maximum RPM. The blithe/uncaring/rude/ignorant pilot then flies over the countryside with his propeller howling away, which irritates the people living underneath (and shows to conscious pilots that he is a clod).
So, to be a considerate pilot and to keep peace among the airport's neighbors, do not move the prop control from the cruise setting until you are on final.
And honestly, it would also be a good idea if, upon departure, you brought the prop control back 50 to 100RPM soon after takeoff. You won't hurt the engine and you'll bring the propeller out of the supersonic range. Everyone within earshot will appreciate it.
Cat Pawtector!
3 hours ago
5 comments:
The prop speed issue is of course the main reason why the Tu-95 "Bear" bomber is so friggin' loud (though it uses turbines rather than piston engines to power its props because the Russkies determined that the multitude of moving parts in a gigantic multibank radial piston engine were far less reliable than the relative simplicity of a turbine once you got way up there in horsepower, especially considering that Soviet av-gas was always pretty shitty).
Your description of a go-around in a WW2 fighter actually applies to many other relatively-high-powered machines produced even today. I think it was a Mooney that I was reading about this on yesterday when dealing with "Mooney Float" and how to do go-arounds. I suspect it applies to pretty much any fast propeller aircraft with slippery wings.
Who put the BMW logo on a Lycoming?! Did Lycoming at some point in time license the O-5XX series to BMW back in the days when BMW made aviation engines? Anyhow, note some of the interesting things about an aviation engine. You say, "pushrods? How... quaint." But if you're doing direct-drive, the engine will never go above 3,000 rpm else you'll drive the prop too fast, so overhead cams don't get you anything (the purpose of overhead cams is to allow you to rev higher and thus get more power out of a smaller engine). That was one of the reasons the Porsche-powered Mooney was such a disaster, Porsche had to add gearing to gear down from Porsche RPM speeds to prop RPM speeds and the result was so much weight and bulk that the Porsche-powered Mooney was actually *slower* than the Lycoming-powered Mooney.
That is also why modern aviation piston engines tend to be very large, but have modest horsepower and be lightly built for their bulk. If your parts are relatively lowly-stressed you can build them lighter without them breaking. It just requires big (but light) jugs moving to and fro (but slowly) in those lightly-built cylinders. This would be a disaster in an automobile because you'd need a 90-speed transmission for the thing due to the relatively narrow operating RPM range of an aviation engine, but I must admit that on a power-to-weight basis, it's hard to beat a Lycoming with any automotive engine. There's lots of automotive engines that make a ton more horsepower out of less cubic inches, but then you look at the weight and the need for reduction gears to get the prop rpm down and it's not so simple anymore, especially considering the 70 pounds or so of water-cooling-related stuff needed for an automotive engine... at that point, aircraft designers typically say "y'know, we'd be better off using a turbine in this design" and punt (Piper Meridian, anybody?).
Of course the big Lycomings et. al. are doomed. You need extremely-high-octane gas to run them due to the inability to adequately air-cool a head of that size (invariably you end up with "hot spots" that would pre-detonate with lower-octane gas), and soon the high-octane av-gas will no longer be available. At the low end the cylinder heads are small enough to be adequately air-cooled for low-octane gas, for the high end they'll need to go to water-cooled heads and there goes your weight advantage over diesels (where detonation isn't a problem because that's what makes diesels go boom in the first place). I'm curious what's going to happen here, guys who paid half a million bucks for a fast Cirrus or Mooney or etc. are not going to be happy when they can no longer fuel their high-strung thoroughbred...
Well, you may be anticipating the death of 300+ HP engines a lot earlier than they'll die off. The good folks at GAMI http://www.gami.com are developing electronic ignition systems that will permit the use of lower-octane gasoline.
Honda is reportedly working on a piston engine and, if the reports I've read are correct, they are not very different from Lycomings or Continentals: Large bore, slow-speed, parallel valve engines.
PRISM has been "Certification expected soon" for, uh, how many years now?
A few, indeed. I don't know if it's a function of difficulties with certification or if the turbonormalization business has grown to the point that it's better to stick with that for awhile or maybe the PRISM project isn't panning out.
The flat engine you pictured early on is not only a flat 6 cylinder, it is a geared flat 6 cylinder lycoming. The geared engines aren't used so much for general aviation planes anymore because manufacturers figured out how to get more power from direct drive engines without blowing things up. Might have something to do with the high octane gas mentioned by another commenter. In the geared engine power is produced at a higher crankshaft speed...ie 3200rpm average versus 2500-2700 for direct drives. The crank speed is then geared down to a reasonable propeller rpm in order to avoid the inefficient supersonic tip speeds that also annoy neighbors.It also allows higher power to be produced at lower cylinder pressures which in turn allows lower octane fuel to be used. It also creates more wear on the engine and gearbox. So having said all that I'll add that the engine pictured is one of the oldies and not in wide use anymore. Neat engine in any case.
Timmy
Post a Comment