For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want
to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some
reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the
2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a
clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully
spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given
as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some
instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did
give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a
"supercharger" by definition :-)

And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or
some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts.

Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A
NEW Design :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 2015-06-22, John B wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some
instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did
give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a
"supercharger" by definition :-)

And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or
some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts.

Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A
NEW Design :-)

John B.


I have a forklift with a 2 stroke detroit engine with a roots blower.

They need to be supercharged, because of the nature of two stroke
diesel.

i

On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied,
they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they
installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all
new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved
they were reliable.

David

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:29:44 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied,
they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they
installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all
new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved
they were reliable.

David
Nothing like experience to instill confidence. An "experienced" engine
statistically has a lower chance of failure than a freshly rebuilt
one.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some
instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did
give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a
"supercharger" by definition :-)

Pfhhht. g


And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or
some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts.

Ohhhh, yeah. That one disappeared in a hurry, didn't it? I had
forgotten all about that one.


Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A
NEW Design :-)

I'd like to drive one, just to see how it feels.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 20:46:28 -0500, Ignoramus11174
wrote:

On 2015-06-22, John B wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some
instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did
give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a
"supercharger" by definition :-)

And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or
some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts.

Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A
NEW Design :-)

John B.


I have a forklift with a 2 stroke detroit engine with a roots blower.

They need to be supercharged, because of the nature of two stroke
diesel.

i

I should let John explain that, but the blower on a two-stroke diesel
is not there to supercharge the engine. Basically, it's just there to
"blow" air into the cylinders, at normal atmospheric pressure,
because the engine can't aspirate itself without the blower. This is
inherent in the engine design.

But, as he hinted, in can do a little supercharging while it's at it.
It's first a matter of port timing.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.


A fellow NYer built a "Pro-Street" J-2000. Had 2 blowers and twin
turbochargers. Plus nitrous and injection for the extra fuel required.

http://www.stanceiseverything.com/20...pontiac-j2000/



--
Steve W.

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they
studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350,
so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much
less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with
all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already
proved they were reliable.

David

The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than
4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very
reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119
components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only
VFR below pressurization altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar

-jsw

On 22/06/15 04:39, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.
The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some
instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did
give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a
"supercharger" by definition :-)
Pfhhht. g

And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or
some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts.
Ohhhh, yeah. That one disappeared in a hurry, didn't it? I had
forgotten all about that one.
I've heard they had some problem but it's still around as an option
AFAIK. Nissan did this on the Micra Superturbo back in 1988, and Lancia
in the Delta S4 but that wasn't really a production car.

Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A
NEW Design :-)
I'd like to drive one, just to see how it feels.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:09:37 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want
to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some
reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the
2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a
clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully
spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given
as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.

So they turned her into a cranky old bitch in the morning, did they?
It probably cut out 75% of the maintenance, though, so I'll bet it was
a mixed blessing.

I remember the difference between my old 302 Ford engines. The '68
Ranch Wagon had a 2bbl carb and the F-150 had an EFI system. The
performance difference was astounding. The EFI added what felt like
100hp and gave it instant performance from startup to shutdown.

That little carb was a darling compared to Holleys and Rottenchesters,
but it still wanted some time in the morning to warm up. I certainly
don't miss carbureted engine tune-ups, lemme tell ya. Especially
interim and post-SMOG engines from CA. I built a special bending tool
for choke pulloff rods to be able to adjust them better for cold
performance.


http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

That engine sounds like a flaming bitch in any config.
"Altogether, the R-3350 went through tens of thousands of design
changes during its early development."

--
Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the
exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
--Frederick Douglass

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:12:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:29:44 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied,
they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they
installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all
new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved
they were reliable.

David
Nothing like experience to instill confidence. An "experienced" engine
statistically has a lower chance of failure than a freshly rebuilt
one.

Indeed. Could you imagine the conditions their old wrenches
experienced on a Pacific island back then? Heat, humidity, blowing
dust, etc. I doubt we newer wrenches would have liked them at all,
and I applaud the job they did.

--
Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the
exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
--Frederick Douglass

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:09:37 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want
to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some
reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the
2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a
clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully
spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given
as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

I hate to tell you but the article you reference is a bunch of bull.

The first B-29's, if I am not mistaken, were equipped with carbureted
engines and the change to fuel injection was a move to increase power
and reliability. The B-29's were equipped with twin turbos and an
internal supercharger and with the waste-gates open you could get
about 30" at full throttle stationary on the ground at just a bit over
sea level.

The engines ran perfectly well in summer temperatures on the ground in
Japan during the Korean "Police Action" and in fact the cowl flaps
were partially closed at take off as full open cowl flaps would over
cool the engine on take off as well as adding drag.

No pilot or flight engineer would have even considered doing a mag
check on take off roll. Take off was with the turbo waste gates
partially closed so manifold pressure was probably 10 or 15" over 30
inches and God only knows what switching off half the spark plugs
would do.

In addition the brakes on a B-29 were famously poor and if you had a
bad mag check aborting while on takeoff roll with a bomb load and max
fuel aboard would result in running off the end of the runway. Not a
recommended practice although exactly that did happen at Yokota AB in
about 1952 or maybe 53 for exactly that reason. An engine backfired on
take off roll and an inexperienced pilot pulled the throttles back.
The airplane went through the fence, sheered the landing gear off, the
center wing fuel tank ruptured and it caught fire. With a full load of
bombs aboard.

The compound engines that they talk about were a later version of the
R-3350 and added three small power recovery turbines to the engine.
Not used on the B-29 but were used on at least one version of the
Lockheed Constellation. I did talk to some of the mechanics that
maintained those airplanes and they cursed the engines but none of
them had worked on the B-29 :-)

How do I know all this? Because I worked on the things for nearly 5
years both at Randolph Field in Texas and Yokota AB in Japan during
the Korean set to and after that was settled in a reconnaissance
squadron at the same base.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:39:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

The Detroit Diesel engine had both roots blower and turbo, in some
instances. And yes, I know what it as for but the roots "blower" did
give an intake pressure higher than atmospheric, thus was a
"supercharger" by definition :-)

Pfhhht. g


And didn't VW market a car that had this system? Called the GT TSI, or
some such name. Back in 2005, or thereabouts.

Ohhhh, yeah. That one disappeared in a hurry, didn't it? I had
forgotten all about that one.


Add variable valve timing (which is old hat now-a-days_) and Viola! A
NEW Design :-)

I'd like to drive one, just to see how it feels.

Sometimes the "cutting edge" cuts both ways :-)

I had a friend that bought one of the first Wankel engine Mazda cars
imported into Thailand..... A year later he replaced the rotary with a
piston engine :-) He told me that he had it done at the Mazda shop and
it was literally a "drop in". Although that was likely an
engine-transmission package drop in.

(Years later he died of alcoholism but I'm not sure if the Mazda or
the woman he married caused that :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.
snip

For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual
windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get
the idea

Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the
vehicle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w

I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:27:33 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.


A fellow NYer built a "Pro-Street" J-2000. Had 2 blowers and twin
turbochargers. Plus nitrous and injection for the extra fuel required.

http://www.stanceiseverything.com/20...pontiac-j2000/

I always enjoy wretched excess, especially when it's chromed and
nicely polished. g

My two favorites over the years were a small-block Chevy-powered
unicycle, which I saw at a Miami hot rod show in 1963, and Jay Leno's
tank-engined car, which I actually got to fondle when I was out there
last year:

http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/05/...no-tankcar.jpg

(Although I spent more time fondling his Grand Prix Bugattis from the
1920s and 1930s.)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:16:04 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.
snip

For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual
windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get
the idea

Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the
vehicle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w

I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure...

Oh, that's great. And because it's on a smart phone, nothing can ever
go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:22:14 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:16:04 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.
snip

For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual
windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get
the idea

Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the
vehicle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w

I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure...

Oh, that's great. And because it's on a smart phone, nothing can ever
go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...

I'm a gizmo person, so I really like what that can do. Can you imagine
hooking up a trailer with that gizmo, cool! But it's going to be
hacked. Only question is what will the hacker command the vehicle to do?

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:34:15 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:22:14 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:16:04 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:40:11 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.
snip

For sure, I like my old truck with mechanical diesel. The manual
windows go up/down, no air conditioner to break, no computer... you get
the idea

Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the
vehicle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJ2wKCMq5w

I can hardly wait for that to get hacked and it will be for sure...

Oh, that's great. And because it's on a smart phone, nothing can ever
go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...

I'm a gizmo person, so I really like what that can do. Can you imagine
hooking up a trailer with that gizmo, cool! But it's going to be
hacked. Only question is what will the hacker command the vehicle to do?

Hackers sometimes have vivid imaginations.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:06:25 +0700, John B. wrote:

Sometimes the "cutting edge" cuts both ways :-)

When I was a design engineer working for da man, we called it "bleeding
edge". We generally tried to contain enthusiasms for too many really
innovative features in a product: too few and you didn't move forward
fast enough; too many and your shiny new product never got off the
production floor, or it spent all of it's life in service.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/22/2015 10:16 AM, Leon Fisk wrote:
....
Did you see what Land Rover did, an app to control/maneuver the
vehicle?
...

That's a great example of adding a feature because we CAN, whether or
not we SHOULD. The engineers are having too much say.

Remember when Land Rover meant minimal features and maximum reliability?
Such that it was THE safari vehicle.

Bob

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

Only one push rod per valve.

In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-)
The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a
fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time
ago :-)

I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750
Kw @ 900 RPM. Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines
look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so
they could run in the other direction :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

Only one push rod per valve.

In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-)
The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a
fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time
ago :-)

I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750
Kw @ 900 RPM.

You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-)


Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines
look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so
they could run in the other direction :-)

The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's
very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference
now is the electronics.

I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned
(was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves
adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on
the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms
for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is,
unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first
*close* up. Sheesh.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/22/2015 6:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they
studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350,
so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much
less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with
all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already
proved they were reliable.

David

The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than
4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very
reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119
components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only
VFR below pressurization altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar

-jsw

When my Dad's B-29 ditched, it had 1 functional engine. B-29s couldn't
fly on 1, they just descended slowly.

http://www.444thbg.org/birchjohn.htm

David

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

Only one push rod per valve.

In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-)
The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a
fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time
ago :-)

I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750
Kw @ 900 RPM.

You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-)

As I did when I said "back in their day" :-)

Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines
look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so
they could run in the other direction :-)

The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's
very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference
now is the electronics.

Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her
Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software
updated".

I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned
(was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves
adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on
the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms
for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is,
unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first
*close* up. Sheesh.

I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a
country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were
invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated.
I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car
place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as
my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their
secret :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:26:12 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

Only one push rod per valve.

In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-)
The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a
fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time
ago :-)

I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750
Kw @ 900 RPM.

You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-)

As I did when I said "back in their day" :-)

Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines
look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so
they could run in the other direction :-)

The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's
very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference
now is the electronics.

Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her
Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software
updated".

I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned
(was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves
adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on
the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms
for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is,
unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first
*close* up. Sheesh.

I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a
country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were
invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated.
I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car
place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as
my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their
secret :-)

There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was
the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce.

A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was
engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of
the time and averaging them. d8-)

Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until
something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were
run again until the next part broke. And so on.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:53:12 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 6:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they
studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350,
so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much
less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with
all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already
proved they were reliable.

David

The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than
4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very
reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119
components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only
VFR below pressurization altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar

-jsw

When my Dad's B-29 ditched, it had 1 functional engine. B-29s couldn't
fly on 1, they just descended slowly.

http://www.444thbg.org/birchjohn.htm

David

Well, the article said that they ran out of gas :-)

From the date I am assuming that your father would have been flying
the earlier carbureted models and I never saw one of those. By the
time I worked on them they were all injected and probably the last
version to have been made.

Certainly the engine failures that I read about were pretty well cured
as I don't remember an excessive number of engine changes for that
sort of airplane although I d remember that an engine change, working
10 - 12 hour days was a several day job. and anything that you did on
the engine was difficult to get to.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/23/2015 7:43 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:53:12 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 6:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they
studied, they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350,
so they installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much
less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with
all new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already
proved they were reliable.

David

The crew said WW2 B-29 pilots tended to have more 3-engine than
4-engine time. By the 1960's the R-3350 engine had become very
reliable. Fifi's R-3350 engines were custom-built from A-1 and C-119
components, derated for reliability since the airplane now flies only
VFR below pressurization altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch..._Flying_Boxcar

-jsw

When my Dad's B-29 ditched, it had 1 functional engine. B-29s couldn't
fly on 1, they just descended slowly.

http://www.444thbg.org/birchjohn.htm

David

Well, the article said that they ran out of gas :-)

Basically, yes. They were told POW camp where they dropped the supplies
was in a valley, but when they entered the valley, the camp was right
underneath, so they had to make another run for the drop. The camp was
already near the limit of range for the B-29, so they were low on gas.
Then when one engine went, they had problems transferring fuel to the
remaining engines.


From the date I am assuming that your father would have been flying
the earlier carbureted models and I never saw one of those. By the
time I worked on them they were all injected and probably the last
version to have been made.

Certainly the engine failures that I read about were pretty well cured
as I don't remember an excessive number of engine changes for that
sort of airplane although I d remember that an engine change, working
10 - 12 hour days was a several day job. and anything that you did on
the engine was difficult to get to.

The 444th Bomber Group had been operating out of India but as airfields
opened up in the Pacific, they were transferred to Tinian, which is
where my Dad joined them. They also got new B-29s shortly after that.

David

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:37:37 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:26:12 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

Only one push rod per valve.

In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-)
The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a
fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time
ago :-)

I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750
Kw @ 900 RPM.

You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-)

As I did when I said "back in their day" :-)

Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines
look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so
they could run in the other direction :-)

The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's
very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference
now is the electronics.

Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her
Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software
updated".

I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned
(was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves
adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on
the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms
for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is,
unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first
*close* up. Sheesh.

I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a
country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were
invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated.
I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car
place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as
my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their
secret :-)

There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was
the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce.

A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was
engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of
the time and averaging them. d8-)

Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until
something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were
run again until the next part broke. And so on.

And you end up with a low RPM relatively low compression ratio, six
cylinder engine :-) Sort of like my old Chevy :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:43:27 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:37:37 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:26:12 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:45:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:16:40 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:01:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:39:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
For the gearheads:

If you think that engines are getting too complicated, you'll want to
take a look at Volvo's T6 engine. It has both a mechanical
supercharger and a turbocharger.

This has been in the press for around a year, but the engine is
available in two cars, is in production, and is getting some reviews.
Apparently it's very nice to drive. I wonder how nice it is to
repair...

The Eaton supercharger is there for low-end boost, to make the 2-liter
4-cyl. feel like a V8, with no turbo lag. At around 3500 rpm, a clutch
disingages the supercharger and the turbo, which is now fully spooled
up, takes over. It produces 302 hp and 295 ft.-lb of torque.

It's impressive engineering but I think they just tipped over the
edge. With direct injection, variable cam timing, and two types of
superchargers, it has to make mechanics gulp. I hope they've given as
much thought to maintenance and repair.

--
Ed Huntress

Pushrods or... oh, never mind ;-)

And the model should be that extremely advanced Bristol engine of the
1950s, used in a variety of cars, that had 6 cylinders, 12 valves, and
18 pushrods. g

I've worked on stationary diesel engines that had three cam lobes per
cylinder :-)

But we were talking about *advanced* engines. That's all about
pushrods, if you've been following the unending discussion. d8-)

So, how many pushrods did it have per valve? g

Only one push rod per valve.

In thinking about it there may have been 4 cam lobes per cylinder :-)
The extra ones were for the injection pump and (I think) there was a
fourth that operated the air start valve.... but it was a long time
ago :-)

I believe that they were considered "advanced" back in their day. 750
Kw @ 900 RPM.

You realize, I'm sure, that I meant "advanced" in an ironic way. d8-)

As I did when I said "back in their day" :-)

Certainly makes some of the more modern push rod engines
look anemic :-) Some versions even had "variable valve timing".... so
they could run in the other direction :-)

The historical variations on IC engines are pretty amazing. There's
very little going on that han't been tried before. The big difference
now is the electronics.

Apparently everything is electronic. My wife got a notice to bring her
Honda (car) into Honda Service to have the "Transmission Software
updated".

I owned one of those 18-pushrod Bristols, BTW, and eventually learned
(was taught, actually, by a Bristol expert) how to keep those valves
adjusted. They needed to be adjusted almost constantly. The lash on
the exhaust side, where there were two pushrods and two rocker arms
for each valve, would open up in a month of regular driving. That is,
unless you had a recent valve job, in which case it would first
*close* up. Sheesh.

I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a
country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs were
invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated.
I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage car
place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic as
my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been their
secret :-)

There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it was
the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce.

A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was
engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars of
the time and averaging them. d8-)

Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until
something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s) were
run again until the next part broke. And so on.

And you end up with a low RPM relatively low compression ratio, six
cylinder engine :-) Sort of like my old Chevy :-)


Sort of. Except that it isn't a Chevy. And your Chevy wasn't a
Rolls-Royce. d8-)

In those days, and even up to today, Rolls-Royce was conservative in
concept, but superlative in execution.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:43:27 +0700, John B.
wrote:

........................

I've always wondered about Roll Royce's reputation coming from a
country where valves had to be adjusted weekly, where SU carbs
were
invented and the amazing Lucus electrical system originated.
I remember looking at a, probably, late 1930's Rolls in a vintage
car
place in Miami and under the hood it seemed to be about as prosaic
as
my 1937 chevy. I've always wondered if that might not have been
their
secret :-)

There were several issues behind their success. Behind it all, it
was
the unmitigated stubborness of Sir Frederick Royce.

A couple of bits: The bore and stroke of the early engines was
engineered by taking the bores and strokes of the successful cars
of
the time and averaging them. d8-)

Development consisted of running an engine harder and harder until
something broke. Then, that part was beefed up, and the engine(s)
were
run again until the next part broke. And so on.

And you end up with a low RPM relatively low compression ratio, six
cylinder engine :-) Sort of like my old Chevy :-)


Sort of. Except that it isn't a Chevy. And your Chevy wasn't a
Rolls-Royce. d8-)

In those days, and even up to today, Rolls-Royce was conservative in
concept, but superlative in execution.

--
Ed Huntress

RR developed the Merlin by strengthening whatever broke too:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-...in-engine.html
"...Rolls-Royce introduced an ambitious reliability-improvement
programme to fix the problems. This consisted of taking random engines
from the end of assembly line and running them continuously at full
power until they failed. Each was then dismantled to find out which
part had failed, and that part was redesigned to be stronger. After
two years of this programme the Merlin had matured into one of the
most reliable aero engines in the world, and could sustain eight-hour
combat missions with no problems."

-jsw

My sister got on a 4 engine plane in the south Pacific in 62 maybe.
The plane got just about half way to Hawaii and lost both engines
on one side.

They turned around and came back home. Let everyone go home when
a phone number was available. Six hours later every one loaded up
and flew to Hawaii and from there to Oakland. Tough trip. Just under
24 hours one way. 11 1/2 and 11. Boeing had to make a long range jet
to get anyone out or back faster. 727 Long. We had a 0.7 mile long runway.

Martin

On 6/22/2015 7:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:12:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:29:44 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 8:09 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

This afternoon I was listening to the crew of a machine of similar
complexity, the B-29 bomber "Fifi". They had removed the turbos and
replaced the direct mechanical injection with carbs to cut down the
enormous maintenance, since they don't need the original high
performance.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/r3350.htm

-jsw

When the Soviets built the Tu-4, based on interned B-29 they studied,
they're tech was not up to replicating the Wright R-3350, so they
installed a carbureted radial which meant the Tu-4 had much less range.

When my Dad flew B-29 missions out of Tinian, they never flew with all
new or rebuilt engines, at least 2 were engines that had already proved
they were reliable.

David
Nothing like experience to instill confidence. An "experienced" engine
statistically has a lower chance of failure than a freshly rebuilt
one.

Indeed. Could you imagine the conditions their old wrenches
experienced on a Pacific island back then? Heat, humidity, blowing
dust, etc. I doubt we newer wrenches would have liked them at all,
and I applaud the job they did.

--
Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the
exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
--Frederick Douglass