Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any Airworthy R-4360 Wasp Major Engines?  
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1908 posts, RR: 42
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13517 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I have been wondering for a while if there are still any active airframes flying that are powered by the biggest production radial piston ever built, the PW R-4360 Wasp Major. I'm kinda fascinated by the sheer size and specifications of this beast, and wish I could hear one run sometime!

The few planes that come to mind that were powered by this engine, the likes of the B-36, B-50 and C-97 etc obviously (sadly) don't fly anymore. The Martin Mars water bombers have had a "downgrade" to the R-3350 Duplex Cyclone, and I believe that the last of the flying C-119s had the R-3350 as well.

So, is there anything out there that still uses the R-4360? Perhaps some old single-engine navy fighters? If you have any experiences working with or around this engine I would love to here those as well.

Rgds,

Martijn


Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 547 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13438 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

These are all R-4360 powered aircraft and all are currently active:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Lednicer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Lednicer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Lednicer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Lednicer



User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In my Air Force days in the 1960’s, I was an engine mechanic on the R-4360-59B used on the Boeing KC/C-97 airplanes. They were great engines to work on, they were so big that there was plenty of room to get at the accessories and cylinders.

Unlike all other radial engines, the R-4360 was designed both as a pusher used in the B-39 and a puller, used in all the other applications. Because of this design, the back of the rear case on the engines other than used on the B-36 was a large almost round cover plate about 2 feet in diameter where on the B-36 the prop shaft came out, otherwise it was covered by the plate. On the B-36 the engine was not installed backwards, but in the normal position, just the prop shaft came out the rear part of the engine instead of the front.

With this design all the accessories like the generators, alternators and hydraulic pumps were mounted on the side of the accessory case, not on the back where all the other radial engines accessories are mounted, so to change one of these accessories all that was needed was to remove one of the side cowling cover plates and the top turtle deck and you had plenty of room to work.

Another difference from this engine and other radial engines was that the magnetos were mounted on the sides of the front nose section, early models had 7 magnetos firing 8 sparkplugs, there were 56 sparkplugs per engine, later models had 4 magnetos firing 14 sparkplugs. Again with this arrangement working on or changing a magneto was very easy because it stared you in the face when you removed the cowling. Early models had a high tension ignition system and later models had a low tension system.

The engine cowling was in 3 sections, and you could remove one section if needed to work in that area and leave the other 2 sections in place.

The KC-C-97 along with the B-50, from which the KC/C-97 evolved from, basically they put an enlarged second upper deck on the B-50 platform, because they were pressurized the airplane was equipped with GE turbochargers. Other uses for the R-4360 was on the Douglas C-124 GlobeMaster and the Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar, except for the 71 aircraft built under license by Kaiser which had the R-3350, these airplanes were not pressurized, so they just had straight exhaust pipes as opposed to the B-50/KC-97’s which had an exhaust collector ring to divert the exhaust through a waste gate to the supercharger and out a single exhaust pipe.

All our engines were on a 200 hour inspection cycle, one of the maintenance items was a compression check, we did this by removing one sparkplug per cylinder and installing 28 piston compression gauges and cranked the engine over with the starter.

The down side of working on the R-4360 is if you were working on the lower parts of the engine, you wore your oldest and most dirtiest work clothes, because of all the oil dripping from the engine, especially when adjusting the valves, which also was a 200 hour inspection requirement and adjust the ones that were opening too early or late.

After doing the compression check, then we would check the intake and exhaust valve timing, we would remove the cover of one of the magnetos and install a timing disc on the magneto’s rotating shaft and we would screw into the open spark plug an adapter which had an air hose adapter on the other end. After manually rotating the engine using the prop to get that cylinder to before Top Dead Center (TDC), we then would manually put in about 60 pounds of air using an air gauge, and watch both the timing disc and the air gauge as we moved the prop in the direction of rotation. As the intake valve closed the pressure would increase and we would watch the timing disc to see at what degree the cylinder went up to 60 psi, after moving the prop TDC we would watch the gauge and the timing disc to see when the pressure started to fall indicating the opening of the exhaust valve. We would do this for all 28 cylinders and record the data.

If any of the valves were out of time, and usually at least 10 to 12 were, then we would remove the rocker cover and rotate the engine so that cylinder was at the spot for the out of time valve would open or close and manually adjust the valve either by screwing in or out the rocker arm adjusting screw until the valve was in time according to the timing disc by watching the air gauge. This was a 2 person job, one to operate and watch the gauge and adjust the valve and the other to rotate the prop. We did this in the hangar and the engine scaffolding was designed so that we could lift out the boards were the prop passed through so the prop can rotate without hitting anything.

The dangerous part was to make sure whoever was moving the prop, they were clear of the prop arc because with the sparkplugs removed, by putting in 60 psi into a 6 inch piston you had a lot of power, normally a person could hold the prop back by staying out at the prop tips and using the prop tip as leverage to move it through its arc, but once it moved past TDC you were fighting the air pressure on the piston and if you were to slip or lose control of the prop, there was enough force in the cylinder to spin the prop about 5 or 6 blades, so safety was very important doing this by always staying out of the prop arc, if the prop started slipping out of their hands, we would let the prop spin. Adjusting the valves on the lower portion of the engine usually meant you would have oil dripping on you from the open rocker covers, so this is why we wore old clothing and an old hat.

I believe there is still one shop overhauling the R-4360 because they are still used today in racers. In fact Clay Lacey, along with the Berlin Airlift Historical Foundation have plans to restore their C-97’s to flying condition, I believe Clay Lacy’s is closer to flying status because he has more money than the BAHF. He also flew the C-97 in the Air National Guard and is type rated in it’s civilian sisters, the B-337.

Hopefully this gives you some insight into the R-4360, I could fill up many more pages of stories about working on this engine. Although I had my A&P license before I joined the Air Force, we only worked on small Jacobs radial engines in school, learning and working on the R-4360 radial engine was a great experience, something that aircraft mechanics hardly experience any more, but I am not sure if any of today’s mechanics would even want to work on a dirty and high maintenance radial piston engine anyway.

JetStar


User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13363 times:

Quoting jetstar (Reply 2):

Great post. Many thanks!


User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In rereading my #2 post, I discovered 2 typos.

In the second paragraph I first called the B-36 a B-39, and in the next to last paragraph I said that Clay Lacy in type rated in the B-337, the civilian sister to the KC-97, it should have said B-377.

Unlike other boards where you can always go back in to your post to edit the copy, A.Net locks the post after 30 minutes.

Moderators please take note.

JetStar


User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13269 times:

Great post nevertheless!...

User currently offlineflynlr From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13198 times:

Thank you Jetstar for a great insight into this engine. I was a Military Mechanic and CrewChief in both the Army And Air force from the 80's till now. and really enjoy this type of detail.


The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1908 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13167 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 1):
Quoting jetstar (Reply 2):

Great stuff guys, thanks a lot!

Martijn



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetstar (Reply 2):
Other uses for the R-4360 was on the Douglas C-124 GlobeMaster

In 1964-5 My dad was a radio tech on RAAF RTFV DHC-4 Caribou in Vietnam, has many tales to tell.

One of those is about a USAF C-124 having done its duty delivering materiel to Ton Son Nhut(Saigon) with a crew eager to enjoy the benefits of the OC and BOQ in Guam discovering they had a starter issue on one engine.(and mortar hour approaching)

A n R-4360 being orders of magnitude beyond what the trusty crewman could spin into life by a deft flick of the propellor they were in a tricky spot.

Solution taxi to end of runway, set mixtures, pitch and anything else you can control and let the 3 good engines charge into the wind as hard as they can... repeat until engine starts, taxi to end of runway and head for the comforts of Guam.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Since my memories of the R-4360 have been awakened by my previous post, I thought I would share with you some of the other features of the R-4360.

The engine had 28 cylinders arranged in 4 rows of 7 cylinders, unlike other radial engines where the cylinders just had numbers locating their position on the engine, on the R-4360 the first row was row A, the second row was B and then C & D. The topmost cylinder of each row was numbered 1, so the top front cylinder was A1 and the lowest in the back row was D4.

A1 was the master cylinder for magneto timing, no matter what magnetos was being changed. We would screw into the spark plug hole of A1 a timing indicator and rotate the engine by manually pulling the prop thru by hand until the A1 piston was on its compression stroke and at the proper degree for firing. After opening the protective cover for the magneto, we would place on the magneto shaft a tension tool so as we rotated the magneto back and forth to set the timing, this tool took up any play in the magneto drive.

The R-4360 used on the KC/C-97 had a low tension ignition system, there was no ignition coil in the magneto, each valve rocker cover had a concave section and the coil for that spark plug was mounted there so each spark plug had its own ignition coil. Coming off of the magneto distributor block was a thin ignition wire that went to the low voltage side of the coil, coming out of the other side of the coil was the high tension ignition wire which was connected to the spark plug, with this type of system, there was no high tension voltage drop from the magnetos to the spark plugs because the high tension ignition lead wire was only 8 inches or so long, not about 4 or more feet if the high tension lead had to go from the magnetos to the row D spark plugs.

A good flight engineer who knew how to read the onboard Bendix ignition analyzer could tell us right down to the individual spark plug what the problem was, if the problem was on the high tension side, we changed the coil, high tension lead wire and spark plug, if it was on the low tension side, then we would change the magneto.

The cylinders in row B were not offset enough to be between the cylinders in row A, like on twin row radials, they were offset only about 20 degrees or so and the cylinders in row C were offset about the same amount and also the same for row D, this gave the engine the look of a corn cob, hence its nickname, the corn cob engine. All the cylinders in each line, like A1, B1, C1 & D1 had connecting baffles on the sides and on the top creating a tunnel so the cooling air had to pass over all the cylinders in that line before it exited the engine through the cowl flaps.

Changing a cylinder, depending which one went from easy to a pain in the ass, any cylinder on row A was easy to change because they were very accessible, but on rows B, C & D, they were more difficult. All the baffling was held together by dzus screws, so they were easy to get off, but it was very tight to get to the cylinder hold down nuts. The worst cylinders to change were the lowest cylinders, especially on rows B, C & D, you were working upside down, sometimes standing on a ladder if it was an outboard engine while oil was dripping down on you, where if they were on the sides or top, then you could work standing on a B4 engine stand and be out of the way from the dripping oil. I can’t remember exactly how many cylinders I changed, but I changed quite a few in those days.

Each line of cylinders, like A1, B1, C1 and D1 shared a exhaust manifold pipe, there were 7 on each engine that fed into a collector ring on the rear of the engine and the engine exhaust was controlled by a controllable waste gate to divert the exhaust gases into the turbocharger.

The exhaust pipe was not physically attached to the cylinders, but held in place by a spring loaded coupling we called a pineapple, to reattach the exhaust pipe to the cylinder, we would take the pineapple and compress it in a vise and then safety wire it so it would not expand, after placing the pineapple in place on the cylinder, then we would cut the safety wire and the pineapple would expand and seat itself between the cylinder and exhaust manifold.

Thanks for letting me share some of my 40 year old R-4360 memories with any of you round engine aficionados out there.

JetStar


User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1908 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12897 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting stealthz (Reply 8):
Quoting jetstar (Reply 9):

Great stories fellows, thanks for sharing! Wish I could have been around to see them in action..

Martijn



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12768 times:

My company has one of these engines in the museum area. Every time I go over there, I look at this thing. Very impressive.

User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12754 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MarkC (Reply 11):
My company has one of these engines in the museum area. Every time I go over there, I look at this thing. Very impressive.

I also have seen the R-4360 in a museum, but just looking at the engine is misleading, like all airplane piston engines, the engine could not be bolted directly to the airframe, it was mounted into what we called a QEC, (quick engine change) frame, basically a very large engine mount and attached to the QEC was all the hoses, electric wire bundles, engine oil and turbo oil tank for the engine and some other accessories. The QEC is what was bolted to the airframe just using 4 large bolts at the corners.

On the KC/C-97, all hoses and electric harnesses from the QEC to the airframe was quick release so everything could be disconnected by 2 mechanics in about 15 minutes. Using the proper engine sling, the entire power package without removing the engine cowling and including the prop could be removed in about 45 minutes and another built up power package installed in about an hour. Only the large panel on top of the QEC we called the turtle deck and the side panels on the nacelle needed to be removed, everything else stayed on.

With an average engine life expectancy of between 1000 to 1200 hours, needless to say we changed a lot of engines, we used to keep at least 4 built up engines already mounted in its QEC ready to go with at least 1 or sometimes 2 engines always in the process of being built up

It took us about 150 man hours to build up an engine from the time we opened the engine container to ready for the engine to be installed, which is what we did when we were not working on the line aircraft engines, building up or tearing down engines. We got the QEC’s already built up from an outside contractor, but I was told that if we had to do a complete QEC overhaul and buildup and install the built up engine, it would take about 750 man hours.

One time over a short period of time we had a rash of engine failures and engines time out, we had used up all our spare engines when we had another engine go belly up, so we had to take an engine off of an airplane that was in the hangar for a 200 hour inspection and put it on that airplane so we could get that airplane back in service.

JetStar


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12560 times:

There was a DC-7 that was working as a fire bomber but I think it got grounded with all the other prop liners after the PB4Y lost a wing five-six years ago.

I have seen live drops from Tanker97, which was a KC-97 also converted as a tanker on afire at North Pole.

Because of the mass tanker grounding I doubt either is flying now



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 547 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12550 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
There was a DC-7 that was working as a fire bomber but I think it got grounded with all the other prop liners after the PB4Y lost a wing five-six years ago.

The DC-7 is powered by Wright R-3350s, not R-4360s. There are quite a few R-3350s still flying.

The crankcase on a R-3350 is made of steel, while the R-4360 crankcase is made of magnesium. This is what it looks like when a R-4360 crankcase catches on fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqPPCCKAFp8


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12547 times:

Very informative set of posts jetstar.  

User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 12360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
have seen live drops from Tanker97, which was a KC-97 also converted as a tanker on afire at North Pole.

Clay Lacy bought Tanker 97, the only flying C-97 a few years ago along with some other C-97’s and spare parts at the Hawkins & Powers bankruptcy sale.

He plans to return Tanker 97 to flying status by going back to its original C-97 configuration so it can be registered in a normal category. I would assume Tanker 97 with all it’s modifications was probably registered as a limited class airplane.

To do this he is taking the entire belly section off of one of the non airworthy airframes and splicing it onto Tanker 97’s belly, thereby removing all of the modifications to the lower fuselage.

I haven’t read yet if the airplane has flown, but there was a story and some pictures recently in Air Classics about the work in progress.

JetStar


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 592 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12225 times:

Jetstar,

My Uncle has been very impressed with your memories. He is a docent at the Air Force Museum and had this to share after your first post. Thank you very much for sharing with us! Cheers!

SLCPilot




Thanks for the article.  I noticed a few errors.  For example B-39?  Also my license shows a type rating in the Boeing 377.  I didn't have much experience with the 4360 maintenance.  The engine was quite reliable.  I have about 1000 hours and only shut down 3 engines.  One was a precautionary shutdown which could have been run if necessary.
 
Thanks for the info,
 
UP



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 17):
I noticed a few errors.

In fairness to Jetstar he corrected those errors approx 3 hrs after his post.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 592 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12186 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 18):
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 17): I noticed a few errors.
In fairness to Jetstar he corrected those errors approx 3 hrs after his post.

In all fairness it is MY fault! I was so anxious to share his great post, I forwarded it to my Uncle before reading the rest of the thread. It sounds like we all owe Jetstar, and those like him(?) gratitude for their service and sharing of memories.

My Uncle flew C-123's, KC-97s, and KC-135s. He also piloted the XB-123, ever heard of that one?

Cheers!

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 17):
My Uncle has been very impressed with your memories. He is a docent at the Air Force Museum and had this to share after your first post. Thank you very much for sharing with us! Cheers!

SLCPilot


The engine was quite reliable. I have about 1000 hours and only shut down 3 engines. One was a precautionary shutdown which could have been run if necessary.

Thanks for the info,


2 years ago I went to the Air Force Museum, and it was fascinating, I did spend some time looking at the KC-97 on display and it looked like it was ready for flight.

3 engine shutdowns in a 1000 hours of flying, that sounds about right for the R-4360.

When the KC-97 was the frontline air tanker in the SAC fleet, they would have to use max power to keep up with the B-47’s when air refueling, so they were only getting around 800 hours or so on their engines, but once the KC-135’s took over as the frontline SAC air tanker, then the KC-97’s could then be operated at reduced power settings and engine times increased.

I do have to admit that our air crews were very cautious and would shut an engine down if possible to keep any damage to a minimum. By shutting the engine down quickly as soon as the FE discovered a problem, we could sometimes get it back in service by changing a cylinder, where if they kept the engine running and it swallowed a valve or a piston ring lets go, then the damage was done and the engine had to be changed.

If you uncle has 1000 hours in a KC-97, then he has probably been through times when it was not the amount of fuel left on board, but the engine oil consumption that required watching very closely. The R-4360, like all radial engines was a dry sump engine, the engine oil was held in a 27 gallon tank mounted on the QEC. Mounted in the forward bulkhead of the lower cargo compartment was about a 55 gallon oil tank that the FE could pump oil to replenish the individual engine oil tanks. I heard that some units even jury rigged a 55 gallon oil drum with a electric pump that could be used to transfer oil from the oil drum into the belly oil tank.

I believe normal oil consumption was about a gallon per hour per engine, but as the engine times increased, so did the oil consumption, so it was not unusual for an airplane with high time engines to use up all the oil in the belly tank to keep the engine oil tanks topped off on a long flight. To service the oil, our base had a 500 gallon oil truck, like the fuel trucks at small airports use to service airplanes with avgas, and it towed the trailer that had the ADI water used for takeoff. The engine oil was straight 50 weight, and they gravity filled the oil truck from 55 gallon drums lifted above the truck with a fork lift, and in the winter the oil was as thick as molasses, so it took a while to top off the oil truck.

Because of the 50 weight oil, engine preheating was needed in the colder temperatures, at home base we had ground engine heaters, but they could also preheat by ducting heat from the avgas fueled wing deice/cabin heaters to the engine nacelles, if I remember correctly there was one heater in the rear of each outboard engine nacelle, a third unit was in the lower section of the vertical fin for tail deicing.

Going back into my memory mode again, the basic engine out of the can weighed 4800 pounds, the QEC weighed 1500 pounds and the prop assembly weighed 1200 pounds, so the entire power package weighed about 7500 pounds. In SAC service, to keep the airplanes on ready status, the engines were designed to be changed out in less than 2 hours. If the engine required more than 2 hours unscheduled maintenance, they would take the entire power package off and install it on a flat bed trailer where they could bolt the QEC on to a special frame. The trailer was also capable of test running the engine because it had all the necessary electrical and fuel hookups, so after maintenance like a cylinder change, the engine could be run up and checked out and then if everything was okay, transferred to a rolling engine dolly and stored there for when needed.

We would also keep an engine in a special engine cradle on wheels, the cradle held the engine and QEC, but not the prop, once the engine/QEC was mounted in the cradle, it was rotated 90 degrees so the engine sat on its side to reduce the height because the QEC was taller than wider. The cradle then could be hoisted up by a fork lift or winched up the rear ramp of an airplane like a C-130 for air transportation. If one of our airplanes had an engine problem within the US, we had to supply the engine, and if needed we would send the crew to change the engine if the base where the airplane was did not have experience on the KC-97.

I know there was a larger experimental piston engine made, but it never made it past the prototype stage, so the R-4360 will probably remain as the largest production aircraft piston engine. The R-3350 put out basically the same power as the R-4360, using 1000 less cubic inches, 10 less cylinders and weighing much less, but after my Air Force time I worked at an engine teardown/ buildup company that smaller passenger and cargo airlines used and I can still remember today an airline maintenance rep yelling at the Curtis Wright tech rep that their engines are the biggest piece of $hit and their engines are going to bankrupt them.

One interesting thing, the oil screen on the R-4360 was made up of multiple elements, it would be hard to describe but basically it was multiple discs, one disc had grooves on the outside letting oil under pressure to flow to and through a mesh and then to another disc that had the grooves on the inside to let the oil flow out. There was probably 50 or so discs stacked up and held together by a large threaded cap which had a relief valve built into nut in case the oil screen got clogged to let the oil continue to flow. Part of the 200 hour inspection we had to disassemble the filter to check for metal, clean and then reassemble the filter. P&W used the same exact filter, with not as many discs on the P&W JT-12 engines on the JetStar, I would not be surprised if they were the same part numbers, good enough for the R-4350, good enough for the JetStar.

Thanks for the comments about my postings on the R-4360, it’s my pleasure to share my experiences, and I must admit it brings back a lot of memories, the more I post, the more I remember about the R-4360.

JetStar


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Any Airworthy R-4360 Wasp Major Engines?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Any 767-200 With RR Engines? posted Wed Nov 23 2005 23:07:58 by Socal
Any Foreign Engines On Russian Aircraft? posted Fri Mar 12 2010 17:57:35 by stevenjehly
Any Jet Engines With Centrifugal Turbines? posted Fri Feb 26 2010 12:12:13 by FLY2HMO
Any Major Changes To The A320 Over The Years? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 02:58:01 by Gilesdavies
Does Any AorB Start All Engines At The Same Time? posted Thu Sep 8 2005 02:05:07 by MD-90
Are Hovercraft Engines Used On Any Plane posted Mon Aug 5 2002 14:38:54 by Trent_800
Q.VARIG 747-341s And 747-441s Engines Design. posted Sat May 5 2012 13:08:15 by dennys
Any US Airlines That Still Accept Cash Onboard? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 19:42:41 by AlnessW
Realtime Monitoring Of Jet Engines posted Wed Feb 29 2012 19:06:01 by voiceofgoa
Which Way The Engines Spin posted Sun Feb 26 2012 19:40:39 by homsar

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format