![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:28:54 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: "George Patterson" wrote The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other systems. I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new crankshafts. True? -- Jim in NC While I'm not a machinist, I don't think this is accurate. There are not a small number of V12 engines still being manufactured today. Ever heard of Ferrari? There is, or was, also a V12 being used in Scandinavia for a fishing boat engine. And then there's the "Thunder Mustang" http://www.thundermustang.com/ which uses a Falconer V12 and is still being manufactured. I think that any lathe designed to turn out crankshafts could probably mill something with 12 throws as well as 8. It should be just a matter of telling it to make four more. But I could be mistaken, the length of the crankshaft might make it impossible for it to fit in the most common machines. On the other hand, there are the large locomotive diesels still being manufactured so someone can still do big crankshafts. 6 years ago our library installed an emergency diesel generator in our new addition. It was about 350 cubic inches in displacement, and was a V12... Back when V12's were common in the automotive world, in the 20's and 30's, the auto manufacturers didn't seem to have a problem milling them out with the equipment available then. Ever see a straight eight? It's a looonnnngggg engine. Corky Scott |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message nk.net... "Kyle Boatright" wrote in message ... With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Dudley Henriques My understanding is that 100 octane was the best available at the beginning of WWII, and due to capacity limitations on the high test stuff, 100 octane was the standard fuel for most of the bomber force in Europe during the war, while the fighters got the higher octane stuff. In this area, the allies had a huge advantage over the Axis, which relied on lower octane brews. Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more power on 130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today, because Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were during the war. KB Yes, I know. :-) So, what gives Dudley? You only carrying half an ammo load? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net,
"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote: With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!! 45 inches? When I flew Crazy Horse we used 55 for takeoff, 46 for climb. As far as I know Lee was using 100LL. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are plenty of Merlin engines around.
I landed in Salinas CA and a guy came by and took me over to his hangar. He was building NEW Mustangs. At that time the price tag was about a million. I asked him about engines and he said there were plenty, have to be rebuilt of course. Not sure why that is, perhaps they kept the engines around when they scrapped the airframes. The design is in the public domain. You never hear about this operation, maybe he never continued, this was about 4 years ago. But he did complete at least 2 or 3, I believe. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Morgans wrote:
I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new crankshafts. True? I doubt that. I would think the stumbling block is the castings. Even there, one could probably make new ones at a price of several million dollars. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:49:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote: Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more power on 130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today, because Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were during the war. KB Yes, I know. :-) So, what gives Dudley? You only carrying half an ammo load? No ammo, no guns, no 75 gallon rear fuselage tank, no armor plate, no hanging ordinance and no drop tanks. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, no monster radio that sat behind the pilot. Maybe no oxygen too, but that's just a guess. Corky Scott PS, some guys have the guns and ammo for show. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Read a great article on turbine powered mustang last week, forgot the
name of the mag, while waiting for daughters at Borders. Not quite original, 13" longer nose, but not noticable. Two exhaust outlets instead of twelve, but looked really good. Love them Mustangs... Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Morgans wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other systems. I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new crankshafts. True? That seems pretty hard to believe. I wouldn't be surprised that the machines used for this originally aren't available, but I can't believe that there aren't lathes available today that could do this with proper setup and programming. Lots of large cranks are still made for locomotive and other engines much bigger than the Merlins and others of that era. Matt |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dale" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote: With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!! 45 inches? When I flew Crazy Horse we used 55 for takeoff, 46 for climb. As far as I know Lee was using 100LL. -- Dale L. Falk You're right. 55 inches is correct. Typo!! Meto for climb is 46/27 Dudley |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message ink.net... "No Such User" wrote in message ... In article 82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72, Jay Honeck wrote: http://www.fighterfactory.com/ I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too? ...or 130 octane fuel? With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Dudley Henriques S/B 55 inches....sorry; typo!! D |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I saved a life, maybe you can save mine. | lifeguard | Owning | 3 | July 18th 05 11:19 AM |
FS 2004 with multiple monitors - how to save settings? | Horst Walter | Simulators | 5 | December 8th 04 01:29 PM |
Cant save the downloaded real weather | Mikker | Simulators | 1 | September 16th 04 02:08 PM |
Osan's 'Mustangs' wing gets new commander | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 30th 03 09:48 PM |
GPS Visualizer update: now you can "save your work" | Adam Schneider | Soaring | 0 | July 28th 03 09:26 PM |