Lycoming engine fails! Pilot survives!

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:27:25 -0600, "Rick Pellicciotti"
wrote:


Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER:

http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.spitfire.org


Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of the Napier Sabre type H engine.

It was used in the Typhoon and Tempest.

See: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/

Corky Scott

Yes, that was a manly engine if there ever was one.

Rick

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:50:52 GMT, Peter Dohm
wrote:


As I recall, Blanton's conversion was originally for glider towing.
According to the story I was told, the reduction drive allowed the Ford
vee six to produce thrust similar to a much more powerful direct
drive aircraft engine--at towing speeds. Unfortunately, the story
later circulated that the engine produced mathematically ridiculous
amounts of horsepower...

So, I may eventually build with an automotive conversion. Or may not.
The choice is not "open and shut".

Regards,
Peter

Not exactly Peter. Blanton's conversion was for anyone who wanted to
use it, fast airplanes or slow. Turns out, one guy who did want to
use it belonged to an Aussie glider towing club. His original intent
was to see if he could certify the engine in Australia for that
purpose.

He got the engine and PSRU from Blanton at a time when Blanton was
declining in health and mind. The PSRU had a lot of problems and the
glider group spent a LOT of time refining the carburation and
induction. Eventually they got it right, both with the PSRU and the
induction and it's been towing gliders ever since. That was some
seven or eight years ago. The engine and PSRU are still going strong
and have not been overhauled or required overhaul since they finished
their development.

They tow gliders in their Pawnee with this engine, which in it's
former life, used a Continental O-470. The Ford 3.8 swings the same
prop the 0-470 did, at the same prop rpm. The Ford burns
SUBSTANTIALLY less fuel than the 0-470 did doing the same operation.

There's a very specific reason for this: The typical glider operation
involves a takeoff with glider in tow, a climb to 5,000 or so feet,
release and return to the airport for another tow immediately. That's
all it does, no cross country where the engine would be leaned out for
best fuel burn.

Under these identical operations, the Ford uses less fuel because once
the glider is cast off, the pilot simply closes the throttle to idle
and returns to the field with the engine at idle the entire time.
When they were using the 0-470, the engine came back under power and
also used full rich during the climb to release, which engaged the
power valve and used a lot of fuel.

As to the mathematically ridiculous amounts of horsepower being
reported, there was only one person claiming that, David Blanton, the
original developer. He was mistaken. Unfortunately, he had the type
of personality that did not allow him to accept criticism or
corrections (hmm, sounds like he'd fit right in here :-)). His method
of calculating horsepower had him claiming nearly 300 horsepower at
sea level for a 232 cid V-6 at 4800 rpm. Without supercharging,
that's just not possible. Others have checked their rated power with
a dyno and have produced a far more believable 180 to 235. The guy
who managed 235 got it by turning the engine at 5300 rpm. That's more
than I dare go. Almost all the builders use 4800 as the redline.

Blanton also originally specified a 500 cfm two barrel carburator. If
you do the math using the standard carb sizing formula from Holley
(Engine Size (CID) X Maximum RPM / 3456=CFM) you get 322.222 cubic
feet per minute (232x4800/3456). Sure, the 500 CFM carburator will
work, after all it did for years, but it's overkill and wastes gas.
Those who dared to buck Blanton (because they knew carburation, could
apply the formula and realised they were over-carbing) discovered that
using a 350 CFM carburator worked just fine, gave equal power but used
less fuel. This is not conjecture, this has been reported several
times by those who made the switch. One guy reported going from 9 or
10 (can't remember exactly) gallons per hour to 8 gallons per hour.

Blanton is gone now, and unfortunately his "take no prisoners" stand
in regards the horsepower issue, cost him a lot of credibility before
he died.

People still remember that issue when the mention of using a Ford V-6
comes up.

Corky Scott

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:19:59 -0600, RR Urban wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:13:03 GMT, Peter Dohm
wrote:


However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon
engines: 1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which
rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the Merlin
engined aircraft.




I have been told that it killed a few
unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on
take-off.
:-(

Regards,

Peter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Really.

Who told you such?
Sounds like wannabee myth and legend
without some serious documentation.


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

Have a look at "Spitfire, a Complete Fighting History", Alfred Price,
1991, page 97. The caption to a photo of a Spitfire XII says "The Griffon
rotated the opposite direction to the Merlin; thus, instead of the
accustomed swing to the left during take-off, the Griffon Spitfires swung
strongly to the right. On one occasion a pilot took off in one of the new
Spitfires without receiving a briefing on this important difference. As
he lined-up for take-off he wound on full right rudder trim and put on a
bootful of right rudder to catch the expected fierce torque from the
engine when it took effect. He pushed open the throttle, and with
everything set the wrong way, the Spitfire swung viciously to the right
like an unleashed animal; she finally got airborne at ninety degrees to
the intended direction of take-off, narrowly missing a hangar in her path.
It was an extremely attentive young man who landed the Spitfire a few
minutes later, to learn the mysteries of the new version!"

The photos clearly show the prop it pitched in the opposite direction on
the Griffon Spits. But, according to this book at least, this didn't kill
a few pilots.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

Kevin Horton wrote:

The photos clearly show the prop it pitched in the opposite direction on
the Griffon Spits. But, according to this book at least, this didn't kill
a few pilots.

And for those who don't have ready access to a picture, here is a
Griffon powered Spitfire sporting a beautiful five-blade prop at
Oshkosh 2002,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...02/page84.html

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

"David O" wrote in message
...
Kevin Horton wrote:

The photos clearly show the prop it pitched in the opposite direction on
the Griffon Spits. But, according to this book at least, this didn't
kill
a few pilots.

And for those who don't have ready access to a picture, here is a
Griffon powered Spitfire sporting a beautiful five-blade prop at
Oshkosh 2002,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...02/page84.html

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

And here is what will be the only flyable Seafire F.47 with Griffon engine
and contra rotating 3-blade props:

http://www.spitfire.org/images/seafire.jpg

Restoration not quite complete.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.spitfire.org

Karel

P-51 take off

Release brakes.
Smoothly move throttle full forward to 'gate'. (61 inches & 3000 rpm)
Stick in neutral to keep tail wheel on ground.
Steer with rudder peddles and tail wheel while accelerating.
At 40-50 mph smoothly pick tail up to get forward visibility and at
same time add MORE right rudder to counteract torque.
Rotate 90-95 and take off and accelerate to climb speed.
Start trimming bird (which you do through out flight with airspeed
and/or power changes).

All that being said--------------------

Was watching one of the sister Squadrons (80th FIS) make take offs
with full drop tanks and 6 HVAR's (close to full load for bird).

One pilot started his T/O roll and about the time he got full power on
saw the elevator go full down (stick forward) so he could pick up tail
and see over the nose.

Aa soon as the tail wheel left the ground the bird immediately made a
90 degree left turn, ran off runway into a 6 foot drainage ditch. Took
all of 5 seconds for this to happen.

So, it doesn't pay to play around with the torque on the Merlin G

Big John


Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:51:10 -0000, "karel adams"
wrote:

----clip----

....................., he had explained that the TO procedure
for powerful fighters like the P51 Mustang prescribed
several precise steps of adding power and corrective steering,
with lifting the tail somewhere in between.

"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote:

And here is what will be the only flyable Seafire F.47 with Griffon engine
and contra rotating 3-blade props:

http://www.spitfire.org/images/seafire.jpg

Restoration not quite complete.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.spitfire.org


Terrific!

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

Karel

P-51 take off

Release brakes.
Smoothly move throttle full forward to 'gate'. (61 inches & 3000 rpm)
Stick in neutral to keep tail wheel on ground.
Steer with rudder peddles and tail wheel while accelerating.
snipped

Tail wheel locked?
Or is that included in the pretakeoff check?

Warren

Waren

Probably should have mentioned ???? .

However.

Taxiing to run up 'pad' at end of runway, tail wheel was hard
connected to rudder and rudder peddles (your term locked). You
couldn't control the A/C and taxi with the tail wheel unlocked and 'S'
for ahead clearance.

When you got to run up pad you normally had to unlock (stick full
forward) the tail wheel to pivot on one wheel to get nose pretty much
into the wind.

You didn't want to run up pointing downwind for several reasons. Over
temp of engine and any tail wind reduced the effectiveness of the up
elevator used to keep from nosing over on run up.

After run up, you had to lock the tail wheel (stick back and move
rudder peddles back and forth until the lock engaged) You could then
steer the aircraft onto the R/W and line up.

Since you had to have the tail wheel engaged to taxi onto R/W, I never
checked it when in Number One for take off as was locked to taxi on
the R/W. Lots of words to answer a simple question )

Big John

All that being said, we had a couple of pilots that never flew on
'jock hangs' (Group mission with 60 A/C and full ordnance load of drop
tanks or bombs and HVAR's.). Taxiing out with tail wheel locked they
would put in full rudder and then hit the brake with the turn. This
caused the tail of A/C to skid sideways and would roll the tire off
the rim and blow it. ie, instant abort (

Big John

On 06 Dec 2003 15:38:38 GMT, S (Whunicut) wrote:

Karel

P-51 take off

Release brakes.
Smoothly move throttle full forward to 'gate'. (61 inches & 3000 rpm)
Stick in neutral to keep tail wheel on ground.
Steer with rudder peddles and tail wheel while accelerating.
snipped

Tail wheel locked?
Or is that included in the pretakeoff check?

Warren

Waren

Probably should have mentioned ???? .

However.

Taxiing to run up 'pad' at end of runway, tail wheel was hard
connected to rudder and rudder peddles (your term locked). You
couldn't control the A/C and taxi with the tail wheel unlocked and 'S'
for ahead clearance.

When you got to run up pad you normally had to unlock (stick full
forward) the tail wheel to pivot on one wheel to get nose pretty much
into the wind.

You didn't want to run up pointing downwind for several reasons. Over
temp of engine and any tail wind reduced the effectiveness of the up
elevator used to keep from nosing over on run up.

After run up, you had to lock the tail wheel (stick back and move
rudder peddles back and forth until the lock engaged) You could then
steer the aircraft onto the R/W and line up.

Since you had to have the tail wheel engaged to taxi onto R/W, I never
checked it when in Number One for take off as was locked to taxi on
the R/W. Lots of words to answer a simple question )

Big John

All that being said, we had a couple of pilots that never flew on
'jock hangs' (Group mission with 60 A/C and full ordnance load of drop
tanks or bombs and HVAR's.). Taxiing out with tail wheel locked they
would put in full rudder and then hit the brake with the turn. This
caused the tail of A/C to skid sideways and would roll the tire off
the rim and blow it. ie, instant abort (

Big John

On 06 Dec 2003 15:38:38 GMT, S (Whunicut) wrote:


Good post, Big John.
I remember the SNJ had the same set-up. Well, the later models did. The earlier
ones, you were on your own, with the tailwheel unlocked.

Warren