Allison B-17

Maybe then they dont fly at high altitudes from airshow to airshow thus dont
need it!? (i mean the Duxford boys).
"Dale" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"M. H. Greaves" wrote:

I don't know why the turbo would "tear hell out of the engine" unless
you overboosted them...which you can do without using the turbo.

The B-17 I flew had the turbo's disconnected. By negating all the duct
work needed to feed air to the turbo we were still able to develop the
same amount of power for takeoff....so there was no loss of performance
by not using the turbo until you gained some altitude. High and hot we
sometimes were wishing the turbos were working. G I also flew a B-24
that had working turbos. We had to use the turbo's due to power loss
caused by the ductwork...and of course at higher altitudes they payed
off nicely also.

yep, but like i say, i cant remember offhand, and i think it was either
the
P51 or the P40, that had that trouble; no doubt there was a good valiud
reason at the time.
Its a similar sort of thing to the B17 at Duxford, they dont use the
turbo's
because it tears hell out of the engines; thats what i was told by a
mechanic who was working on one of the engines at the time. They were
changing an engine and needed a certain part which was still on the a/c
at
the time and the chap gave me an impromptu guided tour around it, as
well as
inside; real nice chap.
I s'pose they dont fly the B17 as much as it would normally be operated
so
they dont need the turbos and because they dont carry any heavy ordnance
these days either, what with the war being over and all that. lol
But i wonder, they obviously choose what weather they fly, as the turbo
was
used to guard against carb' icing conditions as well as many other uses
such
as more power.
I have a very interesting video i bought at an airshow called flying the
B17
and it goes into the induction system at great length, real interesting
stuff.
Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or
are
you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

--
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

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.

I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
referring to is simply the turbo.

Stick International in there. You can't look out your car window
without seeing something powered by a DT466E.

Most International over-the-road chassis' have either a Cat, Detroit
Diesel or Cummins under the hood. Mack produces their own engines
and trannys as well, but they're still not as commonly used in big,
OTR rigs as the three manufacturers I mentioned above.

Yup, no such animal as an Allison diesel. But plenty of World
transmissions! As far as noise, you can tell a 6V-8V 92 from others,
but that's because it's big, dirty and ugly! Most days now though,
the manufacters make all of them sound like purring kittens! Until
that Jake Brake wakes you up in the middle of the night.

Except when negotiating mountain passes like those treacherous
grades found on I-70 (west of Denver and in Utah), Donner pass in
Calif, Monteagle in Tenn, etc. I rarely if ever used the Jake brake
out of courtesy for the motoring public.

Mike Marron wrote:

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:


(Peter Stickney) wrote:





Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.





I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
referring to is simply the turbo.





Stick International in there. You can't look out your car window
without seeing something powered by a DT466E.



Most International over-the-road chassis' have either a Cat, Detroit
Diesel or Cummins under the hood. Mack produces their own engines
and trannys as well, but they're still not as commonly used in big,
OTR rigs as the three manufacturers I mentioned above.



Yup, no such animal as an Allison diesel. But plenty of World
transmissions! As far as noise, you can tell a 6V-8V 92 from others,
but that's because it's big, dirty and ugly! Most days now though,
the manufacters make all of them sound like purring kittens! Until
that Jake Brake wakes you up in the middle of the night.



Except when negotiating mountain passes like those treacherous
grades found on I-70 (west of Denver and in Utah), Donner pass in
Calif, Monteagle in Tenn, etc. I rarely if ever used the Jake brake
out of courtesy for the motoring public.





Agreed. Most OTR will have the big three. I think the favorite would
be the Cummings.

But back to the Allison, remember "Big Al" Lytle? Can that be
classified as low altitude flying??

M. H. Greaves wrote:

personally i like the B17 with its Wright cyclones. But, each to his own,
no offence meant.
"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Stilwell wrote:



"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...




Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
Wright Cyclones.




That would be the XB-38, the ninth production B-17E (41-2401) modified by
Vega with Allison V-1710-89 engines. According to "US Bombers" by Lloyd
Jones, the changes showed an increase in top speed of 10 mph over the


B-17E,


with new increased wing fuel tanks giving a range of 3600 miles. The
aircraft was lost on 16 June 1943, 29 days after it's first flight, due


to


an in-flight fire.





Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?




The latter reason is the one given in the book.

Jon.





Sure is smooth lookin'!!
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...bers/b3-87.htm






Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...
Agreed. Most OTR will have the big three. I think the favorite would
be the Cummings.

Cummins.

Tex

Tex Houston wrote:

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...


Agreed. Most OTR will have the big three. I think the favorite would
be the Cummings.



Cummins.

Tex




Escaped finger. I've since reeled it back in. Thanks!

In article ,
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:


Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?

The Sherman tank used a radial engine. Sikorsy helicopters used a
radial (Wright 1820 like the B-17). Radials were used to power
generators.

--
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

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...
Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?


Many tanks were powered with radial engines. Motors are not engines.

Tex

Tex Houston wrote:

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...


Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?




Many tanks were powered with radial engines. Motors are not engines.

Tex




Jeesh! You gonna spend the whole day correcting me?? I think you knew
what I meant. So what kind of radials and made by whom? Same folks?

Dale wrote:

In article ,
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:




Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?



The Sherman tank used a radial engine. Sikorsy helicopters used a
radial (Wright 1820 like the B-17). Radials were used to power
generators.


Thanks Dale!!