WW-II rocket motor on E-bay - opinions ?

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"[snip]
Thats only the fuel or C-stoff which was 57% Methanol, 30% hydrazine
hydrate and 13% water. The killer was the oxidiser, t-stoff which was 80%
concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This compound causes spontaneous
combustion when in contact with almost any fuel, including human flesh.


A note of personal experience. As a young high school student with an
active interest in rockets and pyrotechnics, I fabricated a "cold" rocket
engine inspired by the Walter designs. The motor used 30% Hydrogen peroxide
(strongest stuff my school's chem lab had) and a catalyst composed of
manganese dioxide ( I think, it was pulled out of old non-alkaline D cell
batteries). Didn't make much thrust but it generated a lot of impressive
steam and noise. The peroxide was nasty stuff. Even at 30% concentration,
if you got any on your skin, it would be bleached white instantly and then
begin to slough off.

I can remember urging my physics teacher to try to get some higher
concentration of peroxide to improve the performance. Sometimes I wonder
how I lived through my teens.

Mark

Jim Carriere wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:
"miket6065" wrote:
snip


Probably was
that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems in the
wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into speaking tubes
giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as the
glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had some direct
power control on the engines.



I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
attributed to that fact.

I think the difference is the FEs and pilots were together in the
cockpit of the Argus, not connected only by Gosport tubes (or
whatever the Germans called them).


Well, partially true, the F/E was 3 or 4 feet behind the Co-Jo
with all the aircraft system controls (electrical, fire fighting,
hydraulic systems, his own throttles, all other engine controls
and all engine instruments (pilots had a few very basic engine
instruments) and was connected with an intercom system

I think there are still crewed aircraft around where the pilot can
reach the engine controls but normally the FE operates them... not
that I have any time in heavies myself, just hearsay.

I think that's so but on the Argus they never did.

Actually this is a great system especially on an ASW a/c where
the pilots need to 'keep their heads out of the cockpit' (so to
speak).

They didn't need to pay any attention to all the 'housekeeping
chores' inherent in the operation of four highly tuned and
critical piston engines and aircraft systems. They'd just say
"Engineer maintain 180 knots" (or whatever) then forget about the
a/c and concentrate on what was going on outside... worked good.

I have over 6,000 hours logged on them and I've never seen either
pilot touch the throttles. The left seat did reverse the engines
with the reversing throttles on the landing roll though.

I understand that the C-124 Globemaster is operated similarly.
(?)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"miket6065" wrote:

Gord, but I was told that the FEs were in the wings, not in the cockpit.
This wasn't like the B29 where the FE was behind the pilots and within near
reaching distance.

Yes, I just noticed that Mike...and the B-29 F/E was quite a
distance behind the pilots actually (not to mention was facing
backwards!...musta been bad during problems keeping engine
numbers straight!) Engines are always numbered from left to right
(1,2,3,4 while facing in the direction of travel)

The Argus engineer's station was much closer to the pilots than
the B-29 and was facing front too (about 3-4 feet behind the
copilot)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
They didn't need to pay any attention to all the 'housekeeping
chores' inherent in the operation of four highly tuned and
critical piston engines and aircraft systems. They'd just say
"Engineer maintain 180 knots" (or whatever) then forget about the
a/c and concentrate on what was going on outside... worked good.

I have over 6,000 hours logged on them and I've never seen either
pilot touch the throttles. The left seat did reverse the engines
with the reversing throttles on the landing roll though.

That makes sense. About the only time I can see a pilot moving the
throttles in that kind of cockpit, other than a very urgent
emergency, is on the runway when timing is important.

It's nice when a crew can work like what you describe- everyone doing
there jobs and doing them well.

Peter Stickney wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:

"miket6065" wrote:
snip

Probably was
that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems
in the wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into
speaking tubes
giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as
the
glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had
some direct power control on the engines.


I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
attributed to that fact.

Gord, good to see that you're still here!
The B-36 was also an FE-oriented airplane. The pilots had a set of
coarse throttles, but all the fiddling and fine adjustment was done
by the FEs (later models had 2 on duty at any given time). Of
course, they had a lot to do - 6 engines, 6 props, 2
turbosuperchargers/engine, multispeed cooling fans (Which would chew
up 200 hp/engine if you set 'em wrong) and, if they had nothing
better to do, they could go out into the wing & change out the
accessory sections.

Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...

BTW, I just noted a new book in one of the local shops in the making
of "The Dambusters" - lots of beautiful shots of Lancasters, both
inside & out, from about your era - (Mid '50s). I think the Statute
of Limitations is off now, so - after the movie came out, you guys
weren't, uhm, taking the opportunity to practice chasing down the
local lakes at 60', were you? (Just in case they needed to make the
sequel, after all).


Sure! that's why we did it!, just to be ready.

I have 575 hours in the Lanc and I almost don't dare say what I
think of that a/c because it was loved by so many. Well, it
certainly did do yeoman service during the war but in actuality
it was a damned dangerous machine. I was in 405 (MR) Squadron in
the early fifties for 5 years. We had, I think about 10 of them
and we lost 6 in those 5 years (lots of lives lost as well). Just
for comparison, we had, I think, 33 Argus for over 20 years and
only lost 2.

The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.

The soft tires and oleos, placed so far forward would ram the
nose UP and that tremendously powerful wing would snap you up a
hundred feet almost instantly, then you'd gingerly but quickly
try to add a bit of power to ease the 'second coming'...I've seen
many three or more bounce attempts, each worse than the preceding
till you're outta runway so you pork on full power at the top of
the last bounce and 'go around'... I've got a bunch of those hair
raisers...quite scary indeed.


Oh, yeah - the John Wayne estate's just released one of his better
movies, after sitting on it for a couple of decades- "Island in the
Sky". It's the story of a C-47 (Captained by John Wayne) on the
North Atlantic Run (Preque Isle, Gander/Goose, Bluie West 1,
Reykavik, Prestwick) forced down somewhere in Labrador or
Newfoundland during Winter, and the search for the missing plane. It
was adapted by Ernie Gann from his novel of the same name, which is
based on events that actually happened while Gann was a Civil
Contract pilot on the North Atlantic Run. The film was directed by
Lafayette Escadrille veteran William Wyler - so it's got Authentic
Aviation through the roof. It's damned good, and not your typical
John Wayne movie. (And Wyler's presence shows that while Bomber
Pilots make History, Fighter Pilots _do_ make movies.)
I caught it on cable, but I understand it's also being released on
DVD.

Thanks Peter...I'll pick em up!...BTW, remember that awful film
about the Gimli Glider?. I have the book and the true story as
well.

I really admire the Capt, I think that he did one hell of a job
in getting that thing down with no fatalities (even though the
whole incident was his fault). Anyway, Capt Pearson has a sail
boat here at the Silver Fox Yacht club in Summerside and I was
lucky enough to meet him and shake his hand and congratulate him
on the fine job.

He was an honest gentleman and said "Well, I pretty damned well
HAD to get them outta trouble, after all it was all my fault in
the first place" . I had to agree with him, and did. Nice
chap.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord,

Many years ago, I flew into Hamilton, I believe Mount something or other to
fly an airshow. Got in a few days in early as I had friends in Toronto. 1st
day there, I got to go up in the Canadian Warbird Heritage Museum's Lanc.
No stick time but did notice the high wing lift and the landing we made has
a very long roll out. The pilot explained to me that the gear and tires we
a bit touchy on landings.

If I recall, they lost that bird in a mishap.

Jake

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:

"miket6065" wrote:
snip

Probably was
that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems
in the wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into
speaking tubes
giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as
the
glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had
some direct power control on the engines.


I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
attributed to that fact.

Gord, good to see that you're still here!
The B-36 was also an FE-oriented airplane. The pilots had a set of
coarse throttles, but all the fiddling and fine adjustment was done
by the FEs (later models had 2 on duty at any given time). Of
course, they had a lot to do - 6 engines, 6 props, 2
turbosuperchargers/engine, multispeed cooling fans (Which would chew
up 200 hp/engine if you set 'em wrong) and, if they had nothing
better to do, they could go out into the wing & change out the
accessory sections.

Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...

BTW, I just noted a new book in one of the local shops in the making
of "The Dambusters" - lots of beautiful shots of Lancasters, both
inside & out, from about your era - (Mid '50s). I think the Statute
of Limitations is off now, so - after the movie came out, you guys
weren't, uhm, taking the opportunity to practice chasing down the
local lakes at 60', were you? (Just in case they needed to make the
sequel, after all).


Sure! that's why we did it!, just to be ready.

I have 575 hours in the Lanc and I almost don't dare say what I
think of that a/c because it was loved by so many. Well, it
certainly did do yeoman service during the war but in actuality
it was a damned dangerous machine. I was in 405 (MR) Squadron in
the early fifties for 5 years. We had, I think about 10 of them
and we lost 6 in those 5 years (lots of lives lost as well). Just
for comparison, we had, I think, 33 Argus for over 20 years and
only lost 2.

The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.

The soft tires and oleos, placed so far forward would ram the
nose UP and that tremendously powerful wing would snap you up a
hundred feet almost instantly, then you'd gingerly but quickly
try to add a bit of power to ease the 'second coming'...I've seen
many three or more bounce attempts, each worse than the preceding
till you're outta runway so you pork on full power at the top of
the last bounce and 'go around'... I've got a bunch of those hair
raisers...quite scary indeed.


Oh, yeah - the John Wayne estate's just released one of his better
movies, after sitting on it for a couple of decades- "Island in the
Sky". It's the story of a C-47 (Captained by John Wayne) on the
North Atlantic Run (Preque Isle, Gander/Goose, Bluie West 1,
Reykavik, Prestwick) forced down somewhere in Labrador or
Newfoundland during Winter, and the search for the missing plane. It
was adapted by Ernie Gann from his novel of the same name, which is
based on events that actually happened while Gann was a Civil
Contract pilot on the North Atlantic Run. The film was directed by
Lafayette Escadrille veteran William Wyler - so it's got Authentic
Aviation through the roof. It's damned good, and not your typical
John Wayne movie. (And Wyler's presence shows that while Bomber
Pilots make History, Fighter Pilots _do_ make movies.)
I caught it on cable, but I understand it's also being released on
DVD.

Thanks Peter...I'll pick em up!...BTW, remember that awful film
about the Gimli Glider?. I have the book and the true story as
well.

I really admire the Capt, I think that he did one hell of a job
in getting that thing down with no fatalities (even though the
whole incident was his fault). Anyway, Capt Pearson has a sail
boat here at the Silver Fox Yacht club in Summerside and I was
lucky enough to meet him and shake his hand and congratulate him
on the fine job.

He was an honest gentleman and said "Well, I pretty damned well
HAD to get them outta trouble, after all it was all my fault in
the first place" . I had to agree with him, and did. Nice
chap.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

In article ,
(Gord Beaman) wrote:

Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...

Wonder if there's anyone around who's heard both a B-36 and a Tu-95 Bear?
That's supposed to have a very distinctive sound, but I've never seen or
heard one.

The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.

Yeow... Since I read about them, I've suspected one of the bravest Lanc
crews were the team that test-flew each one for the first time at the Avro
factory. They were doing six or seven a day for much of WWII.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:50 +0100 (BST), (John Dallman)
wrote:

In article ,
(Gord Beaman) wrote:

Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...

Wonder if there's anyone around who's heard both a B-36 and a Tu-95 Bear?
That's supposed to have a very distinctive sound, but I've never seen or
heard one.

hand enthusiastically raised ME! ME! ME! :-)

When I was in grade school back in the '50s in Joliet, IL a flight of
B-36's went over. Time has dimmed a lot about the event (including
the precise number of aircraft). But it was an IMPRESSIVE sound. It
was also the first time I had heard the term "aluminum overcast." ;-)

When deployed aboard INTREPID in '71 we were overflown by Bears from
time to time. It was a distinct sound, different from any turboprop
I'd heard before.

The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.

Yeow... Since I read about them, I've suspected one of the bravest Lanc
crews were the team that test-flew each one for the first time at the Avro
factory. They were doing six or seven a day for much of WWII.

That would add up to real "pucker factor" by about tea time! :-)

Bill Kambic

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

This would be a cool conversation piece. Or an instrument of
self-immolation. Owne'rs choice, I guess.

Mount it to the back of a car, get some fuel for it, make sure there's
people with cameras about, and you'll be a living legend in DAFUL :-)

Juergen Nieveler

Any you would probably end up paying more for phone service too! (Apologies
to Vonage)


JD

Jim Carriere wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:
They didn't need to pay any attention to all the 'housekeeping
chores' inherent in the operation of four highly tuned and
critical piston engines and aircraft systems. They'd just say
"Engineer maintain 180 knots" (or whatever) then forget about the
a/c and concentrate on what was going on outside... worked good.

I have over 6,000 hours logged on them and I've never seen either
pilot touch the throttles. The left seat did reverse the engines
with the reversing throttles on the landing roll though.

That makes sense. About the only time I can see a pilot moving the
throttles in that kind of cockpit, other than a very urgent
emergency, is on the runway when timing is important.


The aircraft had very powerful nosewheel steering and a goodly
amount of rudder so differential engine power was never needed on
the ground, even for the takeoff roll.

Most of our pilots learned early to keep their knuckles well
clear of their quite long throttles when they (if they) called
"Aborting, power off" on the takeoff roll because those throttles
were capable of breaking fingers as they smashed back to idle at
the speed of light...there was no minimum time allowance for
throttle travel in that direction and we all took delight in
making them 'klang' on the idle stops...

It's nice when a crew can work like what you describe- everyone doing
there jobs and doing them well.

Yes, it was indeed a joy, and was helped by our system of
'crewing up'...it wasn't unusual to have the same flight crew for
a year or two...however poor 'that' was for standardization...
but we worked hard to keep standard with bull sessions and lots
of flight simulator time.

I certainly enjoyed my 8 years on them, they were by far the best
aircraft for the engineer that the Canadian Forces ever had, or
is likely to have.

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)