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
|
|||
|
|||
"Ditch" wrote in message
... It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it? Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes. If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who already knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense at all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't familiar with the aircraft in question. Pete |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Corky Scott" wrote in message
... [...] You mistakenly thought he'd said that the Beech 18 was smaller. The "BB" in Dave's sentence means "Bamboo Bomber" not Beech 18. You are right that I miswrote my reply. However, the point remains the same, regardless of which plane was being described as smaller. His response was noninformative except to people who already knew the information he conveyed. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Ditch" wrote in message ... It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it? Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes. If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who already knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense at all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't familiar with the aircraft in question. Pete If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the conversation. Don't expect a complete historical and technical dissertation with every post. That's what Juptners is for. In this case my guess is Volume 8 covers the subject aircraft but I am not going to look it up for you. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com... If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the conversation. The point of public discussion is so that others may participate and learn from what others have to share. Your comment made sense only to someone that already knows enough about the airplanes in question that they would already know what you said. Why say it at all, if you don't feel you should make your comment understandable to folks not "in the know"? Pete |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote: snip Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be marginal at best. Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is the serial number of this airplane? snip My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's. There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc. from the the Beech twin trainer. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm TC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:02:42 GMT
"Dave Stadt" wrote: "Robert Bates" wrote in message news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02... Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on one engine? It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running. Aren't there more than one kind of R680? I thought there was 3 or 4 models. What did they put into the Bamboo Bomber? R. Hubbell |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I
thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the Jacobs powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless Beech 18. wrote in message ... On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden) wrote: snip Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be marginal at best. Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is the serial number of this airplane? snip My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's. There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc. from the the Beech twin trainer. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm TC |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Bates" wrote in message news:EhXub.249932$HS4.2225277@attbi_s01... The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the Jacobs powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless Beech 18. Do you think that in the long run R985s might be the best route? They would give you better resale and are pretty near bullet proof. Fuel burn would be a consideration and might eat up a lot of the increase in resale. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
C-45 bird flew ok. Would fly on one engine after airborne an cleaned
up . Not any super performance of course. Max altitude on SE was probably 5K or so (from memory). I remember when I trained on the Beech-18 (E-18S...I think), the manual refered to the installation of JATO pods to "assist in the event of an engine failure or for short take-offs". I wish we had them when I was taking off fully loaded with cargo over a high population area. Fun fun fun... Some are still flying today There are quite a few still flying today. I can think of 5-6 cargo companies off the top of my head that still use them and private ones are all over the place. -John *You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North American* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V-8 powered Seabee | Corky Scott | Home Built | 212 | October 2nd 04 11:45 PM |
Beech Starship? SpaceShipOne? | DunxC | Military Aviation | 7 | June 22nd 04 08:03 PM |
early powered flight | Kim Dammers | Military Aviation | 8 | December 9th 03 07:48 AM |
Price of pre-owned Beech 1900C or Beech 1900D | Alex Koshy | General Aviation | 4 | October 12th 03 03:25 PM |
Price of pre-owned Beech 1900C or Beech 1900D | Alex Koshy | Owning | 3 | October 11th 03 04:18 PM |