British Sea Fury emergency landing

Kurt- Makes you wonder if a couple of high g pull-outs might have been worth trying to get her to lock. Wonder if he had two greens? Nice, smooth single gear landing.

 

He may not have looked for greens... dropped gear only ten or so feet from the ground.

 

Was the smoke from an engine failure of some kind ? Seems like he knew he was in trouble well before trying to extend the gear.

 

Centaurus has a 5 blade. The Brit motors turn the wrong way. The planes converted to Pratt or Wright motors use a 4 blade (sometimes 3) from the Colonies turning the correct direction.

Amazing any of those sleeve valve things even run. Even Rube Goldberg would have denied responsibility. Perfect example of using 32 parts where 3 will do.

 

Didn't know that.

Is that just the Brit radials?

The Merlin (a Brit motor), I believe, turns the "correct way"?

 

The British motahs
turn counter to the American motahs, that is with the clock, as faced from the front of the machine, from right to left. Therefore, going the wrong way if you were trying to tell the time from the cockpit. I believe that the 5 bladed airscrew was an attempt to make use of all the power(torque) from the motah and turn it into thrust.

 

Correct. The round motors

 

Hold on Hold on.......I think you will find that we got it right and everyone else got it wrong....just like which side of the street to drive on.

Next you will be saying the Indians are better than us at Cricket

 

Well, while it is true you got the jump on us with jet engines, Charles Manley, an American is credited with the invention of the radial aircraft engine.

As far as Brit round motors go, I'd be careful volunteering responsibility for the sleeve valve engines. Again an American named Charles Knight is credited with it but it is the Brits who embraced it. America and Germany seemed content to assign it to its rightful location, the dust bin.


As for CW vs CCW. I have no knowledge about the genesis and evolution of that but it would not surprise me if knowing how water goes down the drain that somehow the POME's were involved.

 

Brian- Funny, though, we put counterrotating props on the P-38, but the RAF never did on the Mosquito. No wonder they had one leg longer and stronger than the other. Have to look and see if the same thing was true of the Lancaster.

Sleeve valves, eh? That is a lot of sliding metal.

Funny, they got rotaries correct, the Clerget, and Bentley Rotaries, but then those evolved from the French LeRhone, but with extra pushrods for both intake and exhaust.

 

The few P38's they got they specifically requested without counter-rotators.
I guess they love standing on the pedal.

Actually it was for replacement engine logistics. Sounds like a non flying officers decision.
Dumb.

 

It was a very well judged and well conducted emergency landing after an engine failure, leaving no chance of a go-around. Late u/c selection followed an earlier exploratory selection at altitude which confirmed that the increased drag would be a real danger at low level. So the gear was retracted, and final emergency approach made clean. Pilot was Lieutenant Commander Christopher Götke, who has been flying the Sea Fury in display for several years. He did a great job given the circumstances.

By the way, please don't knock the Bristol Centaurus, despite being British it provided a very reliable 2,500hp-plus and outperformed P&W's finest in period...

DCN

 

Centaurus sounds really great...

 

Fixed!

Cheers,
Ian

 

Yes!!!!

 

The British sleeve-valve radials may have had their issues, but I think the Wright R-3350 was worse, especially in the late Turbo-Compound versions.

 

When FiFi was here several weeks ago I had some nice chats with her crew and got a good look and listen to her new hybrid engines and after 75 years they have figured out a good combination with a lot of parts from the -97W and earlier engines. They have a pretty good engine now and the crew chief says that it's better then ever.

 

Brian- With no counter rotating props and no turbochargers, the P-322 version of the P-38 was useless and the RAF never took delivery of any but test birds. The AAF flew them as trainers, but many were refitted with Yank spec engines. Dad had some P-322 time.

 

I think the Naiper Sabre engine in the Typhoon and Tempest was far more problematic than their Bristol counter parts. If memory serves I think more Typhoon pilots where lost du to the engine than enemy fire.

The RAF museum in Hendon used to have a cut away of the sabre engine....scariest piece of mechanical anything I have ever seen....

 

"After 75 years" - I should hope that that much experience would pay off; unfortunately quite a few people lost their lives (including, early on, Boeing test pilot Eddie Allen) because of the flaws in the engine.

Of course, I don't believe the CAF uses turbo-superchargers, which must simplify things.

 

These aren't turbo charged and there is no sign of the machinery that ran them. These engines are clean and simplified and still produce 2500hp. No turbos, no intercooler, and no forward facing exhaust manifold on the front bank of jugs. They made a new exhaust manifold that takes both rows like a P&W. Getting rid of so much machinery has left the inside of the nacelles wide open and the airplane a lot lighter. Sounds really good ,too. In a couple of weeks I will have an 18 X 24 color cutaway of the original B-29 ready to sell if anybody is interested. I don't have the price worked out yet but it should be about 20-25 bucks.

 

Sign me up Bob!