My feelings toward the Mosquito are such that one time a friend had his
artist sister draw me a Christmas card of Santa Claus getting out of a
I tend not to get into "who or what is sexy" debates, as it's all a matter
No way the F-8 could do Mach 3.1. It was a -very- good dog fighter and
the saying was "when you're out of Crusaders you're out of fighters".
At least it had a gun unlike the F-4.
I don't know what pubs you are refering to but they are wrong
IIRC the FAA required so much extra structure be added to certify the
composite airframe that the plane had very little useful load left, and was
slower than they hoped because of the extra weight. That killed the market
for it. Beach ended up with thirty or so finished but unsalable airplanes.
I believe the one that flew chase for Spaceship One is Burt's. It was at
Oshkosh this year along with Spaceship One and White Knight. He's not
giving it back.
Burt's right up there, I agree, but you've gotta include Kelly Johnson in
the same league. Kelly designed the P-38 in the late 30's, and the SR-71 in
the 60's. That 's quite a career. Along with Harry Miller (Miller FWD Indy
cars, Offenhauser engine), he's one of my engineering heros.
I saw enough of habu at kadena, not enough of the p-38 at Oshkosh. The
SR-71 flew at Oshkosh, it was fantastic.
I saw the F-117 tanking on its way to Iraq for Desert Storm. It left
Oshkosh early that year. Other commitments ;) The F-117 is NOT sexy.
F4-J's are sexy too. Used to work on them.
Thanks much for all the links and info. I lurk on ebay watching for
books that might cover Kwaj, and have found a few, but they all cover
the taking of the island. I'd love to find something that covers the day
to day air ops... Thanks for the specific book titles, it's always
easier to look for specific books than trying to discern which ones
might contain something of interest.
Sadly, there was a fire some years ago in the military's records
archives and many records were lost, including my fathers. So I
know next to nothing.
Could easily be!
I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if the claim had been "leaked" for the
benefit of other countries as a bit of "disinformation".
After all, most military fighter planes - during their service life, at
least - have "classified" top speeds and/or ceilings that, in the absence of
factual data, become the object of speculation, propaganda, and, even,
While the SR-71 set a few records years ago, I can't help noticing the
caveat "at least" that, usually, accompanies ITS top speed and ceiling
If you have a COSCO building near by - they had the SET of books they are BLUE
and are medium grade - lower cost than fancy but are OK - by Morrison.
He was assigned to write the history of the Pacific war. Assigned (after he
by the President who gave him Multi-star grade power to see hear and write
He was on-board many a ship and in the center of battles. There were several at
same time that got the job.
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
The B-29 had only two-row engines, the superficially similar B-50 had
Radial engines used an odd number of cylinders in each row (like a
'pancake'), and stacked the rows as needed. One and two row engines were
common, and very successful.
Single-row engines would have (usually) 7 or 9 cylinders. They were
relatively compact, and had good power to weight ratios. In addition to
aircraft, these were widely used as W.W.-II tank engines (in M-4
Shermans, M-3 light tanks, M-18 Hellcats, to name a few).
The two row engines would, similarly, have either 14 or 18 cylinders.
To increase power further, four-row engines were tried with mixed
success. IIRC, these had 28 cylinders. These were always a maintenance
and reliability problem. They were excessively complex, and the back row
of cylinders often tended to overheat.
Still, the four-row engines were used operationally on several aircraft,
for several years. Big bombers and high-performance propeller fighters
I don't recall that any of the regular passenger airliners used the
four-row engines. Perhaps a few experimental ones did. The 'Connies' and
"Stratocruisers' used two-row engines.
The onset of the jet age doomed these four-row engines to a relatively
short period of primary service.
NOT really. The 'rows', or 'banks', of a radial engine are flat planes,
perpendicular to the shaft, not longitudinal rows parallel to the shaft.
Each row of the engine had (usually) either 7 or 9 cylinders, but only
ONE throw on the crankshaft. There was one 'master rod' to which all the
other rods connected.
To increase power, you just, in effect, stacked the engines like
pancakes, making multi-row engines. In actual practice the multi-row
engines were not merely stacked singles, but that that's how they were
The Wasp Major referred to here had 28 cylinders total, in four rows,
each of seven cylnders; and had a four-throw crankshaft.
All, or at least most, of the multi-row radial engines had the cylinder
rows staggered (rotated). On such an engine, for each row, the cylinders
have greater front to back thickness (mostly cooling fins) then the
crankcase. By staggering the rows, the cylinders of the rear row could
nest partially between the cylinders of the row in front of it, and the
thinner crankcases could then fit directly together. This made the whole
engine shorter and more compact, and also improved the flow of cooling
air to the back row of cylinders.
This process was continued on the four-row engines. Thus each row was
rotated slightly with respect to the one in front of it. The visual
EFFECT was a helical alignment of cylinders, but that's NOT how the
engine is actually constructed.
You didn't, and I didn't imply that, or at least certainly didn't INTEND
to do so.
It was the original poster that mis-described the B-29 as having
four-row engines. Then somebody brought in the 'Connie' with the
implication that they too had four-row engines. They didn't, and you
I was just elaborating on the description of the radial engines, and
commenting on several previous confused posts on these type engines.
Perhaps you need to amend the description of radial engines
to "usually or predominately, had an odd number of cylinders per row"
as there were a number built that had even numbers of cylinders per
Most, but not all of them.
Armstrong Siddeley's last piston engines were the Deerhound and
Boarhound, 3x7 air-cooled radials. These had each row in-line not
staggered, so as to use an overhead camshaft. This also helped the
problem of cooling the rear row of cylinders - air could be ducted
between the banks and baffled equally to each row.
The huge Lycoming 7755 (already mentioned) and the Junkers 222 took this
further and had separate in-line blocks attached radially to a
crankcase. The idea of "rows" now only really applied to the crankshaft,
not the blocks or heads at all.
There's also the infamous 30 cylinder 5 crankshaft ersatz tank engine
used in some M4 Shermans, made by merging 5 truck engines (block, head
and crank) and geraing them together in a common crankcase.