facthunter

Better than the "Spirit of St Louis" which had none due to a large Fuel tank being there.. It's surprising how little you NEED to actually see  in front to achieve a landing..  Nev

I've done a bit of checking up with a  Neptune driver I know yesterday and the double Cyclone  Wright  wasn't very reliable  either. With one engine out they needed the jet engines to get them back to about 10,000 ft and that used a heap of PETROL each time and they often ran out of fuel, as a result. He listed off about 4 from memory that had been lost as they spent a lot of time over Oceans. I must have been using a bit of ESP when I told the fellow at HARS to "leave the Convair 240 on the ground",  The one that TAA's Capt FJ Ball. (who did my Job Interview) had  an autofeather out of Archerfield had P&W R-2800s which have less horsepower and He had to restart the feathered engine to get back to the AIrport.  The R-2800s are standard in the DC-6b.  Nev

It has been all out there. It was done in TAA's workshops and the pin picked up as it was pressed into place. The original spars are LIFED as was the plane also limited on pressurisation cycles. There was an optional unlimited life spar but the age of the plane would not justify the extra expense. The fault was in the assembly. Another one had an engine fire and spar failure due to heat effect going to Winton.   Nev

It's supercharged either way and that suits Radials. DC 3's and fours had carburetters and no trouble with them in  that regard.  Any injection would probably be into a  body prior to the blower rather than individual Ports. There would hardly be anyone alive who has had direct involvement with these things as they were used 0n the line in their time.. That particular engine with it 3 turbine power recovery units gave the Best  specific Fuel consumption Lbs /HP /Hr. f any. Nev

The double Cyclone Wright engine was more reliable. . Fitted to a lot of stuff.  That's what's in it. The "Unreliable" comment deflected me. Always in a hurry.   Nev

I remember the Viscount. It had had the spars replaced, but there was a scratch in a hole a pin was inserted in.  I didn't refer to wiki on this matter.  Nev

I couldn't find much reference to MacRobertson Miller. Nev

IF you called TAA, Trans Australian Airways you failed the job Interview. Nev

I'm sure they would have a lot of restricted RPM settings. 4 rows of seven cylinders is One long, complex motor.   Nev

They were very unreliable. Perhaps they knew how to operate them properly. That's a pretty BIG aircraft.   Nev

It's not really too ugly. Like most seaplanes slow and a very ordinary payload. The opposed piston 2 strokes ran 2 crankshafts geared together at the front of the engine. It's about the same AUW of the DC 3's that operated in PNG.  Nev

Maybe a thing  as a value trainer rather than anything competitive Better than My Citabria as more versatile.  Nev

The occupants would want to be made of balsa and not in a hurry to get anywhere. 100 Hp and 59 knots??   Nev

Lack of imagination? Maybe a bit of Phibbing  about being able to Land it on Land.  Nev

The design of it would aid reliable spin recovery and with a sliding canopy like that a dorsal fin is ruled out.. Nev

The Marque had a good reputation.   Nev

A classy classic for the  observant and well healed collector.   Nev

The ME 262 was a crude engine and underpowered also. They all needed high temperature metals for the turbine blades and lacked thrust.   Nev

I would expect supersonic wind tunnels would be a whole new ballpark. Bell made the X-15 didn't it?  Nev

Wonder how the spin recovery is?  Nev

There's a Seabee 3 from the bottom of the pictures.   Nev

There's NOT a lot of planes that look like a Seabee. Twin engined tractor engine versiona have been made .  The original Franklin powered is a bit hard to get to "Unstick" off the surface when there's no wind to cause a few waves..Nev

It's a lot like a Republic "Seabee"  Nev

Yeah ONE 85HP engine to pull a plane with another engine NOT feathered and 3 People and fuel as well.. The unsynchronised engines would drive you nuts also. . Does not compute.  Engines on stalks? what about the gyroscopics?   This is not new. They have been around for ages. Nev

It's draggy, so needs more wing to fly at lower speeds and hot days.  Nev