Jump to content

Twin Pioneer at Wedderburn (a decade, or so, back)


Recommended Posts

This may have been posted here before but I couldn't find it.  Anyway, worth another look. I wonder where she is now.

 

 

Edited by Garfly
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Google says she was re-registered VH-SYS then exported to EnZed 2017, however, there's no Pioneers on their register and Airport-Data shows no further reference after the export. Wiki (and the CAsA register) both show -SYS still here - and when you say pretty please to FB you get -SYS' very own Facebook page, last updated November last year.

Doesn't appear to have an ADS-B transponder though, it doesn't show up on FA or FR24.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I recall it being for sale at some stage. 2 Alvis Leonides Radials. (Same engine as used in a Lysander.) Bit of a crosswind there though it's variable and you can see the one wheel touchdown used. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Used in the "Ice Break" milk ads in the early 2,000's   I remember them painting the plane in a silicone paint that pressure washed off after filming.  

 

Enjoy  

 

Edited by FlyBoy1960
  • Haha 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more Aussie Twin Pin history here - and in the YT comments.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sy used to be an engineer at Aerial Agriculture before he started the bike shop. He bought a Beaver wreck and repaired it over the years. A true aviation enthusiast.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those old Alvis Leonides sound very much like the Nakajima in the Zero. Gee, they're ancient, they were designed in 1936!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Gee, they're ancient, they were designed in 1936!

Careful, the same could be said about some members here! 😆

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the valve gear is out in the open too. I think it's a maintenance intensive motor. The exhaust sounds very barky. Your ears would be ringing after a long flight. Nev

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They had tappet covers Nev. A high power machine for the size, I vaguely remember they were similar capacity to a 985 PW but more power. They were a fuel injected engine as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if the were oil tight though, I'll check if I get time.

  There's a heap of variants even a two row.  I find. The first are direct drive  The Twin pioneer had later versions. . With all the things that used them they must have been quite a good thing.. Alvis is the car maker, Wolseley built hispano-suiza under license in the first world war. . BMW built a lot of german aero engines.. All pretty nice really. (except when they are bombing you)  Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The one's I saw operating used to leak less oil than 985's, Alvis were a geared engine and swung a huge prop. They were around 600 HP. The engine was considered for powering the Beaver when they were designing it. There was one that flew with an AL powerplant.

Edited by Student Pilot
Brainfart
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's about 14versions of the single row Alvis with a wide range of outputs. Earliest ones are direct drive  Oiling valve gear was always an issue with radials. Dehavilland at Bankstown did a mod on TAA's DC-4s called "flooded Rockers". In flight oil transfer from a central tank was available standard.. Oil consumption varied a lot.  Longest flight I did was 12 hours chock to chock and didn't transfer any oil.  A P&W 985 is 1/2 a DC-3 motor I wonder how good they all were when new, but they had a name for using a lot of oil. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a mental block on that one. If I had an Alvis would I call it AL? I dunno. what  do i call the Allard then?  I can't imagine a beaver without a Pratt. You can still get plenty of parts for them. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nev the 985 wazza good engine, yes some would use a bit of oil. The main reason for that was maintenance and running over time. It was considered normal practice to run over 2000 hours on AG aircraft when the TBO was initially 1200 then 1400. On Ag use it was mainly topdressing or super, a load every 6 minutes or so, that's full power (36" and 2300 revs) back to max continuous a touch of cruise then landing, every 6 minutes for 2000 hours. I have seen 985's run to 3000 hours, it wasn't much good for overhaul just throw it away. At the time you could get an overhauled 985 for under 20K so some treated them as a throwaway engine which was a shame. I used to pull mine at 1400, most were burning less than a litre an hour. The worst I have flown was working for a particularly dodgy operator I had to top up the oil during flight, the oil was running very low before the the 2 hour fueling. Used to have a watering can of oil on the passenger floor. Oil tank used to hold 20 litres. The only aircraft with a worse oil burn was a Dromader, all of those used to burn/leak/throw lots of oil.  The oil tank on a Beaver was inside the cabin for arctic operations you could refill the oil from the cabin after using the oil dilation function to get a quicker spinning engine in the cold temps.

Edited by Student Pilot
  • Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they worked and probably got a bit of dust as well. Lots of heat and cool cycles. Some of them went onto Mogas early also .I saw how "Gummy" some of them were when dismantled... That HAS to be one of the good engines out there.  Bit heavy for a Stearman though. Maybe? Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Wasn't a big fan of mogas in Beavers, fuel used to have trouble feeding  the carb. Mainly ground handling and part throttle, in hot weather there would be vaporisation pulling the fuel up from the low tanks. Mogas stinking stuff compared to avgas.

 985 in a Stearman is a wonderful thing Nev 😁  Admittedly I have only flown a Stearman with a 985 but is was a very nice machine to fly, fast at around 110 in cruise. Docile yet responsive, ground handling a delight, aero's gentle. The stories about how hard a Stearman is to fly are wildly exaggerated. The machine I flew was a rebuilt Ag aircraft, in the hot weather you could still smell malathion wafting 🤓 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been plenty written on the Stearman. It's not hard to fly but it's expensive here..  it's a good basic trainer. Many think the Pratt is too heavy. At the other end , a Continental 220 is not powerful enough. Around 400 HP  would be enough if the motor was light in weight and you have a big prop .I'd put up with a fixed pitch prop for aeros.  it's not a speed machine.

   Insecticides are nasty things. What did they  spray the cotton moth with? They used that at night as it was more effective.. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...