  | 
				Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists   
				 | 
			 
		 
		 
	
		| View previous topic :: View next topic   | 
	 
	
	
		| Author | 
		Message | 
	 
	
		cjpilot710(at)aol.com Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject: "Over Square, back loading, detuning, underboost-etc. | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				There has been several things mentioned here about the necessity or not of  staying "over square".  Some are not quite sure at what is happening.   I have "lived" with this a good many years and I know that big radials will  not last long if you treat them poorly.  In fact one of the reasons the  bombers I fly stay "in business" is because of the way we fly the engines.   Averaging around 300 plus hours a year per airplane - that's equates to  about 600 takeoff and landings a year per airplane.  If we flew them the  way the USAAF did, we'd be changing engines every couple of months.   Usually we change one engine per year per airplane.  Here is how the  problem was written up in Warbird Notes #3 in March 1994, by R.L. Sohn.  It  is probably the best explanation I've ever seen written.
   
   
  "Now the cause which we want discuss in this bulletin.  This happens  when the pilot pulls the throttle back to a very low MP. --------- Under normal  conditions the master rod thrust bearing is loaded against the crankshaft from  multiplicity of direction as all the pistons progress through their assigned  firing order.  Remember that all the other connecting rods are linked to  this one master rod and the pressures on this master rod journal are the  constantly changing resultant of all the pressures exerted by these  pistons.  The crankshaft is drilled on the thrust side allowing oil access  to this area when under power.  The heat is carried away with the oil  flow.  No oil hole is drilled on the anti-thrust side, it's not considered  necessary since the hole the thrust side provides constant lubrication from  pressurized oil flowing around the bearing.  If this series of alternating  forces is severely disturbed by a large reduction in MP then the propeller  in effect is turning the engine.  It might be helpful here to  visualize the unloaded pistons trying to throw themselves out the top of the  cylinders.  In this case the load is continuously applied to this one  (anti-thrust side) area of the master rod journal where no oil hole is  located.  In short order this "squeeze play" situation causes oil  (lubrication and cooling ) starvation resulting in failure to dissipate the  frictional heat.  This rapidly progresses from overheating to self  destruction.  In some cases during tear down the bleed holes have been  found wiped full of silver metal from the multi-layered plating of the master  rod bearing"
   
  The Wright can stand up a little better the Pratts because the they have  more master rod bearing area.  The journal diameter of the 1820 is about 3  1/4" as compared to the 1830's 2 5/8".  Both have virtually the same  displacement.  
   
  Comparing the M-14?  There no doubt that the forces and situation is  the same.  However I do not know the oiling of the M-14.  Jill could  elucidate better than I on that.  I think if you compare engine size  to horsepower (I don't how to arthritically do that) I believe you'd find the  M-14 is "beefier" for its HP.  I know that I fly my M14 the same way I do  the Pratts and Wrights.
   
  Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
 
 Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
   [quote][b]
 
  |  | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
  
 | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		viperdoc(at)mindspring.co Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 7:50 pm    Post subject: "Over Square, back loading, detuning, underboost-etc. | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Pappy,  
 Thanks. So my theory according to this excerpt was correct in feeling comfortable in pulling the MAP to idle with the %RPM pushed up.  
 Now I understand better what is really going on at the Master Rod main bearing.   
 Doc  
        
 From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of cjpilot710(at)aol.com
  Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:14 PM
  To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
  Subject: "Over Square, back loading, detuning, underboost-etc.  
   
   
      
 There has been several things mentioned here about the necessity or not of staying "over square".  Some are not quite sure at what is happening.  I have "lived" with this a good many years and I know that big radials will not last long if you treat them poorly.  In fact one of the reasons the bombers I fly stay "in business" is because of the way we fly the engines.  Averaging around 300 plus hours a year per airplane - that's equates to about 600 takeoff and landings a year per airplane.  If we flew them the way the USAAF did, we'd be changing engines every couple of months.  Usually we change one engine per year per airplane.  Here is how the problem was written up in Warbird Notes #3 in March 1994, by R.L. Sohn.  It is probably the best explanation I've ever seen written.  
     
    
     
    
     
 "Now the cause which we want discuss in this bulletin.  This happens when the pilot pulls the throttle back to a very low MP. --------- Under normal conditions the master rod thrust bearing is loaded against the crankshaft from multiplicity of direction as all the pistons progress through their assigned firing order.  Remember that all the other connecting rods are linked to this one master rod and the pressures on this master rod journal are the constantly changing resultant of all the pressures exerted by these pistons.  The crankshaft is drilled on the thrust side allowing oil access to this area when under power.  The heat is carried away with the oil flow.  No oil hole is drilled on the anti-thrust side, it's not considered necessary since the hole the thrust side provides constant lubrication from pressurized oil flowing around the bearing.  If this series of alternating forces is severely disturbed by a large reduction in MP then the propeller in effect is turning the engine.  It might be helpful here to visualize the unloaded pistons trying to throw themselves out the top of the cylinders.  In this case the load is continuously applied to this one (anti-thrust side) area of the master rod journal where no oil hole is located.  In short order this "squeeze play" situation causes oil (lubrication and cooling ) starvation resulting in failure to dissipate the frictional heat.  This rapidly progresses from overheating to self destruction.  In some cases during tear down the bleed holes have been found wiped full of silver metal from the multi-layered plating of the master rod bearing"  
     
    
     
 The Wright can stand up a little better the Pratts because the they have more master rod bearing area.  The journal diameter of the 1820 is about 3 1/4" as compared to the 1830's 2 5/8".  Both have virtually the same displacement.    
     
    
     
 Comparing the M-14?  There no doubt that the forces and situation is the same.  However I do not know the oiling of the M-14.  Jill could elucidate better than I on that.  I think if you compare engine size to horsepower (I don't how to arthritically do that) I believe you'd find the M-14 is "beefier" for its HP.  I know that I fly my M14 the same way I do the Pratts and Wrights.  
     
    
     
 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby  
   
 
  
          
   
 Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.  
    	  | Quote: | 	 		  |   http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List  | 	  0123456789
        [quote][b]
 
  |  | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
  
 | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		jack
 
 
  Joined: 01 Nov 2007 Posts: 10
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 8:19 pm    Post subject: "Over Square, back loading, detuning, underboost-etc. | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				--- On Sat, 5/3/08, Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc(at)mindspring.com> wrote:
 
  	  | Quote: | 	 		  > ... Now I understand better <<
 
 | 	  
 Randy Sohn is surely one of the masters of the radial world, indeed, one of the masters of the legacy aviation world. 
 
 There may be some reading this list who don't know his name. He's had a good bit to say about flying and it can be a good idea to search out his comment. 
 
 best ...
 
 jack
 
  	  | Quote: | 	 		   From: Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc(at)mindspring.com>
  Subject: RE: "Over Square, back loading, detuning, underboost-etc.
  To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
  Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008, 11:47 PM
  Pappy,
  
  Thanks. So my theory according to this excerpt was correct
  in feeling
  comfortable in pulling the MAP to idle with the %RPM pushed
  up.
  
  Now I understand better what is really going on at the
  Master Rod main
  bearing. 
  
  Doc
  
   
  
  From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com
  [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
  cjpilot710(at)aol.com
  Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:14 PM
  To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
  Subject: "Over Square, back loading,
  detuning, underboost-etc.
  
   
  
  There has been several things mentioned here about the
  necessity or not of
  staying "over square".  Some are not quite sure
  at what is happening.  I
  have "lived" with this a good many years and I
  know that big radials will
  not last long if you treat them poorly.  In fact one of the
  reasons the
  bombers I fly stay "in business" is because of
  the way we fly the engines.
  Averaging around 300 plus hours a year per airplane -
  that's equates to
  about 600 takeoff and landings a year per airplane.  If we
  flew them the way
  the USAAF did, we'd be changing engines every couple of
  months.  Usually we
  change one engine per year per airplane.  Here is how the
  problem was
  written up in Warbird Notes #3 in March 1994, by R.L. Sohn.
   It is probably
  the best explanation I've ever seen written.
  
   
  
   
  
  "Now the cause which we want discuss in this bulletin.
   This happens when
  the pilot pulls the throttle back to a very low MP.
  --------- Under normal
  conditions the master rod thrust bearing is loaded against
  the crankshaft
  from multiplicity of direction as all the pistons progress
  through their
  assigned firing order.  Remember that all the other
  connecting rods are
  linked to this one master rod and the pressures on this
  master rod journal
  are the constantly changing resultant of all the pressures
  exerted by these
  pistons.  The crankshaft is drilled on the thrust side
  allowing oil access
  to this area when under power.  The heat is carried away
  with the oil flow.
  No oil hole is drilled on the anti-thrust side, it's
  not considered
  necessary since the hole the thrust side provides constant
  lubrication from
  pressurized oil flowing around the bearing.  If this series
  of alternating
  forces is severely disturbed by a large reduction in MP
  then the propeller
  in effect is turning the engine.  It might be helpful here
  to visualize the
  unloaded pistons trying to throw themselves out the top of
  the cylinders.
  In this case the load is continuously applied to this one
  (anti-thrust side)
  area of the master rod journal where no oil hole is
  located.  In short order
  this "squeeze play" situation causes oil
  (lubrication and cooling )
  starvation resulting in failure to dissipate the frictional
  heat.  This
  rapidly progresses from overheating to self destruction. 
  In some cases
  during tear down the bleed holes have been found wiped full
  of silver metal
  from the multi-layered plating of the master rod
  bearing"
  
   
  
  The Wright can stand up a little better the Pratts because
  the they have
  more master rod bearing area.  The journal diameter of the
  1820 is about 3
  1/4" as compared to the 1830's 2 5/8".  Both
  have virtually the same
  displacement.  
  
   
  
  Comparing the M-14?  There no doubt that the forces and
  situation is the
  same.  However I do not know the oiling of the M-14.  Jill
  could elucidate
  better than I on that.  I think if you compare engine size
  to horsepower (I
  don't how to arthritically do that) I believe you'd
  find the M-14 is
  "beefier" for its HP.  I know that I fly my M14
  the same way I do the Pratts
  and Wrights.
  
   
  
  Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
  
  
  
  
  
    _____  
  
  Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new
  <http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001>
   twists on
  family favorites at AOL Food.
 
 | 	  
 
 Be a better friend, newshound, and 
 know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
 
  |  | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
  
 | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		Rob Rowe
 
 
  Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 124 Location: Berkshire, UK
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:35 am    Post subject: Re: | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				FYI - extracted the following master connecting rod lubrication description from the M14P manual ...
 
 “The crank-pin has a radial hole to supply oil from the crankshaft rear to its front section and two radial holes to feed oil to the master connecting rod bushing which are at an angle of 60° from the axis of symmetry in the direction of crankshaft rotation”
 
 ... and compiled the attached JPG file composite of the associated schematic diagrams from the same source (which won't be distributed with the daily digest email but can be found at ... http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=43148 )
 
 I'll leave it to the engineers amongst you to determine the significance of this description.
 
 Rob R.
 
  |  | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
  
	
  
	 
	
	
		
	 
	
		|  Description: | 
		
			
		 | 
	 
	
		|  Filesize: | 
		 73.25 KB | 
	 
	
		|  Viewed: | 
		 446 Time(s) | 
	 
	
		
  
 
  | 
	 
	 
	 
 | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 1:05 pm    Post subject: "Over Square, back loading, detuning, underboost-etc. | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Jim, just a comment.  I am not disagreeing with anything you have said
 or the quotes from others with far more round engine time than my own.  
 
 That said, the M-14 has been flying in Unlimited Aerobatic Competition
 for years.  I happen to have the privilege of working with (and on) the
 M-14 engines mounted in a few of the most heavily and most outrageously
 flown aircraft in this country.  In most every M-14 engine I have had
 experience with, the failure items usually consist of front engine seals
 (gone bad from extreme loading in gyroscopic maneuvers... Looks like a
 prop seal, but isn't!) some cracked piston rings, a lot of #2 cylinder
 low compression gripes, many mag gripes, bent rods from oil in the
 cylinders,  but not one ... Not one single occasion of bad internal
 bearings or any kind of silver in the screens.  These engines are
 usually flown with two power settings.  WFO, and yanked to zero.  The
 only "normal" engine use is flying to and from the locations of the
 competitions or air shows.  Possibly we are not into the range of total
 operating hours to see this kind of wear and failure yet?  Most of the
 aerobatic guys I know change engines at around 1000 hours even if they
 are running OK.  
 
 Point is, I understand and concur with every word you have said, and
 like yourself, I am wondering if there is anything different or special
 about the M-14, because it sure is not failing like the American made
 round engines would if treated the same way.  Further, I believe that
 the M-14 weighs less than any other American made engine for the
 horsepower it produces.  It is also 'geared' and turns higher RPM than
 most made American Radials too. 
 
 I believe someone ought to contact Russian Master Mechanic Vladimir
 Yastremski and ask him about this issue.  I honestly believe he would
 know even more than Jill or George about the matter.  
 
 Just a thought.  
 
 Mark Bitterlich
   
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
  
 | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		 | 
	 
 
  
	 
	    
	   | 
	
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
  | 
   
 
  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  
		 |