This will take a few people back, I think.

For Old Pilots

Subject: For Round Engine Pilots Only !

We gotta get rid of these turbines, they are ruining aviation. We need to go back to big round engines. Anybody can start a turbine, you just need to move a switch from "OFF" to "START," and then remember to move it back to "ON" after a while.

Cranking a round engine requires skill, finesse and style. On some planes, the pilots aren't even allowed to DO the thing. Turbines start by whining for a while, then give a small lady-like poot and start whining louder.

Round engines give a satisfying rattle-rattle, click-click, POW, more rattles, another POW, a big macho BANG or two, more clicks, a lot of smoke and finally a serious low pitched ROAR. And to get that roar, a pilot has to do a multitude of things: Shout CLEAR!, master ignition on, booster pump on low boost, energize right engine, prime right engine, while still holding energize switch on, engage rt engine, mag switch to both, mixture control to auto rich, set throttle for idle RPM, check oil pressure, right booster pump off, left booster on low boost. Then, do it all over again for any other engines.

We like that. It's a guy thing.

Starting a turbine is like flicking on a ceiling fan: Useful, but hardly exciting.

When you start a round engine, your mind is engaged and you can concentrate on the flight ahead. Turbines don't break often enough, leading to aircrew boredom, complacency and inattention. A round engine at full speed ..looks and sounds like it's going to blow at any minute. This helps concentrate the mind. Turbines don't have enough control levers to keep a pilot's attention. There's nothing to fiddle with during long flights.

Turbines smell like a Boy Scout camp full of Coleman lanterns. Round engined planes smell like God intended flying machines to smell.

I think I hear the nurse coming down the hall. I gotta go.

Bill Cline

• RE: Round Engines,jerryrosie, 14:46z, 09-11-02
• RE: Round Engines,Emile, 18:05z, 09-11-02
• RE: Round Engines,Ben_Chiu, 19:36z, 09-11-02
• RE: Round Engines,jonahbird, 22:04z, 09-11-02
  • RE: Round Engines,bcline, 22:25z, 09-11-02
    • RE: Round Engines,jonahbird, 23:05z, 09-12-02
      • RE: Round Engines,AlanParkinson, 17:15z, 09-14-02
      • RE: Round Engines,Vulcan, 09:15z, 09-15-02
• RE: Round Engines,vgbaron, 01:56z, 09-12-02
  • RE: Round Engines,avbug, 17:14z, 09-12-02
    • RE: Round Engines,bcline, 20:03z, 09-12-02
• RE: Round Engines,PaulCroft, 06:09z, 09-13-02
  • RE: Round Engines,bcline, 13:26z, 09-13-02

>>Subject: For Round Engine Pilots Only !<<

Absolutely GREAT!!

And they run best when mounted to airplanes with two wings - one up and one down.....

***Reality - The refuge of those who can't handle simulation***
Cheers, Jerry (N94)

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.2 =-
Registered to: Gerald J. Rosie
**** OLR.PL Build 1.73 ****

I like it !!
"Round engines give a satisfying rattle-rattle, click-click, POW, more rattles, another POW, a big macho BANG or two, more clicks, a lot of smoke and finally a serious low pitched ROAR", it's music to my ears .....
Regards
Emile
EBBR

ROFL!

I never read this one before. Excellent!

Thanks, Bill!

Ben

-= VPC OffLine Reader 1.2 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.78-

Hi Bill

Great stuff. Now all we need is a sound file that replicates that delicious description.

Regards
Frank

Hi Frank,

Yeah, that would be good.

I used to have a tape of cranking up an R2800 in a B-26 but somewhere over the years lost it. Being 50 years old now it probably wouldn't sound too good anyway.

Maybe I'll do some snooping around the www at one of the old Tactical Air Command sites and see if we can round something up.

Bill

Hi Bill

>>Being 50 years old now it probably wouldn't sound too good anyway.<<

I don't know; isn't Pavarotti older than that?

Frank

Hi Frank,

Please excuse the philistine response, but I'd rather listen to an aero engine than Pavarotti!

Alan

**** VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.0.0.0 ****
++++ UNREGISTERED ++++
**** OLR.PL Build 1.73 ****

ROFLMAO

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.2 =-
Registered to: Dave Wild
-OLR.PL v1.76-

Bill -

Haven't had that good a laugh in a long time! Keep 'em coming.

Vic

Of All the Things I've lost, I miss my mind the most!

-= VPC OffLine Reader 1.2 =-
Registered to: Vic Baron
-OLR.PL v1.78-

I recall reading that one some time ago.

It's true, though. I'd argue that round engines do well on airplanes with just one set of wings, however.

The great mystery of aviation is why turbine engines are reserved for higher time and more experienced pilots. Turbine engines are simple to operate, require much less skill and planning, and seldom break or malfunction.

Turbine engines are generally attached to more expensive airplanes, and a turbine engine is a lot more expensive when something goes wrong...but the odds of an operator damaging the powerplant are significantly lower on the turbine.

In the PB4Y-2, if you really wanted to see a pilot sweat, go more than an hour or two without something breaking. The suspense is a real killer. Interestingly enough, the Privateer was more reliable than our C-130A's, though it was ten years older. On our P2V-7's, the R-3350's were a LOT more reliable than the J-34 turbojets on the same wing (radial and turbojet on the same airplane).

Personally, I like radials. I like working on them, and flying them. Operating a radial engine once it's running is no more difficult than operating a flat piston engine, though one generally should exercise good judgement in power changes and settings, and the older hydromatic props may through newer pilots for a loop. Starting them is another matter entirely. Engine fires and other such things are always an issue, as is the possibility of a backfire and subsequent damage to the induction system.

Radial engine pilots generally have a lot more experience dealing with in-flight failures and emergencies, and soon learn that most of what the flying world considers an emergency, really isn't. Accordingly, pilots with a radial engine background usually don't get too excited when everyone else does; it's just not that big a deal any more.

Even today, where pilots learn in horizontally opposed flat piston recips, very poor technique is taught. Power off descents to landing, rapid power changes, and descents with the slipstream driving the propeller, instead of the engine. All very poor pilot techniques. Pilots never learn proper techniques, and then go on to pass these bad habits to the next crop of aviators. By the time these folks get to a turbine cockpit, they're in an airplane that can tolerate their lack of ability, and never know the difference. I've flown with a lot of pilots such as this.

Then again, the same may be said for never learning how to manage a tailwheel, and what a rudder is really for...

Excellent comments re recip radial aircraft engines.

Though I never worked on them (not that smart), I flew many hours alongside them. One of the reasons I now have to wear hearing aids. The other reason was because I also flew Sikorsky H-19's for nearly 3,500 hours...another radial but including a screaming transmission a few feet behind your head.

One thing about recips...you almost always had some warning that it was about to do something it shouldn't, unlike a jet, which simply "goes out".

Bill

Hi Bill

Just wonderful. Every day I start by checking my email and the VPC forum and this has got today off to a wonderful beginning. I'll just have to be wary about others seeing me wandering around with this silly grin on my face. They'll think I've finally flipped. Worse, even if I showed them why, many would still not understand the reason.

It's brilliant from start to finish but, if I had to pick a best bit:

"A round engine at full speed ..looks and sounds like it's going to blow at any minute. This helps concentrate the mind."

Paul Croft
10 miles SE of Heathrow (EGLL)

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.2 =-
Registered to: Paul F. Croft
-OLR.PL v1.76-

Very happy to put a smile on anyone's face, Paul. Now, let's see how long it takes to get back to me. <g>

Bill