Wow .great job .

If your R-4360 Tech School was t Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls, TX, I was there in the late-1960s and those engines were still on their test stands on the west ramp! Great comment, thanks!

Absolutely. These engines were at the high water mark of aircraft piston power for large aircraft and were marvels of engineering. The effort needed to keep them running efficiently was significant but certainly not out of line with expectations for this type of powerplant. They could have been developed even further if the superior economics of turbine powerplants did not force them into obsolescence. The final examples of steam locomotives were likewise marvels of engineering for that technology, but could not long compete with the superior economics of diesel-electric locomotives. The achievement of the R-4360 should be appreciated by anyone who admires sophisticated machinery.

They weren't that great, they suffered from the same kind of heat issues as the R3350 and were indeed labor intensive, there's no smoothing that over. They suffered from detonation problems because the carb at the back of the engine would heat up so bad it'd heat the air intake charge and induce detonation but when they were turned around on the B36 to try to solve that problem they suffered from the carbs icing up from being at the front of the engines. They're impressive pieces of engineering but the fact is 4 rows is just too much and leads to too many issues, like the R3350 they never really got them right.

The R-3350 is effectively a competitor. also for a bad nickname, the connie in lufthansa was called "the best tri motor in the world". I think that operators expected a reliability like the P&W R-2800. And it was not. Radial R-2800 are still in normal service (DC-6) when R4360 ware stopped in 60s and R3350 were stopped in 80s.

The turbocompound versions had enormous maintenance issues but the fuel efficiency compensated for the cost.

@@dukecraig2402 I seriously doubt that the carburetors on these engines had heating and cooling issues, as You proclaimed here.... For one thing, carburetors normally do not heat-up excessively, because of what they have inside of them... Fuel.... The fuel. Would begin to evaporate, and draw excessive heat away from the carburetors in the process. But the liquified fuel being fed into the carburetors would constantly re-supply the carburetor with fresh liquid fuel as the engine it supplied would burn the fuel being supplied to it... Much like a VCM type of an Air Conditioning system works... Secondly, I don't buy Your suggestion that the carburetor on these engines "iced-up" as you suggested here, with the reversed positioning of them on the planes with pusher-props, like the B-36 and the X-B 35 planes.... The carburetor on these engines were the Bendix pressure type designs... They did not have venturi's as so many float type carburetors had on smaller engines... One of the many advantages of pressure-type carburetors is they did not suffer from venturi ice , that the float-type carburetorss did... The other guess's that you made about detonation issues that these engines supposedly had is doubtful as well, because Pratt & Whitney did not 'Accidentally' sell well over 17,000 of these units, which would have NEVER happened if they had detonation issues.... Sorry Amigo, but I just don't believe anything that You claimed here.... Try selling the 'Kool Aid' that You have to offer , elsewhere.... Edit- 5/29/22.. I take back what I said regarding Kool Aid and the carbs being impossible to ice-over... Fuel does have some moisture in it, and It is typically delivered to the fueling storage containers with some small traces of water... Between the storage and the delivery into the planes, more water could enter into the fuel. This is why planes and other things that use liquid fuel have water separators and water drains in the tanks and fuel systems. It is ICE in the fuel system that was believed to have caused the crash of British Airways flt#38 in Jan 2008... I Sincerely Apologise for that outburst that I posted here, 3 months ago, I re-read my comments to you- and I was the one who became embarrassed with what I wrote to you.... And yes, it is possible that the planes that You were involved with (B-36's), did have icing issues in the fuel system... Again, Duke I apologise for saying what I did to You... Sincerely, Mike Martinez

Agreed 100% - thanks for the comment!

We need to remember there was still a lot of automation in the manufacture of these engines as repetitive functions were controlled by Cams and Gears, and maintaining the close tolerances while moving from machine to machine.

"... people with dirt under their fingernails...". I hope not. Contamination was and is an issue.

@@fltTech72 Exactly, and most people don't realize that CAD "design" is a misnomer, the computer in CAD doesn't do any of the designing persay, it's still a human that does all the designing, the CAD program only allows them to see what they're designing in 3 dimensions instead of a flat plane, it more speeds up the designing process than anything else.

So much for technology - engineers today couldn't conceive that in their minds let alone design and build it without their computers!

Deep respect for massive engines .working like a swiss watch and powerfull

Amazing, thanks!

WOW!

I guess you saying it takes a lot of work

Even valve adjustment required removing the engine. It was possible only when the engine was horizontal.

Agreed!

What about the Martin AM Mauler a single engine Navy attack aircraft.

... and the Curtiss XBTC-2 (2 prototypes built), one of four designs in response to a Navy requirement for a single seat heavy duty attack aircraft capable of dive bombing and torpedo bombing. The Douglas Skyraider and Martin Mauler were the only ones that went into production, with the Skyraider lasting much longer in service than the Martin Mauler mainly because its R-3360 engine proved to be far less troublesome than the PW-4360. In general, the final piston engine aircraft designs of the 1940s used either the PW R-4360, or the Curtiss R-3360, the two most powerful US aircraft engines ever built, and those that used the R-4360 did not last as long in service because of the much heavier maintenance requirements and reliability issues of the R-4360.

Agreed 100%! It was definitely a different era from today's digital world. Thanks for the comment.

Couldn't agree more, The level of engineering excellence achieved is nothing short of mind blowing when one considers that engines from this era are the benchmark bar none when it comes to reciprocating aero engines. They invented it all with slide rules and drawing boards and we're still able to take the idea and the tech of the day to the limit.

David Clark- I have the utmost respect and admiration for the people that designed this wonderful engine! In my opinion they were the brightest and best that this country has ever had! There are several of these and many other great engines still in service today and I stand in awe of the technological marvels of that time! Thanks so very much for your service to this great country of ours!

I just want to know if I can fit this into my Ford Explorer.

@@mabrams8740. The torque would probably flip it.

A personal experience when I was 6 years old. With my parents I was on board a PanAm Stratocruiser at Honolulu bound for San Francisco. We had taxied out for takeoff and they ran the usual mag check. My dad who was an aircraft mechanic said "Uh oh, I don't like the sound of that." The pilot and flight engineer didn't like it either so we taxied back in and they changed all 224 spark plugs.

@@mikemcguire1160 A good example of why pistons were replaced by turbines for aircraft powerplants. But the R-4360 was certainly not a deficient example of a breed that was replaced by development of more economical technologies.

They were impressive but in all reality they weren't very good engines, 4 rows is just too much and it led to the same kind of heat issues in the rear bank that the R3350 had if not worse. Yea, of course I'd like to have one on a stand in my back yard so I could fire it up every morning just to drive my neighbor's nuts and blow the awnings off their house, but they still just weren't a very good aircraft engine.

@@gort8203 But they did have their day as the extensive list of planes in the above video shows. However it can be remarked that the Guppy C97 conversions eventually went to turboprops replacing the R-4360's.

@@mikemcguire1160 Yup, because their day was over. A turboprop is so much more practical that a big radial can't compete. Progress marches on but It was the end of a great era.

Good catch, and that's actually a British WWII PT boat that was later sold and used in the 1960s TV show "McHale's Navy" with Ernest Borgnine.

They had overheating issues in WW2 and had to forego many normal preflight checks.

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Many thanks!

Correct!

Thank you for mentioning that! Saved me the trouble, LOL!

Here's a pair of vintage F2G air racers restored not long ago: i.pinimg.com/originals/98/01/ee/9801eef8d76306d2f6543d17f5cc87dd.jpg

My dad was a Marine Corps flight engineer, he said the same thing. Ultimately it was maintenance cost and the fact that jets were getting all the investment for improvements that killed these engines. I also knew a B-36 pilot and said that it was not uncommon to have one of the six fail on a long flight. Mostly the transmission or pitch control for the counter-rotating props. When it was an inboard engine the plane would shake so violently that you could not read the gauges to see which engine failed. The rear gunners would have to crawl into the sighting blisters to see if it was the port or starboard engine and call out on the intercom before it shook the plane apart.

I imagine that problem could have been solved by careful air ducting.

@@stevechapman6551 I've read the B-36 had bad icing probs because of the pusher configuration and the carbs being first in the airflow through the wing. And overheats were a problem with the 4360s as was losing feathering control on the props. Pan Am lost several Stratocruisers in the 50s with the 4360s for the feathering issue and many others limped home. On the B-36 the joke with the engines (including 4 jet boosters) was instead of "6 turning 4 burning" became "3 turning, 4 burning, 3 gone missing and 1 on fire". Must not have inspired confidence on a global SAC patrol.

Yes, I remember that great scene also!

Double compound radial bank engins were the epitamy of piston aircraft engine's in the day.... thanks

@@freddyblack8394 I'm sure it was basically the pinnacle of piston engine development in aviation. I can't imagine anything more powerful being practical for aviation.

@@twistedyogert Yes sounds correct and the R-4360 was the limit of piston aircraft engine performance and practicality but only until reliable jet engine's & turbo props became available & transformed aviation

@@freddyblack8394 I wonder if this engine was installed in non-aviation applications such as in a boat.

@@twistedyogert don't know.. but in w w 2 the U S army used certain type of radial bank engine in it's M4- Sherman tanks in some areas.... tanks...u welcome ✌️😁

Great point, thanks!

The B-36 just vibrated everything other than the plane. Houses under the runway glide paths at Carswell vibrated and shook every time a 36 took off over the top of them. Nothing would stay on the counter tops, glasses, dishes, etc. would all end up on the floor after a few took off.

The vibrations were not caused by the swept wing but were in fact caused by the gear boxes used to drive the contra-rotating propellers on the XB-35 and conventional propellers on the YB-35's. The XB-35 and YB-35's were actually very stable bombing platforms. When Northrop added eight Allison jet engines to the design was when the stability problems began. The jet powered YB-49 Flying Wing bomber suffered from dutch roll. A device was created to eliminate pitch in the yaw axis, which corrected the problem. The reason why the Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing bomber was not selected was because it didn't meet the design specifications for range and bomb capacity because none of the nuclear bombs of that time would fit inside the bomb bay. Its Allison jet engines were anything but efficient, which shortened its range drastically. The XB-35 design was finalized by Jack Northrop back in 1942 before the atomic bombs even materialized. When it came to Flying Wings, Jack Northrop was 20 years ahead of anyone else, including the Horten Brothers in Germany. He was always waiting on other technologies to play catch up to him in order to make his designs a reality.

I worked as a Recip Engine Mech in the Air Force from June 1963 to Feb.966. I worked on the R-2000(HC-54D), R-1300(HH-19B) and the R-4360(HC-97G). LOVED MY JOB!!

It is a chore, I have the original P&W maintenance manual for it, interesting read. . . . . . . . . .

× 4 engines.

Changing all the plugs and changing the massive engine oil filter was a minor punishment for us line mechanics for a minor infraction of the maintenance procedures. It was Hell

@@timmayer8723 Must have been almost as bad as changing the lower PRT on a 3350.

You would have another set of 56 spark plugs, ready to go, as soon as you remove the fouled plugs.

Thanks, Adam!

Interesting, thanks!

A deep grumble that rattled windows! Only heard it once, will never forget it!

Same here!

Neat story, thanks!

Yup, those were the Goodyear F2G. Corsair. Some of them have been snapped up as surplus war aircraft for racing purposes.

That’s interesting! I attended the ADR- A school at NATTC Memphis in latter part of August and early part of September of 1971. After A school, I was assigned to VP 60 at NAS Glenview. The P2V7 with the R3350-32WA engines. I later heard that ADR-A school was shut down later in 1972. Yes, I remember the various radial engines on engine stands in the shop area of the school….Mark

Ha! I bet it did too! 😉

That airplane now resides at the Tillamook Air Museum located in and around the blimp hangar in Tillamook, Or. Some wise guy put a basketball hoop at the top of one of the nearly 200 foot high doors.

I believe that's the same Guppy I went through at the Tilamook Air Museum. It still had Erickson on it when I was there several years ago.

@@adamhay2798 it is

NASA Super Guppy still at work. Saw it depart McConnell AFB recently.

It's been a few years, but I think the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Az has one as well.

Also SAC Omaha.

I love those cutaways !! Porno for GearHeads ! God made Radials for airplanes and I want a cutaway for an Uber conversation piece for my living room !

I will enthusiatically second that. It is truly a gorgeous aircraft.

Good catch, thanks!

Appreciate the great comment, thanks!

The Nacelle as he put it is a QEC. Quick engine change. The nacelle contains the engine, oil tank and components serialized to the motor. You pop the cannon plugs, open and cap oil, fuel connections at the fire wall, pull the prop, grab a suitable dyno and load it to the weight of the nacelle assy, remove a few bolts at the firewall, and back it off the wing. RFI motor goes back on and the plane is down less than a day. Now you have time to change a jug. You needed a lot of boxed end offset wrenches because you break a lot when working on these radials. Very little room to fit a wrench at all let alone a sturdy one. I prefer turbines.

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Love it!

.......and two unaccounted for!

Thanks, and 'hope everything went well yesterday!

Medical care will also be available, if you survive.

...you'd never be able to afford the maintenance and operating costs-!!!

There are plates between the cylinders to balance the cooling.

There were baffles that were on each side and on the top of each row of 4 cylinders that directed the air from the front to the back. The cylinder head temp was taken from the A7 cylinder which was the hottest.

Many thanks!

Amazing, thanks!

Thanks for your service and for watching!

Celebrating Aviation with Mike Machat You are very welcome.

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Appreciate the comment Alan, thanks!

A series on Schneider Cup seaplane racers would be cool!

Yes, have had many requests, and that topic is on our list, thanks!

Bob Odegaard restored that F2G to flying status and was unfortunately killed in it practicing for an air show a few years back.

Great comment, thanks! (LOVE the 310!)

Many thanks!

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Thanks for the correction and good information on this significant Martin flying boat.

He said that in the video.

Did the Ruskies copy the R4360 too ? If they did I have to hand it to them!

@@oceanhome2023they didn’t the ash-73 was an indigenous design.