Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sun Jun 08, 2025 7:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: CURTISS XO-18
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:18 pm
Posts: 743
Location: OHIO
Check out the engine installation on this one!

Image

_________________
President National Waco Club
Curator for the Waco Historical Society Air Museum
Writer for VINTAGE AIRPLANE, SKYWAYS, BARNSTORMERS.COM EFLYER


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:59 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 1523
Location: Brenham, Texas
??? what the hey...... Looks like a multi row radial with some real unusual cylinder staggering. Counting pipes and rows it looks like a 24 cyl. Am I close?

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:22 pm
Posts: 248
Location: South Boston VA
12 cyl. 600hp Curtiss Chieftan. Two rows of six air-cooled cyls, back row directly behind the front row. It was even an Approved Type engine. ATC. Number 8.
Awesome photo!

_________________
hundreds of images of aero art, memorabilia, photos and artifacts at;
www.memaerobilia.com


Last edited by barnbstormer on Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:18 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 1523
Location: Brenham, Texas
Interesting. I'd like to see a close up of it. Anybody got a photo or a link?

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:22 pm
Posts: 248
Location: South Boston VA
Try this one. Pretty decent...
Sorry! MY fault you could not Google it, as I spelled Chieftan wrong. :oops:
NOTE: To see the webpage, you have to click on the Middle line, below.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... %26hl%3Den

_________________
hundreds of images of aero art, memorabilia, photos and artifacts at;
www.memaerobilia.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 82
Location: San Jose, CA
Very interesting... the article doesn't mention, anyone know if this was a 2 stroke engine?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:34 pm
Posts: 261
Location: Midwest
It was standard 4 stroke (five event). 1640CID. The illustration does state cam drive shafts (tower drives) thus heavily indicating 4 stroke. As can be expected the rear cylinders were prone to overheating issues when power requested. It was problematic.....much like Bristol's folly, the Hydra.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 82
Location: San Jose, CA
Here's another article, dated June 14 1928

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00491.html

Here's an excerpt that addresses my concern, but doesn't quite answer it clearly enough....

Quote:
Another query immediately comes to mind : It is a well known
fact that even firing cannot be obtained with an even
number of cylinders whose connecting rods are taken to a
common crank throw. The " Chieftain " has an even number
of cylinders, and one wonders how the firing is arranged.
Since we received Mr. Hildesheim's article some weeks ago,
a most interesting article on the " Chieftain " has appeared
in our New York contemporary Aviation. Written by
Mr. Arthur Nutt, who is Chief Engineer of the Curtiss Aeroplane
& Motor Co., Inc., this article throws a certain amount
of light on the subject by the following passage : " When
two rows of cylinders are used, it is possible to jump to
the back row at the proper time and then back to the front
row, getting even firing and satisfactory operation. It is
also possible to fire all the front row and then jump to all
the back row. The third possibility is to fire two cylinders
in the front row, two in the back row, and then two in the
front row, etc. However, of these three firing orders, the
first named was found to be the smoothest and most satisfactory."


And here's one from Barnbstormer's link, but it still doesn't quite make sense...
Quote:

Another interesting problem connected with the design of this engine was that of the firing order. A single row radial engine requires an unequal number of cylinders if explosions are to be equally spaced. In analysing the problem as relating to the hexagon type, it was found possible to jump from the front to the back row and to the front again. Explosions evidently must be spaced 60 degrees of crank motion, which is the angular distance between cylinder banks. Thus, after one forward cylinder has been fired, the cylinder next forward in the direction of rotation (clockwise) may be fired, or, alternately, the rear cylinder of the bank directly opposite this one. Thus there are at least three possible firing orders. Of these the one in which front and rear cylinders always succeed one another was chosen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:30 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 1523
Location: Brenham, Texas
Thanks guys, That's an interesting design but obviously not as great in the metal as on paper. It reminds me of engines people have built out of odd parts as a curiosity or display.
Doug

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 82
Location: San Jose, CA
Canso42 wrote:
Thanks guys, That's an interesting design but obviously not as great in the metal as on paper. It reminds me of engines people have built out of odd parts as a curiosity or display.
Doug


Actually from the articles it seems that it worked out great.... it got great power/weight ratio, low drag (600 hp at the frontal area of a 220 hp. Wright) the cooling was no problem, and was the first radial to allow an equivalent plane to beat one with a V12 in climb and top speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 305 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group