Did the TU-4 suffer from the same engine fires as the B-29?

[DaveBB]

Correct me if I am wrong, but everything on the B-29 was copied except for the engines to make the TU-4.  That being said, the airflow to the engines were still limited, and it still had a magnesium accessory box (did the Russians make the accessory box out of magnesium?) behind each engine.  So did the TU-4 suffer the same catastrophic engine fires that the B-29 did?

[Vulcan]

Absolutely not, because Stalin commanded so.

[Vraciu]

The Tu-4’s engine (ASh-73) had common ancestry with the R-3350—the R-1820.  It wound up being less powerful and did not use magnesium.   It was also heavier in part because of this. 

[pembquist]

Absolutely not, because Stalin commanded so.

I wish I could be Stalin, it would make some things a lot easier: “did you really just say there was a problem with comrade Stalin’s building permit?.........I didn’t think so”

[Oldman731]

I wish I could be Stalin, it would make some things a lot easier: “did you really just say there was a problem with comrade Stalin’s building permit?.........I didn’t think so”

As in real life!

To achieve the IL-2's full potential, production needed to be sharply ramped up. This was not an easy task, since the German invasion had dislocated most of the production facilities. Stalin did not conceal his rage at this disruption of production. In a telegram to the directors of one of the troubled Il-2 plants, he wrote, “You have let down our country and our Red Army. You have the nerve not to manufacture Il-2s until now. Our Red Army now needs Il-2 aircraft like the air it breathes, like the bread it eats. (This plant) now produces one Il-2 a day….It is a mockery of the Red Army….I ask you not to try the government’s patience, and demand that you manufacture more Il-2s. This is my final warning. Stalin.” Not surprisingly, Il-2 production increased sharply within weeks.

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/stalin%E2%80%99s-ilyushin-il-2-shturmovik

- oldman

[Puma44]

Curious to know what the manufacturing quality was of those “increased production” IL-2s was liked. 

[DaveBB]

Good info Vraciu.  It looks like it produced the same horsepower and didn't have the tendency to have valves stick open.  The fuel injected version (which didn't enter mass production) produced a lot more horsepower.

I'm not sure which was a worse engine combination, the F-14 and the TF30 or the B-29 and R-3350?

[Vraciu]

Good info Vraciu.  It looks like it produced the same horsepower and didn't have the tendency to have valves stick open.  The fuel injected version (which didn't enter mass production) produced a lot more horsepower.

You’re welcome.  No problem.

The later production versions of the 3350 were almost double the power of the Russian engine (or at least half again as much any way) I think.  Reliability also improved dramatically.

I'm not sure which was a worse engine combination, the F-14 and the TF30 or the B-29 and R-3350?

If kept within parameters the TF-30 was okay on the F-14.    Obviously it was a limitation that caused some headaches.  Ironically the TF-30 in the F-111 wound up being relatively trouble free.   I suppose the lack of a real air-to-air role contributed to this. 

[DaveBB]

I watched a training film on the TF30 equipped Tomcats.  At full mil power, if the jet lost an engine, the pilot had (I'm going from memory here) 2.5 seconds to apply full opposite rudder.  If he just used his spoilerons/elevons, the F-14 would go into the infamous irrecoverable spin.

A big part of it had to do with the body of the F-14 too.  Even with the F-100 series engine, the body of the aircraft could blank off the air to one engine.  There was a famous airshow crash due to this.

[Vraciu]

I watched a training film on the TF30 equipped Tomcats.  At full mil power, if the jet lost an engine, the pilot had (I'm going from memory here) 2.5 seconds to apply full opposite rudder.  If he just used his spoilerons/elevons, the F-14 would go into the infamous irrecoverable spin.

A big part of it had to do with the body of the F-14 too.  Even with the F-100 series engine, the body of the aircraft could blank off the air to one engine.  There was a famous airshow crash due to this.

That's what got Hultgreen--a Vmc loss of control due to a flameout.  (Of interest is the yaw string on the nose of the Tomcat.  You can see it in the opening sequence of THE FINAL COUNTDOWN when Commander Owens is bringing his VF-84 F-14 aboard.)

Lots of twins are like that.   If you have an auto-feather failure on takeoff in something like a SAAB 340 or EMB-120 you'll be on your back in about that same amount of time.  Or so I was told. 

It's not as bad as it sounds, it just depends on when and where it happens.   The main thing is if you lose directional control you have to get the power back.   It's better to plant on your belly than to flop over and crash inverted.

When I flew the Astra if you lost an engine you had to apply full rudder (all the way to the floor) just to get it to fly straight.   The Legacy will fly sideways with your feet on the floor and behave herself just fine.   You'll take a hit in climb performance but it's very docile.

The MU-2 is also nasty for engine failures.   It has spoilers as well.  If you fly it like a prop you'll die.  It has to be flown like a jet.  One crashed in San Antonio that way when I was an instructor.  He hit the only empty lot in a sea of buildings.   I saw the wreckage before the police cordoned it off.   Nasty...

F-14 YAW STRING

[icepac]

Mu2 has "spoilerons".

[Vraciu]

Mu2 has "spoilerons".

"Roll spoilers."

We were referring to the same thing, spoilers used for roll control.

If he just used his spoilerons/elevons, the F-14 would go into the infamous irrecoverable spin.

The MU-2 is also nasty for engine failures.   It has [roll] spoilers as well.  If you fly it like a prop you'll die.   One crashed in San Antonio that way [using improper technique--roll instead of yaw for directional control] when I was an instructor.

The implication was clear as we were discussing the dangers of using roll controls vice rudder in OEI operations for certain (nearly all) twin-engine airplanes.