St. Helena resident Mike Nieman shows off the 28-cylinder motor, one of 10 engines from a Convair B-36 Peacemaker built in 1946. (Video by Cynthia Sweeney)
The B-36 was the one application where the R-4360 (not to be confused with T-4680) created terrible headaches and even crashes -- due to the engine's reverse mounted 'pusher' configuration the oil cooler was in front and would encounter cold air unheated by the engine -- particular at the high altitudes and arctic missions the B-36 was focused on -- and would freeze up, resulting in fewer than '6 turning (and 4 burning in applicable models)'.
If I was a billionaire, the B-36 would be flying again... The wrong people seem to have all of the money, it seems. Still, nice to see a remnant of this great plane still working. I understood there were many of the engines around, but "10"? Wow!
Six Pratt R-4360s like the one in the video, plus four jet engines. Years ago there was a proposal to get a B-36 flying - of the four in existence, two could possibly be made flyable - but turns out there are limitations imposed by the arms control treaties.
@@mpetry912 An unarmed flying museum piece replica - no bomb bay doors or other armaments version could easily pass muster. Got into a big debate about another flyable one and how it would have to be made new, from scratch. Since restoring one of the existing ones would be too risky - cracks, metal fatigue, etc. With modern manufacturing techniques it could be done, especially since this plane is small and simple compared to modern jetliners, bombers, etc.
@@mpetry912 I figure with a modern, lighter aircraft without heavy vacuum tube electronics and no heavy armaments, modern R-4360s, with better lubricants, modern fuel formulations, shutting down a couple of engines at altitude to save on gas - remember, no longer under SAC and a Cold War schedule - it would be cheaper than a Cold War mission.
@@declandickson2839 - They kept upgrading the planes, converting one model to another. Particularly, after the hurricane that damaged the fleet in Ft. Worth TX, when they made the flying nuclear reactor version.
Good on them for bringing a piece of hostory alive!. What I'd like to know, most stationary running engines require shortened props. How did they stop it moving?.
"Now, what are you going to do with it?" Sorry. I see by the ad on the wall that you are a Harley shop. But it will need one hell of a big bike! Perhaps the worlds first Harley Cycle-Bus. :)
It’s just for the fun of firing up and running an engine like this. Don’t get it You need a Hobby and sometime off. My hobby Hot Rods and things that go fast
yeah i thought that other radial prop and front engine piece over the door was once again going to take flight there for a while. probably would have if he actually ran it up to full power. now that would have been a sight to see
Joe Piscopo He will, those engines have a high rate of oil consumption compared to a car if you didn't know. About 7 US gallons per hour during a typical mission. The oil tank for each of the six B-36 engines held 190 gallons and it was considered normal to return from an uneventful mission with only half of that amount left. Total oil consumption per mission was around 475 gallons.
-20 from a C-119 Boxcar. Pusher versions, which were used on the B-36, had some unique features. One of which was a 6 inch extension between the magneto section and the propeller gearbox.
Thanks did not know that. Wonder how hard it would be to convert existing 4360’s to the B-36 version - were there some crazy reason to do so. There are many 4360’s out there but few of those.
@@johnwatson3948 they used to do that, according to “R-4360; Pratt and Whitney’s Major Miracle”, by Graham White. The other and most significant difference between the tractor and pusher versions, was that the cylinders were installed “backwards”, or described another way, they were clocked 180° in their mounting pads. The cylinder heads were designed to be cooled with the intake rocker box in the leading edge of the cooling air. On a B-36, that meant it needed to be pointed towards the supercharger end of the engine. Since the intake and exhaust tracks of the cams were reversed, they needed to be unique for a pusher. The cooling baffles are also “backwards”. Google pictures of a -53 and a -59 (C-97 version) and study the differences. They will jump out at you. Enjoy!
I meant to ask with your knowledge - do you know why on the early B-36’s the exhaust manifolds had covers that ducted air back to exit slots on the fixed propeller base? Removal of these must have increased the nightmare of maintenance - and the system and slots were deleted on later B-36’s. I don’t think this is mentioned in the Graham-White book or elsewhere.
@@tylerbonser7686 The B-36 first flew in 1946. Before the beginning of the cpld war. It was designed originally to bomb Germany if England was defeated. So in was a WWII aircraft that was used after the war. Like a lot of other aircraft.
@@ronlynquist9183 yes I know the history of the b36. I would not consider a airplane that didn't fly during WWII a WWII bomber. That implies it served during the war. But I would definitely consider a plane that actually flew during the cold war a cold war-era bomber. I see your point that it was designed to attack German but obviously never did. The title is completely accurate. But maybe you think it should say "engine from plane that was designed during WWII but actually served during the cold war" would be more accurate. But that gets a bit lengthy.
@@ronlynquist9183 well now you're just bringing in another argument because your first doesn't hold water and this question makes even less sense. Technically it was both since it served during both so what's your point? The B50 played a greater role and the b29 was merely a stop gap. The B-29 was a WWII-era bomber that seen limited and early service in the cold war but I have never heard someone refer to it as a cold war bomber. I also don't hear people calling the B36 a WWII bomber.
I thought I saw that shop fly over my house this morning!
That building moved back at least 3 feet
R-4360. As in 4,360 cubic inches. 28 cylinders, 56 spark plugs. 4,000 hp.
The B-36 was the one application where the R-4360 (not to be confused with T-4680) created terrible headaches and even crashes -- due to the engine's reverse mounted 'pusher' configuration the oil cooler was in front and would encounter cold air unheated by the engine -- particular at the high altitudes and arctic missions the B-36 was focused on -- and would freeze up, resulting in fewer than '6 turning (and 4 burning in applicable models)'.
I saw this sitting in that parking lot several years ago on a road trip. I wondered then if anyone ever tried to start it. Better late than never!
If I was a billionaire, the B-36 would be flying again... The wrong people seem to have all of the money, it seems. Still, nice to see a remnant of this great plane still working. I understood there were many of the engines around, but "10"? Wow!
Six Pratt R-4360s like the one in the video, plus four jet engines. Years ago there was a proposal to get a B-36 flying - of the four in existence, two could possibly be made flyable - but turns out there are limitations imposed by the arms control treaties.
@@mpetry912 An unarmed flying museum piece replica - no bomb bay doors or other armaments version could easily pass muster. Got into a big debate about another flyable one and how it would have to be made new, from scratch. Since restoring one of the existing ones would be too risky - cracks, metal fatigue, etc. With modern manufacturing techniques it could be done, especially since this plane is small and simple compared to modern jetliners, bombers, etc.
@@JungleYT well that's a project ! Any thoughts on what the fuel burn per hour might be ? How's $10k/ hour sound. Remember it's avgas, $8/gal.
@@mpetry912 I figure with a modern, lighter aircraft without heavy vacuum tube electronics and no heavy armaments, modern R-4360s, with better lubricants, modern fuel formulations, shutting down a couple of engines at altitude to save on gas - remember, no longer under SAC and a Cold War schedule - it would be cheaper than a Cold War mission.
Very true. The problem is, the other ones who aren’t the “wrong ones” tend to not fly very well, then crash it. It’s happened many a time.
This engine was also installed in the Boeing B-50 bomber and the 377 Sratocruiser airliner
Well it had 6 of those engines. Cool video.
Yep, B36 had “6 turning and 4 burning”
@@mouser485 - ... when things were going well. Other states included 'joking' and 'unaccounted-for'.
That engine is powerful enough to power a decent sized locomotive.
The B36 had six of them plus four jet engines.
Denise Owens
The B-36D received 4 jets to aid takeoff. The B-36A/C didn’t have them
@@justat1149 well yes but which was the most produced model?
@@justat1149 - Also for higher speed and altitude over hostile territory (which didn't happen).
@@declandickson2839 - They kept upgrading the planes, converting one model to another. Particularly, after the hurricane that damaged the fleet in Ft. Worth TX, when they made the flying nuclear reactor version.
Same engine in the dreadnought Hawker Sea fury air racer. Lucky, I got a chance to see it fly before they blew the engine few weeks ago at Reno.
Rolling shutter demonstration done very well here.
Good on them for bringing a piece of hostory alive!. What I'd like to know, most stationary running engines require shortened props. How did they stop it moving?.
nothing.. and i mean nothing, sounds so nice as a radial engine firing up.
I was certain the window was going to give out
Pratt & Whitney R-4360. Wow!
It looks like your 4360 but I really can't tell we didn't get a close-up of it but thank you very much
Looks like one to me - 4x7 cylinders. I don't know if there were other 4-row radial recips. Saving the close-ups for monetization?
OK, who else was waiting for the guy with the camera to back up into the prop??
Isn't that the truth! I thought that idiot was going to hop around right into it.
"Now, what are you going to do with it?"
Sorry. I see by the ad on the wall that you are a Harley shop. But it will need one hell of a big bike! Perhaps the worlds first Harley Cycle-Bus. :)
It’s just for the fun of firing up and running an engine like this. Don’t get it You need a Hobby and sometime off. My hobby Hot Rods and things that go fast
wow
I'm not sure I could think of a worse place to start that engine!
yeah i thought that other radial prop and front engine piece over the door was once again going to take flight there for a while. probably would have if he actually ran it up to full power. now that would have been a sight to see
So cool!! Now, what are you going to do with it?
TOKAMEEL refill it with oil
Joe Piscopo
He will, those engines have a high rate of oil consumption compared to a car if you didn't know. About 7 US gallons per hour during a typical mission. The oil tank for each of the six B-36 engines held 190 gallons and it was considered normal to return from an uneventful mission with only half of that amount left. Total oil consumption per mission was around 475 gallons.
How do hold down that beast!
Wow!
0:42 Now only 3 blades! What happened.
6 turning and 4 burning
Very cool...totally reckless...but very cool
Can you say what model 4360 you have there? If for B-36 would be -25, -41, or -53.
-20 from a C-119 Boxcar. Pusher versions, which were used on the B-36, had some unique features. One of which was a 6 inch extension between the magneto section and the propeller gearbox.
Thanks did not know that. Wonder how hard it would be to convert existing 4360’s to the B-36 version - were there some crazy reason to do so. There are many 4360’s out there but few of those.
@@johnwatson3948 they used to do that, according to “R-4360; Pratt and Whitney’s Major Miracle”, by Graham White. The other and most significant difference between the tractor and pusher versions, was that the cylinders were installed “backwards”, or described another way, they were clocked 180° in their mounting pads. The cylinder heads were designed to be cooled with the intake rocker box in the leading edge of the cooling air. On a B-36, that meant it needed to be pointed towards the supercharger end of the engine. Since the intake and exhaust tracks of the cams were reversed, they needed to be unique for a pusher. The cooling baffles are also “backwards”. Google pictures of a -53 and a -59 (C-97 version) and study the differences. They will jump out at you. Enjoy!
Interesting - thanks!
I meant to ask with your knowledge - do you know why on the early B-36’s the exhaust manifolds had covers that ducted air back to exit slots on the fixed propeller base? Removal of these must have increased the nightmare of maintenance - and the system and slots were deleted on later B-36’s. I don’t think this is mentioned in the Graham-White book or elsewhere.
Design a motorcycle around it and it'll eat the Tomahawk for lunch.
I'd look better running on a B-36. 😆
56 Spark Plugs.....at $63 each (Today's cost)
Over $3500. Hope the owner doesn't have to change plugs weekly
@@clearcreek69
In normal operations, after each mission, all of the spark plugs in every engine were changed.
More accurate to say WWII engine. Thats when the were designed and frst used.
They were plenty accurate saying cold war era bomber engine since the B36 didn't fly in ww2.
@@tylerbonser7686 The B-36 first flew in 1946. Before the beginning of the cpld war. It was designed originally to bomb Germany if England was defeated. So in was a WWII aircraft that was used after the war. Like a lot of other aircraft.
@@ronlynquist9183 yes I know the history of the b36. I would not consider a airplane that didn't fly during WWII a WWII bomber. That implies it served during the war. But I would definitely consider a plane that actually flew during the cold war a cold war-era bomber. I see your point that it was designed to attack German but obviously never did. The title is completely accurate. But maybe you think it should say "engine from plane that was designed during WWII but actually served during the cold war" would be more accurate. But that gets a bit lengthy.
@@tylerbonser7686 Is it more accurate to call the B-29 a cold war bomber or a WWll bomber?
@@ronlynquist9183 well now you're just bringing in another argument because your first doesn't hold water and this question makes even less sense. Technically it was both since it served during both so what's your point? The B50 played a greater role and the b29 was merely a stop gap. The B-29 was a WWII-era bomber that seen limited and early service in the cold war but I have never heard someone refer to it as a cold war bomber. I also don't hear people calling the B36 a WWII bomber.