Talk:Bristol Centaurus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page states that the Centaurus engine was used in the Bristol Britannia,but surely this is incorrect as this was a turbo prop airliner and not piston engined. Regards Eric O'Brien e-mail ericobrien@blueyonder.co.uk
Moved from Wikipedia:Village Pump:
[edit] Erronous information
On the page located at: http://www.fact-index.com/b/br/bristol_centaurus.html, it says:
"Other piston engines of this size were developed by both Pratt and Whitney and Wright, but neither could be considered as successful during the war."
This is a foolish and incorrect statement. The B-17, B-24, and B29 were all powered by Wright radial engines. The P-47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, B-26 Marauder, and A-26 Invader were all powered by Pratt & Whitney Radials. These engines, especially the Pratt & Whitney, were highly successful during WWII, flying hundreds of thousands of combat sorites. The Centaraurus on the other hand, which the article implies was successful, NEVER SAW A SINGLE COMBAT SORTIE IN WWII!
Wade (RG_Lunatic@cox.net)
REf. comments by "Wade" I understand that The P&W engined B17 etc and Wright engined P47 etc did not see combat using P&W R4360 Wasp Major or Wright Cyclone R2600. In fact no WW2 aircraft saw combat using these engine types.
Re the above. The closest equivalent from America would be the Wright R3350 which was indeed the cause of many B29 losses due to fires. Britain never produced a successful airframe which could have done the Centaurus justice.
- Wade, you seem to have confused several issues. For one, the article states that the large P&W and Wright engines were not successful. The successful designs you refer to are different engines, with the exception of the B-29. And in that case, on the B-29 (and B-32), the Wright engine was famous for bursting into flame on takeoff and led to many hull losses and deaths. No-one could consider that a "success". You then go on to claim that the "Centaraurus" [sic] "NEVER SAW A SINGLE COMBAT SORTIE IN WWII". This is, of course, wrong. The Centaurus flew a number of missions on the Warwick GR.Mk II, Mk III and Mk V, of which several hundred were built and saw active service. The only reason the Tempest Mk V didn't see combat is that they were on-route to Tiger Force when the war ended. Maury 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This engine, a Mk V, was used in the Tempest II. The Mk 18 was used in the Hawker Sea Fury through the Korean war. Both of these engines are either in use or being restored for use by current operators as of March 2007. 63.193.188.69 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] experiences with the engine
This engine has a number of systems and controls that improved it usefullness. The fuel control unit replaced the carb and gave the engine better fuel flows and adjustment for altitude. the throttle linkage also set the propeller RPM and the Ignition advance. In current usages the engine has been operated at higher boost settings with sucess. However the enging has little tolerance for over reving or netural thrust settings. The master rod bearings fail in these cases. Mike Nixon75.38.66.114 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be fair to compare this system with the one on the BWM 801 in the Fw 190? Maury 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The BWM 801 control system uses a electro/mechanical computer to operate the engine. However both control the throttle, mixture, ignition timing and RPM settings. The Centuarus uses interconnected linkages to do the same thing.63.193.188.69 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having built a mechanical computer at one time in my life, I debate the difference between "mechanical computer" and "interconnected linkages". Maury 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)