Allison 501 turboprop - Completed!

Greg

 

 

Don Stauffer

That is Tamiya transparent blue over a Molotow chrome pen.

 

 

Awesome! Thanks, Don.

They look just like the real parts we used to send out to the platers to have color-anodized. Or whatever it was, I sort of forgot. Heckuva trick, you're a genius.

 

Yeah, I think the fittings were aluminum that was blue-anodized (oxide coating and blue dye).

Don Stauffer

That is Tamiya transparent blue over a Molotow chrome pen.

Awesome! Thanks, Don.

They look just like the real parts we used to send out to the platers to have color-anodized. Or whatever it was, I sort of forgot. Heckuva trick, you're a genius.

Great job Don...

Wonderful details and the display with the data board are just right.

Ben

jeffpez

I love the stand you made. The kit supplied one is awful and anything would be an improvement but yours is a home run. Where did you get the clear rod?

 

Local hobby shop. It is not Evergreen, forget the name right now- mental block, but the other main source of plastic stock. It is quarter-inch acrylic rod.

Greg

Splendid work, Don. I mean it.

Could you share what paint you used on the blue tube fastener hardware please?

 

 

That is Tamiya transparent blue over a Molotow chrome pen.

I love the stand you made. The kit supplied one is awful and anything would be an improvement but yours is a home run. Where did you get the clear rod?

It's a beauty, Don.  Spin up that prop!  A test cell for it would make a great diorama.

HooYah Deep Sea

No, three more and an AC-130! More bang for ther buck!!!

 

I would find that modification acceptable.

Splendid work, Don. I mean it.

Could you share what paint you used on the blue tube fastener hardware please?

No, three more and an AC-130! More bang for ther buck!!!

That turned out great Don!

Now about the other 3 engines and the C-130...  

Well done Don!

Got  some sun and a decent temperature today, so took my portable studio and the model out to the backyard and got a better shot, though the model is almost too big for the studio bench.

Great looking model and what a wonderful addition to your engines.  Pretty big model by the looks of it.  Now, wrap a plan around it ;)

Great build Don!

Jim 

Stay Safe.

Hi, Don - that engine looks like you've been spending some time with a milling machine - the finish is excellent!  I am also enjoying being educated by the conversation that's running alongside your build - there are some clever people out there.

And thank you for mentioning Turbinia - I live in the city where she was built, and where she now resides (in the Discovery Museum).  She fits the "if it looks right, it is right" criterion perfectly.  As an aside, my father completed his apprenticeship at Parsons' engineering works, but not as you might expect - he became a carpenter (we call them joiners).

Keep up the good work & thanks for sharing.

   Nice finish Don, thanks for the history lesson too, neat thread and an excellent build.

Completed the model yesterday.  Sorry for the poor picture.  It is a quick grab shot in my workshot.  Today is not outside photography weather.  High heat index and very windy.  Should get nicer tomorrow or Tuesday.  I'll try to get an outdoor studio shot then.

To further the history discussions, yes, the success of Turbinia caused engineers all over the world to believe that a heated air turbine would, like the steam turbine, create a lighter, smaller prime mover.  First attempts used reciprocating engines to drive reciprocating compressors and free piston burners.  Low efficiency of existing IC engines and compressors made the results horribly heavy and fuel guzzlers.  GE in the US and B-B in Europe did do some preliminary work, both for locomotive engines, and B-B also for stationary power plants.  Continued work on compressor design, primarily rotary compressors, led to eventual success (with some metallurgy and cooling system schemes important too).

jeaton01

I believe the train engines were steam turbines, Don.

Actually ships were the first to use turbines over pistons, and that change was about 1910-1920.  However, the naval steam turbines needed significant (read heavy) reduction gear to get to the low RPM needed at the shafts of ships.

The reciprocating driving arms for train locomotives was highly mature.  It also defined how periodic maintenance was done, too.  The "final drive" on steam locomotives was all on the outboard side of the driving wheels.  To have gone to shaft-driven wheels, the axle, and all the needed differentials would have to be between the wheels.  A realitively inaccessible area.  Also one subject to a lot of heat.

So, until electric final drive motors wer introduced, there was no reason to change from the single expansion piston used.  (There were experiements to double-expansion pistons, but they just added complexity for little gain.) 

UP's gas turbine locos just drove a generator, which gave them electric power to pass to the trucks.  They were supremely loud, and not terribly fuel efficient, for the horsepower delivered to the generator.  Now, they had fewer parts than the V-12 and V-18 diesels.  But the diesels idled better, were more familiar to the maintenance sheds & crews.

Getting an aviation-weight/efficient turbine would wait for Whittle (and his competitor over at Heinkle) in 1938.  And, even then, they did not have enough practical knowledge, acquired from use, to know just how much horsepower the power turbine could actually generate.  So, the early turbines just had inefficient compressor sections.

Great paint job.

You are doing a fine job on that Allison engine, Don. Looks good. Impressed with the painting, very convincing.

jeaton01

 

 

Don Stauffer

 There were gas turbine/turboshafts of a thousand horsepower driving locomotives in Europe before the Whittle and Von Ohain engines first ran.  The turbojet did not precede the turboshaft.

 

 

 

I believe the train engines were steam turbines, Don.  They just ran steam from a separate boiler through a power turbine to put power to the wheels.  The stumbling block for all gas turbines was the power section and it's high temperatures, which a steam turbine does not experience.  The reason the Me 262 engines were so unreliable was that Germany did not have advanced enough metallurgy to build the power sections.  General Electric, through it's experience with turbochargers, added the factor that made early US turbines work, and that transferred back to Great Britain.  Rolls Royce was also a factor in that after they took over Power Jets (Whittle) they aded their expertise with compressor design, which they were probably the best at in the world at the time.  Until Rolls Royce sold the Nene to the USSR they were still working with the German level of technology.   The Klimov KV-1 in the MiG 15 was the Nene with some development.

 

No, they were gas turbines, used in Switzerland.  I believe Brown Boveri was the manufacturer.  There was one used in US also, used to drive blower in steel mill.

The Union Pacific had a fleet of true gas turbine powered locomotives in the 1950's.

They were three section sets, including a fuel tender.

For freight service only through the lonely lands of Wyoming.

There were fifty five total.

Train men called them the "Big Blow".

Don Stauffer

 There were gas turbine/turboshafts of a thousand horsepower driving locomotives in Europe before the Whittle and Von Ohain engines first ran.  The turbojet did not precede the turboshaft.

 

I believe the train engines were steam turbines, Don.  They just ran steam from a separate boiler through a power turbine to put power to the wheels.  The stumbling block for all gas turbines was the power section and it's high temperatures, which a steam turbine does not experience.  The reason the Me 262 engines were so unreliable was that Germany did not have advanced enough metallurgy to build the power sections.  General Electric, through it's experience with turbochargers, added the factor that made early US turbines work, and that transferred back to Great Britain.  Rolls Royce was also a factor in that after they took over Power Jets (Whittle) they aded their expertise with compressor design, which they were probably the best at in the world at the time.  Until Rolls Royce sold the Nene to the USSR they were still working with the German level of technology.   The Klimov KV-1 in the MiG 15 was the Nene with some development.

Got the reduction gear unit connected to the compressor/turbine unit now.  Also all the bubbles, bangles and beads on the outside.  Working on a display base and mount now.

Also, full frontal area of a gear box can hide in front of a big radial. Offsets work.

Therree was an interesting time where turbo props were perfomance monsters, before turbo jets were reliable.

The P-3 Orion's origin was the Lokheed Electra. As a commercial airliner, it failed becaiuse of a failure to design a engine/ airframe solution.

But Vickers designed Viscount. 

The Russians had a number of short hall Antonovs, as did the Shorts.

Don Stauffer

They had a good start in that recips of large power were already using reduction gears.  Those huge radials like the R-2800 and the 3350 helped develop reduction gear technology.  And, in the thirties when gas turbines were being developed, the original idea was the turboshaft.  There were gas turbine/turboshafts of a thousand horsepower driving locomotives in Europe before the Whittle and Von Ohain engines first ran.  The turbojet did not precede the turboshaft. 

The big radials weren't spinning at the RPMs of the gas turbines, but that's interesting about the land based gas turbines with reduction gears. I wasn't aware of that. Maybe the problems they had were due to trying to lighten the gear boxes for use with the turbines in aircraft?