Talk:Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major

message: The article claims that the P/W of the 4360 was matched by few engines. I beg to differ. All of the Hypers outperformed it, as did practically every other US engine. More to the point the Sabre easily outperformed it, producing 3,500hp from under 2,500 lbs, and even the poor German engines running on 87 didn't do too badly, the Jumo 222 for instance.
The 4360 was big. That's all it was.
Maury 6 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
:giving a power to weight ratio of 1.11 hp/lb (1.83 kW/kg), which was matched or exceeded by very few contemporary engines. - depends on whether the weight figures include the turbochargers and (heavy) stainless steel ducting for them - one suspects not, as the usual US practice at the time was to classify the turbochargers as airframe weight, due them being mounted remotely from the engine, e.g., Thunderbolt, Lightning. Even so, as you correctly state, the quoted P/W figures aren't anything to write home about. 71 litres is a BIG engine, nearly twice the displacement of the Napier Sabre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.78.10 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sabre engine fires were due to the pilot over-priming the cylinders, often after a failed start in cold weather.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly competitive 

message: I believe that the Martin mars was powered by 3350s, not 4360s LorenzoB 22:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I checked my sources to see if perhaps some prototypes or conversions used the Wasp Major, but have found anything as yet. - BillCJ 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Mars 

message: I've added the "citation needed" expression to the text waiting for someone to prove me that Pratt & Whitney R-4360 or even the Fairchild C-82 Packet's Pratt & Whitney R-2800 (as used in "The Flight of the Phoenix" movie) used Coffman Starter. So far I believe such big engines used the more typical motor and inertia flywheel system. - RobertoRMola (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AVPIN was introduced for fighter aircraft such as the BAC Lightning to provide instant start-up for scrambles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start system 

message: Revisiting a move notion, I'm proposing the page be moved to either P&W R4360 or P&W Wasp Major, since the name, as is, combines both the military designation & civil name, neither of which were used together (AFAIK).  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. - BilCat (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen them together before.... I'll consider this move withdrawn as mistaken.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterrotation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911050653/http://www.hill.af.mil/library/museum/wwii.asp to http://www.hill.af.mil/library/museum/wwii.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Most of this article sounds like it was written by a Constellation fanboy trying to prove that the competition really sucked, in all ways. I don't claim that the R-4360 was a huge success, but I don't think it was quite as bad as this tries to portray it. I.e. 'only profitable with government subsidy, unreliable, maintenance intensive, etc, etc'. Even if most of this is true, we could leaven it wit a little more positive stuff of interest. It was a good attempt at solving a tough problem, a lot of very brilliant engineering went into making it work at all. Most makers never came up with anything comparable. So it wasn't as successful as some engines...it was pushing the envelope much harder. It went out of service as soon as the turbine sowed up.....so did most piston engines, except the ones that could be operated very cheaply. The fact that econo-airlines operated the Connie and DC-6 into the jet age only proves they were pretty cheap to operate and buy. AFAIK ALL airlines relied on government subsidies to make a profit and to keep fares low. This wasn't some special deal worked out with the government to keep PW engines flying.
While I'm at it, the R-2180 isn't a "derivative" of the R-4360. Both are engines drawn up to use the same new cylinder design as first used in the R-2800. I'm sure they had plans for a 14 cylinder smaller version well before they embarked on the radical 28 cylinder. The probably took out the plans for the 14 cyl version and dusted them off, doubling them to make a huge 28 cyl engine, because of the impossibility of cooling 4 rows of 9 cylinders. With all the brilliant engineers PW had, they didn't need to create a huge 28 cylinder engine and then cut it in half to come up with a 14 cylinder radial version of the engine family. That would have been in the works from the beginning. Radial engines are highly modular and from the outset the plan to build a whole family of engines using the same cylinder barrels. They aren't like inlines where the barrels have to be cast together into a block, etc. You can make any size radial out of the exact same cylinders. They started with an 18, but they certainly had a 14 in mind, and maybe even had been working on a 4-row, either 28 or 36 cylinder. In the end they decided 36 was too many. They could have done 7 and 9s, but they probably felt that unless a good reason showed up, it was better to let smaller 14s and 9s do those jobs.
70.20.33.171 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't sound very NPOV 

message: In my opinion it is not a good idea to take this example, because it is a protoype engine and never entered production status. A lot of guys consider that an ordinary R-4360 has 4300 hp.....Further on -51 was not equipped with an supercharger or pressure carburettor. The design principle of the VDT was to recover as much exhaust energy as possible. Additionally the -51 uses an remote reduction gear box with an extension shaft and not less than 3 turbochargers to fit into the original pusher design of the mighty B-36. Very hard to explain for somebody who is reading the specs of this super special prototype engine........as i said not an good example METOPower (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs R4360-51