Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unsatisfactory Report: Studebaker

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unsatisfactory Report: Studebaker

    Couldn't be the Studebaker we know and love, could it?
    Attached Files
    Lou Van Anne
    62 Champ
    64 R2 GT Hawk
    79 Avanti II

  • #2
    Must have been poor maintenance, Lol!
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner
    SDC Member Since 1967

    Comment


    • #3
      My uncle was a bombadier on a B-17G, late '44 and early '45. When I asked about Studebaker versions of the radial engine, he told me the early ones had some issues. Some pilots would insist on "genuine" Pratt engines. They had a high enough mortality rate to not be opiniated about major items like engines. There was no difference later in the war. Turned into the typical "Chevy vs Ford" argument. Jimmy started out in pilot school but was a wash-out and instead was a Lt/Bombadier the rest of the war. Jimmy passed away five months ago. The lone survivor of his crew is a door gunner in the Seattle area. Having worked in the defense industry bad parts are not unknown. Studebaker was not alone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Guess that is why they did not use these engines in cars, after testing them in military planes at the US Governments expence.
        Wonder if the person in charge of this department at Studebaker was given a raise or a serious Xmas bonus for this wonderful cost saving idea.
        Just a thought.
        Good Roads
        Brian
        Brian Woods
        woodysrods@shaw.ca
        1946 M Series (Shop Truck)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by woodysrods View Post
          >>>Wonder if the person in charge of this department at Studebaker was given a raise or a serious Xmas bonus for this wonderful cost saving idea.>>>
          Good Roads
          Brian
          My Mother worked at Studebaker Aviation during WWII helping make those engines. Report or not, I was proud of her for doing her part for the war effort!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by woodysrods View Post
            Guess that is why they did not use these engines in cars, after testing them in military planes at the US Governments expence.
            Wonder if the person in charge of this department at Studebaker was given a raise or a serious Xmas bonus for this wonderful cost saving idea.
            Just a thought.
            Good Roads
            Brian
            Well, the report doesn't condemn the engine. They have to tag the report either "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory"; the "unsatisfactory" does not mean that the investigator was saying that the Studebaker engines were unsatisfactory - only that this particular engine hadn't performed satisfactorily. If the investigator had concluded that there was an issue that was endemic to the Studebaker engines he would have either stated that in the report or recommended that the Studebaker engines be looked at for a particular issue. Since he didn't make a specific recommendation, this looks like a simple incident report about an engine fire that caused a pilot to ditch and a plane to be lost. If there is anything that's unsatisfactory and suspect here, it's the fact that the fire suppression equipment didn't function as intended.

            Mike O'Handley
            Kenmore, Washington
            hausdok@msn.com
            Mike O'Handley, Cat Herder Third Class
            Kenmore, Washington
            hausdok@msn.com

            '58 Packard Hawk
            '05 Subaru Baja Turbo
            '71 Toyota Crown Coupe
            '69 Pontiac Firebird
            (What is it with me and discontinued/orphan cars?)

            Comment


            • #7
              I believe the combat B-17s had Wright Cyclone WR-1820 radial engines, not Pratt & Whitney. The B-24 Liberators had the Pratt & Whitney R-1830.
              Dean




              CLEM

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Clem64 View Post
                I believe the combat B-17s had Wright Cyclone WR-1820 radial engines, not Pratt & Whitney. The B-24 Liberators had the Pratt & Whitney R-1830.
                The R-1820 was built under license by Lycoming, Pratt & Whitney Canada, and also, during World War II, by the Studebaker Corporation. Many of the late war B-17's had the P&W engines.
                sigpic
                John
                63R-2386
                Resto-Mod by Michael Myer

                Comment


                • #9
                  Both my Grandmother and Grandfather worked for Consolidated Aircraft building B24's in San Diego. My Grandad told me during the height of production they would crash 2 to 3 a week on test flights. Back in those days aviation was dangerous
                  Originally posted by kelmbaker View Post
                  My uncle was a bombadier on a B-17G, late '44 and early '45. When I asked about Studebaker versions of the radial engine, he told me the early ones had some issues. Some pilots would insist on "genuine" Pratt engines. They had a high enough mortality rate to not be opiniated about major items like engines. There was no difference later in the war. Turned into the typical "Chevy vs Ford" argument. Jimmy started out in pilot school but was a wash-out and instead was a Lt/Bombadier the rest of the war. Jimmy passed away five months ago. The lone survivor of his crew is a door gunner in the Seattle area. Having worked in the defense industry bad parts are not unknown. Studebaker was not alone.

                  Russ Shop Foreman \"Rusty Nut Garage\"
                  53 2R6 289 5SpdOD (driver)
                  57 SH (project)
                  60 Lark VIII 2dr sd (driver)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Welcome View Post
                    My Mother worked at Studebaker Aviation during WWII helping make those engines. Report or not, I was proud of her for doing her part for the war effort!!!
                    During 1943 Studebaker introduced a small pinback for workers who came up with an idea to speed up the production line of the Cyclone engines for the B17. The centre of the pin was blue cloissone with Studebaker War Worker in the blue color & a wing on each side with Merit Award inscribed. A handsome small pin that is so hard to find for us Studebaker memorabilia collectors.

                    \"QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER\"
                    MELBOURNE.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Clem64 View Post
                      I believe the combat B-17s had Wright Cyclone WR-1820 radial engines, not Pratt & Whitney. The B-24 Liberators had the Pratt & Whitney R-1830.
                      I have a WW2 B17 engine ID plate showing the airforces R - 1820 - 97 number that was built by The Studebaker Corporation Aviation Division in South Bend. It also has the image of the earlier & famous Studebaker Wheel design.

                      \"QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER\"
                      MELBOURNE.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My ex-neighbor (deceased at least 10 years now) worked for Lockheed in Santa Monica during the wqar years. There, they were building the Lockheed "Hudson" patrol bombers. It so happened that my neighbor's job included calling the Vernon, Ca Studebaker plant daily to see how many engines they planned to deliver the next day. Then Clayton (my neighbor) knew how many exhaust manifolds they'd have to have ready to fit to the engines - this being one of his responsibilities of his assembly station. So there's another plane that used Studebaker-built aircraft engines in WWII. And one might conclude that the exhaust manifolds were NOT something that Studebaker provided on their engines.
                        No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wondered if someone else would catch the hiccup about "Pratt" engines on B-17s; as has been stated the Fort used Wright R1820s while the B-24 Liberator used Pratt & Whitney R1830s. No production Forts were P&W-powered...a couple experimental variants did use Allison vee-type engines (under the designation XB-38...slick looking machine for a heavy bomber), but I've never run across any reference even to test model Forts using Pratts.

                          (Perhaps of interest, though, Pratt & Whitney Canada did build Wright R1820s, in the postwar period, for the Royal Canadian Navy's deHavilland Canada-built Grumman Trackers! Early example of the confusing globalized subcontracting that's fundamental to the aviation industry nowadays.)

                          Stude-built R1820s did indeed see service on various other types besides B-17s both during and after World War II. Canadian Warplane Heritage's Douglas Dakota, actually a prewar airline DC-3, is Wright-powered, and I had a close look at the engines one recent visit to the museum...but they're both Wright Aeronautical-built Cyclones. Posted a pic of one on P'bucket anyway, as they look exactly like the Stude units.

                          S.
                          Last edited by Steve T; 10-09-2011, 05:49 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roscomacaw View Post
                            And one might conclude that the exhaust manifolds were NOT something that Studebaker provided on their engines.

                            I've read that the aircraft engine builders did not provide exhaust manifolds as there were many different types of aircraft they built for. It was up to the aircraft manufacturer to provide exhaust manifolds designed for the specific aircraft type and model it would be installed on.
                            Poet...Mystic...Soldier of Fortune. As always...self-absorbed, adversarial, cocky and in general a malcontent.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X