|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 11, 2011 22:58:39 GMT 12
Did the CAC Ceres sound the same as a Harvard? It had the same engine didn't it? But I'm not sure about the throaty sound from the prop tips - was the Ceres the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 12, 2011 8:30:33 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jul 12, 2011 8:31:52 GMT 12
Ceres had a geared engine with a 3 bladed prop so tip speed would have been less
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jul 12, 2011 16:19:47 GMT 12
The operating speed of a Ceres spreading super was, of course, less than the operating speed of a Harvard in the training role. The airframe is basically re-jigged to fly slower.
That's why converting a Ceres back to a Wirraway is no small exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by dakman on Jul 12, 2011 17:02:30 GMT 12
Remember the Ceres sound similar to a Beaver but
more muffled
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Jul 12, 2011 17:27:58 GMT 12
The Wasp engine in the Ceres were all converted direct drive motors. This was done as it gave 50% more static thrust over the Wirraway. The additional power is always welcome on a ag scene  . |
|
|
|
Post by curtiss on Jul 12, 2011 18:17:48 GMT 12
Dont agree about the direct drive.The Ceres that I owned ( ZK BZO) had a geared engine. The spare engine that I collected was the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 12, 2011 18:22:30 GMT 12
Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomarse on Jul 12, 2011 20:38:31 GMT 12
I'd have said very similar engine note but with much less prop "bark"
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Jul 13, 2011 15:28:20 GMT 12
I would take your response as beign correct Curtiss. I was going off an old CAC brochure from 1957 which I took my response from. When it came to production they might have found the direct drive modification negligable to performance and profit. Anyway would be handy to know that it was geared for those rivet counting ag plane model builders out there... like me |
|
|
|
Post by curtiss on Jul 13, 2011 19:19:10 GMT 12
mstokes - Your comment about the CAC brochure has made me look further. It looks like you were on the right track. I still have a Ceres maint manual and it lists two engine options! It says the powerplant may be either an R1340 S3HI-G-CER geared engine or modified to direct drive R1340 S3HI-GMD. Installation is the same except for the prop. It comments that the choice is to suit operators requirements. Props are either 10 ft dia for the geared engine or 9 ft 6 in for the direct drive using the same basic blade ( 6101). This blade is the same as the Harvard. Different (wide blades) were fitted to geared engines on aircraft No 6 and subseguent, which was what was fitted to BZO. On the "noise" side it would result in two very different sounding aircraft due to the prop speeds being quite different and different blade shape on some aircraft. A confusing answer to a simple question....  |
|
|
|
Post by thomarse on Jul 13, 2011 20:57:02 GMT 12
All Ceres were 3-bladed weren't they? Someone once told me they had a Lancaster prop.
|
|
|
|
Post by curtiss on Jul 14, 2011 19:04:34 GMT 12
Correct, all are 3 blade. They do look very similar but the Ceres Counterweight (bracket) prop has D shank blades and I am pretty sure that the Lancaster hydromatic prop has E shank blades.
|
|
|
|
Post by studentpilot on Jul 24, 2011 19:07:07 GMT 12
The Ceres had a twin outlet exhaust. There were 4 cylinders going into one pipe and 5 into the other giving it an off beat sound compared to 985's in Beavers or 1340's in Harvards. They had a very distinctive note. There are other radial instalations with twin outlets (Stagerwing) but they usually were joined at the top making a full system, the Ceres had two separate systems.
|
|
.
