Milton's Howard 500 a fresh look!

TuFun said:
I had the Holley 600 cfm vacuum secondary carb on a 289. I had a set of jets to work with when dialing it in. The beauty of it was the Stang would run on 300 cfm around town and cruising, then all 600 cfm would kick in at 3000 rpm. The trans was a C4 which was reworked with B&M goodies... stuff like complete B&M valve body. I broke two trans racing before I went with this one. This fixed the weak link in the drive train.
Click to expand...

600 cfm would be good on a 289 or 302 that has been built for performance. Ford was maligned for putting "restrictive" carburetors on their engines. The truth is that Ford pretty well matched their carburetors to their engines for optimum performance. I think the 289-4V (4V-Windsor, not the 289-HiPo) and 302-4V (4V-Windsor, not the Boss 302) engines were equipped with 470 cfm equal bore Autolite carbs. Although 470 cfm does not sound like much, it is ideal for factory 289 and 302 engines with factory exhaust systems. Now for the 289-HiPo Ford used a Holley 4 barrel carb that flowed 600 cfm, but the HiPo option used special heads to increase the compression ration, a far more aggressive camshaft profile, and special exhaust manifolds; this engine really needed a 600 cfm carb.



TuFun said:
Thanks Stan and Maarten, I fly the Howard a lot, and didn't expect this project would turn out the way it has. It is a beautiful aircraft to look at and fly! Where can you get a corporate aircraft that has two R-2800 18 cylinder engines! -TuFun
Click to expand...

The list of corporate aircraft that used the R-2800 would be a very short list. The Howard 500 and Douglas A-26's converted for executive transport use.
 
stansdds said:
600 cfm would be good on a 289 or 302 that has been built for performance. Ford was maligned for putting "restrictive" carburetors on their engines. The truth is that Ford pretty well matched their carburetors to their engines for optimum performance. I think the 289-4V (4V-Windsor, not the 289-HiPo) and 302-4V (4V-Windsor, not the Boss 302) engines were equipped with 470 cfm equal bore Autolite carbs. Although 470 cfm does not sound like much, it is ideal for factory 289 and 302 engines with factory exhaust systems. Now for the 289-HiPo Ford used a Holley 4 barrel carb that flowed 600 cfm, but the HiPo option used special heads to increase the compression ration, a far more aggressive camshaft profile, and special exhaust manifolds; this engine really needed a 600 cfm carb.
Click to expand...

'82 5.0 HO specs in my RS...

o Heads with smaller "high velocity" ports and valves
o "1973 Torino" profile flat tappet camshaft, duration 260° intake, 278° exhaust, lift of .416" intake, .444" exhaust
o Double row roller timing chain
o Aluminum intake manifold
o 369 cfm Motorcraft 2-barrel carburetor
o Added reduction pulleys


The list of corporate aircraft that used the R-2800 would be a very short list. The Howard 500 and Douglas A-26's converted for executive transport use.[/QUOTE]

Was more interested in the Fire Bomber version at one time, but will await for the A2A version, since it will have all the lines and rivets in place. Was working on rivet placement, but difficult to find good pics for it.

dkals.jpg
 
I once put a double pumper 600 Holley on a 283 Chevy. Way too much carb for a small street V-8. Put your foot in it and it would just bog the engine down. Best running 283 that I ever built for the street sported a Holly 390 4bl with vacuum secondaries. Put your foot in that one and you were gone.

(283 Small block fan here)
 
Willy said:
I once put a double pumper 600 Holley on a 283 Chevy. Way too much carb for a small street V-8. Put your foot in it and it would just bog the engine down. Best running 283 that I ever built for the street sported a Holly 390 4bl with vacuum secondaries. Put your foot in that one and you were gone.

(283 Small block fan here)
Click to expand...

Ah... the little 283! My friend had a '55 Chevy pickup with a 265. Most of my friends were running 327's, but the most impressive one was the '70 Heavy Chevy (Chevelle) with LS6 454/450hp! Had the M22 rock crusher tranny. It was a beast... a monster of a car. My other friend had a '70 Z28 SS with 350/350hp M21 4 speed! Other friends had Corvettes from '59 to '73... my favorite was '64 with header sidepipes. He added aircraft landing lights for those long desert drives (rally racing).
 
My head is spinning with the way this thread is jumping on and off topic. However I must add that I owned 2 Ford Falcons during the 70s and early 80. Both were V8s. The first was an XT model with a 289cc motor and the second was an XY model with a 351cc. Not being a rev head the only modifications I made was to add driving and fog lights as I was living in a country town and did a lot of driving at night and in adverse weather conditions. The only other addition was a item called a 'Shoo Roo' which emitted a sound only animals can pick up. Worked wonders keeping the kangaroos and wombats from suddenly appearing in front of me as if you were unfortunate enough to hit one of these animals you were almost certain to write your car off.
 
Wow! I have to be honest and say this aircraft never interested me, but with this paint all I can say is I'm clearing out a spot in my hanger! Fantastic work!
 
aeronca1 said:
Wow! I have to be honest and say this aircraft never interested me, but with this paint all I can say is I'm clearing out a spot in my hanger! Fantastic work!
Click to expand...

Not much interest in these types, unless it has guns, and can drop bombs! ;)

Qxnl2.jpg

​
 
You won't need a credit card as far as I know as it is a Milton Shupe model that has just been revamped which will make it freeware.
 
Plus it won't make a big difference in FS 2004, as it will only allow 1024 x 1024 texture files ...


:toilet:

All of those screenies are FS X. ;)
 
That kind of detail in FS9 is possible. I've seen it. But not everyone can pull it off.
 
Willy said:
That kind of detail in FS9 is possible. I've seen it. But not everyone can pull it off.
Click to expand...
Willy,

I believe you are thinking of multi-polygon modelling, rather than repainting.
As a painter you need to put up with what you have, and this is the most exquisite job I've ever seen! :salute:
Yes, there will be a quality loss in FS9, but this will still be by far the best remake of the year!
If you don't like it 'Kolbenfresser' , well just give it a miss! Your animation says it all! (Actually, I find it quite insulting!).

Stuart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top