R680 Powered Beech 18

[Robert Bates]

Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on one
engine?

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert Bates" > wrote in message
news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02...
> Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
> performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on
one
> engine?

It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
> It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A
Bamboo
> Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I never
heard it used to describe a Beech 18.

Pete

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02>,
"Robert Bates" > wrote:

> Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
> performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on one
> engine?
>
>

Are you sure that it isn't a Jacobs-powered MOdel 18? I used to know a
man who had one (late 1970s) in CA. He used to take it to all the
fly-ins. It had smaller fins/rudders than the C/D/H-18 and bumped cowls.

[Ditch]

>It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
>Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.
>

That seems way underpowered for Beech-18. Fully loaded, the R-985 Beech-18 is
interesting single engine.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A
> Bamboo
> > Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.
>
> Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I
never
> heard it used to describe a Beech 18.
>
> Pete


The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin Beech
as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
airplane.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
> The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin
Beech
> as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
> staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
> airplane.

Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

[Big John]

Robert

The Beech 18/ C-45/ AT-11 were the same 'basic' airplane.

The first 40 built in the late 30's had 330 HP Jacobs with P & W 450
HP engines in the Military C-45/AT-11/etc.

I got some time in the C-45.with the 450 HP P & W engines.

Your R680 is the 300 HP Lycoming (Model HRE). Didn't find any mention
of this engine in the early D-18's but may have been a proto or first
engine before they went to the 330 Jake?

C-45 bird flew ok. Would fly on one engine after airborne an cleaned
up . Not any super performance of course. Max altitude on SE was
probably 5K or so (from memory).

Much better performer than 'Bobcat' on SE.

Was a good little twin for its era.

Some are still flying today.

On the Lycoming and Jacobs. Don't have the weight on these birds but
were probably much lighter than the military versions (Military always
added a lot o 'junk' and gross went up). Even with a light civilian
bird, I'd guess the Lycoming was a little short on power so they went
to the Jacobs?

Enough. Others may have some more first hand experience on the Twin
Beach and knowledge of very early versions?

Big John


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:12:00 GMT, "Robert Bates" >
wrote:

>Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
>performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on one
>engine?
>

[Ditch]

>Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
>Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
>that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
>invisible ink.

It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Rick Durden]

Robert,

Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That
has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of
the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The
early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be
marginal at best.

Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered
model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most
manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about
performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is
the serial number of this airplane?

All the best,
Rick

"Robert Bates" > wrote in message news:<k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02>...
> Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
> performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on one
> engine?

[Peter Duniho]

"Ditch" > wrote in message
...
> It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?

Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes.

If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who already
knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother
replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense at
all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't familiar
with the aircraft in question.

Pete

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:02:42 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>"Robert Bates" > wrote in message
>news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02...
>> Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
>> performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on
>one
>> engine?
>
>It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
>Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Pete wrote:
>Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I never
>heard it used to describe a Beech 18.
>
>Pete

Dave wrote:
>The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin Beech
>as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
>staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
>airplane.

Pete wrote:
>Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
>Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
>that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
>invisible ink.

On 19 Nov 2003 15:27:40 GMT, (Ditch) wrote:
>>Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
>>Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
>>that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
>>invisible ink.
>
>It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?
>-John

Pete wrote:
>Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes.
>
>If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who already
>knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother
>replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense at
>all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't familiar
>with the aircraft in question.
>
>Pete

Pete, my take: Dave did not initially refer to the Beech 18 as the
Bamboo Bomber. He just tossed that in for comparison purposes because
the two airplanes had the same (at one time) engines, and he pointed
out that the Bamboo Bomber was smaller than the Beech 18. You
mistakenly thought he'd said that the Beech 18 was smaller. The "BB"
in Dave's sentence means "Bamboo Bomber" not Beech 18.

Hope that clears things up.

Corky Scott

[Peter Duniho]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> [...] You
> mistakenly thought he'd said that the Beech 18 was smaller. The "BB"
> in Dave's sentence means "Bamboo Bomber" not Beech 18.

You are right that I miswrote my reply. However, the point remains the
same, regardless of which plane was being described as smaller. His
response was noninformative except to people who already knew the
information he conveyed.

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Ditch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?
>
> Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes.
>
> If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who
already
> knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother
> replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense
at
> all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't
familiar
> with the aircraft in question.
>
> Pete

If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the conversation.
Don't expect a complete historical and technical dissertation with every
post. That's what Juptners is for. In this case my guess is Volume 8
covers the subject aircraft but I am not going to look it up for you.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
> If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the
conversation.

The point of public discussion is so that others may participate and learn
from what others have to share.

Your comment made sense only to someone that already knows enough about the
airplanes in question that they would already know what you said. Why say
it at all, if you don't feel you should make your comment understandable to
folks not "in the know"?

Pete

[[email protected]]

On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

snip

>Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That
>has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of
>the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The
>early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be
>marginal at best.
>
>Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered
>model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most
>manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about
>performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is
>the serial number of this airplane?

snip

My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the
Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's.

There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that
are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc.
from the the Beech twin trainer.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm

TC

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:02:42 GMT
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

>
> "Robert Bates" > wrote in message
> news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02...
> > Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
> > performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on
> one
> > engine?
>
> It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
> Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.


Aren't there more than one kind of R680? I thought there was 3 or 4 models.
What did they put into the Bamboo Bomber?

R. Hubbell
>
>
>
>
>

[Robert Bates]

The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I
thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more
about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the Jacobs
powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an
interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless
Beech 18.




> wrote in message
...
> On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden)
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That
> >has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of
> >the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The
> >early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be
> >marginal at best.
> >
> >Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered
> >model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most
> >manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about
> >performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is
> >the serial number of this airplane?
>
> snip
>
> My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the
> Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's.
>
> There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that
> are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc.
> from the the Beech twin trainer.
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm
>
> TC
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert Bates" > wrote in message
news:EhXub.249932$HS4.2225277@attbi_s01...
> The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I
> thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more
> about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the
Jacobs
> powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an
> interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless
> Beech 18.

Do you think that in the long run R985s might be the best route? They would
give you better resale and are pretty near bullet proof. Fuel burn would be
a consideration and might eat up a lot of the increase in resale.

[Ditch]

>C-45 bird flew ok. Would fly on one engine after airborne an cleaned
>up . Not any super performance of course. Max altitude on SE was
>probably 5K or so (from memory).

I remember when I trained on the Beech-18 (E-18S...I think), the manual refered
to the installation of JATO pods to "assist in the event of an engine failure
or for short take-offs".
I wish we had them when I was taking off fully loaded with cargo over a high
population area. Fun fun fun...

>Some are still flying today

There are quite a few still flying today. I can think of 5-6 cargo companies
off the top of my head that still use them and private ones are all over the
place.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <EhXub.249932$HS4.2225277@attbi_s01>,
"Robert Bates" > wrote:

> The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I
> thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more
> about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the Jacobs
> powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an
> interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless
> Beech 18.
>


What you would end up with is an underpowered, overweight,
underperforming paperweight, as the STC process would be overwhelming.

[Craig]

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Robert
>
> The Beech 18/ C-45/ AT-11 were the same 'basic' airplane.
>
> The first 40 built in the late 30's had 330 HP Jacobs with P & W 450
> HP engines in the Military C-45/AT-11/etc.
>
> I got some time in the C-45.with the 450 HP P & W engines.
>
> Your R680 is the 300 HP Lycoming (Model HRE). Didn't find any mention
> of this engine in the early D-18's but may have been a proto or first
> engine before they went to the 330 Jake?


Don't forget that the early aircraft certified under TC's 630 and
A684 could have been powered by Wright 760's....

Craig C.

[Rick Durden]

TC,

The AT-10 you mentioned did ring a few bells. Talk about an
incredibly rare airplane that wasn't built to last...wooden fuel tanks
wrapped in rubber, amazing. I wonder if any are in existence outside
of museums, they'd be even more costly to keep flying than a Cessna
T-50.

I've flown the 300 hp Boeing Stearmans and have always thought that
was the correct engine for that airframe as the original 220 hp
version is pretty badly underpowered. I had no idea that the engine
mod was essentially a bolt on from the AT-10. I had a vague
understanding that a lot of BT-13s gave their all for the R-985 mount
so the Boeings could become crop dusters.

So, AT-10s from Beech live on (in part) on Boeings built about five
miles southeast...

Now, as to putting an R-680 on a Beech 18 airframe that wasn't
originally designed for the small engines....well there are
'interesting' ideas all the time in aviation. Just yesterday I got
word of a guy who droped a Chevy V8 into a Cessna 150, used rubber
hoses for the fuel lines and couldn't seem to understand why the FAA
was a little less than understanding about the whole thing. Just
because he hadn't sought to get any sort of approval before deciding
to fly it...

All the best,
Rick

wrote in message >...
> On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden)
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That
> >has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of
> >the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The
> >early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be
> >marginal at best.
> >
> >Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered
> >model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most
> >manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about
> >performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is
> >the serial number of this airplane?
>
> snip
>
> My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the
> Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's.
>
> There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that
> are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc.
> from the the Beech twin trainer.
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm
>
> TC

[Montblack]

("Rick Durden" wrote)
<snip>
> Now, as to putting an R-680 on a Beech 18 airframe that wasn't
> originally designed for the small engines....well there are
> 'interesting' ideas all the time in aviation. Just yesterday I got
> word of a guy who droped a Chevy V8 into a Cessna 150, used rubber
> hoses for the fuel lines and couldn't seem to understand why the FAA
> was a little less than understanding about the whole thing. Just
> because he hadn't sought to get any sort of approval before deciding
> to fly it...

Wonder if he took the engine out of his hot-rod Chevy Vega? You know the
Vega - Monster slicks in the rear (along with wheelie bars) and a gigantic
hood scoop for the engine. In about 1976, every neighborhood had one of
these creations - tooling around, doing burn-outs at stop signs, etc.

That was my first thought when I read your post ...can the pilot see over
the hood scoop?

--
Montblack

[Mike O'Malley]

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
> TC,

<snip lots of good stuff>

> Now, as to putting an R-680 on a Beech 18 airframe that wasn't
> originally designed for the small engines....well there are
> 'interesting' ideas all the time in aviation. Just yesterday I got
> word of a guy who droped a Chevy V8 into a Cessna 150, used rubber
> hoses for the fuel lines and couldn't seem to understand why the FAA
> was a little less than understanding about the whole thing. Just
> because he hadn't sought to get any sort of approval before deciding
> to fly it...
>

Sounds like someone was watching too much "Monster Garage" on Discovery. Makes
the banner tow company I worked for look good and professional.

--
Mike

[[email protected]]

On 20 Nov 2003 07:36:47 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

>TC,
>
>The AT-10 you mentioned did ring a few bells. Talk about an
>incredibly rare airplane that wasn't built to last...wooden fuel tanks
>wrapped in rubber, amazing. I wonder if any are in existence outside
>of museums, they'd be even more costly to keep flying than a Cessna
>T-50.
>
>I've flown the 300 hp Boeing Stearmans and have always thought that
>was the correct engine for that airframe as the original 220 hp
>version is pretty badly underpowered. I had no idea that the engine
>mod was essentially a bolt on from the AT-10. I had a vague
>understanding that a lot of BT-13s gave their all for the R-985 mount
>so the Boeings could become crop dusters.
>
>So, AT-10s from Beech live on (in part) on Boeings built about five
>miles southeast...
>
>Now, as to putting an R-680 on a Beech 18 airframe that wasn't
>originally designed for the small engines....well there are
>'interesting' ideas all the time in aviation. Just yesterday I got
>word of a guy who droped a Chevy V8 into a Cessna 150, used rubber
>hoses for the fuel lines and couldn't seem to understand why the FAA
>was a little less than understanding about the whole thing. Just
>because he hadn't sought to get any sort of approval before deciding
>to fly it...

sig snip

I'm one of those picky IA's that thinks "An aircraft or part is in an
Airworthy condition if it conforms/meets its type certificate data
sheet or proper altered condition" isn't an optional kind of
statement.

So when I dug into the maintenance records of a 300 hp Stearman at
annual time, the aforementioned STC got my attention. Thought the
AT-10 designation was vaguely familiar, dug out my dog-eared copy of
the The Immortal Twin Beech (Larry Ball) when I got home and found a
reference to it.

Have spent a lot more time working on the R985-AN14B than I have on
the 300 hp R680(don't remember the suffix). The R680 on the Stearman
wasn't exactly my favorite engine. I enjoyed driving it around, but
spent too much time working on it.

The R680 wasn't originally a top-oiled engine, instead had hollow
rocker shafts equipped with grease zerks. The 300 horse version I
worked on had an internal orifice that had to be inspected/cleaned
regularly to ensure/insure said top-oiling was present.

The valve train required frequent inspection/adjustment/rocker bearing
replacement (200 hours/annually tops). Was never sure whether this was
a lubrication issue, or an issue with the replacement parts that were
available.

The upper cylinder castings were kinda scary. Again, not sure if this
wasn't in part due to the "parts" available. All I know is that I blew
the sidewalls out of several of them while carefully r/r'ing the
rocker assemblies.

Contacted the guy that had overhauled the engine I was working on, he
told me in regards to TBO "if you think it's getting shaky, yank that
bitch-it will come apart on ya"-to paraphrase slightly.

Can't compare the 300 hp Stearman to any others, it was the only one
I've ever had the pleasure of flying. Couldn't get it to snap to save
my life, later found out that the military added extended stall/spin
strips on the bottom wing to aid the airflow in leaving the wing when
desired. Have looked at a bunch of other examples, have yet to come
across one with the strips installed.

Worked on "Super" 18's in the early 80's, performed all the
maintenance related to about 12,000 operating hours hauling auto
parts. Wish I had one to play with now...

Regards;

TC

[[email protected]]

On 20 Nov 2003 07:36:47 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

>TC,
>
>The AT-10 you mentioned did ring a few bells. Talk about an
>incredibly rare airplane that wasn't built to last...wooden fuel tanks
>wrapped in rubber, amazing. I wonder if any are in existence outside
>of museums, they'd be even more costly to keep flying than a Cessna
>T-50.
>
>I've flown the 300 hp Boeing Stearmans and have always thought that
>was the correct engine for that airframe as the original 220 hp
>version is pretty badly underpowered. I had no idea that the engine
>mod was essentially a bolt on from the AT-10. I had a vague
>understanding that a lot of BT-13s gave their all for the R-985 mount
>so the Boeings could become crop dusters.
>
>So, AT-10s from Beech live on (in part) on Boeings built about five
>miles southeast...
>
>Now, as to putting an R-680 on a Beech 18 airframe that wasn't
>originally designed for the small engines....well there are
>'interesting' ideas all the time in aviation. Just yesterday I got
>word of a guy who droped a Chevy V8 into a Cessna 150, used rubber
>hoses for the fuel lines and couldn't seem to understand why the FAA
>was a little less than understanding about the whole thing. Just
>because he hadn't sought to get any sort of approval before deciding
>to fly it...

sig snip

I'm one of those picky IA's that thinks "An aircraft or part is in an
Airworthy condition if it conforms/meets its type certificate data
sheet or proper altered condition" isn't an optional kind of
statement.

So when I dug into the maintenance records of a 300 hp Stearman at
annual time, the aforementioned STC got my attention. Thought the
AT-10 designation was vaguely familiar, dug out my dog-eared copy of
the The Immortal Twin Beech (Larry Ball) when I got home and found a
reference to it.

Have spent a lot more time working on the R985-AN14B than I have on
the 300 hp R680(don't remember the suffix). The R680 on the Stearman
wasn't exactly my favorite engine. I enjoyed driving it around, but
spent too much time working on it.

The R680 wasn't originally a top-oiled engine, instead had hollow
rocker shafts equipped with grease zerks. The 300 horse version I
worked on had an internal orifice that had to be inspected/cleaned
regularly to ensure/insure said top-oiling was present.

The valve train required frequent inspection/adjustment/rocker bearing
replacement (200 hours/annually tops). Was never sure whether this was
a lubrication issue, or an issue with the replacement parts that were
available.

The upper cylinder castings were kinda scary. Again, not sure if this
wasn't in part due to the "parts" available. All I know is that I blew
the sidewalls out of several of them while carefully r/r'ing the
rocker assemblies.

Contacted the guy that had overhauled the engine I was working on, he
told me in regards to TBO "if you think it's getting shaky, yank that
bitch-it will come apart on ya"-to paraphrase slightly.

Can't compare the 300 hp Stearman to any others, it was the only one
I've ever had the pleasure of flying. Couldn't get it to snap to save
my life, later found out that the military added extended stall/spin
strips on the bottom wing to aid the airflow in leaving the wing when
desired. Have looked at a bunch of other examples, have yet to come
across one with the strips installed.

Worked on "Super" 18's in the early 80's, performed all the
maintenance related to about 12,000 operating hours hauling auto
parts. Wish I had one to play with now...

Regards;

TC