Stargazer2006 said:In case you never watched Francis Ford Coppola's movie "Tucker", with Jeff Bridges playing the main part, it is absolute must seeing. The soundtrack by Joe Jackson is also excellent, the cameo by Howard Hughes and his H-4 Hercules is a pure moment of joy... And so are all the surviving Tucker cars (46 out of 50 built) that gather for the film's final scene...). Unfortunately there is no mention in the movie that Tucker ever designed an aircraft as such.
Almost forgot: that's the only movie directed by "Francis Coppola", with no "Ford" in between. The Ford company was largely responsible for Tucker's demise, though there is no actual mention of it in the movie. Coppola probably saw this as a subtle hint of that fact...
We "know" very little about the Tucker Aircraft Company, as to the use of the AL-5 designation what's the originalHi,
we know this aircraft was called AL-5,what are the other 4 designs ?,we got only a four-seat
light airplane project.
I think it would depend on how the two engines were combined. If the two four-cylinder units were mounted nose-to-nose on a common gearbox, there might conceivably be four exhaust stacks on each side.The L-510 is an inline 8 cylinder engine made up of two 4 cylinder engines mounted inline, which means that it's going to have all of the exhaust stacks on one side of the fuselage and the induction system on the other.
... and we also must note the company produced a motors ?.
What does this refer to?
jcf was discussing Harry Miller's L-510 engine for Tucker. AFAIK, Preston Tucker relied exclusively on Miller and his team for engine designs (or adaptations). Of course, later on, Tucker bought out Air-Cooled Motor Corporation to gain access to the Franklin 6A ... but that was for automotive use.
Were there other aero-engine designs distinct to Tucker Aviation or the Tucker Corporation?
Yes, the AL-5 designation has been repeated in several books, but what's the original source?My dear Jcf,
the source is the book of Tony Buttler,ASP1,and we also must note the company produced a motors ?.
Yep, I've played with various layouts including that one, but according to Mark Dees the crankshafts of the twoI think it would depend on how the two engines were combined. If the two four-cylinder units were mounted nose-to-nose on a common gearbox, there might conceivably be four exhaust stacks on each side.
2,000 horsepower from only 1,200 cubic inches sounds optimistic. You might be able to supercharge a race engine to that level for a few minutes, but I doubt if the engine would last very long.Yes, the AL-5 designation has been repeated in several books, but what's the original source?
Tucker didn't actually produce any engines, he just repeatedly tried to get the services to pay to turn
some of Harry Miller's concepts into hardware. Most of the designs pre-dated Tucker Aviation and
were recycled by Tucker. Harry's horsepower numbers were rather optimistic, to say the least.View attachment 707320
Inverted V-16, 1200 cu.in, 2,000hp.
View attachment 707321
V-16, 464.5 cu.in., 600 hp.
View attachment 707322
V-16 for Keith Rider.
... Secondly, that 3-view drawing is obviously for a specialized race plane...
That's screamingly optimistic for engines then. Most aircraft engines were still working towards one hp per cubic inch, even the mighty Merlin was 1500hp out of 1650cubic inches.Inverted V-16, 1200 cu.in, 2,000hp.
(image deleted for space)
V-16, 464.5 cu.in., 600 hp.
Yes, I know thus why I stated it was for Keith Rider.2,000 horsepower from only 1,200 cubic inches sounds optimistic. You might be able to supercharge a race engine to that level for a few minut s, but I doubt if the engine would last very long.
Secondly, that 3-view drawing is obviously for a specialized race plane. 1930s race planes were notoriously difficult to control at slow air speeds with their small control surfaces and poor visibility from the cockpit.
Very optimistic numbers apparently based on the idea that as they achieved up to 250hp, at 8,000rpm, with the supercharged 91 cu.in. Miller 91 I-8 engine and that the two supercharged 1,113 cu.in. V-16s that Miller and Leo Goosen designed for Gar Wood in 1931 achieved 1,325hp at 4,000rpm and 1,800 at 6,000rpm. But, in the case of the Wood engines this was with massive Schweizer-Cummins Roots-type superchargers and the engines were never fully reliable. The engines were sold on by Wood and operated in naturally aspirated form, making 930hp at 4,500 rpm. Both engines survived and have been restored and installed in the restored Gar Wood Miss America VIII. The angle between the cylinder banks is 54º. BTW design of the engine started at the end of May - early June 1931 and the first engine run was on 25 August 1931.That's screamingly optimistic for engines then. Most aircraft engines were still working towards one hp per cubic inch, even the mighty Merlin was 1500hp out of 1650cubic inches.
Might be achievable if they spun that fast, I was not expecting 4500+rpm out of a large displacement aircraft engine and then reduced to ~2000rpm at the prop.Very optimistic numbers apparently based on the idea that as they achieved up to 250hp, at 8,000rpm, with the supercharged 91 cu.in. Miller 91 I-8 engine and that the two supercharged 1,113 cu.in. V-16s that Miller and Leo Goosen designed for Gar Wood in 1931 achieved 1,325hp at 4,000rpm and 1,800 at 6,000rpm. But, in the case of the Wood engines this was with massive Schweizer-Cummins Roots-type superchargers and the engines were never fully reliable. The engines were sold on by Wood and operated in naturally aspirated form, making 930hp at 4,500 rpm. Both engines survived and have been restored and installed in the restored Gar Wood Miss America VIII. The angle between the cylinder banks is 54º. BTW design of the engine started at the end of May - early June 1931 and the first engine run was on 25 August 1931.
In some ways the numbers for the 464.5 cu.in. and 1,200 cu.in. V-16s are conservative.
![]()
He was involved in the Miller-Ford Indy cars, he convinced Edsel Ford to fund them, and promised in earlyAir Classics magazine for March 2019 produces a 13 page long article
written by Marshall Wainwright. about Tucker and his exploits..
The man was not an aeronautical engineer , but a salesman who did a
lot of selfpromting according the article.
It seems that the XP-57 was his only try to put an aircraft design on paper (and in production)
Tucker type number shoud be AL-2 .This left the question if there was an AL-1
so far the text.
Besides his light weight fighter, he was also involved in the construction of Indi race cars, an armoured combat car
a gun turret and a small series of limousines.
According to the author, no original drawing of the Tucker fighter was found.
The drive ratio of the 7" centrifugal supercharger of the Miller 91 was 5.35:1, 42,800rpm at 8,000rpm, so yeah he liked things to be spinning fast.Might be achievable if they spun that fast, I was not expecting 4500+rpm out of a large displacement aircraft engine and then reduced to ~2000rpm at the prop.
Nope, there's simply not enough known and the design appears to have followed the XP-57.Can we assume that,the AL-1 was the four-place airplane ?.
Nope, there's simply not enough known and the design appears to have followed the XP-57.
It would be a matter of conjecture rather than assumption.
Trying to fit everything from any given company, especially small ones, into an exact sequence
is a questionable pursuit. Especially as it's not uncommon for earlier concepts/designs to be
retroactively assigned a number, which can be arbitrary and not necessarily chronological.
But the XP-57 was studied in 5/1940 and up to 1941,and the Four-Place design was clearly the basis for it,why not ?.