G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board » Do You Like Old Aircraft? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through December 01, 2017Slaughter30 12-01-17  10:17 am
         

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tootal
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 10:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

To think about how every part in that engine had to weigh the same to maintain balance. They might have added weight someplace to balance them but knowing the German's they probably did it the hard and proper way. That's a lot of mass to be spinning at those rpm's!

As far as fuel, some of the old engines didn't have a throttle, they ran wide open all the time and used the ignition to start and stop the engine to control rpm.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tootal
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

And just to confuse you some more...





A Wankel rotary in a plane!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

As far as fuel, some of the old engines didn't have a throttle, they ran wide open all the time and used the ignition to start and stop the engine to control rpm.

True, and those planes were a handful for novice pilots, having to constantly be blipping the ignition off, but not so much that the engine stalls. Plays havoc with elevator and rudder inputs too, as you alternate between full and zero prop wash. No doubt this simplified carbonation, not having to have spinning throttle linkages, etc., but my question is about the fuel delivery. I would think any sort of rotating seal would be very leakage prone. Probably not the best thing around all those spinning exhaust headers. Lot's of ways to die in those old planes!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chauly
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I believe the carburetor was through the firewall mounting flange into the crankcase. The intake and exhaust valves were actuated by a single push (pull) rod.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Rh%C3%B4ne
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The German engine was a licensed copy of a French one.

Not all rotaries had no throttle control, but the ignition switch controlled one makes the famous movie noise so that's what most people think.

The carb was stationery. Fuel/air mix went up to the heads through internal or external tubes. Will post pics.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

Some engines used an ignition system that could fire all or some or one cylinder each 4 strokes.

The rotary was dropped after the war because over a certain size, about 200 hp, it used too much power spinning itself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.cams.net.nz/Gnome%20Remanufacture.html

New built copies from New Zealand . Mechanical pornography.

(Message edited by aesquire on December 01, 2017)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Well I guess that's better than what I was thinking with a fuel line needing a spinning seal. I would bet they were plagued with vacuum leaks though! It's pretty amazing trying to understand how they dealt with various engineering hurdles.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Oh just look at the slipper rod connections and swoon.

If I won the lottery I'd have one of the N Zed engines on order to put in a Fokker D.VIII replica.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.rotecengines.com/

Here's the current manufacturer of small radial engines. The difference is major. The crank turns the propeller and the crankcase bolts to the plane.

This version, like the big WW2 engines, has a gearbox to reduce prop rpm. There are a few in motorcycle use. : )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 11:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.vernermotor.com/index.html

Eastern Europe manufacturer. Direct drive propeller with larger displacement per hp. Slower turning.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 12:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.animatedengines.com/

http://www.animatedengines.com/gnome.html

And if you really want to waste some time looking at oddball engines....

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/unusualIC eng/unusualICeng.htm

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dwardo
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

It's always been my guess that rotary engines were conceived because the technology for air-cooled engines wasn't mature, and spinning them would add cooling. I'm just speculating, though. Otherwise, why invent that monstrosity?? The liquid-cooled engines of the time, i.e., Mercedes, BMW, Hispano, were very advanced.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 12:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I was taught to fly RC planes by the guy who developed this scale model radial.



I got to see a lot of his prototype work as it was developed. Awesome seeing it starting up in person!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chauly
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 12:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

My thought would surmise that by attaching the prop to the engine, it eliminated a heavy gear train to slow it down to prop speed, and the reaction and thrust forces went through a broad flange at the firewall.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 12:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

WW1 engines varied.

Some had only one pushrod & valve rocker, with the intake spring loaded, others 2 pushrods & rocker arms with both valves controlled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_Monosoupape

Some had fully adjustable carbs so you'd work the throttle like a modern engine, with a mixture control for choke and tuning as the air got thinner as you climbed.

The airplanes of the day had mostly poor airfoils, thin and under cambered, which increased drag rapidly at speed, and were usually tail heavy and marginally stable, if stable at all.

The Junkers company developed cantilever wings and "modern" fat airfoils, using metal wings, but the structures were heavy, and they didn't catch on right away, ( Jack Northrop of Flying Wing fame developed multi cellular lightweight aluminum stressed skin wing design later ) and The Fokker company copied the design in wood for their D.VII & D.VIII fighters. The better airfoil was the reason the D.VII became the top fighter of it's day. ( the D.VIII was too late to make much difference, but did make the last kill in WW1 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 12:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

...the reaction and thrust forces went through a broad flange at the firewall.

correct! Also spinning the engine cooled it on the ground and in flight.

However, what you point out was also the eventual downfall of the Rotary engine, as higher engine speeds and reduction gearing give more power per pound, and you can easily see that as rotaries got bigger and heavier, the forces on the crank bolted to the airplane and the gyroscopic forces would quickly get out of proportion to the advantages.
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration