Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Eades
Maybe the reason is in the design, in that each power stroke happens one cyl after the next, and so is more of a continuious "Push" on the big end? (does this line of thought make any sense?) (I have never seen the internals of one) Weight saving would have been one of the main reasons that moved aero engine designers to a radial.
|
Hi Lynn,
Maybe - good thought - although the firing order on all radials AFAIK is odd numbered cylinders from 1 and then even numbers - 1, 3, 5 7, 2, 4, 6, 1,...
The rotary aero engine and conventional crank inline engines preceded the radial. It was the rotary that offerred the weight saving through air cooling, but large horsepower rotary's (c. 200HP) were a heavy revolving mass that dangerously affected the pilots ability to control their machine. I think that's what inspired design thought toward the radial's reversed concept of fixed engine with revolving crank.
It's been commonly written that the Sopwith Camel having the pilot, fueltank and rotary engine grouped close together was a deadly design for novice pilots, but had certain turning advantages in the hands of practiced pilots due to the gyroscopic effect of the engine.
I read an article years ago by Gene DeMarco about a Sopwith Camel replica (possibly Cole Palen's) where I think he wrote that at that time he'd never flown a loop in it because by about 3/4 the way through he was flying at right angles to the direction from which he first entered the loop. It's amazing what Gene and his crew at TVAL in New Zealand are doing for Great War aircraft. And I gather that it was amazing what Cole could do too.
Regards
Alex