Good use for old radial egines?

[Flyingmonk]

http://www.geocities.com/viewptmd/Radial.jpg

[[email protected]]

Is it a radial or a rotary?!!!!

[[email protected]]

Look fun, thanks.

More:-

http://thekneeslider.com/

scroll down.

[Flyingmonk]

wrote:
> Is it a radial or a rotary?!!!!

Most definitely a radial. A rotary is the Wangle (SP?) engine as in
the Mazda cars.

Monk

[[email protected]]

>> Is it a radial or a rotary?!!!!

>Most definitely a radial. A rotary is the Wangle (SP?) engine as in
>the Mazda cars

True, however in the context of a radial engine, a rotary
is like a radial except that the crank is bolted to
the aeroplane/motorcycle and the cylinders to the
propeller/whatever. This seemed more exciting
in a motorbike and therefore surely more
desireable?

I suspect that rotary engines preceeded radials
and I am pretty sure that for example the WW1
Sopwith Camel used a rotary.


Googling has turned up what may be a rotary engined
motorbike from a while back (1920s).

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/me/megola.htm
http://www.cybermotorcycle.com/euro/brands/megola.htm

Unfortunately it appears to be safely ensconsed
within the front wheel. Not very exciting?
Well, steering may prove to be exciting?

[Michael Ware]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > Is it a radial or a rotary?!!!!
>
> Most definitely a radial. A rotary is the Wangle (SP?) engine as in
> the Mazda cars.
>
> Monk
>
Wankel engine http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

I hate to think how much that bike weighs.

[[email protected]]

> Wankel engine http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html
> I hate to think how much that bike weighs.

Various manufactures (OK maybe 2) have made Wankel engined
bikes in production.

Norton
http://www.millville.org/workshops_f/kess_mech/tools/1tools/norton.html
They raced them seriously too IIRC.
I suspect that the Norton engine design may still be
in production. It used a novel rotor cooling
system where (IIRC) air was drawn through the inside
of the rotor. (Induction air? - surely not)

Suzuki
http://www.suzukicycles.org/RE5/RE5-Rotary.shtml

Sorry if this is too OT.

[Flyingmonk]

anybody wrote:
>True, however in the context of a radial engine, a rotary
>is like a radial except that the crank is bolted to
>the aeroplane/motorcycle and the cylinders to the
>propeller/whatever. This seemed more exciting
>in a motorbike and therefore surely more
>desireable?

I have heard, seen and read that some radials did have the shaft bolted
to the airframe. That would be really interesting to have on a bike
huh? I wonder who'll be the first to do that.

Monk

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On 15 May 2006 19:45:39 -0700, "Flyingmonk" > wrote in
om>:

> ... I have heard, seen and read that some radials did have the shaft bolted
>to the airframe. ...

They were called "rotary engines." Very different from the Mazda rotary.

I simply could not believe my eyes the first time I saw one in the Curtiss
museum. I read the sign several times. I still thought someone must
have gotten it wrong.

The were used extensively in WW I by both sides.

Here is a magnificent page with an animated gif:

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

The only detail left off the page is the effect that the castor oil from
the total-loss lubricating system had on the pilots. It is said that
some landed off-field to deal with the consequent call of nature.

Most of the rotaries had no throttle. Some were on/off only.
Others could cut a few cylinders to reduce power.

I've seen some fly at Old Rhinebeck:

http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

If I'm not mistaken, they're still flying a few vintage WW I engines,
not reconstructions.

You can hear the pilots blipping the on/off switch as they come
in for a landing.

Marty

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Wankel engine http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html
>> I hate to think how much that bike weighs.
>
> Various manufactures (OK maybe 2) have made Wankel engined
> bikes in production

Which of course is not even close to the true rotary engines of the early
1900s.

[Flyingmonk]

I stand corrected. Thanks for that info and the links. Learn
something new every day. As Ms. Goody Two-Shoe Martha Stuart said,
It's a good thing.

Monk

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On 15 May 2006 19:45:39 -0700, "Flyingmonk" > wrote in
> om>:
>
> > ... I have heard, seen and read that some radials did have the shaft bolted
> >to the airframe. ...
>
> They were called "rotary engines." Very different from the Mazda rotary.
>
> I simply could not believe my eyes the first time I saw one in the Curtiss
> museum. I read the sign several times. I still thought someone must
> have gotten it wrong.
>
> The were used extensively in WW I by both sides.
>
> Here is a magnificent page with an animated gif:
>
> http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html
>
> The only detail left off the page is the effect that the castor oil from
> the total-loss lubricating system had on the pilots. It is said that
> some landed off-field to deal with the consequent call of nature.
>
> Most of the rotaries had no throttle. Some were on/off only.
> Others could cut a few cylinders to reduce power.
>
> I've seen some fly at Old Rhinebeck:
>
> http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/
>
> If I'm not mistaken, they're still flying a few vintage WW I engines,
> not reconstructions.
>
> You can hear the pilots blipping the on/off switch as they come
> in for a landing.
>
> Marty

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 at 18:20:24 in message
. com>,
wrote:
>True, however in the context of a radial engine, a rotary
>is like a radial except that the crank is bolted to
>the aeroplane/motorcycle and the cylinders to the
>propeller/whatever. This seemed more exciting
>in a motorbike and therefore surely more
>desireable?

Not really. All that rotating mass of a rotary engine could have some
very nasty gyroscopic effects - might even make the bike too stable! It
could matter whether the engine rotated in the same or opposite
direction to the wheels.
>
>I suspect that rotary engines preceeded radials
>and I am pretty sure that for example the WW1
>Sopwith Camel used a rotary.

The Gnome, Clerget, Bentley and the Le Rhone rotaries were the various
engines of the Camel. They ranged in power from 100 to 150 hp.

The rotary engines meant that the Camel could turn much faster to the
right than the left. Some 5,490 were built.
--
David CL Francis

[[email protected]]

David CL Francis wrote:

> On Mon, 15 May 2006 at 18:20:24 in message
> . com>,
> wrote:
> >True, however in the context of a radial engine, a rotary
> >is like a radial except that the crank is bolted to
> >the aeroplane/motorcycle and the cylinders to the
> >propeller/whatever. This seemed more exciting
> >in a motorbike and therefore surely more
> >desireable?
>
> Not really. All that rotating mass of a rotary engine could have some
> very nasty gyroscopic effects - might even make the bike too stable! It
> could matter whether the engine rotated in the same or opposite
> direction to the wheels.

I rest my case. What could be more exciting that that?
Sorry, if the joke was not clear:-)

[Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)]

On 2006-05-30 15:03, wrote:
> David CL Francis wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 at 18:20:24 in message
. com>,
wrote:
>>
>>>True, however in the context of a radial engine, a rotary
>>>is like a radial except that the crank is bolted to
>>>the aeroplane/motorcycle and the cylinders to the
>>>propeller/whatever. This seemed more exciting
>>>in a motorbike and therefore surely more
>>>desireable?
>>
>>Not really. All that rotating mass of a rotary engine could have some
>>very nasty gyroscopic effects - might even make the bike too stable! It
>>could matter whether the engine rotated in the same or opposite
>>direction to the wheels.
>
>
> I rest my case. What could be more exciting that that?
> Sorry, if the joke was not clear:-)
>

I seem to recall a practical joke someone performed by some students;
a heavy electric gyroscope was powered up, packed in a crate and sent
through mail to the physics faculty at a local uni.

The mailman was seen making it from the postoffice to the first turn on
his moped, then for some reason continuing straight into the woods...

/Rolf

[Jim Macklin]

That is probably illegal, spinning gyros, compress gases,
would require special rules or be banned.

"Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)" > wrote in message
...
| On 2006-05-30 15:03, wrote:
| > David CL Francis wrote:
| >
| >
| >>On Mon, 15 May 2006 at 18:20:24 in message
| . com>,
| wrote:
| >>
| >>>True, however in the context of a radial engine, a
rotary
| >>>is like a radial except that the crank is bolted to
| >>>the aeroplane/motorcycle and the cylinders to the
| >>>propeller/whatever. This seemed more exciting
| >>>in a motorbike and therefore surely more
| >>>desireable?
| >>
| >>Not really. All that rotating mass of a rotary engine
could have some
| >>very nasty gyroscopic effects - might even make the bike
too stable! It
| >>could matter whether the engine rotated in the same or
opposite
| >>direction to the wheels.
| >
| >
| > I rest my case. What could be more exciting that that?
| > Sorry, if the joke was not clear:-)
| >
|
| I seem to recall a practical joke someone performed by
some students;
| a heavy electric gyroscope was powered up, packed in a
crate and sent
| through mail to the physics faculty at a local uni.
|
| The mailman was seen making it from the postoffice to the
first turn on
| his moped, then for some reason continuing straight into
the woods...
|
| /Rolf