Allison B-17

[Stephen Harding]

Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
Wright Cyclones.

Understand the modification added about 800 hp to the
aircraft.

Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?

Sorta "Lanc looking".


SMH

[M. H. Greaves]

Cant remeber exactly but werent the allison engines unsuitable because they
were no good above a certain altitude!?
"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
> with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
> Wright Cyclones.
>
> Understand the modification added about 800 hp to the
> aircraft.
>
> Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
> The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
> production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?
>
> Sorta "Lanc looking".
>
>
> SMH
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> Cant remeber exactly but werent the allison engines unsuitable because
they
> were no good above a certain altitude!?

The P-38 had a ceiling of forty thousand feet with Allison inlines.

Brooks

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
> > with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
> > Wright Cyclones.
> >
> > Understand the modification added about 800 hp to the
> > aircraft.
> >
> > Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
> > The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
> > production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?
> >
> > Sorta "Lanc looking".
> >
> >
> > SMH
> >
>
>

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

: Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?

The XB-38 was lost before much testing could be
done. It was slightly faster, but not enough
to make it worth the effort. And the V-1710
was of course much more vulnerable to combat
damage than a radial.

Later Boeing built an XB-39, which was a B-29
with four V-3420 engines, but this too was not
attractive enough to justify production.

Emmanuel Gustin

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> Cant remeber exactly but werent the allison engines unsuitable because
they
> were no good above a certain altitude!?

Depends on which Allison engines

When fitted with a turbo supercharger as in the P-38
they were fine, with a less capable blower setup
as used in the P-40 they were less good but then thats
tue of various marques or Merlin too.

Keith

[Jonathan Stilwell]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
> with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
> Wright Cyclones.

That would be the XB-38, the ninth production B-17E (41-2401) modified by
Vega with Allison V-1710-89 engines. According to "US Bombers" by Lloyd
Jones, the changes showed an increase in top speed of 10 mph over the B-17E,
with new increased wing fuel tanks giving a range of 3600 miles. The
aircraft was lost on 16 June 1943, 29 days after it's first flight, due to
an in-flight fire.

> Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
> The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
> production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?

The latter reason is the one given in the book.

Jon.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Jonathan Stilwell wrote:

>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
>>with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
>>Wright Cyclones.
>>
>>
>
>That would be the XB-38, the ninth production B-17E (41-2401) modified by
>Vega with Allison V-1710-89 engines. According to "US Bombers" by Lloyd
>Jones, the changes showed an increase in top speed of 10 mph over the B-17E,
>with new increased wing fuel tanks giving a range of 3600 miles. The
>aircraft was lost on 16 June 1943, 29 days after it's first flight, due to
>an in-flight fire.
>
>
>
>>Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
>>The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
>>production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?
>>
>>
>
>The latter reason is the one given in the book.
>
> Jon.
>
>
>

Sure is smooth lookin'!!
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-87.htm

[WaltBJ]

Along the same lines I have seen a picture of the XB39, a B29 with the
big 'double Allison' 24 cylinder engine. (2 V12s side by side geared
to a common drive shaft.)
I presume engine bugs forestalled its further development.
Walt BJ

[John Keeney]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
> with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
> Wright Cyclones.
>
> Understand the modification added about 800 hp to the
> aircraft.
>
> Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
> The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
> production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?

Mostly the later, the Vs were going else where.
In the end though, the extra power didn't do much for
the plane's speed: top speed went up 10 mph to 326 mph
but cruise stayed 226 mph. Of course it was carrying a
little extra fuel that stretched max ferry range from
3200 to 3600 miles.
The Air Force Museum will have something up on its
web site. Look under XB-38. The XB-39 would be the
equivalent experiment tried with a B-29

> Sorta "Lanc looking".
>
>
> SMH
>

[Mark and Kim Smith]

WaltBJ wrote:

>Along the same lines I have seen a picture of the XB39, a B29 with the
>big 'double Allison' 24 cylinder engine. (2 V12s side by side geared
>to a common drive shaft.)
>I presume engine bugs forestalled its further development.
>Walt BJ
>

From the USAF Museum web site.
"The XB-39 project was basically a proof-of-concept project to
demonstrate performance with liquid cooled 'Vee' engines. It was also
insurance against shortages of the production engine. Only XB-39 was
built; it was delivered the the US Army Air Force in early 1944 for
testing. Most of the problems with the standard B-29 production version
were fixed by mid-1944 and no orders for the XB-39 were placed."
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-88.htm

[M. H. Greaves]

yep, but like i say, i cant remember offhand, and i think it was either the
P51 or the P40, that had that trouble; no doubt there was a good valiud
reason at the time.
Its a similar sort of thing to the B17 at Duxford, they dont use the turbo's
because it tears hell out of the engines; thats what i was told by a
mechanic who was working on one of the engines at the time. They were
changing an engine and needed a certain part which was still on the a/c at
the time and the chap gave me an impromptu guided tour around it, as well as
inside; real nice chap.
I s'pose they dont fly the B17 as much as it would normally be operated so
they dont need the turbos and because they dont carry any heavy ordnance
these days either, what with the war being over and all that. lol
But i wonder, they obviously choose what weather they fly, as the turbo was
used to guard against carb' icing conditions as well as many other uses such
as more power.
I have a very interesting video i bought at an airshow called flying the B17
and it goes into the induction system at great length, real interesting
stuff.
Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or are
you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Cant remeber exactly but werent the allison engines unsuitable because
> they
> > were no good above a certain altitude!?
>
> The P-38 had a ceiling of forty thousand feet with Allison inlines.
>
> Brooks
>
> > "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
> > > with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
> > > Wright Cyclones.
> > >
> > > Understand the modification added about 800 hp to the
> > > aircraft.
> > >
> > > Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
> > > The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
> > > production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?
> > >
> > > Sorta "Lanc looking".
> > >
> > >
> > > SMH
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

personally i like the B17 with its Wright cyclones. But, each to his own,
no offence meant.
"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Stilwell wrote:
>
> >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >>Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
> >>with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
> >>Wright Cyclones.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That would be the XB-38, the ninth production B-17E (41-2401) modified by
> >Vega with Allison V-1710-89 engines. According to "US Bombers" by Lloyd
> >Jones, the changes showed an increase in top speed of 10 mph over the
B-17E,
> >with new increased wing fuel tanks giving a range of 3600 miles. The
> >aircraft was lost on 16 June 1943, 29 days after it's first flight, due
to
> >an in-flight fire.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
> >>The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
> >>production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The latter reason is the one given in the book.
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Sure is smooth lookin'!!
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-87.htm
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...

> Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or are
> you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!

Allison was the name of an engine manufacturer that made a
wide range of engines. IRC its now a subsidiary of RollsRoyce

Keith

[Dale]

In article >,
"M. H. Greaves" > wrote:

I don't know why the turbo would "tear hell out of the engine" unless
you overboosted them...which you can do without using the turbo.

The B-17 I flew had the turbo's disconnected. By negating all the duct
work needed to feed air to the turbo we were still able to develop the
same amount of power for takeoff....so there was no loss of performance
by not using the turbo until you gained some altitude. High and hot we
sometimes were wishing the turbos were working. <G> I also flew a B-24
that had working turbos. We had to use the turbo's due to power loss
caused by the ductwork...and of course at higher altitudes they payed
off nicely also.

> yep, but like i say, i cant remember offhand, and i think it was either the
> P51 or the P40, that had that trouble; no doubt there was a good valiud
> reason at the time.
> Its a similar sort of thing to the B17 at Duxford, they dont use the turbo's
> because it tears hell out of the engines; thats what i was told by a
> mechanic who was working on one of the engines at the time. They were
> changing an engine and needed a certain part which was still on the a/c at
> the time and the chap gave me an impromptu guided tour around it, as well as
> inside; real nice chap.
> I s'pose they dont fly the B17 as much as it would normally be operated so
> they dont need the turbos and because they dont carry any heavy ordnance
> these days either, what with the war being over and all that. lol
> But i wonder, they obviously choose what weather they fly, as the turbo was
> used to guard against carb' icing conditions as well as many other uses such
> as more power.
> I have a very interesting video i bought at an airshow called flying the B17
> and it goes into the induction system at great length, real interesting
> stuff.
> Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or are
> you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or are
>>you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!
>
> Allison was the name of an engine manufacturer that made a
> wide range of engines. IRC its now a subsidiary of RollsRoyce

There is an Allison transmission division of GM that still makes
[very good I understand] truck transmissions.

Is this a different Allison than the WWII engine maker?


SMH

[Mike Marron]

>Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>"M. H. Greaves" > wrote:

>>>Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or are
>>>you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!

>> Allison was the name of an engine manufacturer that made a
>> wide range of engines. IRC its now a subsidiary of RollsRoyce

>There is an Allison transmission division of GM that still makes
>[very good I understand] truck transmissions.

Allison manufactures heavy-duty automatic transmissions (for lazy,
limpwristed city bus drivers). Rockwell dominates the market for long
haul, over-the-road truck transmissions that requires manual shifting.

>Is this a different Allison than the WWII engine maker?

It's the same company. Allison (and Rockwell) are heavily involved
in the aviation industry.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Stephen Harding > writes:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or are
>>>you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!
>>
>> Allison was the name of an engine manufacturer that made a
>> wide range of engines. IRC its now a subsidiary of RollsRoyce
>
> There is an Allison transmission division of GM that still makes
> [very good I understand] truck transmissions.
>
> Is this a different Allison than the WWII engine maker?

Nope, they are the same people, the Allison Division of
G.M./Rolls-Royce.

Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.

I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
referring to is simply the turbo.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Mike Marron wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
>>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
>>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
>Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
>Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
>by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
>referring to is simply the turbo.
>
>

Stick International in there. You can't look out your car window
without seeing something powered by a DT466E. Yup, no such animal as an
Allison diesel. But plenty of World transmissions! As far as noise,
you can tell a 6V-8V 92 from others, but that's because it's big, dirty
and ugly! Most days now though, the manufacters make all of them sound
like purring kittens! Until that Jake Brake wakes you up in the middle
of the night.

[M. H. Greaves]

either that or he's got a woman in the cab with 'im!!! lol
"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
> >Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
> >applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
> >distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
>
> I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> referring to is simply the turbo.
>

[M. H. Greaves]

Maybe then they dont fly at high altitudes from airshow to airshow thus dont
need it!? (i mean the Duxford boys).
"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote:
>
> I don't know why the turbo would "tear hell out of the engine" unless
> you overboosted them...which you can do without using the turbo.
>
> The B-17 I flew had the turbo's disconnected. By negating all the duct
> work needed to feed air to the turbo we were still able to develop the
> same amount of power for takeoff....so there was no loss of performance
> by not using the turbo until you gained some altitude. High and hot we
> sometimes were wishing the turbos were working. <G> I also flew a B-24
> that had working turbos. We had to use the turbo's due to power loss
> caused by the ductwork...and of course at higher altitudes they payed
> off nicely also.
>
> > yep, but like i say, i cant remember offhand, and i think it was either
the
> > P51 or the P40, that had that trouble; no doubt there was a good valiud
> > reason at the time.
> > Its a similar sort of thing to the B17 at Duxford, they dont use the
turbo's
> > because it tears hell out of the engines; thats what i was told by a
> > mechanic who was working on one of the engines at the time. They were
> > changing an engine and needed a certain part which was still on the a/c
at
> > the time and the chap gave me an impromptu guided tour around it, as
well as
> > inside; real nice chap.
> > I s'pose they dont fly the B17 as much as it would normally be operated
so
> > they dont need the turbos and because they dont carry any heavy ordnance
> > these days either, what with the war being over and all that. lol
> > But i wonder, they obviously choose what weather they fly, as the turbo
was
> > used to guard against carb' icing conditions as well as many other uses
such
> > as more power.
> > I have a very interesting video i bought at an airshow called flying the
B17
> > and it goes into the induction system at great length, real interesting
> > stuff.
> > Wasnt there only one kind of allison engine i.e. the inline engine, or
are
> > you talking about the one in the C130 hercules?!
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Mike Marron]

>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>Mike Marron wrote:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>>>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
>>>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
>>>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.

>>I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
>>Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
>>Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
>>by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
>>referring to is simply the turbo.

>Stick International in there. You can't look out your car window
>without seeing something powered by a DT466E.

Most International over-the-road chassis' have either a Cat, Detroit
Diesel or Cummins under the hood. Mack produces their own engines
and trannys as well, but they're still not as commonly used in big,
OTR rigs as the three manufacturers I mentioned above.

>Yup, no such animal as an Allison diesel. But plenty of World
>transmissions! As far as noise, you can tell a 6V-8V 92 from others,
>but that's because it's big, dirty and ugly! Most days now though,
>the manufacters make all of them sound like purring kittens! Until
>that Jake Brake wakes you up in the middle of the night.

Except when negotiating mountain passes like those treacherous
grades found on I-70 (west of Denver and in Utah), Donner pass in
Calif, Monteagle in Tenn, etc. I rarely if ever used the Jake brake
out of courtesy for the motoring public.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Mike Marron wrote:

>>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:
>>
>>
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
>>>>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
>>>>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
>>>Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
>>>Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
>>>by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
>>>referring to is simply the turbo.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Stick International in there. You can't look out your car window
>>without seeing something powered by a DT466E.
>>
>>
>
>Most International over-the-road chassis' have either a Cat, Detroit
>Diesel or Cummins under the hood. Mack produces their own engines
>and trannys as well, but they're still not as commonly used in big,
>OTR rigs as the three manufacturers I mentioned above.
>
>
>
>>Yup, no such animal as an Allison diesel. But plenty of World
>>transmissions! As far as noise, you can tell a 6V-8V 92 from others,
>>but that's because it's big, dirty and ugly! Most days now though,
>>the manufacters make all of them sound like purring kittens! Until
>>that Jake Brake wakes you up in the middle of the night.
>>
>>
>
>Except when negotiating mountain passes like those treacherous
>grades found on I-70 (west of Denver and in Utah), Donner pass in
>Calif, Monteagle in Tenn, etc. I rarely if ever used the Jake brake
>out of courtesy for the motoring public.
>
>
>
>
>
Agreed. Most OTR will have the big three. I think the favorite would
be the Cummings.

But back to the Allison, remember "Big Al" Lytle? Can that be
classified as low altitude flying??

[Mark and Kim Smith]

M. H. Greaves wrote:

>personally i like the B17 with its Wright cyclones. But, each to his own,
>no offence meant.
>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Jonathan Stilwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Saw a photo yesterday of a WWII B-17 test aircraft powered
>>>>with four Allison inline engines as opposed to the usual
>>>>Wright Cyclones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That would be the XB-38, the ninth production B-17E (41-2401) modified by
>>>Vega with Allison V-1710-89 engines. According to "US Bombers" by Lloyd
>>>Jones, the changes showed an increase in top speed of 10 mph over the
>>>
>>>
>B-17E,
>
>
>>>with new increased wing fuel tanks giving a range of 3600 miles. The
>>>aircraft was lost on 16 June 1943, 29 days after it's first flight, due
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>an in-flight fire.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone know why the modification didn't go anywhere?
>>>>The usual suspects? Too much disruption to B-17
>>>>production? Engines needed by P-38, P-39, P-40?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The latter reason is the one given in the book.
>>>
>>> Jon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Sure is smooth lookin'!!
>>http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-87.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?

[Tex Houston]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed. Most OTR will have the big three. I think the favorite would
> be the Cummings.

Cummins.

Tex

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Tex Houston wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Agreed. Most OTR will have the big three. I think the favorite would
>>be the Cummings.
>>
>>
>
>Cummins.
>
>Tex
>
>
>
>
Escaped finger. I've since reeled it back in. Thanks!

[Dale]

In article >,
Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:


> Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
> it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
> there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?

The Sherman tank used a radial engine. Sikorsy helicopters used a
radial (Wright 1820 like the B-17). Radials were used to power
generators.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Tex Houston]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
> it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
> there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?
>

Many tanks were powered with radial engines. Motors are not engines.

Tex

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Tex Houston wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
>>it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
>>there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Many tanks were powered with radial engines. Motors are not engines.
>
>Tex
>
>
>
>
Jeesh! You gonna spend the whole day correcting me?? I think you knew
what I meant. So what kind of radials and made by whom? Same folks?

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Dale wrote:

>In article >,
> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
>>it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
>>there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?
>>
>>
>
>The Sherman tank used a radial engine. Sikorsy helicopters used a
>radial (Wright 1820 like the B-17). Radials were used to power
>generators.
>
>
Thanks Dale!!

[Tex Houston]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Jeesh! You gonna spend the whole day correcting me?? I think you knew
> what I meant. So what kind of radials and made by whom? Same folks?
>

I've seen Lycoming mentioned but the first Shermans had a Continental R974
C4, a 9 cylinder radial aircraft engine. Later ones were diesel powered.

The radial engined M3A3 Stuart was produced by American Car and Foundry
during Sept 1942 till Sept 1943. Of 3427 produced, 2433 went to the Allies
receiving Lease Lend (mainly to Britain but some to China), the rest to the
US Army. Powered by a 7-cylinder Continental radial power unit, the tank
weighs 32,400 lbs ready to fight.

Tex

[John]

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

> Tex Houston wrote:
>
> >
> >Many tanks were powered with radial engines. Motors are not engines.
> >
> >Tex
>
> Jeesh! You gonna spend the whole day correcting me?? I think you knew
> what I meant. So what kind of radials and made by whom? Same folks?

M3 Stuart 'Honey" powered by a Continental W-670-9A; 7 cylinder, 4 cycle,
radial gasoline
or a Guiberson T-1020-4; 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial diesel

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
>there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?

A few light cars had radials (generally 3-cylinder) in the 1920s.
Bristol played with the idea of a 10-cylinder, two-row radial for
their post-WW2 venture into care production, but eventually went
with a re-engineered version of the pre-war BMW in-line 6.
One Fairmile D-type motor gunboat (MGB 5001, IIRC) was fitted with
four Bristol Hercules instead of the usual Packards, but actually
went slower because of the power absorbed by the fans providing
cooling. The intention was that she should have been the prototype
for a group of Centaurus-engined boats (which with 2500bhp/engine
instead of 1600 should have shifted), but the admiralty decided
(wisely, in by view) to go with ultra-high-power diesels (the Napier
Deltic) or gas turbines (the Bristol Proteus) instead of trying
to make radials afloat work. Having the tankage of 100-octane
they'd have needed aboard a gunboat was not an appealing idea..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
>>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
>>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
>
> I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> referring to is simply the turbo.

Argh! Ya got me, Mike!
Yeah, the Diesels are Detroits. Of course,, you _could_ ig you were
willing to split hairs about it, call 'em Allisons after GM Merged
Detroit Diesel and Allison.
But that would be wussing out.

Still quite a few Mack Thermodynes & ASETs out there, as well.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Dale > writes:
> In article >,
> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>
>
>> Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
>> it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
>> there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?
>
> The Sherman tank used a radial engine. Sikorsy helicopters used a
> radial (Wright 1820 like the B-17). Radials were used to power
> generators.

Well, thre's all varieties of Radials.
The M3 Light Tanks (Stuart) used a flavor of the Wright R670 Whirlwind.
Some flavors of the M3 Medium Tank (Grant/Lee) and M4 Medium Tank
(Sherman) used a fan-cooled R975 Whirlwind, built either by Wright or
Continental.
The M6 Heavy Tank got an R1820 Cyclone, similar to teh one on a B-17.

Wuite a few early helicopters used radials as well. The Sikorsky R-4
used a Warner. The R-5/H-5 used a Pratt & Whitney R985.
I don't recall any seaborne use of radials, other than carrier
aircraft. Air-cooled marine engines don't make a whole lot of sense,
really.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Thomas Schoene]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> I don't recall any seaborne use of radials, other than carrier
> aircraft. Air-cooled marine engines don't make a whole lot of sense,
> really.

I'm having an early senior moment here. Was the GM "pancake" diesel a
radial? I've spent the past fifteen minutes googling but cannot find any
sort of actual description of this engine, other than its use in sub chasers
and (I believe) some submarines as well.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Peter Stickney]

In article et>,
"Thomas Schoene" > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>> I don't recall any seaborne use of radials, other than carrier
>> aircraft. Air-cooled marine engines don't make a whole lot of sense,
>> really.
>
> I'm having an early senior moment here. Was the GM "pancake" diesel a
> radial? I've spent the past fifteen minutes googling but cannot find any
> sort of actual description of this engine, other than its use in sub chasers
> and (I believe) some submarines as well.

Hmm. Good point. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. Usually,
"Pancake" refers to a Horizontally Opposed engine, like, say, an
air-cooled VW, or a Continental or Lycoming light aircraft engine.
But the Navy's got to be different - can't call anything by its real
name. (I mean really - decks where the floors should be, Covers
instead of hats, Bulkheads where rational people would put walls. I
don't eaven want to think about the Seaman's Head! (Yes, it's all a
joke, please don't keelhaul me!))
The U.S.S. Albacore is drawm up on shore as a Museum, and the Engine
Rooms (And why aren't they Engine Compartments? Every other danged
room on that boat's a Compartmnet! Mamble, mumble) She had the
Pancake Diesels, so I'll pull an on-site inspection the next time I'm
downta Portsmouth.

Actually, the best meal I've ever had was at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard's Officer's Open Mess. I was attending a Society of Military
Engineers meeting about solving some problems in convincing the
Albacore to be properly set into its cradle for display. I also stood
on the conning tower of the Squalus/Sailfish, looking out onto the
cold, gray, North Atlantic. Submarining looks like dangerous,
stressful work, with the Ocean outside always trying to get in.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Marc Reeve]

Thomas Schoene > wrote:

> Peter Stickney wrote:
> > I don't recall any seaborne use of radials, other than carrier
> > aircraft. Air-cooled marine engines don't make a whole lot of sense,
> > really.
>
> I'm having an early senior moment here. Was the GM "pancake" diesel a
> radial? I've spent the past fifteen minutes googling but cannot find any
> sort of actual description of this engine, other than its use in sub
> chasers and (I believe) some submarines as well.
>
Yes, it was.

Here's a page with a decent description:

http://www.geocities.com/rrowe50/t-class.html

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[John Keeney]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
> >Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
> >applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
> >distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
>
> I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> referring to is simply the turbo.

They are in a lot of school buses, some semi-tractors & heavy equipment
but they're not as popular in semis as some of the others.
I've even seen turboed Allison V-8 diesels on pulling tractors; like
a bomb going off when they snapped the throttle open and shut.

[John Keeney]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mike Marron > writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> >
> >>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
> >>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
> >>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> > Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> > Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> > by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> > referring to is simply the turbo.
>
> Argh! Ya got me, Mike!
> Yeah, the Diesels are Detroits. Of course,, you _could_ ig you were
> willing to split hairs about it, call 'em Allisons after GM Merged
> Detroit Diesel and Allison.
> But that would be wussing out.

OK, I was having regrets having posted they were out there, I was beginning
to wonder if I was thinking of Detroits.
But the neighbors' kid's hippie school bus has "Allison" written on it.
I didn't realize that GM had merged Detroit Diesel and Allison.

[John Keeney]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
> it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine!

Right, it's a XB-38!

> BTW, does anyone know if were
> there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?

American tanks used radial engines for a while.
There was a small radial used for a ground generator, a guy
was looking for information about that one here not long back.
Back in the really long ago days I think there was even a radial
engined motorcycle, but don't place a bet on it based on my
say so.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

John Keeney wrote:

>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
>
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
>>>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
>>>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
>>Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
>>Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
>>by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
>>referring to is simply the turbo.
>>
>>
>
>They are in a lot of school buses, some semi-tractors & heavy equipment
>but they're not as popular in semis as some of the others.
>I've even seen turboed Allison V-8 diesels on pulling tractors; like
>a bomb going off when they snapped the throttle open and shut.
>
>
>

I think those are actually Detroits, Allison doesn't make a diesel.
Most 92 series Detroits have a turbo and roots type blower in normal
operation. Big, ugly and dirty. Good for powering auxiliary wire
stringing equipment and motor torpedo boats. At least that's what an
old buddy told me was powering his Viet Nam river boats, a pair of
Detroits. The 71 series had the familiar blower you see on drag racers
and such. As far as school buses and medium duty trucks ( tow trucks
and such ) International is making a killing selling those, DT406's and
DT466's.

General Motors made diesels under the Detroit name and transmissions
under the Allison name for heavy applications. Confusion might come
from valve cover stickers that include both names when GM consolidated
operations.

http://www.allisontransmission.com/company/history/index.jsp

Wow, looks like GM sold Detroit Diesel to Daimler/Chrysler. ( Or I
should say Daimler/Chrysler bought out Detroit Diesel. )
http://www.detroitdiesel.com/Corporate/corp_history.asp

[Mark and Kim Smith]

John Keeney wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Never said I liked it or disliked it. Just said it looked smooth. But
>>it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine!
>>
>>
>
>Right, it's a XB-38!
>
>
>
>>BTW, does anyone know if were
>>there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all air?
>>
>>
>
>American tanks used radial engines for a while.
>There was a small radial used for a ground generator, a guy
>was looking for information about that one here not long back.
>Back in the really long ago days I think there was even a radial
>engined motorcycle, but don't place a bet on it based on my
>say so.
>
>
>
Well, the V-twin is basically a partial radial. I wonder if you
strapped a bunch together to turn a prop, would Harley sue you for
"stealing" it's famous sound? ( Like it tried to do to the Japanese
motorcycle manufacturer. ) But seriously...... I don't remember
coming across a radial on a motorcycle either. Hendersons and
Excelsiors with inline fours and sixes.

Aha! The 1893 Millet with a 1924cc radial. A 1922 Megola with a 640cc
5 cylinder radial. Here is a waste of a radial.
http://home.pacbell.net/geetumor/index_pic13.html Looks like a lot of
early motorcycles had three cylinder radials.

[B2431]

>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>
<snip>

> Here is a waste of a radial.
>http://home.pacbell.net/geetumor/index_pic13.html Looks like a lot of
>early motorcycles had three cylinder radials.
>
Good place to keep a spare. I'd hate to dust it or stub my toe on it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mark and Kim Smith]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>>
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>
>
>> Here is a waste of a radial.
>>http://home.pacbell.net/geetumor/index_pic13.html Looks like a lot of
>>early motorcycles had three cylinder radials.
>>
>>
>>
>Good place to keep a spare. I'd hate to dust it or stub my toe on it.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

I hope it isn't on the second floor!!

[M. H. Greaves]

'You sure that isnt the name of the bus??!!
"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Mike Marron > writes:
> > (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> > >
> > >>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
> > >>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
> > >>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> > > Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> > > Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> > > by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> > > referring to is simply the turbo.
> >
> > Argh! Ya got me, Mike!
> > Yeah, the Diesels are Detroits. Of course,, you _could_ ig you were
> > willing to split hairs about it, call 'em Allisons after GM Merged
> > Detroit Diesel and Allison.
> > But that would be wussing out.
>
> OK, I was having regrets having posted they were out there, I was
beginning
> to wonder if I was thinking of Detroits.
> But the neighbors' kid's hippie school bus has "Allison" written on it.
> I didn't realize that GM had merged Detroit Diesel and Allison.
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had) a
radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
> >it ain't a B-17 without a radial engine! BTW, does anyone know if were
> >there any land or sea applications for the radial motor or was it all
air?
>
> A few light cars had radials (generally 3-cylinder) in the 1920s.
> Bristol played with the idea of a 10-cylinder, two-row radial for
> their post-WW2 venture into care production, but eventually went
> with a re-engineered version of the pre-war BMW in-line 6.
> One Fairmile D-type motor gunboat (MGB 5001, IIRC) was fitted with
> four Bristol Hercules instead of the usual Packards, but actually
> went slower because of the power absorbed by the fans providing
> cooling. The intention was that she should have been the prototype
> for a group of Centaurus-engined boats (which with 2500bhp/engine
> instead of 1600 should have shifted), but the admiralty decided
> (wisely, in by view) to go with ultra-high-power diesels (the Napier
> Deltic) or gas turbines (the Bristol Proteus) instead of trying
> to make radials afloat work. Having the tankage of 100-octane
> they'd have needed aboard a gunboat was not an appealing idea..
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
> "Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
> and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Stephen Harding]

M. H. Greaves wrote:

> What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had) a
> radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!

When I think Mazda, I think "rotary" engine as in "Wankel".

Not at all the same as a radial, if that's what you were thinking.


SMH

[Lynn Coffelt]

> What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had)
a
> radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!

Wasn't it really a "rotary"? A German Wankle licensed twin rotor?

Old Chief Lynn

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had)
a
> radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!

No it didnt

It had a rotary engine

Keith

[Tex Houston]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had)
a
> radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!


The Mazda had a ROTARY engine which is not the same as a radial nor was it
the same as the WW-I era aircraft rotary engine.

Before someone asks, yes the Mazda rotary engines have been used in
motorcycles. Dutch custom bikes manufactured in about 1972. Reported to be
both smooth and powerful.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Philip Morten]

Mike Marron wrote:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> referring to is simply the turbo.
>

For a time Detroit Diesel was the Detroit Diesel Allison division of GM,
from their Web site at:
<http://www.detroitdiesel.com/Corporate/corp_history.asp>

> In 1965, GM Diesel became Detroit Diesel Engine Division and five years later, General Motors consolidated the company with the closely allied transmission and gas turbine businesses of the Allison Division in Indianapolis to form the Detroit Diesel Allison Division.


Philip Morten

[John Keeney]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> 'You sure that isnt the name of the bus??!!

Nope, on the engine. Valve cover I think it was.

> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Mike Marron > writes:
> > > (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Allison also Diesel engines for use in tractor-trailers & other such
> > > >>applications. You can easily pick 'em out by ear, they've got a
> > > >>distinctive high-frequency scream in their engine note.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> > > > Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and
Detroit
> > > > Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the
three
> > > > by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> > > > referring to is simply the turbo.
> > >
> > > Argh! Ya got me, Mike!
> > > Yeah, the Diesels are Detroits. Of course,, you _could_ ig you were
> > > willing to split hairs about it, call 'em Allisons after GM Merged
> > > Detroit Diesel and Allison.
> > > But that would be wussing out.
> >
> > OK, I was having regrets having posted they were out there, I was
> beginning
> > to wonder if I was thinking of Detroits.
> > But the neighbors' kid's hippie school bus has "Allison" written on it.
> > I didn't realize that GM had merged Detroit Diesel and Allison.
> >
> >
>
>

[John Keeney]

"Philip Morten" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron wrote:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of any Allison diesel engines used in semis. The Big
> > Three truck engine manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit
> > Diesel. Going down the road, you can't differentiate between the three
> > by the sound alone and I suspect the high-freqency scream you're
> > referring to is simply the turbo.
> >
>
> For a time Detroit Diesel was the Detroit Diesel Allison division of GM,
> from their Web site at:
> <http://www.detroitdiesel.com/Corporate/corp_history.asp>
>
> > In 1965, GM Diesel became Detroit Diesel Engine Division and five years
later, General Motors consolidated the company with the closely allied
transmission and gas turbine businesses of the Allison Division in
Indianapolis to form the Detroit Diesel Allison Division.

Back in High School one of the field trips everybody took was the 100 some
odd mile one up to the Allison plant's museum in Indianapolis. There was one
thing that everybody stood and stared at for minutes at a time: a ball
bearing
would roll out a little chute in the back wall and launch through a large
bearing
assembly spinning on its vertical axis, the ball would then fall and bounce
off
a polished metal drum which bounced the bearing back up on a path now
parallel
to the back wall and through another large bearing assembly which was also
spinning on its vertical axis. Having made it through the second assembly it
would fall to bounce off another polished metal drum to pass through a third
spinner and back out a small hole in the back wall that wasn't noticeably
lower
than the entry hole. The display probably had three ball bearings out at all
times.
If you were dedicated to a long vigil or very lucky you would see one miss
every couple of minutes: they would fall ever so slightly low of making it
back in the exit hole.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

John Keeney wrote:

>"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>'You sure that isnt the name of the bus??!!
>>
>>
>
>Nope, on the engine. Valve cover I think it was.
>
>
>
Yup! Usually with all the timing specs right below the logo.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
M. H. Greaves > wrote:
>What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had) a
>radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!

Rotary (twin Wankel triagonal rotors), not radial.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article <LlATb.212285$na.346046@attbi_s04>,
Lynn Coffelt > wrote:
>> What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had)
>a
>> radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!
>
>Wasn't it really a "rotary"? A German Wankle licensed twin rotor?

Yep. Much the same as used by NSU in the Ro80 and Citroen in the Birotor.
To get (almost) back on topic, there were a few (Citroen) Wankel-engined
helicopters built in the early 1970s..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Tex Houston > wrote:
>
>Before someone asks, yes the Mazda rotary engines have been used in
>motorcycles. Dutch custom bikes manufactured in about 1972. Reported to be
>both smooth and powerful.

There was also a run of rotary-engined production 'bikes - mainly
for the police - from Norton in the 1980s. Smooth, powerful, immensely
heavy on petrol and with the usual enthusiastic appetite for rotor
seals. The Wankel engine was originally designed as a supercharger and
only later turned around to be an engine - the design makes a better
supercharger than an engine.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[M. H. Greaves]

yep, thats the one i was thinking about, thanks mate!
"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> M. H. Greaves wrote:
>
> > What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or
had) a
> > radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!
>
> When I think Mazda, I think "rotary" engine as in "Wankel".
>
> Not at all the same as a radial, if that's what you were thinking.
>
>
> SMH
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

off topic slightly i know, but yes it certainly was smooth in the the Mazda,
s'funny some people when you say Mazda, they think, ah, Lightbulbs!!! lol
"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or
had)
> a
> > radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!
>
>
> The Mazda had a ROTARY engine which is not the same as a radial nor was it
> the same as the WW-I era aircraft rotary engine.
>
> Before someone asks, yes the Mazda rotary engines have been used in
> motorcycles. Dutch custom bikes manufactured in about 1972. Reported to
be
> both smooth and powerful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tex Houston
>
>

[[email protected]]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote:

>What about the Mazda RX7 (was it RX, or XZ or something!?) it ha (or had) a
>radial engine!! Looked like the drum out of a washing machine!

RX7 is correct...that engine was called a 'rotary' type. More
correctly it's called a 'Wankel', after it's designer (German?).

Pretty good engine, hard on fuel, very smooth operating, operates
at quite high speed (red-line is 7,000 in the RX7). Very flat
torque line (curve). I had two of them, 1983 and 85 (new). They
developed 110 HP from only 1198 CC displacement.
--

-Gord.