The Liberty balance problems stemming from the 45-degree bank angle are well covered in this PDF article by Robert J. Raymond.
If I remember correctly, the details of the early Manly radial are in the Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight (Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Volume 27 Number 3, Publication 1948, 1911) which can be read online here, or the PDF downloaded here.
erikemsome obscure machine tool company had a moderate success at making radial engines, helped along by some guy named Rentschler who also had some later connection with diesel locomotives.
I think you are mixing up your Rentschlers. Fred (whose company would have much more connection with turbine trains than diesels) was the one with the radials; Henry was the one with Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton and then Baldwin-Hamilton.
RME The Germans decided the nominal advantages of the rotary didn't outweigh the advantages of inline power, just as the French adopted the Hisso 90-degree V8 for the Spad 180s and 220s for the more advanced power in the late war years. I remain surprised that no good American designs using the Liberty were done in time to go into wartime service, but had the war been protracted even a few months longer I'd expect the advantages of a good V12 or even something like the Bugatti 16 to have conclusively favored multithrow crankshaft engines over any rotary ... or any early practical radial built with that era's technology.
The Germans decided the nominal advantages of the rotary didn't outweigh the advantages of inline power, just as the French adopted the Hisso 90-degree V8 for the Spad 180s and 220s for the more advanced power in the late war years. I remain surprised that no good American designs using the Liberty were done in time to go into wartime service, but had the war been protracted even a few months longer I'd expect the advantages of a good V12 or even something like the Bugatti 16 to have conclusively favored multithrow crankshaft engines over any rotary ... or any early practical radial built with that era's technology.
One -um- minor problem with the Liberty V-12 was that it was built with a 45 degree angle between cylinder banks as opposed to the normal 60 degrees. Thus the Liberty tunred to be the way that American aero angine designers learned about torsional vibration. This was also the era where USN submarines had to avoid certain engines speeds if crankshaft lifetime was important, probably one reason all of USN's WW2 era diesel boats had electric drive as the only option for the props.
There was a highly interesting aircraft developed in Germany in 1919, I believe by Junkers, which used monocoque duraluminum construction (not the corrugated stuff that came later, as in the "Ford" Trimotors) -- it looks very similar to a small DC3 aside from the engines, which are either rotaries or primitive radials and give a shock of cognitive dissonance to people familiar with the form and packaging of American radial engines only a decade and a half later.
Charles M Manly built a 52hp 5 cylinder radial in 1901, IIRC the power to weight ratio was exceeded until after the start of WW1. I'm not sure how effective the cooling was on that engine. A few years after the end of WW1, some obscure machine tool company had a moderate success at making radial engines, helped along by some guy named Rentschler who also had some later connection with diesel locomotives.
One problem with the rotary engines was the inability to throttle down the power. Usual trick for landing was cutting the ignition, hence the old movie cliche of the engine cutting in and out.
RME schlimm In the Fokker E-series "the Fokker scourge" planes, the E stands for Eindecker. When I was young, I'd swear the spelling with two Ks was used, the reason being Tony Fokker was Dutch. But now I go to check and there is nothing on the first pages of Google but schlimm's given German spelling of the thing.
schlimm In the Fokker E-series "the Fokker scourge" planes, the E stands for Eindecker.
When I was young, I'd swear the spelling with two Ks was used, the reason being Tony Fokker was Dutch. But now I go to check and there is nothing on the first pages of Google but schlimm's given German spelling of the thing.
Nevertheless, that is the correct spelling. And the Fokker factory was outside Schwerin, in Germany. Some of its ruins were still there last I looked!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmIn the Fokker E-series "the Fokker scourge" planes, the E stands for Eindecker.
Well I got to say "Wankel!!" on this forum just like Dudley Moore
RME schlimm The Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg. But let's not forget the Oberursels (company license-building Gnome engines before the war, bought by Fokker) as used in the Fokker Eindekkers (and perhaps the most recognizable German aircraft of the war, commonly known by its English name the Fokker Triplane .. and yes, I know what 'Eindekker' means). The Germans decided the nominal advantages of the rotary didn't outweigh the advantages of inline power, just as the French adopted the Hisso 90-degree V8 for the Spad 180s and 220s for the more advanced power in the late war years. I remain surprised that no good American designs using the Liberty were done in time to go into wartime service, but had the war been protracted even a few months longer I'd expect the advantages of a good V12 or even something like the Bugatti 16 to have conclusively favored multithrow crankshaft engines over any rotary ... or any early practical radial built with that era's technology. However, I think you will find that Camels in that later era were far more likely to have the superior Bentley "Admiralty rotary" engine (later called BR1) and, in fact, the first generation of British first-line fighters after the war was designed around the follow-on BR2, so there were in fact reliable and well-engineered rotaries available for those who valued their advantages. (Naturally, when better radials were developed, those were rapidly adopted.) There was a highly interesting aircraft developed in Germany in 1919, I believe by Junkers, which used monocoque duraluminum construction (not the corrugated stuff that came later, as in the "Ford" Trimotors) -- it looks very similar to a small DC3 aside from the engines, which are either rotaries or primitive radials and give a shock of cognitive dissonance to people familiar with the form and packaging of American radial engines only a decade and a half later.
schlimm The Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg.
But let's not forget the Oberursels (company license-building Gnome engines before the war, bought by Fokker) as used in the Fokker Eindekkers (and perhaps the most recognizable German aircraft of the war, commonly known by its English name the Fokker Triplane .. and yes, I know what 'Eindekker' means).
However, I think you will find that Camels in that later era were far more likely to have the superior Bentley "Admiralty rotary" engine (later called BR1) and, in fact, the first generation of British first-line fighters after the war was designed around the follow-on BR2, so there were in fact reliable and well-engineered rotaries available for those who valued their advantages. (Naturally, when better radials were developed, those were rapidly adopted.)
1. The Camels' standard engine was the Clerget, but they also used Le Rhones. R.N.A.S. kites used the BR 1 and had the best performance.
2. In the Fokker E-series "the Fokker scourge" planes, the E stands for Eindecker. The Dr.1 stands for Dreidecker. With the biplane single seater D types from Fokker, Albatros, Pfalz, the D stands for Doppeldecker.
3. Besides Oberursel rotaries, the German and Austro-Hungarian air forces relied on various in-line Mercedes engines. Only late in the war did BMW introduce their IIIa, 6-cylinder SOHC which put into the Fokker D.VII made it the best fighter plane of the war.
4. Junkers built several planes during WWI with the familiar corrugated duralumin skin, such as the CL.1 ground attack monoplane and D.1 fighter monoplane (below).
schlimmThe Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg.
RME Firelock76 Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War. Less of a dead end than you might think. They were easier to make than something like an inline engine at the time, inherently ran in any attitude and when being 'tumbled', and (once you knew the secret starting ritual or the theories behind the steps required) was pretty reliable. But the important characteristics, the things that led the rotary to be actually preferred over 'block' engines, were directly related to the rotary construction. First is that the enormous gyroscopic torque of the engine made dogfighting much easier (and less exhausting for the pilot!) and allowed very quick attitude changes (in more or less random directions) to be made repeatedly once a pilot had even relatively little time in the air. More importantly (according to Henry Forster, who taught me some of the skills involved in air combat) was that all you had to do when your guns bore on the enemy was walk the rudder - this caused the 90-degree gyroscopic torque to pitch the aircraft up and down, too, and your guns would fire in a cone which could be widened or narrowed just by the impulse you gave the pedals. Ordinary engines, of course, did nothing of this sort.
Firelock76 Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War.
Less of a dead end than you might think. They were easier to make than something like an inline engine at the time, inherently ran in any attitude and when being 'tumbled', and (once you knew the secret starting ritual or the theories behind the steps required) was pretty reliable. But the important characteristics, the things that led the rotary to be actually preferred over 'block' engines, were directly related to the rotary construction.
First is that the enormous gyroscopic torque of the engine made dogfighting much easier (and less exhausting for the pilot!) and allowed very quick attitude changes (in more or less random directions) to be made repeatedly once a pilot had even relatively little time in the air. More importantly (according to Henry Forster, who taught me some of the skills involved in air combat) was that all you had to do when your guns bore on the enemy was walk the rudder - this caused the 90-degree gyroscopic torque to pitch the aircraft up and down, too, and your guns would fire in a cone which could be widened or narrowed just by the impulse you gave the pedals. Ordinary engines, of course, did nothing of this sort.
The Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg.
RMEHenry Forster, who taught me some of the skills involved in air combat
The same Forster of the Lafayette Escadrille and later Manhattan real estate executive? How did that happen?
Firelock76 Goes without saying you'd better have plenty of sky under you.
You would be surprised how hard it is to make one of these things drop. Until you actually violate V sub NE and strip fabric off the upper wing you need to get into a complicated spiral to achieve any sort of concerted downward motion. The problem with takeoff was just that: you were only a few feet up, and the torque reaction coupled with peak takeoff-hp thrust flew you into the ground...
Well, what I meant by "evolutionary dead-end" was the original purpose of the rotary engine was to solve the problem of engine cooling, which it did. Late in the war the French figured out that a properly designed radial engine with good airflow over the same would take care of cooling itself without any issues. After that the rotary didn't have long to live.
That gyroscopic torque could be a a boon in a dogfight, but with some aircraft like the Sopwith Camel it could be deadly on take-off. Turn right in a Camel on takeoff and the rotary would pull you up, turn left and it would put you right into the ground before you knew it. The Royal Flying Corps lost a lot of pilots that way until the word got out about the proper handling of the Camel.
Conversely, that torque could be used to get yourself out of a jam in a dogfight. Got a pesky Hun on your tail you just can't shake? Turn left, left, and left again and the Camel would pull itself out of Fritz's clutches before he even knew what was happening. Goes without saying you'd better have plenty of sky under you.
Firelock76Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War.
http://www.glennhcurtissmuseum.org/
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Curtiss-Wright did some experimenting with the Wankel also.
BigJim Firelock76 Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies. I'll say one thing, that sure is a lot of rotating mass and amazing to watch spin! When I went to A&P school, we learned how to start an aero engine like that.
Firelock76 Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies.
I'll say one thing, that sure is a lot of rotating mass and amazing to watch spin!
When I went to A&P school, we learned how to start an aero engine like that.
Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War.
You were pretty lucky, Big Jim!
By the way, the now-defunct Virginia Aviation Museum had a cutaway Le Rhone on display you could walk up to and turn. It was a real masterpiece of the machinist's art, let me tell you, just a gorgeous piece of work.
Firelock76Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies.
.
BigJim Firelock76 I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was! I'll challenge that comment by putting Mazda's race record up for comparison.
Firelock76 I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was!
I'll challenge that comment by putting Mazda's race record up for comparison.
Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies. Different kind of competition, I know.
At least the second place trophy in a road race isn't "The Wooden Cross."
Rotary Engines are smooth and compact, but expensive and often unreliable
Were Wankel engines ever used in locomotives?
In eighth grade science we learned all about airplanes. The teacher told us about radial, opposed, in-line and so forth. I told the class about rotaries such as used on a Sopwith or Nieuport. The teacher said that I was wrong. I told him that my father, who knew more about early aircraft than anyone I knew told me about them. He still did not believe me. I let it go as he was a teacher, no matter how ignorant. Many years later, I was at The Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome and there was a Sopwith Camel. I reached over the rope and moved the prop and yep, the engine turned with it. I thought, "what a horses ass he was."
As well as the thousands of Mazda RX-7's and 8's as well as RX-3's and RX-4's that were manufactured and prowled the highways and byways - with many still doing so today.
Firelock76I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was!
Electroliner 1935 I test drove a Mazda Wankel when they first came out and I didn't notice that I needed to shift. I was up to about 45 mph in second gear and the engine didn't give me a clue that I needed to shift. It was so smooth and quiet that I didn't realilize that the RPM's were way above where I would have redlined a reciprocating engine. it appears that no new cars are being built today with Wankel type engines.
I test drove a Mazda Wankel when they first came out and I didn't notice that I needed to shift. I was up to about 45 mph in second gear and the engine didn't give me a clue that I needed to shift. It was so smooth and quiet that I didn't realilize that the RPM's were way above where I would have redlined a reciprocating engine. it appears that no new cars are being built today with Wankel type engines.
Wankels were a different breed, often unreliable, but great when working. I once rode a friend's Norton Commender P53. It was a water-cooled, twin rotor engine, just under 600 cc as I recall. Better recall for driving in an NSU Ro 80 (twin rotors, 1000 cc, 115 hp) in the summer on 1968. I was hitching from Stuttgart to Mainz. After an initial lift, I got stuck near Mannheim. Fortunately for me, along came a stylish red Ro 80 whose also stylish Fräulein offered me a lift. That car had a lot of pep, like most NSUs of the time. No comments needed about her!
Hey, how'd you guys like a look at a REAL rotary engine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSOQAtkI-2k
I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was! Follow the right side links for a lot more fun.
"Alors mon amis, I love ze smell of castor oil in ze morning! Eet smells like victoire!"
For some reason, the exhaust noise level was extremely high on the Mazda Wankel's that I saw race. They even had to use a muffler to keep the noise down. They were not fun to the ears as they raced!
erikemWhich is likely why the Wankel Diesel used the two rotor scheme, with the rotor co-planar.
Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words ... or contains them:
BaltACD I would expect the higher compression ratio needed for diesel operation would have played a number on Wankel seals. Sealing has been a problem on gas engines at a much lower compression ratio.
I would expect the higher compression ratio needed for diesel operation would have played a number on Wankel seals. Sealing has been a problem on gas engines at a much lower compression ratio.
Which is likely why the Wankel Diesel used the two rotor scheme, with the rotor co-planar. What would have been the combustion chamber on the larger rotor was mated to the intake/exhaust of the smaller rotor. Compression/expansion is done over both rotors.
I saw only one reference to this project, which suggests that it didn't work very well. The Napier Deltic on the other hand....
BaltACDI would expect the higher compression ratio needed for diesel operation would have played a number on Wankel seals.
It would, but not lethally insurmountably, Much more of an issue is how you lubricate the seals in the chamber environment and how you arrange the ports (for IDI) or the injector nozzle (for pilot injection or DI) with the entire chamber being swept volume. There are also concerns with combustion chemistry absent exotic promoters in the very short burn times corresponding to high-rpm operation.
with heated intake air you might be able to achieve polynucleate ignition, as with some two-stroke motorcycle engines, without getting into the detonation region. But I wouldn't be too sanguine doing that with a larger engine, except at steady speed and constant load (albeit those can be approximated with an electric transmission) with cost-effective 1970s technology.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.