When I was a kid, I had the privilege of seeing aircraft powered by these things actually land, shut down start up and take off again. Better yet the whole show literally occurred in my back yard. The planes were a Tommy Morse Scout and a Fokker Triplane meticulously restored and flown by James Nissen, who was the general manager of the San Jose, California Municipal airport at the time. The air show was commemorating the early flights of John J. Montgomery who was an early aviation pioneer flying un-powered but rather sophisticated gliders in southern Santa Clara County, California. Montgomery was killed in 1911 in a crash of one of his planes barely two miles from the ranch my family and I were living on in 1961 when the air show was held in our backyard. There were around 30 - 40 aircraft in my backyard that day, probably at least 15 - 20 of them restored planes from the very early 1930's and earlier. As I remember Nissen had one or two other early day planes at the event, but I can't remember what they were. I THINK one of them may have been a French SPAD - also rotary powered. I got my first airplane ride out of the deal in a 1946 Taylorcraft owned and flown by "Bobby" Reid - one of the Reid family who owned and ran Reid's Hillview Airport a few short miles from our place.
You gotta wonder. What went through the head of the mad bastard who thought "I know, let's fix the crankshaft, and rotate the entire engine around it".
The torque reaction effect was used to great advantage in WW1 to dodge enemy fire, as the pilot constantly had to hold the stick against the torque to keep the aircraft reasonably level in normal flight, releasing the stick pressure caused the aircraft to instantly 'flip-over' and thus evade fire! Taking off was an art as can be appreciated with all that torque trying to 'flip you over'!
Here is an animation of this amazing engine design. 4 stroke, exhaust valve is in the cylinder head, intake valve is on the piston! Slow the animation down and watch the 4 strokes each one goes through. Fascinating. Never heard of these before today, and I thought I knew (or had worked on) about every engine ever made!
@zappafiner there is a gyroscopic effect, but it's not as strong as you might think. I've flown several aircraft with this engine installed and you tend to automatically correct for that without any problem. I think those stories started with the very inexperienced pilots who trained on these types, and then became part of exaggerated WW1 lore in the 1920s and 1930s.
A wankel engine isn't a rotary engine to begin with. It's a rotary _piston_ engine, if folks are desperate to use the word rotary to describe the engine. Rotary engines are like the Gnome engine in all cases.
Nice job in finally getting that old beast running. I understand how these engines work and the principal behind them, but to me they still look really weird when they're running. I always have to do a double take when I see those cylinders spinning around.
Thank you! That was VERY interesting. I have seen a rotary aircraft engine like that running. Makes a lot of sense. Conrats on getting it running so well and thanks again for sharing!
@rexxcarz the intake valve in piston type of Gnome was the pre-WW1 type, commonly 50 or 70 hp, although they did make bigger ones, including a two row 14 cylinder 160 hp version. For the 1918 version they used holes in the cylinder skirt for intake, which I guess is why people keep thinking it's a 2 stroke when it isn't.
That's one thing I love about engines...they're all based on the same principles, and even have the same working parts for the large part, yet there are so many differences in actual operation. Look at a radial and a rotary...to the layman, they'd be hard to tell apart at first glance (when not running!), yet are so dirrerent in so many ways. Funny that a Wankle and rotary are basically the same...the port timing is similar, they are both rotary, only one uses mechanicals, the other uses shape.
@ValExperimenter The Gnome rotary is a 4-stroke that by all appearances LOOKS like a 2-stroke. It has intake ports at BDC (but a normal poppet exhaust valve), it draws its fuel and most of its charge-air in through the crankcase, and uses total-loss lubrication (castor oil) like a 2-stroke, but is in fact a 4-stroke, although one of the oddest Otto-cycle engines ever made, IMHO. The charge thru the crankcase was ultra-rich, and the other 1/2 of the air was taken thru the exhaust port!
Sweet video, this is the first vid I have watched of a Monosoupape running :) Yes, it is indeed a crankcase breathing 4 stroke, just like the earlier piston valve type made by the same company. I converted a lawnmower engine to run on the same cycle as the Mono, as well as built and ran a piston valve type. Cool engines, designed by some very clever folks back about 100 years ago. :)
@toadabc there is a brush on the firewall and a distributor ring on the back of the engine that rotates with it and has contacts on the rear side and ring type terminals on its outer edge. The spark goes from the magneto to the brush to the distributor ring and then via a wire to the spark plug. The wire from the distributor ring to the spark plug is spring wire, about .050" I think, completely unshielded, so any nearby radio will have a lot of static.
@justforever96 That makes sense, the exhaust valve would close somewhere on the compression stroke after the mixture ports closed and compression would begin.
@Aarius1972 You are right and wrong, this is a radial engine and a rotary engine. All rotary engines are radial engines (not all radial engines are rotary engines). It is a rotary engine because the complete engine turns around the crancshaft. In other radial engines the crancshaft turns inside the engine.
@Xantec in level flight it's not really noticeable, it's mainly in the turns, and as I said in another reply an experienced pilot automatically compensates. Since the gyroscopic force acts at 90 degrees, in a right turn the nose tries to drop and in a left turn the nose tries to rise, so it is a bit easier to do right turns, but this is another of the WW1 flying stories that have gotten exaggerated over the years.
It goes through the crankcase and into the cylinders either through a normal intake valve... or in this case (this being a Gnome) through ports on the cylinder walls like a 2 stroke.
That’s beautiful. It’s one of my dreams as a machinist to make a motorcycle with a rotary radial engine made from small B&S type engines. It would need a oil pan that lines up a catch underneath the spark plug holes for draining. I would love to do this to a sport body. Do all the exhausts into a rotary joint to make them all go into one conventional looking sport exhaust. The TL1000 S has the perfect narrow frame and is more transparent than the typical section frame.. Some day..
Sander Van der Kammen please elaborate the proper term for a rotating-cylinder radial-arranged-cylinder Engine then. You do realize “rotary” refers to many different mechanical principles... Not just referring to a Wankel engine...
@@nikolaishriver7922 The Rotary-type internal combustion engine is classified as a layout which has a fixed, non-rotating axle or hub assembly in lieu of a rotating crankshaft... and the engine assembly acts as a "rotor" revolving on a fixed axis without the need of a flywheel or harmonic damper.
@@nikolaishriver7922 There are two distinct and unrelated versions of WANKEL ENGINE. THE DKM-54 is a classic Rotary layout... While the Wankel KKM-57 design is a non--Rotary layout which requires spinning crankshaft and flywheel... components not found in any Rotary type ICE.
@1illert That is a 4 stroke i work at a museum and we have one that we demonstrate on a stand it does suck up fuel through the crankcase but its still a 4 stroke
@ValExperimenter I wouldn't know for sure, but I assume that the timing was about like that....I know the exhaust port opened slightly before the piston reached the intake ports, to equalize the pressure so it didn't blow back into the crankcase (which probably contributed to it's distinct sound). I'd guess the exhaust opened/closed at the same spacing from the intake ports whether it was compression or power stroke...say 5deg maybe? Just going up one time, down the other (and open between)
This type of rotary engine *is* radial in that the cylinders *radiate* from the crankshaft. When rotaries were common, up to the late 1920s, the convention was to speak of rotary and *stationary radial* engines to distinguish between the types. As rotaries went out of use, so did the word 'stationary' to describe radials. Perhaps it's time to revive it as more rotaries are now in use than at any time since about 1930, and the potential for confusion has returned!
@aceflyer89 I kind of wondered if you were really serious about that. Sadly, many people DO say things like that. Although, you CAN get around things like height/weight restrictions. There's videos out there somewhere (in like 5 parts) of a guy installing a medium-sized Russian radial of some sort in a tiny little VW Beetle-esque european car. A lot of very skilled fabrication involved. But that doesn't have the problems a rotary would have...
Interesting, I thought it was 2 stoke because valve in head, transfer ports in the cylinder base is a common 2 stroke diesel arrangement. Still it was an advanced engine for it's day.
@aceflyer89 Um....the Gnome engine puts out like 110hp and weighs like 330lbs. Not only that, but there IS no throttle...it's either "on" or "off", with the advanced ones allowing 1/4, 1/2 power, etc. Try driving in traffic with that. Why is it people always assume just because it's an airplane engine it'd make some super-beast car engine?
true that,, now compare the 330 pound gnome rated at 110 HP to a liquid cooled engine from the same time period rated at 110 HP. how much did that engine weigh??? see the difference?? that is the reason most WW1 fighters used the rotary engine. the engine was much lighter and more powerful the result fighters became faster, more powerful, and more deadly
@GGigabiteM I wish people would do some basic research before pretending to be experts, your statement is wrong. The pre-war Gnomes were still known as monosoupapes because of the single valve in the cylinder head, but used a counter balanced atmospheric inlet valve mounted in the piston to allow intake of the fuel/air mixture. And there is no such thing as blipmags.
It was early 1900's but isn't it bit odd that they did not come up with the direction changing gear to make the propeller to turn opposite direction ? It would have been a way to overcome some of the gyroscopic effect of the engine itself ?
+onsese joo Too small an effect for a part that could be a source of reliability problems. Siemens-Halske tried a layout where the crank turned one way at half engine rev and the prop and engine crank case and cylinders turned the other way at half engine speed. As would be expected from the limits of technology of the period it was a bit unreliable but it allowed a higher RPM but reduced the gyroscopic effect by making the engine spin at half the actual revolutions.
That is a complicated system. The propellor would require two gears of which one would be attached to propellor itself or simple crank, one in front of the engine. I think they were able to do gears strong enough for the purpose by then.
onsese joo Yes they were, But not in such small parts required for aircraft. Consider that the entire weight of the engine, the propeller thrust, the gyroscopic effect and the aircraft's weight behind it would be resting on those gears. On the other hand they were able to make thrust bearings well enough that Rotary engine's don't fall off the plane. An interesting note about the gear technology back then, the Hispano Suiza 8b with geared drive that powered the Spad 13 and Sopwith Dolphin as well as the early versions of the S.E.5a had instances when the reduction gears would fail and in extreme situations the propeller along with the gearbox would be flung off the plane.
-ACHTUNG- I can only guess, but perhaps the structure of the planes wasn't rigid enough, allowing the vibrations to play their part ? In the 2nd world war there were couple of fighter types that were consructed mainly on wood but those particular types turned out to be too flexible causing severe accidents and close calls.
onsese joo On a Rotary powered plane, there's quite literally minimal if not non-existant vibration. Rotaries are the smoothest running piston engines because in relation to the plane, there's no reciprocation parts. The pistons may be moving up and down relative to their respective cylinders but relative to the plane they're still tracking a circular path. This is most likely a contributing factor as to why it's rare to have a rotary engine fall of the plane. The plane's structure can be a problem but not in the particular issue we're talking about, An Albatros' single spar lower wing for example is liable to twist itself apart when diving at high speeds, but it has neither a rotary engine or gyroscopic precession problems.
aviationFan5418 I'd be more concerned about the engine catching fire, I understand that was an issue for some of the Gnome-engined fighters due to the fuel handling system still putting fuel into the pistons even when the blip switch had them disabled.
He asks at the end.....how long do these things last before rebuild? Keep running it on a sled tied down with a bra strap and you won't be around long enough to know.
sooo i have a question...wheres the gas tank and hows the fuel travel into the combustion chamber if the "block" spins like a bat out of a crack house in hell? this is a serious question...
There is NO SUCH THING as a 2 stroke rotary. PEOPLE... listen to the guy who posted the video... FOUR STROKE ENGINE. It spins and revs fast but is NOT a 2 stroke. Research, pay attention and LEARN SOMETHING NEW! Did any of you notice the metal outrigger on the RIGHT side of the engine stand as opposed to the orange tie-down strap on the left side??! THese engines (especiially a 160HP) have tremendous torque to the right hence the right-side metal strut. Watch, read, listen & learn. Educate :)
Yo me pregunto una cosa al jirar el motor completo en su eje como diablos le llega la gasolina o por donde fluye la gasolina como conectas una manguera de gasolina a ese motor que jira completo
kid this is a ROTARY engine the crank case and cylinders rotate around a stationary crank shaft. stop comparing this engine to a wankel. they are entirely different in design and function.
Mainly cooling. Back in the late 1800's/early 1900's they didn't have the technology (nor quality metallurgy) to produce cylinders with enough cooling fin area. Water cooled engines back then were also generally to heavy and under powered for aircraft. Especially aircraft intended for fighting a world war. These engines were a fantastic way to solve an immediate and pressing problem of powering aircraft. As engine technology/metallurgy improved (advancements driven by war competition) the rotary engine quickly became obsolete. The design didn't last very much past WWI.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
When I was a kid, I had the privilege of seeing aircraft powered by these things actually land, shut down start up and take off again. Better yet the whole show literally occurred in my back yard. The planes were a Tommy Morse Scout and a Fokker Triplane meticulously restored and flown by James Nissen, who was the general manager of the San Jose, California Municipal airport at the time. The air show was commemorating the early flights of John J. Montgomery who was an early aviation pioneer flying un-powered but rather sophisticated gliders in southern Santa Clara County, California. Montgomery was killed in 1911 in a crash of one of his planes barely two miles from the ranch my family and I were living on in 1961 when the air show was held in our backyard. There were around 30 - 40 aircraft in my backyard that day, probably at least 15 - 20 of them restored planes from the very early 1930's and earlier. As I remember Nissen had one or two other early day planes at the event, but I can't remember what they were. I THINK one of them may have been a French SPAD - also rotary powered. I got my first airplane ride out of the deal in a 1946 Taylorcraft owned and flown by "Bobby" Reid - one of the Reid family who owned and ran Reid's Hillview Airport a few short miles from our place.
You gotta wonder.
What went through the head of the mad bastard who thought "I know, let's fix the crankshaft, and rotate the entire engine around it".
He was no doubt thinking about cooling.
+Admiral Quality he definitely weren't thinking of flight characteristics, that's for sure.
They were thinking of horsepower to weight. These engines were phenominal for their day.
*****
Yeah, but aircraft with these kinds of engine were notorious pilot-killers.
A lot of them didn't have throttles either. They were either on or off. :o
I am in school to be an a&p mechanic, and this video has changed my whole path. I no longer want to work on jet engines.
Denise Shannon you wont be working on these.
There are plenty of old engines needing good mechanics
***** Yea if you are willing to work on minimum wage, sometimes for free.
Any specialized skill demands a good wage.
My rate is $65/hr and that is for old automobile engines. And I'm cheap.
A friend of mine makes a very good living converting old autombile engines for aircraft use.
That is definitely one of the more interesting configurations of a piston engine.
The torque reaction effect was used to great advantage in WW1 to dodge enemy fire, as the pilot constantly had to hold the stick against the torque to keep the aircraft reasonably level in normal flight, releasing the stick pressure caused the aircraft to instantly 'flip-over' and thus evade fire! Taking off was an art as can be appreciated with all that torque trying to 'flip you over'!
Here is an animation of this amazing engine design. 4 stroke, exhaust valve is in the cylinder head, intake valve is on the piston! Slow the animation down and watch the 4 strokes each one goes through. Fascinating. Never heard of these before today, and I thought I knew (or had worked on) about every engine ever made!
@zappafiner there is a gyroscopic effect, but it's not as strong as you might think. I've flown several aircraft with this engine installed and you tend to automatically correct for that without any problem. I think those stories started with the very inexperienced pilots who trained on these types, and then became part of exaggerated WW1 lore in the 1920s and 1930s.
On the next hot day I need to get myself one of these...
That is a rotary engine, the first kind of rotary. The others you folks are thinking about is the Wankel and thats a whole different rotary engine.
A wankel engine isn't a rotary engine to begin with. It's a rotary _piston_ engine, if folks are desperate to use the word rotary to describe the engine. Rotary engines are like the Gnome engine in all cases.
Nice job in finally getting that old beast running. I understand how these engines work and the principal behind them, but to me they still look really weird when they're running. I always have to do a double take when I see those cylinders spinning around.
Fantastic bit of kit with a great sound. Well done on the restoration job.
Thank you! That was VERY interesting. I have seen a rotary aircraft engine like that running. Makes a lot of sense. Conrats on getting it running so well and thanks again for sharing!
@rexxcarz the intake valve in piston type of Gnome was the pre-WW1 type, commonly 50 or 70 hp, although they did make bigger ones, including a two row 14 cylinder 160 hp version. For the 1918 version they used holes in the cylinder skirt for intake, which I guess is why people keep thinking it's a 2 stroke when it isn't.
That's one thing I love about engines...they're all based on the same principles, and even have the same working parts for the large part, yet there are so many differences in actual operation. Look at a radial and a rotary...to the layman, they'd be hard to tell apart at first glance (when not running!), yet are so dirrerent in so many ways. Funny that a Wankle and rotary are basically the same...the port timing is similar, they are both rotary, only one uses mechanicals, the other uses shape.
@ValExperimenter The Gnome rotary is a 4-stroke that by all appearances LOOKS like a 2-stroke. It has intake ports at BDC (but a normal poppet exhaust valve), it draws its fuel and most of its charge-air in through the crankcase, and uses total-loss lubrication (castor oil) like a 2-stroke, but is in fact a 4-stroke, although one of the oddest Otto-cycle engines ever made, IMHO. The charge thru the crankcase was ultra-rich, and the other 1/2 of the air was taken thru the exhaust port!
Sweet video, this is the first vid I have watched of a Monosoupape running :)
Yes, it is indeed a crankcase breathing 4 stroke, just like the earlier piston valve type made by the same company.
I converted a lawnmower engine to run on the same cycle as the Mono, as well as built and ran a piston valve type. Cool engines, designed by some very clever folks back about 100 years ago. :)
@toadabc there is a brush on the firewall and a distributor ring on the back of the engine that rotates with it and has contacts on the rear side and ring type terminals on its outer edge. The spark goes from the magneto to the brush to the distributor ring and then via a wire to the spark plug. The wire from the distributor ring to the spark plug is spring wire, about .050" I think, completely unshielded, so any nearby radio will have a lot of static.
@justforever96 That makes sense, the exhaust valve would close somewhere on the compression stroke after the mixture ports closed and compression would begin.
The valve had to close early to build up a suction that would pull mixture in when the ports opened.
The gyroscopic effect was enormous! Wonder how this affected when turning the aircraft
@Aarius1972 You are right and wrong, this is a radial engine and a rotary engine. All rotary engines are radial engines (not all radial engines are rotary engines). It is a rotary engine because the complete engine turns around the crancshaft. In other radial engines the crancshaft turns inside the engine.
Imagine having to design a machine gun that would fire through the propeller.
Oh God this puppy in a car :O The power you'd get!!! Or if it was put in an ultralight :P
@Xantec in level flight it's not really noticeable, it's mainly in the turns, and as I said in another reply an experienced pilot automatically compensates. Since the gyroscopic force acts at 90 degrees, in a right turn the nose tries to drop and in a left turn the nose tries to rise, so it is a bit easier to do right turns, but this is another of the WW1 flying stories that have gotten exaggerated over the years.
Great video!
It goes through the crankcase and into the cylinders either through a normal intake valve... or in this case (this being a Gnome) through ports on the cylinder walls like a 2 stroke.
That’s beautiful. It’s one of my dreams as a machinist to make a motorcycle with a rotary radial engine made from small B&S type engines. It would need a oil pan that lines up a catch underneath the spark plug holes for draining. I would love to do this to a sport body. Do all the exhausts into a rotary joint to make them all go into one conventional looking sport exhaust. The TL1000 S has the perfect narrow frame and is more transparent than the typical section frame.. Some day..
No such thing as a "rotary radial" engine..
Sander Van der Kammen please elaborate the proper term for a rotating-cylinder radial-arranged-cylinder Engine then. You do realize “rotary” refers to many different mechanical principles... Not just referring to a Wankel engine...
@@nikolaishriver7922 The Rotary-type internal combustion engine is classified as a layout which has a fixed, non-rotating axle or hub assembly in lieu of a rotating crankshaft... and the engine assembly acts as a "rotor" revolving on a fixed axis without the need of a flywheel or harmonic damper.
@@nikolaishriver7922 There are two distinct and unrelated versions of WANKEL ENGINE.
THE DKM-54 is a classic Rotary layout...
While the Wankel KKM-57 design is a non--Rotary layout which requires spinning crankshaft and flywheel... components not found in any Rotary type ICE.
@1illert That is a 4 stroke i work at a museum and we have one that we demonstrate on a stand it does suck up fuel through the crankcase but its still a 4 stroke
Who needs Merlins when you have a Gnome...!
It is one valve, "monosoupape", but 4 stroke
yes, and that made it perfect for aircraft use because you didn't need counterweights on the crankshaft and still made less vibration.
@ValExperimenter I wouldn't know for sure, but I assume that the timing was about like that....I know the exhaust port opened slightly before the piston reached the intake ports, to equalize the pressure so it didn't blow back into the crankcase (which probably contributed to it's distinct sound). I'd guess the exhaust opened/closed at the same spacing from the intake ports whether it was compression or power stroke...say 5deg maybe? Just going up one time, down the other (and open between)
An antique piece
The French Made Clerjet rotory engine was more updated, and featured a small block type carburetor, and intake and exhaust valves.
Idle ... sounds too awesome
@55chh
for that very reason, fighters tended to turn easier in one direction. to fly level, they needed a little bit of opposite roll input
This type of rotary engine *is* radial in that the cylinders *radiate* from the crankshaft. When rotaries were common, up to the late 1920s, the convention was to speak of rotary and *stationary radial* engines to distinguish between the types. As rotaries went out of use, so did the word 'stationary' to describe radials. Perhaps it's time to revive it as more rotaries are now in use than at any time since about 1930, and the potential for confusion has returned!
the throttle was to cut the magneto on and off.....otherwise, full throttle..... :-) ....and these were the "F-16's" of the day!!!!!!
@aceflyer89 I kind of wondered if you were really serious about that. Sadly, many people DO say things like that.
Although, you CAN get around things like height/weight restrictions. There's videos out there somewhere (in like 5 parts) of a guy installing a medium-sized Russian radial of some sort in a tiny little VW Beetle-esque european car. A lot of very skilled fabrication involved. But that doesn't have the problems a rotary would have...
now that is groovy. only better when connected to the airframe
Interesting, I thought it was 2 stoke because valve in head, transfer ports in the cylinder base is a common 2 stroke diesel arrangement. Still it was an advanced engine for it's day.
What kind of bearings are used in the crank and rods? Are they shell bearings like a car engine... Or roller/ball bearings like a motorcycle engine?
@55chh That's right, moreover there is the strong gyroscopic effect of the rotating mass.
@GGigabiteM Thanks for that info. That makes sense.
Awesome!
@aceflyer89 Um....the Gnome engine puts out like 110hp and weighs like 330lbs. Not only that, but there IS no throttle...it's either "on" or "off", with the advanced ones allowing 1/4, 1/2 power, etc. Try driving in traffic with that.
Why is it people always assume just because it's an airplane engine it'd make some super-beast car engine?
true that,, now compare the 330 pound gnome
rated at 110 HP to a liquid cooled engine from the same time period rated at 110 HP. how much did that engine weigh??? see the difference?? that is the reason most WW1 fighters used the rotary engine.
the engine was much lighter and more powerful
the result fighters became faster, more powerful,
and more deadly
no its not a radial engine! Question does the G,s of the cylinders spinning not affect the power output??
Build one of these, stick it in a car, and the average person who sees it while it is running will think it is some futuristic shit.
Great to see it run, It is 2 stroke one valve per cylinder isn't it?
Впечатляет ! 👍
The only problem with these engines is that they use total-loss oiling. You have to have something to catch the oil or it'll come back at you.
@1illert It is 4.
Now all you need is the rest of the plane! XD
All that rotating mass must have had a profound affect on the flying characteristics, trying to torque the airplane in one direction.
@1illert
No, it's a 4 stroke.
@GGigabiteM I wish people would do some basic research before pretending to be experts, your statement is wrong. The pre-war Gnomes were still known as monosoupapes because of the single valve in the cylinder head, but used a counter balanced atmospheric inlet valve mounted in the piston to allow intake of the fuel/air mixture. And there is no such thing as blipmags.
@justforever96 Hey, it was a joke. Obviously given the weight factors along with the height factors, no one would be able to do such thing ...
It was early 1900's but isn't it bit odd that they did not come up with the direction changing gear to make the propeller to turn opposite direction ? It would have been a way to overcome some of the gyroscopic effect of the engine itself ?
+onsese joo Too small an effect for a part that could be a source of reliability problems. Siemens-Halske tried a layout where the crank turned one way at half engine rev and the prop and engine crank case and cylinders turned the other way at half engine speed. As would be expected from the limits of technology of the period it was a bit unreliable but it allowed a higher RPM but reduced the gyroscopic effect by making the engine spin at half the actual revolutions.
That is a complicated system. The propellor would require two gears of which one would be attached to propellor itself or simple crank, one in front of the engine. I think they were able to do gears strong enough for the purpose by then.
onsese joo Yes they were, But not in such small parts required for aircraft. Consider that the entire weight of the engine, the propeller thrust, the gyroscopic effect and the aircraft's weight behind it would be resting on those gears.
On the other hand they were able to make thrust bearings well enough that Rotary engine's don't fall off the plane.
An interesting note about the gear technology back then, the Hispano Suiza 8b with geared drive that powered the Spad 13 and Sopwith Dolphin as well as the early versions of the S.E.5a had instances when the reduction gears would fail and in extreme situations the propeller along with the gearbox would be flung off the plane.
-ACHTUNG-
I can only guess, but perhaps the structure of the planes wasn't rigid enough, allowing the vibrations to play their part ? In the 2nd world war there were couple of fighter types that were consructed mainly on wood but those particular types turned out to be too flexible causing severe accidents and close calls.
onsese joo On a Rotary powered plane, there's quite literally minimal if not non-existant vibration. Rotaries are the smoothest running piston engines because in relation to the plane, there's no reciprocation parts. The pistons may be moving up and down relative to their respective cylinders but relative to the plane they're still tracking a circular path. This is most likely a contributing factor as to why it's rare to have a rotary engine fall of the plane.
The plane's structure can be a problem but not in the particular issue we're talking about, An Albatros' single spar lower wing for example is liable to twist itself apart when diving at high speeds, but it has neither a rotary engine or gyroscopic precession problems.
Does anyone know how fuel is fed to the thing if it’s spinning?
through the crank shaft it is hollow.
nice
hold it wide open and hold on
Now that's one way to mow the lawn! XD
Впечатляет !
neat!
WHO PUT THE FAN ON!!!!
that boggles my mind. So how does the cylinders get fuel? Sorry if this has already been asked.
fuel entered the cylinders through a carbuartor then through hollow crank shaft, and
then entered through ports in the bottom of each cylinder.
no throttle, engine speed controlled by ignition cut out
the intake valve is in the piston
i hated those designs.
no way for oil to lube the engine
spun the plane becasue of the spinning torque
Those men spent way too much money on that hair dryer. They don't even have enough hair!
What would happen if one of those propeller blades broke off with you guys standing behind it...?
it would break off and fly to the left or right due to the spinning direction of the engine. It's very unlikely that these two guys would get hurt.
aviationFan5418 I'd be more concerned about the engine catching fire, I understand that was an issue for some of the Gnome-engined fighters due to the fuel handling system still putting fuel into the pistons even when the blip switch had them disabled.
aviationFan5418 centrifugal force my friend.
Javimeleshe Cruz Centrifugalforce doesn't exist, inertia is why they wouldn't get hurt.
how's that? I think CF does exist.
nice wind creator :D can you blow away clouds with it? it will stop the rain and snow :D
it has been blown off..
He asks at the end.....how long do these things last before rebuild?
Keep running it on a sled tied down with a bra strap and you won't be around long enough to know.
Yes it looked faintly suicidal
haha i watched this on youtubes 1911 mode
now you must. you have not choice put it in a Plane!!!
sooo i have a question...wheres the gas tank and hows the fuel travel into the combustion chamber if the "block" spins like a bat out of a crack house in hell? this is a serious question...
fuel enters though a hollow crank shaft to the crank case, then through intake ports in each cylinder
There is NO SUCH THING as a 2 stroke rotary. PEOPLE... listen to the guy who posted the video... FOUR STROKE ENGINE. It spins and revs fast but is NOT a 2 stroke. Research, pay attention and LEARN SOMETHING NEW! Did any of you notice the metal outrigger on the RIGHT side of the engine stand as opposed to the orange tie-down strap on the left side??! THese engines (especiially a 160HP) have tremendous torque to the right hence the right-side metal strut. Watch, read, listen & learn. Educate :)
Twin Beech Radial 9's put out 1200 hp each, and they are still flying today.
2 stroke ?
negative sir.
looks fuckin dangerous lol
way to much to explain here on YT.try google,wikipedia,......
use keywords as,gnome rotary engine........
Yo me pregunto una cosa al jirar el motor completo en su eje como diablos le llega la gasolina o por donde fluye la gasolina como conectas una manguera de gasolina a ese motor que jira completo
Too much spinning mass....
+Jason King That was their biggest downfall.
This is a radial engine, not a rotary.
That's not correct. It is absolutely a rotary, with the propeller bolted to the crankcase and the crankshaft bolted to the stand.
*inhales*
BI-
kid this is a ROTARY engine the crank case and cylinders rotate around a stationary crank shaft.
stop comparing this engine to a wankel. they are entirely different in design and function.
thats a radial engine
Where do you get your information for this nomenclature? I am not aware that any radials were ever referred to anything but radial.
rotary is a radial that rotates around a fixed crankshaft
why whole engine rotates i could not learnt any useful lesson
Mainly cooling. Back in the late 1800's/early 1900's they didn't have the technology (nor quality metallurgy) to produce cylinders with enough cooling fin area. Water cooled engines back then were also generally to heavy and under powered for aircraft. Especially aircraft intended for fighting a world war.
These engines were a fantastic way to solve an immediate and pressing problem of powering aircraft. As engine technology/metallurgy improved (advancements driven by war competition) the rotary engine quickly became obsolete. The design didn't last very much past WWI.