MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Message Boards  
  For New Members  
  On This Day....  
  General  
  American History  
  Ancient History  
  British History  
  Current Events  
  European History  
  The Civil War  
  War  
  World History  
  Pictures  
    
    
  Links  
  Militaria Board  
  Cars/Motorcycles  
  
  
  Tools  
 
Militaria Board : WW1 Last German Fighters
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191  (Original Message)Sent: 5/11/2008 8:25 PM
In JimBert's engines thread, below, we discussed the strange passion for rotary engines
 such as the French le Rhone. They were light and kept cool while taxying.
The crankshaft was static, and the engine whirled around it. The propellor was bolted to the engine.
Problems
  1. Colossal centrifugal force, making the aircraft flick into very tight turns, only controllable by an expert which gave tremendous manoeverability
  2. Lubrication: at a time when the Germans were running out of caster oil.
  3. limited horsepower, 90-110 HP
  4. Limited "bite" from the prop, the prop had to be short enough for the aircraft to taxi tail up and miss the ground.

But at the end of the war, the Germans designed this beauty

 

The Siemens- Shuckert DIV. This was rotary engined, and turned at 1800 revs, difference being

an intermediate gear made the prop turn in the OPPOSITE direction to the cylinders. Also a rear gear made the

prop rotate at half engine speed, allowing 4 blades to get a good grip on the airflow. Note streamlined spinner

and also huge cooling slot under cowling.

 To me, that engine looks much more meaty (160 HP)

than the Le Rhone above.

The Siemans Halke engine could offer a rate of climb of 24,000 feet in 36 mins.

It outperformed the Fokker DVII and was produced after WW1 for Switzerland



First  Previous  53-67 of 67  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 53 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamemajorshrapnelSent: 5/21/2008 8:48 AM
Oh.... so you're bombing Manchester now eh? You realise of course.... this means warrrrrr! Sorry pal, but no escuse, they are dildo impersonators, why they even sound like they're running on 4 AA batteries.

Reply
 Message 54 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamemajorshrapnelSent: 5/21/2008 8:49 AM
Flash.... a roller bearing

Reply
 Message 55 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/21/2008 9:29 AM
In a big end? Must have one hell of a pump behind it. Seen my pic of a T34 wheel bearing?
 
 
Obviously taken from a dry static monument, but there's a hell of a lot of space to fill with oil between ball and cage.

Reply
 Message 56 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamemajorshrapnelSent: 5/21/2008 10:56 AM
I notice that wheel bearing was made in Germany.... sabotage!! Two strokes use rollers, which only get fed by vapourised oil and they are fine.

Reply
 Message 57 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 5/21/2008 8:01 PM
Ref # 53. I can't believe you're saying these things, are you trying to put me in an early grave !
Wigan and Aspull were bombed by the L61 in April 1918, it was the furthest west Zeppelins ever reached.

Reply
 Message 58 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/21/2008 8:06 PM
I mentioned in another site that this was the result of the Treaty of Rapallo. German bearings were widely purchased by the Soviets as theirs cracked up.
I've got a feeling that T34 bearing was possibly from a KV1 which was pre- Barbarossa

Reply
 Message 59 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/21/2008 8:08 PM
#56
Yes, I remember now, my father initiating me into the secrets of oil seal removal in the back wheel of my Vespa.

Reply
 Message 60 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamemajorshrapnelSent: 5/21/2008 8:39 PM
Mark, you know I'm just trying to wind you up. One of my great heroes designed Britain's greatest airship... Barnes Wallis, if they were good enough for him? They're alright I suppose, but hardly likely to stir the heart like a Vulcan bomber or a B52 pasing overhead.

Reply
 Message 61 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/21/2008 10:46 PM
Wigan and Aspull were bombed by the L61 in April 1918
 
So, Mark is expecting us to applaud the destruction of British property in the pursuit of his hideous dirigible fetish. Move over Sharon. Another anti-Brit 

Reply
 Message 62 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 5/22/2008 7:25 PM
I expect you to take it for what it is, a simple statement of fact.

Reply
 Message 63 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/23/2008 10:39 PM
jumping on the bandwagon, mark?

Reply
 Message 64 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHobbs410Sent: 5/24/2008 10:24 AM
#28 does look like a drunken Hula girl. It makes more sense to me to have the engine sit still and the the rest of the machine move.

Reply
 Message 65 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/24/2008 2:55 PM
Hobbs
I'm sure your Physics master and mine must be facing each other in Hell.
 
5 advantages of radial.
 
  1. Light weight; no heavy sumps.
  2. Superb cooling as engine is constant speed
  3. No throttle mechanism and petrol metering
  4. Vicious snap back in turns. (2 edged sword)
  5. Compact installation

When I give my annual address to the Flat Earth and Phlogiston Enhancemant Society I shall raise your snivelling suggestion. 


Reply
 Message 66 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHobbs410Sent: 5/25/2008 4:18 PM
Flash,
Light weight is good see cessna, most of their stuff is air cooled as well. Snap back would be bad as pilots get that in one direction I bet they had to fight the engine to go the other direction. So enemy always know which way to lead. No throttle very bad you only get one speed. Compact is also a plus.

Reply
 Message 67 of 67 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 5/25/2008 5:58 PM
Hobbs
My Physics master is laughing at yours, and is re-reading my seven sided cube hypothesis. Maybe, compared with young Hobbs, he wasn't so bad......
 
Snap turns meant the enemy could not traverse quickly enough to get a lead. And don't forget a Scarff ring mounted rear lewis was a sod to aim against wind pressure
 
No throttle? Ever tried to land at max speed? No, there was an ignition cut-out. That's why you heard constant "blipping" of throttles. Also on taxying. Of course in WW2 there were (your Hamilton - superb - ) and our ( Rotol - crappy) constant speed props with variable pitch.
 
Compact is a sum of the good parts.

First  Previous  53-67 of 67  Next  Last 
Return to Militaria Board