Quote:
Dear Lufbery,
Sorry if I seemed touchy its just that it really is meant to be fun and I sense that less experienced folks are hesitant to post on forums in general.
|
No sweat.
Quote:
|
The 110 will probably be used (after overhaul) in a Camel project we are starting. Considered putting it in our Pup as one of the 4 "experimental" Pups that used the 110 but decided to keep searching for an 80 hp Le Rhone or Gnome instead.
|
Did Camels have 110 LeRhones? If not, how do you feel about using an anhistorical powerplant for a plane?
BTW, is this a private venture, or are you associated with a museum or something like that?
Quote:
Changing materials or manufacturing techniques will change dimensional requirements to suit cooling and mass requirements. Machining the parts is not the hardest part of reproducing the engine. Metallurgy is not my area but my partner is a metallurgist and manufacturing engineer and waxes eloquently about crystallline structures and strengths, it sort of gives me a headache as I'm not very clever. Cost is always the crippler. Besides I love opening crates with gummed up engines in them. I've really enjoyed everyones posts on this topic and it has been helpful to reframe ideas as fantasy vs. practical.
Best regards,
William
|
Well, is there a practical need for a rotary engine in this day and age? Is there something that a rotary engine would do that can't be done by other types of (less expensive) engines?
I think the answer is yes: no other type of engine can rotate around the crankshaft
with the prop! I could see a definite market for replica or reproduction rotaries for people building replica or reproduction WWI planes. I like the idea of a simpler powerplant than the originals for something like a Graham Lee N-17 -- especially if it were affordable.
Have we reached any consensus on what a modern rotary would be like?
Regards,