The Aerodrome Home Page
Aces of WWI
Aircraft of WWI
Books and Film
The Aerodrome Forum
Sign the Guestbook
Help
Links to Other Sites
Medals and Decorations
The Aerodrome News
Search The Aerodrome
Today in History


Learn how to remove ads

The Aerodrome Forum


Go Back   The Aerodrome Forum > Archives > 2001


2001 Closed threads from 2001 (read only)

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7 March 2001, 03:16 AM   #1 (permalink)
leo
Forum Ace
 
leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,862
 
The Bentley BR2 radial devloped 230 HP. Was this the most pwerful radial during WW I? Was the 170 HP Goebel Germany's most powerful radial?


leo
__________________
A.E.I.O.U.
leo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 7 March 2001, 06:03 AM   #2 (permalink)
Rest in Peace
 
Dan_San_Abbott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ceres, California
Posts: 9,119
Images: 22
 

My Gallery
Leo:
I understand that the Seimens-Schukert ShIIIa developed a maximum of 260 P.S. at maximum rpm. It was rated at 160P.S. @ 1800 rpm. It was a bi-rotary with the propellor and engine turning clockwise @ 900 rpm (from the pilot's seat) and the crankshaft and rods turning opposite at 900 rpm. 2 x 900 =1800 rpm. However there was a double row Gnome N with 18 cylinders rated @ 300 hp. i don't know if the engine was ever used in operational aircraft.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

Dan_San_Abbott is offline  
Old 7 March 2001, 09:09 AM   #3 (permalink)
Michael Skeet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Just to be clear: the Bentley and the Siemens-Halske engine (and the double-rown Gnome) were rotary, not radial engines.

I hadn't come across mention of an 18-cylinder Gnome. The only double-row Gnome rotary I was aware of was a 14-cylinder job.
 
Old 7 March 2001, 01:55 PM   #4 (permalink)
Rest in Peace
 
Dan_San_Abbott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ceres, California
Posts: 9,119
Images: 22
 

My Gallery
Leo:
First of all the Geobel Go.III was a rotary and was rated @ 200 P.S. and developed a maximum of 230 P.S. and saw limited service in the Fok. E.V /D.VIII. The largest radial was the A.B.C. "Dragonfly" which was rated @ 320 HP @ 1650 rpm and 340 hp @ 1750 rpm. This engine was to power the Sopwith Snipe, Nieuport Nighthawk and others in 1919. The engine was a miserable failure, in it's bench tests it rarely achieved 295 hp. The Sopwith Snipe wound up with the Bentley BR2 rotary and the performance of the Snipe was inferior to the Camel which it was to replace in 1919.
Blue Skies,
Dan-San Abbott
Dan_San_Abbott is offline  
Old 8 March 2001, 03:13 AM   #5 (permalink)
leo
Forum Ace
 
leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,862
 
Dan-San:
Heck!! I meant Rotary, but somehow wrote radial. I guess Mrs. Sweeney is right; I often need to be corrected. Thank you.

leo
__________________
A.E.I.O.U.
leo is offline  
Old 8 March 2001, 03:20 AM   #6 (permalink)
leo
Forum Ace
 
leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,862
 
Did Germany or Austria develop a radial engine during WWI?

leo
__________________
A.E.I.O.U.
leo is offline  
Old 8 March 2001, 05:05 AM   #7 (permalink)
R. Bailey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dan San - accrding to the information under "aircraft" on this board, the snipe was not much faster than the camel, but had better climb, better visibility and was easier to fly. What made it inferior to the camel?
 
Old 8 March 2001, 12:07 PM   #8 (permalink)
leo
Forum Ace
 
leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,862
 
The Snipe was originally designed to use 150HP BR1, 150HP Gnome, 130 HP Clerget, or the 110 HP Le Rhone.
One prototype #B9963 was fitted with a 230 HP Bentley BR2. Tests of these were neutral with excellent view from the cockpit, but with poor rudder control. An ABC Dragonfly Radial was fitted to B9667. When the engine ran correctly results were phenominal, but the engine was poor.
The plane was ordered into production as a Sopwith Dragon for 1919. I suspect that because the Snipe was larger and heavier than the Camel, it did not perform much better with the aforementioned rotaries. With the Dragonfly it hit 147.8 mph at 10,000 ft.

Barker flew a Snipe in his VC battle with multiple Germans.

Referncing J.M. Bruce
"Fighters of the First World War Vol.3 pp 21-29

leo
__________________
A.E.I.O.U.
leo is offline  
Old 10 March 2001, 11:31 PM   #9 (permalink)
cam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
>What made it inferior to the camel?

I dont think it was, from what I have read of the AFC pilots who flew the Camel and Snipe in 4 Sqn, all without fail say they love the Camel and that its quirks were no problem once mastered. They also imply or write that the Snipe was not manouvreable as the Camel.

Another common comment by the AFC pilots on the Camel was that it was not good above 12000 feet and could not meet the Fokker DVII's at that height. All seem to mention that the Snipe allowed them to challenge the DVII's on equal terms at higher altitudes. Another comment is that they mention the superior climbing abilities of the Snipe. IIRC Wright wrote they got 250 Hp at 1400 RPM out of the Bentleys. McCloughry also wrote that the only plane the Camel could catch was a Fokker Triplane.

None seemed to be dissappointed in the change over to the Snipe from the Camel, despite their obvious affection for the Camel. It also appears that some pilots like King took to the Snipe immediately.

The Snipe certainly allowed 4 Sqn AFC to fulfill their duties as a Scout squadron in greater number of roles, previously they had a top cover of SE5a's commonly in late 1918, in October they were often the top cover for the SE5a's! As 80 Wing RAF had an SE5a, F2b, Camel and Snipe squadron, it gave them the ability to satisfy a number of scouting and escorting roles at many altitudes than previously when they had consisted of an F2b, SE5a and two Camel squadrons. Especially when they were consistently meeting DVII equipped Jasta's in the air.



cam
AFC - http://members.nbci.com/pointcook/
 
 

Bookmarks

Tags
follow, radial, engines


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rotec Radial William 2002 0 29 October 2002 03:34 PM
Dr. I follow-up: Surviving fabric samples StefenK 2001 8 5 October 2001 02:00 AM
Inventor of the Rotary and Radial engines leo 2001 16 5 March 2001 01:34 AM
LvR's 1st Alb DIII: Weights Follow-up Stef 2000 1 1 January 2001 09:20 AM
Rotary or radial? Rich 2000 9 7 October 2000 08:02 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright 1997 - 2013 The Aerodrome