Cole Palen's Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome

[Harris Hawk]

I don't agree, at least not completely. You do make a good point, and that is one of reliability, but I go to ORA to see the real thing. It's easy to see the Disneyland type of aircraft, but what attracted me to ORA was the reality. Yes, rotaries are difficult to fly, yes they need constant maintenance, yes, they don't last very long, yes they aren't made from state of the art materials, but there is nothing else like them. Would the average person care? Maybe not, but it is the hard core enthusiasts that were attracted to ORA. There may be room for both. For show reliability, radials in some of the planes, like the current DR1, but there need to be a few flying aircraft with the rotaries and the explaination of the problems associated with keeping them flying. What we are trying to do is educate the general public (and have some fun ourselves) and show them just how frail and difficult to fly these planes were/are. We are trying to show them what it was like back in WW1 and only rotary powered flying a/c can do that.

[tazbat]

Both the Museum and Air Shows are granted non-profit, education statuses. Naturally, as such they are supposed to be showing people what aviation used to be like. Of course education comes in many different forms at ORA. There is the museum and its exhibits. The air show is another form. And then, there is the opportunity to talk with the pilots and volunteers. Now if none of the pilots have rotary experience, sort of like last year, it is hard to honestly answer peoples questions that are specific to flying a rotary A/C.

Flying rotary aircraft are very unique and make the air show special. If all the planes had modern conventional engines when I made my first visit, it is likely I would have never returned.

Pietenpol, this is not in defiance to your post. Your comment is very logical. In fact, two of the usual away planes are powered by modern engines, the DR.1 and the SPAD.

In my estimation, the old engines whether rotary or stationary, are essential for the accuracy of the collection. What if they put a Volkswagen engine in the Ford Model T Speedster. It would sure be more reliable and less expensive to maintain, but it wouldn't sound the same. That Model T engine's sound is so characteristic and thus an integral part of the vehicles historical value.

Salute!

I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am certainly not trying to start any fueds here. But I will elaborate further on my own opinion by responding to others opinions. First of all, if all these harcore enthusiasts had there own WW1 replica they had built, how many would want to sit behind a rotary while flying it? Certainly not me! The only way you can see how it was back in WW1 is to have a time travel machine and transport back. You are not seeing the real thing when attending ORA or any other WW1 flying museum. These aircraft aren't any more frail than most of todays types taking to the skies, and what does Disneyland type aircraft exactly mean? If the original engine quits on the Model T, all you do is pull off to the side on the grass strip - not so easy to do when you at only 400 - 500 ft. agl and your rotary engine gives up the ghost! With all the drag these a/c have, you won,t make it back to the strip - you are going down into the trees! The Hanriot, Albatros, DR-1 & Spad all have non original type engines, and yet it is a joy to see these a/c take to the air. In my 5 seasons at the aerodrome, I NEVER saw or heard of people leaving the aerodrome because these a/c didn't have original type engines! They come to see these planes FLY!!!! And to further nitpick, even though the Camel has a Rotary engine, it is not accurate because no original Camels had 160 Gnomes under the cowling! Way back when, Cole tried to use original type engines when he could, but many of the planes he had at that time used non-original powerplants and no one ever complained. The important thing was to get the plane in the air so it could earn its keep. Hop the Caudron G-III up and down the field to show the crowd a rotary aircraft in flight. But to put on a GOOD airshow, and thats all it is today, an AIRSHOW - not WW1, these a/c, IN MY OPINION, should have more modern and reliable engines! How much time and money would be saved by ORA if they didn't have to have rotary engines overhauled and aircraft reconstructed because of ROTARY ENGINE FAILURE! Plus the fact that these planes wouldn't be grounded because they don't have any pilots who have no rotary engine expierience - something to think about!!!!

PIET

[tazbat]

To me Piet, the sound of a rotary flying in the sky, like the Camel, blipping its ignition with the selector magneto is part of the show. Same with the Nieuport11 and the Avro. That was and still is part of the fascination of those old planes.

The air show is not supposed to be just a visual demonstration of flying old planes. It should be a physical demonstration, like the difference between going to a concert to see real singing or lip synching. There are hundreds of air shows every year that feature old planes with modern engines. If that is what you want...

Many of the planes Cole built or bought didn't have the original engines and they weren't available. Not much you can do about that, so you make do with what is around.

Salute!

[EricGoedkoop]

Piet does have a valid point - trying to keep rotaries running, and running reliablity and safely, is certainly one of the biggest challenges for Old Rhinebeck, Shuttleworth, Memorial Flight and other working airshow/museums. These engines weren't renowned for their reliability when new, let alone a century later. Add to that the dwindling number of people who have the skill and experience to handle them (take the Snipe crash at ORA - a good pilot who wasn't used to flying rotaries and instinctively hit a "throttle" control which was in fact a mixture control) and I think there's definitely a time coming when rotaries won't be flying anymore, much as I hate to contemplate that.

A radial-powered Tripe is better than no Tripe at all.

I've wondered myself about the practicality of a "new" rotary engine, but I'm not sure if there truly is enough demand to offset the costs of designing and producing it. Museums like ORA or Shuttleworth have limited budgets, and the private enthusiast would most likely not have the training and ability to handle it.

Guess what we need to do is tool up and make half a dozen neo-rotaries, build half a dozen AVRO 504's to put 'em in and open a flight school . . . .

[tazbat]

Originally Posted by EricGoedkoop

Piet does have a valid point...

I won't deny that. It is a good point for any museum that only wants to put planes in the air. And a lot of people are simply happy to see planes go round and round in the air.

But, someone is going to have to keep the "Torch" of history lit. That's what museums do. It could be Shuttleworth, Owls Head, Memorial Flight, or whoever. Personally, I would like to see it be ORA. Why? Because it is what Cole did. He had no qualms about putting a non-oem engine in a plane if he didn't own one. And in the case of the DR.1 he went Continental in order to work away shows. Remember though, the tripe is a visually attractive plane. It is distinctly unique in appearance.

As for the neo-rotary design I've worked on, the main concept is to utilize as many off the shelf components as possible, ie. cylinders, roller lifters, bearings, pumps, pistons, rings, fuel injectors, etc.. The few parts that would have to be special built would be like the crank (for which I already have a company that can build them) and the rod assembly. The rest would be designed so as to be easily produced in a typical machine shop like the one at ORA. In fact, part of the concept is to license the use of the design and let Museums build their own as needed, along the same idea of licensing computer software to the end user. I guarantee a person like Ken Cassen could competently build what I have conceived, once it is put into drawings. What is the cost of a complete, rebuilt Continental 200 hp radial?

As for Paul Richards crashing the Snipe, he probably shouldn't have been flying the Snipe in the first place, no more so than the jet jockey that crashed the tripe. They hadn't had sufficient training. In Paul Richards case it was simply a matter of unfamiliarity of controls. This is similar to putting a person who has never driven a truck bigger than a pickup into the cab of a Kenworth with a seventy foot trailer and sending them on their way. It is essentially ignorant and a recipe for trouble.

Your idea of building some AVRO 504's and putting neo-rotaries on them is a great idea. They could have dual controls and be used as rotary powered trainers. Where do you get such ideas? Bravo!

Salute!

[EricGoedkoop]

Originally Posted by tazbat

Where do you get such ideas? Bravo!

I've got a million of 'em - each one less practical than the last.

You should see what I'd be selling in the ORA Gift Shop

[EricGoedkoop]

Originally Posted by tazbat

As for the neo-rotary design I've worked on, the main concept is to utilize as many off the shelf components as possible, ie. cylinders, roller lifters, bearings, pumps, pistons, rings, fuel injectors, etc.. The few parts that would have to be special built would be like the crank (for which I already have a company that can build them) and the rod assembly. The rest would be designed so as to be easily produced in a typical machine shop like the one at ORA. In fact, part of the concept is to license the use of the design and let Museums build their own as needed

That's really a great idea - I hadn't thought along those lines at all. A reliable, modernized rotary engine that was easily built as the need arose would be a boon.

Are you thinking about various-horsepower models? An 80, 120 and 160 would cover the bases and allow the museum or builder to match power pretty closely to the original in most cases - unlike the 160 Gnome Cole had in his first Tripe for a time!

[tazbat]

Horse power is directly related to discplacement and compression ratio. In this case the horsepower could be controlled by compression ratio. Another way of controlling horsepower is in the cam. A standard cam for 160 hp. and say a reduced duration for an 80 hp. engine. The lower horsepower would be achieved by delaying the intake valve closure and advancing the intake valve opening. That was in someways similar to the function of the Gnome valve.

Make sense?

Salute!

[AAC Cadet Leader]

Originally Posted by EricGoedkoop

You should see what I'd be selling in the ORA Gift Shop

Pray, tell.