Engine efficiency

[some_other_dave]

Well, I certainly do like the Deperdussin racer better than the "gliding brick" or the Hornet. But I like old airplanes.

And to be fair, part of the problem with the Monosoupape was due to the funky way the valves were actuated.

If you compare the rotaries to the later inline engines, the latter seem pretty superior.

For instance, the Fokker Dr.1 triplane used:
1 × Oberursel Ur.II 9-cylinder rotary engine, 82 kW (110 hp)

The early versions of the Fokker D.VII biplane used:
1 × Mercedes D.III 6-cyl. water-cooled in-line piston engine, 120 kW (160 hp)

Later versions of the same engine (or a similar one made by BMW) made 180 HP or more.

There are valid reasons that nobody uses rotary engines of that type any more. Some of those may prove to be irrelevant (your hydraulic-accumulator engine sounds interesting, OM!) but I think it will require a fairly major shift to make the rotary at all compelling when compared to inline and Vee engines.

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Actually the later Rotaries used in the Sopwith Camel even had a carburetor that would work when the plane was inverted, solving a problem that even plagued the early Spitfires 20 years later.

The Spits may have had problems with G forces, but the Bf-109s and FW-190s used fuel injection and never had the problem.


-soD