Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2014, 11:12 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
Here you go mid 1920s front wheel drive rotary engined motorcycle.

The Megola motorcycle.



regards
Mech

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
Cobb (05-06-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-04-2014, 11:44 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 452 Times in 319 Posts
http://www.osengines.com/engines-air...307/index.html

Just add bike
__________________






  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 03:38 AM   #13 (permalink)
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,186

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 34.2 mpg (US)

Gramps - '04 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 35.39 mpg (US)

Don't hit me bro - '05 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 29.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7,225
Thanked 2,217 Times in 1,708 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh View Post
It is an old aircraft engine. The LeRhone goes back to the early 1900s.

I'm trying to remember the engine where the shaft was actually fixed to the firewall and the engine spun with the prop. I imagine overheating wasn't a big issue on that one. Can anyone tell me what that was?
You must mean the Bentley BR2 Rotary Aero Engine.

Yeah, I just wrote "Airplane" and copied and pasted your description into Google!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 07:33 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
Radials are reciprocating engines. Rotaries are not. The action of the connecting rod in a radial is the same as any other engine, the difference in a rotary is shown in the first post. That design, although ancient, is the only engine where the con rods orbit the crankpin. That is not a reciprocating action. If the cod rod rotated one time around the crank pin in a radial, or any other reciprocating engine, you have a blown engine with internal parts possibly sticking outside of the destroyed engine block.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 08:24 AM   #15 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,314

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 29.5 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 50.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 427
Thanked 616 Times in 450 Posts
The "radial" vs. "rotary" description is what keeps tripping me up. And the Wankel kind of blurs the lines too, as its described as a rotary but the engine block stays still.

That motorycycle is amazing. It would take some serious cojones to drive that, can you imagine hitting a pothole with that front wheel? You'd knock your own teeth out. Also: no clutch.
__________________




Lead or follow. Either is fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 11:21 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,479
Thanks: 201
Thanked 262 Times in 199 Posts
My understanding is that the main advantage of the rotary engine was that it did not need a flywheel, because almost all of the mass of the engine itself acted as a flywheel. So it could be a lot lighter than the engines that needed a flywheel--which most did, because early on they didn't have very smooth-running engines. Especially if you controlled your power by killing the ignition to some cylinders.

The term "rotary" is a bit overloaded. But the engine shown in the first post is definitely an aircraft rotary engine. The crank was bolted to the firewall, and the prop was bolted to the engine block.

-soD
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 12:51 AM   #17 (permalink)
Not banned yet
 
deejaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas Coast, close to Houston
Posts: 907

Blue - '03 Chevy S-10, LS
Thanks: 423
Thanked 265 Times in 212 Posts
Man, those guys had it all figured out. Beautiful engineering!
__________________
2003 S-10, 2.2L, 5 speed, ext cab long bed.
So far: DRL delete, remove bed mount toolbox.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 01:22 AM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: €20 bus ride from Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 64

Mazda 626 - '80 Mazda 626 Base
Thanks: 2
Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
I think most airplanes use the propeller as the flywheel...
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 02:17 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,479
Thanks: 201
Thanked 262 Times in 199 Posts
Perhaps they do these days, but back in the 1908-1914 time frame a propeller wasn't nearly enough weight to be as effective a flywheel as they needed.

Mixture control on the early radials (especially the Monosoupape) was horrible. Throttling the engine was basically impossible, and the valve timing was rather suboptimal as well. But they had good power-to-weight for the time--which made them among the best aero engines just then.

They were able to make incremental improvements to the basic rotary, which improved things like carburetion and valve timing, but other layouts improved even faster. It is likely that improved carburetors and ignitions resulted in engines that didn't need an immense flywheel, so the major advantage of the rotary was gone.

Plain radials could separate out the intake air from the crankcase air, which only helped with the power and mixture. And the inline (or vee) water-cooled engines had much less frontal area, making it easier to streamline the aircraft--plus they were able to extract similar power from rather less displacement. Though the radials could be (and were!) built to massive sizes (3000+ cubic inches!) for massive power, and were much more damage-tolerant than the water-cooled engines.

-soD
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 07:11 PM   #20 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 12,571
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,452 Posts
These radial engines look cool. Well, maybe the aircraft engines closest to the concept of a Wankel are the turboprop ones.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com