
 Originally Posted by 
johntins
					 
				 
				34. The 'rotary' engine one threw me, and then I remember the Yanks use that word to describe what I always called 'radial'.
..........
			
		 
	 
 Rotary and radial are not the same thing. They look similar, but in a radial, the cylinders stay still while the crankshaft rotates, but in a rotary the crankshaft stays still while the cylinders and crankcase rotate. The rotary usually has a hollow crankshaft, and the intake valves in the pistons, and runs a petroil mixture like a two stroke. It has the advantage that all the heavy moving components travel in perfect circles, just with different centres, so there is almost nil vibration, and there is no cooling issue (radials had serious cooling issues until years were spent on development). This meant rotaries could be much lighter (cylinders were typically steel rather than cast iron, turned from solid, and with paper-thin cooling fins). There were two major problems - firstly, the large flywheel that the cylinders made meant a noticeable gyroscopic effect when an aircraft turned rapidly, and powers over about 150hp had serious problems getting enough mixture through the crankshaft, and made multi-row engines impractical. Radials eventually grew to four or even more rows, with powers well over 2,000hp.
				
			 
			
		 
			
				
			
			
				John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
			
			
		 
	
Bookmarks