Earliest four?

Megola built a rotary 5-cylinder engine in the front wheel, as I
recall.

You'd play hell turning a motorbike built like that...

 

And we've got another winner! Turns out that the Hildebrand & Wolfmuller
(sic.) is a 2-cyl (horizontal twin, not a V or opposed), water-cooled
motorcycle which debuted in 1894. I don't see a radiator in the photo
however, which might just be the photo...

--
Later,
John



'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.

 

ISTR that teh Sopwith Camel was quicker turning a 270 degree turn, using
the torque of the engine to help it, than it was turning a 90 degree the
other way.

And total loss they were, and they ran on castor oil. Pilots who flew
them regularly were very, er, regular.

 

Taut, uninsulated steel wires carried the high voltage to the fark
splugs...

You *need* to be slow on final. Going 1/2 as fast makes the crash 1/4
as hard...

Throttle control was non-existant. Power was all-or-none. Powered kite
fliers was what the pilots were, and they glided to a landing with the
engine off.

And the engine would also cut out during some maneuvers such as
inverted flight or loops due to the fuel flow stopping.

But that problem continued into the 1940's, when pilots of the Spitfire
Mk I had to remember to put g's on the airframe before rolling inverted
to perform a "split-arse" maneuver.

 

a deceased friend named milby jones, exton, pa. had a Megola
motorcycle, i believe it was from the teens.
it had a 5 cylinder radial that was the front wheel.
it rotated like the le rhone aircraft engine.
it had the intake tract thru the front axle.
the rods had partial bigends (no caps) and were retained by
a groove in the crank and lands on the rod cheeks.
naturally, the crank stayed still and everything else rotated.
i enjoyed perusing this in my own hands.
sammmm an ooollldd biker.


--

 

Wrong. At least, according to the book I've just been reading (The First
of the Few, by Denis Winter [1]). And according to a swift Google.

Yes, old rotaries used to run flat out or not at all, but the pilot had
a button on the control column which chould be blipped to cut the
ignition and thus reduce power The Gnome rotary (the Camel was fitted
with different makes of engine in its life) had a device that cut the
ignition to at least some of the cylinders, to reduce power for landing.

Also, any pilot who decided to cut the engine entirely, and make a
"one-shot" chance of landing, then or now, would be a dead pilot, very
quickly.

[1] Highly recommended to any aeroplane freaks - a masterly account of
what it was like to fly and fight in WW1.[2]
[2] The definitive book on the subject, of course, is Sagittarius
Rising.

 

I've seen pix of the Megola. I'd love to soo one in the metal.

 

Just Google it and there are pictures.

Ian Singer



--


=========================================================================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
=========================================================================

 

Er, yes. You don't understand "in the metal", do you? ;-)

 

The term is before my time<g>

Actually it says the frame was made out of seat metal. That reminds me
of my Honda 50. Seating position looked better though.

Ian Singer

--


=========================================================================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
=========================================================================

 

Google for 'verdel "five cylinder" '

Says they were build from at least 1912

http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/Bike Directories/OthersStoZ/pages/Verdel-12.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=verdel+"five+cylinder"&btnG=Search

 

Yes, but that was because of Ernie Spagthorpe's belief that a
six-cylinder engine, with one cylinder disconnected from the ignition,
was more efficient.

He set the six cylinders at 60 degrees, instead of five at 72 degrees,
and this was his fatal flaw.

Normally, the vibration from one missing cylinder would have been
insignificant, but the depleted uranium counterweights......

 

I liked the ingenious solution to the gyroscopic precession
problem though with two counter-rotating engines in the
same wheel turning in opposite directions.

 

There goes the neighborhood. :-(

 

So. How are you coming along on your own book?

 

*Sigh* again.

A little word of advice. You are making yourself look mean, pathetic,
vindictive and childish in front of a global audience.

Now, you posted something that was just plain *wrong*. Two posters
remark on this. Ordinarily, no problem. But by coming out with the
poison, instead of other action, you show yourelf in the worst possible
light to the whole world.

I can't believe this is what you want.

 

You know this. I know this.

No idea about throttle response. Fouled plugs was part of life for all
early engines, I think.

Eek.

 

So. What are you going to call your sequel to "Hoyt McKagen Is A Mean
Old Man?"

I suggest "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People."

 

You just *don't* get it, do you?

This is a technical forum, and rather a good one. The discussion
elsewhere in this thread about engines old and new is fascinating.

But you have posted (and not for the first time) something that is
technically, factually and historically incorrect. And this has been
(politely) pointed out. Twice.

Now, people reading this thread will see the correction to the effect
that aircraft rotary engines did have a basic throttle control after
all. And no, they didn't make every landing with a dead engine. And
they will draw their own conclusions.

They will also see that you constantly refuse to acknowledge that you
have posted something incorrect (cf. power valves and God knows what
else) and they will draw their own conclusions from that, too.

They will also see your petty and unfunny (you are trying to be witty,
but you just don't have the equipment, I'm afraid) snipes that you post
instead, and they will also draw their own conclusions from those.

As I've said before, you post a lot of stuff that is on the button
(plus a hell of a lot of verbose irrelevancy) but when you get it
wrong, your subsequent behaviour does not show you up in a good light.

The only one who can change this is you.

 

..
Oh, I definitely do get "it". I got "it" a long time ago, Professor
Challenger. But I won't be your Summerlee...