yes mekanizmaler. Lot of people doesn't know the difference between a rotary and a radial. The radial evoluted from this rotary. There was also a bi-rotary having a bit of both, likeThe Siemens-Halske, best air-fighter at that time.
Rotaries like these have no reciprokating pistons! The only accelerative/decelative forces the pistons experience are turning somewhat faster during inlet/compression and somewhat slower during explosion/exhaust strokes. They just turn around without going up or down.
@mekanizmalar They were used ... on what? All the air planes I have ever seen have radial engines where the crankshaft in the middle moves and the cylinders do not.
Guess what. The crankshaft was fixed to the airframe.So what happens if the crankshaft is fixed? That's right, the crankcase (along with the cylinders) rotate. The propeller was bolted to the crankcase.
Why did they do this? Simple in WW1,engines still had serious cooling problems and in order to combat the serious vibrations of the other early engines they had to use a seriously huge and heavy crank,thus making the engine both slow and too heavy
So aside, from the fact that the rotation meant the engine didn't vibrate the airframe to pieces, or made it too heavy for a fighter aircraft, watercooling wasn't needed and the power-to-weight ratio was superior to the other designs at the time.
Later progress, meant the radial overtook the rotary concept (which died out with WW1).
Btw, not even in WW1, were all engine rotary. The most common type in Allied planes was a liquid cooled V8 (the Hispano-Suiza V8)
Worked perfectly fine in WW1. Look up the Bentley rotary which powered the Sopwith Camel. The French Gnome Monosoupape or the German Oberursel. All used in WW1.
So what does this prove?
Well either you made a bad joke, or you really are as stupid as your name suggests. Next time you may actually use the internet to find info on (since it's all free there and requires very little effort) before thinking you know something.
OK. I'm confused about this engine. Been wrenching for 25 years professionally and a fairly astute student of WWII Aircraft. Do any of these exist in real life? How on earth is it fed? Exhausted, Electronically controlled? If the entire engine block, magnetos, exhaust, carbueration and fuel tanks are spinning with the prop, they would outweigh the plane. I have seen Pneumatic versions of this running, but NOT an internal combustion version. Is it even possible?
@bigbossimmotal Yes it is possible and they are manufactured during WW1. Please do google search on "WW1 Rotary Engine" or go to wikipedia for similar search.
@joholj1204 Thank you for your nice comment. The rotary engine is the one of the least appreciated and one of the best animation I made. Maybe it is least appreciated because it is name "rotary engine" is confused by Wankel Engine which is also know as rotary engine. I hope your comment will clarify the confusion.
@popnstart Thank you for clarifying the confusion people have about actual rotary engine, radial engine and the Wankel engine. I guess Mazda should not name the Wankel engine as a rotary engine, since there was already an engine called as rotary engine.
@mekanizmalar , seems like a lot of folks comment on topics before they do the research and then develop an attitude when corrected instead of thanking the person for the correction. Folks should comment as if their Grandma was looking over their shoulder. Thanks for posting the vid.
@mekanizmalar But that would be wrong to NOT call the wankel a rotary engine, while this engine is undoubtedly a rotary engine, there is another whole classification of engines called rotary engines, including several rotary piston, vaned, winged, and iris style of engines. While this engine is a rotary (good video btw) it does not mean that the definition of rotary engine should not include engines that get their energy from rotary motion rather than reciprocating motion.
@Superchickenman159 NO this is a rotary engine. Please do a google search "Radial Versus the Rotary Engine" to compare these two engines. You are not the only one who confuses these two almost identical looking engines. While their looks identical, their operations are completely different.
yes mekanizmaler. Lot of people doesn't know the difference between a rotary and a radial. The radial evoluted from this rotary. There was also a bi-rotary having a bit of both, likeThe Siemens-Halske, best air-fighter at that time.
And there is mine : watch?v=1ZqCdNU8MlA
frankydevaere 1 month ago
@frankydevaere Thank you for your comment and nice video.
mekanizmalar 1 month ago
Rotaries like these have no reciprokating pistons! The only accelerative/decelative forces the pistons experience are turning somewhat faster during inlet/compression and somewhat slower during explosion/exhaust strokes. They just turn around without going up or down.
rpfberkvens 1 month ago
The only way that would work is if you spin the plane. you will need many puke bags.
UpcomingJedi 1 month ago
@UpcomingJedi These engines has been used in WWI and they are not my imagination.
mekanizmalar 1 month ago
@mekanizmalar They were used ... on what? All the air planes I have ever seen have radial engines where the crankshaft in the middle moves and the cylinders do not.
UpcomingJedi 1 month ago
@UpcomingJedi
You're not funny.
Guess what. The crankshaft was fixed to the airframe.So what happens if the crankshaft is fixed? That's right, the crankcase (along with the cylinders) rotate. The propeller was bolted to the crankcase.
Why did they do this? Simple in WW1,engines still had serious cooling problems and in order to combat the serious vibrations of the other early engines they had to use a seriously huge and heavy crank,thus making the engine both slow and too heavy
McLarenMercedes 1 month ago
@UpcomingJedi
So aside, from the fact that the rotation meant the engine didn't vibrate the airframe to pieces, or made it too heavy for a fighter aircraft, watercooling wasn't needed and the power-to-weight ratio was superior to the other designs at the time.
Later progress, meant the radial overtook the rotary concept (which died out with WW1).
Btw, not even in WW1, were all engine rotary. The most common type in Allied planes was a liquid cooled V8 (the Hispano-Suiza V8)
McLarenMercedes 1 month ago
these engines r real I'm doing a report on planes of ww1 and it wouldn't spin the plane
MiniWMDinc 1 month ago
@MiniWMDinc
UpcomingJedi 1 month ago
@MiniWMDinc Ok, I see how that works. A seperate shaft on which this spins ... gotcha.
UpcomingJedi 1 month ago
@UpcomingJedi
Worked perfectly fine in WW1. Look up the Bentley rotary which powered the Sopwith Camel. The French Gnome Monosoupape or the German Oberursel. All used in WW1.
So what does this prove?
Well either you made a bad joke, or you really are as stupid as your name suggests. Next time you may actually use the internet to find info on (since it's all free there and requires very little effort) before thinking you know something.
McLarenMercedes 1 month ago
thats radial not rotary
hqfifty 2 months ago
@hqfifty It is rotary NOT a radial. I am surprised that so many people does not know about this engine.
mekanizmalar 2 months ago
OK. I'm confused about this engine. Been wrenching for 25 years professionally and a fairly astute student of WWII Aircraft. Do any of these exist in real life? How on earth is it fed? Exhausted, Electronically controlled? If the entire engine block, magnetos, exhaust, carbueration and fuel tanks are spinning with the prop, they would outweigh the plane. I have seen Pneumatic versions of this running, but NOT an internal combustion version. Is it even possible?
bigbossimmotal 2 months ago
@bigbossimmotal Yes it is possible and they are manufactured during WW1. Please do google search on "WW1 Rotary Engine" or go to wikipedia for similar search.
mekanizmalar 2 months ago
@bigbossimmotal they where use on planes in ww1 such as the sopwith camel and the german dr 1
TheXcaliber223 2 months ago
awesome video of how it works, but how do the spark plug wires not get tangled up? lol
volkscom 2 months ago
NON! You need to go back and do it all over again!
ChicaWolverina 3 months ago
@ChicaWolverina I would do it all over again if you tell me why.
mekanizmalar 3 months ago
@joholj1204 Thank you for your nice comment. The rotary engine is the one of the least appreciated and one of the best animation I made. Maybe it is least appreciated because it is name "rotary engine" is confused by Wankel Engine which is also know as rotary engine. I hope your comment will clarify the confusion.
mekanizmalar 4 months ago
NIce animation , Thanks a lot....!!!
Somelions2 5 months ago
Thanks for the engine vids! I already knew the difference between a radial and a rotary, but now I have a better idea of how they both work :)
DannoSC 5 months ago
@DannoSC Thank you for your nice comment.
mekanizmalar 5 months ago
It is a rotary engine, designed long before the Wankle engine.
popnstart 9 months ago
@popnstart Thank you for clarifying the confusion people have about actual rotary engine, radial engine and the Wankel engine. I guess Mazda should not name the Wankel engine as a rotary engine, since there was already an engine called as rotary engine.
mekanizmalar 9 months ago
@mekanizmalar , seems like a lot of folks comment on topics before they do the research and then develop an attitude when corrected instead of thanking the person for the correction. Folks should comment as if their Grandma was looking over their shoulder. Thanks for posting the vid.
popnstart 9 months ago
@popnstart Thank you for watching my videos and your support.
mekanizmalar 9 months ago
@mekanizmalar , no problem, ditto for watching mine and thanks for the kind comments. Later, Rick.
popnstart 9 months ago
@mekanizmalar But that would be wrong to NOT call the wankel a rotary engine, while this engine is undoubtedly a rotary engine, there is another whole classification of engines called rotary engines, including several rotary piston, vaned, winged, and iris style of engines. While this engine is a rotary (good video btw) it does not mean that the definition of rotary engine should not include engines that get their energy from rotary motion rather than reciprocating motion.
therealdriftcore 1 month ago
thats a radial engine, not a rotary engine
Superchickenman159 9 months ago
@Superchickenman159 NO this is a rotary engine. Please do a google search "Radial Versus the Rotary Engine" to compare these two engines. You are not the only one who confuses these two almost identical looking engines. While their looks identical, their operations are completely different.
mekanizmalar 9 months ago 5