Stuart Engine

[jeff davis]

Let an Aircraft Mechanic Have a Look at it .During the war Radials were made for Tanks and Lancasters.The Nanton Museam of Flight has one on display.
The Continental 4and 6cyl out of Cessna Planes are the same tech as the V.W bug engines.
Jeff davis

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally Posted by jeff davis

Let an Aircraft Mechanic Have a Look at it .During the war Radials were made for Tanks and Lancasters.The Nanton Museam of Flight has one on display.
The Continental 4and 6cyl out of Cessna Planes are the same tech as the V.W bug engines.
Jeff davis

Lancasters used 12-cylinder Rolls Royce Merlin liquid-cooled engines, not radials. Tim's Stuart engine is actually an American 7-cylinder down-tuned prewar aircraft radial which nowadays is more prevalent in land applications than air. Tim is advised to strip the one he has, diagnose the faults, and rebuild it from there - he and his engine man will probably know more about it than almost any aircraft mechanic, anywhere.

[2nd AIF]

Originally Posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball

Lancasters used 12-cylinder Rolls Royce Merlin liquid-cooled engines, not radials..

http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html

Because of the possibility of some interruption in Merlin production, the Lancaster II was built with 1,229.5 kW ( 1,650 hp) Bristol Hercules VI radial engines. These fears did not materialize, with the result that only 300 Lancaster IIs were built

[cantankrs]

Despite the minor details, I agree with Jiff regarding aeroengine mech.

What surprises me is how such a tiny diameter crankshaft can put out 220-250HP or so.

Regards

Alex

[Speedy]

send me a pm if you get in a jam.
might be of assistance to make your search easier.

[Lynn Eades]

Maybe the reason is in the design, in that each power stroke happens one cyl after the next, and so is more of a continuious "Push" on the big end? (does this line of thought make any sense?) (I have never seen the internals of one) Weight saving would have been one of the main reasons that moved aero engine designers to a radial.

[cantankrs]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Maybe the reason is in the design, in that each power stroke happens one cyl after the next, and so is more of a continuious "Push" on the big end? (does this line of thought make any sense?) (I have never seen the internals of one) Weight saving would have been one of the main reasons that moved aero engine designers to a radial.

Hi Lynn,
Maybe - good thought - although the firing order on all radials AFAIK is odd numbered cylinders from 1 and then even numbers - 1, 3, 5 7, 2, 4, 6, 1,...
The rotary aero engine and conventional crank inline engines preceded the radial. It was the rotary that offerred the weight saving through air cooling, but large horsepower rotary's (c. 200HP) were a heavy revolving mass that dangerously affected the pilots ability to control their machine. I think that's what inspired design thought toward the radial's reversed concept of fixed engine with revolving crank.

It's been commonly written that the Sopwith Camel having the pilot, fueltank and rotary engine grouped close together was a deadly design for novice pilots, but had certain turning advantages in the hands of practiced pilots due to the gyroscopic effect of the engine.
I read an article years ago by Gene DeMarco about a Sopwith Camel replica (possibly Cole Palen's) where I think he wrote that at that time he'd never flown a loop in it because by about 3/4 the way through he was flying at right angles to the direction from which he first entered the loop. It's amazing what Gene and his crew at TVAL in New Zealand are doing for Great War aircraft. And I gather that it was amazing what Cole could do too.

Regards

Alex