Ops-Normal.org

Yep it is definitely a replica and was used mostly for static display and as a prop for movies etc.

Here is a better outdoor photo taken (not by me this time) in the summer time.



Tis a replica AirCo DH2 of course.

Here is one in its prime.



Open house folks.

Caco

Ok, three aero engines in view. Two in full view, what are they and in what aircraft were they used in? If anybody can tell me what the third engine is from the side view they get uber nerd of the year award and huge kudos.





Caco

front one le rhone as used in the sopwith pup
the one the guy is pondering - dunno.
back one bentley br2 maybe.

The V8(?) the chap is pondering may be a Hispano-Suiza, from an SE5a perhaps.

dubbleyew eight wrote:

front one le rhone as used in the sopwith pup

- CORRECT
the one the guy is pondering - dunno.

back one bentley br2 maybe. - Good thought, but no although you have sparked an aircraft for another future challenge in my mind.

As it is your hand dubbleyew why don't you post a challenge anyway while those who want can ponder the other two engines in the trio can do so.

Caco

Cacco matey, are you sure Cpt Pugwash hasn't got the middle engine correct?

P.S. I think the rotary at the back is a Clerget 9b

Bob wrote:Cacco matey, are you sure Cpt Pugwash hasn't got the middle engine correct?

P.S. I think the rotary at the back is a Clerget 9b

Sorry Cpt_Pugwash, I was distracted earlier and did not return to answer. Mea culpa. Your basic sentiment was good. Tis a Wolsey Viper which was a derivative of the Hispano Suiza HS-8. Well done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseley_Viper

And Bob was spot on with the Clerget...!

You guys are too good for me!

Caco

Please would one of the three that answered correctly post something!

Caco

Cacophonix wrote:Please would one of the three that answered correctly post something!

Caco

All buggered off again so I will post this aircraft which was powered by the Hispano Suiza HS-8. What is it?



Caco

dubbleyew eight wrote:front one le rhone as used in the sopwith pup
the one the guy is pondering - dunno.
back one bentley br2 maybe.

The Bentley BR2 was the apotheosis of the radial engine and a beautiful piece of engineering...



"...an appalling sense of responsibility hung over me and never left me for the rest of the war, the figure of a pilot killed by engine failure leaning over my shoulder, like some ghostly conscience, whenever I was at work.” W O Bentley

Look at the torque associated with the Bentley...

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EdQpYoJULM[/bbvideo]

Here is Kermit Weeks talking about flying the Snipe...

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAZfUC5di5U[/bbvideo]

Caco

Evening all.

I think that Cacos challenge is the Martinsyde F.4 Buzzard. The Finnish markings gave it away.

You have the floor Cpt_Pugwash...

Caco

Re: the Torquey Camel, just one point, it's not that te engine is capable of producing loads of torque (it wasn't too bad though),, It's more the fact that it's rotating mass is high in relation to the fixed bit (the rest of the aircraft) that the torgue twist is so apparent like the difference between drilling a chunk of 4x2 or some soup.

I know you all know I'm just in that sort of type something on the net that makes it sound like you know what the feck you are talking about mood...did I get away with it?......

bloomin eck Inow I'm calling a Snipe, a Camel..these so called remedies need to put some warnings on the packaging, Off to bed with me.

In the case of the rotary Bentley, the mass of the engine contributes to the torque associated with the engine... the mass is integral to the moment of inertia which is used to calculate the torque...

See here...

https://www.maplesoft.com/content/Engin ... Torque.pdf



Caco

However the heavy rotating engine created a high gyroscopic effect that made the aircraft very difficult to handle and manoeuvre.

Here is a good article on rotaries generally.

http://www.historynet.com/the-truth-about-rotaries.htm

On a more sobering note, how unanticipated torque roll, coupled with the aerodynamic corkscrew effect and a crosswind can result in disaster on take off or go around! Sad!

Here the power of the engine is the main contributor but the mass of the propellor is still part of the torque equation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _10-17.pdf

Caco

Bob wrote:Re: the Torquey Camel, just one point, it's not that te engine is capable of producing loads of torque (it wasn't too bad though),, It's more the fact that it's rotating mass is high in relation to the fixed bit (the rest of the aircraft) that the torgue twist is so apparent like the difference between drilling a chunk of 4x2 or some soup.

I know you all know I'm just in that sort of type something on the net that makes it sound like you know what the feck you are talking about mood...did I get away with it?......

bloomin eck Inow I'm calling a Snipe, a Camel..these so called remedies need to put some warnings on the packaging, Off to bed with me.

Boiled down very simplistically it can roughly be summed by the following analogy in that the torque (which the analogue of force in that it is a twisting force ) is equal to mass (in this case the mass of the engine) which is being angularly accelerated.

thus

F = M * A

Once accelerated the gyroscopic effect of the engine becomes problematic as stated in the previous post.

What a nerd eh!

Caco

Have a go at this.

Caco, thanks for that explanation. I seem to remember something about "...the closer the couple, the less the torque."

Hydromet wrote:Caco, thanks for that explanation. I seem to remember something about "...the closer the couple, the less the torque."

Always fun talking about torque Hydro and yes this is why a longer lever like a long spanner will provide a greater torque than a shorter one.

Your point is an important one because objects with the same mass can have the same rotational inertia depending upon where the centre of mass is located...

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=183&v=B5SX4MKyZts[/bbvideo]

In the case of the rotary Bentley, the mass of the engine contributes to the torque associated with the engine... the mass is integral to the moment of inertia which is used to calculate the torque and thus the resultant torque roll ...

Better but still simplistically said this can be put as "the mass is integral to the moment of inertia and resultant rolling torque on the basis of Newton's second Law which says ... "The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object" and Newton's 3rd Law which states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."...

I'll talk less about torque now least we get into gyroscopes and precession which can be an obsession. I remember there was a poster on TOP called Shy Torque which I always thought was a clever moniker.

I am sure that someone like James May could provide a simple but far better explanation of torque as he always did when Jeremy Clarkson, who quite clearly hadn't the faintest clue what torque was, used to opine upon engine torque.


Caco

Corrected -Your point is an important one because objects with the same mass can have different rotational inertia depending upon where the centre of mass is located...

Caco

I fear someone is extending the meaning of torque, as far as I know (and there is a lot I do not know) torque can be calculated from RPM and power and nothing else.