WWI Digest 26 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: Revell 1/28 Fokker DVII by Mick Fauchon 2) Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz by Mick Fauchon 3) Real Wooden Props- suggestions? by Robert Woodbury 4) Re: Revell 1/28 D VII - AARRGGHH!! by Mick Fauchon 5) Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? by Mick Fauchon 6) Re: Fok F1/DR1 color scheme by bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) 7) Re: cool web site by "S.M. Head" 8) Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz by The Flying Wrench 9) Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? by The Flying Wrench 10) Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz by bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) 11) RE: Gnome Engine by agrafix@ix.netcom.com (Richard G. Ivansek ) 12) RE: cone de penetration - and a quiz by SDW@qld.mim.com.au 13) Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz by The Flying Wrench 14) Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? by Jose Valenciano 15) Re: Rotary Engines by Paul Butler 16) Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? by "Matt Bittner" 17) Re: One other GVW tidbit by "Matt Bittner" 18) Re: Sign D-VIII <> Edward D-VIII by "Matt Bittner" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:24:18 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Revell 1/28 Fokker DVII Message-ID: Shane, > > > THe main factory of the Albatroswerke was at Johannisthal; they > >also had a subsidiary at Schneidem"uhl, producing under licence for > Fokker, > >but it was one company. > > Agreed. This is the distinction I was getting at but I don't have your > facility for recalling those German place names You're dead lucky on that one, mate: I remember it because I was there last May: I can't remember how we got there or where we were going, I'll have to check the map. It sticks in my mind for a few reaons: I'd been navigating up to that point, and remembered from the chart that we had to go through there to get to wherever it was we we were going, so I was interested in having a look at the town. [Forget it!] At this point the relief navigator insisted on taking over, but I knew that we had to do a right turn outside the town, over the river, off the bridge, and head towards Schneidem"uhl to keep us on course. I was in the back catching a few ZZZZs, when I was brought rudely back to life by the pilot [an East Prussian] yelling and screaming at the navigator because we were headed completely in the wrong direction. THe upshot of that was that the relief navigator got the sack, and I was ordered to take over again [to the tune of "Get out of there and let someone take over that can at least *read a map*!!" Of course the rel. navogator got the ***** with the pilot, who already had them, and was completely rattled by having to correct his course [ a very difficult procedure under the circumstances, and having already told the rel. nav. to be painstakingly careful at this point], and losing valuable time. And I was piggy-in-the-middle. All of which didn't make for a very pleasant afternoon. Schneidem"uhl itself wasn't worth the trip: it's a fairly large town in what used to be the DDR [from memory, but I'll confirm that]; the locals don't even remember that the A-Werke were there, let alone where they were, what they did, or where their records went. All-in-all the afternoon was a dead loss, although we *did* get back on course. Incidentally, the rel. nav. put on the same performance at Rosen- hagen [?], just on the German side of K"ustrin. I can remember thinking at the time: "I hope this bozo gets it right this time, or we'll be in the poo again". Right again! Apart from that, it wasn't a bad trip. I'd do it again, but *definitely* with another crew! Cheers, Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:37:40 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz Message-ID: Shane, > > Yeah, exactly as it's described in the 1992 issue of the '14-18 Journal. > Almost the exact words in fact. Incidentally the same article proves > conclusively that Gnome Monosoupape engines MUST have a hollow prop > shaft. I'll bet you know Paul, but who else can tell me why it must be > so? It must be so because the hollow crankshaft acts as the induction unit to get the mixture [air/fuel/oil] to the cylinders. BTW, looking at photograhs of rotary-powered a/c, it's no wonder it was called an "oil-loss" system: it must have wasted about 50% of its lubricant just in running! Cheers, Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 12:40:52 -0500 From: Robert Woodbury To: wwi Subject: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? Message-ID: <3118E424.4786@per.dwr.csiro.au> Hi All, This is my first post to this newsgroup after having lurked here for a couple of weeks. Anyway, I'm in the process of putting together the Eduard Fokker E.V/D.VIII and was thinking of making the prop using sandwiched layers of veneer. I was wondering if anyone out in cyberspace would have any suggestions on how to tackle this. Thanks for the help, and I've been enjoying the posts. Rob Woodbury ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:47:20 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Revell 1/28 D VII - AARRGGHH!! Message-ID: Greg, ......or Franz......or Emil..? 80) > > Franz und Emil? > > Ich und Eisenhour. Who is Franz and who is Emil depends upon who > started the conversation and how much beer (or gin and tonic) has been > consumed. Naja, von mir aus! 80) If it's beer, make mine a Beck's 80) > > Prosit! > > Franz (oder Emil?) > > Prost, Franz und Emil! If it's g&t [X0(].......Wohlsein, Franz und Emil! 80) Mick, or Michel. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:53:40 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? Message-ID: Rob, > This is my first post to this newsgroup after having lurked here for a > couple of weeks. Then, welcome aboard, mate! You're from CSIRO? Are you in Canberra? If you are, post me your phone number, and I'll give you a call: we're headed down there to-morrow for a week. Get in before 02:00 Thurs., that's when we're leaving. Cheers, Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:12:04 -0800 From: bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Fok F1/DR1 color scheme Message-ID: <199602070512.AA18940@ednet1.osl.or.gov> > >The Wrench Hrummphs: -snips- > > Again I would like to verify: Were there in fact only (2) two DR.Is >present at the front during Voss's last battle and was Voss flying one of these? -snips- Yes, indeed, there were only, at most, -two- Fokker tripes at the front between the end of August, 1917 and mid-October, 1917. And only -one- at the time of Voss's 'last battle'. What follows can be safely ignored by anyone not INTENSELY interested in Fokker Triplanes. There were only three Fokker F.I triplanes. The Fokker F.I began as a series of three V-5 prototypes which were basically similar to the preceding V.4 prototype with different wings and some detail improvements. The Deutschen Luftstreitkrafte was sufficiently impressed with the V.5's that it granted Fokker an order for 20 triplanes which included the three V.5 which were accepted them service under the designation F.I (F.I 101/17, 102/17 and 103/17.) F.I 101/17 was retained by the Fokker factory and static tested to destruction as required by German Air Force regulations while 102/17 and 103/17 were armed with twin 08/15 machine guns and assigned to JG.1 for operational testing; apparently arriving sometime in late August, 1917. Voss's first combat flight in F.I 103/17 was on August 30, '17 and MvR's at about the same time in 102/17. MvR went on leave shortly after September 7, 1917 and F.I 102/17 was taken over by Kurt Wolff of Jasta 11. Wolff was shot down in 102/17 on September 15, 1917 and Voss in 103/17 on September 23, 1917 - thus ending the short combat career of the Fokker F.I's. Almost all the sources indicate that the first batches of -production- triplanes (in two batches of first six and then eleven airplanes under the new designation of Dr.I) didn't arrive at JG 1 until mid-October, 1917. Thus, between approximately August 30 and September 15, we have only two triplanes at the front - MvR's and later Wolff's 102/17 and Voss's 103/17. After Wolff was shot down on September 15 there was only one until Voss was shot down in 103/17 on September 23. After September 23 until mid-October when the first of the production Dr.I's arrived, there were -no- triplanes at the front at all. To be fair, Heinz Nowarra indicates a mid-September, not a mid-October, arrival date for the production Dr.I's. However, in the same paragraph, Nowarra has MvR being shot down in Dr.I 114/17 on September 30, 1917 and Heinrich Gontermann being killed in a wing separation accident in Dr. I 114/17 on the same date. However, all the other sources I've checked indicate both MvR's crash landing in Dr. I 114/17 and Gontermann's accidental death in Dr.I 115/17 were on OCTOBER 30, 1917. Thus I think Nowarra simply off a month in his dates. No one but Nowarra indicates a date other than mid-October for the arrival of the Dr.I's or a date other than October 30, for MvR's crash or Gontermann's death. Oh, and there actually was one-half (or so) on an additional Fokker F.I. The V.4 prototype was later given a set of F.1/V.5 wings and other detail improvements to bring it close to F.I. standards. However, it apparently was never armed nor accepted by the German Air Force and was sent to Hungary as a demonstrator by Fokker. And, with that, I'm researched out! Cheers, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org -or- aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca - "Cave ab homine unius libri!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 00:45:58 -0500 From: "S.M. Head" To: wwi Subject: Re: cool web site Message-ID: <9602062339.aa08537@mail.iapc.net> Stephen wrote to us all: > I just visited the USAF museum at Wright Patterson AFB while > sitting in my office..... > > the URL is > http://www.am.wpafb.af.mil/museum/usaf_museum.html > > Lots of stuff on there! I got this from the rec.models.scale > newsgroup. (yes dear; I've been unfaithful)... Well, just in case anyone doesn't know yet, there's another web site recently active for scale modelers that features a little bit of WWI stuff. The SMH/IPMS Houston Scale Model Forum is at: http://web-hou.iapc.net/~smh/ Check it out- there's a massive link list, including a lot of WWI links (more to come). If you've visited the WWI web page, you may have followed the new link to this site already, but keep on coming back, as more goodies are added on a frequent basis. About the mailing list- sorry folks if I haven't been contributing much in the past month or two, but I've been busy getting the above mentioned project completed. Thanks to all, however, for the unending supply of brain food and general good cheer that flows through my computer each day! Happy Scales! Scott Head smh@iapc.net Statement- "The internet is like an unending tree of sprue, linking one component to the next..." -- Newsgroup post Reply: "That's stretching it." -- Shot Cadet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:48:00 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz Message-ID: <199602070548.UAA28806@anchor> >There is no mystery about how this all works. >The shaft that affixes the propellor shaft to the crankcase is indeed hollow and the rigid cranshaft (or an extension affixed to it) passes through the hollow prop shaft to support the non rotating cone de penetration. The wrench reconsiders: I think I see the light. The crankcase/shaft rotated around this inner shaft, which I assume was solid, making it a solid crankshaft. This makes the inner shaft a bearing surface or something the bearings rode on to support the front of the engine. Without such a full length shaft, it would probably be difficult to keep all the internal components aligned with all that twisting force going on in front of the connecting rods. So in effect the rigid crankshaft extended from the prop boss all the way to the the point where it attached to the intake pipe that had a mounting flange on the backside of the engine. The entire crankcase assembly rotated on this shaft assembly somewhat like the wheel on an old style car axels that extended all the way through the wheel, or maybe like the engines crankcase was mounted on a spit. I can easily see this now. The Le Rhone I built demonstrates the engine mounting surfaces on the front and rear of the intake pipe. The intake pipe had to be rigidly mounted because the slide-box type carb was at the end of the tube. This intake pipe had a flange mounted and the end of the intake tube near the carb as well as one at the front near the crankcase. There were a number of holes drilled into the flanges that were attached to the engine mounts at these points. >Another seemly strange fact about a rotary is that the pistons DO NOT GO >UP AND DOWN, they simply rotate about the crankpin in a constant radius circle. I think that you've misspoke on this count. The pistons must move up and down otherwise there would be no "strokes" for the intake, compression, power and exhaust cycle. I can understand the realtive aspect of motion of these components but relative or not, the pistons still must move to the top of the cylinder and back to the bottom for the engine to run. Or perhaps the pistons could move up and down on the pistons as this would accomplish the same thing. >Since the cylinders are also rotating in a fixed radius circle but about an axis offset to the pistons, the >pistons do move relative to the cylinders. However there is no acceleration and deceleration that >causes vibration in a normal radial engine. True, vibration from piston movement is eliminated, but much of the vibration in an engine is caused by the power pulses generated during the power stroke. These pulses are generated as result of the rapidly burning gases in the cylinder. I can't imagine how these pulses would be different in a rotary. However after the Cone de Triumph discussion, I don't want to rule out any possibility. One of the interesting points I found on the rotary engine was the lack of exhaust pipes or system. The exhaust was simply vented out of the top of the cylinder head to fall were it may. This design caused a considerable amount of unburned castor oil to be thrown about freely in flight. The end result of this was that rotary pilots were renowned as "being just a bunch of regular guys". Kinda' like this group. > Incidentally the same article proves conclusively that Gnome Monosoupape engines MUST have a hollow prop shaft. I'll bet you know Paul, but who else can tell me why it must be so? Wait, Wait, let me guess - The hollow shaft provides crankcase ventlation. I also recently read the LeRhone was the only rotary that would idle at 600 RPM.. I just have to know WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, would the French have designed an engine with a hollow shaft? Oh wait French - I tink I understand. I guess my drawings are pretty poor as none of them illustrate the hollow shaft. My books show a solid shaft with a single, large prop nut on the hub. I once saw a repair and overhaul manual for the early rotaries that I would have given my wisdom teeth for. The guy who showed it to me said he paid ten dollars for it at a garage sale. It seems the manual's name was Dinkens, Dawkins, Dilbert or some such name. It was a large black bound manual published in 1928 and it featured all the early engines with their adjustment tolerences and specs. Including how to time the magneto. I'll bet working on these beauties was an exciting profession. I've worked behind spinning props, but I can't imagine have those whirling cylinders that close to me. Perhaps all the adjusments were made in the static condition. The Flyin' Wrench A man in old age is like a sword in a shop window. Henry Ward Beecher - 1858 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:09:40 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? Message-ID: <199602070609.VAA29546@anchor> At 11:39 PM 2/6/96 -0500, Robert Woodbury wrote: >Hi All, > >This is my first post to this newsgroup after having lurked here for a >couple of weeks. > >Anyway, I'm in the process of putting together the Eduard Fokker >E.V/D.VIII and was thinking of making the prop using sandwiched layers of >veneer. I was wondering if anyone out in cyberspace would have any >suggestions on how to tackle this. > >Thanks for the help, and I've been enjoying the posts. > >Rob Woodbury The Wrench salutes: Greetings and salutations from another new member. You have found the right spot for such questions. These folks will not only tell you how to carve it but how many scale laminations there are on any given prop. I might suggest that you surf over to the Home Page and refer to the Archives the 1995 has several tips on wooden props as well as an address in Czechoslovokia where you can order scale wooden props carved by a - master propper? I won't even attempt a how to carve explanation, I'll leave that to one of the pros in the group. > The Flyin' Wrench Cowabunga! Surfs up - grab your PC thruster and hang cyber space. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:14:33 -0800 From: bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz Message-ID: <199602070614.AA02091@ednet1.osl.or.gov> >The wrench reconsiders: > -snips- > >>Another seemly strange fact about a rotary is that the pistons DO NOT GO >>UP AND DOWN, they simply rotate about the crankpin in a constant radius >circle. > >I think that you've misspoke on this count. The pistons must move up and >down otherwise there would be no "strokes" for the intake, compression, >power and exhaust cycle. I can understand the realtive aspect of motion of >these components but relative or not, the pistons still must move to the top >of the cylinder and back to the bottom for the engine to run. Or perhaps the >pistons could move up and down on the pistons as this would accomplish the >same thing. > Well, to paraphrase Galileo, "None the less, they do not move (up and down, anyway)". If you work out the mechanics, you'll see that the movement of each piston describes a -perfect- circle around its center of rotation - which is, of course, its crankshaft bearing. True, the pistons move -up and down- relative to the engine itself but relative to the airframe, each individual piston traces a perfect circle, slightly offset from the center of the airframe by the distance of the 'throw' of the crankshaft. The engine, of course, is tracing its own perfect circle around -its- center of rotation which is the center of the airframe (or, so close as makes no difference). I think that's why they gave up on rotaries - envisioning their operation tends cause -severe- headaches! Kinda reminds me of the ol' hunter chasing the squirrel around the tree problem. Cheers, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org -or- aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca - "Cave ab homine unius libri!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:43:14 -0800 From: agrafix@ix.netcom.com (Richard G. Ivansek ) To: wwi Subject: RE: Gnome Engine Message-ID: <199602070743.XAA28835@ix6.ix.netcom.com> Your Wrote, conclusively that Gnome Monosoupape engines MUST have a hollow prop shaft. I'll bet you know Paul, but who else can tell me why it must be so? This Puzzles me because in all of the cutaway drawings their appears to be no need for it to be hollow. In fact the prop shaft is typically shown capped off at the end, however this may be in error. If you are refering to the air intake for the for the carburetor it looks like that is on the rear side of the crankshaft and not the front (I know this holds true for other types than the Gnome "Monosoupape"). So unless it was to lighten the engine, or served a purpose in it's manufacture, you've got me. I'm centainly not very knowledgeble on rotaries, have'nt owned one yet, so I could be dead wrong. Thanks, Rick Ivansek ------------------------------ Date: 07 Feb 96 18:02:00 EST From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: cone de penetration - and a quiz Message-ID: <199602070821.SAA05511@mimmon.mim.com.au> Mick, >> Incidentally the same article proves >> conclusively that Gnome Monosoupape engines MUST have a hollow prop >> shaft. I'll bet you know Paul, but who else can tell me why it must be >> so? > It must be so because the hollow crankshaft acts as the induction >unit to get the mixture [air/fuel/oil] to the cylinders. Give the man a peanut, though I think you may have missed the distinction between propshaft and crankshaft. As far as I know all other rotaries fed the fuel air mixture from the rear of the engine through the centre of the *crankshaft*. The monosoupape though has its engine air intake through the centre of the *propshaft* - so all those Gnome monosoupape props should have a hole drilled in the centre of the hub. I thought this ruddy peculiar but have been convinced by two different cutaways, one dating back to 1918, both showing the air intake at the "pointy end". I also emphasise that its ONLY the Gnome Monosoupape, NOT later Gnome Rotaries. Leads to some interesting thoughts though. I'd have though a fair bit of debris would be ingested compared to the others where the intake was up the back somewheres behind the firewall. Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:31:28 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: cone de penetration - and a quiz Message-ID: <199602070831.XAA04653@anchor> At 01:15 AM 2/7/96 -0500, Bill Shatzer wrote: > > > >>The wrench reconsiders: >> >-snips- >> >>>Another seemly strange fact about a rotary is that the pistons DO NOT GO >>>UP AND DOWN, they simply rotate about the crankpin in a constant radius >>circle. >> >>I think that you've misspoke on this count. The pistons must move up and >>down otherwise there would be no "strokes" for the intake, compression, >>power and exhaust cycle. I can understand the realtive aspect of motion of >>these components but relative or not, the pistons still must move to the top >>of the cylinder and back to the bottom for the engine to run. Or perhaps the >>pistons could move up and down on the pistons as this would accomplish the >>same thing. > >> >Well, to paraphrase Galileo, "None the less, they do not move (up and >down, anyway)". > >If you work out the mechanics, you'll see that the movement of each >piston describes a -perfect- circle around its center of rotation - >which is, of course, its crankshaft bearing. True, the pistons move >-up and down- relative to the engine itself but relative to the >airframe, each individual piston traces a perfect circle, slightly >offset from the center of the airframe by the distance of the >'throw' of the crankshaft. The engine, of course, is tracing its own >perfect circle around -its- center of rotation which is the center >of the airframe (or, so close as makes no difference). > After careful observation of the somewhat detail-obscured cutaway in my book, I have found that it appears that my first impression of the mechanics of this engine were mistaken. I was always under the impression the crank throw was fixed, as this is how modern engines are constructed.. In most cases with modern engines, the crank and the throw(s) are forged from a single billet. The crank throw in a rotary is different in this respect; it does move, it moves with the cylinders and the crankcase. It rotates around the crankshaft as do the cylinders. That explains much about the mechanics of this engine. The crank on this engine must have at least four or five major seperate components. If the crank was split then it would be comprised of the rear of the crank, the front and rear throw arms, the journal, and the front portion of the crank. More likely though it had four major components the crank was a solid, one piece shaft that the throw was slid into position over it. In either case this front portion of the crank is what the cone-de-penetration was attached to. The journal throw must ride on front and rear roller bearings as do the connecting rods on the journal. I never really stopped to analyze the actual mechanical movement of this engine. Actually a little thought on the matter clearly shows the impossibility of the crank thow remaining stationary as the engine would not be able to move were this the case! So then the crankcase, cylinders, crank throw, connecting rods and pistons are all stationary - realitive to each other. For every degree the crankcase moved, the crank throw and all attached components move the same number of degrees or perhaps a slightly different number of degrees . The more I look at it, the more this engine appears to be a maintenance nightmare. In fact I have read the average TBO on these engines were around 100 hrs. I'm beginning to see why. What we need here is a 1/10 scale visible rotary that would demonstrate the actual mechanical motion of the components when turned. One glance at a model such as this and I'm sure everything would become immediatly apparent. Still and all the piston has to have a top dead center and a bottom dead center to function, as this is the operational basis for all reciprocating engines. This means the piston at some point is at the top of the cylinder and at some point at the bottom of the cylinder. Even the cutway shows the various piston positions, I can understand the relative movement of which you speak but I can also see problems like scored cylinders on this machine due to the relative travel movement of the piston. Most of all I wonder how difficult the mag is to time on this engine? Well I can also see where those long, taught, exposed ignition wires would have broken on a fairly regular basis. Whatever conductor they used, be it copper, brass or whatever, the material would have had to work harden as the leads vibrated like a guitar string from the whirling motion. Talk about engine failure waiting to happen. I'm starting to think everything I know is wrong. I suppose this also means in the next world I'm on my own. The Flyin' Wrench ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:53:09 +0800 (HKT) From: Jose Valenciano To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, The Flying Wrench wrote: > several tips on wooden props as well as an address in Czechoslovokia where > you can order scale wooden props carved by a - master propper? I won't even > attempt a how to carve explanation, I'll leave that to one of the pros in > the group. > I believe his family name is Digmayer. If I'll remember tonight, I'll copy relevant info. ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist tel. (632) 921-26-75 Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:56:55 +1100 (EST) From: Paul Butler To: wwi Subject: Re: Rotary Engines Message-ID: <199602070956.UAA10595@werple.net.au> In a recent posting, the Wrench wrote: > >After careful observation of the somewhat detail-obscured cutaway in my >book, I have found that it appears that my first impression of the mechanics >of this engine were mistaken. I was always under the impression the crank >throw was fixed, as this is how modern engines are constructed.. In most >cases with modern engines, the crank and the throw(s) are forged from a >single billet. The crank throw in a rotary is different in this respect; it >does move, it moves with the cylinders and the crankcase. It rotates around >the crankshaft as do the cylinders. That explains much about the mechanics >of this engine. The crank on this engine must have at least four or five >major seperate components. If the crank was split then it would be comprised >of the rear of the crank, the front and rear throw arms, the journal, and >the front portion of the crank. More likely though it had four major >components the crank was a solid, one piece shaft that the throw was slid >into position over it. In either case this front portion of the crank is >what the cone-de-penetration was attached to. The journal throw must ride on >front and rear roller bearings as do the connecting rods on the journal. I >never really stopped to analyze the actual mechanical movement of this >engine. Actually a little thought on the matter clearly shows the >impossibility of the crank thow remaining stationary as the engine would not >be able to move were this the case! So then the crankcase, cylinders, crank >throw, connecting rods and pistons are all stationary - realitive to each >other. For every degree the crankcase moved, the crank throw and all >attached components move the same number of degrees or perhaps a slightly >different number of degrees . The more I look at it, the more this engine >appears to be a maintenance nightmare. In fact I have read the average TBO >on these engines were around 100 hrs. I'm beginning to see why. What we need >here is a 1/10 scale visible rotary that would demonstrate the actual >mechanical motion of the components when turned. One glance at a model such >as this and I'm sure everything would become immediatly apparent. Still and >all the piston has to have a top dead center and a bottom dead center to >function, as this is the operational basis for all reciprocating engines. >This means the piston at some point is at the top of the cylinder and at >some point at the bottom of the cylinder. Even the cutway shows the various >piston positions, I can understand the relative movement of which you speak >but I can also see problems like scored cylinders on this machine due to the >relative travel movement of the piston. >Most of all I wonder how difficult the mag is to time on this engine? Well > I can also see where those long, taught, exposed ignition wires >would have broken on a fairly regular basis. Whatever conductor they used, >be it copper, brass or whatever, the material would have had to work harden >as the leads vibrated like a guitar string from the whirling motion. Talk >about engine failure waiting to happen. > >I'm starting to think everything I know is wrong. >I suppose this also means in the next world I'm on my own. > > >The Flyin' Wrench > I am not going to attempt to respond to that because I suspect that I will get out of my depth very quickly, however I can recommend an excelent book by one of your US compatriates: A History of AIRCRAFT PISTON ENGINES by Herschel Smith Sunflower University Press ISBN 0-89745-079-5 Fifth Printing 1994 Chapter four of this book is devoted to the various rotary engines. Like other supposed sterotypes, there were in fact a number of different flavours in rotary engine design. The Gnome to which the Wrench is refering had a particularly complex bronze slipper bearing arrangement for the fixing the connecting rods to the crankshaft. The book is well worth a look. It cost me A$50 so I would expect it to be around US$20-25. Regards Paul Butler ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:13:55 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: Real Wooden Props- suggestions? Message-ID: <199602070802.IAA28812@cso.com> On 6 Feb 96 at 23:39, Robert Woodbury typed diligently: > This is my first post to this newsgroup after having lurked here for a > couple of weeks. Welcome, and glad you could be here. Since you've been lurking, you know that 1/72nd is *THE* scale, all other *static* scales just don't cut it! (HUGE :-)) Matt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:13:54 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: One other GVW tidbit Message-ID: <199602070802.IAA28819@cso.com> On 6 Feb 96 at 18:12, Jose Valenciano typed diligently: > Bob Norgen of Sierra tells me that the Gotha is on Eduard's "to make" list. Yikes! If a C-type is around $40, then how much for a G-type? $50, $60? I'm betting that the vac will be around $40, knowing the manufacturer. Sure, it's vac, but for us die-hards, what does it matter? Another rumor I've heard: Eduard "accidentally" broke the mold for the SSW D.III. True? False? Anybody really know? Enquiring minds, and such. Matt -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Matthew Bittner WW1 Modeler, ecto subscriber, semi-new dad, meba@cso.com PowerBuilder developer; Omaha, Nebraska Disclaimer: opinions expressed by me are my responsibility only. "You cannot make anything foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious." - Christian Walters -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:13:55 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: Sign D-VIII <> Edward D-VIII Message-ID: <199602070802.IAA28807@cso.com> On 6 Feb 96 at 22:04, LCDR KENNETH L HAGERUP typed diligently: Great! FWIW, Ken is a member of the same IPMS group I'm in - don't use that against him, though. Although not a "true" WW1 modeler :-) he does dabble a bit. Ask him about his 1/72nd scratchbuilt A7V. Although this will sound trite to a LCDR, welcome aboard Ken! You really should have written an intro on yourself. > Ken Hagerup (Bf109s aren't so bad.) Okay, forget that I know this guy. With that kind of statement here, I'm embarrased to be in the same group as him! ;-) Bf109s aren't so bad. Geez. And neither are root canals and vasectomy's, either! Matt -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Matthew Bittner WW1 Modeler, ecto subscriber, semi-new dad, meba@cso.com PowerBuilder developer; Omaha, Nebraska Disclaimer: opinions expressed by me are my responsibility only. "You cannot make anything foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious." - Christian Walters -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 26 ********************