xcarguy Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) A rose by any other name would smell as sweet . . . . perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJSLDq7MkhQ Edited July 29, 2014 by xcarguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyMike Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The last two videos appear to be the same unless there is an alternate ending that I somehow missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wemtd Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 So - Will this make the Storker go even faster and further reduce the power to weight ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 My bad on the last two videos. Should have been three different videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 wemtd, The Strorker should be faster. For every action, there is an equal and opposite bla, bla, bla. If the pistons are aligned horizontally with the longitudinal axis bla, bla, bla. And they are propelled rearward during the power stroke, it should propel the Storker forward at a high rate of bla, bla, bla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3 Stalker Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 So Shane, if the pistons are propelled forward on the power stroke then you would slowed which should counteract the forward action bla, bla bla LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Exactly!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 The last two videos appear to be the same unless there is an alternate ending that I somehow missed. Corrected the first post. This shouuld have been the third video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyMike Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Doyle Rotary? The only name I can think of that would be worse is the Jethro Rotary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 The Jethro Rotary . . . Gotta love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVP66S Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 The Dyna-Cam has an interesting history. It actually got FAA type certificate but I understand the company imploded for business reasons rather than engine related reasons. I'm pretty sure the Doyle rotary would get a lot heavier when the outer shell is stress analyzed and sections sized accordingly. Oil scavenging would be an interesting system to design. I've seen a lot of alternative engine proposals and a lot of them claim to overcome the problems of valve actuation and balance. If cam follower friction steals 1% of the engine power, it doesn't make sense to develop a new set of unlearned problems with a different configuration. The Ecomotor is a current example. The concept is a WWII Junkers Jumo (that worked very well) and replaces one of the crankshafts with long con rods and a funny shaped head & cylinder to accommodate those rods. There's also the Gemini general aviation engine that is a scaled-down Jumo that I hope makes it to production. http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-aircraft/aircraft-engines-3.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now