Military Review

Rotational engine. Dirty warrior ...

51
Today we’ll talk about the engine, the heyday of which fell on the period of time when aviation I haven’t left the state of “flying shelves”, but when these same shelves already felt quite confident in the air.



Sopwith Camel F.1 fighter with a Clerget 9B engine.


The basic principles of aircraft and engine-building quickly took a steady shape. There were more and more models of engines for airplanes, and with them both new victories and new problems in the engine industry. Designers and engineers sought (as it is, in general, is happening now :-)) to maximally facilitate the engines and at the same time maintain or even increase their traction efficiency.

On this wave, a rotated engine appeared for the then airplanes. Why for airplanes? Because by itself this type of engine was developed even much earlier than the first flight of the Wright brothers.

But first things first. What is a rotary engine ... In English, the rotary engine (which, by the way, in my opinion is strange, because the same word denotes a rotary engine (Wankel engine)). This is an internal combustion engine in which cylinders with pistons (their odd number) are located radially in the form of a star, usually four-stroke.

Working fuel - gasoline, ignition comes from the spark plugs.

In appearance, it is very similar to the well-known radial (star-shaped) piston engine that appeared almost simultaneously with it and well today. But this is only in a non-working state. When you start a rotary engine on a person who is ignorant of him makes a strong impression.

Rotational engine. Dirty warrior ...

Rotational engine operation.


This happens because his work looks very unusual at first glance. Indeed, together with the screw rotates and the entire cylinder block, that is, in fact, the whole engine. And the shaft on which this rotation takes place is fixed. However, in mechanical terms, there is nothing unusual here. Just a matter of habit :-).

The fuel-air mixture due to the rotation of the cylinders cannot be supplied to them in the usual manner; therefore, it gets there from the crankcase, where it is fed through a hollow shaft from the carburetor (or its replacement device).

For the first time in stories A patent for the rotary engine was obtained by the French inventor Félix Millet in 1888. Then they put this engine on a motorcycle and showed it at the Paris World Exhibition in 1889.


Rotational motor Félix Millet on a motorcycle.


Later, Félix Millet engines were installed on cars, one of which took part in the world's first Paris – Bordeaux – Paris car race in 1895, and since 1900, these engines were put on cars by the French company Darracq.

In the future, engineers and inventors began to pay attention to the rotary engine from the point of view of its use in aviation.

The first in this regard was Stephen Balzer, a former New York watchmaker, who created his rotary engine in 1890 and became the author (with engineer Charles M. Manly) of the first ever engine developed specifically for an airplane known as the Manly-Balzer engine.

Almost simultaneously, he worked with the American engineer Adams Farwell, who built cars with rotary engines from 1901 of the year.


Open engine crankcase Le Rhône 9J.


According to some information, the principles of the design of its engines were taken as a basis by the manufacturers of the subsequently famous Gnome engines.

What was it that attracted engineers in a rotary engine? What is so useful for aviation?

There are two main features that are its main positive qualities. The first is the smallest (at that time) weight compared with engines of the same power. The fact is that the rotational speeds of the then engines were low and to obtain the required power (on average, then, of the order of 100 hp (75 kW)), the ignition cycle of the air-fuel mixture made itself felt by very tangible jolts.

To avoid this, the engines were supplied with massive flywheels, which naturally entailed a heavier structure. But for a rotary engine, the flywheel was not needed, because the engine itself was spinning, having enough mass to stabilize the stroke.

Such engines differed smoothness and uniformity. The ignition was made sequentially in each cylinder through one in a circle.

The second feature was good cooling. The metallurgical industry in those days was not as developed as it is now and the quality of the alloys (in terms of heat resistance) was not too high. Therefore, good cooling was required.

Aircraft flight speeds were not high, so simple cooling with the oncoming flow of a stationary engine was insufficient. And the rotary engine here was in a more advantageous position, because it itself rotated with sufficient speed for effective cooling and the cylinders were blown well by air. At the same time, they could be both smooth and ribbed. Cooling was quite effective even when the engine was running on the ground.

Now let's digress for a couple of useful videos about the work of a rotary engine. The first is the modeling of his work on the computer. The second shows the work of the “insides” of the engine Le Rhône.





The flowering of rotary engines fell on the First World War. At that time, aviation was already seriously involved in hostilities and air battles were not uncommon. Airplanes and engines for them were made by all major participants in the war.

Of the engine-building systems, one of the most famous was the French firm Société des Moteurs Gnome, which was once engaged in the production of internal combustion engines for industrial production. In 1900, she bought a license to manufacture a small single-cylinder stationary engine (horsepower 4) Gnom from the German company Motorenfabrik Oberursel. This engine was sold in France under the French name Gnome and so successfully that the name was used in the name of the company.


Rotational engine Gnome 7 Omega.


Later on the basis of the Gnome was developed rotary engine Gnome Omega, which had a considerable number of modifications and was installed on a variety of aircraft. There are also other massively produced engines of this company. For example, the Gnome 7 Lambda - seven-cylinder, horsepower 80 hp and its continuation Gnome 14 Lambda-Lambda (160 hp), a two-row rotary engine with 14-th cylinders.


Engine Gnome Monosoupape.


The Gnome Monosoupape engine (one valve) is widely known, it was launched in the 1913 year and was considered one of the best engines in the initial period of the war. This “best engine” :-) had only one valve used for both exhaust and air intake. For the flow of fuel into the cylinder from the crankcase, a number of special holes were made in the cylinder skirt. The engine was beskarbyutorny and because of the simplified control system was lighter and consumed, besides less oil.


Fuel supply to the Gnome Monosoupape cylinder. Crank Case - crankcase, Ports - supply holes.


He had practically no control. There was only a fuel valve that fed gas through a special nozzle (or sprayer) into the hollow fixed shaft and then into the crankcase. This crane could try to enrich or deplete the air-fuel mixture in a very narrow range, which was of little use.

They tried to use for the purpose of control the change in valve timing, but they quickly refused to do this, because the valves began to burn. As a result, the engine constantly worked at maximum speed (as, by the way, all rotary engines :-)) and was controlled only by turning off the ignition (more on that below :-)).

Another well-known French company producing rotary engines was Société des Moteurs Le Rhône, which began its work with 1910. One of its most famous engines was Le Rhône 9C (power 80 hp) and Le Rhône 9J (110 hp). Their characteristic feature was the presence of special pipelines from the crankcase to the cylinders for supplying the fuel-air mixture (a bit like the inlet manifolds of modern internal combustion engines).


Engine Le Rhone 9C.



Le Rhone 9J rotary motor.


Le Rhône and Gnome initially competed, but then merged and with 1915, they already worked together under the name Société des Moteurs Gnome et Rhône. The 9J engine was, in general, already their joint product.

Interestingly, the aforementioned German company Motorenfabrik Oberursel in 1913 purchased licenses for the production of the now French rotary Gnome engines (although it was the ancestor of this brand, you can say :-)) and a little later the Le Rhône engines. She released them under her own names: Gnome, like the U-series and Le Rhône, as the UR-series (from the German word Umlaufmotor, meaning a rotary engine).

For example, the Oberursel U.0 engine was similar to the French Gnome 7 Lambda and was installed initially on the Fokker EI aircraft, and the Oberursel U.III engine is a copy of the two-row Gnome 14 Lambda-Lambda.


Fokker EI fighter with an Oberursel U.0 engine.



German double row Oberursel U.III, copy of Gnome 14 Lambda-Lambda.


In general, the company Motorenfabrik Oberursel throughout the war produced quite a large number of clone engines of French models, which were then put on airplanes that were opponents of the French and their allies in aerial combat. These are the tricks of life :-) ...

Among other well-known engine-building companies, the French company Société Clerget-Blin et Cie (the word Blin interesting for the Russian ear in the name means the name of one of the founders, industrialist Eugene Blin :-)) is also listed with its famous Clerget 9B engine.


Engine Clerget 9B.



Clerget 9B engine on a Sopwith 1½ Strutter fighter.



Sopwith 1 1 / 2 Strutter fighter with a Clerget 9B engine.


Many engines were manufactured in the UK under licenses. The same factories produced the British engines developed by Walter Owen Bentley (the same Bentley) Bentley BR.1 (replacing the Clerget 9B on the Sopwith Camel) and Bentley BR.2 for the Sopwith 7F.1 Snipe fighter.

On the Bentley engines in the design of the pistons were first used aluminum alloys. Prior to this, all engines had cast-iron cylinders.


Bentley BR1 rotary engine.



Bentley BR2 rotary engine.



Sopwith 7F.1 Snipe Fighter with Bentley BR.2 Engine


Now let us remember about other features of the rotary engine, which, so to speak, do not add benefits to it :-) (most often just the opposite).

A little about management. A modern (stationary, of course :-)) piston engine, whether it is inline or star-shaped, is relatively easy to control. The carburetor (or injector) forms the desired composition of the fuel-air mixture and with the help of the throttle the pilot can regulate its flow to the cylinders and, thus, change the engine speed. To do this, in essence, there is a handle (or pedal, as you wish :-)) gas.

With a rotary engine, things are not so simple :-). Despite the difference in design, most of the rotary engines had a controlled intake valve on the cylinders, through which the fuel-air mixture entered. But the rotation of the cylinders did not allow the use of a conventional carburetor, which would support the optimal air-fuel ratio behind the throttle valve. The composition of the mixture entering the cylinders had to be adjusted to achieve the optimum ratio and stable engine performance.

For this, there was usually an additional air valve (“bloctube”). The pilot set the throttle lever to the desired position (often opening the throttle completely) and then using the air supply adjustment lever, he achieved stable engine operation at maximum speed, producing the so-called fine adjustment. At such speeds, and usually passed the flight.

Due to the large inertia of the engine (the mass of the cylinders is nevertheless rather big :-)), such adjustment was often done using the “spear method”, that is, it was possible to determine the desired amount of adjustment only in practice, and this practice was necessary for confident control. Everything depended on the engine design and pilot experience.

The entire flight took place at the maximum engine speed, and if for any reason it was necessary to reduce it, for example, to land, the control actions should be in the opposite direction. That is, the pilot had to close the throttle and then regulate the air supply to the engine again.

But such a “control” was, as you understand, rather cumbersome and time consuming, which is not always in flight, especially during landing. Therefore, the ignition shutdown method was used more often. Most often this was done through a special device that allows you to turn off the ignition completely or in separate cylinders. That is, the cylinders without ignition stopped working and the engine as a whole was losing power, which was what the pilot needed.

This method of management was widely used in practice, but it dragged along a lot of problems. Fuel, together, by the way, with oil, despite the ignition off, continued to flow into the engine and, unburntly, safely left it and then accumulated under the hood. Since the engine is very hot, there is a danger of a serious fire. The then "light bookshelves" burned very easily and quickly :-).


An example of a protective engine hood (engine oil protection Gnome 7 Lambda) on a Sopwith Tabloid aircraft.


Therefore, engine hoods had a cut-out at about one third of the perimeter, or at worst serious drainage taps, so that all this filth could be removed by the oncoming flow. Most often, of course, she smeared on the fuselage.

In addition, candles in non-operating cylinders could be flooded and oily and restarting was therefore not guaranteed.

By 1918, the French engine company Société Clerget-Blin et Cie (Clerget 9B rotary engines), based on the apparent danger of using a power reduction method by turning off the ignition, the following control method was recommended in the engine manual.

If it is necessary to reduce the engine's power, the pilot shuts off the fuel supply by closing the throttle (with the throttle). In this case, the ignition does not turn off, and the candles continue to “spark” (protecting themselves from oiling). The screw rotates as a result of the autorotation effect, and if it is necessary to start the fuel valve, it simply opens into the same position as before closing. The engine starts ...

However, according to pilots, who fly today on reconstructed or replicas of aircraft of that time, the most convenient mode of reducing power is still turning off the ignition, despite all the “dirt” that rotary engines eject :-).

Airplanes with such engines in general did not differ in high purity. I already said about the fuel in the disconnected cylinders, but there was also oil. The fact is that due to the rotating cylinder block, the possibility of pumping fuel from the crankcase was very problematic, so it was impossible to organize a full-fledged lubrication system.


Scheme of fuel and oil supply rotary engine Gnome 7 Omega.


But without lubrication, no mechanism will work, so it, of course, existed, but in oh-oh-very simplified form. Oil was supplied directly to the cylinders, to the fuel-air mixture. On most engines, there was a small pump for this, which fed oil through a hollow (fixed, as already known :-)) shaft through special channels.

As a lubricating oil, castor oil was used, the best in those times (natural vegetable oil) for these purposes. It also did not mix with fuel, which improved lubrication conditions. Yes, and burned in the cylinders, it is only partially.


An example of oiling (dark spots) engine Gnome 7 Omega semi-burnt castor oil.


And it was removed from there after performing its functions together with the exhaust gases through the exhaust valve. And the expense of it at the same time was very rather big. Medium engine, about 100 horsepower (≈75 kW, 5-7 cylinders) for an hour of work spent more than two gallons (English) oils. That is, about 10 liters flew "to the wind."

Well what can I say ... Poor mechanics :-). The oil that burned out and not quite, the fuel mixture remaining after throttling the engine, soot ... it all settled on the plane, and all that had to be washed. And the oil is washed out very badly. Because of this, in old photographs, airplanes often “flaunt” dirty spots on the wing and fuselage.

But the pilots are courageous people :-). After all, out of the engine castorca. And this, as you know, is a very good laxative (it was sold in pharmacies before, I don’t know how it is now). Of course, the engine was closed by the hood, and from the bottom, as I said, there was a cut-out for removing all the dirt. But the cabin is open and the air flow is not always controlled. If pure castorca fell on the face and then inside ... Consequences to predict .... it was probably not difficult :-) ...

The next feature of the rotary engines, which I also would not call positive, was related to the controllability of the airplanes on which such engines stood. The large mass of the rotating block was in fact a large gyroscope, so the gyroscopic effect was inevitable :-).

While the plane was flying straight, its influence was not very noticeable, but as soon as it began to make any flight evolutions, the gyroscopic precession immediately manifested itself. Because of this, and coupled with a large torque of a massive block of cylinders, the aircraft turned very reluctantly to the left while raising its nose, but quickly turned right, with a large tendency to lower the nose.

This effect, on the one hand, was very disturbing (especially to young and inexperienced pilots), and on the other hand, it was useful during air battles, in the so-called dogfights. This, of course, for experienced pilots who could really use this feature.

Very characteristic in this regard was the famous Sopwith Camel F.1 Royal Air Force aircraft, which was considered the best fighter of the First World War. On it stood the rotary engine Clerget 9B (as a note I will add that later the English Bentley BR.1 (150 hp) was also put). Powerful (130 hp), but rather capricious engine, sensitive to the composition of the fuel and to the oil. Could easily refuse to take off. But it was thanks to him and the features of the layout of the fuselage (the dispersal of useful equipment) Camel was very maneuverable.


Sopwith Camel F.1 fighter with a Clerget 9B engine.



Fighter Sopwith Camel F.1 (replica).


This maneuverability, however, reached an extreme. In the management of the fighter was unusually strict and generally had some unpleasant features. For example, a great desire to enter the spin at low speed :-). He was absolutely not suitable for training young pilots. According to some statistics, 415 pilots died during the war in the fighting on this airplane, and 385 died in flight accidents. The figures are eloquent ...

However, experienced pilots who mastered it well could benefit greatly from its features and did it. Interestingly, due to Camel's reluctance to turn quickly to the left, many pilots preferred to do this, so to speak, “through the right shoulder” :-). Turning right to 270º was much faster than turning left to 90º.

The main and worthy opponent for Sopwith Camel F.1 was the German Fokker Dr.I triplane with the engine Oberursel UR.II (full analogue of the French Le Rhône 9J). Baron Manfred Albrecht von Richthofen (Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen), the famous “Red Baron” fought on such a war.


Triplan Fokker Dr.I



German engine Oberursel-UR-2. Copy of Le Rhône 9J.



The Fokker Dr.I triplane fighter (modern replica, though the engine is not rotary).



Fokker DR1, a modern replica with a true rotary engine.



Triplan Fokker Dr.I shortly before the death of the "Red Baron".


During the war, rotary engines reached its full bloom. With the existing demands of the army, despite their shortcomings, they were very well suited for solving, so to speak, the triple task of “power - weight - reliability”. Especially with regard to light fighters. After all, the overwhelming majority of these engines were on them.

Larger and heavier planes continued to fly using traditional in-line engines.

However, aviation developed at a rapid pace. More and more engine power was required. For stationary line-ups, this was achieved by increasing the maximum number of turns. Opportunities for improvement in this direction were. Improved ignition and gas distribution systems, the principles of formation of the air-fuel mixture. More and more advanced materials were used.

This allowed by the end of the First World War to raise the maximum speed of the stationary engine from 1200 to 2000 rpm.

However, for a rotary engine this was not possible. To organize the correct blending was impossible. Everything had to be done "by eye", so the fuel consumption (as well as oil) was, to put it mildly, rather big :-) (including, by the way, due to constant work at high speeds).

Any external adjustment work on the engine, while it is in disrepair, was by itself impossible.

It was also impossible to increase the rotational speed, because the air resistance to the rapidly rotating cylinder block was large enough. Moreover, with increasing rotation speed, the resistance grew even faster. After all, as is known, the velocity head is proportional to the square of the velocity (ρV2 / 2, where ρ is the air density, V is the flow velocity). That is, if the speed simply increases, then the resistance grows in a square (approximately :-)).

When trying on some engine models of the beginning of the war to raise the speed from 1200 r / min to 1400 r / min, the resistance rose by 38%. That is, it turned out that the increased engine power was spent more on overcoming resistance than on creating useful propeller thrust.

The German company Siemens AG attempted to get around this problem from a different angle. The 11-cylinder engine of the so-called biotective scheme (name Siemens-Halske Sh.III) was manufactured. In it, the cylinder block rotated in one direction with a frequency of 900 rpm, and the shaft (previously fixed) in the other with the same frequency. The total relative frequency was 1800 rpm. This made it possible to achieve power in the 170 HP.


Birotative Siemens-Halske Sh. III engine.



Fighter Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.



Siemens-Schuckert D.IV fighter in the Berlin Museum.


This engine had less resistance to air during rotation and less torque that interfered with control. Installed on the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV fighter, which, according to many experts, has become one of the best maneuverable fighters of the war. However, it began to be produced late and was made in a small number of copies.

The existing situation of Siemens-Halske Sh.III did not correct and could not again lift rotary engines to the proper height.

As you can see, they have enough flaws. Everything else, I can still add that these engines were quite expensive. After all, due to the large rapidly rotating mass, all engine parts had to be well balanced and well adjusted. Plus the materials themselves were not cheap. This led to the fact that, for example, the Monosoupape engine at 1916 prices of the year was worth about 4000 $ (which translates into 2000 of the year, about 65000 $). This is despite the fact that in the engine, in general, according to current concepts :-), there is nothing special.

In addition, the lifespan of all such engines was low (up to 10 hours between repairs) and they had to be changed often, despite the high cost.

All these shortcomings accumulated and in the end the bowl was overflowing. The rotative engine was widely used and improved (as far as possible) until the end of the war. Airplanes with such engines were used for some time during the civil war in Russia and foreign intervention. But in general, their popularity quickly declined.

The improvement of science and production led to the fact that a follower of a rotary engine stepped onto the scene - an air-cooled radial or star-shaped engine that does not descend from it to this day, working, by the way, in collaboration with a liquid-cooled in-line reciprocating aircraft engine .

The rotative engine, leaving a bright mark in the history of aviation, now occupies an honorable place in museums and at historical exhibitions.

At this end :-). In conclusion, as always, some interesting video. The first video - the launch of the restored engine Gnome 1918 year of release. Then three videos about the engine and the flights of the restored Sopwith Camel F.1, as well as Fokker Dr.I (in the background :-)). Interesting to see you and see you ...









PS One of my readers (Alexander) quite rightly pointed out to me that in the video, where the modern replica of the German triplan is flying along with Sopvich, the engine of this triplane is not rotary. Absolutely right. I, fascinated by Sopvich, did not pay attention to it :-). I apologize to the readers and put the video (and photo), where in flight a modern Fokker replica with a real rotary engine. The plane here is cool shown :-) ...

Author:
Originator:
http://avia-simply.ru/
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Revolver
    Revolver 29 November 2013 07: 15
    11
    Cool article. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 1 December 2013 18: 53
      +2
      Funny gear.
      Especially with a fuel intake from the crankcase, without a carburetor.
      I remember exactly what I saw in the chronicle — when the engine of the aircraft starts, smoke comes from under the hood (hood) from different sides ...
  2. Armata
    Armata 29 November 2013 08: 40
    +5
    The article is excellent. In doubt, only reliability in operation, as well as the original design. I was never puzzled by this pile, but now axial piston hydraulic motors work on the same principle, improved a bit, and the radials, as they were, remained only mirrored.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 29 November 2013 15: 37
      0
      great article thanks good
  3. Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 29 November 2013 08: 47
    +1
    Thanks! At least something "new" good
  4. ramsi
    ramsi 29 November 2013 09: 01
    +2
    yes, curious, did not even know about such. But still, this is a curiosity. Ordinary star-shaped can be adapted in a horizontal position now, but these are unlikely ...
    1. Hudo
      Hudo 29 November 2013 13: 01
      0
      Quote: ramsi
      Ordinary star-shaped can be adapted in a horizontal position now, but these are unlikely ...


      Why so? And if to enclose this engine in a casing?
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 29 November 2013 13: 45
        0
        what's the point? advantages over the star ... - well, maybe the dimensions are a little better, but the casing will "eat" everything, and cooling will be added to the problem with the fuel supply
        1. Hudo
          Hudo 29 November 2013 14: 27
          0
          Quote: ramsi
          and the meaning?

          Purely hypothetically ...
          Quote: ramsi
          advantages over the star.

          That's for sure - two boots - a pair.
          Quote: ramsi
          but the casing will "eat" everything,

          Not much and eat it! Look at the photo of the planes - all the engines are in casings.
          Quote: ramsi
          to the problem with the fuel supply will be added cooling

          He is himself a fan, so this is the least difficulty.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 29 November 2013 15: 10
            0
            purely hypothetically, of course, it is possible to blow air under the casing, but you can forget about water cooling; how and what will it twist - add a pulley for a belt drive? Balance - both are bad (although I'm lying, the rotational should be better); exhaust system - well, I can’t even imagine what the rotational can do with it
  5. Echo
    Echo 29 November 2013 09: 07
    +1
    Oh, and in Russia now even such engines in the power range from 100 to 200 mares do not. American Lycomings and European rattaxes stand like a few cars (and expensive cars) for a little thing ... oh, well, why am I off topic ...
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 29 November 2013 10: 28
      +3
      Why not on the topic. And they do not do it because there is no special demand. There is not enough light-engine aviation - but who is interested in production with the release of fifty engines a year? By the way, therefore, the engines are expensive. - for consider it a "luxury item" ... In such an engine itself, there is nothing particularly expensive ... long-established schemes and designs.
  6. DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 29 November 2013 09: 11
    +5
    Very interesting!!!! Many thanks! People sought to heaven, honor and praise !!! But about castor ... it’s cruel, and all the same they flew. The exhaust system is probably impossible to do. Will there be a sequel?
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 29 November 2013 11: 01
      0
      Quote: DZ_98_B
      But about castor ... it’s cruel, and all the same they flew.

      It was those pilots who had every right to say "And we are the army!" laughing
  7. Srgsoap
    Srgsoap 29 November 2013 09: 39
    +5
    The author is a big plus for the article and the work done, interesting, informative and most importantly everything is clear, video materials, photos and diagrams. good hi
  8. Yuri11076
    Yuri11076 29 November 2013 10: 14
    +1
    + article, thanks a lot to the author ...
  9. Taoist
    Taoist 29 November 2013 10: 25
    +3
    Great article. And by the way, a good indicator of "paradoxical construction" - i.e. solving engineering problems not by analyzing them but by complicating the frontal structure. And what is more interesting - the inertia of the design thinking - the rotational scheme was stubbornly trying to improve, although it was clear that it had no development prospects - the "genetic defects" of such a design were too great. In the case of the turbojet engine, by the way, there was a "rotational stage" - engines with a centrifugal compressor. At the initial stage, they were more profitable and easier than with the axial one - but the "genetic defect" - the impossibility of scaling and adjustment put an end to this branch too ...
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 29 November 2013 23: 33
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      In the case of the turbojet engine, by the way, there was a "rotational stage" - engines with a centrifugal compressor. At the initial stage, they were more profitable and easier than with the axial one - but the "genetic defect" - the impossibility of scaling and adjustment put an end to this branch too ...

      Centrifugal compressors are used all the time on turboshaft engines. They are put on helicopters. And our tank (starting from the GTD-1000T) can boast of this.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 30 November 2013 00: 46
        0
        They are used but to a limited extent - for they do not scale. Absolutely the same as happened with rotational ones - you cannot increase traction without increasing the diameter of the rotor - but increase the rotor and increase the problems with balancing and stability of the gas path. Centrifugal compressors are more stable in the gas-dynamic sense, but for the same reason they are worse regulated ... In general, a dead end and, as a result, limited use in low-power gas turbine engines, APU, etc.
        1. Yan8
          Yan8 1 December 2013 15: 12
          0
          It is impossible to increase the rotor, but again, you can increase the number of steps. It is limited in use by low-power engines, precisely because a high-power engine with a centrifugal compressor will have low specific indicators: the plane is large, the engine is large, the compressor is like a hut and heavy.
    2. Tommygun
      Tommygun 30 November 2013 00: 25
      0
      The article is really extremely high quality. I liked it very much! At the expense of design thinking: now everything is clear and understandable to us, but hardly any years ago! If you talk like that, then it’s clear that piston engines had no prospects, but they still improved.
      1. Yan8
        Yan8 1 December 2013 15: 23
        0
        They had no prospects only from the point of view of today. And why didn't they? Developed ourselves. After all, we do not have the idea of ​​putting a "promising" turbojet engine on the car for daily driving in the city. So it was then: there was a time for such motors for wood-linen-wire airplanes.
    3. Yan8
      Yan8 1 December 2013 15: 11
      0
      Not quite true as regards scaling and adjustment. You can make such a compressor the size of at least a house and with a dozen steps. Another thing is that they usually did one or one with a double-sided wheel, like the VK-1, but this is because it was easier with those powers. And axial compressors became the basis of the design because they have more efficiency, that is, a compressor of the same dimensions and with the same power supplied from the turbine will pump more kg / s of air. In general, - an engine with an axial compressor has a lot of specific performance. Yes, and adjusting the engine with a centrifugal compressor does not present a problem greater than with an axial compressor. Perhaps everything is even simpler there.
  10. Echo
    Echo 29 November 2013 11: 00
    +4
    Quote: Taoist
    Why not on the topic. And they do not do it because there is no special demand. There is not enough light-engine aviation - but who is interested in production with the release of fifty engines a year? By the way, therefore, the engines are expensive. - for consider it a "luxury item" ... In such an engine itself, there is nothing particularly expensive ... long-established schemes and designs.

    Ohhh, how I disagree with you! The demand for light aircraft engines in our time is simply huge, since small and private aviation is the fastest growing segment of aircraft manufacturing in the world. The same Cessna is engaged exclusively in the construction of such single-twin-engine aircraft, and the loot raises no less than Boeing or Lockheed.

    But when we talk about light aircraft engines applicable to Russia, then voices are immediately heard that, like "there will be no market", "we will not withstand competition", "one and a half SLASHNIK will not buy so many engines so that they can be produced profitably", and together with So we completely forget that, in addition to SLASHers, such engines will be needed by a huge heap of people, not counting export supplies. A real nightmare is observed in Russia with small aircraft - they have reached the point that the Otters of Canada are going to build! And for some reason, the market for them once, and there is! And when it comes to discussing the domestic engine building and light aircraft building - once again, there is no market! What a paradox? Russia now needs a nosebleed light aircraft engine of its own production. In Russia, dozens of projects of light multipurpose aircraft have been created, and of such a level that all these Otters, Beavers and Cessna, compared to them, are just monkey crafts (the domestic school of aircraft construction is the most advanced in the world - even Boeing recognizes this). But all these projects are stillborn, because there are no domestic engines for these aircraft! And to put bourgeois means to doom yourself to the fact that these planes will be hellishly expensive, and no matter how excellent they are, no one will buy them. So it turns out that there is no demand, there is no small aircraft. And for the Canadian suicidal Otter, according to some responsible and irresponsible comrades, for some reason there is a market! Saw cut?

    It's just that everything looks different - lobbyists and traitors who have sold themselves to the West and occupying "responsible posts" are doing everything to ensure that Russia never gets its place on the international small aircraft market! For the West, inexpensive and highly sophisticated Russian technologies are like a knife in the heart! They learned very well the lesson of the epoch-making AI-14 engine (on which everything flies, from the ancient Yak-12 mammoth to the later aerobatics Su-31). And this is provided that the AI-14 is a very obsolete engine. Can you imagine what the Russian engineering school can create at the beginning of the 21st century? Don't believe what it can? You shouldn't believe. And I am not yet touching on the topic of the M-11 aircraft engine, which also represents an entire era in the domestic aircraft industry.

    Therefore, believe me - Russia can create a light aircraft engine, which will cost 2-3 times cheaper than the bourgeois one. Yes, only the bourgeois will do everything, go to any crime, so that such an engine never appears.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 29 November 2013 12: 41
      +1
      My boss is a big enthusiast of "small aviation" http://topwar.ru/30639-unikalnaya-ekspediciya-rossiya-360-v-polete.html
      so I am a little aware of the state of affairs in this area. Well, he himself is a SDeshnik by basic education. Yes, the segment is developing very rapidly. But are you ready to give absolute numbers? Aviation "general purpose" in our country, unfortunately, is the lot of an insignificant percentage of wealthy people. (in contrast to the USSR, where flying clubs were a mass phenomenon) And wealthy people, alas, for the most part do not trust the "domestic producer" and prefer to buy proven imports. In general, there is no need to talk about "cutting" here - because absolutely everything that is being done in this area is "private initiative" - ​​and the issue of "investor confidence" in a particular topic.
      So the issue of producing both ALS and engines for them is primarily a question of reviving confidence in the domestic design school and "quality control of production" - which is a problem in itself, because over the past years, the "connection between generations" and qualified and responsible technical specialists has been lost. You won't find it with fire ... and if you do, then they are already working for the same Boeing and Tsesna ...

      PS By the way, about the fact that Tsesna "raises the loot" at the Boeing level ... Firstly, it is not so, and secondly, do not equate a transnational company (with a promoted and popular brand with the availability of demand and SERVICE! All over the world) with local production ... For first name and calculate for yourself the exact figure of how many new ultralight vehicles are sold in the Russian Federation per year ... And figure out how many, for example, you can supply engines for them ... As they say, the numbers will speak for themselves ... (I have a second economic education - to count the profitability of such a business is obviously hopeless)
    2. Yan8
      Yan8 1 December 2013 15: 25
      0
      Yes! Need and you can do!
  11. Avenich
    Avenich 29 November 2013 11: 30
    +1
    Great article. Thanks to the author. As a wish: a series of articles about aviation ICEs.
  12. UVB
    UVB 29 November 2013 11: 33
    +2
    Wonderful article! Only in the middle of the emoticons begin to annoy. In general, how many interesting ideas! I would like a similar article about another unusual Wankel ICE engine, which predicted a great future. This engine, even with equal power with the traditional one, had much smaller dimensions and the number of parts.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 29 November 2013 12: 31
      +1
      But at the same time, he also had an unremovable sore - complexity and, as a consequence, low reliability of the working chamber seal. All engines of a rotary piston scheme (unless of course a miracle occurs and invents a material that does not have thermal expansion and at the same time withstands severe loads) are doomed for this reason ...
      1. Argon
        Argon 29 November 2013 16: 01
        0
        A miracle happened, about 30 years ago, cermets plus heat shrink polymers. The main problem was not compliance of the actual combustion cycle with the reference one, the problem was in the mixture formation relative to the thermal regime (at a certain point in time), but the appearance of process control systems solved the problem. Such engines were serially built. There were plans to replace piston engines, in particular on the Ka-26, in the process of overhaul, Serially produced VAZ and GAZ vehicles. A series of truck models was planned at the KrAZ. Now Mazda is engaged in these engines, quite successfully. The article itself did not like it, the author is trying to simply write about the complex, but at the same time one must understand the question at a level higher than the average person. Otherwise, "absurdities" like - they could not raise the rated speed, the growing RESISTANCE OF AIR interfered with (he also taught the formula!) And in general, most of the questions are confused, it is obvious that translations were used, and the author is not entirely aware of what he is writing about. On the other hand, the illustrations somewhat compensate for the general disappointment. In fact, the main disadvantage of rotary engines in large moving masses of the structure, which are quite difficult (and often not possible) to balance, which causes the appearance of various kinds of vibrations and vibrations that interfere with ensuring stability about bores, destroying engine parts and striving to disrupt the running engine from the frame. This defect is especially sensitive when the speed changes. The niche of these motors can be considered a class of up to 100 hp, with more than modest production and metallurgy capabilities, you will have to pay with extremely low throttle response, oil consumption \ fuel \ resource.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 29 November 2013 16: 14
          +1
          Well, I know that these engines were built (and even serially). Although the "series" "series" are different. So far, neither cermets nor polymers provide any acceptable resource for these engines, and the "scalability" of this scheme is still a big question. Everything still remains at the level of "experiment" - although they were invented and improved for a long time. Standard internal combustion engines have traveled a much greater path of development during the same time. Perhaps I am biased, but as a person who seriously studied theory and was engaged in the operation of "heat engines" - I see more problems in this scheme than advantages. Which is partly what makes them related to the "rototatives" described in this article ...
          1. UVB
            UVB 29 November 2013 18: 22
            +1
            Let me disagree that everything remains at the experimental level. Below is an excerpt from http://mazda-club.dn.ua/history/?id=25
      2. UVB
        UVB 29 November 2013 18: 16
        +2
        The only company to continue - and successfully - work on the Wankel engine was Mazda, which acquired the appropriate license back in 1961. The company abandoned the design of NSU with one rotor almost immediately - due to unstable operation at low speeds. In the first half of the 60s, a two-section motor (with two rotors) was brought to mind, and in 1967 the first production Mazda rotary car, Cosmo Sport (Mazda 110S) with a 10A engine (2x491 cc) with a power of 110, went on sale. l with., later increased to 128 liters. with. ("Serial" - too much said, for 5 years 1176 copies were produced), which withstood the mileage of 100000 km. The speed of the car reached 200 km / h.

        In 1968, a more “earthly” coupe appeared on the market - Familia Rotary (Mazda R100), then Luce Rotary (Mazda R130), Capella Rotary (Mazda RX-2), Savanna (Mazda RX-3). Since 1970, the export of rotary machines to the United States began, where they made a lot of noise. In 1971, Mazda produced 200000 cars with a Wankel engine.

        Mazda RX-7K In 1978 - by the time the Mazda RX7 was released - the company had already achieved that its rotary engines were not inferior in reliability to internal combustion engines. America was the first mass market of overseas demand for the RX7, which was specifically created to undermine Nissan. The first generation of the car had a mid-engine layout and was equipped with a 12A engine (2x573 cc, 130 hp). In all other respects, the RX7, equipped with a 5-speed manual gearbox, rear drive wheels and coil-spring suspension, was no different from a conventional 2 + 2 class coupe. Unless due to the light engine, good weight distribution was achieved and the car's handling was improved. The size of the engine made it possible to make the bonnet line lower, and this detail in the car subsequently became a hallmark. In addition, the low hood significantly improved the aerodynamics of the car. As a result, before 1985, before launching the second generation of its cars, Mazda produced over half a million of these models. In 1980, facelift was carried out, in 1983 the turbocharger (165 hp) was added to the engine. Powerful engine, independent rear suspension: all this has become a successful component in the fight against the main competitor - Porsche 944.

        The second generation RX-7 was launched into the series in 1985. The turbocharged 13B engine power was 185 liters. s., and four years later it grew to 205 liters. with. The motor is equipped with two superchargers. Mechanical, low pressure, runs at low engine speeds, its task is to push the fuel mixture through the curve of the intake manifold and intercooler. The turbocharger turns on after reaching 3500 rpm., Providing the engine with explosive temperament. There is also an oil cooler. In 1987, the beautiful four-seater Eunos Cosmo coupe appeared, the model was equipped with a rotor engine with three rotors, a turbocharger, a volume of 3,8 liters and a power of 280 forces. It was a kind of sporty version of the Mazda RX7, designed for family people. This model was sold until 1998.

        And finally, the third generation, which appeared in 1991. The turbocharged 13B-REW engine (2x654 cc) developed a power of 255 liters. with. Facelift was carried out in 1996 and 1998, engine power was increased to 280 liters. with. In the same 1991, the long-term dream of the Mazda sports team came true - the 787B car with a four-section R26B rotary engine with a capacity of 700 liters. with. he won the 24-hour race at Le Mans (from next year only cars with “ordinary” piston engines were allowed to participate in the race). In the last generation, which appeared in 1999, engine power came close to the mark of 300 forces - it was a 2,5-liter twin-turbo engine. Its enormous potential has been well received in America, where these models are used for street racing.
  13. Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 29 November 2013 11: 41
    0
    Great article !!! Thank!
  14. kirpich
    kirpich 29 November 2013 13: 49
    0
    The article is very interesting. The engine itself is peculiar.
    I was only embarrassed by one phrase <As a lubricating oil, castor oil was used, the best oil at that time (natural vegetable) for these purposes. It also did not mix with fuel, which improved lubrication conditions. And it only partially burned in the cylinders.>

    In general, castor oil in those days of aviation was used for honing cylinders in order to increase the compression ratio, and to increase the engine power.
  15. saygon66
    saygon66 29 November 2013 14: 18
    +1
    - AEROCHOPPER! good
  16. kirpich
    kirpich 29 November 2013 16: 00
    0
    Quote: Echo
    It's just that everything looks different - lobbyists and traitors who have sold themselves to the West and occupying "responsible posts" are doing everything to ensure that Russia never gets its place on the international small aircraft market! For the West, inexpensive and highly sophisticated Russian technologies are like a knife in the heart! They learned very well the lesson of the epoch-making AI-14 engine (on which everything flies, from the ancient Yak-12 mammoth to the later aerobatics Su-31). And this is provided that the AI-14 is a very obsolete engine. Can you imagine what the Russian engineering school can create at the beginning of the 21st century? Don't believe what it can? You shouldn't believe. And I am not yet touching on the topic of the M-11 aircraft engine, which also represents an entire era in the domestic aircraft industry.

    Therefore, believe me - Russia can create a light aircraft engine, which will cost 2-3 times cheaper than the bourgeois one. Yes, only the bourgeois will do everything, go to any crime, so that such an engine never appears.



    BRAVO!!!
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 29 November 2013 16: 22
      +3
      Before yelling "Bravo" ... think about a couple of simple questions ... Creating an engine does not mean "drawing it" ... This is, in addition to the design (I hope that we still have the designer), a lot of experimental (you know a lot of places where you can Seriously roll such an engine at the stand?), technological (how many technologists with relevant qualifications are left?) and production (where do we have production with the required machine tool base?) works. And the statement that it will be "2-3 times cheaper than the bourgeois" is rather a good wish. For there is nothing ... The corresponding materials, resources, as well as direct and indirect taxes have long been at the level (and in some ways even worse) "bourgeois". Miracles do not happen - you can't make candy out of "shit", and even more so in such an area as aviation. We can only reduce our rate of profit ... - and this will only lead to the fact that production will be unprofitable.
  17. Moore
    Moore 29 November 2013 17: 14
    0
    Triplan Fokker Dr.I shortly before the death of the "Red Baron".

    Under Richthoffen, apparently, there was still no bad omen - photographing before departure ...
  18. pensioner
    pensioner 29 November 2013 17: 45
    0
    We have such engines called Gnome-Ron. And even in the early 30s, our aircraft designers developed airplanes for them. The last such engine was lit up in our designs (if my memory serves me right) in the 33rd year ...
  19. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 29 November 2013 20: 33
    0
    Interestingly, and no one tried to give the cooling surfaces the shape of a screw? In the sense - to make the engine itself a screw.

    Quote: Moore
    Triplan Fokker Dr.I shortly before the death of the "Red Baron".

    Under Richthoffen, apparently, there was still no bad omen - photographing before departure ...

    Well, it went from him ...
    1. Yan8
      Yan8 1 December 2013 15: 39
      0
      Give the cooling surfaces the shape of a screw - that is, cylinders. A non-round cylinder is a problem, but for those times it is perhaps insoluble. It is not in vain that the cylinders of the engines are round - loads are more or less evenly distributed, including thermal. AND! The rings remain round (sounds like butter oil); yes - obturation is provided. But to make the cylinder inside cylindrical, and to extend the shell outside into the wing profile, is a problem, the extra triangular segments are the same kilograms of excess metal, while cast iron, which means we lose more than we can gain.
  20. Des10
    Des10 29 November 2013 20: 55
    0
    Article plus. Comprehensive and colorful. And immediately - the response. Bravo!
  21. samoletil18
    samoletil18 29 November 2013 22: 05
    +1
    +. What engine speed is required for effective cooling in the summer on the rear wheel of a bicycle?
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Justme
    Justme 1 December 2013 00: 25
    0
    When you look at some old development, sometimes you realize that this is essentially a masterpiece - the highest achievement made on the technical basis available then.
    At one time, I spent a lot of energy simply restoring that balance of ideas of the initial idea of ​​some development, its schemes, putting myself in the place of the author and trying to understand the logic that led to such a creation.
    But the sensation from this engine - it is like a dinosaur that was supposed to once appear and then after some time - was doomed to extinction.
    Now in this area it is necessary to focus on other balances of ideas.
  24. Justme
    Justme 1 December 2013 00: 25
    +1
    When you look at some old development, sometimes you realize that this is essentially a masterpiece - the highest achievement made on the technical basis available then.
    At one time, I spent a lot of energy simply restoring that balance of ideas of the initial idea of ​​some development, its schemes, putting myself in the place of the author and trying to understand the logic that led to such a creation.
    But the sensation from this engine - it is like a dinosaur that was supposed to once appear and then after some time - was doomed to extinction.
    Now in this area it is necessary to focus on other balances of ideas.
  25. Yan8
    Yan8 1 December 2013 15: 50
    +2
    The article is not bad. In fact - an interesting motor, an elegant engineering solution. Someone wrote that in childhood he worked at the airport and his duty was to come to the plane with such an engine after the flight, bring a few buckets of hot water and soap, and wash the castor for a very long time. And also, the pilots (and one of the photos shows this), as part of the flight uniform wore long scarves - with these scarves the pilots wiped glasses splashed with oil. Harshly!
  26. Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 1 December 2013 20: 58
    0
    Quote: Mechanic
    In doubt, only reliability in operation,
    Their reliability was confirmed by the First World War ... hi
  27. rostov-dad
    rostov-dad 1 December 2013 23: 18
    0
    but interestingly, does anyone know anything for rotary vane engines? pros and cons, and its prospects in aviation?
  28. rostov-dad
    rostov-dad 1 December 2013 23: 18
    0
    but interestingly, does anyone know anything for rotary vane engines? pros and cons, and its prospects in aviation?
  29. RDS-1
    RDS-1 6 December 2013 15: 57
    0
    I join a friendly choir of connoisseurs - a great article! Comprehensively, with taste and love for the topic. To the author plus.
  30. samolet il-76
    samolet il-76 12 December 2013 11: 04
    0
    This is an old engine! Now they don’t put it on airplanes.