At 12:07 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Ray McCrary wrote:
>*The point, though, is that total number of water cooled engines used in
>airframes outnumbered the "rotary" engines used. One bomber had several
>engines.
>
>The "rotary" engine was a dead end. In spite of the apparent love of
>Sopwith.
>
>You may wish to write to the Garver Facility at the Smithsonian, and the AF
>Museum in Dayton. Janes Aircraft may help you as well.
And you might want to subscribe to any of the several World War I and World
War I aviation lists, where this is a frequent topic of conversation and
discussion. C'mon over, and LEARN some things!
You seem to have a rather distressing fixation with Sopwith. Fokker was
much more dedicated to the rotary than was Sir Thomas, and used them in
greater quantity.
The Liberty Engines were produced in quantity. The only combat use,
though, was on a small number of DH-4's in the final month of the War. We
were not discussing engines boxed in warehouses or in the holds of cargo
ships: we are discussing engines in use. And, in the First World War, the
number of bombers or other multi-engine aircraft was minuscule compared to
the number of pursuit aircraft, though this would have changed had the War
gone into the spring of 1919.
Yes, the rotary engine was a technological dead-end -- but it remained the
front-line powerplant among pursuit aircraft until the Armistice.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
Cha robh b`s fir gun ghr`s fir!
|