Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:28 am
Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:44 am
Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:12 am
Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:28 am
Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:48 pm
Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:24 pm
Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:47 pm
Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:15 am
Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:21 am
RickH wrote:Welcome back. I hope ya'll aren't getting a Hornet pilot to fly the Box Kite for you !
Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 am
DH82EH wrote:Enjoy the anniversary show and please post us some pics.
Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:31 am
Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:56 pm
Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:06 am
Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:29 am
JDK wrote:Thanks Dave! Yes it is. So here's a bit about Boxkite engines. Most original Boxkites were equipped with a seven-cylinder 8 litre 50 hp Gnome rotary. This is a pic of the Australian Army's CFS-3, with Richard 'Dickie' Williams holding the prop and modelling the flying helmet. (The image is from the RAAF Museum Archive.) The first thing to note is that the aircraft isn't complete, the upper wing extension isn't fitted, and the inner balancer (aileron) is also missing.
The second thing to note is that the front of the aircraft is to the left, and thus the rotary is hanging off the BACK of the propeller - even more removed from the airframe than your standard tractor-type rotary. We've not found a reliable reference as to why it has this configuration, but an obvious possibility is that the slipstream is desired / required to cool the engine; something there would be far less of if the prop were aft of the metal. Anyone know better?
Another item to note here is the very Victorian style (though Edwardian era) metalwork of the engine mount; an artwork in its own right.
The Project 2014 team chose to use a Rotec seven-cylinder 110 hp 2.8 litre radial in the RAAF Museum's Boxkite replica, and this is also - necessarily - more conventionally arranged. It's seen here test running before the initial hops, and shows well the arrangement of the unit.
While an original style rotary would be nice to have (and thanks to recent pioneering work in New Zealand becoming more likely in the future) supporting the local Victorian company with their essentially ideal engine was the chosen path. (It's ideal because it's more friendly to maintenance and use, less costly than unobtanium rotaries, and more alike to other engine types used by today's pilots - real rotaries are sadly rare in Australia. Also, back when the project was started, neither of the NZ companies had got near running their 'new' rotaries.) With this set up, a decent sized (beautiful, wooden) prop, more like the period large, slow prop was also possible.
Shuttleworth's Boxkite has always had 'flat' engines, currently a Rolls Royce Continental of 100 hp. The apparent excess power of the replicas does not translate into whizz, but is a function of the different nature of engines and use then and now - but that's another story...
Regards,
Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:59 pm
The Inspector wrote:Engine moved aft to correct a weight and balance (nose heavy) issue?