Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Trouble is the Dragonfly engine was probably no more reliable than the Gnome twin row rotary. Had WW 1 lasted into 1919 the Dragonfly engine would have been the most valuable "weapon" in the German arsenal.The 320BHP Dragonfly motor shows how much progress was made compared to the previously mentioned SE-4 it has twice the power of the unreliable Gnome twin row rotary engine it set the record with and three times the power of the reliable Gnome monosoupape
I am not cheerleading for any particular design just pointing out the general development around 100 BHP in 1914 to around 300 in 1918, the definition of serviceability and reliability is open to discussion when pilots were sometimes required to lubricate rockers while in flight.Trouble is the Dragonfly engine was probably no more reliable than the Gnome twin row rotary. Had WW 1 lasted into 1919 the Dragonfly engine would have been the most valuable "weapon" in the German arsenal.
While not used in service aircraft the Cosmos Jupiter (Roy Feddon) was running in 1918 as was the RAF.8 or Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar, although development stalled in 1917-1918 for a number of reasons. Mainly the leaving of the two primary designers and the lack of potential orders due to the AIr Ministries infatuation with the Dragonfly.
The statement about little progress during WW1 which sparked this part of the discussion is almost breathtaking for a serious historian to make, I wonder if it is somehow taken out of context. A point I didn't make before concerned the SE-4s landing speed was 52 MPH as compared to its maximum of 92 with the Gnome supape which to me infers that the aerofoils were as low in drag as possible but stalled without much notice. The following SE-4A was designed more with flyability and stability in mind (according to Wiki) to me that alone is progress.The Dragonfly was a disaster of the highest order just waiting to happen.
However you are correct, there were a number of engines of around 300hp in the wings, from the 230hp Bentley Rotary to the Rolls Royce Falcon and Eagle plus the American Liberty. Hispano was working on the large v-8 that went to 300hp?
The statement about little progress during WW1 which sparked this part of the discussion is almost breathtaking for a serious historian to make, I wonder if it is somehow taken out of context. .
I don't believe you did, he has a strange idea of how progress is made. Alcock and Brown flew the Atlantic in an adapted Vimy bomber, who was crossing the Atlantic, or anything near that flight length in 1914.God I hope not, but maybe I have?? Just a small caption introducing the S.E.4 written over 50 years ago - which I did think was interesting.
He also had a belief the successful Sopwith Tabloid performance, with other factors, was responsible for hindering monoplane construction for twenty years in Great Britain
Replica D.H.5 from the 80's...