Talk:Radial engine
|
|
"The radial engine is a particular engine configuration, in which the cylinders are arranged pointing out from a central crankshaft like the spokes on a wheel. " - I think a direct link to rotary engines would be useful here - not just indirectly through engine configuration
Who invented the radial engine? Was it an evolution of the rotary piston engine, or a seperate invention?
"The other disadvantage is that the frontal area of the radial is always much larger than the same displacement inline, meaning that the radial will always have greater drag. For a low-speed plane this is not very important, but for fighter aircraft and other high-speed needs, this is often a "killer problem". " - This statement is too general and does not take into account other important factors: 1) the frontal area is not much larger, in fact with a double bank it can be the same size or smaller, 2) as a percentage of overall drag, the increase is not significant, 3) a radial engine does not require a "radiator", which can offset any increase in drag, 4) a radial engine is lighter than an in-line engine, and 5) the cylinders in a radial engine receive even cooling, a problem with in-line air cooled engines. Plus, the lack of cooling system that's vulnerable to enemy fire is a big "plus" for a fighter aircraft. For proof of the viability of radial engines in fighter aircraft, compare the performance of fighter aircraft with in-line engines to the British Hawker Tempest II and Hawker Sea Fury, both of which were powered by the double row 18cyl. Bristol Centaurus radial engine, housed in a very aerodynamic cowling.
I agree. There are direct contradictions between paragraphs five and seven.
Animation
I think the animation should be moved to the bottom of the page, so people can read the article without distraction. Really, try concentrating and reading the entire article with the animation in view.
I've done this before and thought the article looked a lot better. Duk 06:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)