There was a discussion of this topic over at the old 12 O’Clock High forum (over a yer ago, at least). If I remember correctly, there were many suggestions but the most plausible was the asymmetric supercharger, mounted on the port side. The induction manifold to the starboard cylinder bank was longer resulting in slightly lower charge pressure which was compensated by a slightly higer compression ratio.

Christer

Far from it. There are fewer moving parts with a sleeve valve engine and a greater proportion of those parts are revolving in a constant direction rather than reciprocating like crazy, reducing wear, noise and the need for fiddly springs and such. Would you suggest Parsons should never have bothered with the steam turbine?? Improvements in materials gave the poppet valve a new lease of life but that doesn’t mean sleeve valves don’t fundamentally have more potential (or aren’t fundamentally simpler).

In an issue of Warbirds Worldwide, there was an article on the rebuild of different engines at Mike Nixon’s Vintage V12’s. There was a photograph of a Centaurus with the crank case covers removed. The drive train for the sleeve drive maked it look like a swiss watch churning out 2500HP. It didn’t look “fundamentally simpler”.

Christer

… and

http://home.uni-one.nl/bugatti/revue3/rev3-2.htm

http://home.uni-one.nl/bugatti/revue4/plane.htm

Christer

trumper,
if it was sent to me … 🙁 … it failed, I have nothing in my PM-inbox.

Christer

Thanks anyway.
Be great if you could find the link.

I’ve been looking high and low but obviously not in the right place. I’m pretty sure that it is from MV293 at Legends. PM me with your E-mail addy and I’ll mail it!

Christer

Check your inbox!

Christer

… that shouldn’t fly very often but only at airshows.

Isn’t that asking for trouble? Pilots will always fly the aircraft with a low level of current experience!

If a decision is taken to fly and display the aircraft, let the “assigned pilot” get some training “out of public view” to ensure safe displays. This will increase flight safety which limiting the flying hours will not. I can’t put any figures on it but 5-10 hours during 20-40 flights annually may be sensible as training (not counting display time).

I also believe that mixing a variety of complex aircraft, flying each “not very often but only at displays” is asking for trouble in the exreme. No matter how experienced the pilot is, in an extraordinary situation he/she will have to “think twice” before acting and that may be fractions of a second ill spent, due to low current experience.

If hundreds of thousands are spent on the rebuild but there is no funds left to let the “assigned pilot” stay current on the aircraft, then keep both on the ground. If there are funds for flight training “out of public view” then fly and display the aircraft. I believe that the cost for flying must be fairly low, compared to costs for the rebuild, insurance and the possible loss of the aircraft in an accident. A sensible budget for flying should have a high cost-benefit ratio.

Christer