Talk:Green Engine Co
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valkyrie
[edit]A Mr Barber donated four Valkyrie military monoplanes to the government in 1911, three were Green powered.
- No. 1 fitted with a 30 hp Green engine, single seater.
- No. 2 fitted with a 60-80 hp Green engine, two seater.
- No. 3 fitted with a 40-50 hp Green engine, single seater
The fourth was Gnome powered. Are two of these the Valkyrie's already listed? do we need to add the third? MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Horatio Barber was ASL's founder and designer. I did miss one of his machines, the first ASL (rather than just Barber), the Monoplane no.2, which had a 60 hp Green. Those donated aircraft appear in Bruce's book: I guess No.1 is a Valkyrie A, No.2 a C and No.4 a B. A & C are listed. The missing No.3 with its "what was described as a 40-50 hp Green" (Barnes' quotes, uneasily) doesn't fit a Valyrie type that I can find (not in Barnes, Goodall & Tagg or Peter Lewis), nor does it fit any Green engine I've come across. Those uncertainties made me leave it out on first pass.
- It was possible to get 45 hp out of the nominally 30-35 hp Green C.4 at max revs (the Wiki page quotes this as its max power, probably not for long). Post-war, an Avro Baby had one rated at that power, but it had been drilled out to improve scavenging. So I'm guessing that the engine of No.3 was really a Green C.4 We could do with more info on Green's types; I've listed those in Jane's 1913 and Gunston who says the 35 and the 60 were the main production models, in agreement with the list lengths, but maybe there was a real 40-50 hp job?--TSRL (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Times has a few mentions of Green engines but normally only refers to hp and the owner of the aeroplane. Others I have looked at appear to be on the list but the Times was not very technical in descriptions more like Mr. Foos monoplane was powered by a xhp Green engine I suspect most aircraft names and designations are a more modern invention and may not always be contempary. Not looked at Flight as it loads very slow on my machine. MilborneOne (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems that hp is how most contemporary sources work; Flight is much the same though it gives the aircraft maker's name. OK, but when the engines were rated e.g. as 30-35 hp, but could do 45 hp, not ideal. On a similar issue, you quote the Times report that the 1914 £5,000 prize was for the 100 hp engine. According to the Flight ref I've just added, it was for the improved 120 hp variant. The differences were not great, chiefly a stiffer crankshaft for higher revs, but perhaps we should say 120 hp and add Flight ref?
- Sure you are right about names and numbers; HP were one of several to sit down after the war and go through (lettering) their early aircraft. A survivor's privilege. Think that in the early days getting briefly into the air was the prime concern. We must all have built up filing systems in a similar way, realising the needs later on. The other thing is that the early stuff was so easily modified that the distinction between types blurs.TSRL (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The times ref does say the Green Engine Company for the Green 100 hp water-cooled engine No. 1 and in Gustave Green's obituary in 1964 "in 1914 his 100 hp engine won the £5,000 Naval and Military Aero Engine competion"! perhaps we just need a note about the different sources. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense: I'll do that.TSRL (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The times ref does say the Green Engine Company for the Green 100 hp water-cooled engine No. 1 and in Gustave Green's obituary in 1964 "in 1914 his 100 hp engine won the £5,000 Naval and Military Aero Engine competion"! perhaps we just need a note about the different sources. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)