Don Stauffer > wrote in message
...
> Dave Baker wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you mean the change in burn time (i.e with different mixture
ratios)
> > but if not then certainly the burn time occupies a significant portion
of an
> > engine revolution or we wouldn't need ignition advance in the first
place.
> >
> > I'm also unaware of any engines in which the crankcase revolves
> > --
> > Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
> >
> >
>
> Actually, I am doing a video on an engine today in which the crankcase
> revolves and the shaft stays still :-) It is a pre-WW1 aircraft engine.
> Maybe the back of my mind was playing tricks- I've been obscessing on
> that run for weeks. But yeah, on this newsgroup I really meant the
> crankshaft.
>
> The engine runs are scheduled today and tomorrow- rain forcast both
> days. It is a 1909 Gnome engine, and it will be a heartbreak of it is
> rained out. Done lots of prefilming and interviews so far.

A friend of mine is into aircraft and aircraft engines (he had flying
lessons for a while but ran out of money) and from past chats I do actually
know that some of the radial ones had the crank stationary and the rest of
the engine rotating round it but adding all that to my line above would have
rather devalued the intended humour so I left it out. I suppose I could have
said I'm unaware of any car engines in which the crankcase revolves.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)