The Bourke Engine Could Revolutionize Private Aviation

[longknife]

Bourke is to engines as Tesla is to alternators, this was no accident, Robert Bourke taught engine maintenance at the Unites States Air Service School at Kelly Field, Texas in 1918. He fully understood the theoretical limitations of the Otto 4 cycle and sought a simpler design and for years worked on the problem until 1932 when he built a working prototype. Bourke set out to overcome the complex design of gasoline engines, he succeeded. The Army Air Force was impressed and awarded him a contract to build an aviation prototype. According to legend he did and connected a wooden prop to the crank, when he gunned the engine the torque was so great the prop sheered, the blades could not keep up with the engine RPM acceleration.

Read more @ The Bourke Engine Could Revolutionize Private Aviation | Veterans Today

My question – why isn't anyone using these?

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Bourke engine is kinda like the "Flying Car in every driveway" concept:

Every 10 years or so it gets trotted out with great fanfare; "It's gonna' Revolutionize transportation!". Then when it doesn't "take off" so to speak it gets put BACK on the shelf to await a new group of people who've never heard of it before.

 

[longknife]

The Bourke engine is kinda like the "Flying Car in every driveway" concept:

Every 10 years or so it gets trotted out with great fanfare; "It's gonna' Revolutionize transportation!". Then when it doesn't "take off" so to speak it gets put BACK on the shelf to await a new group of people who've never heard of it before.

So, what exactly is causing it not to be in use?

 

[mamooth]

According to wikipedia (and I have no idea if these critiques are correct)

Bourke engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seal friction from the seal between the air compressor chamber and the crankcase, against the connecting rod, will reduce the efficiency.[11]
Efficiency will be reduced due to pumping losses, as the air charge is compressed and expanded twice but energy is only extracted for power in one of the expansions per piston stroke.[12][13]
Engine weight is likely to be high because it will have to be very strongly built to cope with the high peak pressures seen as a result of the rapid high temperature combustion.[14]
Each piston pair is highly imbalanced as the two pistons move in the same direction at the same time, unlike in a boxer engine.[15] This will limit the speed range and hence the power of the engine, and increase its weight due to the strong construction necessary to react the high forces in the components.[16]
High speed two-stroke engines tend to be inefficient compared with four-strokes because some of the intake charge escapes unburnt with the exhaust.[17]
Use of excess air will reduce the torque available for a given engine size.[18]
Forcing the exhaust out rapidly through small ports will incur a further efficiency loss.[19]
Operating an internal combustion engine in detonation reduces efficiency due to heat lost from the combustion gases being scrubbed against the combustion chamber walls by the shock waves.[20]
Emissions - although some tests have shown low emissions in some circumstances, these were not necessarily at full power. As the scavenge ratio (i.e. engine torque) is increased more HC and CO will be emitted.[21]
Increased dwell time at TDC will allow more heat to be transferred to the cylinder walls, reducing the efficiency.[22]
When running in auto-ignition mode the timing of the start of the burn is controlled by the operating state of the engine, rather than directly as in a spark ignition or diesel engine. As such it may be possible to optimize it for one operating condition, but not for the wide range of torques and speeds that an engine typically sees. The result will be reduced efficiency and higher emissions.[23]
If the efficiency is high, then combustion temperatures must be high, as required by the Carnot cycle, and the air fuel mixture must be lean. High combustion temperatures and lean mixtures cause nitrogen dioxide to be formed.

 

[longknife]

Well, I don't think the Wiki piece deals with the major advances in technology since the engine was invented.

But thanks for the response.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Bourke engine is kinda like the "Flying Car in every driveway" concept:

Every 10 years or so it gets trotted out with great fanfare; "It's gonna' Revolutionize transportation!". Then when it doesn't "take off" so to speak it gets put BACK on the shelf to await a new group of people who've never heard of it before.

So, what exactly is causing it not to be in use?

Well, the Bourke Engine was designed in the 20's. If it actually had any real practical application, don't you think it would be in widespread use by now? There are better, more efficient and practical engines in use today.

You know V-2 engines were used in Aviation in the 20's for awhile (Anzani being one) but were replaced with Opposed Cylinder and Radial Engines that performed better as technology advanced.

But V-2's work just fine on Motorcycles right? You see any Radial engines on Bikes? Other than the one-off show bikes you don't. BMW used to make opposed cylinder motors for their bikes, maybe they still do (I rode one a long time ago) There's a reason for that.

Some ideas are so far ahead of their time that they have to wait for technology to "catch up" with it. An example being electric R/C cars and planes that needed light weight (and cheap) batteries and electronics to be invented before electric flight became a reality.

The Bourke Engine is just brought out in it's original form and paraded as "revolutionary" when in fact it isn't, PLUS no technological breakthrough with materials or manufacturing techniques or whatever are EVER brought out with it that improve on the design.

Cool? Interesting? Yeah.
Useful? Not really.

 

[westwall]

I could see these being used in the small econo boxes that we will force the libtards to drive instead of real cars like the rest of us... Oh, wait. That's what they want to force US into driving while they get to keep their SUV's because they are somehow more better than us....

 

[Mad Scientist]

"He guise I have this new video recording technology. Check it out it's called BetaMax. Video quality is so much better than VHS, what do you think?"

 

[mamooth]

Better picture yes, but a Beta cartridge couldn't hold an entire movie, while a VHS cartridge could. That's why VHS won, because the convenience of one cartridge instead of two was judged by consumers and movie-renters as being more important than picture quality.

How to extend that analogy to engines ... I'll pass on that.

 

[daveman]

Yes, Beta had better picture quality -- which is why television stations used Beta up until they went digital.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I could see these being used in the small econo boxes that we will force the libtards to drive instead of real cars like the rest of us... Oh, wait. That's what they want to force US into driving while they get to keep their SUV's because they are somehow more better than us....

What in the world are you yapping about again?

Can we get an interpreter out if in rightfield?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, Beta had better picture quality -- which is why television stations used Beta up until they went digital.

Beta was superior and the Betamax issue is a prime example of why smart minds do NOT trust the American people to get things right

 

[Derideo_Te]

I could see these being used in the small econo boxes that we will force the libtards to drive instead of real cars like the rest of us... Oh, wait. That's what they want to force US into driving while they get to keep their SUV's because they are somehow more better than us....

The power to weight ratio is what matters. A Mini Cooper and a Ford Mustang are both 2 door coupes. They are great fun to drive but one will deliver better fuel economy than the other. Yes, there are small "econo boxes" out there but not all of them are boring.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Walleyes thinks that driving a Tesla S would be boring.

 

[westwall]

I could see these being used in the small econo boxes that we will force the libtards to drive instead of real cars like the rest of us... Oh, wait. That's what they want to force US into driving while they get to keep their SUV's because they are somehow more better than us....

The power to weight ratio is what matters. A Mini Cooper and a Ford Mustang are both 2 door coupes. They are great fun to drive but one will deliver better fuel economy than the other. Yes, there are small "econo boxes" out there but not all of them are boring.

I agree. I particularly liked this version of the Mini....

 

[westwall]

Ol' Walleyes thinks that driving a Tesla S would be boring.

No, both the S and the Roadster are quite fun to drive. I miss the rumble of the engine but the performance of both is quite good. My complaint has always been about the level of public money being spent to support wealthy peoples toys.

My issue has always been one of fairness. You guys want the poor and middle class to be consigned to public transport and cheap small cars with low survivability, but the wealthy get to keep their huge SUV's and publicly subsidized EV's and somehow you think that that is OK.

All other forms of wealth are somehow evil, but EV's you lay on your back and spread 'em.

Puzzling....

 

[Derideo_Te]

I could see these being used in the small econo boxes that we will force the libtards to drive instead of real cars like the rest of us... Oh, wait. That's what they want to force US into driving while they get to keep their SUV's because they are somehow more better than us....

The power to weight ratio is what matters. A Mini Cooper and a Ford Mustang are both 2 door coupes. They are great fun to drive but one will deliver better fuel economy than the other. Yes, there are small "econo boxes" out there but not all of them are boring.

I agree. I particularly liked this version of the Mini....

I saw one of those just the other day. Complete track set up including roll cage, recaro seats and some serious rubber in each corner.