Talk:Green Engine Co

Valkyrie

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)