Sean wrote: > As I recall Keith Jones' explanation at the 1987 National, the reason for the > choice was that reversing was completely reliable as there was no dead centre > (I failed to mention that the cylinders were at right angles, driving a > common crank-pin so one was at mid-stroke when the other was at dead-centre). > I also think the cylinders were double-acting. I think the engine had been > made specifically rather than being off-the-shelf - after all, if the hirers > were paying the fuel costs, reliability rather than efficiency was the name > of the game.
snipped: Ok, this gets even more odd. I understand the Vee twin concept and why you would choose that but why have a double acting oscillating with the complication and (I presume) inefficency of that type of valve gear when you could have Vee twin cylinders with conventional valve chests and reversing gear? Slightly more complex in terms of linkage etc but more suitable surely? Roger
