PDA

View Full Version : Radials and In-lines question.



XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:00 PM
Could someone tell me the differences between the two types. I know in-lines are allow for a more aerodynamic aircraft and are liquid cooled, while radials tend to be bigger, heavier, and air-cooled but are more resistant to damage and generate more power. Besides their layout, what other differences are there? Are radials seen as tougher just because of they don't rely on liquid cooling or is there more to it?

That is one of the reasons I love the 190. The concept of a powerful, tough engine in a compact airframe that remains aerodynamically sound and is not excessively overweight. I respect the La-5/7 for the same reason.

Any information would be appreciated.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg


Message Edited on 07/28/0310:01PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:00 PM
Could someone tell me the differences between the two types. I know in-lines are allow for a more aerodynamic aircraft and are liquid cooled, while radials tend to be bigger, heavier, and air-cooled but are more resistant to damage and generate more power. Besides their layout, what other differences are there? Are radials seen as tougher just because of they don't rely on liquid cooling or is there more to it?

That is one of the reasons I love the 190. The concept of a powerful, tough engine in a compact airframe that remains aerodynamically sound and is not excessively overweight. I respect the La-5/7 for the same reason.

Any information would be appreciated.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg


Message Edited on 07/28/0310:01PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:07 PM
You basically have it in a nutshell. I am sure there is more but that is the basics.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:10 PM
I would like to see a comparison of total weights. How much weight does the radiators, piping and coolant add to the total weight of an inline engine installation?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:32 AM
Cylinder for cylinder, are radials more compact since one can squeeze more cylinders all the way around the hub?



http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:41 AM
UR_Spinne wrote:
- Cylinder for cylinder, are radials more compact
- since one can squeeze more cylinders all the way
- around the hub?
-
-

Depends on the radial. If they are to tightly packed then you begin to have serious airflow and cooling problem, i.e. the Wright R-3350 flame thrower.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:50 AM
Its all in the Torque.

A lot of castiron (weight) goes into an inline watercooled when compared to the jugs from a radial.


fox out

<Center><img src=http://mysite.verizon.net/vze393r4/web/bp_fox_sig.gif></CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:17 AM
I've always wondered this(I'm clearly no engine expert): How do radials stay oiled? Most vehicals have an oil pan that keeps everything lubricated,but I think it's clear radial(and inline too?)airplanes don't do it this way.Can anyone enlighten me?

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 06:38 AM
From some of the things I've read, aircraft designers of the late '30's were enamored of inline (V-type, liquid cooled) engines because they presented a more aerodynamic "package" to design a fighter aircraft around. This aerodynamic package was important because few aero engines of the time could produce more than roughly 1200hp. In order to get high speed with relaitvely low power, you need a smooth arrow slicing the air.

A case in point could be the P-40 (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p40-4.jpg), which was a direct off-shoot of the P-36 (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/p36.jpg) (radial engine, also made by Curtiss). USAAF command believed the in-line engines and their aerodynamics would off set the lower power produced by in-line engines. The Allison engine of the late '30's was sqarely in line with the required power set by USAAF specs.

The US Navy needed aircraft with a lot of power. That extra power was only available with radial engines... Plus I think Naval aircraft designers liked the shorter nose and greater visibility (generally) over that nose, for carrier landings, available with radials. Could be why all <??> US Navy carrier-based aircraft at the start of WW2 were radial engined (F4F, TBD, SBD), whereas Army fighters were all in-line engined (P-38, P-39, P-40).

After the F4U Corsair was flown (as a test aircraft not a production version), in '41 I believe, and it's top speed was over 400mph some thinking in Army circles changed. The P-47 was an indirect result of this. They did try to place an in-line engine in a P-47 frame... the XP-47H (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-15.jpg)... it didn't offer anything the standard version couldn't do, but it was quite a bit faster during tests conducted late in the war.

While there were many very good fighter types equipped with in-line engines, *almost* all the top fighter types of the late-war period had radial engines in them. (P-47, F4U, F6F) There were exceptions, of course, with some aircraft having in-line engines producing 2,000+ hp. (Spitfires with Griffon engines (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/spitfiremk2a/images/SM845_G3.jpg); Typhoons with those gnarly 24-cylinder engines <forget their name now>; and FW-190D's with Junkers Jumo engines for example).

Still, the fastest piston-engined aircraft ever designed had radial engines. The F8F Bearcat (http://www.fighter-collection.com/bearcat/img/nx700.jpg), the Hawker TempestII (http://www.sweptwings.co.uk/images/rafh_tempest_2as.jpg) (which had a cowling arrangement that was "inspired" by the FW-190A's) and the La-9 (http://www.pioneeraero.co.nz/Mar1303.jpg) are prime examples.

During the war, one of the major pitfalls of flying an inline engined aircraft was that a single bullet to the coolant system would bring the aircraft down, eventually. Some got around this with heavy armor plating of those systems (the IL-2 comes to mind).



Wow.. didn't mean to blabber on so much. Hopefully some of this stuff is correct, or at least close. It's pretty much how I understand aero engine developement through WW2.

Hope you like the few links I tossed in, and my respects to the various folks I Google-ized to find and post the photo links. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



WW-V-TFW CO

[email="wwsandman@wingwalkers.org>Email</a>
WW Forum (http://www.wingwalkers.org/Forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:20 AM
far as i know same considerations apply today

where power is need (ag planes for example) you can still get big radials though more often a turbo-prop

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 10:33 AM
Just a few things... radial engines, which were allready used in WWI had some disatvantages, the 1st versions for example had a kind of digital throttle... Full power or nothing, make them hard to handle... but this was fixed soon.

Radial engines also tends to loose more Power at greater altitude FW190A are a good example for this.. the P47 didn´t had this Problem cause of the big Superturbocharger which nearly filled the whole plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (so if we talk about weight and the Cooling/tubes/radiators/liquide... of inlineengines - we should also count the weight of the superturbochargersystem in the Jugs fuselage)

Radials are also more mechanical"crude" this make them more sturdy on the other side! the valves (hmm right word in english?) are driven in a real simply way for example...



And I would say the P51 and 109 K4 Spitfire XIV and F22 are also late war top fighters.. with inline-engines!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

fluke39
07-29-2003, 10:46 AM
these scans may be of some use in explaining a bit about it - in a WWII context.( the article is however taken from a 'aircraft recognition' viewpoint /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) -also see post below for links that actually work /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
http:// <A HREF="http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine1.jpg/ (http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine1.jpg/)" TARGET=_blank>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine1.jpg/</A></a>


http:// <A HREF="http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine2.jpg/ (http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine2.jpg/)" TARGET=_blank>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine2.jpg/</A></a>



<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>


Message Edited on 07/29/03 12:16PM by fluke39

Message Edited on 07/29/0312:17PM by fluke39

fluke39
07-29-2003, 11:24 AM
whoops

try again

links should work now /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine1.jpg/ (http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine1.jpg)



http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine2.jpg/ (http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/engine2.jpg)

p.s - if anyone wants a slightly clearer scan send me your email and i'll email the original - un-optimised scan




<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>


Message Edited on 07/29/0310:27AM by fluke39

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 11:36 AM
Some misconceptions here.

The Navy used radials because they were more reliable than inline eninges, not because they offered more power. The top Navy fighter at the start of WWII was powered by only a 1200 hp engine, as was the current state of the art Navy dive bomber (the SBD Dauntless). I don't recall how much power the Devastator's engine had, but I believe it was only around 1000hp. The TBD Avenger was only powered by a 1700hp engine, little more than the Merlin, or the midwar model Allisons.

The only reason the late war Navy aircraft had such powerful engines is because P&W managed to produce possibly the best designed engine in the world at the time of its introduction, the R-2800. To understand just how well designed the R-2800 was, consider that it was used for nearly the entire war, without significant modification. That's the equivalent of the Merlin being of mk 29 or higher standard from the start of its production.

As for radial engines loosing more power at altitude, it completely depends on the design. The BMW-801 was not well designed for high altitude performance. the R-2800 required a massive turbosupercharger, not because it was a poor high altitude performaner, but rather because it needed massive ammounts of air in order to best combust 2300hp worth of fuel. Notice, with that turbosupercharger it had its sea level rated power right up to 9,000m. Air is a bit thin up there.

As for radials being mechanically more "crude" again, it depends completely on the design. The British sleave valve radials were some of the most mechanically refined engines in the world. Most of the simplicity of the radial comes from the fact that all cylinders can be completely identical on a row, and can ussually be identical between rows as well. Inlines have a more difficult time achiving such uniformity in their cylinders.

Radial engines, due to their design are actually much smoother running engines than inline engines. All of the air, fuel, and exhaust pipes can very easily be made of the same length and diameters, which produces an even fuel/air/back pressure distribution among the cylinders. Inlines can easily have an exhausts gas temperature spread of 100 degrees (F) due to variations in the fuel/air distribution. Radial engine cylinders are much closer.

As for the WWI engines, those were Rotory engines, not Radial engines, so called because the entire engine rotated, not just the propeller. Their throttle was controlled by cutting or permitting fuel to the engine. Modern engines control the throttle by controlling the air flow to the engine. They had two critical weaknesses, aside from the throttle issue. Since the entire engine rotated, high power rotories generated large amounts of torque. Also, rotating the engine consumed a significant amount of the power produced.

There was actually a post war modification of the LeRhone rotory engine, called the Super LeRhone, where essentially all they did was turned the engine around, mounting the engine fixed to the aircraft. It gained about 25hp, eliminated all of the torque problems, lightened the engine mounting, and made a whole host of other engine improvements. The number of significant improvements almost makes on wonder, why nobody had thought of that during the war?

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 01:04 PM
Abbuzze wrote:
- Just a few things... radial engines, which were
- allready used in WWI had some disatvantages, the 1st
- versions for example had a kind of digital
- throttle... Full power or nothing, make them hard to
- handle... but this was fixed soon.

The blip throttle applies to rotary engines, not radials as such.

- Radial engines also tends to loose more Power at
- greater altitude FW190A are a good example for
- this..

Still gotta charge inline engines to avoid this, not to do with the cylinder configuration per se. E g, you had poor altitude performance in early (inline) Allison P51s and P-40s as well. Turbocharging as opposed to supercharging was what made the P47 installation consume all that space IIRC. Gotta get the exhaust back there without choking it, gotta have a turbine and wastegate and so on.

One of the design principles when creating the Spit was "fit everything inside the crossection of the engine with the most power/sq.ft. of crossection we can find". It can be seen! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:52 PM
Also I think I heard that radial engines are mostly (or all) air cooled so they overheat faster than inline, especially on the ground...

I seem to recall the prototype FW190 had this problem on the ground before taking off...

Stef51

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:20 PM
First off, radials were not heavier. They were lighter than inlines on a per cubic inch displacement basis. That is, if you had a radial that was 1600 cubic inches and an inline of the same displacement the radial would be lighter. But inlines usually had a higher specific horsepower (horsepower per cubic inch displacement). So the inline of 1600 cubic inches would most likely be more powerful.

So it was always a tradeoff amoung these factors and the aerodynamic aspects as well. Radials could be made bigger to get more hp because they were lighter but they had a large frontal area. But this came in handy in combat since they were very tough and could absorb tremendous damage and would keep running. They also acted as frontal protection for the pilot.

Given the choice in WWII I'd rather have had the radial out in front of me.



Message Edited on 07/29/0302:23PM by LilHorse

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:22 PM
A main issue is the torque created by radial engines when you have what is basically a huge gyroscope on the front of the plane. This causes the plane to pitch (to the left for most planes, right for Russian planes). More likely hood of spins and the possibility of spinning into the ground on take off. -jim-

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:58 PM
Big_Jim2000 wrote:
- A main issue is the torque created by radial engines
- when you have what is basically a huge gyroscope on
- the front of the plane. This causes the plane to
- pitch (to the left for most planes, right for
- Russian planes). More likely hood of spins and the
- possibility of spinning into the ground on take off.
- -jim-

I disagree on that statement, the torque in engines depends primarely on the size and shape of the propeller since there are no real difference in the moving parts in a radial and inline engine.
Ofcourse, if the engine creates more power you are able to fit a bigger propeller and thereby you will automatically create more torque since the gyro-effect is bigger.

Rgds

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:02 PM
Big Jim, the rotating mass is not (much) larger for a radial. You're probably also thinking of rotary engines?

Cheers,
Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:48 PM
Not necessarily true. The radiators of the liquid cooled engines needed air flow for cooling while the radial always had air blowing over the cylinders.

The BMW801 had a auxilary fan installed plus some ducting added/changes to eleviate the overheating problem.


stef51 wrote:
- Also I think I heard that radial engines are mostly
- (or all) air cooled so they overheat faster than
- inline, especially on the ground...
-
- I seem to recall the prototype FW190 had this
- problem on the ground before taking off...
-



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 10:55 PM
Well, that's the answer from my co-worker (USAF Pilot 20+ years, flies and maintains his own aircraft. And taught flight dynamics at a junior college after retiring from the AF) Maybe he was pulling my leg. Also, from the P-47 issue from flight journal:

"You blew a couple of cylinders off with a 20mm round, and it worked... On the other hand, a Mustang had about a dozen places where a single rifle bullet [prob. .30 cal] could reduce the life expectancy of the Merlin to less than 10 minutes before it seized up." -jim-

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 11:13 PM
Big_Jim2000 wrote:
- Well, that's the answer from my co-worker (USAF
- Pilot 20+ years, flies and maintains his own
- aircraft. And taught flight dynamics at a junior
- college after retiring from the AF) Maybe he was
- pulling my leg. Also, from the P-47 issue from
- flight journal:
-
- "You blew a couple of cylinders off with a 20mm
- round, and it worked... On the other hand, a
- Mustang had about a dozen places where a single
- rifle bullet [prob. .30 cal] could reduce the life
- expectancy of the Merlin to less than 10 minutes
- before it seized up." -jim-
-
-
-

Torque is not restricted to radial engines. Anything that can turn a 13 foot diameter prop with 2300-2800 horse power is going to generate torque. Even several of the advanced P-51 testbeds, powered by ultra high power Allison and Merlin engines suffered from significant torque problems.

Radial engines do not have any more mass rotating, than an inline of a given horsepower and propeller.

Don't forget, the P-51D, if given full throttle at low speeds, would flip upside down before the pilot could correct for it.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 11:19 PM
jmmoric wrote:
- I disagree on that statement, the torque in engines
- depends primarely on the size and shape of the
- propeller since there are no real difference in the
- moving parts in a radial and inline engine.

Big difference between a radial and inline watercooled engine. The main similarity is that they are both heat engines.

The prop offers nothing to the torque of an engine. I think you might be referring to torque effect.

A prop is sized in direct relation to the torque of an engine. The more power the bigger the prop. It keeps the engine from grenading.... similar to sizing the screws on a boat.... you size the prop to keep the engine in its parameters. Too small a prop and engine failure, too large a prop and engine has trouble staying in its power band.

Radials are inherently more reliable in battle and more likely to survive damage which is a big reason the Navy used them.... you just can't land anywhere in the open sea.

There are many pro's and con's to both engines which is why we see the use both arrangements in WWII.



fox out

<Center><img src=http://mysite.verizon.net/vze393r4/web/bp_fox_sig.gif></CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:36 AM
Something else of note that has yet to be mentioned is the varying displacements of WWII aircraft engines. Radials almost always had much greater displacements. In the American military engine nomenclature, the number signifies the cubic inch displacement of the engine. Notice how R-2800, R-3350, and R-4360 are much greater than the Allison V-1710 or Merlin V-1650. Clearly, engines with nearly double the displacemnt have much greater potential to produce power. Also, an engine displacing 2800 ci has more reciprocating mass (and torque effect) than one of 1650 ci simply because the pistons (and reciprocating assembly) are that much bigger.

Without proper attention at startup, oil leaked into the inverted cyclinders can hydraulic-lock a radial, bending rods and other nasty things. The German inverted V-12s may have suffered from this as well.
Any engine can be brought down with one shot if an oil line or other crititcal component is damaged, not just the coolant systems of liquids.

More differences: Radials usually had two overhead valves, while V-types often had 4 valves driven by overhead cams. Air cooled engines enjoy quicker warm-up times, but suffer from low-speed overheating.

Some more displacements: BMW 801, 2550 ci; DB 601, 2070 ci; Jumo 213, 2135 ci; Napier Sabre (H-24), 2238; ASh-82FN 2514 ci. This should show that power depends on displacement (and fuel, as argued elsewhere), not engine architecture.

Finally, "inlines" for WWII aircraft engines is a bit of a misnomer. By that time there were very few inlines, save for in light liason-type craft. Virtually all 12 cylinder "inline" engines were of the V-type (usually 60o).



PS, does anyone know of a good source for technical information on Russian engine designs? Information is predictably scarce on this side of the pond.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:22 AM
One benifit with radia's is you can slap on another row of cylinders, like P&W did many times. In the beginning, The R-1200 had 1 row of 9 cylinders. They doubled the HP by adding another row for 18 cylinders without adding any more aerodynamic resistance since the 2nd row fit behind the first. Allison did this with the A-3420 engine, but put two blocks side by side. Adding DOUBLE the frontal area. You could not put two V-12's back-2-back and still fit it in a fighter, were a 24 cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major could. They had the XP-72 prototype, and the later Super Corsair's. The only aircraft I know of that used the A-4320 was a P-39 derivitive, and the P-58 chain lightning. And look how FAT the engine is!!! Also, the 24 cylinder A-3420 produced about 2600HP were the R-4360 produced about 3400. Big differance.

Also, bombers used radials. All US bombers, Ju-88's and a good portion of British bombers other then the Lank and a few others.

Gib



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:15 AM
Nope, thats not it in a nutshell.



- Radials tend to be Lighter (not heavier)
- Radials are air cooled as opposed to the in-line engines which are typically water cooled.
- The power to weight ratio of early radials is better
- Because radials are air cooled, do not damage as easily since there is no cooling jackets or radiators to puncture.
- Metalurgy is not as important on the crank since it is so short. On in-lines, you have to worry about engine and crank flex.

On the down side,

- Radials don't scale up well to high horsepower ratings. watercooled engines allows you to pack a lot more cylinders in a given space.
- Radials have a lot of frontal (wetted) area increasing drag. Especially a problem for top speed.

Once In-line (or Vee or other water cooled in-line type engines) hit the power to weight ratio of the radial, there was no going back...

Theres other considerations too, but thats a good start..

All that being said, I love radials..

<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:27 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- I've always wondered this(I'm clearly no engine
- expert): How do radials stay oiled? Most vehicals
- have an oil pan that keeps everything lubricated,but
- I think it's clear radial(and inline too?)airplanes
- don't do it this way.Can anyone enlighten me?
-
-

in the middle of jugs #5 & #6 there is an oil sump...

on the back of the blower section there is an oil pump that bumps oil to just about every cylinder and all the pistons except 5 & 6 are drilled where the rings fit, for oil travel. 5 & 6 are solid so no oil is left inside the valves.

as for maintenance these engines were probably easier to werk on than inlines. i dont know for sure never werked on an inline before. but one thing is for sure, those blasted radials will slobber oil for a week even if the oil was hot when you started draining them.

as for the torque... hell my car has torque when you gun it in park and it dont have a prop http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Message Edited on 07/29/0309:29PM by LA_Crop_Duster

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:38 AM
Great replies, well stated guys. Thanks and keep them coming.

One other question. In Kit Carson's interview he had alot of respect for the 190 but he said he didn't understand why the BMW engine had oil lines, or ducting, or something like that exposed around the outside of the engine just under the cowl, making it more vulnerable. Otherwise it was a very tough engine. Can anybody elaborate on this? Thanks.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 07/30/0302:38AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:49 AM
Thanks, Crop Duster!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 04:08 AM
Radials generally produce greater torque for compared tothe same size inline engine engine, this allows lower rpm, add air cooling (with all the cylinders exposed to airflow)and you have an engine that is simpler in construcion, uses less parts etc, and is far more able to with stand battle damage, thus easier to maintain and repair

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 04:20 AM
WWSandMan wrote:
-
- Still, the fastest piston-engined aircraft ever
- designed had radial engines.

*cough* CA-15 Kangaroo *cough*

448mph with a Griffon 61 inline.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 08:08 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Great replies, well stated guys. Thanks and keep
- them coming.
-
- One other question. In Kit Carson's interview he had
- alot of respect for the 190 but he said he didn't
- understand why the BMW engine had oil lines, or
- ducting, or something like that exposed around the
- outside of the engine just under the cowl, making it
- more vulnerable. Otherwise it was a very tough
- engine. Can anybody elaborate on this? Thanks.


Plumbing a radial can be a nightmare. To route oil on a V-engine, one must simply drill an oil galley down the length of the engine and drill into it where ever oil is needed. A radial has a common crankcase but all the cyclinders have separate "jugs," so oil usually must be routed externally.
If you've ever seen a photo of the BMW 801 exposed in an aircraft, look at how tight the plumbing is. The front seven cylinders must breathe from the rear, so all seven intake tracts and exhaust stacks must squeeze between the rear seven cylinders. At that point there are twice as many pipes in the same space that all need to be plumbed to the same place (like to the carburettor, turbo, out the cowling, etc.). Now, intake tracts take priority in routing, followed by exhaust stacks, and then oil lines; which is the most likely reason they are close to the cowling.


Also, V-type engines do indeed have fewer parts than radials. Try counting the major castings. How many jugs, heads, etc. does a radial have? You'll find its one per cylinder vs. the one per bank of cylinders a V has.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 01:36 PM
I wonder in Afrika on the ground who would win though.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif In line engine might last longer unless radials can handle being cooled by very hot air... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 03:59 PM
stef51,
by the very same hot air which would cool the radiators of the liquid-cooled inline engines you mean? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 10:08 PM
Hehe, well I mean adding variables like temperature tolerance and thermodynamic stuffs/whatever... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Basically the radial engine pushes hot air to cool the engine in which case the engine does not cool that much?

For the inline, it would depend on how much effective the liquid can tolerate the heat. The engine is supposed to transfer the heat but since the liquid is hot, heat transfer does not work or does not work well?

Ah well, better shut up before I loose my mind,. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 10:34 PM
well, i got here late, and pretty much everything has been explained

but i would like to say that radials sound the best to me, not saying that a v12 or v16 doesnt sound good, heh

hell, all engines sound pretty good as long as its not a honda with a fart cannon, lol

----------------------------------------

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviation/xfl-1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 03:37 PM
To me, this is interesting discussion, as I love engines.

Engine cooling is of special concern to aircraft of this period. While liquid-cooled V's had their problems, radials were absoulutely plagued by cooling problems from thier beginings.

stef51 wrote:
- Basically the radial engine pushes hot air to cool
- the engine in which case the engine does not cool
- that much?
-
- For the inline, it would depend on how much
- effective the liquid can tolerate the heat. The
- engine is supposed to transfer the heat but since
- the liquid is hot, heat transfer does not work or
- does not work well?


Remember that in a liquid-cooled engine with a radiator, the heat from the liquid (Ethylene Glycol, IIRC) must first be transfered to what ever metal the radiator is made of. Probably copper or brass, but it could be aluminum (this kind of info is hard to find on these planes). Anyway, the air must cool the metal radiator, and not the coolant directly. In either design, cooling is restricted until the aircraft has sufficient speed to push away the boundry layer surrounding the heat exchanger with incoming air. Also, when the coolant in a liquid reaches its boiling temperature, it can absorb no more heat, and the outcome is predicitble. However, because they are more efficient at transferring heat, liquids tolerate stationary running much better than air-cooled engines. In addition, liqiud-cooled designs have much less frontal area devoted to cooling the aircraft.

Whether the engine is liquid or (directly) air cooled, the metal surface that is the heat exchanger is always much hotter than the ambient air. Hot air will still cool an engine, its just not as efficient. On an air-cooled engine, the cooling fin surfaces are significantly hotter than any change in air temperature, so changes in air temperature have a smaller impact on cooling ability than with liquids. Also, the atmosphere is at different temperatures at different altitudes--even over the desert. Provided it were modelled, one should be able to find the "cool" altitudes, but a true RL pilot will have to say more on that.


Usually, air-cooled engines are more tolerant of extremely high ambient temperatures because they have been designed to operate in a much wider temerature range. This is often accomplished by looser fit between parts, thicker castings, longer fasteners, etc. On the other hand, a liquid-cooled engine is designed for a tighter operating tempereture range, and they do not tolerate it when the radiator can't keep the coolant temp. down. That the engine does not see such varying temperatures alows for tighter clearances. Piston-to-bore clearance is the main concern, as tight clearances prevent blow-by, yielding better power and avioding those nasty oil control issues that radials suffer from.
A liquid-cooled engine will almost always make more power per unit of displacement than an air-cooled engine of similar design.



Much of these cooling issues have been modelled into FB. Have you ever noticed how Soviet liquid-cooled planes are prone to overheating on summer maps? I've heard some people have engine problems with German liquids when they don't allow them to warm up before taking off (shame on you guys!). Have you noticed how radial-powered planes are largely immune to these problems?

The Me 262's cooling is a different story altogether.
Don't even get me started on that one...

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 03:54 PM
Rifleman75 wrote:
- well, i got here late, and pretty much everything
- has been explained
-
- but i would like to say that radials sound the best
- to me, not saying that a v12 or v16 doesnt sound
- good, heh

There's always more to be expained and understood about engines!

I have a recording of a Tempest's sleeve-valve H-24. Its pretty frickin' cool. I'd love to hear a real one. Sleeve-vavle engines are iherently louder than their poppet-valve counterparts. Has anyone ever heard a Bristol Centaurus?

By the by, the best sounding engine is the BRM V-16 in the P15 F1 racer.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 08:12 PM
Excellent description, a little too much though, I'm not that intelligent.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Still, very enjoyable, thank you very much... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stephen

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 08:16 PM
I've heard many WWI radial engines.. Not very impressed... But from memory, never from WWII... Any sound files from a P-47 or Zero? Are they different from WWI engine?

Stephen

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 08:17 PM
You mean you can hear valves with all that engine noise? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stephen

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 08:20 PM
Oh, and about warming the engine in the game, is that true from what you are saying ?


Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 09:08 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- I would like to see a comparison of total weights.
- How much weight does the radiators, piping and
- coolant add to the total weight of an inline engine
- installation?


Weight:horsepower the actual engines are pretty similar,
at least for WW2 aircraft, and with similar total
horsepower outputs in the most powerful engines of each
type available at the end of WW2.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 09:44 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The only reason the late war Navy aircraft had such
- powerful engines is because P&W managed to produce
- possibly the best designed engine in the world at
- the time of its introduction, the R-2800. To
- understand just how well designed the R-2800 was,
- consider that it was used for nearly the entire war,
- without significant modification.

I think going from 1700hp (1939) to 2400hp (-57) in 5 years
must require at least some modification! There
were certainly a lot of version numbers there. Maybe
the basic engine core changed less in the Wright R2800
than in the Merlin?

In terms of horsepower increase, it's a 1.65 increase
over that period.

For the Merlin you are talking about an increase from
1030hp at the start of the war to 1,650 in the Merlin 66
in late 1943, which is actually a slightly faster proportional rate of increase in hp than the R-2800.
The Wright started as a more powerful, but heavier
engine, though, but in terms of power:weight, they
remained about the same through WW2. [By which
I mean the R-2800's power:weight and the Merlin's
power:weight were about the same at each point, not
that power:weight for each engine individually
remained the same]

Some examples.


R-2800-57, 2400hp (2800hp experimental), 2,360lbs,
giving about 1hp:1lb weight, or 1.16:1 experimental

Merlin 66, 1,650hp, 1,650lb, again 1:1

Griffon 65 2030hp, 1,980lbs, about 1:1

Griffon 64, 2350hp, 1980lbs(?), about 1.18:1

The Centaurus was a little under 1:1 I think.

So the best of the WW2 piston engines at the end of
WW2 were about on a par in terms of power:weight.

I can't remember what the RR Eagle originally
destined for the Wyvern weighed. 3500hp though,
but dropped for slightly less well performing
turboprops.




Message Edited on 08/07/0310:01AM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 09:58 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:
Sleeve-vavle engines are iherently louder than
- their poppet-valve counterparts.

That's not what I've heard. As I understand it the sleeve valve engines were quieter. This was the reason the Japanese called the Bristol Beaufigher "Whispering Death" because it's Bristol Hercules engines were so quiet.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 10:06 PM
stef51 wrote:
- I've heard many WWI radial engines.. Not very
- impressed... But from memory, never from WWII... Any
- sound files from a P-47 or Zero? Are they
- different from WWI engine?

I haven't read up on WWI hardware, but I'm guessing those radials were 5, 7, and maybe 9 cylinders, vs. the 14 and 18 cylinder radials in the Zero and P-47. One might also be able to hear supercharger whine or turbocharger whistle depending on the engine. I doubt many WWII engines had superchargers yet, but I don't know for sure.

You can hear the valves in many engines if you know what to listen for. I haven't had the opportunity to hear too many WWII engines in person, and that kind of noise is very hard to hear in a recording. In cars, Chevy's LT1 V8 engine from the 1990s was known for its aggressive and noisy valvetrain. Also, sleeve valves have kind of a distinct sound that comes through even in a recording; very "sharp" exhaust pulses.


I don't know to what extent engine warm-up is modelled, but have you noticed the AI let their planes idle for a minute or two before taking off? I read somewhere that Oleg said they tried to model shortened warm-up times, because he didn't think players would want to wait for a more realistic 10 minute warm-up.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 10:43 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:
- Has anyone ever heard a Bristol Centaurus?

A Sea Fury on a low pass at a display around 3 years ago. That, the F4U, and a later Spitfire have the most
impressive sound, IMHO, the Sea Fury possibly being the
best (the best balance of raw power versus deep throated
purring). Of engines I've heard, anyway.

Sadly the Sea Fury crashed killing the pilot a few
weeks later. I don't think there are any others flying,
AFAIK.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:01 PM
Ah Aaron, the R-2800 was from Pratt & Whitney. The Wright was the R-2600, a twin row, 14 cylinder engine.


AaronGT wrote:
-
-
- I think going from 1700hp (1039) to 2400hp (-57) in
- 5 years
- must require at least some modification! There
- were certainly a lot of version numbers there. Maybe
- the basic engine core changed less in the Wright
- R2800
- than in the Merlin?
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:20 PM
stef51 wrote:
- You mean you can hear valves with all that engine
- noise?

Yes, that's where the noise comes out from.
You don't here the valves.
You here the engine noise through the valve holes.
If they change in number or shape, engine noise changes too.
Take this from a someone who drove karts, who could not here the metal sound of the piston scratching over the surface of the cylinder seconds before the engine seized and the piston got too large from the heat and got stuck in the cylinder resulting in a DNF and a huge bill.
#$%&#@%$&#@%&#^&


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:30 PM
Christos_swc wrote:
- stef51 wrote:

A better word would be 'valve train' with all its moving parts.

------

A page describing the operation of a sleeve valve engine

http://www.geocities.com/kiwiengineer2002/sleeve.html

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Christos_swc wrote:
-- stef51 wrote:
-
- A better word would be 'valve train' with all its
- moving parts.
-


Being a foreigner you can excuse my imprecise English.
I never did like 4 strokes anyway.
I like 2 strokes.
2 strokes don't have any valve trains /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:47 PM
Thanx for the thread folks! This was something to read instead of all the others threads that is all about whining around for the patch!
Keep up this!
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

www.f19vs.tk (http://www.f19vs.tk)

http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Gazoo-IDCard-sm.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 12:47 AM
i dont know if anyone has heard this yet but a company in california called AERO ENGINES is taking a R1340 (600 hp)
engine and installing R2800 cylinders on it. from what i read, it increases hp while decreasing manifold press and cylinder head temp. cant wait to get one on my Ag Cat, though it will take sone time to scratch up the dough.
R1340 costs about $30,000 exchange, the new engine with the 2800 cyl will cost $75G's first time( no core to return).

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 12:55 AM
Chritos, it has nothing to do with your knowledge of English, just a more descriptive wording./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:05 AM
Yeah, I started this thread and the responses have been excellent. Thank You. No whining or arguing at this late stage? It almost gives me hope for this forum,...well...maybe not but it is something.

Oh, and I have heard a few WW2 engines and to me they all sound impressive. Just recently a B-25 did a performance in the rain and it landed and taxied and stopped right in front of us. We were in the VIP area as my father knows the creator/sponsor of the airshow. Anyway, it put on the brakes and jammed the throttle to clear the engine and it was sweet. Alot of power and bass to be sure. Then a P-47 and P-51 started right in front of me and I have to say the Jug sounded alot meaner. But like I said, they all sound beautiful to me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks again for the replies and please add whatever you have to share.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 08/07/0302:06AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:56 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Ah Aaron, the R-2800 was from Pratt & Whitney. The
- Wright was the R-2600, a twin row, 14 cylinder
- engine.

Doh! I have some sort of mental block and ALWAYS
confuse P&W and Wright for some reason, despite
checking the engine weight for the R-2800 on the
P&W website!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 12:53 PM
I guess I'm getting to this party late. Milo, thanks for the link describing sleeve valve operation. It was mechanically odd enough that trying to understand how it worked was making my pea-brain hurt. It's also no wonder that the British were the last significant users of the valve type. It fits with their use of positive Earth wiring, lever arm shock absorbers, and three windshield wiper blades on their cars. JR, I've never heard one of these engines (most Sea Furies have been converted to 3350's), so the sweetest sound I've heard is a Merlin at speed.
The reason WWI rotary engines worked the way they did was to keep the engine cool at relatively low speeds. If you spin the whole engine, it's got a better chance of dissipating heat no matter how fast the aircraft is going. It also means you can partially cowl the engine for lower (or less outrageous) drag. Look at the cowl of a Fokker Dr.1 (an original, not a replica with a modern engine.) Only the bottom of the engine is exposed, and as the motor spins, the cylinders each take a turn spinning through the open air to cool off. I know, it doesn't seem like an even tradeoff for the gyroscopic effects, and the lubrication/fuel/wiring hassles, but in 1915 they hadn't been messing with gasoline engines very long, and it apparently seemed like a good idea at the time.
JR, thanks for mentioning air cooled engines tolerance for large temperature changes. I remember a story about Greg Boyington when he started with the AVG. He screwed up a landing in a P-40 and gunned the throttle to go around. When he landed, he got chewed out for treating the Allison so roughly. Words to the effect of: "You can't slam the throttle around like you could in those air cooled Navy planes. Liquid cooled engines won't take it." From what I remember of the story, the engine quit on the next guy to fly that plane.
Gibbage, you're right about adding rows to a radial design for more power. There comes a point however, where the back row starts having a really tough time keeping cool in air heated by all the previous rows. IIRC the 3350's are known for cooking the back row of cylinders. This is also why you don't see horizontally opposed air cooled engines with more than six cylinders. There was an eight cylinder HO air cooled engine (by Continental, I think), but again, keeping that back row cool was a problem. Like JR pointed out, the increasingly complex plumbing doesn't help these engines, either.
Anybody know what the harmonics of a radial are like? One great thing about V-12's (and I-6's) is that their first, second and third order harmonics are natually damped, without the need for balance shafts. I have no idea what a radial's harmonics are like, although they obviously don't shake themselves to pieces (at least not right away.)

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 01:18 PM
F19_Gazoo wrote:
- Keep up this!

OK.

Yes indeed you can hear the valve train in certain engines. Chevy's LT1 is definitely one, another is Yamaha's XS650. Most stock Harleys have mild cam profiles, but many modified bikes have loud, clattery valve trains. Often engines with low restriction exhaust systems drown out their mechanical noises with exhaust noise.
The noise is easier to hear on air-cooled engines, but pretty much any engine with an aggressive cam profile has a noisy valvetrain. Of course, too much valvetrain noise is bad.



I read somewhere that the speed at which the exhaust port is uncovered in an engine determines how "sharp" and loud its exhaust pulse is.
Two strokes definitely win here, as their exhaust "valve" is the piston sliding past a port in the cylinder sleeve. No four str0ke valve moves as fast as a piston.

Sleeve-valve four str0kes are next (Bristol Centaurus, Napier Sabre). In these engines, the valve sleeve rotates back and forth about the cylinder sleeve. The sleeve is driven by a small crankshaft, so it moves very fast, and it must stop and change direction for every revolution of the engine crankshaft. Disc and drum valve engines probably are comarble to sleeve valves, but they are not very common.

Finally, poppet valves produce the quietest exhaust pulse of any of these. Poppet valves are far and away the most common of any valve type. The movement of these valves is restricted in several areas. Their opening rate is restricted by the type of lifter (or tappet) used. If the cam lobe (the "ramp" that pushes the valve open) is too steep, it will gouge into the side of the lifter. The greatest problem however, is closing the valves, and keeping them closed. Most engines use springs. These springs tend to bounce (called valve float). Increasing the pressure of the spring helps, but creates greater friction at the cam, which can lead to excessive wear. Other methods have been tried--some successfully--but poppet valves will likely always have slow, smooth motions (relative to the piston) resulting in softer, quieter exhuast pulses.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:13 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- JR, I've never heard one of these engines (most Sea
- Furies have been converted to 3350's)

Bristol's Centaurus (3270ci, 53.6L) was indeed the original engine in Sea Furys. One advantage of sleeve valve engines is alluded to in the link Milo provided. The page states that sleeve valve engines are "capable of running a compression number higher." This is because of the simplification of the head. Hot spots commonly form between the valves of OHV (Over Head Valve) engines because the ports, valve bowls and guides, etc. restrict cooling air (or liquid). Also, valves get hot--especially exhaust valves--and all of these hot spots can cause detonation--spontaneous combustion of the air/fuel charge (also known as "pinging").

The most obvious benefit of sleeve valve engines is their short cylinder height. This alows for longer strokes and smaller overall diameters in radials. Compare the Centaurus' 7.00" stroke with the R-3350's 6.3125", the R-2800's 6.00", and the R-1830's 5.50".
Napier's Sabre (2238ci, 36.65L), a sleeve valve H-24, also exploits short cylinder height. the Sabre it packs a lot of displacement for an "inline," yet the frontal area isn't much larger than a V-12, and is smaller than many radials.

There is a story I don't remember very well about the difficulty of tooling up for these two sleeve valve engines. They both had a bore of 5.75", so the Sabre used sleeves from the Centaurus--Bristol wasn't very happy about that. Also, IIRC, Pratt & Whitney had to send over a centerless grinder for manufacturing the sleeves. I had better refresh my memory before I say anymore on this one...



Blottogg wrote:
- Anybody know what the harmonics of a radial are
- like? One great thing about V-12's (and I-6's) is
- that their first, second and third order harmonics
- are natually damped, without the need for balance
- shafts. I have no idea what a radial's harmonics
- are like, although they obviously don't shake
- themselves to pieces (at least not right away.)

I was wondering about that myself the other day. There is never a cylinder at 90 or 60 degress from the firing cylinder, and the whole reciprocating assembly is essentially moving as an eccentric, to oversimplify things. While there is no doubt radials fire very evenly (every other cylinder, every cylinder has fired in two revolutions), what kind of effect does that have on torsional oscillations in the crank? I know multi-part crankshafts are prone to vibration problems, and I remeber reading Pratt & Whitney struggled with vibration problems in the R-2800's development. Can anyone enlighten us?
What kind of changes do multi-row radials bring to harmonics? How about the Wasp Major's four rows of seven. What do you suppose goes on there?

Does anyone have any knowledge or info on German or especially Russian or Japanese engines?
What kind of oil control problems did the inverted DB 600 series and Jumo 210 series have?

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:21 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:

If the cam lobe (the
- "ramp" that pushes the valve open) is too steep, it
- will gouge into the side of the lifter. The
- greatest problem however, is closing the valves, and
- keeping them closed. Most engines use springs.
- These springs tend to bounce (called valve float).
- Increasing the pressure of the spring helps, but
- creates greater friction at the cam, which can lead
- to excessive wear.

Didn't the introduction of hydraulic lifters and roller lifters with roller profile cams solve a lot of this? Also, the problems of changes in valve lash due to lenghtwise expansion of exhaust valves? At least in automobile engines.

I'll have to submit to your assessment of the relative noise levels between sleeve valves and poppet (I had thought sleeves were quieter). You obviously know more about engines that I do.

As for the harmonics of radials and torsional oscillations...I know that radials had a master rod journal set up. Maybe this acted to dampen harmonic interactions?
And maybe this is a little simplified a thought but wouldn't the practice of having an odd number of cylinders per row negate problems with torsional oscillations since it's an every other firing order?

You might have the book, but Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII by Gordon White is a great read.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:25 PM
Amazing what you can learn on the web... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Though your explanation about how your engine died almost made me feel sick for the poor chap... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But then again, I feel sorry about your bill too... When will we get indestructible engines? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Thanks

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:37 PM
Ah yes, I forgot about how many pistons WWI engines had at that time.. I imagine now that it had to be impressive to hear a bmw801 now... About superchargers, that also would be nice to hear. However,they only work during flight? Can we activate then during takeoff and hear the sound?

About the valves noise,well I guess the probability is slim that I'll find a recording on the web.. Suffice to say that any times we find something nice to hear, we have to tell everyone the link... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

About take off time, I always loved that. 2 times I had even a strange thing happened. One time after starting my 109, the engine stopped suddendly... Using complex engine management I once started both He-111 engines at the same time and the right one caught fire 1 second after starting.. Of course, I either concluded I was crazy, a bug or other mystical situation but if we need a few seconds before taking off, I'll surely take more my time before taking off... It might also explain other engines problems later on... Amazing game... Thanks!!!

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:51 AM
I'm guessing a radial needs less gearing between engine and prop so there will be less power loss thru mechanical loss.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:52 AM
hobnail wrote:
-
- WWSandMan wrote:
--
-- Still, the fastest piston-engined aircraft ever
-- designed had radial engines.
-
- *cough* CA-15 Kangaroo *cough*
-
- 448mph with a Griffon 61 inline.
-


Both of these piston engined aircraft would appear to be capable of speeds faster than 448 mph:

P-47M performance :

Max speed: 470-480 mph @ 28,500 ft. Climb, at max. gross weight (including three 75 gallon drop tanks): 4.9 minutes to 15,000 feet at 2,600 rpm (1700 hp). Reportedly, the "M" could reach 20,000 feet in 5.7 minutes at military power (2,100 hp @ 2,800 rpm). 20,000 feet in 4.75 minutes in WEP (2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm). This is with full internal fuel and ammo. No external stores or drop tanks. In other words, normal load, clean configuration.

DO-335
Capable of a maximum speed of 474 mph at 21,325 ft with MW 50 boost, or 426 mph without boost, and able to climb to 26,250 ft in only 14.5 minutes, the Do 335A-1 could easily outpace any Allied fighters it encountered. It could also carry a bomb load of 1100 lb for 900 miles.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:33 AM
Zyzbot wrote:
-
- hobnail wrote:
--
-- WWSandMan wrote:
---
--- Still, the fastest piston-engined aircraft ever
--- designed had radial engines.
--
-- *cough* CA-15 Kangaroo *cough*
--
-- 448mph with a Griffon 61 inline.
--
-
-

In addition to what Zyzbot said, you can add the P-51H, P-82, Spiteful, the Spitfire 22/24 and the 109K with V engines as well as the radial engined SeaFury which were all faster than the "slow" CA-15. All the above, except the Spitful, were production a/c of which the CA-15 was not(only a prototype made).


a ps.

One thing the V engines had trouble with was crankshaft torsional rigidity or 'whip'. Belly landing or even touching a prop blade tip with a prop turning on a V engined a/c could mean a scrap engine. Even a backfire caused problems in the V engine.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/07/0309:44PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:35 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Yeah, I started this thread and the responses have
- been excellent. Thank You. No whining or arguing at
- this late stage? It almost gives me hope for this
- forum,...well...maybe not but it is something.

Amazing, no flames yet indeed... But suffice to say that I've learned a lot which is the whole point... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



- Oh, and I have heard a few WW2 engines and to me
- they all sound impressive. Just recently a B-25 did
- a performance in the rain and it landed and taxied
- and stopped right in front of us. We were in the VIP
- area as my father knows the creator/sponsor of the
- airshow. Anyway, it put on the brakes and jammed the
- throttle to clear the engine and it was sweet. Alot
- of power and bass to be sure. Then a P-47 and P-51
- started right in front of me and I have to say the
- Jug sounded alot meaner. But like I said, they all
- sound beautiful to me.


Well another thing I need to know... In theory, those engines are not the original so how can we fully enjoy the sound? Or is it because it's almost the same sound as in 1945?

Stef

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:01 PM
That's 448mph at near-sea level. It did 502mph after a gentle dive at 5,000ft.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

Message Edited on 08/08/0311:06PM by hobnail

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:18 PM
I would rather asking some Sea Hornet pilots which one was the fastest prop driven a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://pmms.webace.com.au/models/aircraft/images/pjhornet01.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura



Message Edited on 08/08/0302:43PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:37 PM
Interesting...:

"The XP-47J was a completely new airframe and not a conversion of an existing P-47D. The serial number was 43-46952. The XP-47J flew for the first time on November 26, 1943.

On August 4, 1944, it attained a speed of 504 mph in level fight, becoming the first propeller-driven fighter to exceed 500 mph. At one time, it was proposed that the J model would be introduced onto the production line, but the advent of the even more advanced XP-72 resulted in plans for the production of the P-47J being abandoned before any more could be completed.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_9.html

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:50 PM
LilHorse wrote:
- Didn't the introduction of hydraulic lifters and
- roller lifters with roller profile cams solve a lot
- of this? Also, the problems of changes in valve
- lash due to lenghtwise expansion of exhaust valves?
- At least in automobile engines.

Roller lifters certainly helped a lot. They can tolerated much more aggressive cam profiles than flat tappets can. Unfortunately, they require higher spring pressures to keep the valve train controlled.

Hydraulic lifters solve lots of lash problems. Valve lash is intentional space (clearance) left in the valve train somewhere between the cam and valve tip. The purpose of lash is to allow for thermal expansion of all parts. When hydrualic lifters are used, there is no clearance, and oil pressure maintains pressure on the valve train. Therefore, contact is always made between all parts of the valve train, and periodic adjustment is not neccessary. Also, hydraulic lifters make for a much quieter valve train.

Hydraulic lifters do have some problems however. There is a tendency for the oil to be forced out of the lifters--especially at high engine speeds--causing decreases in lift (the valve does not open as far). For most American automotive V-8's, 6000 to 6500 is about the maximum RPM the hydraulic lifters can handle, provided the springs do not cause valve float sooner.



stef51 wrote:
- About superchargers, that also would be nice to hear.
- However,they only work during flight? Can we activate
- then during takeoff and hear the sound?
-
- About the valves noise,well I guess the probability
- is slim that I'll find a recording on the web..
- Suffice to say that any times we find something nice
- to hear, we have to tell everyone the link...
-
- Well another thing I need to know... In theory,
- those engines are not the original so how can we
- fully enjoy the sound? Or is it because it's
- almost the same sound as in 1945?

Supercharged engines always have their superchargers turning when the engine is running. Its just that when the engine is at idle, the supercharger isn't turning fast enough to be heard, especially over the sound of an unmuffled aircraft engine. A supercharger always "works," but it will not provide boost (compress air) unless it is spinning fast enough.

I have some good recordings of a Tempest saved. I'll have to see if I can find the source back. If I can, I'll post a link here. I also found some recordings of the BRM V-16. Its not an aircraft engine, but it has to be the best sounding engine I have ever heard. If I can find them I'll post those links too.

Unless major modifications are made, the engines sound the same now as they did in 1945.



pvtpyles wrote:
- I'm guessing a radial needs less gearing between
- engine and prop so there will be less power loss
- thru mechanical loss.

Not neccessarily. Both radials and "inlines" can have either direct drive from the crankshaft to the propeller or gear reduction. Gear reduction does cost some power, but it allows the engine to turn faster, which makes more power.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:47 PM
BRM V-16? Got any links on that one?

I only know of that crazy contraption they came up with for the '67 F1 season, two boxers bolted together to get 3 liters total... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:52 PM
link to Tempest sounds:


http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/sound.htm

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:56 PM
effte wrote:
- BRM V-16? Got any links on that one?
-
- I only know of that crazy contraption they came up
- with for the '67 F1 season, two boxers bolted
- together to get 3 liters total...

I'll find some links later(busy morning here...). It is indeed the same company, but the V-16 I was referring to was an earlier project of theirs from the late '40s/early 50s. It was a 135 degree V, supercharged, with 1.5L. It had all the characteristics of a great engine: temperamental, incredible sound, technically complex...

I'll be back for more later, but first I must catch the Snap-On man with my Triumph. See ya!

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:15 PM
A book that I have enjoyed can be found at:

http://www.sunflower-univ-press.org/books/aircraft-piston.html

This site has a whole list of books on AC piston engines.

http://www.eastangliabooks.com/new_page_16.htm

I have a couple of Gunston's books but really enjoy reading the book by Smith.

The above site is also selling a Flight Manual for the P-63. Someone was looking for a photo of the pit so they might look here.

One important aspect of the radial versus the liquid cool debate is that the work done by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) allowed radial engines to be almost as streamlined as liquid cool engines (I don't have any drag figures but I know the cowlings really changed the drag factor).

The research was not classified and consequently was used on FW 190 and other Axis aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:21 PM
I should have also mentioned that you can go to

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/

and do a search for all sorts of information. I did one on NACA Cowling and found many articles. One was actually on the "Characteristics of the BMW 801D2 automatic engine control as determined from bench tests" or the so called "brain box."

These documents are PDF and are scans of originals so they are not easy reading.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:18 PM
pvtpyles wrote:
- I'm guessing a radial needs less gearing between
- engine and prop so there will be less power loss
- thru mechanical loss.


Radials used a planetary reduction gear scheme which, if compared to V engine's reduction gears, might have a higher number of actual gears depending on the set-up. Unless there was a direct crank coupling a la the T-6 with it's R-1340. But I think all the other radials (those in combat planes) had reduction gearing.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:20 PM
P&W made a 28cyclinder wasp radial that made 3650 hp using a 2 stage supercharger.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:28 PM
Auto Union in the late '30s had a 45* V-16 of 6 L (b75mm x s85mm). The rear engined car was designed by Porsche.

Sometimes Speed Channel broadcasts vintage race films.

http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/auto_c.htm

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:41 PM
"Roller lifters certainly helped a lot. They can tolerated much more aggressive cam profiles than flat tappets can. Unfortunately, they require higher spring pressures to keep the valve train controlled."

If you look at a flat-tappet lifter on a fairly aggressive cam profile, the flat-tappet lifter actually accelerates "around the nose" faster than the roller lifter. Not to mention the added benefits associated with lower friction on the hydraulic roller.



"Hydraulic lifters solve lots of lash problems. Valve lash is intentional space (clearance) left in the valve train somewhere between the cam and valve tip. The purpose of lash is to allow for thermal expansion of all parts. When hydrualic lifters are used, there is no clearance, and oil pressure maintains pressure on the valve train. Therefore, contact is always made between all parts of the valve train, and periodic adjustment is not neccessary. Also, hydraulic lifters make for a much quieter valve train."

All true.



"Hydraulic lifters do have some problems however. There is a tendency for the oil to be forced out of the lifters--especially at high engine speeds--causing decreases in lift (the valve does not open as far). For most American automotive V-8's, 6000 to 6500 is about the maximum RPM the hydraulic lifters can handle, provided the springs do not cause valve float sooner."

This is no longer true. American OHV V-8's (specifically the GM LS1 family) are capable of reliably turning in excess of 7000 rpm with judicious modifications. I personally shift mine at ~6600 rpm - it'll spin without float to well over 7000 rpm (been there, done that...). Mine is a 382 cubic inch (all bore) LS1 w/ hydraulic roller lifters, healthy springs, light valves, titanium retainers, chrome-moly pushrods, roller rockers (Yella Terra) and stock locks AND lifters.

One solution for high-rpm operation with OHV engines is to install a spring that acts directly against the lifter body and only use the valve spring to control the valve. This allows you to remove load against the plunger (by lowering valve spring load) and rely on the secondary spring to control the lifter. Furthermore, it prevents the lifter from being "thrown" by the cam... and all the attendant nastiness associated with events like those. If I decide to get even more aggressive with the cam, this system will be installed on my motor, but as of yet there is no need.

While ignorant journalists have been prattling on about DOHC setups, GM has quietly been making stunning power out of very simple, lightweight, efficient and clean OHV V-8's.

As an example, the BMW M3's DOHC I-6 is heavier, taller, longer, less powerful, less fuel efficient and less reliable (a TSB covering catastrophic bearing failure due to a poorly designed oiling system on the M3's I-6 has been issued - nice of them to give you a new motor when yours grenades eh?... but only AFTER you prove you maintained it properly and never "abused" it... good luck with that one...) than the Corvette's OHV LS6.

So much for complexity...


**************************************************

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

Message Edited on 08/08/0312:51PM by SpearchuckerJ

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:41 PM
Nitrous pete wrote:
- P&W made a 28cyclinder wasp radial that made 3650 hp
- using a 2 stage supercharger.

Aye, the R-4360 Wasp Major; 4 rows of 7 radial cylinders. Its one of my favourite engines. Used in the XP-72, XF8B, F2G, B-35, B-36, and B-50, among others. It even came in turbo compound versions. It made 3000hp at the start of serial production and was upgraded to produce more than 3800hp near the end.

Wasp Major Trivia question:
How many spark plugs does a B-36 Peacemaker have?



SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- This is no longer true. American OHV V-8's
- (specifically the GM LS1 family) are capable of
- reliably turning in excess of 7000 rpm with
- judicious modifications. I personally shift mine at
- ~6600 rpm - it'll spin without float to well over
- 7000 rpm (been there, done that...). Mine is a 382
- cubic inch (all bore) LS1 w/ hydraulic roller
- lifters, healthy springs, light valves, titanium
- retainers, chrome-moly pushrods, roller rockers
- (Yella Terra) and stock locks AND lifters.

What do you have this setup in? (F or Y body?) You're obviously drag racing, correct? Did you retain the stock lifters, or are they aftermarket?

What kind of revs have you pushed it to, max?

My old-tech 327 was done at 6500. I wished I had the money then (in H.S.) to coax 7000 or 8000 out of it. I knew of a guy who had built a solid-lifter 327 that pulled to 7500 for racing. Boy, did I sure want to copy his setup!



- One solution for high-rpm operation with OHV engines
- is to install a spring that acts directly against
- the lifter body...

Comp Cams calls this a Rev Kit or something like that, correct? The springs are held by a plate that attaches to the bottom of the head, right?



- While ignorant journalists have been prattling on
- about DOHC setups, GM has quietly been making
- stunning power out of very simple, lightweight,
- efficient and clean OHV V-8's.

DOHC have so much publicity that people unquestioningly think it best. The weight, complexity, and especially height are too often ignored. Remember the LT5? Its amazing what GM has done with its tried-n-true pushrods only a few years later in the LS6. Even the LT4 had more potential than was realized in production versions.


I really hope GM does something worthy with the Katech-built, LS1-based, "Cadillac" XV-16. That engine is capable of so much more than the measly 1000 hp & lb-ft they're getting out of it. Drivability be d*mned!

Actually, with superchargers, the XV-16 should make a good aircraft engine. Provided, that is, someone goes to the trouble of making an airframe that it'll fit. What do you suppose that engine can make, with the V-8-6-4...I mean Displacement-On-Demand exorcised and properly supercharged?



- So much for complexity...

Indeed.



Link to technical info on BRM's V16:
BRM V-16 Specs (http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/brm-e-V16.htm)

The Glorious Music of the BRM V-16:
BRM V-16 Sound (http://www.billzilla.org/engread.htm)
The in-car track is the best, IMHO. You can clearly hear the centrifugal supercharger spooling up and down as the engine revs out to 12,000RPM! It sounds positively haunting!

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:36 PM
"What do you have this setup in? (F or Y body?)"

F car. Corvettes are great for all around performance and lighter, but when the heavy artillery needs to get to the road in the first 60 feet you need a live rear axle.



"You're obviously drag racing, correct?"

Yes. 10.92 @ 126mph is the best so far this year. Next year I may decide to become fast.



"Did you retain the stock lifters, or are they aftermarket?"

Box stock, but a new set went in with the new cam. Call it force of habit.



"What kind of revs have you pushed it to, max?"

It's been over 7100 due to a mechanical over-rev (the dreaded 3-2 shift). Once I heard it happen, I was a bit preoccupied with other things and failed to look at the tach. I tore the heads off that weekend, everything was fine.



"My old-tech 327 was done at 6500. I wished I had the money then (in H.S.) to coax 7000 or 8000 out of it. I knew of a guy who had built a solid-lifter 327 that pulled to 7500 for racing. Boy, did I sure want to copy his setup!"

There are few sounds in life like a small block screaming up to 7500. Sends chills man... Do you still have your machine?



"Comp Cams calls this a Rev Kit or something like that, correct? The springs are held by a plate that attaches to the bottom of the head, right?"

There are a few kits of that type, on is called "Hydra-Rev", and I think you have the name for Comp's kit right.

That being said, I am more familiar with the LS1 kits. Since the LS1 intake manifold doesn't seal the lifter galley, it is a bit different than the small block kits.



"DOHC have so much publicity that people unquestioningly think it best. The weight, complexity, and especially height are too often ignored."

Amen, brother. When Mosler decided to make the fastest road course car in the world, they slapped in a GM pushrod V8 - a warmed over LS6. Mosler can afford any engine he wants...



"Remember the LT5?"

When I win the lottery, a ZR1 is on the short list of cars I must have.



"Its amazing what GM has done with its tried-n-true pushrods only a few years later in the LS6."

Yep. The LS6 weighs in at 411 lbs. fully dressed and matches the far heavier and more expensive LT5 step-for-step in power while being more efficient, lighter, less expensive and less complex. Truly a marvelous engine.



"Even the LT4 had more potential than was realized in production versions."

So true. The failing was always that ****ing Optispark. Now that there are LS1 to LT1/4 ignition coversions available, the LT1 and LT4 can take their place at the top of the small-block heap. Due to head attachment differences (5 bolt heads on the LT1/4 and only 4 bolt heads on the LS1/6) at the very top of the performance hill, the LT1 can be made more powerful (think BIG boost here...) even now.



"- I really hope GM does something worthy with the Katech-built, LS1-based, "Cadillac" XV-16. That engine is capable of so much more than the measly 1000 hp & lb-ft they're getting out of it. Drivability be d*mned!"

Not only that, but the XV-16 can pull down amazing fuel economy numbers for a machine packing such power at that weight.



"What do you suppose that engine can make, with the V-8-6-4...I mean Displacement-On-Demand exorcised and properly supercharged?"

Welp, there are two issues that will be critical.

First, the crankshaft is REALLY long. Torsional stress on the crank will be pretty high, so there can't be any of this "cast crankshaft" nonsense. Forge it out of REALLY NASTY steel or go home.

Second, to take boost, the cylinder heads lifting. That's a LOOOOOONG cylinder head...

Given an adequate answer to those two issues, I'd expect 2000hp in a fairly tame trim. Wanna get really nasty? Think turbochargers.... 4 T-88's oughta just about do it, and this thing has the exhaust flow to spin 'em up LIKE RIGHT NOW.



Engine-wise, GM brings out the heavy artillery here very shortly...

+200hp supercharged Ecotec I-4's (available now)
+300hp supercharged 3800 V-6's (2006)
+400hp base Corvette V8 (2005)
500hp Corvette Z06 (2006)
500hp Cadillacs (2006-2007)
A POSITIVELY SICK 48 valve, DOHC, 7.5 liter, twin-turbocharged V-12. (200?... but it's coming....)

A box-stock Cadillac CTSv stomped both an M5 and an M3 into the pavement at Nurnburing (sp?) in the latest Car & Driver by something like 3 seconds a lap. 3 seconds is FOREVER to a drag racer....



************************************************** **********

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 09:39 PM
SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- F car. Corvettes are great for...

Formula, T/A, Firehawk, Z28, or SS?

Other than 'vette engines in the last 15 years or so, I haven't been much of a fan of late model Corvettes.



- Do you still have your machine[s]?

Yes, sort of. That 327 was in a '74 Camaro (with a very long story behind it). By my first year in tech. school, I had put a T-10 behind it, finally got the gearing right, and got it to run with new F-cars while getting 18mpg. That fall it got hit by a deer on a gravel road at better than 75mph. The front clip was so mangled I couldn't get the driver's door open. The hood was ripped up into a vertical position, I had to look through the cowl vents to guide the fishtailing car between two bridge markers (steep ditches). Wild ride.
Now the car just sits, awaiting renewal.

Shortly before the '74 was wrecked, I bought an '81 Z28 that someone had put a 400 in. I swapped the 400/TH-350 and 327/T-10 drivetrains back and forth a few times. Now I'm working on getting the 4-speed behind the 400, for which I am modifying some L31 Vortec heads.

I've also aquired two other 327's, a '67 NOS 302 crank, a rough but complete '69 Firebird (a "someday" project...), as well as other worthless junk.



- Since the LS1 intake manifold doesn't seal the
- lifter galley, it is a bit different than the small
- block kits.

I'm not as familiar with the Gen III small blocks as I'd like to be. I haven't had the opportunity to work on them yet. However I did have a 5.3 in a Silverado for a while. What a great car motor wasted in a pick-up...



- ...the LT1 and LT4 can take their place at the top of the
- small-block heap...

A guy at my tech school had a '95 Comp T/A with a Vortech supercharger on it, forged pistons, redone fuel system, etc. That thing sounded much like the 6.5L Turbo Diesel my dad had at the time, it was great! He had taken many 'Vettes, and was trying to get some posuer with a Viper to race him. I never heard how that turned out...



- First, the crankshaft is REALLY long. Torsional
- stress on the crank will be pretty high, so there
- can't be any of this "cast crankshaft" nonsense.
- Forge it out of REALLY NASTY steel or go home.

The XV-16 in concept form uses a billet crank. Strongest type availible, but often heaver than forgings and very expensive to produce.



- Second, to take boost, the cylinder heads lifting.
- That's a LOOOOOONG cylinder head...

So long, in fact, that they would not fit in a 5-axis machining center, and had to be ported by hand.



- Think turbochargers....

I often do, and I think Aerodyne's Aerochargers are the best out there right now. I'm drawing a blank on the T-88, I'll have to look them up later.



- Engine-wise, GM brings out the heavy artillery here
- very shortly...

I've been a GM fan for a long time, so I'll belive it when I see it. Although things are looking better these days...

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 10:04 PM
They have an external oil tanks and powerful oil pumps to deliver the oil where it is needed. The oil is then "scavenged" by the scavenge pumps to the cooler and filter's then back around again. Each type had adifferent way of doing it. And each was a better way than the last.A very efficeint but wastefull way to do it if that makes sense. The radial engine although very powerfull was a sive. They leaked oil incessantly. "if it ain't leakin; it got no oil in it" a B-25 pilot said to me. (for real) The props had to be "pulled through" because the oil would gather in the lower cylinders If you tried to start it you would bend the piston rods from "hydrolicking"
Something to note is that some older jet engines had a "total loss" lubrication system. All the oil was spewed out the tail pipe to aid in thrust. Hows that for waste!

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 10:35 PM
DB605B wrote:
- A very efficeint but wastefull way to do it if that makes
- sense.

It somewhat makes sense. Can you elaborate?

Thank you for the info. Did some (or all) of the DB 600 series have 2 oil control rings on the piston skirts?



- The radial engine although very powerfull was a
- sive. They leaked oil incessantly....
- ...the oil would gather in the lower cylinders If you
- tried to start it you would bend the piston rods
- from "hydrolicking"

Most radials were only powerful because of their large displacements and superior supercharging systems. Their power wasn't inherent to the engine's architecture, although radials are better at some things than "inlines" (and "inlines" are better at others). Radials also have their own problems and compromises, like any other engine.

Did the DB 600 engines have similar "oil leakdown" problems? If not, how did they prevent it?

Do you have any info on the Junkers Jumo 210 series engines?

What was the reason for inverting these engines anyway?



- Something to note is that some older jet engines had
- a "total loss" lubrication system. All the oil was
- spewed out the tail pipe to aid in thrust. Hows that
- for waste!

Its not neccesarily a waste, I can think of sound reasons for doing so.

Many early piston engines used total loss oil systems too.

Some motorcycles had "automatic chain oilers," an intentional "leak" of engine oil to keep the final drive chain well oiled. I believe this was still used on some models into the 1970s.

I had a '68 pick-up once that had total loss electrical and coolant systems! (Bad alternator and head gasket)

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 11:31 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:
- Most radials were only powerful because of their
- large displacements and superior supercharging
- systems. Their power wasn't inherent to the
- engine's architecture,

That seems to be borne out by the fact that
power:weight ratios for inlines and radials
were about the same (excepting the additional
radiators, etc for the inline engines) during
WW2.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:46 PM
Lots of good info on this thread!

A couple things to keep in mind though on valve train....

Aircraft engines turn SLOW... Typically (but not always) engines (vee or radial) only turn 2500 rpm at normal power, thus valve float and other high rpm considerations often found in car engines do not apply.. Prop tip speed is the limiting factor. You don't want the prop tips to go supersonic. Thats the big limit of prop planes - you can only make the prop so big, and the tip speed has a practical maximum. For engines making peak power past 3000rpm, they are geared. Aircraft engines run at relatively constant speed, and therefore are quite a bit different than auto engines..

It does crack me up about folks old school pushrod car experiences however, since any modern engine is a DOHC configuration and many can spin unmodified well beyond 7000rpm producing very high power output per displacement (over 100hp/liter) and last for hundreds of thousands of miles.. The advanced 'v' engines of WWII were also similiarly built to todays advanced auto engines (OHC or DOHC, turbo or supercharged etc.)

Back to airplanes (especially the radials), the low RPM allows pretty high lift without resorting to major mods. The key in these engines is lots of displacement, because Torque not HP is the critical factor to spin a big aggressive prop.

I'm going to build my own aircraft radial to go with my 60% scale FW190A5 (I have the skills and the machine shop), and am considering using BMW motorcycle cylinders (7 of them). I may use pushrod versions just to keep it more of a historic copy, but the extra performance of the DOHC configuration sure is a draw...

Cheers,



<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 01:34 PM
Spinnetti

do you know of this place.?

http://cincinnati.com/ageless/

radial engines such as 9, 14, 18 cylinders

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 02:48 PM
"It does crack me up about folks old school pushrod car experiences however, since any modern engine is a DOHC configuration and many can spin unmodified well beyond 7000rpm producing very high power output per displacement (over 100hp/liter) and last for hundreds of thousands of miles.."

Let's divorce the journalistic hype from the actual numbers and make a clean evaluation of the two designs. If you can do this objectively, you are guaranteed to change your perspective.

1) Power output per displacement is a worthless statistic UNLESS you are in a displacement limited racing class, or there is a tax added for extra displacement (Japan and Europe have historically done this). The statistic that matters is power output per unit mass/weight. Modern OHV designs are universally lighter at a given power output. Examples? Take GM's LS1/LS6 vs. Ford's SOHC/DOHC 4.6 or BMW's M3 I6. The GM motors are lighter than either of them and (depending on application, top motor vs. top motor) make more power. Even the supercharged 4.6 DOHC Ford motor produces less power than the naturally aspirated, OHV, LS6 in stock form.

2) DOHC designs are universally larger physically than OHV designs. Size = weight, and not just in the motor itself, but in the rest of the vehicle package. Due to this fact, the DOHC motor is not only heavier because of the physical size of the cylinder heads, but also because it physically takes up more space. The car itself then becomes longer, wider and taller just to fit the motor. Corvettes have VERY low hoods for a reason...

3) Complexity = money. More parts = more money to produce. The smart engine designer realizes this, and concurrently realizes that because the OHV motor is both pysically smaller, lighter and less expensive, the cheapest and most effective power adder in the world can be used - added displacement. Displacement is, and always has been, king. If I can make an OHV motor basically TWICE as large as a DOHC equvalent (LS1 vs. BMW M3, for example), I'm going to win the power contest every time.

4) Fuel injector targeting. This one is a little bit more arcane, but can be summed up by the fact that emissions and power output demand that the fuel injector be targeted to spray fuel directly at the back of the intake valve. An OHV design can do this relatively easily. A DOHC design CANNOT. with a single injector per cylinder (which is by far the most common arrangement), a DOHC design demands that the injector be targeted at the split between the two intake runners. This hurts emissions and power output - my fluid dynamics professor used to call it "making the fluid angry" by forcing it to split and move around in ways it didn't want to. The mid-runner split results in fuel puddling, which ain't good.

5) Charge velocity. Fluid dynamics states that any fluid that transitions from a small diameter runner into a larger one it loses velocity. This is seen right at the point at which the intake runners in the head split to the individual valves in a DOHC design. This isn't a big issue in a Formula 1 car, but it is a GIGANTIC issue in a street motor or a motor that has to flow titanic amounts of fuel like a Top Fuel motor. At certain velocities the intake charge can stall at the transition, which would cause a rather nasty explosion in a 7000hp Top Fuel car. In a passenger car it means that the engine cannot be as efficient at lower RPM's - which happens to be where you spend most of your time driving. Drive like a normal individual sometime and watch your tach. Tell me the number of times you exceed 4400 rpm - which is about the peak output efficiency (torque peak) for a modern production OHV motor. If you're honest, in most cars the answer is ZERO during normal driving. If I hit 4400 rpm in 5th gear in my car, I'm WELL over 100mph (75mph in 5th = ~2300 rpm).

6) Fuel economy. Find me a DOHC design, ANY DOHC design that can put down a naturally aspirated 405hp and still get 30 mpg. Simply put, they are rarer than hen's teeth. Honda's "wonder motor" in the S2000 (which is an engineering disaster of the highest order) cannot beat the LS1 for fuel economy EVEN THOUGH the LS1 was bolted up to a car that weighed 700 lbs. more (the F-cars). Concurrently, the LS1 produced over 100 more horsepower, TWICE as much torque, and propelled the heavier F-cars to much faster 0-60 times, quarter mile times, and top speeds. Do the research for yourself there. The numbers are widely available, and I guarantee you will be shocked.

Regards,

SJ


************************************************** ***

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:05 PM
@ SJ and Greenhorn-

Okay, this might be blasphemy to you guys (as well as OT) but what do you guys think of the new GM I-6 (I think it's the Vortech 4200). It makes 275hp right now, but GM is talking about making a version with twin turbos that'll make 390hp and 400lb/ft of torque. I kinda like to think in terms of rod applications. Like putting something like that into an early 50s Chevy (which used GM's old version of the I-6) a posi rear end and no brakes and see what happens (just kidding about the no brakes thing). Anyway, just interested in your thoughts on this engine.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:35 PM
"Anyway, just interested in your thoughts on this engine."

Without doubt, a terrific motor. I eyeballed one VERY carefully for my 1963 Nova convertible, which currently has a stove-bolt inline 6 in it. This thing is a torque-heavy truck motor that lays down 275hp and comes complete with variable valve timing and a bunch of other goodies.

The only problem I find with the motor is that it is physically HUGE. As in gigantic. It is VERY tall and VERY long.

An old (mid-50's to mid 60's) Chevy with lots of engine bay room is the best option for a retro-fit. I kind of doubt a Camaro or Nova could fit it comfortably.

I'd also be nervous about aftermarket parts like ported heads, cams, connecting rods, pistons and fasteners if you're going to throw forced induction at it unless GM does it first and you can retro-fit them or buy them from the GM parts bin. Given what is currently available from GM Performance Parts, things look pretty grim... BUT companies like Diamond and Wiseco will make you custom pistons for a fairly reasonable price ($800 or so). You'll want to drop the compression for sure if you go forced induction. I'd look at at least $1000 for connecting rods, probably another $200 for rod bolts. GM cranks are generally works of art. I think you're screwed on the camshafts unless you've got serious bucks to throw at them.

For a turbo, you're going to have to pay someone to fabricate the intake path and exhaust path ($$$$$) unless you're pretty good with a welder.

Then, it's gotta be tuned. There are a wealth of sources in the aftermarket to tune the LS1 family, but I am not aware of anyone working on the 4200 right now. An untuned, high-compression, modified turbo motor is shrapnel waiting to happen.

You're going to want to mate the engine with a 4L60E automatic to keep the powertrain computer happy. I'd rip both out of a wrecked Envoy or Trailblazer as a set.

If you're up to the challenge, and have the cash, then you have the chance to make something very unique and very powerful. If you're not as concerned with "unique", I'd look seriously at the LS1/LS6 family since the aftermarket can provide considerably more support and the LS6 is capable of 405hp right out of the box with no modifications whatsover.

For more info, write me at:

prsce22@hotmail.com

I'll help ya any way I can.



************************************************** ***

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

Message Edited on 08/11/0301:37PM by SpearchuckerJ

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 07:03 PM
OOO JEEZ! Thanks for that detailed response SpearchucherJ. But I'm afraid you've wasted the effort. I'm just talking theorectically here. Unlike guys like you there are those of us who can only dream of having automotive "chops" such as you obviously possess. I'm one of those poor sods who has only barely gotten his hands dirty inside the engine bays of cars. And that's only to say: "What's this thing do I wonder" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . I'd love to learn more in the way of hands-on but I have neither the time or the dough to do so /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . I'm one of those who found an interest in this stuff (and flying, obviously) too late in life and I couldn't persue any of that with any vigor unless it meant making me some money in the process.

Oh well, I can dream.

BTW it's GM that has plans for the twin turbo 4200. I just thought if you could find the right old frame (and provided you could get the twin turbo as a crate motor) you could have yourself a snazzy retro ride with plenty of cajones. Know what I mean?

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:25 PM
Lilhorse,

It surely wasn't wasted on you. Automotive "chops" = cubic money. Folks learn by blowing things up or making mistakes. Ask me and my former Plymouth Barracuda how we know that...


Now, all that being said, it's never too late to start.

You'd be VERY surprised at how inexpensively you can get your hands on quite a fast machine with explosive potential to grow with you, your skills and your finances.

They just all happen to be RWD and have bowties on the grill... except for those pesky Mustangs, which, my Chevrolet soul must admit, are tremendous performance values... for a Ford.

You don't have to have tons of money to bracket race. Just a helmet, a car and tires with tread on them... any old car will do.



"BTW it's GM that has plans for the twin turbo 4200. I just thought if you could find the right old frame (and provided you could get the twin turbo as a crate motor) you could have yourself a snazzy retro ride with plenty of cajones. Know what I mean?"

I'm right with ya, and I think it's a great idea. I had heard rumors of the turbocharged 4200, but haven't gotten a solid heads-up as to production date or availability. Pass along anything you know and I'll be grateful.



***********************************************

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:45 PM
Spearchucker, JR, sorry guys but I'm one of the rice-boys with a blown Miata. As such, much of the pushrod GM discussion went by me.
I've got to admit Spearchucker, you make a well thought out argument for pushrods. I remember reading someone's opinion in an auto mag about "who was the most talented automotive engineers?" The reply wasn't the guys at Ferrari or BMW, but Chevy. The reasoning went: "Anybody can design a super-car when cost is no object. Building a car with acceptable performance that can go for $20,000 and still make a profit takes more skill." Engineering with cost as a factored variable is always tougher than cost-independent. In that vein, OHV make sense.
That being said, OHV engines still run out of head room before SOHC or DOHC motors. Torque comes at low RPM (and counts for acceleration times) but speed comes from power, and power takes revs. OHV motors put out lots of power, but they're not going to rev as high as an OHC motor, all other things being equal. Neat trick using springs on the lifter body, and I like the Titanium retainers, too (the retainers along with nested valve springs are rice-boy fare, too.) But even with these, you're not going to get to 9000 RPM like the S2000 motor. That's the only way that little 2.0 liter 4 banger can make 240 hp. And yeah, it does have to be driven like you stole it. The VTEC doesn't even come on high cam 'till 6000 RPM, and below that, it drives like a Civic.
You've also got a point about fuel injector effectiveness in OHV engines. Port injection onto the valve splitter definitely isn't the best way to do things, and a single valve is better there. The single valve does lose some swirl efficiency in the combustion chamber though. Direct injection would probably be the way to go, but again that would be easier with OHV. Start cramming in DOHC and VTEC and the head starts getting pretty crowded, and hard to work an injector into.
True too that OHC motors take more space, and more machined parts, than OHV. Trying to keep this remotely on topic, OHV motors might have offered less frontal area for aero motor applications than OHC motors, as well as easier manufacture. The problem is that you're pretty much committed to a two valve engine then. Guys at Rolls Royce apparently thought the benefits of a four valve head outweighed the costs. Of course, Wankel rotaries offer even better packaging for aero applications, but other than the Pond Racer, I don't remember much use being made of them.
Finally, IRT inverted vees, and why they made them that way. JR, I've wondered about that too, and the only good answer I've been able to find so far is "better visibility for the pilot, and better packaging for cowl mounted guns." I wondered about hydraulically locking the cylinders too, but a dry-sump system like DB605B describes would keep most of the oil out. It would still leak past the rings, but there wouldn't be enough in the crankcase to lock a cylinder. You'd probably get a pretty good white cloud at startup, though.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

Edit- spelling

Message Edited on 08/11/0301:49PM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:05 PM
Automotive "chops= cubic money. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That's very funny.

Thanks for the encouragement. Actually I do have kind of a cool old ride that has a practical side as well. It's a 1965 Ford (don't freak...deep breaths) 250 pickup. 352cu (yes, really a 352 not 351), Holly carb, Edelbrock covers, new ignition harness and coil, headers and, here's the real weird thing, a posi rear end. And it's a "TRUCK" in every sense of the word. Manual everything, stump-puller first gear and a cam that's profiled for towing type duty.

Of course I didn't do any of the cool mechanical stuff to it. I bought it that way from the guy who did.

I had a '58 Bel Air that again I bought in very good cond. but I never had time to drive it so I sold it rather than have it just sit and rot in my garage. My wife always liked funky old pickups and so we got this one. It was sort of the last big frivilous purchase before putting an addition on our house ($OUCH$). Although I do actually use it for hauling stuff, dump runs etc.

So maybe if I get brave /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I'll learn a little on that. It's certainly a simple enough engine to understand (actually I do "understand" these engines. doing's the real thing). So we'll see. Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 05:30 AM
Spinnetti wrote:
- any modern engine is a DOHC configuration

This statement is incorrect.



- The advanced 'v' engines of WWII were also similiarly
- built to todays advanced auto engines (OHC or DOHC, turbo
- or supercharged etc.)

Almost every advanced engine of WWII (read: late war) was supercharged in some way. Most often only radials were turbocharged--true, there are exceptions. Also don't assume that simply because a recent engine and a 1940s aero engine both have DOHC they share similar construction. What really matters is the combustion chamber, and design in that area has changed much since then.

You are correct that most of the high engine speed-related problems with poppet valves do not apply to aero engines, but as valves become bigger in bigger engines, those problems occur at progressively lower RPM. Engineers may have struggled with valve float on aircraft engines turning at 3000 rpm. Also, it is inaccurate to compare the RPM ceilings of near 2-litre four cylinders to over 5-liter V-8s. It is a much greater feat to rev a 6-litre V-8 to 7000 rpm than it is to rev a 1.8-litre inline-4 to 9000 rpm.



- I'm going to build my own aircraft radial to go with
- my 60% scale FW190A5 (I have the skills and the
- machine shop), and am considering using BMW
- motorcycle cylinders (7 of them). I may use pushrod
- versions just to keep it more of a historic copy,
- but the extra performance of the DOHC configuration
- sure is a draw...

This sounds like a very interesting project, I hope you keep us updated on your progress. Since you are obviously not an engineer, you must be a machinist. How do you plan on making the crankcase--billet or cast? What do you plan for a cam and its drive? Will you use a single carb/throttle body or individual throttles? Will you split the master rod or the crank? You will have oiling problems (it's a radial), how do you plan to overcome those? I ask these questions because I'm curious, not to be an ***. I'm interested in hearing how you will design the parts that will be specific to a radial.

It sounds like you have a little research to do in BMW motorcycle engines before you begin. Unless you count the F650 family (and it's a stretch to call that engine BMW's own), BMW does not make a DOHC engine with an individual cylinder design--unless I am missing something quite obscure, that is.



@SpearchuckerJ:
Excellent arguments, but for clarification purposes remember that OHV, SOHC, and DOHC setups can all have any number of valves. DOHC does not mean 4 valves per cylinder, and OHV does not mean 2 valves.



LilHorse wrote:
- @ SJ and Greenhorn-
-
- Okay, this might be blasphemy to you guys (as well
- as OT) but what do you guys think of the new GM I-6
- (I think it's the Vortech 4200).

Why would I think it blasphemy? The only problem I have with the engine is its external dimensions, which SpearchuckerJ already covered.



SpearchuckerJ wrote:
- You're going to want to mate the engine with a 4L60E
- automatic...

*cringes*
I hate these new electro-automatics with a passion!
Find a manual transmission and use an aftermarket ECM.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 06:25 AM
LilHorse wrote:
- I'm just talking theorectically here.

Its called "bench racing," and it's a great way for gearheads to entertain themselves.



- Unlike guys like you there are those of us who can
- only dream of having automotive "chops" such as
- [SpearchuckerJ] obviously possess. I'm one of those poor
- sods who has only barely gotten his hands dirty inside
- the engine bays of cars. And that's only to say:
- "What's this thing do I wonder"

The difference between those with the "chops," like SpearchuckerJ, and those "poor sods" is the willingness to dig into a project and learn the hard way, and decide you get sufficent enjoyment out of it to spend more of your income on it. It starts by wondering what the different parts do. While I don't have the hands-on experience SpearchuckerJ has, I have been lucky enough to grow up working on big Diesels. However, I had to learn the hard way with my 327, as well as with my Triumph. I have also done a lot of reading about engines because I have always been very interested in them, and reading up on things gives you the confidence to dig in and apply the theory. If you want to take your hobby/interest in engines further, my advice is: read up, find "parteners in crime," and find an unintimidating project to work on.



Blottogg wrote:
- Spearchucker, JR, sorry guys but I'm one of the
- rice-boys with a blown Miata.

I don't have a problem with Asian performance cars, but I hate front wheel drive. I don't like the whole "Sport Compact" thing because the focus of those cars is rarely on the engine. Embarassingly, I don't know off the top of my head which end a Miata is driven by, but they are too small for me to have much interest in. I need more legroom. One of my favourite things about most years of F-cars (Camaros and Firebirds) is the legroom they have. I'm 6'5" and crippled, so I simply can't drive certain smaller cars.



- "who was the most talented automotive engineers?" The
- reply wasn't the guys at Ferrari...

Although Ferrari was certainly in the running for that honour in the 1960s. Ferrari was one of the greatest forces in developing smaller multi-cylinder engines designed for high RPM at a time when nearly everyone else was simply turning to prodigious displcements for power, even the British. Ferrari (the company) was sadly perverted in the 1980s, and much of the purity is gone from the legend...
*sigh*
Still, someday I'll own a shortnose 275GTB...
(I can always dream, right?)



- Guys at Rolls Royce apparently thought the benefits of a
- four valve head outweighed the costs. Of course, Wankel
- rotaries offer even better packaging for aero
- applications,

I'm guessing R-R aero engines of WWII didn't use port fuel injection like today's engines do. Thats one less reason not to use four valves...
I've never been very impressed by the Wankel rotaries. Have they done anything of note in aircraft?



- Finally, IRT inverted vees, and why they made them
- that way. JR, I've wondered about that too, and the
- only good answer I've been able to find so far is
- "better visibility for the pilot, and better
- packaging for cowl mounted guns." I wondered about
- hydraulically locking the cylinders too, but a
- dry-sump system like DB605B describes would keep
- most of the oil out. It would still leak past the
- rings, but there wouldn't be enough in the crankcase
- to lock a cylinder. You'd probably get a pretty
- good white cloud at startup, though.

IRT=? Not to nitpick, but your first sentence here confuses me. What do you mean?
I hadn't thougt of the gun packaging, but I had considered the visibility advantages. Also, an inverted V-12 seems to have a shape that is more fitting of fighter aircraft--wider at the bottom (at the wing roots), and narrower at the top (only the canopy to fair into). It would be nice to find some documented reasons, however.
Radials must have used dry sump systems as well, don't you think? You don't hear as much about oil problems on inverted V's, so either they worked much better than they would seem, or there was that much extra blow-by in radials. What do you think?



LilHorse wrote:
- Actually I do have kind of a cool old ride that has a
- practical side as well. It's a 1965 Ford (don't
- freak...deep breaths) 250 pickup. 352cu (yes, really a
- 352 not 351)...


Actually, I don't have much for brand loyalty anymore. I have the most experience and knowledge with GM product, but I don't owe them any allegiance.
My friend has a '64 F-250 with a 352. It sounds very similar to yours.
The 352 is in the FE engine family, just like the 360, 390, 410, 427s (Side oilers, Cammers, etc.), and 428 (I know I'm forgetting some). IIRC (I may be a bit off here), it shares the 4.00" bore and 3.50" stroke of the Windsor, Cleveland, and Modified 351s. Does yours have the stock intake manifold? Just wait 'til you get to yank that sucker off!

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:27 PM
"*cringes*
I hate these new electro-automatics with a
passion! Find a manual transmission and use an aftermarket
ECM."

Then it sounds like FAST and a T-56 to me. Make sure somebody's flywheel fits nicely - the commonality of the F-cars using the 4L60E and the T-56 will be your friend here, along with the fact that the clutch setup for the F-cars is hydraulic.

Modifiying up a bellhousing might be difficult if things don't work out nicely.



Lilhorse:

Your truck sounds like an excellent starting point. Get busy!

Real power is made in the cylinder heads, and real cylinder heads need a lumpy cam.



************************************************** **
I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

Message Edited on 08/12/0308:28AM by SpearchuckerJ

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:17 PM
Bump for someone asking about differences between radials and in-lines.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:24 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Spinnetti
-
- do you know of this place.?
-
- http://cincinnati.com/ageless/
-
-
- radial engines such as 9, 14, 18 cylinders
-
<img
- src="http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-s
- tormclouds2.jpg">

Yep,


In fact they guy lives 30 miles from me.
I bought his plans and that is one of my projects.
I need to finish building my crank grinder and my mini 2 cylinder watercooled engine before I start that one.



<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:50 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:
- Spinnetti wrote:
-- any modern engine is a DOHC configuration
-
- This statement is incorrect.


>> By definition, a motor designed in 1950 is not a modern motor, regardless of its performance /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-
-
-- The advanced 'v' engines of WWII were also similiarly
-- built to todays advanced auto engines (OHC or DOHC, turbo
-- or supercharged etc.)
-
- Almost every advanced engine of WWII (read: late
- war) was supercharged in some way. Most often only
- radials were turbocharged--true, there are
- exceptions. Also don't assume that simply because a
- recent engine and a 1940s aero engine both have DOHC
- they share similar construction. What really
- matters is the combustion chamber, and design in
- that area has changed much since then.


>> Looking at Me109 engine cutaways for instance look an awful lot like my DOHC Yamaha cylinder heads.. I'm not sure what forced induction has to do with it. For any engine type, FI gets you more power. Most people think that radials were turbocharged when in fact, its simply a radial diffuser designed to get even charge distribution to the cylinders. One current manufacturer is dumb enough to have stated that they tested a crank speed turbo charger (actually the diffuser) and it didn't add any power (Duh!)

-
- You are correct that most of the high engine
- speed-related problems with poppet valves do not
- apply to aero engines, but as valves become bigger
- in bigger engines, those problems occur at
- progressively lower RPM. Engineers may have
- struggled with valve float on aircraft engines
- turning at 3000 rpm. Also, it is inaccurate to
- compare the RPM ceilings of near 2-litre four
- cylinders to over 5-liter V-8s. It is a much
- greater feat to rev a 6-litre V-8 to 7000 rpm than
- it is to rev a 1.8-litre inline-4 to 9000 rpm.
-
>> True.... There is no replacement for displacement, but as they say in racing, Revs are free. for any displacement, the more revs you can turn and take advantage of, the faster you will go. I've been thinking it would be a fun project to saimese 2 S2000's together into a 4.0l v8. Now that would be cool.

> Aircraft engine operating parameters are totally different than in cars, so you can't really compare them very well.

Aircraft operate at (mostly) constant speed, so are much simpler in many ways, and only need to be efficient at a narrow range of RPM. You need lots of torque, and lots of cubes to spin the prop.

-
-- I'm going to build my own aircraft radial to go with
-- my 60% scale FW190A5 (I have the skills and the
-- machine shop), and am considering using BMW
-- motorcycle cylinders (7 of them). I may use pushrod
-- versions just to keep it more of a historic copy,
-- but the extra performance of the DOHC configuration
-- sure is a draw...
-
- This sounds like a very interesting project, I hope
- you keep us updated on your progress. Since you are
- obviously not an engineer, you must be a machinist.
- How do you plan on making the crankcase--billet or
- cast? What do you plan for a cam and its drive?
- Will you use a single carb/throttle body or
- individual throttles? Will you split the master rod
- or the crank? You will have oiling problems (it's a
- radial), how do you plan to overcome those? I ask
- these questions because I'm curious, not to be an
- ***. I'm interested in hearing how you will design
- the parts that will be specific to a radial.
-
- It sounds like you have a little research to do in
- BMW motorcycle engines before you begin. Unless you
- count the F650 family (and it's a stretch to call
- that engine BMW's own), BMW does not make a DOHC
- engine with an individual cylinder design--unless I
- am missing something quite obscure, that is.

>> The current BMW opposed twins make a lot of power. 7 of those cylinders will get me around 350hp. I'll try for the older pushrod ones with a target of around 200hp.

Radial design is pretty thoroughly understood these days, and I'll solve the problems the same way its been done before. There are several small radials on the market now, and one is even a copy of a running Model (!) mentioned in a previous post (the Rotec @ 110hp)

>> My engine will be based on the case design by HCI (mostly hacks). The case will be billet, and will have a one piece rod (split crank). I'll use EFI and most likely use a singe throttle body, but individual injectors at each cylinder so I don't have to screw around with the diffuser and lousy mixture control.

>> I'm not sure how I'm 'obviously' not an engineer however. This forum is not an engineering one, but one for playing games on a computer, and thus is not a dissertation on engineering topics. If you want one of those, I can recommend a lot of good books. You have made some good points, but don't have all the answers. I'm almost 40, work for Toyota manufacturing headquarters, build my own sports cars (not to mention building my own plane) and am a championship winning race car driver in a AE86 'Ricebox' (and sometimes a Mustang). I am doing 130mph wheel to wheel at the end of the drag straight, and then turn instead of just shutting down. How about you? An engineering student? No doubt you will go on to be one of the great know-it-alls of your time.

Bring your vette to a real race track and see if you can beat my tiny 4 cylinder... I've smoked alot of your friends.


<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:17 PM
JR, sorry I haven't replied to your comments, but I'd thought this thread had died.

IRT is shorthand for "in regards to". I try not to use web abbreviations (IIRC, IMHO, etc.), but I occasionally slip up.

Miata's are rear-wheel drive, which is one of the reasons I bought one. Front drivers can be good performers too, but definitely need to be driven differently. Weight transfer issues definitely favor the rear-drivers, and I'm better throttle-steering with a rear drive car. That being said, my last car was an '88 Prelude Si 4WS, and it did just fine for two years on the autobahn while I was stationed in Germany.

All of R-R's engines were carburetted as far as I know, so combining injector porting and a 4-valve head wasn't a problem for them. Packaging was to an extent, especially with the Griffon motors (Griffon Spitfires had distinct lumps to cover the motor's valve covers.) Good point about the inverted vees fitting a fighter fuselage better, also. I hadn't considered that, but it makes the wing-fuselage interface cleaner.

I only know of Wankels being used in the Pond Racer, and not much more than that. The aircraft itself crashed, but I don't remember why. Low frontal area, and high P/W ratio were the major reasons for picking the Wankel, I think. The new Wankel design in the RX-8 has several improvements. Most noteably, the intake and exhaust ports are moved to the end-plates (instead of being on the outside edge of the main casing) which improves both emissions and efficiency.

True about Ferrari, too. They seemed to have gone from cutting edge engineering in the 60's to a more "traditional" philosophy in the 80's and 90's. For example, they turned their noses up at ABS for the longest time, despite it's obvious advantages. They seem to have regained some of their cutting edge spirit recently, perhaps in response to their recent F1 wins. I don't think design to cost was ever an overwhelming consideration at Ferrari however, giving their engineers one less thing to worry about.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:37 PM
Seems I know even less about Wankels in aircraft than I thought. A quick search revealed that the Pond Racer used Nissan V-6's, not Wankels. The rotary's use in aircraft is limited to R/C aircraft and a few homebuilt projects, as far as I can tell. I don't know where the Pond Racer notion came from. I must be getting old and senile.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:54 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- Seems I know even less about Wankels in aircraft
- than I thought. A quick search revealed that the
- Pond Racer used Nissan V-6's, not Wankels. The
- rotary's use in aircraft is limited to R/C aircraft
- and a few homebuilt projects, as far as I can tell.
- I don't know where the Pond Racer notion came from.
- I must be getting old and senile.
-
- Blotto
-
- "Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart,
- will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter
- how technically advanced." - A. Galland
-
- "Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I
- slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt
-
<img
- src="http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuil
- dercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif">
-


I was gonna mention that, but figured you'd get the right info.. In fact they were IMSA GT race motors if I remember correctly from Nissans race program as that wound down.

Rotarys are used in some homebuilts, and could have really been interesting in the WWII context due to their high output per cc, but they run REALLY HOT. Like 2200+ degrees instead of the 1400 or so that a good tuned piston motor makes. They also get lousy fuel economy, so realatively speaking, you would not get as much range as a piston engine. In racing, the rotarys are loud as hell, and tend to set stuff on fire when they go off track.. Have to be very careful in aircraft installations!

(I have several miniature rotary at home - from 1/3 - 4 hp... they are really neat)



<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:11 AM
Spinnetti wrote:

- Rotarys are used in some homebuilts, and could have
- really been interesting in the WWII context due to
- their high output per cc, but they run REALLY HOT.
- Like 2200+ degrees instead of the 1400 or so that a
- good tuned piston motor makes. They also get lousy
- fuel economy, so realatively speaking, you would not
- get as much range as a piston engine. In racing, the
- rotarys are loud as hell, and tend to set stuff on
- fire when they go off track.. Have to be very
- careful in aircraft installations!


Rotaries are very interesting for aviation and motor sports because they are light, small and powerful. It is not true that they fuel consumption is high. It is high only if you consider fuel consumption per engine displacement. If you look at fuel consumption per HP rating you'll see that they are quite efficient.

Unfortunately there are little incentives for auto industry to switch from 4 stroke piston engine to rotaries. They do not offer fuel consumption improvements over the classic scheme so they are not considered interesting. But motorcycles, sport cars and civilian planes can really benefit from rotary engines. Without support from auto industry there is little hope for adoption though.

It's interesting that any motorsport championship that allowed rotaries was won by rotaries the moment they were adopted by a serious team, and now, as a result, the rotaries are banned from all important competitions. The reason was of course that people have little interest in competions that use engines so different from those found in everyday cars.

What do you guys think about Mazda RX-8?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 09:46 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:
- The 352 is in the FE engine family, just like the
- 360, 390, 410, 427s (Side oilers, Cammers, etc.),
- and 428 (I know I'm forgetting some).


..... I think that the old Mercury 406 cid fell into the FE engine family as well.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 10:04 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- What do you guys think about Mazda RX-8?


..... Very tempted. It is a distinctive car with apparently quite good performance figures. If it handles as well as the 94 RX7 I drove, well ..... I do like the older 93-95 styling of the RX7 better - more attractively two place sports car like to my eye. I think that was an absolutely classic piece of automobile styling. Actually went shopping for an RX7, but over-heating (engine fires were not uncommon) and quality control problems of the first model year 93's scared me off. I ended up buying a 92 BMW M5.

BTW, Huck, to demonstrate that I am not a teutophobe (there's an interesting word), you might be interested to know that I have owned four BMW's and a Mercedes since 1969 compared to zero American cars.

Have a nice weekend.



Blutarski