Are you a mind reader or something.

I have been pondering that exact setup and the issues you are asking about.

Actually my biggest issue is how to oil the lower valves properly...maybe some type of pressurized system?

 

Yeah oil would probably have to be pressurized to consantly flow at the same speed through the heads/valves. I guess a strong injetion and a vaccuum? I really dont know what I'm talking about, thats why I'm here.
So would this work or not?



Mike

 

wouldnt that be some kind of rotary engine?

 

EDIT: darn! I thought I had something new here, turns out there IS an actual x-engine


http://www.100megsfree4.com/dictionary/car-dicx.htm#X-typeEngine

 

I think this is the same as a radial engine commonly used in propeller air planes.

 

I think this is the same as a radial engine commonly used in propeller air planes.

other than the radial engines are usually all cylinders in a circular fashion, not depth-wise

 

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html

Scroll down to find the 30 cylinder Chrysler multibank engine. 5 6-cylinder engines joined together. Called the eggbeater.

tom

 

As far as oil and fule, old Radial aircraft engines solved those problems long ago. If you look at that type of engine you will see that it's flat, All the cylinders in one row and a circle. You'r problem is the Crankshaft. You'r going to have twice as many rods attached to the crank, so the crank either has to be twice as long, or similar to that of a radial engine. To make a crank like that for a X-16 would be very technical and expensive. If I'm not mistaken one aircraft maker tried an X-12 back in the 30's or 40's and it was just too much trouble, the V-12's (merlin,packard & Rolls) worked so much better and were easier to make, in the end the idea was dropped. Don't stop dreaming and thinking, that's where all new inventions come from. And don't get discoraged, you may be the one to solve those problems and make a X-16..:thumbup:

 

As far as oil and fule, old Radial aircraft engines solved those problems long ago. If you look at that type of engine you will see that it's flat, All the cylinders in one row and a circle. You'r problem is the Crankshaft. You'r going to have twice as many rods attached to the crank, so the crank either has to be twice as long, or similar to that of a radial engine. To make a crank like that for a X-16 would be very technical and expensive. If I'm not mistaken one aircraft maker tried an X-12 back in the 30's or 40's and it was just too much trouble, the V-12's (merlin,packard & Rolls) worked so much better and were easier to make, in the end the idea was dropped. Don't stop dreaming and thinking, that's where all new inventions come from. And don't get discoraged, you may be the one to solve those problems and make a X-16..:thumbup:

There are (were) many) twin row radial engines.Also, the x-type was intended for the Hawker Tempest (an imrovement of the Typhoon). The x-type was not successful.

tom

 

thats what I was thinking...radial engine...its basically been done. LOL no...its not a rotary

 

Yeah, I had a Rotary once, in a 74 Mazda RX4. What a screamer. It would blow the doors of of a 350 Monte Carlo, but only lasted about 40,000 miles. Still, just before it blew, I could wind it way past the 10,000 rpm mark on the tach without it complaining at all.
But I digress. Nightfire, you just keep thinking the way you are, and you might just come up with some revolutionary concept someday that wil make you RICH RICH RICH. Then you can build any hot rod you want!

 

to solve fuel and oil problems mount it up and down in the car, instead of front to back. so the crank is vertical not horizontal

 

Ever heard of the "K cycle" engine Nightfire?

You will need Adobe acrobat to view the above link.

Invented right here in Manitoba! I worked with some Tool and Die Makers who worked on the project, K&S Tool and Die (Wpg.) did most of the development machine work, too bad the researcher ran out of money and patience. The rear swashplate seal was a big technical hurdle that never got solved although the engine did run.

Didn't need a muffler either.

If your interested, the inventors wife donated the engine and sundries to the University of Manitoba when he passed away a few years ago, it's apparently on display at the Engineering complex. The inventor and yourself have a lot in common.

 

Radial engine

Doc here imp:

Yup...Been done afore!

The radial engine was popular in late 20's and early 1930's Style airplanes, and is extensively used today in bush type planes like the DeHaviland Beaver and some crop dusters , also aerobatic stunt planes like the Waco Bi~plane...

For instance the 16 cylinder Rolls Royce radial was a power pack on a gun platform..

Would create some awesome horsepower ... like around 1600... could power the plane at low altitude at Jet plane speed in a dive 350 + knot's...It had an inter-cooler mounted on the belly of the plane..a major drawback if you got nailed by flack or small arms fire from the ground...It used tons of oil...and had the oil tank mounted inside the cockpit on some of the early models.

Some of the drawbacks were... The airplane weight, somewhere around 15,000 lbs ramp weight wet (fuel and oil included) 90 % of that weight was pure engine mounted way forward of datum...or the balance point of the aircraft, making it a lead weighted dart without power...

Getting it to fuel to fire up (since you were fueling 16 cylinders)...then keeping it from fouling out on half of them while you were trying to start it...

The start system (before Electric start) used a canister fired shell , fired directly into the induction system, to get it to spin...(like a flare gun) so you could burn off the fuel you worked so hard to get into the cylinder's and carbon foul the induction system..

It only had a service ceiling of about 13.000 feet AGL, before the engine would cough and the ground would spiral up at you...(no turbo for breathing in thin air)

Oh..and did I mention...It burned 100 to 150 gallons an hour at normal cruise configuration...?

It also Shook the Airframe apart from Shear horsepower (add to that, 30 cal machine guns constantly hammering the airframe)...In WW2 They built airframes to last only about 250 flight hours before catastrophic failure (like cracked spars) would occur...the mind set there was it would get shot down before then...Fooled them...There are still some around today...

I had the PRIVILEGE of flying one for the CAF from JAL flight training center at Napa, to Hansford (Fresno Ca) about 15 years ago, Normally a 45 minute flight in a 6 or 8 Cylinder Continental normally aspirated engine like a Cessna 182....It did it in 17 minutes...and the exhaust Note coud be heard about half the distance away...It's like driving a top fueler of the airplane world..It can stress your body just like a dragster, snap your neck in hard rolls...it's just an awesome experience!!!

Today, there is a bone yard full of new crated Radial engines in Arizona that primarily get used for Movies, TV and Drones..(Vineyard Heaters)

Good engine, with few practical uses today!

Don't give up on your dreaming and inventing...Dude, No Doubt Someday you'll come up with an awesome new idea!!

Doc imp:

 

Yes, there is such an engine, but I cant really remember to much about it except seeing 4 spark plugs at 90 deg. ends of the engine. But then again it could have been some no name rotary engine.

 

Re: Radial engine

Doc here imp:

Yup...Been done afore!

The radial engine was popular in late 20's and early 1930's .

Hmmmmm, seems to me they were pretty popular in that thing in the 40's called WWII. Remember the P-47, the F4F, F6F, Corsair, B-17, B24, B29, TBF, SB2C, SBD, C-47 (DC-3), C-46, B25, B26, A20, A26, P-61, FW190, JU88, A6M2 (ZERO), OSCAR, GEORGE, JACK, BETTY, PEGGY, KATE, VAL, and a bunch of others I'm sure I"m forgetting. Pretty successful, that buch, and most of the post-war to the early 60's commercial airplanes. Also, the some versions of the Sherman tank and versions of the M3 were also powered by radial engines.

tom

 

I did a stint in the USAF as a reciprocating engine mechanic. The hardest thing for me was understanding the crankshaft of the 38 cylinder, in school. They were awesome engines.

Troy

 

Mike, you might find these links interesting. The last one has a LOT of engines listed. Pack a lunch.

http://www.zvezda.spb.ru/eng/m503a.htm
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/radial.htm

Troy, any of those big dudes look familiar?

Larry

 

Fiat or Lancia had a nice design back in the 80's with a 2-liter 16-valve engine. The radical change was mostly in the cylinder head. I think it was called an X-flow head (not cross-flow). Instead of having to two intake valves on one side and the exhaust valvles on the other side of the chamber they were "mixed" meaning the left front valve is intake and left rear is exhaust while right front is exhaust and right rear is intake. That made for the exhaust ports to exit both sides of the head. The intake ports were from the top centre of the head around the spark plug. It was said that this arrangement changed the heat distribution so that one side isn't hot (exhaust) while the other side was cooler (intake). It also made for an easy twin turbo setup giving the motor some ridiculous power output for it's size. I'll go and search for the article in my magazines and post some pics from it. I can then also give some more info on the motor.

 

Daimler Benz developed a W shaped engine in WWII. It involved mating 2 of the DB601 series of engines side-by-side. It was not successful partly because the center banks shared a common exhaust manifold that got way too hot. It was used in the Heinkel 177 bomber.

tom

 

Re: Re: Radial engine

OOPs next post please!

 

Re: Re: Radial engine

Hmmmmm, seems to me they were pretty popular in that thing in the 40's called WWII. Remember the P-47, the F4F, F6F, Corsair, B-17, B24, B29, TBF, SB2C, SBD, C-47 (DC-3), C-46, B25, B26, A20, A26, P-61, FW190, JU88, A6M2 (ZERO), OSCAR, GEORGE, JACK, BETTY, PEGGY, KATE, VAL, and a bunch of others I'm sure I"m forgetting. Pretty successful, that buch, and most of the post-war to the early 60's commercial airplanes. Also, the some versions of the Sherman tank and versions of the M3 were also powered by radial engines.

tom

Doc here imp:

Tom,

Ooops! skipped an IMPORTANT decade, didn't I?

Age I'll do that to ya...Selective endorphin misfires..."I think therefore I have head aches..."

The DC 3 is a twin radial workhorse that still exists within the industry TODAY...And will still be flying cargo until parts are no longer available ...

Oakland airport has a DC~3 That flys out of there daily a Charter, Called Sentimental Journeys. $400.00 a half hour flight... Plush cabin, Champagne Flight...And it is airborne Almost every day!

Here are a Couple of photos I Took of a Couple we dealt with at the maintenance Department At Japan Airlines..for private clients..

I know we are talking radials here..

but The 51 here, is worth mentioning...

This plane was brought to our Avionics department at Japan Airlines...to have a Transponder and altitude encoder installed when the rules changed to required equipment list in the OAK area...TERSA...about 15 years ago...

(They had to pay the freight for us flight Training division guy's someway...so the maintenance department did outside maintenance/Avionics work)

No small feat for the Guys...since the Instrument panel was made of Bulletproof material, not so easy to cut and file!

The stock Avionics Bay used to be in the back of the pilot in a rack for remote mounted Tube type Avionics .

(and darned Few of them! You'd be lucky for a Comm, A Nav with Vor head, and Maybe if you were lucky an ADF....A Real "needle, Speedal..and airball airplane!)

Since the advent of panel mount solid state radios, most of these (including this one ) were Stripped out and a "Jump-Seat" and extra Controls were installed For one very Small , Very cramped Passenger, as this one was...

This Airplane Belonged to the Son of COL "Pappy" Boyenton, (SP?) and I think is on the inventory list of the CAF even today...

The photo was taken in our JET hanger, where we stored it, Normally it would have gone to the GENAV side of the house, EXCEPT the prop WOULD NOT fit under the door...so the guys made a home for it in the jet hanger...

The other is 47 that belonged to the CAF and was tied down on our ramp for a few years while they searched for parts...

Sorry for the Polaroid's ... But they didn't have Digi's back 15 years ago...

Doc imp:

 

the hardest part for me to understand with radials was how the "cam" works... its realy two discs (for a one row radial) with the outer edge used to lift the vavle. however i think the radial engine is a beautiful design, got to love master rods and articulating rods... btw thats another weird thing about radials. the piston/s with the master rod are timed diffrent than the rest..... oh oh and lets not forget about the 4 row radial guys... oh and if you guys wanna see the ultimate allison v type engine look up a allison V-3420 engine, its 2 v-12 v-1710's together and made 2.600 hp, 24 cylinders, 4 mags, supercharged5.5 inch bore 6 inch stroke, 6.65 compreshion ratio, alluminum heads, forged pistons, forged steel fork and blade rods machined and shot blasted, alluminum case, 4 vavle per cylinder.... was one heck of a beast!