Any Mechanically Minded here...Radial Engines question..

AdamW said:
you put the heaviest bits of an engine at the bottom, and the lightest bits at the top.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find most vehicle engines are top heavy ie the head(s) plus manifolds, cams etc weigh more than the block and crank. Hence the good handling of old Alphas (and Lancias ?) as their engines were rotated around the crank, lowering the top end height and therefore the centre of gravity.
 
Sponsored Links
Big_Spark wrote:
joe-90 wrote:


Don't put yourself down - it's better than your electrical knowledge.


joe


Joe, don't start with the insults, that is a two way street and I think it would be rather childish to degenerate yet another thread to this level...


Has anyone seen Big Sparks sense of humour? it appears to have gone AWOL.
Click to expand...

its called a lack of patience Joe. you are insistent on winding people up and you wonder why you get flac back. i wonder who will bet banned first. The people who make an active contribution to this forum, or those who wind the rest of us up.
and you wonder why people who know dont answer YOUR questions when you have a problem.. someone with the worldly knowledge like you shouldnt have to ask how to fix your car, a cleo if i remember rightly. :p

anyway Big_Sparks... sorry to hijack your thread.
 
Complexity? flat four is tried and tested in vehicles maybe development cost aswell as risk taking may be why no manufacturer has taken it on board? Remember the issues of reliability with NSU developed ****el engines and their inevitable failure after about 50K miles, although Mazda took on the rotary in the end, I'm not sure of the reliability of Radial in comparison maybe it is proven by the aviation use but it's still a risk for a road vehicle manufacturer to take on.
 
Sponsored Links
Sorry Ken, what type of rotary engine was that again? ;)
 
The crankshaft and a few ancillaries would .. turn.. :D :D :D
 
Any idea why radials always had an odd-number of cylinders?

Or why inline engines always have an even-number (apart from those rather uncommon 3- and 5-cylinder engines)?
 
dabaldie said:
Big_Spark wrote:
joe-90 wrote:


Don't put yourself down - it's better than your electrical knowledge.


joe


Joe, don't start with the insults, that is a two way street and I think it would be rather childish to degenerate yet another thread to this level...


Has anyone seen Big Sparks sense of humour? it appears to have gone AWOL.
Click to expand...

its called a lack of patience Joe. you are insistent on winding people up and you wonder why you get flac back. i wonder who will bet banned first. The people who make an active contribution to this forum, or those who wind the rest of us up.
and you wonder why people who know dont answer YOUR questions when you have a problem.. someone with the worldly knowledge like you shouldnt have to ask how to fix your car, a cleo if i remember rightly. :p

anyway Big_Sparks... sorry to hijack your thread.
Click to expand...


I was right. It was the switch contact.

joe
 
As Kendor mentioned above, surely the good old ****el Rotary is the better option, at least power to weight ratio! In fact I am sure there latest 1.3ltr produced over 200Bhp? anyone confirm this?
 
Ah, but it was 1300cc "equivalent", whatever that means.

****els burn oil like Iraqi soldiers in 1991 though.
 
Are things so bad on this forum that we are not aloud to mention ****el rotary engines anymore :rolleyes:
 
Big_Spark said:
We knew that a radial produces more BHP and Torque for a given engine size, which is why many of the fastest propeller aircraft had them installed..but their sheer size was an issue..
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this can hold true in all cases, because it ignores factors such as stroke versus bore, carburation, exhaust efficiency, squish design, volumetric efficiency at different engine speeds, and many many more.

Can you explain more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top