Radial engines

they make small ones

...

its like you dont want power

im a big boi though

>waaaaaaaay too much rotating mass
the only thing rotating in it is the crank, just like any other piston engine

that engine weighs around 7000lb

Damn, I saw that thing in the car museum at Reno a few weeks back. Would be rough as shit if it ever had a misfire.

How much do you suppose those 9, 18 inch diameter cam rings weigh in that engine smart guy? How much worse is the spontaneous moment of inertia on a ring with an 18 plus inch diameter than a camshaft with a 2 inch diameter?

Stuff like this is so cool. I wish I knew of shows like this near me.

Didn't this thing make decent power for its size too? Something like 50bhp?

too much rotational force that makes it hard to turn & maneuver. . -- that's why they stopped using them in planes anyway. imagine trying to turn a giant gyroscope.

>They are the best form of combustion engine

No they are shit, get over it. A V8 engine had better power and milage of a radial in the fuking 40's. Nobody else made radials because they were not shit interim planes or tanks. It had to be supercharged to even make as much or greater power.

Boxer engines are just multiple 2-piston radials sharing a crank.

steam punk as hell

Put this in your Mazda, rotaryfags.

youtube.com/watch?v=atMn9s6m-j4

Radial engines are made for fucking boats and planes not cars.

Hell I've only ever seen them on things like tugboats in actual use in this day and age.

There is just no way to downsize it enough to make it practical for car compared to standard cylinder arrangements.

Spinning crankcase radials were an old thing. By WWII, it was pretty much all fixed crankcase radials.

No idea what possessed the first radial builders to ever try bolting the crankshaft down and letting the engine spin in the first place. Kind of like building a TV set with one dot and telling the viewers to shake their heads back and forth.

On top of everything that's been said, radials are also notorious for leaking oil because you have so much more to seal up compared to an inline or V engine.

>Had to be supercharged
No o2 at high altitude dingus

>No idea what possessed the first radial builders to ever try bolting the crankshaft down and letting the engine spin in the first place
Cooling.

a v8 does not make more power then a radial of the 40s, id like to see a v8 naturally aspirated make 2000hp

>that engine would be so heavy, that the horsepower produced wouldnt even be worth it

You think weight doesn't matter in planes?

>How come we have never seen a radial engine in a production car ?
Two reasons actually:

1) Engine height: Typical dimensions of radial engines would have to be very small to fit inside of a cars engine bay.
2) Maintenance: Doing any kind of head work would be a PITA in a typical car engine bay. Having to pull the engine or detach the front end of your car just to do the spark plugs would be a nightmare.

Radial engines were only a thing during the early 20th century and they only worked for prop planes, but even by WWII, it was clear that planes were moving towards banked cylinders making radial engines a thing of the past.

>being this wrong
You realize the fastest piston engined plane is a radial right?

"the best"

4 u

>Cooling

Until the invention of the fan.

why don't we use turboprop engines?

>1) Engine height: Typical dimensions of radial engines would have to be very small to fit inside of a cars engine bay.

Not that I think a rotary makes sense in a car but your thinking is too linear.

Can try mount it horizontally. Transfer power rearward with a hypoid or similar. Potentially having the gear box directly under neath for day cabin space or further rearward as traditional for weight spread. Width stays the same, height drops significantly and if it is small enough to fit between the strut towers in the first place then it may be a little long but not much more than your average 90° v8

You can have the sparks angled upwards towards the hood and depending on how far under the cowling it is then you could have something pretty easy to maintain or as frustrating as an LS1 4th gen.

Unfortunately you'd need to drop the engine to work on the rearward lifters unless there was some firewall access. Or even better figure out how to design the engine to be unbolted from its mounts and accessories and spun around still in he bay. Maybe electrical accessories as some auto makers do. Then it's just unbolting the top mounted intake manifolds and the exhausts.

How does that work?

It's a 5-cylinder radial. The "V" shaped things are pushrods to operate the valves. Each cylinder has two spark plugs (standard for aviation) and the black things along the bottom are plug coils.

The coils aren't wired up yet and the intake and exhaust isn't hooked up -- hence the two open ports at the top of each cylinder.

I understand that. Im just curious to how your going to be able to use the shaft coming off of the radial and use that to power the car.

Fabricate an adapter and make sure your gearing is suitable? Unless I'm missing something it'd be about the same as any other crazy engine swap.

If this was pulled off a plane it might well have had a gearing unit before the prop shaft so you could chose to use that or not to get closer to what your available transmission and final drive could work well with.

Ah ok that's pretty cool though. Seems like you sure got an interesting project on your hands.

heh, not my project m8. I'm not not that high energy, alas.

Could use sleeve valves

Fastest piston plane over long distance is a P-51C.

Regardless, speed isn't everything in a fighter plane and radials had a lot of drawbacks compared to banked engines (oil and fuel consumption, complexity, ease of maintenance, among others) that made the extra power not always worth it.

too big to fit, heavy rotating force, too loud, too old of a concept.

well you aren't going to put a massive cargo plane engine in a car, just as you wouldn't put a massive semi engine in a car.

a radial engine with similar displacement to a piston 'V' engine would have roughly the same rotating mass

retard