Attached: 1521092043467.gif (360x287, 66K)
How effective would something like this be
Hudson King
Other urls found in this thread:
Parker Ramirez
get rid of the pistons and stick dildoes on there
>OCTOFUCKER
Cooper Hall
Not very. You'd get a lot of mechanical waste energy, your engine would be very large and according to the animation you'd have very poor power delivery.
Gavin Davis
Samuel Morales
That looks stupidly inefficient
Nicholas Sanchez
I wonder what kind of problem making a radial engine like that would be trying to solve.
Robert Taylor
I'm not an expert in any capacity but I thought it would have a smooth deliver and minimal NVH.
Asher Parker
Not him but you will need oil scavenge pumps for the lower cylinders. That design is, although mechanically possible, not efficient in any way. The i6 is the engine of the gods as it can be scaled indefinitely. Currently in production is the 1.65L i6 in the k1600gt. Also in production is pic related with almost 11k liters of displacement
Evan Nelson
It would have horrible amount if rotational inertia meaning it would take alot of energy to get to high RPM creating an inefficiency
Blake Bennett
Airplanes in like, the 30s
Dominic Campbell
For what reason?
Asher Cox
>8 cylinder heads
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAA
Brody Jackson
>clacking intensifies
Charles Brooks
That would be a mechanical nightmare.
Isaiah Bennett
This. I was going to post propeller planes used circular blocks.
Thomas Thompson
As a matter of fact, I remember a Bentley Jay Leno showed that used a plane engine.
Eli Flores
but how is ops contraption any better than classic radial engine which did good job powering planes for last 100 years?
Austin Rogers
Because in the 30's engine design was a lot of throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks, sometimes you make an extremely inefficient radial that is super smooth, sometimes you use radial valves and make the most powerful inline engine ever fitted to a plane
Angel Barnes
1. You'll need one hell of a complicated mechanism for valve operation
2. You'll need a pressurized oiling system, complicating the engine even further (or just say fuck it and use a total-loss system like it's 1918, I guess)
Thomas Rodriguez
is that the cummins 12 valve? looks like it would weigh about the same
Caleb Wood
A weapon to surpass metal gear
Matthew Carter
>1.65L i6
That could make a very cool V12
Ethan Taylor
Extremely effective.
Landon Taylor
Curtis Wright was perfecting the r1820 up until the late 70s. The first variant barely produced 700hp.
The most popular post war variants, the -76D and -86, produce 1425hp with longer life. They were perfecting the -82WA on the C-1 Traders and S-2 trackers for he Navy right until the end, when Curtis Wright quit aircraft engines.
Kayden Brown
>tfw no autozam to swap the 1.65 i6 in
Parker Reyes
I will swap one into a smart roadster one day. That also solves the autotragic trans issue
Justin Brown
Chrysler built something sort of like this in the A57 multibank Sherman tank engine. It was five Chrysler 250.6 cu in I6 configured around a central shaft.
Levi Gutierrez
this only makes sense in a clipboard warrior's mind
Dylan Wilson
Less a central shaft, more like 5 cranks going to one flywheel.