How effective would something like this be

Attached: 1521092043467.gif (360x287, 66K)

Other urls found in this thread:

get rid of the pistons and stick dildoes on there


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.

Attached: 1520476075102.jpg (640x560, 60K)

That looks stupidly inefficient

I wonder what kind of problem making a radial engine like that would be trying to solve.

I'm not an expert in any capacity but I thought it would have a smooth deliver and minimal NVH.

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

Attached: 3e8c470e753bb8ac57fdcc8b49df83fc.jpg (1200x744, 164K)

It would have horrible amount if rotational inertia meaning it would take alot of energy to get to high RPM creating an inefficiency

Airplanes in like, the 30s

For what reason?

>8 cylinder heads

>clacking intensifies

That would be a mechanical nightmare.

This. I was going to post propeller planes used circular blocks.

As a matter of fact, I remember a Bentley Jay Leno showed that used a plane engine.

but how is ops contraption any better than classic radial engine which did good job powering planes for last 100 years?

Attached: RadialEngine.gif (300x300, 982K)

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

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)

is that the cummins 12 valve? looks like it would weigh about the same

A weapon to surpass metal gear

>1.65L i6
That could make a very cool V12

Extremely effective.

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.

Attached: 20151007_102918-1.jpg (2909x1719, 3.24M)

>tfw no autozam to swap the 1.65 i6 in

I will swap one into a smart roadster one day. That also solves the autotragic trans issue

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.

Attached: allon.jpg (1024x694, 91K)

this only makes sense in a clipboard warrior's mind

Less a central shaft, more like 5 cranks going to one flywheel.

Attached: chryslertransmission.jpg (1024x689, 188K)