Radial engine bike by Jesse James

[HenryDorsetCase]

got my latest CW at the weekend and the cover bike is a thing called "Radial Hell" built by Jesse James.

a half scale radial aircraft engine stuffed into a bike frame.

very very cool indeed.

http://www.cycleworld.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_id=296

thats the link to the cover.

you might find the story inside, and it must be on the WCC site (I havent looked).

Jesse is the man!

[montsta56]

Awesome..... Geeez that engine looks heavy tho:rockon:

[Woody@nztrails.com]

Looks amazing, wonder what it sounds like!

I found some photos a few months ago of a chopper on a sturgis site that had the same type of radial engine but mounted in line with the frame - It looked even more wicked than this one..

I'll see if I can find them - saved on my hard drive at work somewhere!

[Thunder 8]

Pretty radical rides, bet they sound hard case. Heres another one.

[Geordie]

that radial things good, Im not far behind, look at whats going on in my shed in Albany??? ifvthe picture works.....

[Geordie]

quess what im building and ill give you a buiscut...check out the last one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Y8aLA7Qrg

[Thunder 8]

That cracked me up. Awesome .I need that back wheel on my Thunder8.
Youre new project ... wind powered bike??? looks hard case.
Cheers AJ

[Motu]

WTF?? Johnson Ironhorse barrels,on a radial crankcase? Are you going to reinvent the Megola?

[Steam]

The thing that makes me like Jesse is that he somehow married Sandra Bullock.
He's a dorky nerd on TV but every night he gets to go home to her.
Playing with machines in the day, and a multi millionaire babe at night...

[The Pastor]

that radial things good, Im not far behind, look at whats going on in my shed in Albany??? ifvthe picture works.....

go for it bro. Can ur red zeplin wheelie? If not make sure your new bike can. plz :)

[Fooman]

The thing that makes me like Jesse is that he somehow married Sandra Bullock.
He's a dorky nerd on TV but every night he gets to go home to her.
Playing with machines in the day, and a multi millionaire babe at night...

Ahhh, wait until you find out about his former wife, Janine Lindemulder.

Look her up at home, not at work...

Cheers,
FM

[avgas]

Cool.
i'd buy that chopper

[Geordie]

it spins the wheel in the gravelllllllllllllllllllll, checkout the road test - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Y8aLA7Qrg

[Wired1]

Pretty radical rides, bet they sound hard case. Heres another one.

Actually that's the same bike. I saw these pictures over a year ago so I'm not sure how this suddenly became a new bike but it is very cool, I'll bet it's got some wicked torque steering characteristics!

[HenryDorsetCase]

The thing that makes me like Jesse is that he somehow married Sandra Bullock.
He's a dorky nerd on TV but every night he gets to go home to her.
Playing with machines in the day, and a multi millionaire babe at night...

Uh, have you SEEN Jesse James: lots of descriptions I could think of but "dorky nerd" isnt one of them! He worked as security/bouncer for Slayer, fergawdsakes....

he is the real deal. got where he is through talent, and hard work. walked away from his TV show when it got to be a PITA... married three times: childhood sweetheart, porn actress, movie star.

I am a fan, not just because he was on TV, but in spite of that.

also that bike in the metal is definitely the same bike, pre painting looks like. according to that article, he put 2000 hours into it, which is a LOT of hours.

there are radial engine bikes too with the crankshaft across the frame, check out JRL cycles on the kneeslider.com (http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/17/radial-engine-motorcycle-by-jrl-cycles/)



here is the story that the "in the metal" photo above is posted on:



kneeslider.com story (http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/10/radial-engine-powered-motorcycle/)

[Wired1]

Here's the same bike - featured in the latest Heavy Duty Magazine.
I'd love to see how it rides!

[slowpoke]

Bikes with no rear suspension are "cool"...(tui ad)

[Animal]

Disclaimer: Don't fry me if this is a repost!

I like it!

[Boob Johnson]

No disclaimer needed, that should be posted once a week at least :Punk::laugh:

Heres another one similar. But your one is the shit!!! What a fantastic piece of art work :rockon:

[Toaster]

Yep, seen it featured in magazines. Bizarre, very bizarre!

[BIGBOSSMAN]

It's one of these - a radial aircraft engine.
That's quite cool. Actually looks very fucking sexy if you look at it for a while :yes:

[ManDownUnder]

I'd like to know more about the torque reaction in the first one. Twist of throttle and HIGHSIDE TO THE LEFT!!!!!

[Boob Johnson]

I'd like to know more about the torque reaction in the first one. Twist of throttle and HIGHSIDE TO THE LEFT!!!!!Good point. Just like a stationary V8, give it a tickle & the car lurches to the left (love that :Punk:)

[Animal]

Being an ex-aircraft engineer, those things make my spine tingle. Combine that with a bike... well, just orgasmic!

[Roj]

Looks very impressive, would have been more so it it was truly rideable

[Animal]

It's one of these - a radial aircraft engine.
That's quite cool. Actually looks very fucking sexy if you look at it for a while :yes:

Pratt & Whitney, Wright and Franklin were the leading manufacturers of radial engines, although P&W seem to be unfairly credited for every radial engine in existence. Here's something to Google if you want to see am impressive radial: Pratt & Whitney's R-4360. The R denotes radial, the number is the capacity in cubic inches. Anyway, this beast has four banks of nine cylinders... now that's sexy!

[Animal]

Looks very impressive, would have been more so it it was truly rideable

I dunno if I would ride it. I'd just park it in my lounge and start it up a few times a day! Sad, huh?

[degrom]

Pratt & Whitney, Wright and Franklin were the leading manufacturers of radial engines, although P&W seem to be unfairly credited for every radial engine in existence. Here's something to Google if you want to see am impressive radial: Pratt & Whitney's R-4360. The R denotes radial, the number is the capacity in cubic inches. Anyway, this beast has four banks of nine cylinders... now that's sexy!

Wow.. Put a R-4360 in bike!!!!

TECHNICAL NOTES:
Model: R-4360-4
Type: 28-cylinder, four row, air-cooled radial
Displacement: 4,360 cu. in.
Weight: 3,404 lbs.
Maximum rpm: 2,700
Maximum hp: 3,500

[degrom]

No disclaimer needed, that should be posted once a week at least :Punk::laugh:

Heres another one similar. But your one is the shit!!! What a fantastic piece of art work :rockon:

Your won't need brakes if you install it the right way round... LOL

[degrom]

Pratt & Whitney, Wright and Franklin were the leading manufacturers of radial engines, although P&W seem to be unfairly credited for every radial engine in existence. Here's something to Google if you want to see am impressive radial: Pratt & Whitney's R-4360. The R denotes radial, the number is the capacity in cubic inches. Anyway, this beast has four banks of nine cylinders... now that's sexy!

Here's a picture of the monster!!!

[Animal]

Wow.. Put a R-4360 in bike!!!!

TECHNICAL NOTES:
Model: R-4360-4
Type: 28-cylinder, four row, air-cooled radial
Displacement: 4,360 cu. in.
Weight: 3,404 lbs.
Maximum rpm: 2,700
Maximum hp: 3,500

Hell yes! Can you imagine the torque on that monster just at idle? But the sound of all those cylinders... hmmm.

[James Deuce]

Radial Engine

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=46357&highlight=radial+engine

[degrom]

Hell yes! Can you imagine the torque on that monster just at idle? But the sound of all those cylinders... hmmm.

I think that will be the biggest thing we will miss with the up and coming electric vehicle era. Electric bikes might be fast,but they will need a few sub-woofers to make then sound as nice!!!

[SPman]

Wow.. Put a R-4360 in bike!!!!

TECHNICAL NOTES:

Weight: 3,404 lbs.

Hmmm....bit of a problem right there..........

[Animal]

I'm personally going to find it emotionally challenging when it comes to trading in my Honda on a Fisher & Paykel! :lol: Any colour as long as it's Appliance White, I suspect?

Progress... yeah, right!

[delusionz]

Nice. Now I've seen Jet turbine & radial on 2 wheels. I wish Mazda made bikes I think that would strike a better impressive/practical balance

[nudemetalz]

Well, some of our bikes already have that sideways torque reaction.
Once you get used to it, it's not a problem. However I believe the Guzzi would be nothing like that 9 cylinder radial, or that scary thought of an R-4360 in a bike.

Getting back to what CADanimal said about P&W getting credited with every radial.
Wright tried to make an equivalent hp with a twin-row 18 cylinder R-3350. They used turbo-superchargers and the engine was notoriously unreliable.

[Pancakes]

Delusionz

Never heard of the famous rotary bike? Isle of Man winner or just made well know there?

I'd have this electric bike www.killacycle.com

[Pancakes]

http://www.motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/classic_bikes/steve_hislop_norton.html

[James Deuce]

Rotaries and Radials are UTTERLY different concepts.

Rotaries have a "piston" that is shaped like a triangle with convex sides that spins around in a circular combustion "chamber" on a central bearing. Mazda's latest rotary has the ports on the side of the chamber allowing for better exhaust scavenging, better sealing and higher compression for a much higher power output.

Radials have multiple cylinders at 90 degrees to the crank, just like a "normal" engine but those cylinders radiate out from the crank rather than being in just one or two planes, hence the term radial.

The "best" radial engine in terms of specific output were Bristol's sleeve valved offerings, in particular the Centaurus.

[imdying]

Rotaries and Radials are UTTERLY different concepts.

He knows, he was jsut carrying on delusionz statement.... Radial powered bike, jet powered bike.... rotary powered bike being the next step in cool engines to power bikes with :yes:

[Pancakes]

Rotaries and Radials are UTTERLY different concepts.

Yep, well aware but thanks

[rwh]

Rotaries and Radials are UTTERLY different concepts.

Rotaries have a "piston" that is shaped like a triangle with convex sides that spins around in a circular combustion "chamber" on a central bearing. Mazda's latest rotary has the ports on the side of the chamber allowing for better exhaust scavenging, better sealing and higher compression for a much higher power output.

Radials have multiple cylinders at 90 degrees to the crank, just like a "normal" engine but those cylinders radiate out from the crank rather than being in just one or two planes, hence the term radial.

The "best" radial engine in terms of specific output were Bristol's sleeve valved offerings, in particular the Centaurus.


Of course, you can have a rotary radial as well - a radial which spins around leaving the crank stationary. Ok perhaps in a plane, but I think probably about the least practical option for a bike ...

I think the Spitfire (not the Triumph one) had one of those?

Richard

[imdying]

Naw Spitfire just had a regular (lol, regular and Merlin together) engine, but I do remember the type you're thinking of :yes:

[Animal]

Well, some of our bikes already have that sideways torque reaction... I've only ridden a Guzzi once, and the longitudinal torque was a frightening experience for me, a novice rider at the time. However, still not as scary as Kawasaki's Z1300 when closing the throttle in the lower gears. The torque through the driveshaft would cause the heavy bastards to very suddenly lift their fat arses high up. Scared me shitless!

I saw those Wright radials on a Super Constellation (interesting aircraft in it own right). The exhaust pipes all merged into a fat cylinder with a turbine wheel centred in it, and coupled directly to the back of the crankshaft. The Wright manuals termed the system Turbo-Compound for reasons known only to themselves. Interestingly, the Wright's reduction gearbox spun the prop in the opposite direction to the crackshaft, which was meant to counterract the torque. I can't say whether it was a success or not.

[Pancakes]

Awesome tractable power and great economy would be a small turbine creating current to feed an electric motor. I doubt it would weigh more than a conventional engine of the same power and would be compact. Max power available on demand at any speed and low fuel use when cruising.

[terbang]

The plot even thickens a bit more. Early Rotary (http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html) engines fitted to WW1 vintge aircraft, had the cylinders mounted in a radial fashion around a common crank. The crank was fixed to the aircraft and the prop was fixed to the crankcase! The cylinders, crankcase and the prop were all one spinning assembly.
The Radial (http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/pr-2800.htm) engines that came later were similar in construction but the cylinder assembly was fixed to the aircraft and the prop was connected to the crank. And the other kind or Rotary that we know from the Mazda or Norton is called a Wankel (http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html) engine (I know what you just thought).

I think that the engine fitted to the bike this thread refers to is a Rotec engine, made in Aussie, of fairly modern build with only about 110HP.

[James Deuce]

Gnome Rhone rotaries were WWI era engines and used total loss lubrication, hence the REAL reason why pilots wore scarves. It was to wipe off all that Castor oil that was flung off. Fokker DR1 and Sopwith Camel both used rotaries and turned better to the left than the right thanks to the gyroscopic forces involved.

The pilots also used to get the shits from all the Castor Oil they drank, and is often the reason why so many of them were invalided out of the front from time to time. Probably explains why they were all so skinny and looked like death warmed up.

[Animal]

Of course, you can have a rotary radial as well - a radial which spins around leaving the crank stationary. Ok perhaps in a plane, but I think probably about the least practical option for a bike ...

I think the Spitfire (not the Triumph one) had one of those?

Richard

Nah, Spitfires and Hurricanes had V-12 Merlins... hmmm. Later Spitfires had Griffons, same configuation, insane power!

I'm under correction here, but the best-known rotating radial was the La Rhone. The back end of the crank was indeed bolted onto the fuselage and the engine and prop spun about in unison. That was a pretty early design though, pre-WW1. Don't know how robust they were but they'd never overheat!

One of the more interesting British aircraft engines was the Napier Sabre. Four banks of horizontally-opposed cylinders driving two crankshafts geared onto each other. Unreliable as hell, but immense power output. They were used in the Hawker Typhoons, among other things.

[Animal]

Buggerit, I'm two steps behind Jim2 and Terbang on replies...

[nudemetalz]

I saw those Wright radials on a Super Constellation (interesting aircraft in it own right). The exhaust pipes all merged into a fat cylinder with a turbine wheel centred in it, and coupled directly to the back of the crankshaft. The Wright manuals termed the system Turbo-Compound for reasons known only to themselves. Interestingly, the Wright's reduction gearbox spun the prop in the opposite direction to the crackshaft, which was meant to counterract the torque. I can't say whether it was a success or not.

The Connie's used to have constant engine problems with the Wrights.
However, with the jet-airliner (707) age already knocking on the door, the radials were on their way out, anyway.
Basically (I mean very basically) you could get the same hp's for about a third of the engine weight. Add a propeller (turbo-prop) and bye-byes piston engines.

[Paul in NZ]

When I was young (er) I owned a WW2 Daimler Dingo Armoured car (was more a reco vehicle than a fighting vehicle) that was technically a magnet to me... Fluid flywheel, 5 speed preselector g/box, 4WD, 5 forward and 5 rev gears...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Dingo

Tres Cool BUT through owning this - I was offered a 'Honey' tank which was really a Stuart M3 (The brits called them Honeys for some daft reason - not particularly scary like Tiger or Panther was it... Mein Gott Herman - are those Honeys I see <collapses into histerical german laughter>)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_tank

Anyway - it had a radial air cooled engine that was started by a black powder charge like a shotgun cartridge - fabulous thing... The deal fell through when we could not come up with a viable place to keep it - Dad was not too keen on it being parked at our place ... RATS!

Later ones had twin flathead V8's (seen one o dem too) which is bloody cool but nothing on a genuine radial engine...

The price??? $375.... Far out...

Paul N

[Paul in NZ]

Oh - the Dingo cost $325 and i sold it for $350.... Woo Hoo... Did 9mpg on the open road and 4mpg off road.. fark!

[terbang]

Thats it, turboprops replaced pistons with lighter, more eficient and easier to operate installations. However jets (Mmmmmm) changed the way we built aircraft and flew them offering much more speed (Mmm again) and much higher altitudes.

[MotoKuzzi]

What aeroplane did the R-4360 originally power?

[nudemetalz]

6 of them powered the monstrous Convair B-36 and also 4 of them on the B377 Stratocruiser airliner.
Here's some good info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-4360

[Conquiztador]

Disclaimer: Don't fry me if this is a repost!

I like it!

No frying. Stuff like that needs to be posted and re-posted. Here the link again:

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/10/radial-engine-powered-motorcycle/

[nudemetalz]

I just LOVE radial engines....check these out

Awesome model radial engine:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1rjRmTV9qE

Real thing:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ChXmMiXjY

mmmmm......

[nudemetalz]

.........and ain't it weird to see a tank powered by a radial !!!

The early model Shermans were, but later were converted to Ford V8's, Caterpillar diesels, and GM diesels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLL5hxkl58

[pete376403]

The Sherman (?) engine was a Chrysler bitza - five x six cylinder flathead blocks on a common crankcase. I believe that was the origin of the Pentastar as the Chrylser insignia http://shopswarf.orcon.net.nz/chrypen.html

and heres a link to the building of the radials for the B29 bomber. Designed by Wright, but built by Chrysler -
http://allpar.com/history/military/b-29.html

[kevfromcoro]

Didnt Sukuki bring out a rotatary in the early 80s.seem to remember something out that..
Never really got of the ground.

[pete376403]

Didnt Sukuki bring out a rotatary in the early 80s.seem to remember something out that..
Never really got of the ground.

Search google for suzuki re-5

[Animal]

I read the September issue of the Aeroplane magazine at a mate's house last night. It featured a two-page spread on the Bristol Centaurus Sleeve Valve radial engine - with the clearest illustrations I've seen on the engine. I'd only ever seen a sleeve valve engine once, but never taken a spanner to one. Part of my apprenticship curriculum involved radials (Pratt & Whitney R-985s, R-1340s, R1830s, R-2000s and R2800s) but the sleeve valve concept always interested me. The principle is simple: A floating steel sleeve fits inside the cylinder around the piston. The sleeve has a number of shaped holes machined into it which correspond with the inlet and exhaust ports of the cylinder, and is moved about through a geared crank mechanism. It operated on a four-stroke cycle, matching the hole with the inlet port on the intake stroke, closing off the ports through the compression and power strokes, and matching up the hole and port on the exhaust stroke. No rockers, pushrods, valves, springs, buckets, shims... clever, simple but for some reason, never as prolific as they should've been. P&W tried to get their own sleeve valve design to work, gave up, and continued building tens of thousands of rocker valve radials. Bristol could never match the volumes that P&W were producing and faded into obscurity. Worth Googling.

[Animal]

The Sherman (?) engine was a Chrysler bitza - five x six cylinder flathead blocks on a common crankcase. I believe that was the origin of the Pentastar as the Chrylser insignia http://shopswarf.orcon.net.nz/chrypen.html

and heres a link to the building of the radials for the B29 bomber. Designed by Wright, but built by Chrysler -
http://allpar.com/history/military/b-29.html

Excellent post! I loved the 20-cylinder concept.

[Bass]

What aeroplane did the R-4360 originally power?

I have this idea lurking in the back of my tiny mind, that the 4360 was linked in some way with Howard Hughes' Hercules - the Spruce Goose as she was known. I think that the 4360 was developed for the Spruce Goose (a term which Hughes detested) and after it's failure went on to power several transport aircraft for decades (e.g. the Globemaster), but don't quote me. I had also heard that the operating range of aircraft using this engine was limited by their oil consumption rather than fuel capacity.

I do know that this motor (knicknamed " the corncob") was retrofitted to a few WW 2 fighters for racing at Reno because they could extract about 3000 hp from it at relatively modest boost numbers. This meant it was more reliable than the competing motors for similar output.

As for sleeve valve motors, they were not limited to aircraft. The occasional car sported one and the pre-war Willys Knight was notable. It was called the "silent knight" because of the motor's quiet operation, but it didn't last long, mostly I think because they were so much more expensive to make. This may have had something to do with it's demise in aircraft use, but I think it more likely that they were displaced by jets.

[Animal]

I don't know if P&W developed the Corncob specifically for Hughes, but he certainly had the financial muscle to make it happen if this was the case. The eight R-4360s would've sounded really, really good together. I had an instructor during my apprenticship that had worked on Globemasters. His memory of the engines was perhaps a little less pleasant. I vaguely recall him mentioning overheating and oil consumption as the engine's biggest failings. In my experience of Pratt radials, when they stopped leaking oil it meant that the sump had run dry and it was time to top it up again!

I remember reading a very detailed book about the Vaught Super Corsair (designated F2G), which had the R-4360s fitted. The Goodyear company produced an impressive number of these under licence towards the end of the war but sadly not a lot remain, other than in museums and the few racing in the Unlimited class at Reno and other hotrod aircraft events.

[Bass]

I don't know if P&W developed the Corncob specifically for Hughes, but he certainly had the financial muscle to make it happen if this was the case.

You may well be quite right. I am unsure of the exact nature of the link and it may be that Hughes took advantage of their advent to design the Hercules.

Also, I had no idea that the 4360 went into Corsairs other than as a special for racing. Thanks for that.

I just worked out that 8 x R-4360 is 224 cylinders all beating together and 572 litres of swept displacement. You are so right. That would have to sound just awesome

[nudemetalz]

With the sleeve-valve radials...we had them here a wee way back in NZ's aviation history, them being Bristol Hercules radials on our Safe-Air Bristol Freighters. Also the RNZAF used them back in the '50s.
They were such a big old brute of an aircraft with bugger all speed, but sounded awesome as they tried to climb with a full load.

Here's also a sound file of 2 starting up, running, and then shutting down.
http://www.enginehistory.org/Sounds/Nord/Hercules.mp3

[Pancakes]

Man you guys know tons about these old engines! I got lost out the back of Ngaruawahia one day and ended up having the best talk with this old guy about steam engines and types of valves, he had heaps of huges ass trains in the shed and kilometers of track that ended up who knows where! I even went back the next day to look and talk more!

What other valve types and variations do you guys know about?
Poppet.
Disc.
Cylinder.
What else?

[sAsLEX]

What other valve types and variations do you guys know about?
Poppet.
Disc.
Cylinder.
What else?

By cylinder you mean rotary valves?

[nudemetalz]

If you're talking about two-stroke induction, then rotary and disc valves are one and the same thing.

[sAsLEX]

If you're talking about two-stroke induction, then rotary and disc valves are one and the same thing.

These http://www.coatesengine.com/index.html

IS what I meant http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=53208&highlight=rotary+valve&page=3

[Bass]

If you're talking about two-stroke induction, then rotary and disc valves are one and the same thing.

Almost.....
I have raced miniature 2 strokes with other types of rotary valve induction. There are drum valves and a variant of them using a hollow crankshaft

[Bass]

Safe-Air Bristol Freighters. They were such a big old brute of an aircraft with bugger all speed, but sounded awesome as they tried to climb with a full load.



50,000 rivets flying in formation - the plane with the built-in head wind

Huge clouds of smoke at start up

Shit! I'm showing my age

[rudolph]

Mounting a large radial engine in transverse in a bike may make the bike want to roll over every time you hit the trottle, hahahaha:gob:

[nudemetalz]

These http://www.coatesengine.com/index.html

IS what I meant http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=53208&highlight=rotary+valve&page=3

Ah, yes I've seen that before. Point taken.

[Pancakes]

Yeah! Like those Coates ones but I've only seen ones that were all in the same cylinder, like the intake cam and exhaust cam are now the valves and seals too.

[Animal]

Hi sAsLEX, bloody good to see you're still with us! Have you made your c*****x yet?

The Coates system is certainly very clever! I was toying around with a similar concept a few years ago but gave up because it was going to be too expensive to manufacture a prototype. Does that sound familiar?

[Animal]

Man you guys know tons about these old engines!

Which makes it impossible to hide our age!:o

[James Deuce]

With the sleeve-valve radials...we had them here a wee way back in NZ's aviation history, them being Bristol Hercules radials on our Safe-Air Bristol Freighters. Also the RNZAF used them back in the '50s.
They were such a big old brute of an aircraft with bugger all speed, but sounded awesome as they tried to climb with a full load.

Here's also a sound file of 2 starting up, running, and then shutting down.
http://www.enginehistory.org/Sounds/Nord/Hercules.mp3

Bristol Freighters were still in service in the mid-70s. They were replaced with BAe Andovers.

[Sully60]

Good point. Just like a stationary V8, give it a tickle & the car lurches to the left (love that :Punk:)

I don't know if anyone elese has posted this, but the longitudinal engine bike was featured in the Cycleworld mag from the states and the engineers involved commented that the torque reaction was surpisingly minimal. The sound would be very cool too but bugger trying to set up the cam timing!

[terbang]

Only the poms would get involved with THIS (http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/TS3.htm) sort of thing. I remember seeing one in a Commer truck when I was an apprentice in the mid 70's. Sounded very impressive for a 2 stroke(wheres Ixion?).

[James Deuce]

Only the poms would get involved with THIS (http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/TS3.htm) sort of thing. I remember seeing one in a Commer truck when I was an apprentice in the mid 70's. Sounded very impressive for a 2 stroke(wheres Ixion?).
Motu posted a thread up about tis engine along with an animated gif of it running. I'll try to find it.

[Bass]

Only the poms would get involved with THIS (http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/TS3.htm) sort of thing. I remember seeing one in a Commer truck when I was an apprentice in the mid 70's. Sounded very impressive for a 2 stroke(wheres Ixion?).

I believe that most big marine diesels are 2 strokes - exhaust valves in the heads and inlet ports around the bottom of the cylinders.
I remember having a look around the engine room of the Aotea, a medium size container ship. She had a straight 6 Mitsubishi.
The engine was 3 stories high, the sump plug was a full height door. There was an exhaust valve chained to the top catwalk beside the rocker arms. It was twice as tall as me.
The turbo chargers were about a meter in diameter, produced about 80 psi and the inlet manifold was a registered pressure vessel.
It took about 6 hours to blow up the air tanks to do a cold start. However, once she was warmed up, to go astern, they stopped the engine and restarted it in the opposite direction.
Each cylinder had a separate head and they could do a valve job with the engine running.
At least, that's how I remember it, but I don't really trust my memory any more.

[Bass]

The sound would be very cool too but bugger trying to set up the cam timing!

The cam timing on a radial is actually not too bad, once you've figured out how they work. Even seeing the motor off our Wilga in bits, it took me a while.
The cams are actually rings (usually one inlet and one exhaust) which are driven off the crankshaft by an epicyclic gearbox because they rotate much slower than for a conventional layout where the cam runs at half crank speed.
Each ring has a number of lobes, (actually the lobe number is half the number of cylinders minus one), so that e.g. a 9 cylinder radial cam has 4 lobes.
The firing order for the same example is 1,3,5,7,9,2,4,6,8. In effect it fires 5 cylinders on the first crank rotation and the remaing 4 on the second. The firing pulses are evenly spaced cos it actually takes slightly more than one rotation to fire the first 5 and slightly less to fire the last 4.

Each cam lobe moves 1 cylinder per rotation, so for a 9 cylinder engine, the cam runs at 1/9 of crank speed.

Consequently, they are always gear driven and aligning the timing marks is pretty straightforward.

[Animal]

Only the poms would get involved with THIS (http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/TS3.htm) sort of thing...

Bloody hell, that's just terrifying! And no doubt after they recognised the pointlessness of that design, the went to work on the prototype BAe 146. :weird:

[Animal]

Motu posted a thread up about tis engine along with an animated gif of it running. I'll try to find it.

Please do!:yes:

[Animal]

I finally found a legible illustration of a Napier Sabre sleeve valve - sorry about the delay!

Two horizontally-opposed 12-cylinder engines sitting on top of each other with geared counter-rotating crankshafts and sleeve valve induction and exhaust control, centrifugal supercharger... that's a helluva lot of moving parts!

[Bass]

That is just so cool, a sleeve valve, supercharged H24.

I remember years ago that BRM made a 1.5 litre (I think) H16 that absolutely screamed and went like a cut cat but was a bit of a hand grenade.

[rwh]

That is just so cool, a sleeve valve, supercharged H24.

I remember years ago that BRM made a 1.5 litre (I think) H16 that absolutely screamed and went like a cut cat but was a bit of a hand grenade.

I think the BRM I heard of was a V16: 2 V8s end to end.

[edit: ok, both v16 and H16 engines existed, but the H16 seems to have been a 3 litre.]

Richard

[terbang]

Bloody hell, that's just terrifying! And no doubt after they recognised the pointlessness of that design, the went to work on the prototype BAe 146. :weird:

The 146..! Built by the confused to be flown by the perplexed, I flew em for 7 years. Flew the 507 powered Avro RJ a bit later on which was what the 146 should have been, a shame it came too late to save the project. 4 engines is good, 5 APU's is not so good.

[pete376403]

Best Engine Ever - Napier Deltic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_engine
Almost like three Commer TS-3s arranged in a triangle.
Other variants on the opposed piston theme - Junkers Jumo bomber engines - possibly the first diesel powered aircraft

Even better animation of the deltic (3d, rotating) go here http://www.wis.co.uk/justin/deltic-engine.html

[Sully60]

The cam timing on a radial is actually not too bad, once you've figured out how they work. Even seeing the motor off our Wilga in bits, it took me a while.
The cams are actually rings (usually one inlet and one exhaust) which are driven off the crankshaft by an epicyclic gearbox because they rotate much slower than for a conventional layout where the cam runs at half crank speed.
Each ring has a number of lobes, (actually the lobe number is half the number of cylinders minus one), so that e.g. a 9 cylinder radial cam has 4 lobes.
The firing order for the same example is 1,3,5,7,9,2,4,6,8. In effect it fires 5 cylinders on the first crank rotation and the remaing 4 on the second. The firing pulses are evenly spaced cos it actually takes slightly more than one rotation to fire the first 5 and slightly less to fire the last 4.

Each cam lobe moves 1 cylinder per rotation, so for a 9 cylinder engine, the cam runs at 1/9 of crank speed.

Consequently, they are always gear driven and aligning the timing marks is pretty straightforward.

Thanks Bass
I thought they must employ a system like this as 18 camshafts/lobes per bank would be very complicated especially on a 28 cylinder radial.

[Animal]

...4 engines is good, 5 APU's is not so good.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I worked on the 502 (under)powered version for Ansett NZ for a few years - diabolical pieces of apparatus! I've maintained a helluva broad range of aircraft all over the world but that was the only one that seemed to be pre-corroded by the factory before being assembled and sent off to unsuspecting purchasers.

[Bass]

I finally found a legible illustration of a Napier Sabre sleeve valve


Help me here please.
I remember years ago when visiting the Queenstown motor museum, finding a large H configuration motor on display, that had been used to power a tank. I cannot be sure, but I believe it was an aero engine and have this vague idea that it was a Sabre.
Do you know anything about this?

[Bass]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I worked on the 502 (under)powered version for Ansett NZ for a few years - diabolical pieces of apparatus! I've maintained a helluva broad range of aircraft all over the world but that was the only one that seemed to be pre-corroded by the factory before being assembled sent off to unsuspecting purchasers.

Was that the Whimperjet?

[Animal]

Hi Bass, I haven't been to that museum myself, but I'll certainly see what I can find out. The Airforce museum here in Ch'ch has a Sabre and some other excellent exhibits if you're even in this part of the Mainland.

[Animal]

Was that the Whimperjet?

It was indeed! I hated the bloody things. They certainly top my list of the crappiest aircraft I'd ever worked on!

[nudemetalz]

What was so bad about the '146s ?

[Animal]

What was so bad about the '146s ?

The list is long, but I'll point out the most common criticisms of the breed...

They were severely underpowered. The Alison 502 engines in them were an adaptation of a turboshaft helicopter engine, converted by essentially adding a fan on the front of the compressor. Their operational tolerances were very tight, and tweaking them to stay within the parameters of the performance chart was a challenge. It didn't take much of a shift on the performance curve to fail the minimum requirements.

They featured some very old technology, which first appeared in several early British military aircraft such as Buccaneers and Canberras. The pitch control was aided by one such system, which was primitive and unbelievably Heath Robinson in it's design and application. I'll dig out some diagrams which will better explain this because it would take me hours to do so in words alone.

They had a well-deserved reputation for terrible corrosion, and operating them on short hops to sea-level airports (like those in NZ!) accelerated the rate of deterioration. We spent thousands and thousands of man-hours on corrosion management and repairs alone, making them an expensive machine to maintain.

BAe rejected the use of any universal aircraft hardware (such as AN and Mil-Spec), which meant even chuckaway items like screws and bolts had to be purchased from BAe themselves. Having a monopoly on the supply of parts meant they could charge anything they liked - and certainly did! Also, if they were out of stock on a particular part, calling up Boeing, Bombardier, Learjet, Airbus or McDonnell for an AN bolt or washer wasn't a legitimate option. Grounding a 146 while waiting for a handful of proprietory screws wasn't unusual.

The modified chopper engines had no reverse thrust capability, so braking was done through wheel brakes and those huge clam-shell air brakes on the arse. Flying into short strips like Queenstown meant generous applications of braking, so for an aircraft of the 146's size, the consumption of tyres and brake assemblies was right out of proportion. I seemed to be forever changing brakes on the bloody things.

For a 146 pilot's viewpoint, Terbang will have to be approached for his opinion.

I'll have a fossick through my library of course notes and other shit tonight, which will no doubt jog my memory on all the other things I disliked about them. They were fragile, temperamental, finickity machines, and certainly weren't a pleasure to work on.

[nudemetalz]

Fascinating stuff, CADa. Thanks :sunny:
I always wondered why a jet like that didn't have reversers on it.

They didn't last that long in service (compared to the 732 and 733/734's).

I wonder wehat influenced Air NZ and Qantas to buy them in the first place.
Rock-bottom price ?

[Bass]

Sounds like BAe was a branch of BMC

[nudemetalz]

Sounds like BAe was a branch of BMC

:laugh: Love it !!!!

[Bass]

:laugh: Love it !!!!

We aim to please

[Animal]

I wonder wehat influenced Air NZ and Qantas to buy them in the first place.
Rock-bottom price ?

Who would know! A really bad poker hand perhaps?

Ansett NZ originally had three of the oldest 737-200s in the world when they started out as Newmans Air, a rather long time ago. They also had De Havilland Dash 7s. I'm admittedly very uncertain about the airline's corporate origins, but when News Corporation bought Ansett Australia, Ansett NZ was somehow part of the deal. I think because Ansett Australia had been lumbered with 146s, the NZ operation was obliged to share the punishment and a whole lot more were leased and sent over here. Surprisingly, the only significant business elements we shared with our Ansett Australia counterparts was the inventory pool in Melbourne and the branding.

When AirNZ and Qantas were desperately trying to get government / commerce commission support for their Open Skies agreement, it was resoundingly rejected. Around this time, Ansett Australia was in a whole world of shit thanks to Virgin's entry into their domestic market. The Australian government came up with a cunning plan: If AirNZ bought Ansett Australia from Murdoch / News Corporation, the Open Skies deal would be approved. AirNZ bought Ansett Australia and all of it's significant debt, which almost caused AirNZ to collapse. Then the Australians reneged on the deal and opposed the Open Skies idea. As usual, NZ was bent over and... well, you know. Our tax money and Queen Helen bailed AirNZ out, but Ansett Australia was history. A point to note here is that the NZ taxpayer also footed the redundancy bill for the entire Ansett Australia staff.

Ansett NZ was bought from News by a gang of NZ businessmen, and renamed Tasman Pacific Airlines of NZ. A deal was then struck where we would fly under Qantas branding, hence the appearance of 146s and Dash 8s with white kangaroos on their red arse-parts. Only a few months later, Qantas NZ fell over and went into receivership, and since AirNZ was legally the leaseholders of the fleet through their original acquisition, the 146s were suddenly AirNZ's problem. The aircraft were very quickly repainted into AirNZ livery and operated as the Mount Cook fleet.

As the leases expired, the 146s were progressively returned to the leasing company and disappeared from NZ's skies forever. Back to my earlier point, the NZ taxpayer did not foot the redundancy bill for Kiwis who lost their jobs, but Ansett NZ wasn't the National Airline. After Tasman Pacific's few unsold assets were liquidated, the staff got very little of what they were owed. (And yes, I'm still extremely bloody shitty about that!)

[Bass]

Gawd, what a saga

[Animal]

Gawd, what a saga

And so incestuous! Most of us have no idea how interwoven the corporate lineage behind the companies we work for can be.

Banzai! 300th post!

[Sully60]

The list is long, but I'll point out the most common criticisms of the breed...

They were severely underpowered. The Alison 502 engines in them were an adaptation of a turboshaft helicopter engine, converted by essentially adding a fan on the front of the compressor. Their operational tolerances were very tight, and tweaking them to stay within the parameters of the performance chart was a challenge. It didn't take much of a shift on the performance curve to fail the minimum requirements.

They featured some very old technology, which first appeared in several early British military aircraft such as Buccaneers and Canberras. The pitch control was aided by one such system, which was primitive and unbelievably Heath Robinson in it's design and application. I'll dig out some diagrams which will better explain this because it would take me hours to do so in words alone.

They had a well-deserved reputation for terrible corrosion, and operating them on short hops to sea-level airports (like those in NZ!) accelerated the rate of deterioration. We spent thousands and thousands of man-hours on corrosion management and repairs alone, making them an expensive machine to maintain.

BAe rejected the use of any universal aircraft hardware (such as AN and Mil-Spec), which meant even chuckaway items like screws and bolts had to be purchased from BAe themselves. Having a monopoly on the supply of parts meant they could charge anything they liked - and certainly did! Also, if they were out of stock on a particular part, calling up Boeing, Bombardier, Learjet, Airbus or McDonnell for an AN bolt or washer wasn't a legitimate option. Grounding a 146 while waiting for a handful of proprietory screws wasn't unusual.

The modified chopper engines had no reverse thrust capability, so braking was done through wheel brakes and those huge clam-shell air brakes on the arse. Flying into short strips like Queenstown meant generous applications of braking, so for an aircraft of the 146's size, the consumption of tyres and brake assemblies was right out of proportion. I seemed to be forever changing brakes on the bloody things.

For a 146 pilot's viewpoint, Terbang will have to be approached for his opinion.

I'll have a fossick through my library of course notes and other shit tonight, which will no doubt jog my memory on all the other things I disliked about them. They were fragile, temperamental, finickity machines, and certainly weren't a pleasure to work on.

And the Queen used one of these things?????????

[Sully60]

The list is long, but I'll point out the most common criticisms of the breed...

Abriged

I'll have a fossick through my library of course notes and other shit tonight, which will no doubt jog my memory on all the other things I disliked about them. They were fragile, temperamental, finickity machines, and certainly weren't a pleasure to work on.

And the Queen used one of these things?????????
Brave lady!

[degrom]

Computer!!! You just have to love them...

Makes even a radial engine look simple... LOL

0T2uQYNUu6c

[terbang]

Fascinating stuff, CADa. Thanks :sunny:
I always wondered why a jet like that didn't have reversers on it.

They didn't last that long in service (compared to the 732 and 733/734's).

I wonder wehat influenced Air NZ and Qantas to buy them in the first place.
Rock-bottom price ?

Well I'm not an engineer but I did 6000 hours on the variant. I flew the aircraft for Ansett NZ and also for a european airline. And before we go too far I'd like to put one thing straight. No aircraft is certified to use reverse thrust credit on any landing or accelerate stop calculation. Where it can be seen as bonus, the 146 never missed it and for a 100 seat 40+ Tonne jet it had absolutely fantastic short field landing performance. I never once felt insecure in it's landing performance. The clamshell on the tail was not there for landing performance, it was an airbrake for slowing or increasing rate of descent. It was open on landing for stability purposes only affecting landing distance by less than 2%. I have flown the type into Queenstown NZ, Lugano Switzerland and London City. Boeings fit Queenstown, now that they have a longer runway but wouldn't stand a shit show in the others. I fly a 737 400 at the moment. Yup the whimper jet as it was dubbed was slow.. And like most things new to NZ, it had its detractors. Well, we cruised at Mach .68 with sometimes pushing it up to .70 (overspeed at .73) and at the levels we flew at (high twenties) a quick tap of the calculator will reveal around 410-420 knots. We currently cruise the Boeing at .74 to.76 (overspeed at .82) which is around 440 Knots. So there isn't a lot in it and yet Boeing drivers still wank on about wimper jets and stuff. Hah in comparison to the Gulfstream GIV, which I flew after the 146, that cruised at Mach .87 or 520 knots, they were all slow! The 146 was a jet that could cruise over 400 knots, carry up to 115 passengers and yet it could land on a 1300m strip without an expensive leading edge high lift device and it could do it with a low noise print. The 146 was the first four engined jet aircraft to be certified for only two pilots and the only jet allowed to operate into London City (docklands). Whilst the poms may have used some old spare parts and certainly had some quality control issues, the aircraft, in its role was very effective. The engines let it down and the project barely recoverd from that issue. The origional ALF 502 engines, to allow 2 pilot certification had a thrust management system (TMS) that was supposed to assist the crews in setting thrust on 4 engines while supposedly looking after many limitations. In theory it looked good but in practice it was a nightmare and 146 pilots became like piano players shuffling thrust levers during take-off to avoid temperature exceedences ( I remember 882 C being the temp limit). And of course the famous 'rollback' in icing conditions that had a couple of aussies, mistakingly, shut down 4 engines, did a lot of damage to the aircrafts reputation as well. The 146 was a real sweetheart to hand fly though and with a fantastic, and at long last effective airbrake, it was exceptionally adept to close in type manouvring around the aerodrome or in mountainous terrain. Four engines, well they are definatly better than 2 and as a result we had lower minimas at Wellington than the Boeings. I would much rather have an engine shutdown on a dark old night in a 4 engined aircraft than any twin. Especially around the mountains or out in the yoggin. Well maybe not better than the Gulfstream, a twin that could maintain 38000 feet (clearing Mt Everest by 9000 feet) at 450 knots on one engine! I later flew the Avro RJ 100 for a company in europe. The RJ was a different beast. It was heavier at around 46Tonne and had more thrust (7000 lb per unit). The RJ used the same wing as the 146 and at 104 foot long it was the same length as the old 146-300. In fact it was hard to tell the difference from the outside. The RJ's engines, Now called the ALF 507F, were a fadec (Full Authority Digital Engine control) engine that had a modified first stage of compression to eliminate rollback. They were what the 502 should have been and were fitted with a very accurate autothrottle (eliminating the TMS). They were a dream to operate. Press a button on take-off and watch it do it for you.. The flight guidance in the RJ was the best that I have operated and leaves both the GIV and Boeing for dead. The dual, fail passive, autopilot system had full authority over the rudder as well. Another quantum leap after the old (smiths) SEP10 fitted to the old 146. We operated the RJ to Category IIIB landing minima which allowed us to autoland with a zero cloudbase and 125 m visibility. And we could do it on three engines as well. A major advantage over the Boeings I fly now, which are only Cat II (100 ft cloud and 300m vis). Overall, whilst recognising some real dorky pommy engineering, I think that it is a great aircraft from a pilots perspective and I feel priveledged to have had an association with the 146 and its variants and enjoyed every minuate I flew them. But yes I have seen a few perplexed engineers.

[nudemetalz]

That Youtube movie illustrates the master/slave conrods really well. Far better than trying to explain how it works.

[nudemetalz]

WOW !!!!
Thanks for that great info, Terbang.
So much knowledge gained on the 146's now.

[MotoKuzzi]

Interesting stuff, any more wierd and wonderful engine types you guys know about?

[pete376403]

Well I'm not an engineer but I did 6000 hours on the variant. I flew the aircraft for Ansett NZ and also for a european airline. ..... I think that it is a great aircraft from a pilots perspective and I feel priveledged to have had an association with the 146 and its variants and enjoyed every minuate I flew them. But yes I have seen a few perplexed engineers.
Like that scene in "A Fish called Wanda" where John Cleese talks a foreign language, I love it when you talk dirty like that:love: (even though I only have avague idea what some of it means...)

[terbang]

Hmm yeah had a read and I guess it was pitched at aviators and the likes. Oh well, I liken the BA46 series to British motorcycles and landrovers. A bit out there in design and engineering that tends to piss mechanics off, but a cool machine, with lovable quirks, and fun to operate from a pilot/rider/driver perspective.

[pete376403]

The attached pic is a scan from a page in Two Wheels mag. Probably a breach of copyright, but it's too amazing not to share. Shows the engine of the Honda 300cc 6 cylinder road racer that George Beale has made replicas of. If you have (IIRC) 275000 GB pounds he'll sell you one. If I won the powerball I'd get one in a heartbeat, just to look at it.

[xwhatsit]

That is just so cool, a sleeve valve, supercharged H24.

I remember years ago that BRM made a 1.5 litre (I think) H16 that absolutely screamed and went like a cut cat but was a bit of a hand grenade.


I think the BRM I heard of was a V16: 2 V8s end to end.

[edit: ok, both v16 and H16 engines existed, but the H16 seems to have been a 3 litre.]

Richard

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Finally, something I can waffle on about :lol:

RWH is right. It was a 3-litre H16.

What happened, was in 1965 F1 only allowed 1.5 litre engines. When 1966 rolled around they let them have up to 3 litres. BRM made some of the best 1.5 litre-era engines, beautiful free-revving V8s. However they were (like the other teams) caught by surprise by the new rules. Instead of building an all-new engine, they joined two of their V8s together at the crankshaft (two crankshafts, used gears to join them).

It easily made the most horsepower during '66/'67, but it was pretty unreliable. All those valves! Also, it made shit-all power at low RPM, so they had to use a 6-speed gearbox when everybody else was using a 5-speed, so there was unreliability associated with that new design too.

The worst problems though was the way it contributed to the handling of the P83/P115. It was really, really heavy -- the heaviest car on the grid. It also carried much of that weight high-up (you should take a look at the exhaust manifold!), and right at the rear axle, so it was a bit of a cruise-liner compared to the other F1s.

It made a wonderful, terrifying noise. I heard a recording of it winding up along the old Spa-Francorchamps back straight (it sounds like they're recording after Masta -- last photo I attached looks like coming up to the back section of Spa) and it is just scary. 11,000rpm red-line, 430bhp, howling roaring sound. Kind of like a Honda VFR V4, except brutal and angry and loud.

Interestingly enough, even though it was a shit idea, the same season Cosworth had the same idea and made a huge success of it. They took two Ford F2 straight fours, and made a V8 out of them. It was called the DFV (Double Four Valve), and it remains to this day the most successful engine ever used in motorsport. They used it for years in F1, up until 1985 (considering it was designed in 1966 quite impressive), made 400hp at first and 500hp eventually, and also used it in F3000, CART and numerous sportscars. It won 155 races from 262 starts in F1. It was also installed in the Lotus 49 driven by Jim Clarke and Graham Hill, which helped things of course.

[degrom]

The attached pic is a scan from a page in Two Wheels mag. Probably a breach of copyright, but it's too amazing not to share. Shows the engine of the Honda 300cc 6 cylinder road racer that George Beale has made replicas of. If you have (IIRC) 275000 GB pounds he'll sell you one. If I won the powerball I'd get one in a heartbeat, just to look at it.

Yes... Skill does not come cheap...

Just very sad that there are so few that can really appreciate it when they see it.

(10'000 GB pounds for racing springs!!!! Then again they can go for 110 hours at 15'000 RPM... )

[onearmedbandit]

So you're a pilot? And a motorcyclist? And you've always wanted to combine the two? Well now (http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/10/radial-engine-powered-motorcycle/) you can.

Impressive bit of engineering. Aussie engine apparently, Rotec (http://www.rotecradialengines.com/) 107hp 7 cylinder.

(Edit- turned out to be a repost doh, first search I didn't see it.)

[onearmedbandit]

This one uses the same engine, albeit in a different setup. I like the first one (believed to be a Jesse James design) better as the engine is mounted the 'right' way.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QBGfxtMEQl0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QBGfxtMEQl0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Bonez]

Rotaries and Radials are UTTERLY different concepts.

Rotaries have a "piston" that is shaped like a triangle with convex sides that spins around in a circular combustion "chamber" on a central bearing. Mazda's latest rotary has the ports on the side of the chamber allowing for better exhaust scavenging, better sealing and higher compression for a much higher power output.

Not all rotaries Jim...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html

[knuckles24]

so what do you do, do you have to tie your hands to the handlebars in order to hang on.