Re: Cook book recipe for a modern day V12 ! !
Believe it or not, this was Chrysler's first "hemi"! An inverted V-16 with a continuous crank, cases, and heads. The center power tap allowed very short load paths for the crankshaft as well as a shorter gearbox to engine spacing since the quill shaft was parallel to the forward cylinders instead of in front of them.
60 degree V12 and 90 degree V16 four-stroke engines have perfect balance. They are long, and good design is required to make them reliable. F1 has centered on V10s to reduce piston drag. Indy and Nascar use 6 and 8 cylinders due to rules restrictions, otherwise they would also go to 10 or more.
To me, the diefication of these ancient powerplants is simply because ther has been no 1000+ HP piston aircraft engine development since 1950 to take their place. If there were a market, the application of modern materials, combustion technology, turbomachinery, manifolding, controls, coatings, thermodynamics, mechanical design, etc. would astonish people to the point that they would not believe it even after it won a race.
There is hope. After a brief honeymoon, the general aviation industry is discovering that small turbines are neither cheap nor efficient. Efficiency requires stages and blades, blades cost money: efficient engines are expensive, cheap engines are inefficient.
Finally there is enough money being put into the 500 to 1000 HP market that several organizations are researching efficient piston engines in this range. We readily accept Greenameyer's TSIO-550 putting out double its stock power rating for the length of a race week. To the doubtful posters here: what would you think of a production aircraft, certificated, 1000 HP piston engine putting out 2000 in race trim? 3000? The unlimiteds seem to run out of reliability somewhere in the 2 to 3X military-continuous-power range.
Originally posted by 440_Magnum
60 degree V12 and 90 degree V16 four-stroke engines have perfect balance. They are long, and good design is required to make them reliable. F1 has centered on V10s to reduce piston drag. Indy and Nascar use 6 and 8 cylinders due to rules restrictions, otherwise they would also go to 10 or more.
To me, the diefication of these ancient powerplants is simply because ther has been no 1000+ HP piston aircraft engine development since 1950 to take their place. If there were a market, the application of modern materials, combustion technology, turbomachinery, manifolding, controls, coatings, thermodynamics, mechanical design, etc. would astonish people to the point that they would not believe it even after it won a race.
There is hope. After a brief honeymoon, the general aviation industry is discovering that small turbines are neither cheap nor efficient. Efficiency requires stages and blades, blades cost money: efficient engines are expensive, cheap engines are inefficient.
Finally there is enough money being put into the 500 to 1000 HP market that several organizations are researching efficient piston engines in this range. We readily accept Greenameyer's TSIO-550 putting out double its stock power rating for the length of a race week. To the doubtful posters here: what would you think of a production aircraft, certificated, 1000 HP piston engine putting out 2000 in race trim? 3000? The unlimiteds seem to run out of reliability somewhere in the 2 to 3X military-continuous-power range.
Comment