BALONEY SLICER

[Skyracer]

Re: BALONEY SLICER

Might make sense to use a step-up gearbox and run a lightweight highspeed shaft to a forward gearbox to step it back down; my thinking would be a concentric shaft output common gearbox setup.

[RarebearFan77]

Re: BALONEY SLICER

Magnum you beat me to the punch on the crankshaft explaination. Whatever Dave is doing it sure looks technical. Would love to get a closer look at it. And while some are talking of Milka.. I preffer to call her Milfa!!! Just my .02

[marada mx3]

Re: BALONEY SLICER

Ummmm, "re-engineering?" It would take a re-write of the laws of the space-time continuum in order to allow the atoms of the connecting rods and counter-weights to pass through and among the atoms of this proposed inner shaft. Its physically impossible to run a shaft *through* a crankshaft.

He said that the rear shaft could run "through the front engine" but that doesn't mean through the crankshaft itself. There have been other applications where a shaft has run through an engine case but parallel and offset to that engine's crank. In fact the big Chrysler IV2220 that was tested in the Thunderbolt right at the end of WWIIwas sorta like that, except that IIRC its front and rear crankshafts were both geared to an output shaft at the engine centerpoint, and the output shaft ran parallel to the forward crank until it emerged to join up with the prop gearbox. In this case, though, it would seem to make more sense to put an offset spur gear on the rear engine to *both* reverse the rotation direction and offset the output shaft that would then go past the front engine to another gearbox at the prop.

Exactly the point I was trying to make! I guess my sarcasm didn't come across on paper too well.

Where would one run a shaft through a BBC engine case parallel to the crankshaft?

My guess is tandem with same rotation with a gearbox.

Can't wait to find out!

Tommy

[Bill Marsh]

Re: BALONEY SLICER

Im a "Homer'' on this one.....

I KNOW many people smarter than me have thought about the following...

1) using one falconer v12 instead of two bb v8s
* power package would be less; weight, mass, dims, prooven reliability, simplicity, and trade off ( hopefully ) of power a 11 liter motor vs. +/- 14 liter motor (s) package

2) using a double v8 package driving at (one end) a counter rotating gear box, sands all the quill shafting- rear to front jazz.

Anyone have any real "been there done that" info on #1 AND #2 ?

bm