If the t14 has a gas turbine engine its will solve the issues to its powerplant and expanding its fuel tank and putting a Apu for idle or hull down. The Russian can leverage thier gas turbine tech for thier new tank.
@@ShuRugalyeah and if you ever worked with one. You will understand the fuel economy is something to not right off. The Abrams burns fuel like it's going out of style.
surprising this never became popular, there was a Canadian company that built an experimental X engine that used opposite pairs of pistons connected to a solid beam that was moved back and forth by a triangular cam in the center instead of a crank. OMC had a crack at an X and a rotary outboard engine but it never made it out of the lab.
Some says the engine of the T-14 was derived from captured WWII german X engines, but the overall design doesn't seems to match. Also, you can count on Russians for strange engines, like the massive Zvezda radial diesel, so a clean sheet design for the Armata X engine wouldn't be surprising at all. Anyway, I knew about this one, and also the german things they've tried during WWII, but none of the rest, including the venture of Henry Ford himself on this engine shape. This channel never cease to amaze me.
Наш двигатель разработан с нуля☝️😌 сказать что мы скопировали двигатель у немцев, все равно что сказать что весь мир копирует двигатель Рудольфа Дизеля😂
yeah that claim was proved to be quite fake. it looks like they cut original V2 engine (not missile but engine from 1930) and weld it together in different way. 😂
@@jebise1126 Don't know what they've done but the T14 is a big failure overall anyway. Will be remembered as the most stealth tank ever made : the one no one has ever seen on a battlefield :P
7:52 "The engines reliability is crucial..." Someone appears to have forgotten to tell Ural this part. Lol. Joke on the T-14 aside, your video is great, love the history breakdowns of X engines.
Gas turbine of the t80 and opposed piston 12 piston 6 cylinder engine of the t64 were also less reliable than a normal v12 on the t72, but they were adopted due to some of their special characteristics such as higher power lower weight, smaller size. So same can happen with the x12 engine.
I'd guess there's a reason Napier used an H layout (basically two stacked horizontally opposed engines with separate geared together carnkshafts) for the Napier Sabre used in the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.
I want to see a video on those old radials that ran natural gas. Huge 14 cylinder laid down with vertical crank. Have only seen random images, and most of them are the same ones
There is a video of one starting up in a preserved powerplant in the US. The camera is mounted on a tripod few meters away from the engine, and when it starts to run, the camera shakes because the whole building is trembling to the enormous engine idling....
@@dennis-nz5im indeed there were some in electrolyzing plants (to prevent power shortage). VisoRacer should make more videos abouts industrial engines, there are very awkward design, including double acting pistons (combustion chambers on both sides of the piston, a design inherited from steam engines). There are ridiculously massive engine too, with RPM so low you can count each stroke....
11 and 12 cylinder radials built by Nordberg. 14" bore and stroke. Both versions are radials that feature no master rod. Only link rods. With two different systems to keep the tod car carrier in phase. The 11 cylinder used a gear train system while the 12 cylinder used two retaining cranks with a connecting link. As usual see Old Machine Press
I had never heard of such engine configuration. You managed to find lots of information on these rare machines and as usual made an entertaining presentation. Thank you !
Excellent video as usual. You knock it out of the park every time man. Also, I remember reading about Henry Ford's tractor development farm tractors that is and how they his company Ford was working on an ex engine. I think it was maybe a four cylinder. I'm not entirely certain. It's been years ago when I read about this but just something interesting. Thanks again
Crystal ball gazing: I see a Chelyabinsk X-12 being used in tractor pulling. All block components lightened by careful milling, and brought to spark ignition methanol fuel usage standard with sprawled turbo's in every nook. It can then rev higher to develop more horsepower. Same philosophy as with 'Dragonfires' radial 42 cylinder engine (designed for PT boats). By extension the modified engine could serve as a R&D engine for development of an Aero-engine variant and voila you have a modern RR Griffon equivalent good for probably 3,000 hp. It should fit in any WWII fighter airframe or pylon racer derivative.
The X-12 shown would be a six-row radial with two cylinders per row... which is opposed, not radial. All cylinders of a row in a radial share one crankshaft throw.
The 34.6L ChTZ 12N360, also known as the A-85-3A diesel engine that powers Russia's T-14 Armata tank. The A-85 X-12 engine design is a modern take of the Simmering-Graz-Pauker Slä 16 (Porsche Typ 203) engine which was 36.6L and 750HP. It was designed to replace the Maybach HL230 V-12 engine that powered the Tiger I & II, Jagdtiger, Panther, and Jagdpanther, as well as being envisioned to power Porsche's VK45.02 prototype and proposed for the Maus in a two engine configuration. The engine was captured by the Soviets while on an engine mount being prepared to mount into a Tiger Aus. B (Tiger II). Unlike the Slä 16 which was air cooled, the modern Russian design is liquid cooled and a completely new design, with the only feature that was carrier over from the Slä 16 being the cylinder bank arrangement and at which degree they were set to which is 45deg apart on the sides and 135deg apart on the top and bottom of the engine. The A-85-3A is also much more powerful at 1,500HP and 2832ft-lb of torque. Another interesting fact is the A-85-3A's camshafts are driven by enclosed shafts with the engine having four, which look almost exactly the same as the two enclosed shafts that drove the Slä 16's two cooling fans. The Slä 16 was a pushrod design, so they didn't need an external way to drive a camshaft.
Laserpig is not a reliable source. But lets expand on that. the X-12 has 12 cylinders the SLA has 16 at a different bore. Not even the engine block matches. As you said the engine is liquid cooled and a completely new design (So like how is it a modern take of that engine lol?)
@@jammygamer8961 Yeah i've seen lazerpig roasting this engine as being a ripoff of german designs, but in fact, as i've read, it's only loosely related. The engine is probably the only thing that actually works on the T-14 so let's be fair for Russian engineers XD
😂😂😂 завидуйте молча. Общего нашего двигателя с немецким дерьмом столько же сколько общего между шлёпанцами и сапогами. Говорить что мы скопировали его у немцев все равно что говорить что весь мир скопировал двигатель Рудольфа Дизеля😂😂😂 перестаньте употреблять наркотики 🤡 наш двигатель разработан с нуля специально для этого танка. Нереально сложная штука, инженерам пришлось знатно напряч мозг чтобы выпустить это технологическое чудо😊
@@surisurya3577 Yes, the bottom cylinders slowly accumulate oil with time when sitting. That's why many large radials were turned over three or four times by hand before a start was attempted.
The X-engine is just a radial engine with four cylinders. Before the jet age, radial piston engines in aircraft were commonplace, like Wright Cyclones. A radial engine was a very clever layout that assembled a lot of cylinders into a small place whilst at the same time allowing them to be air cooled. Radial engines normally had one or more banks of radially-arranged cylinders, with normally an odd number of cylinders per bank Of course there is little benefit in installing radial engines into ground-based vehicles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_engine
It is not "basically" a 4 cylinder radial, X engine has a minimum of two banks (8 cylinders), radial doesn't. Just like a flat 4 is not basically a 2 cylinder radial.
@@retiredbore378 I was talking about the tank. Old W engines were high, but the current VW / Bugatti engines are not. They are probably 1.3 times longer, but still compact. A motor for a fighter jet is a different issue. These motors need to allow negatives g´s. In this case, no traditional sump can be used anyways.
The Vulture has serious issues with overheating and fires when in service on Avro Manchesters, which led to their replacement with 4 Merlins and the development of the Lancaster. The Vulture was also killed off by the Griffon, a more conventional and reliable V-12 that could produce more power
The guy squating on the floor in front of the radial reminds me of me! An X 12 gas engine would only make sense. The degrees can be made perfect for balance.
Thank you for that most interesting video! I had never heard of X-engines before. I only knew about the H configuration and the W configuration. I can see where lubrication would a problem. It will be interesting to see how the Russians have solved this problem.
I don't know why but the X Engine has always held my interest, I know that in my runs in the game Gear City I am that one car maker that will make any size engine you want but its going to be a X engine with likely as many cylinders as I can cram into it.
Germans used inverted V12 engines throughout most of WW2. It's a little surprising they had issues with X-engines. For the longest time I thought that BRM had X16 engine, only to learn it was H16 - two flat 8s on top of each other geared together (btw, BRM's V16 sounded insane). Truth is, X shape is just too dense with stuff. This was demonstrated precisely with Napier Deltic, another unusual configuration, and how the engines were 'loved' by maintenance staff - it was a nightmare to get anywhere, and had to be serviced outside of its working location. The Chelabynsk engine looks even worse - the famous joke about proctologist changing trades to a mechanic and fixing the engine through the tailpipe must be pretty accurate here. There always be a place for unusual configuration. two stroke camless diesel X4, laying flat could be perfect to fit in a bottom of a small vehicle or boat, that otherwise can't have dedicated engine compartment but requires substantial torque (but V2 can't fit) - but it's still a solution looking for a problem, because it'd be loud as f.
It would be wonderful if an auto company created & sold a 3.5 L straight 8, with dual overhead cam heads, & perhaps sequential turbocharging. This would be light weight, incredible torque & throttle response engines!
it wouldn't be light, but you could use an aluminium block and aluminum head. I think a few would sell due to the novelty, but ICE are on the way out now. might as well go for variable valve timing and turbo/ supercharger combo. I think it would blow head gaskets for sport so could be be longer lived without forced induction.
@@martin-vv9lf The "EV mandate experiment" is currently dying, & will soon parish in earnest, due to high quantities of them spontaneously combusting, short battery charge, extravegant battery replacement prices, & of course lack of electrical infrastructure to support a large scale amount of people charging them in the evening after work. Only the wealthy will truly be able to afford EVs in the near future. ICE engines will continue in perpetuity, only in the form of hydrogen, & still petroleum powered vehicles. The petroleum infrastructure has been built & innovated for over 100 years. It ain't going anywhere, anytime soon!
16 cylinders seems to be so very common for the X layout. but my main concerns are what is its power dynamics compared to boxer and V type engines. EDIC, ok X type engines are a mess fair. but for planes...
X format works for two strokes. You get a single throw crank carrying all four rods. Air intake via a hollow none drive side crank. It needs a reed valve and a belt driven blower. You get four bangs per revolution, perfect primary balance and almost no torque vibration. Rolls-Royce failed with the X because their oil pumps were too small. The same problem was not fixed on Merlin until the Mk 61.
idk what ford was trying to do with the X engine, radials were a thing in 1920 when they were working on it and things like hydrolock were gonna be a huge problem for such engines
Interesting engine. I think the complexity of construction and maintenance will keep this mechanical nightmare in the museums where it belongs. Even the W-12 and W-16 are easier to service than this behemoth!😜😄 Thanks VisioRacer for another exploration of oddball mechanical marvels!😉👍
The ford X8 did sound a lot like V8 and I8, shame the problems were too big to solve. Probably a reason not to many upside down engine configurations for planes exist either.
Radial engines are better with an odd number of cylinders. The X layout is a multi bank 4 cylinder radial, make it 3 or 5 and the reliability is much better. I'm sure there is an engineer who could explain why but that's not me.
"X-engines" practically look like a compromise between a V-engine and a radial - And like many compromises, seem like suffering the drawbacks of both with the benefits of none. Aviation apart, when they can be a good momentarily substitution for radials, I don't see any application for them.
If the Russian engine continues the trend of other recent RU military equipment actual performance compared to claimed performance, then the engines probably don't last, don't make claimed rated power, and there are very very few of them in actual use.
The T-14 Armata's engine is super unreliable. Based on a failed German powerplant that they thought they could fix. Which of course they couldn't, because it was overly complex and not a sound design at all.
😂😂😂прекрати употреблять наркотики, ты несешь какой то бред. Т-14 настолько крутой танк, что если инопланетяне нападут и предложат дуэль на танках, то планету Земля будет защищать именно т-14💪😎
Т-14💪😎🤙 спасибо автору за замечательный ролик 😊 приятно наблюдать как наши враги отказываются верить, в то что русское оружие лучшее в мире 😎 русских весь мир любит, а кто не любит те нам завидуют 😊 Нет ничего глупее и безответственнее чем воевать против русских ☝️😌
This guy's content is underrated. He should get on the recommended page more often.
You should write youtube about it
He almost quit because of his content wasn’t worthy according to some….
Viseo is the best! He is a geek like me, an Audiophile!
^^TRUTH!!!^^
It probably would be if you could understand what he is saying.
Always enjoy your work Visio Racer. Very interesting stuff!!
Да🤤
You get to the point where a gas turbine ends up being a cheaper option
Especially considering the fuel 'economy' on that Russian tank vs. the horsepower.😱
@@danw1955 меньше всего хочется чтобы в танке кончилось топливо посреди боя😂
If the t14 has a gas turbine engine its will solve the issues to its powerplant and expanding its fuel tank and putting a Apu for idle or hull down. The Russian can leverage thier gas turbine tech for thier new tank.
@@retiredbore378 " not something you want in a tank."
**M1 has entered the chat**
@@ShuRugalyeah and if you ever worked with one. You will understand the fuel economy is something to not right off.
The Abrams burns fuel like it's going out of style.
Who would have thought so many X engines have been not only dreamed up, but built.
Keep up the great work Visoracer... God bless you brother
The "X Files" of engines... Great work!
Rolls-Royce Vulture was installed on the AVRO Manchester, Saw active duty in Bomber Command before they transferred to the Lancaster.
The Lancaster was a development of the Manchester with larger wings to accommodate four of the much more reliable Merlins vs two disastrous Vultures.
@@CaptHollister I know I've been in the Pilots Seat criminal no Manchester's were saved.
Excellent work, as you always do. I did not know this way of making an engine.
I would make an x using VW “VR” technology, think of a Subaru flat 4 but each end is a VR style 4, 5, or 6 cylinder, to make flat x8, x10, and x12.
Yh like a flat w engine, would make them more compact, even smaller if you used freevalve technology from Koenigsegg
surprising this never became popular, there was a Canadian company that built an experimental X engine that used opposite pairs of pistons connected to a solid beam that was moved back and forth by a triangular cam in the center instead of a crank. OMC had a crack at an X and a rotary outboard engine but it never made it out of the lab.
Some says the engine of the T-14 was derived from captured WWII german X engines, but the overall design doesn't seems to match. Also, you can count on Russians for strange engines, like the massive Zvezda radial diesel, so a clean sheet design for the Armata X engine wouldn't be surprising at all.
Anyway, I knew about this one, and also the german things they've tried during WWII, but none of the rest, including the venture of Henry Ford himself on this engine shape. This channel never cease to amaze me.
Наш двигатель разработан с нуля☝️😌 сказать что мы скопировали двигатель у немцев, все равно что сказать что весь мир копирует двигатель Рудольфа Дизеля😂
yeah that claim was proved to be quite fake. it looks like they cut original V2 engine (not missile but engine from 1930) and weld it together in different way. 😂
@@jebise1126 Don't know what they've done but the T14 is a big failure overall anyway. Will be remembered as the most stealth tank ever made : the one no one has ever seen on a battlefield :P
@@Damien.D but none were lost yet hahaha
@@jebise1126 =))
Well done, Mr Visioracer . You continue to find interesting stuff and present it professionally and with enthusiasm.
7:52 "The engines reliability is crucial..." Someone appears to have forgotten to tell Ural this part. Lol. Joke on the T-14 aside, your video is great, love the history breakdowns of X engines.
Gas turbine of the t80 and opposed piston 12 piston 6 cylinder engine of the t64 were also less reliable than a normal v12 on the t72, but they were adopted due to some of their special characteristics such as higher power lower weight, smaller size. So same can happen with the x12 engine.
3:00 There was a Real 60 L Engine? My Aunt will be impressed.
I'd guess there's a reason Napier used an H layout (basically two stacked horizontally opposed engines with separate geared together carnkshafts) for the Napier Sabre used in the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.
Interesting stuff, I didn't know X engines existed. I would sure hate to have to work on one. Thanks for sharing 👍.
I want to see a video on those old radials that ran natural gas. Huge 14 cylinder laid down with vertical crank. Have only seen random images, and most of them are the same ones
There is a video of one starting up in a preserved powerplant in the US. The camera is mounted on a tripod few meters away from the engine, and when it starts to run, the camera shakes because the whole building is trembling to the enormous engine idling....
@@Damien.D used to make Aluminum if I had it correctly in memory
@@dennis-nz5im indeed there were some in electrolyzing plants (to prevent power shortage).
VisoRacer should make more videos abouts industrial engines, there are very awkward design, including double acting pistons (combustion chambers on both sides of the piston, a design inherited from steam engines).
There are ridiculously massive engine too, with RPM so low you can count each stroke....
11 and 12 cylinder radials built by Nordberg. 14" bore and stroke. Both versions are radials that feature no master rod. Only link rods. With two different systems to keep the tod car carrier in phase. The 11 cylinder used a gear train system while the 12 cylinder used two retaining cranks with a connecting link. As usual see Old Machine Press
@@Damien.D
Snow inline engines. Truely inline 😊
I had never heard of such engine configuration. You managed to find lots of information on these rare machines and as usual made an entertaining presentation. Thank you !
Excellent video as usual. You knock it out of the park every time man. Also, I remember reading about Henry Ford's tractor development farm tractors that is and how they his company Ford was working on an ex engine. I think it was maybe a four cylinder. I'm not entirely certain. It's been years ago when I read about this but just something interesting. Thanks again
Thank you. Nice overview, especially with the Chelyabinsk X12 engine.
Another fascinating engine documentary. Thank very much Sir!
Neat! With modern design and metallurgy you could do a lot better than Henry Ford did. The engine simulator is a nice touch.
Crystal ball gazing: I see a Chelyabinsk X-12 being used in tractor pulling. All block components lightened by careful milling, and brought to spark ignition methanol fuel usage standard with sprawled turbo's in every nook. It can then rev higher to develop more horsepower. Same philosophy as with 'Dragonfires' radial 42 cylinder engine (designed for PT boats). By extension the modified engine could serve as a R&D engine for development of an Aero-engine variant and voila you have a modern RR Griffon equivalent good for probably 3,000 hp. It should fit in any WWII fighter airframe or pylon racer derivative.
My XD12 Is a 12 cylinder 2 stroke diesel motor that I've been developing, I liked this video, it's right up my alley
The 'X' engine has radial characteristics. Might this be considered a four-row radial with three cylinders per row?
The X-12 shown would be a six-row radial with two cylinders per row... which is opposed, not radial. All cylinders of a row in a radial share one crankshaft throw.
Hell yea visio you do make great stuff an the voice is prefict for narrating sound like old school radio host 👍👍👍
I love your videos! I had no clue about this layout and it really has my thinking.
they sound so good
The 34.6L ChTZ 12N360, also known as the A-85-3A diesel engine that powers Russia's T-14 Armata tank. The A-85 X-12 engine design is a modern take of the Simmering-Graz-Pauker Slä 16 (Porsche Typ 203) engine which was 36.6L and 750HP. It was designed to replace the Maybach HL230 V-12 engine that powered the Tiger I & II, Jagdtiger, Panther, and Jagdpanther, as well as being envisioned to power Porsche's VK45.02 prototype and proposed for the Maus in a two engine configuration. The engine was captured by the Soviets while on an engine mount being prepared to mount into a Tiger Aus. B (Tiger II). Unlike the Slä 16 which was air cooled, the modern Russian design is liquid cooled and a completely new design, with the only feature that was carrier over from the Slä 16 being the cylinder bank arrangement and at which degree they were set to which is 45deg apart on the sides and 135deg apart on the top and bottom of the engine. The A-85-3A is also much more powerful at 1,500HP and 2832ft-lb of torque. Another interesting fact is the A-85-3A's camshafts are driven by enclosed shafts with the engine having four, which look almost exactly the same as the two enclosed shafts that drove the Slä 16's two cooling fans. The Slä 16 was a pushrod design, so they didn't need an external way to drive a camshaft.
Laserpig is not a reliable source.
But lets expand on that.
the X-12 has 12 cylinders the SLA has 16 at a different bore. Not even the engine block matches. As you said the engine is liquid cooled and a completely new design (So like how is it a modern take of that engine lol?)
@@jammygamer8961 Yeah i've seen lazerpig roasting this engine as being a ripoff of german designs, but in fact, as i've read, it's only loosely related.
The engine is probably the only thing that actually works on the T-14 so let's be fair for Russian engineers XD
@@Damien.D redeffect made a good response video to laserpig
😂😂😂 завидуйте молча. Общего нашего двигателя с немецким дерьмом столько же сколько общего между шлёпанцами и сапогами. Говорить что мы скопировали его у немцев все равно что говорить что весь мир скопировал двигатель Рудольфа Дизеля😂😂😂 перестаньте употреблять наркотики 🤡 наш двигатель разработан с нуля специально для этого танка. Нереально сложная штука, инженерам пришлось знатно напряч мозг чтобы выпустить это технологическое чудо😊
Lazer pig has pig brain, can't even slander Russians correctly.
that Russian x12 engine will be as rare as the tank it is fitted in . interesting video mate 👍
Наш танк сильно опережает время, мы его создали на будущее 😊 а пока-что нам хватает танков 60-70 годов чтоб уничтожать лучшие натовские образцы ☺️🤗
@@X_Killer. Its kinda not.
Fascinating
Fascinating video!
X engines have issues with hydrolocking similar to radials.
how so?
Lube oil lock in a four stroke engine!
@@surisurya3577 Yes, the bottom cylinders slowly accumulate oil with time when sitting. That's why many large radials were turned over three or four times by hand before a start was attempted.
Pump it up during start
Good stuff!
The comedic timing of the auto-generated closed captioning at 8:39 just about killed me.
[Music]
...
foreign
Who else is here from the T-14 Armata drama?
Can see why going to a diesel setup and dry-sump, would solve the problems of uneven lubrication, and the elimination of any spark-plugs to foul!
Atta boy! I miss the sound track from your intro though.
Loved the use of engine simulator. Keep up the good work!
Guy says” I’ve got a quad cam V8!”….other guy says” yeah, mine is just a little octa cam X16!!!”
The X-engine is just a radial engine with four cylinders. Before the jet age, radial piston engines in aircraft were commonplace, like Wright Cyclones. A radial engine was a very clever layout that assembled a lot of cylinders into a small place whilst at the same time allowing them to be air cooled. Radial engines normally had one or more banks of radially-arranged cylinders, with normally an odd number of cylinders per bank Of course there is little benefit in installing radial engines into ground-based vehicles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_engine
It is not "basically" a 4 cylinder radial, X engine has a minimum of two banks (8 cylinders), radial doesn't. Just like a flat 4 is not basically a 2 cylinder radial.
Radial engines are a bit different as they only have one crank pin per layer.
I could see someone like Porsche or Subaru building an X engine only because they have made some great flat 4 engines🤔
The W engine probably delivers a similar density while allowing for a conventional sump.
@@retiredbore378 I was talking about the tank.
Old W engines were high, but the current VW / Bugatti engines are not. They are probably 1.3 times longer, but still compact.
A motor for a fighter jet is a different issue. These motors need to allow negatives g´s. In this case, no traditional sump can be used anyways.
X shaped engines were used for a time in submarines until the maintenance became ridiculously difficult.
In addition to the X layout there is the inline radial.
Another early X is the Allison X-4520
Sort of a radial and opposed piston and vee all combined.
There are more Tanks then just the Sherman using Radials.
The W engine probably delivers a similar density while allowing for a conventional sump.
Never knew of these things before this. I am today years old.
The Vulture has serious issues with overheating and fires when in service on Avro Manchesters, which led to their replacement with 4 Merlins and the development of the Lancaster. The Vulture was also killed off by the Griffon, a more conventional and reliable V-12 that could produce more power
The guy squating on the floor in front of the radial reminds me of me! An X 12 gas engine would only make sense. The degrees can be made perfect for balance.
The “intake plenum” on the X-12 appears to be coolant circulation. I could be wrong but I don’t see a path for the turbos on each side to route to it.
another great vid
👍
Before the Ford Flat Head V8 came out engineers did make an experimental prototype X8
6:39 it actually looks more like twin flat 6 merged together at an angle.
Thank you for that most interesting video!
I had never heard of X-engines before. I only knew about the H configuration and the W configuration.
I can see where lubrication would a problem.
It will be interesting to see how the Russians have solved this problem.
Good show!
I don't know why but the X Engine has always held my interest, I know that in my runs in the game Gear City I am that one car maker that will make any size engine you want but its going to be a X engine with likely as many cylinders as I can cram into it.
Gud vid 💯👌, as always 💪
Visio 🙏🙏🙏 i look forward to every video you never disappoint with your knowledge and great videos well done
I'm currently developing a x configuration diesel engine. The XD is where it's at
Germans used inverted V12 engines throughout most of WW2. It's a little surprising they had issues with X-engines.
For the longest time I thought that BRM had X16 engine, only to learn it was H16 - two flat 8s on top of each other geared together (btw, BRM's V16 sounded insane).
Truth is, X shape is just too dense with stuff. This was demonstrated precisely with Napier Deltic, another unusual configuration, and how the engines were 'loved' by maintenance staff - it was a nightmare to get anywhere, and had to be serviced outside of its working location. The Chelabynsk engine looks even worse - the famous joke about proctologist changing trades to a mechanic and fixing the engine through the tailpipe must be pretty accurate here.
There always be a place for unusual configuration. two stroke camless diesel X4, laying flat could be perfect to fit in a bottom of a small vehicle or boat, that otherwise can't have dedicated engine compartment but requires substantial torque (but V2 can't fit) - but it's still a solution looking for a problem, because it'd be loud as f.
Damn that X shap is sick
Plz reveal ur sources man 🙏🙏🙏🙏 craving for such nerdy articles
Another great eye opener .🤯
It would be wonderful if an auto company created & sold a 3.5 L straight 8, with dual overhead cam heads, & perhaps sequential turbocharging.
This would be light weight, incredible torque & throttle response engines!
it wouldn't be light, but you could use an aluminium block and aluminum head. I think a few would sell due to the novelty, but ICE are on the way out now. might as well go for variable valve timing and turbo/ supercharger combo. I think it would blow head gaskets for sport so could be be longer lived without forced induction.
@@martin-vv9lf The "EV mandate experiment" is currently dying, & will soon parish in earnest, due to high quantities of them spontaneously combusting, short battery charge, extravegant battery replacement prices, & of course lack of electrical infrastructure to support a large scale amount of people charging them in the evening after work.
Only the wealthy will truly be able to afford EVs in the near future.
ICE engines will continue in perpetuity, only in the form of hydrogen, & still petroleum powered vehicles. The petroleum infrastructure has been built & innovated for over 100 years. It ain't going anywhere, anytime soon!
16 cylinders seems to be so very common for the X layout.
but my main concerns are what is its power dynamics compared to boxer and V type engines.
EDIC, ok X type engines are a mess fair. but for planes...
X format works for two strokes. You get a single throw crank carrying all four rods. Air intake via a hollow none drive side crank. It needs a reed valve and a belt driven blower. You get four bangs per revolution, perfect primary balance and almost no torque vibration.
Rolls-Royce failed with the X because their oil pumps were too small. The same problem was not fixed on Merlin until the Mk 61.
The Sherman tank also tried a Chrysler 30 cylinder which is 5- inline 6 cyl.
I wonder if they have an enlarged version of that whiny gear reduction starter too?🤣👍 "Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee "
That x engine is basically a 4 cylinder radial engine
Intresting😮
idk what ford was trying to do with the X engine, radials were a thing in 1920 when they were working on it and things like hydrolock were gonna be a huge problem for such engines
You failed to mention the engines designed by S.S. Balandin. Cycloidal without standard connecting rods and classified by the Soviets for decades.
Interesting engine. I think the complexity of construction and maintenance will keep this mechanical nightmare in the museums where it belongs. Even the W-12 and W-16 are easier to service than this behemoth!😜😄 Thanks VisioRacer for another exploration of oddball mechanical marvels!😉👍
Уже давно серийно выпускаем😊 так что ваши глупые надежды не оправдались☝️😌
That's it. They're chasing horse power and trying to stay on budget.
An x8 would be cool as a stressed member engine
The ford X8 did sound a lot like V8 and I8, shame the problems were too big to solve. Probably a reason not to many upside down engine configurations for planes exist either.
X engine looses with synchronized H that can be perfectly balanced and has smaller frontal area.
Conaught x20 is a good example of one 😄
Merlin engine with 4 turbos 2 smaller ones and 2 bigger ones would be the best and multi port fuel injection with dual spark ignition.
I wanna see an X24 in a bugatti 🤪
They already have W16, so why not?
why does it look like the tank's engine is suffering? is that tank that heavy or the enigine is just weak?
Seems like a even more confusing H engine
Bocchi the Engine
Radial engines are better with an odd number of cylinders. The X layout is a multi bank 4 cylinder radial, make it 3 or 5 and the reliability is much better. I'm sure there is an engineer who could explain why but that's not me.
@@retiredbore378 🍻 Cheers
@@retiredbore378 correct. It is also possible to build a radial 2-stroke - that should have an even number of cylinders, for the same reason (timing).
@@retiredbore378this is such a concise yet intellectual text that I'm reading it several times.
i would like a x-engine with 45Liter displacement & turbo in a sportscar, that is enough for 10000HP on the wheels and 650Km/h topspeed.
Germans did an X-configuration diesel for a tank in WW2.
"X-engines" practically look like a compromise between a V-engine and a radial - And like many compromises, seem like suffering the drawbacks of both with the benefits of none.
Aviation apart, when they can be a good momentarily substitution for radials, I don't see any application for them.
I'm pretty sure the armada doesn't exist yet, only having been mocked up as of late 2020
If the Russian engine continues the trend of other recent RU military equipment actual performance compared to claimed performance, then the engines probably don't last, don't make claimed rated power, and there are very very few of them in actual use.
Almost being the operative word
maus engine and t-14 engine. T-14 'overheats' but that's most likely an excuse becasue the tank may not be as good as russia claims.
FWIW, a little constructive criticism for your videos: "Development" is not pronounced DEV-O-Lope-Ment, but rather DE-Velop-Ment....
X engine? In history,size .I think,If I got only one .I worried that I am being on flying car like small one with.
Henry Ford One tried an X Engine.
Yes, I mentioned it
"successfully powering T14 Armatas".... good one
Thought he said T40 Armata, which happens to be a modern russian tank
@@Amy-dq2lgT14 Armata, not T40
@@No-timeforimbeciles Yeah, i was wrong, misheard it in a video and forget about my comment
The X Engine
What about the Bugatti w engine?
The T-14 Armata's engine is super unreliable. Based on a failed German powerplant that they thought they could fix. Which of course they couldn't, because it was overly complex and not a sound design at all.
😂😂😂прекрати употреблять наркотики, ты несешь какой то бред. Т-14 настолько крутой танк, что если инопланетяне нападут и предложат дуэль на танках, то планету Земля будет защищать именно т-14💪😎
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤very very good Thanks you ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Even bank radial.
Т-14💪😎🤙 спасибо автору за замечательный ролик 😊 приятно наблюдать как наши враги отказываются верить, в то что русское оружие лучшее в мире 😎 русских весь мир любит, а кто не любит те нам завидуют 😊 Нет ничего глупее и безответственнее чем воевать против русских ☝️😌
Cooooooool