Quest for Power Part 1: Cylinders! Inlines, V, H, W, and X-Engines!

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
  • In this diversion from my usual exploration of warbirds, we look at some of the engines that powered them and how designers tried to forced more and more horsepower out of gasoline. In the first of this series, we look at how cylinders and how they can be arranged to get even MORE COWBELL! I love these vintage aircraft engines!
    Join this channel to get access to perks:
    / @worldofwarbirds
    Check out my other channel:
    ‪@flyinbryan5629‬

КОМЕНТАРІ • 38

  • @andygray9285
    @andygray9285 Місяць тому +2

    Only one sound better than a Merlin and that's 4 Merlins.

  • @grahamwhite2316
    @grahamwhite2316 Місяць тому +1

    Good video but a number of errors crept in, e.g., the sleeve valve diagram shows a R-R Crecy 2-stroke and the line drawing which is supposed to show a Sabre is in fact a R-R Eagle 22, etc.

  • @briansteffmagnussen9078
    @briansteffmagnussen9078 Місяць тому +1

    I understand that the x configuration shares the same crank to save weight, But just one misfiring cylinder will shoot the rod to hell.

  • @paulabraham2550
    @paulabraham2550 Місяць тому +3

    At about 5 minutes in you claim that the number of cylinders is always even. I suppose at this stage we're excluding radials and rotarys where the number is invariably odd but even then there are certainly some 5 cylinder inline engines out there - perhaps not aero engines?

    • @allangibson8494
      @allangibson8494 Місяць тому

      Actually car engines exist with every number of cylinders from one to six (including three and five). I haven’t seen a seven but eights were common.
      Three cylinder radials were used for the earliest Piper Cubs.
      Even numbered radials have been made but weren’t common.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому +1

      Yes, I should not have used the "always" and used "usually". In this field there seems to be at least one exception!

    • @paulabraham2550
      @paulabraham2550 Місяць тому

      @@worldofwarbirds It's not so much that, though, as the suggestion that even numbers are needed for balance. I don't think there's anything inherently unbalanced about odd numbers of cylinders.

  • @get2dachoppa249
    @get2dachoppa249 Місяць тому +1

    1:51 The FAA has the Charles Taylor Master Mechanic award, given to licensed aircraft mechanics upon reaching 50 years of experience (provided you’ve never had your license suspended or revoked for any reason). I’ll be eligible for mine in another 18 years.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому

      That’s great! That’s a lot of wrench turning! 🫡

  • @thomastims9583
    @thomastims9583 29 днів тому +1

    Great video ! How do the inverted engines maintain oil to the crank ? I’ve always wondered that.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  29 днів тому

      It was a dry sump system. The oil is pumped to the lube points and is recovered through channels similar to the channels that supplied it. This oil is then pumped to a separate oil containment tank and then pumped back into the bearing surfaces.

  • @KennethScharf
    @KennethScharf 29 днів тому +1

    Inline engines don't have to have an even number of cylinders. There have been 3 and 5 cylinder inline engines.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  29 днів тому

      Yes, you are correct. I should never use absolutes in these videos as there are ALWAYS exceptions. (Oops I did it again)

  • @MisterOcclusion
    @MisterOcclusion 29 днів тому +1

    What is displacement? Only that there is no replacement.

  • @deck614
    @deck614 Місяць тому +1

    Why do you ignore France?
    Antoinette V8s, Bariquant & Marre (used by the Wrights in France), Hispano Suiza V8s on Spads (even in the USA), Gnome and/or Rhone rotaries, Lorraine-Dietrich Ws, Renault inlines?

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому +1

      The French rotaries will be in the next one!

    • @deck614
      @deck614 Місяць тому

      @@worldofwarbirds Yeah you will talk of things that did not work for long. Antoinette! Hispano!

  • @Tom-Lahaye
    @Tom-Lahaye Місяць тому +1

    Napier was known for their uncommon cylinder configurations.
    Not mentioned in the video was the W12 Lion engine with 3 banks of four that powered fighter aircraft in the interwar period, some of these engines were fitted in land speed record cars which survive and I have seen them in action.
    Another complex design, although not an aircraft engine but a marine engine for patrol boats and torpedo vessels, later also used in the famous British rail class 55 Deltic locomotives was the 3 bank opposed piston Deltic diesel engine.
    Not to be confused with the opposed cylinder aero engines in this video, they had three banks of 6 cylinders each arranged in a triangular shape with a crank shaft at each corner. In each cylinder 2 pistons are facing each other with the space between them as combustion chamber. It's a headless engine, think of 3 V engines with the heads removed and then the open cylinder blocks bolted together. It was a 2 stroke using ports as there were no heads to fit poppet valves into.

  • @Paul-ls1qo
    @Paul-ls1qo Місяць тому +1

    Miss Budweiser Unlimited Hydroplane ran Griffons for a while

  • @paulgibson490
    @paulgibson490 Місяць тому

    I think you'll find the fastest snieder trophy aircraft was the supermarrine se5 with a Rolls Royce v12 engine.

  • @neildelaney5199
    @neildelaney5199 Місяць тому

    Super video, I don't know if this is possible, but can you find out the fuel consumption of these huge beast? I have read somewhere that a Rolls Royce Merlin burns something like 2 gallons of petrol per minuet ? many thanks

  • @g54b95
    @g54b95 Місяць тому +1

    You show a radial engine at the end but say radial or rotary, as if they are the same thing. A radial engine has many cylinders arranged around in a circular pattern. A rotary engine is a completely different animal, altogether.

    • @allangibson8494
      @allangibson8494 Місяць тому

      Both have cylinders located radially. A rotary rotates around the stationary crankshaft while in a radial the crankshaft rotates while the cylinders remain stationary.
      Rotary’s are limited to about 150hp because of issues with the rotating mass of the engine.

    • @hardyharhar9
      @hardyharhar9 Місяць тому +1

      Yes there the gnome which was a rotary radial.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому +1

      The whole next episode is on this topic and I do make the distinction between the two.

  • @localenterprisebroadcastin5971
    @localenterprisebroadcastin5971 Місяць тому +1

    You forgot about the German H opposed piston diesel 2 strokes…very cool design

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому

      This may come up when I discuss the various fuels used!

  • @haroldbrown1998
    @haroldbrown1998 Місяць тому +2

    Great video 👍.

  • @petewinter7759
    @petewinter7759 Місяць тому

    Well done another great video 👍

  • @robinsparkes-u1l
    @robinsparkes-u1l Місяць тому +1

    Great presentation,no AI and no stupid talk.

  • @RemusKingOfRome
    @RemusKingOfRome Місяць тому +1

    I'm asking "How do you cool it !" a double wasp seems the limit for cooling. "X" engines seems like a disaster from the start.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому +2

      Actually cooling systems would be a great addition to this series. Thanks for the idea!

    • @allangibson8494
      @allangibson8494 Місяць тому +2

      X-Engines are still in service.
      The Russian Armata tank has an X12-engine.
      The WW2 X-engines had problems with cooling that probably could have been solved but weren’t because the far simpler gas turbines arrived just as they were getting the bugs solved.
      If you want to try complex there was the five bank 30 cylinder tank engine developed by Chrysler and fitted to the M4A4 Sherman tanks.

    • @worldofwarbirds
      @worldofwarbirds  Місяць тому

      Interesting comment! Thanks!