Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thanik]

What do people have against radial engines at this day and age?

Following their admission into the aircraft contest, the Harkiss Aerial Bureau found itself lacking a proper engine to power the new plane - and thus contacted their engine division so as to make use of their experience in building civilian radial engines and channel it into a more specialized role, leading to the development of the HK 150, an air-cooled four-stroke 9-cylinder radial engine meant to power future pull-configuration fighters as the cooling provided by the passing air, reducing the weight of the craft by lowering the weight of the cooling system generally associated with presently used inline engines. As the engine's name suggests, it is made so as to provide between 120 and 150 hp.

And for those who want to work on a different type of engine...

In a bid to improve engines currently used in the army, Johannes Barnett and his company sought out to marry two straight-6 engines to each other at various angles and experiment so as to achieve a more power without increasing the length of the engine, with the aim being the development of a 200 hp V12 engine with decent reliability and maintenance costs equivalent to the currently used inline engines, without potential vibration issues. Should the goal of reaching the slated power fail, the engine should be renamed to fit the power it outputs and the power lowered until the engine operates reliably, within reason taking into account power-to-weight ratios, and no less than 120 hp is expected for the engine.

Which might actually be easier to achieve in a revision, and would have inline engine design experience at least somewhat syphon off into it. All in all...

Have some more (somewhat meh wrote out mind you) options!

[piratejoe]

Personally I am more of an inline engine fan because inline engines are more aerodynamic but more importantly are much more powerful. They may have a cooling system that can be heavy but because of a more efficient cooling system than just the air you can use a smaller engine and get more power out of it and push it more for a longer time without it overheating.

[Thanik]

Personally I am more of an inline engine fan because inline engines are more aerodynamic but more importantly are much more powerful. They may have a cooling system that can be heavy but because of a more efficient cooling system than just the air you can use a smaller engine and get more power out of it and push it more for a longer time without it overheating.

You're joking, right? Radials, in fact, outdid inline and rotary engines at the end of the war, they were just underrealized. Why did anyone use radial engines for their planes in the first place if straight engines are inherently better? No one in WW2 used straight engines. You either had a V engine or a radial, and radials aren't JUST cooled by the airflow.

[piratejoe]

Excuse me, I'm sorry, I forgot Inline engines mean a literal line of single pistons outside of aeronautical terms and that can cause confusion. Regardless, I was just stating the advantages of a V engine and to clarify, by more powerful I mean that a 6 cylinder V engine will produce more power then an equivalent radial. Speaking of, V engines actually exist at this moment of time, so maybe upgrading the Emu's engine to something like a Hispano-Suiza 8 or Rolls-Royce Eagle wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Thanik]

Excuse me, I'm sorry, I forgot Inline engines mean a literal line of single pistons outside of aeronautical terms and that can cause confusion. Regardless, I was just stating the advantages of a V engine and to clarify, by more powerful I mean that a 6 cylinder V engine will produce more power then an equivalent radial. Speaking of, V engines actually exist at this moment of time, so maybe upgrading the Emu's engine to something like a Hispano-Suiza 8 or Rolls-Royce Eagle wouldn't be a bad idea.

I was going to say we could go for a V8 but the  resonant forces could put unwanted stress on the aircraft, hence the V12 proposal.

Edit: Do note both have their advantages and disadvantages, and some of the most powerful engines used in WW2 were in fact radial engines.

[piratejoe]

Yeah I know the whole advantages and disadvantages of a radial engine. I like inline better though, or V anyway. Also a V 8 engine is fairly easy to deal with, vibrations wise anyway, just slap some balancer shafts and you'll not feel any vibrations from the engine. Also I'm kinda surprised no one brought up boxer engines.

[Thanik]

Yeah I know the whole advantages and disadvantages of a radial engine. I like inline better though, or V anyway. Also a V 8 engine is fairly easy to deal with, vibrations wise anyway, just slap some balancer shafts and you'll not feel any vibrations from the engine. Also I'm kinda surprised no one brought up boxer engines.

You do realize those counterweights are both mechanically complex AND heavy, right?

[piratejoe]

Even without them the engine won't vibrate too much, and will actually be quiet good compared to other engines. Eh, screw it lets just get a v12. But when we make a fighter we should use a V8.

[Thanik]

Even without them the engine won't vibrate too much. Eh, screw it lets just get a v12. But when we make a fighter we should use a V6.

Why not a V12 for the fighter right off the bat? V12 just means it has 12 cylinders, it doesn't say anything about it's specifications, dimensions, etc.

[piratejoe]

A V 12 would be heavy and probably result in a longer or larger nose but eh, it can work. Though I would worry a bit about the center of gravity being a bit nose heavy. I'd still like a V 8 for a fighter though, just at the least so it's cheaper and lighter, but fighter bombers would do well with a V12.

[Thanik]

A V 12 would be heavy and probably result in a longer or larger nose but eh, it can work.

Historical engines beg to differ. Engines are described by their displacement, and thus a very large 2-cylinder inline engine will give the same power as a moderate V12. If you take the displacement size of an engine, let's say 6 liters, then a V12 six liter means 500 cc per cylinder while a V8 six liter means 750 cc. That means, that a V8 needs larger cylinders with bigger bore and more stroke. In order to get filled properly, the V8 engine needs bigger, heavier valves. That means that a V8 engine may have difficulties to rev as high as a V12 engine of similar refinement. Each cylinder fires every two revolutions, so a V8 fires 4 times per revolution, a V12 fires 6 times per revolution.

Here's the Ferrari Colombo 125:
"The first homegrown Ferrari engine was the 125. First appearing May 11, 1947 under the hood of Ferrari's 125 S sports racer, the engine allowed the company to claim six victories in 14 races that year. The 125 S sported tiny 55.0 mm (2.2 in) by 52.5 mm (2.1 in) cylinders, the resulting 124.73 cc of each cylinder rounded up to give the engine, and the car, its name. Overall, the engine displaced exactly 1,496.77 cc (91 in³). It had a single overhead camshaft on each bank of cylinders with a 60° angle between the two banks. The engine had two valves per cylinder fed through three Weber 30DCF carburettors. A 7.5:1 compression ratio yielded 118 hp (88 kW) at 6800 rpm."

And the car it was used in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_125_S#Engine

[piratejoe]

Fair enough though I was thinking if we replaced the straight eight engine that the Emu has we would replace it with something similar in size. Also eS asked me to do this

Bar's Shelf Bomb Rack Actually A Bomb Rack Edition (3):Piratejoe , NAV, eS
Sky Crusader Armour(3): Piratejoe, NAV, eS
Tracer Ammunition(3): Piratejoe, NAV, eS

[Thanik]

Fair enough though I was thinking if we replaced the straight eight engine that the Emu has we would replace it with something similar in size. Also eS asked me to do this:
/votebox/

A straight eight of whatever horsepower we had is going to be pretty damn large. A V8 would be half it's size, with 4 cylinders per side, and a V12 would be 75% it's size or so.

Bar's Shelf Bomb Rack Actually A Bomb Rack Edition (3):Piratejoe , NAV, eS
Sky Crusader Armour (3): Piratejoe, NAV, eS
Tracer Ammunition (4): Piratejoe, NAV, eS, Thanik
Top Shelf Bomb Rack (1): Thanik
Basket Hilt Crossguard (0):
HK 150 Radial Engine (0):
Barnett 1915 (B200) (1): Thanik

I'd love it if we went for the Basket Hilt Crossguard soon, or even this turn, but I feel tracers and more comfortable bombing gear is needed, while also wanting to develop a better engine for our future fighters and bombers. We need engine experience if we want to win the air war, because we're currently moving at ridiculously low speeds.

[piratejoe]

Alright then, 12 on fighter bombers and bombers, 8 on fighters if the engine is particularly heavy or expensive. Hopefully we will be able to install it on the Emu if we roll well with it. If it's voted anyway.

Bar's Shelf Bomb Rack Actually A Bomb Rack Edition (4):Piratejoe , NAV, eS, Thanik
Sky Crusader Armour (2): NAV, eS
Tracer Ammunition (4): Piratejoe, NAV, eS, Thanik
Top Shelf Bomb Rack (0):
Basket Hilt Crossguard (0):
HK 150 Radial Engine (0):
Barnett 1915 (B200) (2): Thanik, Piratejoe

[Sensei]

Bar's Shelf Bomb Rack Actually A Bomb Rack Edition (4):Piratejoe , NAV, eS, Thanik
Sky Crusader Armour (2): NAV, eS
Tracer Ammunition (4): Piratejoe, NAV, eS, Thanik
Top Shelf Bomb Rack (0):
Basket Hilt Crossguard (0):
HK 150 Radial Engine (0):
Barnett 1915 (B200) (3): Thanik, Piratejoe, Sensei