hey worth, do a search for napier nomad on google or yahoo and you'll find all kinds of info on "compound diesel engines" which is what that engine was, it had moving pistons and cylinders and it was a 2-stroke diesel (haha) see i told you were building one of those funky cool 2-stroke diesels, only this thing is turbocharged too, it was making something like 3500 HP
The 14 cylinder version produces 109,000HP with 300 tons of crank at a blistering 102rpm. lol.
BSFC is 0.278 though, that's REAL nice. You'd be lucky to get a performance smallblock to 0.5.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
Just goes to show, there's no replacement for displacement.
BSFC is 0.278 though, that's REAL nice. You'd be lucky to get a performance smallblock to 0.5.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
Just goes to show, there's no replacement for displacement.
There is some leverage on the crank in a conventional engine, the piston's pin is slightly offset to one side to provide that little bit of thrust to get the motion started, but the motion is really only necssary when the engine is first started. The energy stored in the flywheel gives this motion after it's running.
Yea, I know what he's thinking but instead of having thrust on the crank from the top of it's travel to the bottom, he's gonna have the thrust shortened considerably. He'd also have to have a faster burning fuel which translates to sharper thrust loads imposed on the crank and bearings, which means more stress on the whole thing. I don't see the advantage in that. Instead of a "push" on the crank, you'll have the eqivalent of someone "hammering" on it. Somewhat akin to the stesses that top-fuel motors are subject to. And we all know that they put out massive amounts of power, but have very short life spans.
I believe the top fuel guys run about a 7 to 1 compression ratio. I realize this is too pack in more fuel, but perhaps they have the angle thing figured out also?
HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com
HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com