Westland Whirlwind revisited (2 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

It's been quite a while since I've done engine rebuilding or even done any major wrenching.

But quite a few engines have a "core" or "crossing point" where the firing order centers.

Without my automotive books, I have to go by memory, so the SB Chevy 283 Will work as an example.

If we wanted to make a V-4 out of the 283, follow the firing order: 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2
If you remove the front cylinders 1 and 2, then the rear cylinders 7 and 8, you'll be left with a 4 cylinder that has a firing order of 4-3-6-5.

That would require some work (as noted) but would provide relatively smooth performance.

One thing I do recall, is that VW's Type I four-banger has a "circular" firing order, which always puzzled me.

 

[SaparotRob]

Makes it sound cool.

 

[GrauGeist]

Makes it sound cool.

I used to build Chevy L-6 (straight six) engines, their firing order (1-5-3-6-2-4) gives the engine an inherent pause as the order cycles and when they are pumped up, with headers and a good exhaust system, sound awesome!

 

[SaparotRob]

I had a Slant Six with milled and ported heads and a Thrush exhaust. Who doesn't love car music?

 

[special ed]

And the Hudson used the twin wasp as well.

The Twin Wasp installation in the first 57 Australian Beauforts was 100% Hudson from the firewall forward except for the prop and they added a filler in the bottom of the dishpan where the oil cooler went on the Hudson and that bottom cowl was different.

The Hudson exhaust was also used on the first 57 aircraft with minimal changes made on the later exhausts.

The CAC designed cowl gills using most parts from the Boomerang cowl gills were used on the later aircraft.

The Hudson with the twin wasp engine startled me until I remembered this is an airplane forum

 

[Shortround6]

The Hudson with the twin wasp engine startled me until I remembered this is an airplane forum

You were expecting these??

 

[special ed]

Yes! Back in the day on dirt tracks the 308 cu.in. flathead was a match for the new 55 chev 283 and the better driver won.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Going back in History the Liberty V-12 was also made in V-8 and straight 6 and 4 cylinder versions. The last may have been something to see run, A 9 liter 4 cylinder engine, not the largest for sure but mounting it an aircraft that won't disassemble itself could be a trick. But that was early days.

How about a V-16, like the Chrysler IV-2220. Per Wikipedia a P-47 with this engine made over 500 mph. I wonder why we stopped at V-12s? Fiat made a V-24 engine!

Fiat AS.6 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suppose in this tandem format a near infinite number of cylinders is possible, sticking another V-12 onto the stack, limited only by the length of the aircraft and the strength of the crank and synchronicity of the ever lengthening ignition and air/fueling systems.

 

[Shortround6]

How about a V-16, like the Chrysler IV-2220. Per Wikipedia a P-47 with this engine made over 500 mph. I wonder why we stopped at V-12s? Fiat made a V-24 engine!

Wiki lied

The Chrysler "V-16" was actually two V-8s put together, This was actually a trick that many straight 8s used. The crankshafts were fastened together but there was a "tower" between the engine "blocks" that held the cam drives and some other accessories.

Notice the space where the engine mount is and the gap in the cylinder spacing.

This allowed the engine to act like two V-8s as far as vibration problems went.

Not quite the same as adding 4 cylinders to a V-12
The Fiat was sort of the same. Two V-12s placed end to end and the rear engine drove the supercharger.
I believe engine each engine drove 1/2 of the counter rotating propeller? Drive shaft from the rear engine went through the V of the forward engine?
Not saying it could not be done. I am saying it was a lot more complicated than it looks at first glance.

 

[SaparotRob]

More complicated? Yikes!

 

[MiTasol]

Two tachometer drives off a single shaft. I wonder why when the two halves of the engine are directly connected and running at the same speed.

Love the diagrams and photo - what book are they from?

 

[Admiral Beez]

More complicated? Yikes!

Complicated... here's the Hercules. A horologist's dream, I imagine.

 

[SaparotRob]

Two tachometer drives off a single shaft. I wonder why when the two halves of the engine are directly connected and running at the same speed.

They didn't have room for more.

 

[Shortround6]

The Fiat AS.6

From FIAT AS.6 Aircraft Engine (for the MC.72)

They have a large collection of articles about engines that were truly weird and wonderful.

W-18s seem to have been more popular than V-16s.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Complicated... here's the Centaurus. A horologist's dream, I imagine.

View attachment 709131

Is that the rare 14 cylinder version of the Centaurus with all the sleeves driven from one end?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is that the rare 14 cylinder version of the Centaurus with all the sleeves driven from one end?

Is that your contribution? You had a choice, knock a person down or add to the convo.

 

[wuzak]

The Fiat was sort of the same. Two V-12s placed end to end and the rear engine drove the supercharger.
I believe engine each engine drove 1/2 of the counter rotating propeller? Drive shaft from the rear engine went through the V of the forward engine?
Not saying it could not be done. I am saying it was a lot more complicated than it looks at first glance.

That is correct.

The rear engine drove the front prop, and the front engine the rear prop.

Unlike the Chrysler V16, the two crankshaft halves were independent of one another.

 

[wuzak]

How about a V-16, like the Chrysler IV-2220. Per Wikipedia a P-47 with this engine made over 500 mph. I wonder why we stopped at V-12s? Fiat made a V-24 engine!

The Chrysler was longer and heavier than the similarly powerful Griffon.

Doubtful that the XP-47H went anything close to 500mph.

 

[wuzak]

The Daimler Benz DB 609 was a 16 cylinder engine based on the DB 603, and it still had the cam drive and power take-off at the ends of the engine, not in the middle.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Is that your contribution? You had a choice, knock a person down or add to the convo.

The point of the post was to use humour to gently correct an obvious error.
Seems to have failed dismally.

Complicated:

Napier Nomad from excellent article here: Napier Nomad Compound Aircraft Engine