Engine configuration

[Michael Henry]

Greetings!

My last post provoked a long and interesting series of threads so I am
emboldened to make another post.

This question concerns the configuration or layout of an engine. I have
noticed that air-cooled engines tend to have an opposed configuration
whereas liquid-cooled engines tend to have a V configuration. Both are
also available inline but I'll take a leap and say these are a minority
(I'm talking about current production engines not historical engines).
There are some liquid-cooled horizontally-opposed engines but I can't
think of any air-cooled "V" engines. Why is this? It suggests to me that
the advantages of the V configuration are specific to liquid cooling. Is
this really the case?

The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:

"Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."

OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
inverted V?

Regards,

Michael

[GTH]

Michael Henry a écrit :

> why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> inverted V?


They are derived from opposed engines, and the manufacturers thought
easier to retain the same cylinders and cylinder heads as their 4
cylinder counterparts.

There have been a number of aircooled inverted engines in the post WWII
period.

But it is hard to make statistics with Lyco/Cont being the sole small
engine manufacturers for decades.

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[Paul Hastings]

"Michael Henry" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings!
>
> My last post provoked a long and interesting series of threads so I am
> emboldened to make another post.
>
> This question concerns the configuration or layout of an engine. I have
> noticed that air-cooled engines tend to have an opposed configuration
> whereas liquid-cooled engines tend to have a V configuration. Both are
> also available inline but I'll take a leap and say these are a minority
> (I'm talking about current production engines not historical engines).
> There are some liquid-cooled horizontally-opposed engines but I can't
> think of any air-cooled "V" engines. Why is this? It suggests to me that
> the advantages of the V configuration are specific to liquid cooling. Is
> this really the case?
>
> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>
> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> inverted V?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael

Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they are
limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring out the
Harley guys)

Paul

[Michael Henry]

GTH wrote:
> Michael Henry a écrit :
>
>> why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
>> inverted V?
>
>
> They are derived from opposed engines, and the manufacturers thought
> easier to retain the same cylinders and cylinder heads as their 4
> cylinder counterparts.

OK so I just push my question back one generation: why is the O-360 not
an inverted V?

I'm asking more from a theoretical point of view. What is it that makes
the opposed configuration more attractive than the V configuration for
air-cooled engines? Likewise: what is it that makes the V configuration
more attractive than the opposed configuration for liquid-cooled engines?

There are new aircraft engine designs out there: the Jabiru as an
air-cooled example and the Orenda as a liquid-cooled example. They
follow the same pattern that has become the norm.

> There have been a number of aircooled inverted engines in the post WWII
> period.

....and in the pre-WWII period! The deHavilland Gipsy Major being a
notable example.

[Bill Daniels]

"Michael Henry" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings!
>
> My last post provoked a long and interesting series of threads so I am
> emboldened to make another post.
>
> This question concerns the configuration or layout of an engine. I have
> noticed that air-cooled engines tend to have an opposed configuration
> whereas liquid-cooled engines tend to have a V configuration. Both are
> also available inline but I'll take a leap and say these are a minority
> (I'm talking about current production engines not historical engines).
> There are some liquid-cooled horizontally-opposed engines but I can't
> think of any air-cooled "V" engines. Why is this? It suggests to me that
> the advantages of the V configuration are specific to liquid cooling. Is
> this really the case?
>
> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>
> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> inverted V?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael

I can think of two inverted "V" air cooled aero engines that were produced
in quantity.
One is the German Argus As 10C 240HP used in the Me 108 and the Storch and
the other is the American Ranger V-770 inverted V12.
See: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Duxford/Ranger.htm
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_As_10

[stol]

On Dec 13, 4:53 am, Michael Henry > wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> My last post provoked a long and interesting series of threads so I am
> emboldened to make another post.
>
> This question concerns the configuration or layout of an engine. I have
> noticed that air-cooled engines tend to have an opposed configuration
> whereas liquid-cooled engines tend to have a V configuration. Both are
> also available inline but I'll take a leap and say these are a minority
> (I'm talking about current production engines not historical engines).
> There are some liquid-cooled horizontally-opposed engines but I can't
> think of any air-cooled "V" engines. Why is this? It suggests to me that
> the advantages of the V configuration are specific to liquid cooling. Is
> this really the case?
>
> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>
> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> inverted V?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael

VF-4 Wisconson industrial engine is an air cooled V configuration.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:53:23 +1000, Michael Henry >
wrote:

> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>
> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> inverted V?

The practical difference in visibility between an inverted-V and a horizontally
opposed engine is minor, especially when the airplane they're used on has
tricycle gear vs. a taildragger. An inverted-V engine has a significant
visibility advantage over a radial, but they're no longer common in light
aircraft.

Same holds true for the lower CG: The inverted-V is much better than a radial,
but not that much better than the horizontally opposed engine. If you're
speaking of an air-cooled engine, much of the mass is in the crankcase, anyway,
irrespective of which way the cylinders poke.

And as you say: There are no disadvantages *listed* in a short Wikipedia
article. That does not mean there are no disadvantages. Access to the carb and
other elements that mount below the crankcase is probably more awkward; the
spark plugs may be more susceptible to oil fouling. For that matter, the
inverted-V may have the same problems with hydro lock as a radial...probably in
itself enough of a reason to favor horizontally opposed.

Ron Wanttaja

[Darrel Toepfer]

Michael Henry > wrote:

> what is it that makes the V configuration
> more attractive than the opposed configuration for liquid-cooled engines?

Rotax 4 strokes are opposed, they also make inline 2 stroke air/water
cooled engines too...

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> I can think of two inverted "V" air cooled aero engines that were
> produced in quantity.
> One is the German Argus As 10C 240HP used in the Me 108 and the Storch
> and the other is the American Ranger V-770 inverted V12.
> See: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Duxford/Ranger.htm
> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_As_10

LOM's are still in production: http://www.moraviation.com

[Bill Daniels]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>> I can think of two inverted "V" air cooled aero engines that were
>> produced in quantity.
>> One is the German Argus As 10C 240HP used in the Me 108 and the Storch
>> and the other is the American Ranger V-770 inverted V12.
>> See: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Duxford/Ranger.htm
>> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_As_10
>
> LOM's are still in production: http://www.moraviation.com

I thought the original question was about inverted "V" engines. While the
LOM and Mikron engines are excellent products, they are inverted I-6 and I-4
engines, not a "V".

BTW, neither the LOM or the Ranger engines suffer from 'hydraulic lock'
which seems to be mostly related to P&W radials. I owned a Ranger inverted
in-line 6 which powered a PT - 19 and it never even smoked on start. I also
flew a Zlin with a LOM I-6 and it didn't give problems.

I think the inverted engines allow a nicer looking cowl and they do improve
the pilots visibility forward and down.

Bill Daniels

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> I thought the original question was about inverted "V" engines. While
> the LOM and Mikron engines are excellent products, they are inverted
> I-6 and I-4 engines, not a "V".

Bootstrap a couple of them together! ;-)

Didn't we discuss an old US tank engine in here? It was 5 or more
engines geared together. Lots of unique engines in tanks, air cooled gas
radials, 90 degree "V" diesels, etc...

> BTW, neither the LOM or the Ranger engines suffer from 'hydraulic
> lock' which seems to be mostly related to P&W radials. I owned a
> Ranger inverted in-line 6 which powered a PT - 19 and it never even
> smoked on start. I also flew a Zlin with a LOM I-6 and it didn't give
> problems.
>
> I think the inverted engines allow a nicer looking cowl and they do
> improve the pilots visibility forward and down.

Yep...

[wright1902glider]

From what I've seen historically, the engine configuration had to do
with 5 factors:


1. how to machine it, feed it, and get it lit (this was the major
issue before WW 1)
2. how to keep it cool (hence the popularity of the radial, which was
originally designed to power the Langley aerodrome)
3. because everybody else did it that way
4. cost
5. how to cram it into the airframe

Number 3 now seems to be the most popular reason to use an air-cooled
flat.

Harry

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Michael Henry > wrote:

> GTH wrote:
> > Michael Henry a écrit :
> >
> >> why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> >> inverted V?
> >
> >
> > They are derived from opposed engines, and the manufacturers thought
> > easier to retain the same cylinders and cylinder heads as their 4
> > cylinder counterparts.
>
> OK so I just push my question back one generation: why is the O-360 not
> an inverted V?
>
> I'm asking more from a theoretical point of view. What is it that makes
> the opposed configuration more attractive than the V configuration for
> air-cooled engines? Likewise: what is it that makes the V configuration
> more attractive than the opposed configuration for liquid-cooled engines?
>
> There are new aircraft engine designs out there: the Jabiru as an
> air-cooled example and the Orenda as a liquid-cooled example. They
> follow the same pattern that has become the norm.
>
> > There have been a number of aircooled inverted engines in the post WWII
> > period.
>
> ...and in the pre-WWII period! The deHavilland Gipsy Major being a
> notable example.

I think one of the factors you're overlooking is vibration.

Certain engine configurations have less vibration due to the arrangement
of the reciprocating and revolving components:

A 90 degree V-8; a straight-6; ...

....and a flat-4.

A V-4 would have more vibration than a flat-4.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[GTH]

Michael Henry a écrit :

> There are new aircraft engine designs out there: the Jabiru as an
> air-cooled example and the Orenda as a liquid-cooled example. They
> follow the same pattern that has become the norm.

The Jabiru was designed as a replacement for the VW, and the designers
adopted the same configuration and even the same RPM.

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[GTH]

Alan Baker a écrit :

> I think one of the factors you're overlooking is vibration.
>
> Certain engine configurations have less vibration due to the arrangement
> of the reciprocating and revolving components:
>
> A 90 degree V-8; a straight-6; ...
>
> ...and a flat-4.
>
> A V-4 would have more vibration than a flat-4.
>

Right on that one.
Also it is interesting to observe that only *short* crankshaft engines
achieved success in civilian airplanes after WWII : radials, short flat
fours, or sixes.

Inline engines with their longer crankshaft have only survived in
marginal quantities in Eastern Europe.

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[[email protected]]

Opposed engines are simple and strong. Inverted engines are much
more complicated.

First: The cylinder extends into the crankcase so that oil thrown off
the bearings doesn't drain off the case walls and run into the
cylinders. Could cause hydraulic lock, certainly would use a lot more
oil.

Second: That oil can't be stored in the crankcase. There has to be a
separate oil tank, usually on the firewall.

Third: The oil has to be pumped out of the engine into the tank. My
Auster had a Gipsy Major inverted inline, and it had THREE oil pumps:
one to pump oil from the tank into the engine's workings for
lubrication, and two more to scavenge the case; one pumped oil out of
the front, the other out of the back. Because the engine gets tipped
up and down so much in an airplane, two outlets are necessary lest oil
pile up and start running into the jugs at the low end. One pump can't
do them both, or it would be happy to suck air from the high end
instead of pulling the oil out of the low end.

Fourth: The rockers and valve stems need either pressure lubrication
and ANOTHER scavenge pump, or, as with the Gipsy, the covers are taken
off occasionally and filled with oil. A pain, that is.

In spite of all that, I like the looks of the inverted
installation, confirming that, like so much of homebuilding and the
rest of general aviation, emotions usually trump common sense. (Just
look at the beautiful but huge, ridiculously expensive projects some
of us average-income guys start on, and are never able to finish.
Emotions over common sense.)


Dan

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:19:14 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Michael Henry > wrote:
>
>> GTH wrote:
>> > Michael Henry a écrit :
>> >
>> >> why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
>> >> inverted V?
>> >
>> >
>> > They are derived from opposed engines, and the manufacturers thought
>> > easier to retain the same cylinders and cylinder heads as their 4
>> > cylinder counterparts.
>>
>> OK so I just push my question back one generation: why is the O-360 not
>> an inverted V?
>>
>> I'm asking more from a theoretical point of view. What is it that makes
>> the opposed configuration more attractive than the V configuration for
>> air-cooled engines? Likewise: what is it that makes the V configuration
>> more attractive than the opposed configuration for liquid-cooled engines?
>>
>> There are new aircraft engine designs out there: the Jabiru as an
>> air-cooled example and the Orenda as a liquid-cooled example. They
>> follow the same pattern that has become the norm.
>>
>> > There have been a number of aircooled inverted engines in the post WWII
>> > period.
>>
>> ...and in the pre-WWII period! The deHavilland Gipsy Major being a
>> notable example.
>
>I think one of the factors you're overlooking is vibration.
>
>Certain engine configurations have less vibration due to the arrangement
>of the reciprocating and revolving components:
>
>A 90 degree V-8; a straight-6; ...
>
>...and a flat-4.
>
>A V-4 would have more vibration than a flat-4.

Yea, ever drive a Corsair V4? Even with a balance shaft they are not
smmoth.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
> . 18...
>> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>>
>>> I can think of two inverted "V" air cooled aero engines that were
>>> produced in quantity.
>>> One is the German Argus As 10C 240HP used in the Me 108 and the Storch
>>> and the other is the American Ranger V-770 inverted V12.
>>> See: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Duxford/Ranger.htm
>>> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_As_10
>>
>> LOM's are still in production: http://www.moraviation.com
>
> I thought the original question was about inverted "V" engines. While the
> LOM and Mikron engines are excellent products, they are inverted I-6 and
> I-4 engines, not a "V".
>
> BTW, neither the LOM or the Ranger engines suffer from 'hydraulic lock'
> which seems to be mostly related to P&W radials. I owned a Ranger
> inverted in-line 6 which powered a PT - 19 and it never even smoked on
> start. I also flew a Zlin with a LOM I-6 and it didn't give problems.
>
> I think the inverted engines allow a nicer looking cowl and they do
> improve the pilots visibility forward and down.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
This is not my area of occupational or other specialty, but...

I think that you will find that the hydraulic lock, and also the lower plug
fouling problem in the bottom cylinders, is a common problem shared by all
of the radials that I have seen and is not exclusive to Pratt and Whitney.

Basically, the issue is that the oil storage tank is located at the top of
the engine compartment, well above the crankshaft, which has both a major
advantage and a major dissadvantage. The advantage is that the oil will
gravity feed into the intake of the pressure pump--making it very easy to
maintain full oil flow and pressure at any altitude without any requirement
for any additional pump to lift the from the tank to the pressure pump. (I
have no idea whether any reciprocating engines even actually had such a need
at any altitude that they were flown, but it is theoretically possible with
some combination of maneuvering loads and very high altitude.) There is an
additional benefit in that there is no delay between starting the engine and
pumping pressurized oil to the bearings. However, the well known
dissadvantage is that the oil from the storage tank will slowly drain
downward through the clearances of the oil pressure pump and through the
main and big end bearings, and into the lowest cylinders. Over time,
ranging from hours to days, it will fill the "bottoms" of one or more
pistons and drain slowly between the pistons and cylinder walls, between the
ring gaps, and into the combustion chambers of one or more cylinders. The
resulting pools of oil in the combustion chambers then cause the familiar
spark plug fouling and, in extreme cases, hydraulic lock.


As to the matter of inverted Vee engines: Personally, I like them; but I
really don't see any advantage over a "flat" engine, and only a slight
advantage over an upright Vee with offset reduction drive.
In short: Why fix what aint broke?

I hope this helps.
Peter

[Big John]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:02:54 +0100, GTH >
wrote:

>Alan Baker a écrit :
>
>> I think one of the factors you're overlooking is vibration.
>>
>> Certain engine configurations have less vibration due to the arrangement
>> of the reciprocating and revolving components:
>>
>> A 90 degree V-8; a straight-6; ...
>>
>> ...and a flat-4.
>>
>> A V-4 would have more vibration than a flat-4.
>>
>
>Right on that one.
>Also it is interesting to observe that only *short* crankshaft engines
>achieved success in civilian airplanes after WWII : radials, short flat
>fours, or sixes.
>
>Inline engines with their longer crankshaft have only survived in
>marginal quantities in Eastern Europe.
>
> Best regards,
***************************************
My first military aircraft was the PT-19A with a 200 HP inverted
Franklin air cooled engine.

Primary reason they are not flying today is the PT-19 had a bunch of
expensive AD's on the wood in the wing.

Don't ever remember the engine over temping and bird did not have any
cowel flaps.

Don't remember any engine failures on field during my Primary Training
period. Chit chat was that it was a good engine.

Big John

[Big John]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:59:11 GMT, "Paul Hastings"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael Henry" > wrote in message
...
>> Greetings!
>>
>> My last post provoked a long and interesting series of threads so I am
>> emboldened to make another post.
>>
>> This question concerns the configuration or layout of an engine. I have
>> noticed that air-cooled engines tend to have an opposed configuration
>> whereas liquid-cooled engines tend to have a V configuration. Both are
>> also available inline but I'll take a leap and say these are a minority
>> (I'm talking about current production engines not historical engines).
>> There are some liquid-cooled horizontally-opposed engines but I can't
>> think of any air-cooled "V" engines. Why is this? It suggests to me that
>> the advantages of the V configuration are specific to liquid cooling. Is
>> this really the case?
>>
>> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>>
>> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
>> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
>> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>>
>> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
>> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
>> inverted V?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael
>
>Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they are
>limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring out the
>Harley guys)
>
>Paul
>
***************************************

Paul

What about us Indian guys :o)

Big John

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:56 -0600, Big John > wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:59:11 GMT, "Paul Hastings"
> >Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they are
> >limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring out the
> >Harley guys)
>
> Paul
>
> What about us Indian guys :o)

With all the casino money, you can buy whatever engine you want. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Dohm]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:56 -0600, Big John > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:59:11 GMT, "Paul Hastings"
>> >Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they
>> >are
>> >limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring
>> >out the
>> >Harley guys)
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> What about us Indian guys :o)
>
> With all the casino money, you can buy whatever engine you want. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Good one, Ron!

Peter :-)

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:19:14 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Michael Henry > wrote:
> >
> >> GTH wrote:
> >> > Michael Henry a écrit :
> >> >
> >> >> why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> >> >> inverted V?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > They are derived from opposed engines, and the manufacturers thought
> >> > easier to retain the same cylinders and cylinder heads as their 4
> >> > cylinder counterparts.
> >>
> >> OK so I just push my question back one generation: why is the O-360 not
> >> an inverted V?
> >>
> >> I'm asking more from a theoretical point of view. What is it that makes
> >> the opposed configuration more attractive than the V configuration for
> >> air-cooled engines? Likewise: what is it that makes the V configuration
> >> more attractive than the opposed configuration for liquid-cooled engines?
> >>
> >> There are new aircraft engine designs out there: the Jabiru as an
> >> air-cooled example and the Orenda as a liquid-cooled example. They
> >> follow the same pattern that has become the norm.
> >>
> >> > There have been a number of aircooled inverted engines in the post WWII
> >> > period.
> >>
> >> ...and in the pre-WWII period! The deHavilland Gipsy Major being a
> >> notable example.
> >
> >I think one of the factors you're overlooking is vibration.
> >
> >Certain engine configurations have less vibration due to the arrangement
> >of the reciprocating and revolving components:
> >
> >A 90 degree V-8; a straight-6; ...
> >
> >...and a flat-4.
> >
> >A V-4 would have more vibration than a flat-4.
>
> Yea, ever drive a Corsair V4? Even with a balance shaft they are not
> smmoth.

Um, somebody check me, but didn't the Corvair come with only one engine:
a flat 6?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Big John]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:11:01 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:56 -0600, Big John > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:59:11 GMT, "Paul Hastings"
>> >Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they are
>> >limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring out the
>> >Harley guys)
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> What about us Indian guys :o)
>
>With all the casino money, you can buy whatever engine you want. :-)
>
>Ron Wanttaja

*****************************
Ron

I spoke about an Indian motorcycle (in reply to the comment "that
ought to bring out the Harley guys"). Guess those bikes were before
most of the times for many in this group :o)

Big John

[GTH]

Big John a écrit :

>
> I spoke about an Indian motorcycle (in reply to the comment "that
> ought to bring out the Harley guys"). Guess those bikes were before
> most of the times for many in this group :o)

Big John,

I had got the Indian bikes message correct. I also met Ariel Saquare
Fours, the lot.

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[Anthony W]

GTH wrote:
> Big John a écrit :
>
>>
>> I spoke about an Indian motorcycle (in reply to the comment "that
>> ought to bring out the Harley guys"). Guess those bikes were before
>> most of the times for many in this group :o)
>
> Big John,
>
> I had got the Indian bikes message correct. I also met Ariel Saquare
> Fours, the lot.
>
> Best regards,

What bout the Moto Guzzi and Ducati riders? I remember embarrassing
many Harley riders with my old Guzzi T3.

Tony

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:45:04 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>>
>> Yea, ever drive a Corsair V4? Even with a balance shaft they are not
>> smmoth.
>
>Um, somebody check me, but didn't the Corvair come with only one engine:
>a flat 6?

Ya gotta learn to READ. I said CORSAIR. Like a Limey Ford from the
'60s.
I believe the engine may have also been used in the Transit van, and
is a close relative if not the same engine as the Saab V4.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Big John > wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:11:01 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:56 -0600, Big John > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:59:11 GMT, "Paul Hastings"
> >> >Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they
> >> >are
> >> >limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring
> >> >out the
> >> >Harley guys)
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> What about us Indian guys :o)
> >
> >With all the casino money, you can buy whatever engine you want. :-)
> >
> >Ron Wanttaja
>
> *****************************
> Ron
>
> I spoke about an Indian motorcycle (in reply to the comment "that
> ought to bring out the Harley guys"). Guess those bikes were before
> most of the times for many in this group :o)
>
> Big John

Until a year or two ago, they were making them new down the road in
Gilroy, CA.

Too bad they couldn't make a go of it.

[Big John]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:32:42 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Big John > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:11:01 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:56 -0600, Big John > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:59:11 GMT, "Paul Hastings"
>> >> >Lots of motorcycles out there that are air cooled v-twins. Granted they
>> >> >are
>> >> >limited in horsepower for their displacement. ;^) (that ought to bring
>> >> >out the
>> >> >Harley guys)
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >> What about us Indian guys :o)
>> >
>> >With all the casino money, you can buy whatever engine you want. :-)
>> >
>> >Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> *****************************
>> Ron
>>
>> I spoke about an Indian motorcycle (in reply to the comment "that
>> ought to bring out the Harley guys"). Guess those bikes were before
>> most of the times for many in this group :o)
>>
>> Big John
>
>Until a year or two ago, they were making them new down the road in
>Gilroy, CA.
>
>Too bad they couldn't make a go of it.
*********************************88

They were out of business a long time until a couple of years ago due
to a trademark of the name and owner wouldn't sell or some such
rig-a-ma-roll. New one I saw was a nice looking bike.

I had a WWII surplus military model and rode while I was an instructor
in the P-80 in Arizona. Rode for about 3 years and never laid down.
With the casualities in training I ended up selling to reduce my risk
of bad things happening.

Big John

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:45:04 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yea, ever drive a Corsair V4? Even with a balance shaft they are not
> >> smmoth.
> >
> >Um, somebody check me, but didn't the Corvair come with only one engine:
> >a flat 6?
>
> Ya gotta learn to READ. I said CORSAIR. Like a Limey Ford from the
> '60s.

Which is why I said "check me". :-)

> I believe the engine may have also been used in the Transit van, and
> is a close relative if not the same engine as the Saab V4.

Well, you're absolutely right that a V-4 would be expected to have a lot
of vibration.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:32:42 -0800, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I spoke about an Indian motorcycle (in reply to the comment "that
> >> ought to bring out the Harley guys"). Guess those bikes were before
> >> most of the times for many in this group :o)
> >>
> >> Big John
> >
> >Until a year or two ago, they were making them new down the road in
> >Gilroy, CA.
> >
> >Too bad they couldn't make a go of it.
>
> They are reincarnating again
>
> http://www.indianmotorcycle.com/Portals/0/docs/Press_Releases/Indian%20Motorcy
> cle%20Revised%20Press%20Release%20-%20Revised%20Sept.pdf
>
> Factory in North Carolina, major stockholder is Stellican Limited,
> which brought back ChrisCraft.

I wish them luck this go 'round.

[Charlie[_2_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:53:23 +1000, Michael Henry >
> wrote:
>
>> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>>
>> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
>> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
>> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>>
>> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
>> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
>> inverted V?
>
> The practical difference in visibility between an inverted-V and a horizontally
> opposed engine is minor, especially when the airplane they're used on has
> tricycle gear vs. a taildragger. An inverted-V engine has a significant
> visibility advantage over a radial, but they're no longer common in light
> aircraft.
>
> Same holds true for the lower CG: The inverted-V is much better than a radial,
> but not that much better than the horizontally opposed engine. If you're
> speaking of an air-cooled engine, much of the mass is in the crankcase, anyway,
> irrespective of which way the cylinders poke.
>
> And as you say: There are no disadvantages *listed* in a short Wikipedia
> article. That does not mean there are no disadvantages. Access to the carb and
> other elements that mount below the crankcase is probably more awkward; the
> spark plugs may be more susceptible to oil fouling. For that matter, the
> inverted-V may have the same problems with hydro lock as a radial...probably in
> itself enough of a reason to favor horizontally opposed.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
Is this thread dead yet?

Actually, there is a real structural advantage to the flat engine over
the V. The block can be lighter in the opposed configuration, for the
same strength.

Charlie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 7:36 pm, Charlie > wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:53:23 +1000, Michael Henry >
> > wrote:
>
> >> The Wikipedia article on "V Engine" is quite short but it includes this:
>
> >> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
> >> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
> >> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
> >> OK, these are two pretty good advantages! There are no disadvantages
> >> listed. So why isn't the Lycoming O-540 or the Continental O-520 an
> >> inverted V?
>
> > The practical difference in visibility between an inverted-V and a horizontally
> > opposed engine is minor, especially when the airplane they're used on has
> > tricycle gear vs. a taildragger. An inverted-V engine has a significant
> > visibility advantage over a radial, but they're no longer common in light
> > aircraft.
>
> > Same holds true for the lower CG: The inverted-V is much better than a radial,
> > but not that much better than the horizontally opposed engine. If you're
> > speaking of an air-cooled engine, much of the mass is in the crankcase, anyway,
> > irrespective of which way the cylinders poke.
>
> > And as you say: There are no disadvantages *listed* in a short Wikipedia
> > article. That does not mean there are no disadvantages. Access to the carb and
> > other elements that mount below the crankcase is probably more awkward; the
> > spark plugs may be more susceptible to oil fouling. For that matter, the
> > inverted-V may have the same problems with hydro lock as a radial...probably in
> > itself enough of a reason to favor horizontally opposed.
>
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> Is this thread dead yet?
>
> Actually, there is a real structural advantage to the flat engine over
> the V. The block can be lighter in the opposed configuration, for the
> same strength.
>
> Charlie

Opposed engines have less drag than a radial or vee. Opposed
engines are easier to see over.

Buy they sure look funny in a warbird replica.

Dan

[Ron Webb]

>>> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
>>> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
>>> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."

An aluminum V8 was adapted in the 1960s to power ---I want to say the
Whittman Tailwind, but I could be wrong --- it was run direct drive and
inverted. Ran fine for many years. One problem was that the oiling system
had to be redesigned. It was originally designed to pump oil up into the
valve covers, then let it drain back down. Obviously that won't work if the
whole engine is upside down. Also the carb had to be replaced (float bowls
don't work upside down either.) Neither change is trivial, both are do-able.

You can see why it would result in a lower center of gravity - the crank
(directly connected to the prop) becomes the highest point on the engine
instead of the lowest. Same for visibility - the whole engine is lower and
out of the way.

But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they will
all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center of
gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater power,
because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.

[Bill Daniels]

"Charlie" > wrote in message
. ..
> Actually, there is a real structural advantage to the flat engine over the
> V. The block can be lighter in the opposed configuration, for the same
> strength.
>
> Charlie

That's both true and, now that you point it out, relatively obvious. The
through-bolts take most of the loads so the case itself can be quite thin
and light. Something not possible with other configurations.

I wonder why I didn't think of it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Bill Daniels

[Peter Dohm]

"Ron Webb" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
>>>> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
>>>> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
> An aluminum V8 was adapted in the 1960s to power ---I want to say the
> Whittman Tailwind, but I could be wrong --- it was run direct drive and
> inverted. Ran fine for many years. One problem was that the oiling system
> had to be redesigned. It was originally designed to pump oil up into the
> valve covers, then let it drain back down. Obviously that won't work if
> the whole engine is upside down. Also the carb had to be replaced (float
> bowls don't work upside down either.) Neither change is trivial, both are
> do-able.
>
Steve Wittman's plans for the conversion are still available, or were a year
or so ago, from Aircraft Spruce. Several of the V6 engines which have been
produced much more recently have similar torque and displacement--so they
may also be possiblilities in the 200 to 260 CID range.

> You can see why it would result in a lower center of gravity - the crank
> (directly connected to the prop) becomes the highest point on the engine
> instead of the lowest. Same for visibility - the whole engine is lower and
> out of the way.
>
> But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
> nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they
> will all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center
> of gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater power,
> because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.
>
I agree in principle. It's really the builder's choice of compromises--just
as it is for the designers of certified engines and certified airframes.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Ron Webb wrote:
>>>> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
>>>> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
>>>> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>
>
> An aluminum V8 was adapted in the 1960s to power ---I want to say the
> Whittman Tailwind, but I could be wrong --- it was run direct drive and
> inverted. Ran fine for many years. One problem was that the oiling system
> had to be redesigned. It was originally designed to pump oil up into the
> valve covers, then let it drain back down. Obviously that won't work if the
> whole engine is upside down. Also the carb had to be replaced (float bowls
> don't work upside down either.) Neither change is trivial, both are do-able.


As I recall, Wittman said big problem was that the engine ate plugs in
the inverted position. Barely get 20 hours on a set...



> You can see why it would result in a lower center of gravity - the crank
> (directly connected to the prop) becomes the highest point on the engine
> instead of the lowest. Same for visibility - the whole engine is lower and
> out of the way.
>
> But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
> nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they will
> all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center of
> gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater power,
> because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.
>
>

And what does all that do to 1) weight and 2) CG ???

[GTH]

a écrit :

> Opposed engines have less drag than a radial

Agreed

or vee

Why would it be so ?
An opposed engine is much larger just behind the prop, when a Vee is
more easily streamlined.
Would you care to elaborate ?

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[John Halpenny]

On Dec 20, 12:03 am, cavelamb himself > wrote:
<snip>
> > But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
> > nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they will
> > all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center of
> > gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater power,
> > because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.
>
> And what does all that do to 1) weight and 2) CG ???

1) A PSRU gives a smaller faster engine, which is usually lighter even
with the weight of the reduction gear.
2) Raising the output shaft several inches is the same as lowering the
CG, and the bulk of the engine that spoils your view, the same amount.

John halpenny

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

John Halpenny wrote:
> On Dec 20, 12:03 am, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
>>>nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they will
>>>all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center of
>>>gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater power,
>>>because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.
>>
>>And what does all that do to 1) weight and 2) CG ???
>
>
> 1) A PSRU gives a smaller faster engine, which is usually lighter even
> with the weight of the reduction gear.
> 2) Raising the output shaft several inches is the same as lowering the
> CG, and the bulk of the engine that spoils your view, the same amount.
>
> John halpenny
>


Not necessarily.

Starting with a V8 (or any other given engine) doesnt make the engine
smaller...


This only works for an engine "designer"...

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 6:49 am, GTH > wrote:
> a écrit :
>
> > Opposed engines have less drag than a radial
>
> Agreed
>
> or vee
>
> Why would it be so ?
> An opposed engine is much larger just behind the prop, when a Vee is
> more easily streamlined.
> Would you care to elaborate ?
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Gilleshttp://contrails.free.fr

A vee takes up as much flat-plate area as an opposed, because
it's not likely to be cowled so the slipstream can flow through the
vee between the cylinder banks. The opposed and vee both have
crankcases and cylinder banks that are in the way, and the case of the
vee tends to be larger, forming a three-armed affair rather than the
two of the opposed. Some opposed engines have been very tightly cowled
for racing purposes, with the carb and such behind the engine instead
of under it.
Most vee-engines have some sort of reduction so that higher
hp can be obtained from a smaller configuration. These can be smaller
than opposed engines for the same hp, but they'll be heavier, too. A
direct-drive vee is pretty big. The Argus was one.
The inline engine is much more easily streamlined, but its
crank is longer and so has to be larger in diameter to obtain the
stiffness required, and as it gets larger it gets heavier.

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> John Halpenny wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 12:03 am, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
>>>>nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they
>>>>will
>>>>all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center of
>>>>gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater power,
>>>>because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.
>>>
>>>And what does all that do to 1) weight and 2) CG ???
>>
>>
>> 1) A PSRU gives a smaller faster engine, which is usually lighter even
>> with the weight of the reduction gear.
>> 2) Raising the output shaft several inches is the same as lowering the
>> CG, and the bulk of the engine that spoils your view, the same amount.
>>
>> John halpenny
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> Starting with a V8 (or any other given engine) doesnt make the engine
> smaller...
>
>
> This only works for an engine "designer"...

Very true, and perfectly describes the difficulty of this sort of
discussion.

Peter