question about engines

Morgans wrote:

The higher HP is a major reason, since you rarely see flat engines with HP
ratings of more than a bit over 300 HP. There are many radial engines that are
much larger than that.

Lycoming built a 12-cylinder opposed engine. I don't think it ever
went into production. There's a picture of it he
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Images/lyco1230.jpg

The home page for a bunch of interesting engines, including Lycoming
auto engines:

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html

Dan

wrote


Lycoming built a 12-cylinder opposed engine. I don't think it ever
went into production. There's a picture of it he
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Images/lyco1230.jpg

The home page for a bunch of interesting engines, including Lycoming
auto engines:

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html

That is why I typed the following

since you rarely see flat engines with HP
ratings of more than a bit over 300 HP.

Note the word rarely.
--
Jim in NC

In article om,
says...


Ok,this is probably an obvious question to many of you, but I'll ask
anyway. I usually fly in C172s and C182s with the Lycoming oil cooled
engines that many of you are probably familiar with.

Oil cooled?
Not familiar - these are air cooled engines.

Yes they do depend on oil flow for some cooling - and they also depend
on fuel flow for some degree of cooling - but they are essentially
air-cooled engines.


GF

Oil cooled?
Not familiar - these are air cooled engines.

Yes they do depend on oil flow for some cooling - and they also depend
on fuel flow for some degree of cooling - but they are essentially
air-cooled engines.


GF

Ok,ok, I'm crying uncle....

Really guys, I do understand how the engines work on the planes I fly.
Radial engines, on the other hand, I can only dream of getting to make
that kind of noise.
I was just trying to draw a distinction (with my poor wording) between
the two types so that I could ask my question, and from what I had
previously understood, the radial engines could often fly home clooled
by air if they lost oil. This, as compared to a C182, which doesn't
cool very well without it's oil.....
You guys are a great source of info-thanks for your comments, and
teaching me a few new things!
-Jamie

Cirrus wrote:


Oil cooled?
Not familiar - these are air cooled engines.

Yes they do depend on oil flow for some cooling - and they also depend
on fuel flow for some degree of cooling - but they are essentially
air-cooled engines.


GF


Ok,ok, I'm crying uncle....

Really guys, I do understand how the engines work on the planes I fly.
Radial engines, on the other hand, I can only dream of getting to make
that kind of noise.
I was just trying to draw a distinction (with my poor wording) between
the two types so that I could ask my question, and from what I had
previously understood, the radial engines could often fly home clooled
by air if they lost oil. This, as compared to a C182, which doesn't
cool very well without it's oil.....
You guys are a great source of info-thanks for your comments, and
teaching me a few new things!
-Jamie

Oils primary function is lubrication, not cooling. I'd be very
surprised if a radial engine could "fly home" if it lost its oil. The
bearings would seize from localized heating long before the rest of the
engine overheated.

Matt

Check out http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Qu...0/engine9.html
a real radial. I've seen these running with the top of a cylinder
blown off and the only way to tell it was BMEP was a little low and
you could see it on the ingnition analyzer.

The biggest reason we all fly jets is without all those zillions of
reciprocating parts they are a hundred times more reliable.

The biggest radial engine topped out about 5000 cubic inches
and 4,000 horsepower in the late 1940. They were also about
3,000 to 5,000 pounds in weight with a prop installed.

Turbine engines are much lighter in weight and have 15,000
to 75,000 eshp in thrust, jumbo airliners and freighter are
only possible with the jet.



"Don" wrote in message
...
| Check out
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Qu...0/engine9.html
| a real radial. I've seen these running with the top of a
cylinder
| blown off and the only way to tell it was BMEP was a
little low and
| you could see it on the ingnition analyzer.
|
| The biggest reason we all fly jets is without all those
zillions of
| reciprocating parts they are a hundred times more
reliable.

Turbine engines are much lighter in weight and have 15,000
to 75,000 eshp in thrust, jumbo airliners and freighter are
only possible with the jet.


I tend to agree with you but -
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes...bemaster_ii.pl

To get the size they are now you are correct, but the turbine engine
wasn't invented to build large aircraft. I think it was kerosene for
$.08 when they were paying $.15 for 140 octane and greatly reduced
maintenance costs that caused the airlines to park their DC-7s and
Connie's. Cost of operation drives everything in the airlines.

Cheers

"Greg Farris" wrote

Meanwhile - I've seen KingAir conversions replacing the PT6's with
water-cooled V8's!They make all kinds of claims for performance improvements.

Cool! Got any links?
--
Jim in NC

That and the smooth ride that passengers liked.



"Don" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Turbine engines are much lighter in weight and have
15,000
| to 75,000 eshp in thrust, jumbo airliners and freighter
are
| only possible with the jet.
|
|
| I tend to agree with you but -
|
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes...bemaster_ii.pl
|
| To get the size they are now you are correct, but the
turbine engine
| wasn't invented to build large aircraft. I think it was
kerosene for
| $.08 when they were paying $.15 for 140 octane and
greatly reduced
| maintenance costs that caused the airlines to park their
DC-7s and
| Connie's. Cost of operation drives everything in the
airlines.
|
| Cheers