Dan,The "inline" radial is an old idea.
At 59 I'm getting past the adventuresome stage. I have built many non-aviation machines that worked well, and still tinker with smaller projects, but with all my machining and welding and aircraft maintenance experience I know that 59 years old is perhaps ok for starting to build a reasonable homebuilt but a really bad time to start developing an engine. One only lives so long, you know, and there's little point spending time on something that will probably never get completed and will eat up everything I own. Seen it happen.Dan,
I’ve always liked the 7755. But the Curtis Chieftain article is really very good. Thanks. It explores a lot of the advantages and disadvantages of in-line and conventional radials. You seem to be the guy to take a crack at a 10 or 14 cylinder inline VW/Chevy-based radial. If a 10-cylinder VW costs more than 1000 bucks then it isn’t worth pursuing. Take a crack at it. It would be gobs of fun. What do you say?
And that's with all the parts in the box, or maybe even assembled already. Building an engine using bits from here and there and having to create a crankcase and all the accessory gearing to drive the camshaft and ignition and oil pump and so on, takes a lot more than $1K. And radial cam drives are complex, indeed. No camshaft, but cam rings driven by fancy gearsets.Most of the commercially available VW conversions will run you $6K.
... One only lives so long, you know, and there's little point spending time on something that will probably never get completed and will eat up everything I own. Seen it happen...
...I am often amazed at some old guys who have a yard (or acreage) full of old cars and trucks and sometimes airplanes that sit rotting away and they won't part with them. Gonna restore them someday, they say. Yeah, right. At 70 years old? Life is short; the 40 years since I left high school have shot past in an unbelievable blur. You younger guys might take note, and make the best of the years you might have. There are things I would have done differently, now...
To get rid of lots of time and money. Many folks have already spent lots of time and money on developing new engines that never reached the market. Most of them never flew in an airplane. Some of them never even made any noise.
I bought 3 engines the other day, a few hundred bucks down the drain and now I'm going to waste plenty of my time experimenting with them for most likely no result.The vibration might or might not cause problems. Don't know. But it wouldn't be very smooth in any case, and I suspect that the "fun and cheap" part would disappear pretty quick, too.
That’s right. But the original idea, way back in 2012, was to use a stock SBC crank.I think the answer for a flat 8 VW with the exhaust port problem is obvious...
Just a point, a few years on now and you can buy flat plane cranks, 2016 Ford Mustang GT350 for example.Also to balance a 90-degree V8 crank a LOT of extra mass is needed. The use of a 90-degree crank in a flat 8 engine would wipe out the inherent balance and light weight of the 180-degree flat 8 configuration.
The LS engines are a little heavy for most of the scaled down storch designs. The Hall brothers in Utah built a PazmanyOh my, forget the boxer - here is a new direction.
An inverted, air cooled V8 for Storch replicas based on VW and Chevy parts?
I got the idea when researching low airspeed landings (Australia - 45knots - Delta design in the waste paper basket)
This one would be the go, lots of people have a soft spot for those 'storks'.
Only the 2 bolt main 3500 is the same weight (160kgs for basic running engine)the aluminum Oldsmobile engine and the newer Rovers are just
an improved version of that engine. More cubic inches same weight all aluminum....injection or carb.