h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Note: The engine is a radial, not rotary wankel. I just didn't want to call it Boxer Radial Engine because of an idea by [rasberry re-tart] of a very similar name.
Radial engines are reciprocating piston engines with pistons mounted around a circle. Their main difference from regular piston engines
is that they only have one true crank on the crankshaft. They are very interesting engines and take up much less space that a piston engine of any other configuration, however they are not particularly smooth and tend to vibrate a lot (compare a Harley V-Twin to a conventional V-Twin to see what I mean).
Boxer engines are engines that have pistons mounted 180 degrees apart and they do everything at the same time. This makes for an incredibly smooth engine because the fact that they are on opposite sides cancells out vibration and any un-smooth characteristics.
I propose a radial engine with 6 cylinders that has two banks of Y-3s. The second bank is identical to the first, only it is turned 180 degrees. Now, for every cylinder in the first bank there is an opposed cylinder in the second to "mimic" it. All it needs are two cranks, one for each bank and 180 degrees apart.
Illustration
http://i210.photobu...r_Radial_Engine.jpg
Red shows the first bank, Blue shows the second [acurafan07, Nov 26 2007]
My kind of boxer
http://www.webbikew...cycles/sport-boxer/
[normzone, Nov 27 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Your going to mount this is a car? OHV's? Are you talking rotating cylinders or stationary cylinders with a crankshaft that turns? Think about your final engine dimensions here, its going to be huge. Imagine a Subaru engine (4 cylinder "H" boxer) and how wide it is, now rotate that 360 and you have your engine. |
|
| |
I'm thinking pushrod with variable rocker arms because OHCs would add to the overall size. I was thinking the crank would turn because it would likely be a lot of work to couple a rotating block to a transmission. |
|
| |
I also think it would take up a lot less space than you think. Although it would be slightly taller and wider than any other configuration, it wouldn't be nearly as long, meaning it could fit into small cars much more easily than any other 6-cylinder. |
|
| |
I've often thought that a radial 6-cylinder Bourke engine would be a good idea. The usable force arc on a 2-cylinder Bourke engine is 135 degrees, so having 3 pairs would give even power throughout the rotation and reduce sideways forces on the yoke. To reduce vibrations you'd need a 12-cylinder engine though as the opposing cylinders in a Bourke travel in the same direction. |
|
| |
Good idea. I think this would probably work better than my original idea as far as being compact and easily balanced, but with my idea it would be easier to have OHCs. |
|
| |
When I hear boxer I automaticallly think BMW motorcycle. This would make for a fun bike. |
|
| |
In a radial engine, if the cylinders rotate, the cam can simply be raised parts on the inside of the stationary casing. |
|
| |
Would you mind telling me what the benefit is in this, or rather the problem which it solves? |
|
| |
It (mostly) solves the issue of significant vibration problems inherent in radial engines, without adding a significant amount of additional size. |
|
| |
But since when has the HB been about solving problems? |
|
| |
Your engine concept is nice. It would bring back good college memories when I designed my first radial to rotary engines to improve the conventional ones. Yet, due to financial constraints, I never intend to build any until I designed the perfect configuration... or maybe, until I have the fortune. |
|
| |
I think this should have 8 cylinders instead of 6. The four-stroke cycle is smoother that way. |
|
| |