WesWorld

Comments are welcome. Use is not contemplated.

H.

180 vee or boxer, I haven't decided. If it meets muster it would go into the WW technology bank of useful sim items for players to use.

Whatever the outcome, this particular item would have to be simmed into the Czech tech tree. Suggested manufacturer would be Avia, Walter, or Motorlet.

My preference would of course be SKODA Werke. They made everything.

It also is a useful adjunct to those players who need an aero engine but don't have the native tech to build one.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Praga built Boxer aero engines, or perhaps have Manfred Weiss build it to not force an overly great reliance on the Czechs

Better yet PZL. They actually worked on a small version of something like this as an 180 vee.

That would put it in the Polish tech tree.

It might not be as open to everybody in WW that way, but....

shrug

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Poland is a player nation...

Exactly. This is fairly advanced tech. Even in WW I can count the nations that could design/build it as follows;

1. Russia
2. Italy
3. Atlantis
4. Germany
5. Iberia
6. Britain
7. United States
8. Japan
9. Nordmark
10. Bharat [license]
11. China [license]
12. Poland
13. France

The only non-player nation that could design/build this device would be Czechoslovakia.

Not even Irbet could pull something like this off.

For purposes of vibration, oil scavenging, cooling and construction I'm leaning towards the boxer. The opposed vee is just a little too technically advanced for them all in 1928 when engine design for a monster this size would start..

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I don't really see the possible application for something like this.

1. Zeppelins.
2. Airliners.
3. small submarines.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk


There will always be be some outliers- such as the historic Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 which was the pinnacle of that design arc, where the historic engine should be used as is.

Dont really understand what you are trying to say with this?

He's saying that this engine is pushing the limits.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Really? Those stupid French phasing it out for the Y89ter and Z...

Yes, but if you look at the power/weight of the 12Y-51, compared to the 12z-17, it looks like they took a step backwards Though the 12z stacks up decently against other engines of the period.

There was only so much you could do with it. Unless you could increase cylinder head working pressures and handle the torque loads at the crankshaft, where was the engine mechanically supposed to go?

Even with this small bore Mann you only have what, 3%-10% more room for growth before the thermal loading into the jacket kills your engine HP?

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

1. Zeppelins.
2. Airliners.
3. small submarines.

1. Probably the best choice.
2. Rather too powerful for period airliners
3. Unless they're really really small a medium speed diesel with better reliability would be preferable.

For a purpose-built diesel I think the power/weight ratio is a bit high at 0.81hp/lb. I'd expect it to be around 0.6-0.7 but higher figures were possible I seem to remember from a book on Aircraft Diesel engines.

Italy is looking at an aircraft/marine diesel based off its highly successful Isotta-Fraschini Asso series that'll bee around in a few years to coincide with some airliner developments. I'll point out that this basic engine has been in production since the 1920s and is still a world leader today in it's turbodiesel form.

The theoretical limit for the period is around 0.83, modern models are just now breaking 1.0. Both are only possible, if you build it out of steel. I hate steel's thermal properties [expansion coefficient] for the period steels; but there were some very good engineers in the period trying new things and some of the the steels available were just good enough if you cast and mill machined carefully, you would get .77 to .81. CREF below..

1. Zeppelin was what I was thinking when I ginned this up.
2. Twin engined Atlantic crosser? 3000 horsepower, about an 80-100 foot wingspan, speed about 250 knots, 40-60 passengers [sardines]? I thought a pair of diesels might work. Somehow one needs to save on fuel load to obtain the range.
3. 100 ton coastal sub, twin screw, diesel/electrics. If I runs the numbers, even with switching engine diesels, I need lighter more compact engines. Anything heavier than five tons power-plant total, and I have neither the room nor the buoyancy reserve for a decent-ranged sub 100 ton sub.



That is an Issotto Fraschini 750 Asso W engine in exploded view. It doesn't look anything like a Mann 180 vee or boxer to me. Its not possible to fuel inject or bury in a wing as I see it. My now conjectured airliner is draggy enough as I envision it. I wanted to bury the engines to reduce said drag.

and this:


Is a version of the CRM-18 W which is its modern lineal direct descendant.

Good engines-very good strong engines, but at the time .....carburetor dependent and heavy; around 770 kilograms all up when you added the cooling jackets and the oil circulators, [not shown] not to mention the centrifugal single-stage supercharger and the reducing gearing into the spinner hub.

That puts the engine into the .59 range [horsepower/pounds ]-since it was the Asso 750 that was boosted into the 750 kWatt range to become the Asso 1000, and known originally as the 750-M.

I may just gin up that airliner to show a bit of what I had in mind for comment and review..

H.

Just to clarify.

1. I need to find a Mann engine or somebody's engine that is a historic boxer or 180 vee.
2. As long as the kilowatts fall somewhere in the 750 to 1000 range RTL and the real engine forms the .7 to .8 hp/lb basis for my ginned up model above.

Then I run a six year WW story line where this engine is developed.

Then I can use this engine?

H.