Talk:Radial engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The radial engine is a particular engine configuration, in which the cylinders are arranged pointing out from a central crankshaft like the spokes on a wheel. " - I think a direct link to rotary engines would be useful here - not just indirectly through engine configuration

Who invented the radial engine? Was it an evolution of the rotary piston engine, or a seperate invention?

"The other disadvantage is that the frontal area of the radial is always much larger than the same displacement inline, meaning that the radial will always haver:Duk|Duk]] 06:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 'Zvezda' 42-cylinder diesel boat engines

Wow! As a diesel enthusiast, I find the idea of a radial diesel engine quite peculiar, much more so a 42-cylinder one! Can anyone add any more info? Phasmatisnox 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotating mass

Someone gave me some comments on that I'm passing on;

The statement Another mixed blessing is the greater rotating mass of the radial engine. might be wrong, I thing it was meant for Rotary piston engine. I'm no expert on these engines, but Radials have a lower rotating mass than inlines (because there is no crankshaft) while rotaries have a greater rotating mass because it's the cylinders and housing that rotates (I think). --Duk 17:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Good catch. The "greater rotating mass" comment was alrady there; I just expanded on it - but I think you're right - it belongs with the rotaries, not the radials. I know pilots in both wars used torque and gyroscopic effects, but only the WWI pilots had rotaries - the 2nd War pilots just had huge propellers and gobs of power. Knotnic 17:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying Statement

  • Guys, I added this line to the first paragraph:
    "The Radial Engine is a type of [Reciprocating engine]".

    I added this because people seem to be getting confused between this and this. --Pavithran 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profanity in description

someone had put profanity in the first sentence. I deleted it. Check to see if it's worded correctly and if not feel free to correct it. Thanks.

[edit] Odd number of cylinders?

The article says, Four-stroke radials almost always have an odd number of cylinders. Isn't that an understatement? Are there any examples of a radial design which didn't have an odd number of cylinders? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I read further and saw the bit about the even-numbered ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally obscene

Well, personnaly I find the animation totally obscene !

[edit] Very Basic Question

I'm almost embarrassed to ask this question, but I haven't been able to find the answer up til now. I've heard that the radial engine itself rotates with the propeller, i. e. the propeller is fixed to the engine and they both rotate at incredible RPMs. Can this be possible? Wouldn't that make it extremely complicated to operate properly ( fuel flow, centrifugal force, etc) ? Could someone clear this up, please? Thank you 67.72.98.45 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are referring to is one type of a radial engine called a rotary engine --rogerd 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhead camring?

for high rpm? Arnero 21:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-combustion radials

I'm considering the prospect of a radial sterling engine. The basic engineering considerations here come down to the core needing cooling; heated working fluid runs past the outside, while coolant runs through the inside. This then leaves the question of how the engine will maintain firing order. I am thinking that, with proper design using Beta sterlings for cylinders, once it starts moving it will naturally occur that the position of the piston determines how the gas inside heats or cools and thus the whole engine will self-regulate. I don't have a lot of ideas on what problems I'll see though.. any takers?

You're considering writing about such an engine, or inventing it? This page is for talking about the article itself, not a forum for discussing new ideas. That said, it does sound intriguing. - BillCJ 02:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification + Valve configuration/cam & valve operation?

Hi Guys,

I like what's in the the article so far. Can someone clarify this: They differed from the norm of radial design by using two opposite cylinders as a double master instead of single master rod usually found, and managed to run perfectly circular.

Why is/was it required that radial engines have an odd number of cylinders? What about this engine permitted an even number of cylinders in a single row? These engines could have a consecutive firing order. What was the typical firing order if it wasn't consecutive?

If it could be expanded, I'd like to see info about how valves are configured and used. I assume early radials had "side valve" configuration, or flat heads, like early in-line engines did. And, just guessing here, the two stroke Diesel radials had exhaust valves (either side valves or overhead valves), and intake ports near the bottom of the cylinder. But how were the valves operated? A single cam shaft positioned between two jugs and driven by the crank? Or, perhaps a cam concentric to the crank driven by planetary gear set? Do any radials have over head cams?42toyoutoo (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)