Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: too many cylinders
914World.com > The 914 Forums > 914World Garage
r3dplanet
Some crazy how I have a collection of 2x 4 sets of 94mm cylinders from two liter engines that I had intended to bore to 96mm. It has been too long for me to remember why but the machinist rejected them for use. I want to say because they had been bored too many times already.

Can someone ease my conscience and say, "Marcus, just recycle them and move on with your life." Or do bored out 94mm cylinders have any other uses over their life cycle in bigger bore applications?

I just want to verify that I'm not wasting a resource.

Thanks.
2mAn
make something cool with them, like cupholders or something
r3dplanet
If you're thinking of creating an 8-cylinder radial I'm totally with you. But I already have too much on my metaphoric plate.
914work
Not following....
have they been bore'd out to 96's already?
If not dont understand the comment from your guy?
r3dplanet
Yeah. The last set of cracked 92mm cylinders I had were converted into planters for marigolds.

QUOTE(2mAn @ Nov 2 2015, 07:49 PM) *

make something cool with them, like cupholders or something

r3dplanet
Yes. To verify they were previously bored to 96mm, and then overbored once or twice after that.

QUOTE(914werke @ Nov 2 2015, 07:51 PM) *

Not following....
have they already been bore'd out to 96's already?

r_towle
Cup holders or recycled steel now.
914_teener
Marcus recycle them and move on with your life.
r3dplanet
Super. Thanks, everyone.

I'm gradually moving on with my life.
Dave_Darling
QUOTE(r3dplanet @ Nov 2 2015, 07:50 PM) *
If you're thinking of creating an 8-cylinder radial I'm totally with you.


Radials don't work so well with even numbers of cylinders. I forget why, but every row of practically every radial you can find has an odd number of cylinders. Most have 7 or 9.

--DD
r3dplanet
It's funny about that. As I was typing the words "8-cylinder radial" I knew in the back of my mind that the only vw-based radial I've ever seen used seven cylinders. But I think it's fabulous that you also knew this.

QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Nov 2 2015, 09:51 PM) *

QUOTE(r3dplanet @ Nov 2 2015, 07:50 PM) *
If you're thinking of creating an 8-cylinder radial I'm totally with you.


Radials don't work so well with even numbers of cylinders. I forget why, but every row of practically every radial you can find has an odd number of cylinders. Most have 7 or 9.

--DD

thieuster
QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Nov 3 2015, 06:51 AM) *

QUOTE(r3dplanet @ Nov 2 2015, 07:50 PM) *
If you're thinking of creating an 8-cylinder radial I'm totally with you.


Radials don't work so well with even numbers of cylinders. I forget why, but every row of practically every radial you can find has an odd number of cylinders. Most have 7 or 9.

--DD



Like you, I forgot. Had to look it up:
Ageless Engines

Menno
Chris H.
This isn't practical confused24.gif ? That exposed trimmed AIRPLANE blade at the back is maybe not a good idea dry.gif . Did he not see Raiders of the Lost Ark?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CnvRufT7c



Here's one specifically made out of VW parts. Don't think it's quite a DIY job biggrin.gif .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRJeZ6s8uM
mbseto
Rotary engines are more interesting. Meaning a TRUE rotary, not that Wankel impostor.
Dave_Darling
Interesting, yes. But as engines, they kinda suck. Especially the earliest ones that only had one valve. (Gnome "Monosoupape" == "One-Valve".) Valve timing was horrible, mixture control ditto, total-loss oil system that threw castor bean oil in the face of the pilot, zero throttle control...

The only reason they were so popular at the time is because the whole engine acted as a flywheel. So you didn't need a large (heavy!) bolted-on flywheel to keep the engine running somewhat smoothly. Weight saving is absolutely critical in aircraft, especially the early ones.

--DD
DBCooper
QUOTE(Chris H. @ Nov 3 2015, 06:30 AM) *


Here's one specifically made out of VW parts. Don't think it's quite a DIY job biggrin.gif .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRJeZ6s8uM




That is SO cool!!





Elliot Cannon
1500 hours in radial powered airplanes. Here's a pic of "Ole Thunder". Just getting the damn things started was fun. biggrin.gif (Sorry for the thread creep).
eyesright
QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Nov 2 2015, 09:51 PM) *

QUOTE(r3dplanet @ Nov 2 2015, 07:50 PM) *
If you're thinking of creating an 8-cylinder radial I'm totally with you.


Radials don't work so well with even numbers of cylinders. I forget why, but every row of practically every radial you can find has an odd number of cylinders. Most have 7 or 9.

--DD

A two stroke radial can have and even or odd number of cylinders. But a four stroke radial has an odd number of cylinders as the ignition pulse happens on every other TDC stroke. So the cylinders on a 7 cylinder engine fire in this order _ #1, #3, #5, #7, #2, #4, #6, #1, #3, ...etc.

Clear as mud now?
r3dplanet
I've seen that Mike Nieman video many, many times. I love that it's a completely impractical, genius-grade Rube Goldberg mounted to a Beetle. Sure a little shrouding might help the safety factor a touch but it doesn't detract from its glory. This guy probably had the same problem I did, "Huh, what do I do with this extra horde of engine parts parked in my living room?" and then proceeded to go nuts with it. That's just so uplifting and brilliant and a much more clever implementation than marigold planters. Who cares that it isn't practical? Its impracticality is what makes it great.

I went digging through my newest set of AA cylinders last night and found the machinist notes about the previous 2x sets of cylinders mentioned in post #1. The reason I couldn't remember why they were no good is because there was no explanation. In total, this is what the invoice reads:

"QTY 2 | Check 2 old set barrels. No good. | $75 | $150"
"QTY 1 | Check new set barrels. OK | $75"

So I spent $150 to receive a contrite "no good" description. At $75 per word, this machinist is a very expensive writer. He couldn't even elongate "OK" to "okay." By contrast the invoices I write for my customers contain all manner of unasked-for detail. Partially so the customer has a record, partially so that if I have to review the work I quickly remember what the details were. The written word is an excellent tool and I'm not the first one to notice this.

I thought that "OK" was unsatisfactory so I spent some time last night with my telescoping gauges and micrometer to measure the new AA cylinders. They're okay. By which I mean there's a spread of 6 ten-thousandths bore variance across all four.
914_teener
Marcus....you aren.t moving on.
mbseto
QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Nov 3 2015, 09:44 AM) *

Interesting, yes. But as engines, they kinda suck. Especially the earliest ones that only had one valve. (Gnome "Monosoupape" == "One-Valve".) Valve timing was horrible, mixture control ditto, total-loss oil system that threw castor bean oil in the face of the pilot, zero throttle control...

The only reason they were so popular at the time is because the whole engine acted as a flywheel. So you didn't need a large (heavy!) bolted-on flywheel to keep the engine running somewhat smoothly. Weight saving is absolutely critical in aircraft, especially the early ones.

--DD


You sound like you flew one! poke.gif

It's all perspective. At the time they were great because they were the only thing light enough. It wasn't just the (lack of) flywheel, all parts that you normally think of as reciprocating could be made lighter.
veekry9
Click to view attachment
http://oldrhinebeck.org/ORA/

Have a great time,real examples and (museum quality)replicas as they put on a show.
A Wright Flyer and it's propulsion system,and more.
A world wide draw of interest.
veekry9
Click to view attachment

A syndrome observed in 1903,a flying machine?
This idea is too new,it hurts my brain to think this hard.
Acck!
veekry9
Click to view attachment
1909 'Salon de Locomotion Aerienne' at the Grand Palais in Paris. The Darracq stand is in the centre of the exhibition.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAx69e4GN44

Worldrecordholder 1909

https://www.youtube.com/user/JW0149/feed Check this out,deeply.

http://theoldmotor.com/
Exclusive,rare auto-mobiles

Click to view attachment
The Great Race
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuxL4WW97Io
http://ffilms.org/the-great-race-1965/
eyesright
QUOTE(mbseto @ Nov 4 2015, 10:54 AM) *

QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ Nov 3 2015, 09:44 AM) *

Interesting, yes. But as engines, they kinda suck. Especially the earliest ones that only had one valve. (Gnome "Monosoupape" == "One-Valve".) Valve timing was horrible, mixture control ditto, total-loss oil system that threw castor bean oil in the face of the pilot, zero throttle control...

The only reason they were so popular at the time is because the whole engine acted as a flywheel. So you didn't need a large (heavy!) bolted-on flywheel to keep the engine running somewhat smoothly. Weight saving is absolutely critical in aircraft, especially the early ones.

--DD


You sound like you flew one! poke.gif

It's all perspective. At the time they were great because they were the only thing light enough. It wasn't just the (lack of) flywheel, all parts that you normally think of as reciprocating could be made lighter.


And the prop acted as a flywheel.
veekry9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3elogQimk4

French Machinists 1915-18,Mon Dieu,mon dieu est si bon!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk9Dl6RZxmQ

The full effect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHstveVvEnQ

Dave_Darling
QUOTE(eyesright @ Nov 5 2015, 09:37 AM) *
And the prop acted as a flywheel.


The whole motor--everything but the crank, rods, and pistons--acted as a flywheel! That's why they were so good at turning in one direction only, because of gyroscopic precession due to the huge mass of the effective flywheel.

Once they started getting the whole ignition and fuel mixture thing better sorted out, they didn't need as much flywheel. And then they could make huge improvements on valve timing, compression, and so on. Lots more power--and you could actually have a throttle! (Early rotaries could only run full-throttle; to slow down you turned the ignition off with a "blip switch".)

I never flew one, but I've studied them for many years...

--DD
veekry9
Need more cylinders?Have a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNzDg_6uLZQ
http://gainingaltitudedocumentary.com/
Early '70s,had a look at the restoration of the Kapuskasing B.

Last saw one fly at the CNE Airshow as a kid,even then was aware of it's beauty.
Later we played on the Merlins,re-enacting John Wayne and Errol Flynn movies.
Just like Spiff and Hobbes.Arriving home filthy we proudly told ma"that's Rolls-Royce grease".
...

(edit:11/06/15)
Revelation!http://www.calgarymosquitosociety.com/feat...9/feature49.htm
Wow!This is in fact the very same B35 #VR796 that the cadets were working on in '73-74.
It is difficult to express what that means to me,having this karmic connection of 40+(56) years of positive thought.
A Mossy that I touched is now airworthy,as I always believed would happen,in spite of it's poor condition at that time.
I always wondered what the fate of the Merlins were,I had some inkling they ended up with the Lancaster at Mount Hope.
Last saw those around '65 in Pinchin's mill yard,tarped and cosmolined,two-stage blowers,up on heavy timber stands.

Click to view attachment
This is a photo of the aircraft before it decayed,as most of them did.
It would be a fluke if it participated at the airshow in the late '50s.
I will check the log.


http://theprogress.newspapers.com/image/77103531/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd2M21nlw0w
May be of some interest to Mosquito fans.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.