120 HP from an 85 pound 500CC engine?

Register to hide this ad
Lol, can you say "Screaming Jimmy"? Will need a blower to get decent scavanging and will make unburned hydrocarbons like crazy. This is why there are no 2-stroke engines around any more.

It's a fancy 2-stroke swash plate drive engine -- not a new idea. In fact, at least 50 years old. Didn't work then either, neither did the 4 stroke version aka Stirling Cycle engine. Swash plates fail under load and they are incredibly polluting.
 
Lol, can you say "Screaming Jimmy"? Will need a blower to get decent scavanging and will make unburned hydrocarbons like crazy. This is why there are no 2-stroke engines around any more.

It's a fancy 2-stroke swash plate drive engine -- not a new idea. In fact, at least 50 years old. Didn't work then either, neither did the 4 stroke version aka Stirling Cycle engine. Swash plates fail under load and they are incredibly polluting.

Yes, the article does mention turbocharging, and, I do believe your mistaken about the "Stirling cycle engine"..............




Stirling engine​

1689526902660.png
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Stirling_engine



Stirling Cycle engine. from en.wikipedia.org
The Stirling engine, like most heat engines, cycles through four main processes: cooling, compression, heating, and expansion. This is accomplished by moving ...
Stirling cycle · ‎Applications of the Stirling... · ‎Solar-powered Stirling engine
People also ask


Why are Stirling engines not used more?



What cycle does Stirling engine use?



How does Stirling cycle engine work?



Stirling Cycle - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics


A Stirling cycle engine is a closed cycle regenerative heat engine that operates by cyclically compressing and expanding a gaseous working fluid at different temperatures such that there is a net conversion of heat energy to mechanical work.
 
You are right, I'm confusing it with some swash plate engines of the same era.

Just like rotary Wankel engines, if they worked will we'd be driving them.

120 HP from 30 cu in. would be pretty high on the scale too since the theoretical max (at least for a 4 stroke) is around 2.7 hp/cu in. Only engine I know that got close to that in any real way was the Napier Nomad where the turbo-charger was larger than the 12 cylinder diesel engine it was feeding and compounded to boot. That turbocharger became the Rolls Royce Avon turbojet as an indication of size. 8 atmospheres of boost at sea level.
 
You are right, I'm confusing it with some swash plate engines of the same era.

Just like rotary Wankel engines, if they worked will we'd be driving them.

120 HP from 30 cu in. would be pretty high on the scale too since the theoretical max (at least for a 4 stroke) is around 2.7 hp/cu in. Only engine I know that got close to that in any real way was the Napier Nomad where the turbo-charger was larger than the 12 cylinder diesel engine it was feeding and compounded to boot. That turbocharger became the Rolls Royce Avon turbojet as an indication of size. 8 atmospheres of boost at sea level.

I'm not sure what's meant by "theoretical max" here.

For example- Steve Morris Racing Engines, makes an engine known as the SMX- that has made 4500HP from 572 cubic inches. Obviously a 4 stroke. Mega turbos, massive boost. That's 7.86 HP per cubic inch...

Or, was that meant to be 2.7 HP per cubic inch, normally aspirated? That's typically a very hard row to hoe, so to speak, but it has been beaten, apparently. The Gordon Murray T50S makes 725HP from about 244 cubic inches. That's 2.97 HP per cubic inch...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
Given that the Nomad with 113 psi in the intake and a 12:1 ratio diesel produced 3500 hp and 750 lbs static thrust on a 1200 cu in engine with turbo-compounding, I'd say 2.7 hp/cu. in. with normal fuels (no nitrous oxide, etc) is about the limit. About 20% of that 3500 hp came from having the turbo drive the crankshaft. Eight stage axial compressor and three stage axial turbine -- RR added three feet to the shaft and put compustion chambers between the front and rear instead of a piston engine and produced something like 8000 lbs static thrust (aka the Rolls Avon turbojet, eventually upgraded to the Rolls Conway 1:1 bypass turbofan by extending the rear set of turbine blade to make a fan.

That's eight atmospheres of boost.....

Depends on how you measure the horsepower too -- aircraft engines are rated on a real dynamometer driving a large generator into a resistance grid. I've seen one, pretty big setup for even the Wasp Majors (9 cylinder, 750 hp or 950 hp) Forestry Canada used for water bombers in Twin Otters. I think rate of acceleration "dynamometers" overestimate hp, and the method of calculating hp by the amount of fuel burned (like drag racers do) isn't worth discussing except to say it's a joke. It's sustained hp too, not a few seconds.

Real horsepower is difficult to measure since it's a measure of work done (which is how I know drag racers hp numbers are silly, it only takes 1500 hp or so to accelerate a 1500 lb vehicle to 300 mph in a quarter mile -- the 2000 hp Wright Twin Cyclone hauled a 40,000 lb Corsair up to 70 mph in 300 ft and required water and methanol injection to do it).

Gasoline engines are limited to compression ratios less than combustion temp (else they detonate) unless you are doing something like direct injection after TDC or something, or using exotic fuels instead of 100 octane gasoline.

My brother lucked into a Ford Super Cobra Jet engine he's rebuilt for my nephew, very rare engine as it was only sold for a year or two in Turino's, of all things. Death trap on wheels, junk car with real 600 hp (or more). You can fit your fist into the intake runners if you have small hands, a 10 oz coke can fill drop right in. Nascar dropped it, I suspect mainly because it ate Chevy 454s for lunch.
 
Hi HPMguy,

With all due respect to your post, which I am in agreement with as to the HP numbers, I feel a slight correction is in order. The max weight of the F4U Corsair was 14,533 lbs


"the 2000 hp Wright Twin Cyclone hauled a 40,000 lb Corsair up to 70 mph in 300 ft and required water and methanol injection to do it)."

https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/vought-f4u-corsair/


Max Take Off Weight: 6,592 Kg14,533 lb
Max Payload:2,000 Kg
4,409 lbsFuel Tank Capacity:534 gallon
2,021 litre
 
problem with stuff like that is it tends to suck in normal driving conditions.
Performance N/A engines are built to operate in relatively narrow RPM ranges, as we all know You can’t have a stump puller and high revving engine at the same time.
Boost is some amazing stuff and as technology increases with variable valve lifts and timing, smart fuel injection that eliminates detonation, it’s a new game. Keeping engines together is the limiting factor of how much power they can make.
 
You are correct about the weight of the Corsair. Still, 14k lbs to 70 mph in the take-off run off a WWII carrier with a full complement of planes waiting to takeoff isn't trivial!

Internal combustion engines designed to have very high specific output are always going to be limited rpm range engines, even with variable cam timing and various intake boost devices. All engineering is a compromise, and you end up being able to pick a range, outside of which power and fuel usage are less than ideal.

My old Benz produced 232 hp (minimum, usually much more) at the rear wheels out of 4.5L, and the 3.5L "stroker" version did the same. Fast off the line, but low speed driving burned huge amounts of fuel, it got better mileage at 90 than 50. Designed for high speed running on the Autobahn.
 
Just like rotary Wankel engines, if they worked will we'd be driving them.

We did. For awhile.

Manufacturers will tend to stay with known tech for reasons of standardization & cost.
Its not always the product.

That said, not too many for would want a rotary powering their pick up.
 
The problems with the Wankel are three fold -- low compression (so lousy fuel milage and filthy exhaust), tip seals are very difficult to keep working, and they only produce good power above 10,000 rpm.

I've driven a Mazda with a rotary -- tons of power, very very smooth, and we had to pour gasoline down the carb to start it because the tip seals were shot. Nice little sedan that got 40 mpg with a standard 2.4L four banger got 18-20 with the rotary. Mazda finally gave up on them when emissions restrictions got to the point the cats ran white hot trying to clean up the unburned hydrocarbons from the low compression.
 
I've got what's gotta be one of the world's tiniest rotary engines powering one of my RC model airplanes. While I wouldn't want one powering my car, it's a fun little novelty that gets LOTS of attention when I fly it :)

.30 cubic inch (4.9 cc) 18000 RPM

Pictures 660.JPG
 
The problems with the Wankel are three fold -- low compression (so lousy fuel milage and filthy exhaust), tip seals are very difficult to keep working, and they only produce good power above 10,000 rpm.

I've driven a Mazda with a rotary -- tons of power, very very smooth, and we had to pour gasoline down the carb to start it because the tip seals were shot. Nice little sedan that got 40 mpg with a standard 2.4L four banger got 18-20 with the rotary. Mazda finally gave up on them when emissions restrictions got to the point the cats ran white hot trying to clean up the unburned hydrocarbons from the low compression.

They do run hot. 3 ignition cycles per revolution will do that.
The Renown Mazda twin rotor that won Le Mans would melt its mufflers & the carbon fiber body would catch fire.
It ran in IMSA for one year in the US.
I never heard such a piercing shriek from machine nor beast.
I have no idea what RPM it ran but it made a Ferrari 12 cyl sound docile (maybe not exactly docile : ) ).

But, I'm no expert.
 
Back
Top Bottom