Opposed piston engine

Interesting...

Cams and rollers, however, are terrible at power transfer. That seems to be the weak link in these engines where piston power is being transferred via a cam-style mechanism...
 
I'm curious about the "internationally patented design". People have been patenting opposed-piston and swashplate engines for the last 80 or so years. Seems unlikely that they have anything truly unique.
 
Remember the Dynacam engine that was going to revolutionize the piston scene a decade or more ago?
 
At least swash plates with ball joints can use pressure lubrication.

If someone can come up with a material or mechanism that replaces the cam and follower inherent in these designs, i think it is doomed...
 
There have been glimpses the past few years of people working on engines which used the crank(s) not for collecting and transmitting power, but just to hold correct position on the pistons, then used the linear motion of the pistons themselves in an alternator. Given the efficiencies they can now get in electric stuff, might this eventually be the true calling of the OPOC?
 
PW_Plack said:
There have been glimpses the past few years of people working on engines which used the crank(s) not for collecting and transmitting power, but just to hold correct position on the pistons, then used the linear motion of the pistons themselves in an alternator. Given the efficiencies they can now get in electric stuff, might this eventually be the true calling of the OPOC?
Click to expand...

Any links? Sounds interesting.
 
Well, when they find a compression engine more reliable AND more fuel efficient than the 1930's tractor engines we fly behind, wake me up.
Until then it is back to snoozing behind my unstressed, unblown, slow turning, dual magneto, uber reliable, 0.5 hp/cubic inch, lycosaurus.
 
Dr. O said:
Well, when they find a compression engine more reliable AND more fuel efficient than the 1930's tractor engines we fly behind, wake me up.
Until then it is back to snoozing behind my unstressed, unblown, slow turning, dual magneto, uber reliable, 0.5 hp/cubic inch, lycosaurus.
Click to expand...

The wankel (rotary) was pretty ingenious at reducing the part count and the high opposing forces.. but the shape of the "combustion chamber" led to it not being any more efficient with regards to BSFC.

There's a handful of homegrown ones flying.. and Mistral commercialized it for a while...
 
Dr. O said:
Well, when they find a compression engine more reliable AND more fuel efficient than the 1930's tractor engines we fly behind, wake me up.
Until then it is back to snoozing behind my unstressed, unblown, slow turning, dual magneto, uber reliable, 0.5 hp/cubic inch, lycosaurus.
Click to expand...

No worries, the Diesels are already out with bigger ones coming. As for "unstressed" of the current crop, that depends which one you have. Slow Turning is not in and of itself an indicator of low stress, one has to take into account both ICP and reciprocating mass to determine that, and factor it against heat carried; that heat is energy and is a factor in the total cumulative stress vs. strength ratio. Some of our aircraft engines are quite stressed when in their higher power ranges, especially at altitude where they cannot efficiently shed heat in the thin air.
 
Old Geek said:
I'm curious about the "internationally patented design". People have been patenting opposed-piston and swashplate engines for the last 80 or so years. Seems unlikely that they have anything truly unique.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm trying to understand that one myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top