| Author | Message | ||
     Midknyte |
Bike With The Upside Down Engine Ready For Production Https://www.rideapart.com/articles/303085/nembo-32 -engine-production/ | ||
| Torquehd |
"The engine, a massive 1995cc, 3-cylinder mill, is rated at 200 horsepower and 158 lb-ft of torque for a dry weight of 352 lb. " | ||
| Crusty |
Just a couple of random thoughts; Is there any advantage to this design? and how is the oil controlled? I would think it would tend to pool up inside the pistons and maybe run down the cylinder walls and possibly get past the rings when the bike is parked for a while. The performance numbers don't impress me. Erik was producing almost as much with 60% of the displacement. And 352 pounds is not light for an engine. And all for just $68,000! If I wanted a huge torque monster, I think I'd buy a Triumph Rocket 3. | ||
| Court |
At $68,000 it's pretty reasonable priced for an inverted engine bike . . . . I'm holding out for the $400,000 Prius with an inverted motor | ||
| Hughlysses |
Just a couple of random thoughts; Is there any advantage to this design? and how is the oil controlled? I would think it would tend to pool up inside the pistons and maybe run down the cylinder walls and possibly get past the rings when the bike is parked for a while. I've often wondered exactly how this is handled, but engineers have known how to do it for a long time. There have been at least 3 basic aircraft engine designs with downward facing cylinders, including all radials (some cylinders), Daimler Benz inverted V-12's (as used in WWII German Bf-109 fighters among others), and Ranger inverted in-line 6's. All of them are dry sump designs. I believe they have huge scavenging pumps which draw a lot of air from the crankcase and separating the oil from that. | ||
| Tootal |
The sound of it down shifting, going into a corner sounded so much like a BMW 6 cylinder! Hard to believe that it doesn't matter where the weight is. I thought Erik proved that it does matter! | ||
| Ourdee |
They are working on mass centralization of weight. They no talk so good. | ||
| Chauly |
Apparently Chrysler explored this as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_IV-2220 | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
Does the head, pipes and intakes weigh more than the crank? The reason for inverting the aero engines was to get the prop off of the ground more I think. Court's little comment above is apt. (Hard to do a thing in a certain way) != (Worth doing it in that way) | ||
| Chauly |
Two reasons: Lower sight line over the engine and a place to snake a cannon tube through the Vee and through the center of the (gear-reduced) Prop Spinner. | ||
| Aesquire |
Correct. The inverted Vs are to raise the propeller for ground clearance, improve visibility, and especially in the Daimler & Junkers series, for cannon routing. Rolls Royce originally wanted to make the fabled Merlin an inverted V, but Brit airplane designers preferred upright. Additionally, even though Meredith was a British scientist, his work on recovering thrust from expanding cooling air was never properly exploited by British designers, but it was used in the P-51 by North American Aviation to good effect...... In a plane designed FOR England when they asked NAA to build Curtis P-40s and North American instead promised a better plane in a hundred days. Missed by 2, because the engine maker didn't believe they could do it that fast and every single engine was already accounted for on the production line. In an even more obscure bit of trivia, the Flying Tigers ordered airplanes, but the only available P-40s had no engines, and as above every engine being made was already sold. But Allison had a pile of out of spec parts. So they had a team of expert mechanics sort through the parts and assemble enough hand fitted engines to equip the American Volunteer Group in China. Those engines proved the most reliable, sturdy, batch ever shipped, and were rebuilt, over & over, until the Flying Tigers were disbanded. | ||
| Torquehd |
...to equip the American Volunteer Group in China..... Thank you for that reference, I'll be reading about this previously-unheard-of segment of history tonight. | ||
| Ourdee |
| ||
| Aesquire |
That video is a bit sensationalist, and ignores the sacrifices made, but is a good overview. I've got good references for allied engines, but the German stuff is harder to get good detail on. It's amazing, the personalities involved. Jim Allison was a race car guy,and was heavily involved in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway... The airplane engine company begun as a race car shop. Pratt & Whitney was begun by guys sick of Curtis Wright bureaucratic nightmare. Donovan Berlin was a race plane guy who designed the P-36 & P-40, then left for the same reason. The P-40 was their last fighter in production. Talent tells. And if you think the AVG is obscure....  Read about the Navy fighting the Lafayette Esquadrille, French forces in North Africa, where Curtis P-36s with the Indian head logo from WW1 went head to head with Grumman Wildcats in fierce aerial combat. | ||
| Midknyte |
More malfeasance https://www.cycleworld.com/suzuki-rethinks-motorcy cle-design | ||
| Ratbuell |
Huh. Suzuki "rethinks motorcycle design" with...undermount mufflers, side-mount radiators, lower-mounted fuel tanks, and fuel-tank-positioned airboxes. Nice. Only a decade late to the game. |
