Discussion:
Grand Prix innovation, 1935
(too old to reply)
bra
2018-06-18 19:31:52 UTC
Permalink
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/

16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
bra
2018-06-19 01:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
I am trying to imagine the sound of 4 litres in 16 cylinders --- TWO-stroke --- humming past at 6,000rpm and 150mph. I like what I imagine.
Sir Tim
2018-06-19 12:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Fascinating, thanks for posting.
--
Sir Tim
~misfit~
2018-06-20 00:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Fascinating, thanks for posting.
I found it interesting too - especially the way the front and rear cylinder
pairs were... paired, sharing a single combustion chamber between them. It
seems like an odd design and I'm not surprised that it didn't catch on. The
pumping losses would be huge what with the front cylinder having to rely on
a transfer port in the rear cylinder for fuel/air charge and the rear
cylinder exhaust gasses having to go up and over the liner to the front
exhaust port - in a two stroke that's just crazy shit. No wonder it had "a
tendancy to destroy the spark plugs". All the hot gasses from the rear
cylinder rushing past it - I could have foreseen that happening (as well as
erosion of the 'lip' between the cylinder pairs).

Two strokes rely on fairly unobstrcted (cross) flow to work efficiently and
work best with exhaust expansion chambers to create negative pressure at the
ports for the next power pulse. The shared exhaust manifold with short
headers is crazy on a two stroke. Back pressure pulses from the previous
cylinders firing would seriously impede scavenging on the latter cylinders
on each shared manifold. Only the first siamesed pair of the group to fire
in each revolution would produce any worthwhile power. That set up simply
wouldn't work without the supercharger, which leads one to the obvious - it
was never going to be competitive. Honestly I could hardly credit that this
engine design made it to the 'metal' stage. I mean if it had an extremely
short stroke and huge boost then just maybe... However the thing was *over*
square!

That said it had very advanced construction, suspension and brakes. What a
waste of a chassis with that abomination of an engine in it! It's obviously
the work of a misguided but charismatic amatuer 'designer' with gullible and
rich friends to finance and build it. You'd think that a proper engineer or
construction garage would take one look at the design and dismiss it. I'm
surprised that the artcile says Agnelli and FIAT waited until the engine was
*built* to withdraw their support. Seriously surprised, enough to wonder if
the writer got the time-line or facts wrong.

Interesting article though. :)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
John
2018-06-19 19:50:41 UTC
Permalink
When racing encouraged innovation and new ideas.
keithr0
2018-06-20 11:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Unusual in many aspects, not only the weird cylinder/head configuration,
but its the only 2 stroke radial that I have heard of. That is a 2
stroke allows it to have an even number of cylinders in each bank 4
stroke radials always have an odd number.

Its not the only automotive use for a radial though, the Yanks used them
in tanks in WWII. We have a working example in our museum, its called
Thomas (because its a tank engine :)).
D Munz
2018-06-20 11:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by keithr0
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Unusual in many aspects, not only the weird cylinder/head configuration,
but its the only 2 stroke radial that I have heard of. That is a 2
stroke allows it to have an even number of cylinders in each bank 4
stroke radials always have an odd number.
Its not the only automotive use for a radial though, the Yanks used them
in tanks in WWII. We have a working example in our museum, its called
Thomas (because its a tank engine :)).
That was horrible...

Which museum BTW? Saying "the Yanks" suggests somewhere in the UK but perhaps not.

TIA
DLM
keithr0
2018-06-21 06:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Munz
Post by keithr0
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Unusual in many aspects, not only the weird cylinder/head configuration,
but its the only 2 stroke radial that I have heard of. That is a 2
stroke allows it to have an even number of cylinders in each bank 4
stroke radials always have an odd number.
Its not the only automotive use for a radial though, the Yanks used them
in tanks in WWII. We have a working example in our museum, its called
Thomas (because its a tank engine :)).
That was horrible...
Which museum BTW? Saying "the Yanks" suggests somewhere in the UK but perhaps not.
TIA
DLM
The Queensland Air museum, obviously not in the UK :) This is what I
spend a couple of days a week working on, unfortunately as an exhibit
not a flyer. It has 2 Wright 3350 18 cylinder 52 litre radials that
could give 3700 bhp with the taps fully open. We'd like to get one
running but as they haven't run in 40 years thats just a maybe.

https://qam.com.au/portfolio/lockheed-sp-2h-neptune-a89-277/
D Munz
2018-06-21 12:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by keithr0
Post by D Munz
Post by keithr0
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Unusual in many aspects, not only the weird cylinder/head configuration,
but its the only 2 stroke radial that I have heard of. That is a 2
stroke allows it to have an even number of cylinders in each bank 4
stroke radials always have an odd number.
Its not the only automotive use for a radial though, the Yanks used them
in tanks in WWII. We have a working example in our museum, its called
Thomas (because its a tank engine :)).
That was horrible...
Which museum BTW? Saying "the Yanks" suggests somewhere in the UK but perhaps not.
TIA
DLM
The Queensland Air museum, obviously not in the UK :) This is what I
spend a couple of days a week working on, unfortunately as an exhibit
not a flyer. It has 2 Wright 3350 18 cylinder 52 litre radials that
could give 3700 bhp with the taps fully open. We'd like to get one
running but as they haven't run in 40 years thats just a maybe.
https://qam.com.au/portfolio/lockheed-sp-2h-neptune-a89-277/
Ok, so I only missed by 1/2 a planet...

Thanks for the link, it looks like a great place to spend time.

FWIW
DLM

News
2018-06-20 11:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by keithr0
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Unusual in many aspects, not only the weird cylinder/head configuration,
but its the only 2 stroke radial that I have heard of. That is a 2
stroke allows it to have an even number of cylinders in each bank 4
stroke radials always have an odd number.
Its not the only automotive use for a radial though, the Yanks used them
in tanks in WWII. We have a working example in our museum, its called
Thomas (because its a tank engine :)).
The ubiquitous M-4 Sherman tank was built around a Wright R-975 radial
engine.
Mark Jackson
2018-06-20 12:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by keithr0
Post by bra
https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/01/1935-monaco-trossi/
16-cylinder radial engine, okay ----------------
Its not the only automotive use for a radial though, the Yanks used
them in tanks in WWII.
More conventionally "automotive":

http://theoldmotor.com/?p=147003
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
The most costly of all follies is to believe
passionately in the palpably not true.
- H. L. Mencken
Loading...