Russian Engineering is really quite amazing. It is a classic case of making what you need from what you have. BTW, the Soviet style economy with its approach to engineering did produce a number of scares in the American intelligence and military communities. The best one, I think, was when it was found out that the Typhoon Class submarines were being built with pressure hulls constructed of titanium. Titanium is an extremely difficult material to weld requiring inert gas. The American intelligence community thought that the shipyards constructing the hulls had found a new way to weld titanium. Actually they had not. They just essentially built an airtight box around the hulls and flooded it with argon. They then sent the welders in with air lines and breathing hoods.
One thing I have always loved about Soviet engineering styles is they are so radically different in thinking than anything I am familiar with. To see things being done in different ways, opens one's eyes to the possibilities of what can be achieved. So many different approaches to the same problem, objectively is very beautiful. Soviet vs US helicopter design comes to mind, in particular. I love it. I love all of the designs, even if they weren't financially feasible. The engineering and problem solving and concepts involved are so intriguing!
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt I think that the Deltic is testament to the saying of give an Englishman a large pile of metal and he will do something silly with it.
We always have to remember that Soviet 'engineering styles' were the necessary product of brute force - when the government or military decided it needed something, it was ordered on a contract, and the engineers had to translate wishes into reality by a particular date, and for a certain number of Rubles. In many cases, they were threatened with their lives, and/or their family's lives. In contrast, companies in the free world were (usually) developing ideas in anticipation of government or commercial needs, so engineering talent was used to its full ability. This is demonstrated by the extensive theft of western designs, copied in the USSR.
@@stirlingschmidt6325actually is not. That's just weird. Because every design bureau has to do something.So as not to be seen eating Wages. Because management are engineers they would rather fund crazy projects than ones that are profit-driven . This is also an interesting thing in China where politicians are engineers in contrast to the United States where the majority are lawyers.If something can be ruled out with technique then they will move forward with it.Meanwhile, management that thinks about profits definitely thinks about efficiency and money.
I worked at this Zvezda Plant in what is now St-Petersburg from 1985 till 1990. Know these diesel engines well. Among other things, they powered hydrofoil boats “Rocket” and “Meteor”, mobile diesel power generators for arctic bases and strategic installations. I gained an excellent industrial experience that’s served me well here in North America.
I was involved in a project, where ex Finnish Navy missile boats, Project 205ER's were sold to Egypt. Starting of a 56 cyl M-504 is an unbeliveable feeling.
This made me think of the B-36 and it's mighty engines and incredible maintenance, the jet/turbine engines sure were a GIANT leap forward for aviation. I remember as a child going to the airport to watch the propellor airliners start up and take off, stewardesses would invite children onboard for a tour of the plane and give them little wings...that was about 70 years ago...
My first transcontinental flight was in 1959. My sister and I few across the country alone. I was five and she was seven.i don't think they would even let you do that now. I remember it was all props so it took awhile.
How commercial aviation has devolved from the good ol days. Faster is not better. My last experience was absolutely horrendous. 2019, after Christmas holidays, I was scheduled to fly out of Cleveland, Ohio at 6 am. I arrived at the airport at 4 am, TSA was so rude and unprofessional, I almost missed my flight. I decided to not fly again unless it’s unavoidable. A very stark difference from my very first flight in 1982.
@@RichfromVirginiaBeach I hear you on that. I spend a lot of time traveling in Southeast Asia, where in my experience, the carriers still put the customer first and supply all the amenities that make flying enjoyable. The bane of any trip is having to come back to the US and finish a great trip with the predictably poor abusive service of our domestic carriers. DON'T FLY UNITED AIRLINES UNLESS YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. It's sort of like the old Ma Bell mantra: They don't care because they don't have to. True that.
Back in the mid 70's I was in the Coast Guard and we did four week fisheries patrols off the west coast. I really enjoyed the interactions with the Soviets and if there was one phrase that I would use to define them it would be: "hard working". I remember their life boats were so much better than ours. They were fully covered and painted bright international orange. They would have us over for dinner and out would come the vodka. It was considered rude behavior to refuse a toast. They loved getting visitors drunk so knowing this, I brought a jar of hot Hungarian pickled chilies. They have a very low threshold for hot foods so every time they posed a toast, I would pose a counter toast where everyone had to eat a chili. I would spout some bullsh*t about this is how we toast the motherland where I come from. It put a stop to trying to get us drunk. They just couldn't had hot foods. Lol
The bad thing about the communist state of the Soviet Union is free education where 20% of the state budget is used for education. and 60% of the population graduated from higher education
I remembered a story that a friend told me. in one remote village in Russia, there was a diesel power plant. people in the village took turns on duty in it for many years and then one day it broke down. called in the experts. experts found out that this engine worked without repair for 60 years! from post-war times. and never broke! it was repaired and the power plant continued to work!
На дизельных электростанциях двигатели имеют больший ресурс потому что они работают на ровных оборотах (1500rpm) и нагрузках. Главное своевременно менять масло, фильтра и проводить обслуживание. Бывает что привозят в ремонт моторы возрастом 40-50 лет. Хоть они и не экологичные, но очень простые, надёжные, ремонтопригодные и неприхотливые.
@@solarpower09 B2 вообще-то был создан как авиационный из лёгких сплавов, это уже потом его начали ставить на танки. Лёгкие движки - не ресурсные, именно поэтому их используют в автоспорте, а не на каждый день.
This meant as 100% encouragement if you keep this up and you enjoy this I you could very much be the next Greg's airplanes and automobiles but specified for engines I think your filling a real niche if you keep this up.
Well see this guy does things his own creative way I don’t really see them as the same ppl but rather really good creators in the same field. It’s kinda like singers, both can be great but make different music within the same genre. This guy knows his engine stuff!
What an amazing engine. Love what you’re doing with this channel. Felt polished and well done over all, especially the narration. Keep up the great work!
Cool engine, something i never knew about, love these big monster engines and so cool someone put it in a tractor pull rig. Kinda reminds me of the Napier Deltic.
I can't imagine those lengthy heavy engines fixed to a wing with a huge propellor spinning and not destroying the engine mounts, conventional radials are much shorter. They found their home in a boat or land based installation and put to use and still going, must be ultra reliable by now.
th-cam.com/video/SPR8zBSNOgE/w-d-xo.html 4:34 is the best sound... and holy shit it was moving fast till he let off the throttle and then it died... or ran outa fuel xD there ya go :3 when it ran correctly, it was a dragon! 112 sparkplugs... to make it run and all drilled and tapped by hand
@@narmale I was thinking the same thing, like how many gallons per mile did it take - not miles per gallon. I bet it took a lot just to start that sucker.
Great video! What a beast of an engine! Interestingly enough, the boat it powered was a fast attack, guided missile boat that was capable of better than 60 knots. Powerful enough to haul like a 100 water skiers if the wake turbulance didn't completely bury them in water! Keep it up, I subscribed to your channel! 👍
@@andyharman3022 The bad thing about the communist state of the Soviet Union is free education where 20% of the state budget is used for education. and 60% of the population graduated from university higher education
Thank you so much for making this video, it is streets above almost anything out there because you have gone to the length to find and present images and descriptions of the actual parts. The master rod with the lock wiring! Thing of beauty.
A very impressive piece of engineering. But it fell victim to a number of things beyond Napiers control 1) The large amount of surplus C-54/DC-4s on the market 2) Already developed or soon to be developed aircraft such as the Connie and the StratoCruiser. 3) The seemingly insane decisions on the part of the British Ministry of Aviation in the field of civilian aviation. The Brabazon and The Princess? Really?
The Nomad did reach flight testing, installed in the nose of an Avro Lancaster. They could shut down the other four engines and run on the Nomad alone.
Awesome video I really really like how you laid out all the specs of the engines that you talked about because I’ve seen similar engines on videos before but they were never talked about let alone ever started I will certainly say you Are really good at what you do I really appreciate how you explain all the internals and the functions On how they work keep up the good work buddy you’re doing good
The bad thing about the communist state of the Soviet Union is free education where 20% of the state budget is used for education. and 60% of the population graduated from university higher education
Informative. Educational. Hardly anything skipped out in effort to save a little talking. Kudos. Keep up the good work! If I may. Maybe talking about one of those upside down engines. And the way it all works.
Kudos to you for digging photos, drawings and facts about this exotic design out of the swamp of untold history. The story of the WW2 German Junkers mega-radials has been documented elsewhere, but the trail grows cold from the point at which the Soviet Union took that design as war booty and developed it further-until now. One technical factor might help answer “why the Russians persisted with this design so long into the jet age?” Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)-pounds fuel per horsepower-hour. SFC governs the range possible with a given engine technology, and is most critical for long range bombers and transports. To the aircraft designer in 1945-50, the SFC of turbojets was the worst (best power for the weight, but very thirsty). Piston gas engines were better, plus a known quantity for operation and reliability. Diesel engines offered higher SFC, but too heavy. Turboprops promised good SFC with lighter weight, but had not been realized as reliable designs yet. Even Boeing’s all-jet B-52 was initially designed for turboprop power. It bears a resemblance to the Tupolev “Bear” bomber still flying today.
Wonder if you're willing to do something on the first attempts of heavier than air aircraft engines. Engines like the Wright brothers flyer, Richard Pearse engine and so on. All homemade and innovative of their time. Say between 1895 to 1912.
Not only did the Wright brothers take wind tunnel testing to a different level, made very efficient propellers they also made a over head cam, fuel injected engine. They fully deserve their reconnection.
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 The Wright's engine was no paragon of high technology for it's time. It was just light enough. It produced just enough power. The primary reason that the Wright's were able to fly that day was the freakishly high barometric pressure at Kitty Hawk. The barometric pressure that day was the equivilant to 1 to 2000 feet below sea level. Engines produced only a few years later were much more advanced.
@@mpetersen6 You just pointed out yourself the one thing that it was its key to getting things off the ground at the time they used it. And I agree with your point to but was its size to power that was the key for them as well environment. They needed something Very light. But just what they needed at the time to keep it up once off the ground once they got there. Just remember first they had to use a sort of catapult just to get to that stage for many years just to get their flyer of the ground. Once up the motor did the rest with only just the power to keep it up there. Unlike Richard Pearse engine own home built by him, and with replicas of that engine that have been made of the engine. It had excellent power to weight ratio that could lift it craft off the ground with one of them in it under it's own power. If Richard Pearse did bet the Wright brothers, that will always be open to debate. As the Wright's had picture's and he only had witnesses that now it can't be confirmed. Even someone before them might have managed it. There will always be that question to. Good example of even that theory is the movie and book that came out " World's fastest Indian" in 2005. How many know about Burt Munro before then. I did but know many that did not even locals in his hometown before then.
Will you be covering Turbo Props? I worked on the P3A and B in the Navy. I was in AIMD, Advanced Intermediate Maintenance Depot, repairing the Navigation System, indoors in a cushy, AC cooled lab workspace, but the P3s had Turbo Props. At both Naval Air Stations, we transitioned out the old P2s with Radial Props which were upgraded with wing tip jet engines for extra boost, like on takeoff. These were Anti Submarine Warfare/Search and Rescue aircraft without a tail hook, so I was shore-based in America for both enlistments. I joined the Navy to keep from being Drafted right out of high school in 1973 into the Army and being a ground pounding, gun toting Grunt in Vietnam. We kept the Base operational for when the weekend Reservists came in to Drill. We had two Squadron of Reservists, so we went with them for the 2 weeks each for their required Active Duty times, so we would be gone a full month for both of them. I spent about 1½ months in Hawaii, and month in Bermuda twice, and went to the Azores Islands, off of Portugal, for a month 2 times. Join the Navy and see the world, but at least I wasn't stuck on a ship for months at a time. I visited the WWII Memorial in Hawaii. That was fascinating and sad at the same time, seeing all those glorious ships rotting away. Anyway, thanks for the videos.
I worked with a ex-Soviet naval architect in 1998. He said the 503 used in the missile boats had a MTBF of about 1500-2000 hours. High output, but not for long.
I just found this channel and I’m really enjoying it! It’s incredibly fascinating The history of these airplane engines. When most of the attention is on the plane.
In the cutaway it looks like the piston attached to the master rod is a typical deep dish diesel piston. But the remaining pistons attached to the articulating rods appear to be a more flat top design. With the master rod being more robust.....it makes me think all cylinders are not producing the same power. Having a hard time understanding why this design is so....and possibly balance issues. Unless the other cylinders' master rods are out of phase by 52 degrees. (Or fractionals of that)
Really enjoying this channel. Love the long format dives into unusual engines! There's a very weird Soviet (no!) engine I've seen in photos of an exhibit at Monino - perhaps you're familiar; a very large piston with wheels (essentially cam followers) rides on a type of wave plate crankshaft, so as the plate rotates, the piston strokes. I gather it was tried in order to reduce engine frontal area, what with the garbage can-sized piston's stroke and the crankshaft's rotation at right angles from one another. I hope that makes even a shred of sense. Anyway... please consider it for a future episode!
Good upload but, especially for non US engines, can you please include metric...(eg in this one I have no idea if 7459 pounds is the weight of a horse, helicopter or house)
@@ForgottenMan2009 ha thanks, but you do realise metric doesn't use tons either? That's why I don't understand why something already in metric ( eg Russian, German, Japanese engines) already in metric can't just have their measurements
In terms cutting edge technology piston aero engines is where it was at in the pre jet era. Yes auto racing produced some pretty cutting edge technology but aero engines are all about power output and reliability.
Thanks Dave, It’s difficult sometimes to weigh interesting facts and not go too deep. I feel as though we’d lose people if it became an engineering lecture, but maybe we’ll experiment with more depth in the future
@@Ник-щ8у you should use those missiles you mentioned instead of bottles. your ass is not wide enough to provide the throughput for the amount of bullshit you've just tried to squeeze out.
The English ne wt the 2:05 timestamp is the two row 16 cylinder Bristol Hydra. Weird in that it was one of the few radials with an even number of cylinders and DOHCs. OHCs were also used in the 24 cylinder Jumo 222, the 42 cylinder Wright Tornado and the French Mathias Vega 24 cylinder.
_Two observations:_ (1) I had once read that at approximately 4000 hp, the power-to-weight graph lines cross, for the matter of ICUs and turbines; that is, for an (aero) engine intended to make more than 4000 hp, use a turboshaft instead. In the matter of this engine being firmly in the era of developed turboshaft engines, the Russian engineers could not have _not_ been aware of this verity. (2) Although not as impressively powerful as this engine, the viewer may also be interested in two successful western ICU engines of years past: the Lycoming XR-7755 and the Napier Deltic. Both have compelling TH-cam videos about them.
I don't think I would call the XR-7755 successful. Only two or three were built. Yes they ran. Yes they produced over 5000 HP. But they were never installed in an airframe much less flew. The same could be said of a number of other interesting aer engines of the time period. One that comes to mind is Wrights R-2160. 42 cylinder inline radial. Liquid cooled. 7 banks of 6 cylinders. OHC, three crank shafts tied together with layshafts running in the space between the cylinder banks. Compact in diameter. Well over 2000 horsepower and 1hp per CID. Run on test but never installed in an airframe and flown. There are others. The Old Machine Press website is a great source. In terms of power to weight ratio outside of rocket engines I don't think anything beats a Top Fuel dragster engine. The TBO may be measured in seconds though.
@@mpetersen6 Yes. I never should have said that this experimental and never-installed engine design was successful (cooling issues, I dimly recall), but during the writing I was referring to the Napier Deltic, and the Lycoming was tagging along in the sentence.
these engines are of such high quality and reliability that when our navy goes on military exercises it usually ends up with a breakdown and everything stops and then you see tugboats going to help
Amazing engine & superb video. I'm a Military watch lover and I support watch brands who pay tribute to the veterans & share their profits with them. I recently bought 4 of them from Praesidus Watches, they're really good.
Thanks for this marvelous video! I'm a fan of tractor pulling and have seen the Dragon Fire in those videos. They spent a long time figuring out how to make their combination run. I wondered WTH the base engine was, and now I know. The Soviets couldn't keep up with the west in jet propulsion technology, but they engineered some good piston engines behind the iron curtain. I was initially thinking the M501 was just a scaled-up copy of the Curtiss-Wright Tornado, but that was not a diesel, so the Russians had to engineer their own solutions. It's cool that the engine is still being produced. I hope they've continued to upgrade it with modern fuel injection systems.
К сожалению или счастью - их перестали выпускать. Ресурс долговременной работы не выдерживает никакой критики. Производство и ремонт подобных дизелей дороги, а ресурс мал... Это больше технический курьёз, доработанный ЮМО-222, наподобие 2-тактного танкового дизеля 5ТДФ, который опять же скопирован с ЮМО-205..
0:12 I’ve never disliked a video so quickly. The Buran is not a knock-off of the Space Shuttle. It’s a completely different system that was capable of many things including flying completely autonomously.. in the 80’s!!
That this colossal Soviet Russia made radial engine ended up performing in monster truck shows in the USA - just might be the nicest compliment ever paid to engineers anywhere.
As an aviation instructor of mine once said "...and then you go from the ridiculous to the sublime." The concept I like, the practical...well you know.
I am fascinated that people have attempted to break the sound barrier in level flight with piston powered aircraft. What sort of engines are they using, breakthroughs in prop aerodynamics, can it be done, or will the laws of aerodynamics prohibit it.
For some of the efforts the powerplants have actually been automotive based. Largely Chevrolet V-8s. As much as some disparage the OHV V-8 in some ways it has a lot going for it. In terms of displacement per weight and overall size they are pretty compact and light. Even production cast iron versions can be quite light. If I were to be looking at this now I would look at using an LS as the base starting point. Look at the overall size of a DOHC V-8 and an OHV pushrod engine of similiar displacement (1). The DOHC version is likely to be much wider. One field to look at in terms of power output vs overall size etc is in the Land Speed Racing community. Especially the streamliners. In an airframe that means a smaller cross section which means less drag (2). In terms of the prop I think that's the big problem. You need radically different prop blade profiles. One plane that was being built to try to do this had contra-rotating props with blades that looked more like a blender iirc. I wonder if you would really need a ducted fan to pull it off. And once you do it the aircraft goes straight into the National Air & Space Museum or some other aviation museum. And weight is going to play a major factor. Low enough weight means smaller wings, lighter landing gear and retraction mechanism. And low weight does not necessarily mean carbon fiber. Yes it has very good strength to weight ratios. I once worked with an individual who was a bigger aviation geek than I am. He was friends with the guy (3) that built a couple of the BD-5s used in promotional work. One of the sponsors wanted parts of the airframe built out of carbon fiber. The builder could make the same parts out of aluminum lighter than the carbon fiber. 1) Engineers in the US auto industry were well aware of the overall benefits that a SOHC or DOHC valve train engendered to engine design. There were a number of other factors at play in design choices that often get overlooked. One was tax policies that penalized displacement in some markets. Another was the operating environment that did not force vehicle size to be smaller or make it desirable. And finally the biggest factor was cost. Aside from cost of materials in the components it really does not cost any more to produce a 1500cc four cylinder versus say a 2.5 liter four cylinder. And if the 1500 has DOHC with 4 valve heads the 1500 costs more. This is given equal pay rates, machine outputs etc. And in terms of mileage in the 50s and early 60s when most of the classic American OHV 6 and e cylinder engines were designed it was possible to achieve mileage fairly close or equal to that achieved by the leading European imports of the time. *I remember watching a show on Discovery or one of the similiar cable channels about home built experimental aircraft. One was a Mono design with a Briggs and Stratton 18 hp V-Twin hopped up to 20 hp. The plane would top 200mph/327kph with the type of engine you might find in a riding lawn mower. I found that pretty impressive. 3) One degree of seperation! But then I have that with a number of other famous or infamous individuals. Phil Waites, AllenGinsburg, Francis Ford Coppola and Eric Clapton. Simply because a friend is an author who has written a number of biographies
@@mpetersen6 Hey you're very knowledgeable about this subject. Love the idea about the ducted fan, and totally understand the need for props being designed with narrower thinner blades to cheat resistance. The biggest problem to overcome to me seems to be the issue of an airframe traveling at near supersonic speeds coupled to the sonic signature created by the propwash and engine noise alone, throw in a sonic boom on top of that and it seems like the possibility of ungodly decibel levels and sonic vibration might very possibly cause a catastrophic unintended disassembly.
@Michael Cohen Another great response. I'm beginning to think I'm not the only one who would like to see this milestone reached. Of course it would only be a one-off attempt since I cannot foresee any marketable technology from designing such an aircraft. Just a simple exercise to demonstrate that it can be done. The great Chuck Yeager once reported that he was pretty sure he'd broken the sound barrier before in a p51, but it was in a steep dive under combat conditions so there was no record keeping present to serve as proof. Also he said "pretty sure", and of course it was not in level flight. However, if so, it proves the old mustangs could survive it.
@Michael Cohen Great reply! I have a lot respect for your opinion. The prop itself definitely seems to be the primary challenge here. For the blades to be as robust as well as "slippery" as they need to be in the supersonic environment may be a challenge humanly incapable of overcoming, but there are still engineers who say theoretically it is possible. The Tupolev 114 flew around the world at cruising speeds in excess of 500 mph for decades. Top speeds higher than that. In higher altitude environments, and I may be wrong here, but I think that would be pretty close to .9 mach. Perhaps the secret may lay in some as yet undesigned contrarotating prop system.
@Michael Cohen проблема воздушных винтов при работе на трансзвуковых скоростях заключается в том, что основание лопасти движется с дозвуковой скоростью, а конец лопасти - уже со сверхзвуковой. Это неразрешимая проблема, и при приближении к скорости звука лопасти разрушаются. Ту-95 и раньше Ту-114 - это квинтэссенция развития винтовых самолётов, спроектированных для движения на скоростях, вплотную приближенных к скорости звука. Быстрее их с винтомоторной силовой установкой двигаться технически невозможно. Винты разрушаются.
If building 2, completing one, and flying a single two orbit flight with it, before abandoning it to rot makes it better, then sure I guess you're right. Meanwhile, the 5 STS completed what, 135 missions over the decades. One was an outright failure, one wasn't want to guess which is which?
Dojo, I think the biggest piston radial is the old Nordberg stationary 2-stroke diesel radials that were used for power generation in the late 1940s. There were 11 and 12 cylinder models and each cylinder was 40.4 liters, or 2,463 cu in. They are huge and more comparable to a large marine diesel: th-cam.com/video/ZMVHflfCdmg/w-d-xo.html
I was hoping for details on the fuel injection system, how was the diesel pump used, routing, injectors, etc. There was no mention of it, or the fuel consumption
Complicated, but might be more reliable with 1960s Soviet tech. Turbines need more advanced alloys and much greater precision when machining the parts than a diesel, even one as complicated as this one.
@@AndrewCZ47 They had the Klimov engine from 1947. If they could build that, then they were more than capable. Maybe the M-501 was a prestige project, but it's not practical. Impressive, though.
Not correct. Gas turbines never had a TBO anywhere near 1500hrs at the time, let alone the 3,000 this was capable of. Another ''complicated'' radial was the civil versions of the Bristol Centaurus which also had a TBO of 3,000hrs. The legendary P&W PT6 needs a hot section replacement at around 1500hrs depending in type of use and has a mid-life inspection at 2500hrs under EU regulations.
@@MichaelKingsfordGray I like this nickname. Small anti-submarine ships of the Albatross type were equipped with a marine version of this engine. According to the NATO classification, Grisha V. Information about this ship is available in any naval handbook, such as the Janes Naval Handbook. It was a really successful submarine hunter, agile and fast. A small part of these ships was in the naval units of the border troops of the USSR, and then Russia. Project 1124P was a modification for the border troops. I served on one of these ships. Moreover, I was a minder who maintained this mechanism. Good luck !
@@DylanClements98 Torque is still the actual measurement of force. You could take a much smaller engine that produces the same horsepower as this and in something the size of a ship the smaller engine wouldn’t work as well. And, you have it backwards. Horsepower is calculated from torque. Torque is the force that’s measured then horsepower is calculated with the rpm. Plus the output power for engines like these is relatively low for their size because they’re intended to be able to run at max power for their service life. They could make much more power, but wouldn’t be as reliable or last as long. Like how an F1 engine produces a lot of power for it’s size, but wouldn’t survive long under extended full load.
Guys, i appreciate the discussion. All i wanted is to point out that high torque (usually more than twice the power figure in passenger cars, x4+ with bigger engines) is the main trait of diesel engines. Apart from reliability, longevity, and efficiency.
@@DylanClements98 This is the real world. Not a math problem. Torque is what does the actual work. Even drivetrain pieces get rated in how much torque they can handle. Even looking at the units when you work it out mathematically you'll see that horsepower is just torque over time. Which means torque is the more basic unit of measure. If you want more horsepower at a given rpm you have to make more torque. Cause torque is what's actually doing the work.
You have to wonder if the withdrawal of Western companies from Russia will give these engines a new lease on life since they do not depend on Western technology.
Такий двигун, був на мінних тральщиках і слугував головним двигуном на кораблі їх було два, 2500 кінських сил і 1780 обертів на хвилину, 42 циліндри + турбокомпресор , був надійним ,соляри жер багато, його виготовляли в срср , були ще двигуни такого ж типу з більшою кількістю циліндрів.
Probably, yeah. I would think they also have some mechanism for rotating the engine several revolutions to clear the lowest cylinders of oil before starting.
Finnish Navy had for sale M504 engines. They were 56 cyl and 5000 hp. 224 valves, 14 cams, aluminium built. Super sexy engines. They were sold to Vietnam, but i got a manual.
i have always been under the impression that radial engines have only odd number of cylinders like 5 7 9 and 3 but you can put rows of cylinder one behind the other is this yak engine different from a normal radial
Radials normally have an odd number of cylinders due to firing order. A nine cylinder is 1-3-5-7-9-2-4-6-8. But there gave been exceptions the Bristol Hydra. Inline radial engines such as the Hydra, the Curtis Hexes, the M-401 series, the Wright Tornado are often the result of the need to use liquid coolant.
@@mpetersen6 So, to think of it another way-- are the jugs on an air-cooled radial staggered so that air can get to them? And how do rotational harmonics play with that structure?
@@theprojectproject01 On air cooled radials the rows are offset usually by 1/2 the angular seperation between the cylinders of each row. There have been exceptions. Bristols Hydra which also was an even number of cylinders per row. The Curtis Hex engines and the Armstrong Sidley 'Dog' engines. As a general rule air cooled radials are one or two rows. The major exception is the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 28 cylinder with 4 rows. There is a small company called ageless engines that sells plans for 5, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 18 cylinder engines that can be built in a home workshop equipped with a mill and a lathe. The engines are all based on the same cylinder. The company actually recommends that somebody build the 9 cylinder first if the intention is to build more than one type. Common fixturing is one reason. The second is 9 is an even factor of 360°. 7 comes out as an odd angle. 51.42857°.
Russian Engineering is really quite amazing. It is a classic case of making what you need from what you have. BTW, the Soviet style economy with its approach to engineering did produce a number of scares in the American intelligence and military communities. The best one, I think, was when it was found out that the Typhoon Class submarines were being built with pressure hulls constructed of titanium. Titanium is an extremely difficult material to weld requiring inert gas. The American intelligence community thought that the shipyards constructing the hulls had found a new way to weld titanium. Actually they had not. They just essentially built an airtight box around the hulls and flooded it with argon. They then sent the welders in with air lines and breathing hoods.
Sub brief did a video on this topic.
I always wondered how they did that! I had assumed they riveted them, but I like the Soviet approach better.
So, they did it the easy way?
Soviet. Not Russian
Making what you need with what you have - is a real slogan, that is common in engineering community in Russia.
One thing I have always loved about Soviet engineering styles is they are so radically different in thinking than anything I am familiar with. To see things being done in different ways, opens one's eyes to the possibilities of what can be achieved. So many different approaches to the same problem, objectively is very beautiful. Soviet vs US helicopter design comes to mind, in particular. I love it. I love all of the designs, even if they weren't financially feasible. The engineering and problem solving and concepts involved are so intriguing!
Napier Deltic is strange
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt I think that the Deltic is testament to the saying of give an Englishman a large pile of metal and he will do something silly with it.
We always have to remember that Soviet 'engineering styles' were the necessary product of brute force - when the government or military decided it needed something, it was ordered on a contract, and the engineers had to translate wishes into reality by a particular date, and for a certain number of Rubles. In many cases, they were threatened with their lives, and/or their family's lives. In contrast, companies in the free world were (usually) developing ideas in anticipation of government or commercial needs, so engineering talent was used to its full ability. This is demonstrated by the extensive theft of western designs, copied in the USSR.
@@stirlingschmidt6325actually is not. That's just weird. Because every design bureau has to do something.So as not to be seen eating Wages.
Because management are engineers they would rather fund crazy projects than ones that are profit-driven .
This is also an interesting thing in China where politicians are engineers in contrast to the United States where the majority are lawyers.If something can be ruled out with technique then they will move forward with it.Meanwhile, management that thinks about profits definitely thinks about efficiency and money.
I worked at this Zvezda Plant in what is now St-Petersburg from 1985 till 1990. Know these diesel engines well.
Among other things, they powered hydrofoil boats “Rocket” and “Meteor”, mobile diesel power generators for arctic bases and strategic installations.
I gained an excellent industrial experience that’s served me well here in North America.
It never powered Meteor let alone Rocket.
That is an amazing motor. Welcome to the colonies.
you fucking traitor
Сука, предатель!!!
Гореть тебе в аду.
That’s bad ass
I was involved in a project, where ex Finnish Navy missile boats, Project 205ER's were sold to Egypt. Starting of a 56 cyl M-504 is an unbeliveable feeling.
This made me think of the B-36 and it's mighty engines and incredible maintenance, the jet/turbine engines sure were a GIANT leap forward for aviation. I remember as a child going to the airport to watch the propellor airliners start up and take off, stewardesses would invite children onboard for a tour of the plane and give them little wings...that was about 70 years ago...
That's awesome you got to see that.
My first transcontinental flight was in 1959. My sister and I few across the country alone. I was five and she was seven.i don't think they would even let you do that now. I remember it was all props so it took awhile.
The B-36 was powered by the largest American radial engine, the R-4360. Same with Hugh 'Spruce Goose" seaplane. This was twice the size!
How commercial aviation has devolved from the good ol days. Faster is not better. My last experience was absolutely horrendous. 2019, after Christmas holidays, I was scheduled to fly out of Cleveland, Ohio at 6 am. I arrived at the airport at 4 am, TSA was so rude and unprofessional, I almost missed my flight. I decided to not fly again unless it’s unavoidable. A very stark difference from my very first flight in 1982.
@@RichfromVirginiaBeach I hear you on that. I spend a lot of time traveling in Southeast Asia, where in my experience, the carriers still put the customer first and supply all the amenities that make flying enjoyable. The bane of any trip is having to come back to the US and finish a great trip with the predictably poor abusive service of our domestic carriers. DON'T FLY UNITED AIRLINES UNLESS YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. It's sort of like the old Ma Bell mantra: They don't care because they don't have to. True that.
Back in the mid 70's I was in the Coast Guard and we did four week fisheries patrols off the west coast. I really enjoyed the interactions with the Soviets and if there was one phrase that I would use to define them it would be: "hard working". I remember their life boats were so much better than ours. They were fully covered and painted bright international orange. They would have us over for dinner and out would come the vodka. It was considered rude behavior to refuse a toast. They loved getting visitors drunk so knowing this, I brought a jar of hot Hungarian pickled chilies. They have a very low threshold for hot foods so every time they posed a toast, I would pose a counter toast where everyone had to eat a chili. I would spout some bullsh*t about this is how we toast the motherland where I come from. It put a stop to trying to get us drunk. They just couldn't had hot foods. Lol
I love hungarians.
The bad thing about the communist state of the Soviet Union is free education where 20% of the state budget is used for education. and 60% of the population graduated from higher education
@@nesa1126 My favorite adult actress is Hungarian and goes by the name: Monique Woods. lol Pure beauty.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa What has this got to do with the price of tea in China? You've confused my simple mind.
I see that everyone believed you worked for the Hungarian Coast Guard. On the western shore of Lake Balaton ;)
I remembered a story that a friend told me. in one remote village in Russia, there was a diesel power plant. people in the village took turns on duty in it for many years and then one day it broke down. called in the experts. experts found out that this engine worked without repair for 60 years! from post-war times. and never broke! it was repaired and the power plant continued to work!
На дизельных электростанциях двигатели имеют больший ресурс потому что они работают на ровных оборотах (1500rpm) и нагрузках. Главное своевременно менять масло, фильтра и проводить обслуживание.
Бывает что привозят в ремонт моторы возрастом 40-50 лет. Хоть они и не экологичные, но очень простые, надёжные, ремонтопригодные и неприхотливые.
I am sure it was one of imported or captured german diesels.
@@solarpower09 Как интересно! Расскажите пожалуйста об этих германских дизелях! И сделайте видео. С интересом посмотрю )
@@VgarajeSuRf это точно не грёбаный В2 с ресурсом в 300 часов, с которым мучались механики на всех наших буровых.
@@solarpower09 B2 вообще-то был создан как авиационный из лёгких сплавов, это уже потом его начали ставить на танки. Лёгкие движки - не ресурсные, именно поэтому их используют в автоспорте, а не на каждый день.
I'm thrilled with all these engine videos, there's little else out there on YT quite like them. Keep up the great work!
This meant as 100% encouragement if you keep this up and you enjoy this I you could very much be the next Greg's airplanes and automobiles but specified for engines I think your filling a real niche if you keep this up.
Greg's airplanes is a great channel.
@@BikerJim74 I am two Patreon pledges, he is one of them and I am not the bottom tier I love his channel.
Very small amount of men understand or care about engine spec's just saying people can't change a tyre these days
Thank you Light. Those are some big shoes to fill. I'll definitely try to get there!
Well see this guy does things his own creative way I don’t really see them as the same ppl but rather really good creators in the same field. It’s kinda like singers, both can be great but make different music within the same genre. This guy knows his engine stuff!
What an amazing engine. Love what you’re doing with this channel. Felt polished and well done over all, especially the narration. Keep up the great work!
Check out Napiers wondrous catalogue of engines...
Cool engine, something i never knew about, love these big monster engines and so cool someone put it in a tractor pull rig.
Kinda reminds me of the Napier Deltic.
The Deltic. The last word in piston engine engineering.
@@peterbustin2683 Unless the Nomad was . . .
@@petearundel166 Agreed !
Looks like this engine and the Deltic both share some ancestry with the Jumo.
I watched a video about the Deltic recently on 'Curious Droid's channel. th-cam.com/video/-vV-YaKsIGk/w-d-xo.html
Oh yes! Immediately clicked on the video when I saw you had released a new one. Especially something as funky as this M-501 engine. Thank you!! :D
I can't imagine those lengthy heavy engines fixed to a wing with a huge propellor spinning and not destroying the engine mounts, conventional radials are much shorter.
They found their home in a boat or land based installation and put to use and still going, must be ultra reliable by now.
Astounding numbers, but a pity we couldn't hear it run.
th-cam.com/video/SPR8zBSNOgE/w-d-xo.html
4:34 is the best sound... and holy shit it was moving fast till he let off the throttle and then it died... or ran outa fuel xD
there ya go :3 when it ran correctly, it was a dragon!
112 sparkplugs... to make it run and all drilled and tapped by hand
Talk about a throaty growl! Especially for the engine where they hooked up 2 together.
@@kfl611 wonder what the fuel consumption was like xD
@@narmale I was thinking the same thing, like how many gallons per mile did it take - not miles per gallon. I bet it took a lot just to start that sucker.
A wee bit over 5 cubic feet of displacement.
Not even sure it would sound like a piston engine with all those cylinders!
Great video! What a beast of an engine! Interestingly enough, the boat it powered was a fast attack, guided missile boat that was capable of better than 60 knots. Powerful enough to haul like a 100 water skiers if the wake turbulance didn't completely bury them in water!
Keep it up, I subscribed to your channel! 👍
But imagine the wake tricks that the skiers could do! If they didn't die.
@@andyharman3022 The bad thing about the communist state of the Soviet Union is free education where 20% of the state budget is used for education. and 60% of the population graduated from university higher education
Thank you so much for making this video, it is streets above almost anything out there because you have gone to the length to find and present images and descriptions of the actual parts. The master rod with the lock wiring! Thing of beauty.
The Napier Nomad was another large diesel engine that didn't quite get to fly, and also featured turbo-compounding. A very neat design.
A very impressive piece of engineering. But it fell victim to a number of things beyond Napiers control
1) The large amount of surplus C-54/DC-4s on the market
2) Already developed or soon to be developed aircraft such as the Connie and the StratoCruiser.
3) The seemingly insane decisions on the part of the British Ministry of Aviation in the field of civilian aviation. The Brabazon and The Princess? Really?
The Nomad did reach flight testing, installed in the nose of an Avro Lancaster. They could shut down the other four engines and run on the Nomad alone.
The Nomad would have been great in the Avro Shackleton. But an engine confined to one airframe is never a great idea.
Awesome video I really really like how you laid out all the specs of the engines that you talked about because I’ve seen similar engines on videos before but they were never talked about let alone ever started I will certainly say you
Are really good at what you do I really appreciate how you explain all the internals and the functions On how they work keep up the good work buddy you’re doing good
The bad thing about the communist state of the Soviet Union is free education where 20% of the state budget is used for education. and 60% of the population graduated from university higher education
Informative. Educational. Hardly anything skipped out in effort to save a little talking. Kudos. Keep up the good work! If I may. Maybe talking about one of those upside down engines. And the way it all works.
This channel kept me entertained for 9 days in the hospital after my open heart surgery… thank you.. I learned a ton of interesting stuff..
Great video as always. Is there a chance that you might add metric measurements on screen when you have the imperial measurements written out?
The algorithm is taking you on a tour my man. Enjoy it, your videos are great.
Kudos to you for digging photos, drawings and facts about this exotic design out of the swamp of untold history. The story of the WW2 German Junkers mega-radials has been documented elsewhere, but the trail grows cold from the point at which the Soviet Union took that design as war booty and developed it further-until now. One technical factor might help answer “why the Russians persisted with this design so long into the jet age?” Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)-pounds fuel per horsepower-hour. SFC governs the range possible with a given engine technology, and is most critical for long range bombers and transports. To the aircraft designer in 1945-50, the SFC of turbojets was the worst (best power for the weight, but very thirsty). Piston gas engines were better, plus a known quantity for operation and reliability. Diesel engines offered higher SFC, but too heavy. Turboprops promised good SFC with lighter weight, but had not been realized as reliable designs yet. Even Boeing’s all-jet B-52 was initially designed for turboprop power. It bears a resemblance to the Tupolev “Bear” bomber still flying today.
Wonder if you're willing to do something on the first attempts of heavier than air aircraft engines. Engines like the Wright brothers flyer, Richard Pearse engine and so on. All homemade and innovative of their time. Say between 1895 to 1912.
And the Manly-Balzar. Probably the best power to weight ratio of it time.
Shane, I have been telling you this since elementary school: the words "your" and "you're" mean different things.
Not only did the Wright brothers take wind tunnel testing to a different level, made very efficient propellers they also made a over head cam, fuel injected engine. They fully deserve their reconnection.
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391
The Wright's engine was no paragon of high technology for it's time. It was just light enough. It produced just enough power. The primary reason that the Wright's were able to fly that day was the freakishly high barometric pressure at Kitty Hawk. The barometric pressure that day was the equivilant to 1 to 2000 feet below sea level.
Engines produced only a few years later were much more advanced.
@@mpetersen6 You just pointed out yourself the one thing that it was its key to getting things off the ground at the time they used it. And I agree with your point to but was its size to power that was the key for them as well environment. They needed something Very light. But just what they needed at the time to keep it up once off the ground once they got there. Just remember first they had to use a sort of catapult just to get to that stage for many years just to get their flyer of the ground. Once up the motor did the rest with only just the power to keep it up there. Unlike Richard Pearse engine own home built by him, and with replicas of that engine that have been made of the engine. It had excellent power to weight ratio that could lift it craft off the ground with one of them in it under it's own power. If Richard Pearse did bet the Wright brothers, that will always be open to debate. As the Wright's had picture's and he only had witnesses that now it can't be confirmed. Even someone before them might have managed it. There will always be that question to.
Good example of even that theory is the movie and book that came out " World's fastest Indian" in 2005. How many know about Burt Munro before then. I did but know many that did not even locals in his hometown before then.
Amazing engineering. Just imagine what we all could achieve if we worked together and not against each other.
Это было ваше решение, мы хотели дружить
@@Navi-Kgn мы же все прекрасно понимаем, что от нас ничего не зависит.
@@Navi-Kgn both sides are manipulated by the same parasites.
lack of competition dissolves purpose. in fact, most scientific breakthroughs have happened during major military conflicts.
Will you be covering Turbo Props? I worked on the P3A and B in the Navy. I was in AIMD, Advanced Intermediate Maintenance Depot, repairing the Navigation System, indoors in a cushy, AC cooled lab workspace, but the P3s had Turbo Props. At both Naval Air Stations, we transitioned out the old P2s with Radial Props which were upgraded with wing tip jet engines for extra boost, like on takeoff. These were Anti Submarine Warfare/Search and Rescue aircraft without a tail hook, so I was shore-based in America for both enlistments. I joined the Navy to keep from being Drafted right out of high school in 1973 into the Army and being a ground pounding, gun toting Grunt in Vietnam. We kept the Base operational for when the weekend Reservists came in to Drill. We had two Squadron of Reservists, so we went with them for the 2 weeks each for their required Active Duty times, so we would be gone a full month for both of them. I spent about 1½ months in Hawaii, and month in Bermuda twice, and went to the Azores Islands, off of Portugal, for a month 2 times. Join the Navy and see the world, but at least I wasn't stuck on a ship for months at a time. I visited the WWII Memorial in Hawaii. That was fascinating and sad at the same time, seeing all those glorious ships rotting away. Anyway, thanks for the videos.
Never knew about this beast. Absolutely amazing.
I worked with a ex-Soviet naval architect in 1998. He said the 503 used in the missile boats had a MTBF of about 1500-2000 hours. High output, but not for long.
It's normal...
Wow. My respect for Russian engineering continues to grow. Great video!
This upload schedule is nuts man, keep it up, but don’t burn out!
I just found this channel and I’m really enjoying it!
It’s incredibly fascinating The history of these airplane engines. When most of the attention is on the plane.
Just found this video and based on the quality I had thought this was from a much larger channel!
Great stuff guys, keep it up!
Thanks to those engines , M503, we had the fastest attack boats in the Baltic sea. See project OSA and OSA II
In the cutaway it looks like the piston attached to the master rod is a typical deep dish diesel piston. But the remaining pistons attached to the articulating rods appear to be a more flat top design. With the master rod being more robust.....it makes me think all cylinders are not producing the same power. Having a hard time understanding why this design is so....and possibly balance issues. Unless the other cylinders' master rods are out of phase by 52 degrees. (Or fractionals of that)
5:32 3 spark plugs by cylinder make 126 spark plugs on this tractor. Diesel version make sense.
Can we take a second to appreciate the fact that the man left a link to where he got his information from? Most youtubers don’t do that
Missed a letter on your opener.. Love the channel.. Namaste!
Really enjoying this channel. Love the long format dives into unusual engines! There's a very weird Soviet (no!) engine I've seen in photos of an exhibit at Monino - perhaps you're familiar; a very large piston with wheels (essentially cam followers) rides on a type of wave plate crankshaft, so as the plate rotates, the piston strokes. I gather it was tried in order to reduce engine frontal area, what with the garbage can-sized piston's stroke and the crankshaft's rotation at right angles from one another.
I hope that makes even a shred of sense.
Anyway... please consider it for a future episode!
It's like Old Machine Press in video format.
@@mpetersen6 great blog!
Good upload but, especially for non US engines, can you please include metric...(eg in this one I have no idea if 7459 pounds is the weight of a horse, helicopter or house)
Helo. Horse maybe 746 lbs.
@@HootOwl513 nope, 746 watts= 1horse power
@@tafsirnahian669 Talking weight, not energy. And 746 pounds would be a light horse.
weight?
easy, divide by 2000 to get tons as a rough guide.
so about 3.6 tons...
@@ForgottenMan2009 ha thanks, but you do realise metric doesn't use tons either? That's why I don't understand why something already in metric ( eg Russian, German, Japanese engines) already in metric can't just have their measurements
Kudos, enjoying your output. I'd appreciate more technical/engineering content. I find cutting edge 1940's technologies fascinating.
Thank you.
In terms cutting edge technology piston aero engines is where it was at in the pre jet era. Yes auto racing produced some pretty cutting edge technology but aero engines are all about power output and reliability.
Thanks Dave, It’s difficult sometimes to weigh interesting facts and not go too deep. I feel as though we’d lose people if it became an engineering lecture, but maybe we’ll experiment with more depth in the future
Love this engine stuff. It's like Greg's. Keep em coming 💯
Kickstart or 5 inch Coffman blank? (2 when frosty : )
Probably a small rocket to start
Wow you are really cranking out them videos 🤩 Don't get burned out please 😊❤
I've known about this engine for a while now and still am majorly impressed. Thanks for a great video! Subbed.
Did you call the Buran a knock-off space shuttle lmao. It could take-off and land fully automated, in the late 80's.
Для них советское всегда будет хуже, чем их. Наверное, надо повоспитывать Кинжалами и Калибрами😝
@@Ник-щ8у you should use those missiles you mentioned instead of bottles. your ass is not wide enough to provide the throughput for the amount of bullshit you've just tried to squeeze out.
The English ne wt the 2:05 timestamp is the two row 16 cylinder Bristol Hydra. Weird in that it was one of the few radials with an even number of cylinders and DOHCs. OHCs were also used in the 24 cylinder Jumo 222, the 42 cylinder Wright Tornado and the French Mathias Vega 24 cylinder.
_Two observations:_
(1) I had once read that at approximately 4000 hp, the power-to-weight graph lines cross, for the matter of ICUs and turbines; that is, for an (aero) engine intended to make more than 4000 hp, use a turboshaft instead. In the matter of this engine being firmly in the era of developed turboshaft engines, the Russian engineers could not have _not_ been aware of this verity.
(2) Although not as impressively powerful as this engine, the viewer may also be interested in two successful western ICU engines of years past: the Lycoming XR-7755 and the Napier Deltic. Both have compelling TH-cam videos about them.
I don't think I would call the XR-7755 successful. Only two or three were built. Yes they ran. Yes they produced over 5000 HP. But they were never installed in an airframe much less flew. The same could be said of a number of other interesting aer engines of the time period. One that comes to mind is Wrights R-2160. 42 cylinder inline radial. Liquid cooled. 7 banks of 6 cylinders. OHC, three crank shafts tied together with layshafts running in the space between the cylinder banks. Compact in diameter. Well over 2000 horsepower and 1hp per CID. Run on test but never installed in an airframe and flown. There are others. The Old Machine Press website is a great source.
In terms of power to weight ratio outside of rocket engines I don't think anything beats a Top Fuel dragster engine. The TBO may be measured in seconds though.
@@mpetersen6 Yes. I never should have said that this experimental and never-installed engine design was successful (cooling issues, I dimly recall), but during the writing I was referring to the Napier Deltic, and the Lycoming was tagging along in the sentence.
I have seen a w 12 dohc, 4 valve per cylinder Napier in a nz aviation museum. Made in 1917.
@@mpetersen6 6 banks of 7, a radial has an odd number of cylinders per bank.
these engines are of such high quality and reliability that when our navy goes on military exercises it usually ends up with a breakdown and everything stops and then you see tugboats going to help
Your production quality is outstanding !
Right up there with Mark Felton 👍
Thank you for this fascinating content !
Amazing engine & superb video. I'm a Military watch lover and I support watch brands who pay tribute to the veterans & share their profits with them. I recently bought 4 of them from Praesidus Watches, they're really good.
0:11 *Knockoff!?* It was better than the "original"!
Didnt even go to space lol
@@Kaj-j5dThat is second one. First one did. And it was crew-less all automatic flight.
That was fun . Looking forward to more. Good work .
can't hea the naration under the music
I jop in this biggest machine 8years
This is marine motors M517 with 56 piston ,I'm very happy too watch your documentary.
🇩🇿Algeria mechanic 👨🔧
M501's overheated in patrol boats operating in tropical/warmer climates.
Do the P39/P63, the rear engined Kyushu J7W Shinden, and all the one offs or limited production airdraft and Tanks you’ve never heard of.
Thanks for this marvelous video! I'm a fan of tractor pulling and have seen the Dragon Fire in those videos. They spent a long time figuring out how to make their combination run. I wondered WTH the base engine was, and now I know. The Soviets couldn't keep up with the west in jet propulsion technology, but they engineered some good piston engines behind the iron curtain. I was initially thinking the M501 was just a scaled-up copy of the Curtiss-Wright Tornado, but that was not a diesel, so the Russians had to engineer their own solutions. It's cool that the engine is still being produced. I hope they've continued to upgrade it with modern fuel injection systems.
Видимо поэтому США закупают РД-180?
К сожалению или счастью - их перестали выпускать. Ресурс долговременной работы не выдерживает никакой критики. Производство и ремонт подобных дизелей дороги, а ресурс мал... Это больше технический курьёз, доработанный ЮМО-222, наподобие 2-тактного танкового дизеля 5ТДФ, который опять же скопирован с ЮМО-205..
0:12 I’ve never disliked a video so quickly. The Buran is not a knock-off of the Space Shuttle. It’s a completely different system that was capable of many things including flying completely autonomously.. in the 80’s!!
Amazing engineering at its time!
Thank you a great video and wonderful straight forward commentary...
Cool engine but i imagine service is a nightmare on those.
It owed more to the Ju222 petrol aircraft engine. The 224 was 2 stroke opposed piston.
That this colossal Soviet Russia made radial engine ended up performing in monster truck shows in the USA - just might be the nicest compliment ever paid to engineers anywhere.
As an aviation instructor of mine once said "...and then you go from the ridiculous to the sublime." The concept I like, the practical...well you know.
I am fascinated that people have attempted to break the sound barrier in level flight with piston powered aircraft. What sort of engines are they using, breakthroughs in prop aerodynamics, can it be done, or will the laws of aerodynamics prohibit it.
For some of the efforts the powerplants have actually been automotive based. Largely Chevrolet V-8s. As much as some disparage the OHV V-8 in some ways it has a lot going for it. In terms of displacement per weight and overall size they are pretty compact and light. Even production cast iron versions can be quite light. If I were to be looking at this now I would look at using an LS as the base starting point. Look at the overall size of a DOHC V-8 and an OHV pushrod engine of similiar displacement (1). The DOHC version is likely to be much wider. One field to look at in terms of power output vs overall size etc is in the Land Speed Racing community. Especially the streamliners. In an airframe that means a smaller cross section which means less drag (2). In terms of the prop I think that's the big problem. You need radically different prop blade profiles. One plane that was being built to try to do this had contra-rotating props with blades that looked more like a blender iirc. I wonder if you would really need a ducted fan to pull it off. And once you do it the aircraft goes straight into the National Air & Space Museum or some other aviation museum. And weight is going to play a major factor. Low enough weight means smaller wings, lighter landing gear and retraction mechanism. And low weight does not necessarily mean carbon fiber. Yes it has very good strength to weight ratios. I once worked with an individual who was a bigger aviation geek than I am. He was friends with the guy (3) that built a couple of the BD-5s used in promotional work. One of the sponsors wanted parts of the airframe built out of carbon fiber. The builder could make the same parts out of aluminum lighter than the carbon fiber.
1) Engineers in the US auto industry were well aware of the overall benefits that a SOHC or DOHC valve train engendered to engine design. There were a number of other factors at play in design choices that often get overlooked. One was tax policies that penalized displacement in some markets. Another was the operating environment that did not force vehicle size to be smaller or make it desirable. And finally the biggest factor was cost. Aside from cost of materials in the components it really does not cost any more to produce a 1500cc four cylinder versus say a 2.5 liter four cylinder. And if the 1500 has DOHC with 4 valve heads the 1500 costs more. This is given equal pay rates, machine outputs etc. And in terms of mileage in the 50s and early 60s when most of the classic American OHV 6 and e cylinder engines were designed it was possible to achieve mileage fairly close or equal to that achieved by the leading European imports of the time.
*I remember watching a show on Discovery or one of the similiar cable channels about home built experimental aircraft. One was a Mono design with a Briggs and Stratton 18 hp V-Twin hopped up to 20 hp. The plane would top 200mph/327kph with the type of engine you might find in a riding lawn mower. I found that pretty impressive.
3) One degree of seperation! But then I have that with a number of other famous or infamous individuals. Phil Waites, AllenGinsburg, Francis Ford Coppola and Eric Clapton. Simply because a friend is an author who has written a number of biographies
@@mpetersen6 Hey you're very knowledgeable about this subject. Love the idea about the ducted fan, and totally understand the need for props being designed with narrower thinner blades to cheat resistance. The biggest problem to overcome to me seems to be the issue of an airframe traveling at near supersonic speeds coupled to the sonic signature created by the propwash and engine noise alone, throw in a sonic boom on top of that and it seems like the possibility of ungodly decibel levels and sonic vibration might very possibly cause a catastrophic unintended disassembly.
@Michael Cohen Another great response. I'm beginning to think I'm not the only one who would like to see this milestone reached. Of course it would only be a one-off attempt since I cannot foresee any marketable technology from designing such an aircraft. Just a simple exercise to demonstrate that it can be done. The great Chuck Yeager once reported that he was pretty sure he'd broken the sound barrier before in a p51, but it was in a steep dive under combat conditions so there was no record keeping present to serve as proof. Also he said "pretty sure", and of course it was not in level flight. However, if so, it proves the old mustangs could survive it.
@Michael Cohen Great reply! I have a lot respect for your opinion. The prop itself definitely seems to be the primary challenge here. For the blades to be as robust as well as "slippery" as they need to be in the supersonic environment may be a challenge humanly incapable of overcoming, but there are still engineers who say theoretically it is possible. The Tupolev 114 flew around the world at cruising speeds in excess of 500 mph for decades. Top speeds higher than that. In higher altitude environments, and I may be wrong here, but I think that would be pretty close to .9 mach. Perhaps the secret may lay in some as yet undesigned contrarotating prop system.
@Michael Cohen проблема воздушных винтов при работе на трансзвуковых скоростях заключается в том, что основание лопасти движется с дозвуковой скоростью, а конец лопасти - уже со сверхзвуковой. Это неразрешимая проблема, и при приближении к скорости звука лопасти разрушаются. Ту-95 и раньше Ту-114 - это квинтэссенция развития винтовых самолётов, спроектированных для движения на скоростях, вплотную приближенных к скорости звука. Быстрее их с винтомоторной силовой установкой двигаться технически невозможно. Винты разрушаются.
I'm sorry, but "knock off space shuttle" is doing the Buran an enormous dis-service, its pretty much better than the shuttle in every way.
If building 2, completing one, and flying a single two orbit flight with it, before abandoning it to rot makes it better, then sure I guess you're right.
Meanwhile, the 5 STS completed what, 135 missions over the decades. One was an outright failure, one wasn't want to guess which is which?
Instead of using a “turban” to power the compressor, he should have used a “turbine”. Religious Indian headwear seems like a bizarre choice here.
One of the best presented videos I have seen !
Thanks Michael!
Imagine having to replace all the rings in that engine.
...or doing a valve job on it!
@@joeyjamison5772 Why? Why do you want to make me cry?
It seems fair. X100 benefit needs x100 work
Thankfully you are not alone and its done in factories
I still like V12 and W16 much more. Does it really make a difference in vibration? Do we need a planetary gear?
Dojo, I think the biggest piston radial is the old Nordberg stationary 2-stroke diesel radials that were used for power generation in the late 1940s. There were 11 and 12 cylinder models and each cylinder was 40.4 liters, or 2,463 cu in. They are huge and more comparable to a large marine diesel: th-cam.com/video/ZMVHflfCdmg/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for makin this video...i am form Bangladesh... never thought my county oprate this engine
Видел это двигатель в городе Темрюк, выглядит невероятно красиво
ооо русский
I was hoping for details on the fuel injection system, how was the diesel pump used, routing, injectors, etc. There was no mention of it, or the fuel consumption
Just stupidly complicated when compared to a gas turbine.
Complicated, but might be more reliable with 1960s Soviet tech. Turbines need more advanced alloys and much greater precision when machining the parts than a diesel, even one as complicated as this one.
@@AndrewCZ47 They had the Klimov engine from 1947. If they could build that, then they were more than capable. Maybe the M-501 was a prestige project, but it's not practical. Impressive, though.
Complicated but more fuel efficient.
@@Tim-Kaa Yes, back then. Not today.
Not correct. Gas turbines never had a TBO anywhere near 1500hrs at the time, let alone the 3,000 this was capable of. Another ''complicated'' radial was the civil versions of the Bristol Centaurus which also had a TBO of 3,000hrs. The legendary P&W PT6 needs a hot section replacement at around 1500hrs depending in type of use and has a mid-life inspection at 2500hrs under EU regulations.
Awesome vid,Awesome engine,thankyou for posting,,Best wishes to you and all your viewers and subscribers, from, Auckland, New Zealand.
a long time ago, when I was a sailor, I serviced these engines on my ship for a whole year .
You lie about your name! Why should I believe anything you type?
@@MichaelKingsfordGray I like this nickname. Small anti-submarine ships of the Albatross type were equipped with a marine version of this engine. According to the NATO classification, Grisha V. Information about this ship is available in any naval handbook, such as the Janes Naval Handbook. It was a really successful submarine hunter, agile and fast. A small part of these ships was in the naval units of the border troops of the USSR, and then Russia. Project 1124P was a modification for the border troops. I served on one of these ships. Moreover, I was a minder who maintained this mechanism. Good luck !
@@Imprudentman I believe you even less now, you admitted infantile coward.
Amazing video! Great job
The power output of these giants is... underwhelming.
The torque surely isn't.
@@DylanClements98 in the ground vehicle application it does. Water a lot less. True for the air.
@@DylanClements98 Torque is still the actual measurement of force. You could take a much smaller engine that produces the same horsepower as this and in something the size of a ship the smaller engine wouldn’t work as well. And, you have it backwards. Horsepower is calculated from torque. Torque is the force that’s measured then horsepower is calculated with the rpm.
Plus the output power for engines like these is relatively low for their size because they’re intended to be able to run at max power for their service life. They could make much more power, but wouldn’t be as reliable or last as long. Like how an F1 engine produces a lot of power for it’s size, but wouldn’t survive long under extended full load.
Guys, i appreciate the discussion. All i wanted is to point out that high torque (usually more than twice the power figure in passenger cars, x4+ with bigger engines) is the main trait of diesel engines. Apart from reliability, longevity, and efficiency.
@@DylanClements98 This is the real world. Not a math problem. Torque is what does the actual work. Even drivetrain pieces get rated in how much torque they can handle. Even looking at the units when you work it out mathematically you'll see that horsepower is just torque over time. Which means torque is the more basic unit of measure.
If you want more horsepower at a given rpm you have to make more torque. Cause torque is what's actually doing the work.
I bet it sounds awesome!!
I'm an aircraft engineer, despite what my wife says, size does matter. 😁
Do she like it when you rotate.. ?
Very interesting! - But why that background sound, making it hard to hear you speaking !??
You have to wonder if the withdrawal of Western companies from Russia will give these engines a new lease on life since they do not depend on Western technology.
Well the assembly line for retired zmz engines has been restarted
On corvet it's 3 those dizels for economy speed and 3 gas turbines for high speed.
Russian engineering is always great because it’s designed to have minimal parts, max robustness and low cost
and think of it
build it
use it
@@raypitts4880 think it
Build it
Use it
Такий двигун, був на мінних тральщиках і слугував головним двигуном на кораблі їх було два, 2500 кінських сил і 1780 обертів на хвилину, 42 циліндри + турбокомпресор , був надійним ,соляри жер багато, його виготовляли в срср , були ще двигуни такого ж типу з більшою кількістю циліндрів.
please get rid of the music.
@spaceace1006That was a simple request.As a pilot I got hearing damage that makes it hard to hear the man with the music, . So na na na
Exactly
Thanks for posting!
What a horrible creeky voice! With music it is incomprehensible and grating.
What is 'Develoment' on 1:13 ? :P
nicely produced video. thank you for the interesting content
How would you do maintenance on the bottom cylinders? Would you have to pull the entire engine to replace a head?
Probably, yeah. I would think they also have some mechanism for rotating the engine several revolutions to clear the lowest cylinders of oil before starting.
glad the algorithm recommended me this channel
Finnish Navy had for sale M504 engines. They were 56 cyl and 5000 hp. 224 valves, 14 cams, aluminium built. Super sexy engines. They were sold to Vietnam, but i got a manual.
The opposed piston 2 stroke is the one that gets my attention. Got a vague idea of how they work, so I'd be interested to see that.
there is a clicking noise,might be a valve,can you check it quickly?
Another great video!
Awesome! Do one on the opposed piston Napier Deltic and similar designs...
I like to know how it compared to Lycoming liquid cooled radial engine xr7755.
i have always been under the impression that radial engines have only odd number of cylinders like 5 7 9 and 3 but you can put rows of cylinder one behind the other is this yak engine different from a normal radial
Radials normally have an odd number of cylinders due to firing order. A nine cylinder is 1-3-5-7-9-2-4-6-8. But there gave been exceptions the Bristol Hydra. Inline radial engines such as the Hydra, the Curtis Hexes, the M-401 series, the Wright Tornado are often the result of the need to use liquid coolant.
@@mpetersen6 So, to think of it another way-- are the jugs on an air-cooled radial staggered so that air can get to them? And how do rotational harmonics play with that structure?
@@theprojectproject01
On air cooled radials the rows are offset usually by 1/2 the angular seperation between the cylinders of each row. There have been exceptions. Bristols Hydra which also was an even number of cylinders per row. The Curtis Hex engines and the Armstrong Sidley 'Dog' engines. As a general rule air cooled radials are one or two rows. The major exception is the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 28 cylinder with 4 rows.
There is a small company called ageless engines that sells plans for 5, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 18 cylinder engines that can be built in a home workshop equipped with a mill and a lathe. The engines are all based on the same cylinder. The company actually recommends that somebody build the 9 cylinder first if the intention is to build more than one type. Common fixturing is one reason. The second is 9 is an even factor of 360°. 7 comes out as an odd angle. 51.42857°.