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.
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.
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.
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.
@@Richardrefund 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
_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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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
@@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.
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?
In WW2, the Americans could create silly 'Frankenstein' engines in a pinch as well, just look at the *Chrysler A57 multibank* , A 'star' configuration consisting of 5x 6cyl inline gas engines.
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
Most of our engine designs, that were failed as aviation engines had a long and exiting life on the ground and on/under water: in tanks, boats, subs, generators etc. This is true for B2 diesel, oposed piston diesels, and this radial monster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People will look back one day, when everything is powered by electromagnetics, plasma and fusion, and marvel at how well we enigeered such immense usable power from burning oil.
@@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.
This radial in a nutshell: Engineer: Welcome to R&D, how may I be of service comrade? Chief Engineer: uh yeah can I get a uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............radial engine? E: Yep, would you like to supersize that? CE: **ABSOLUTELY**
@@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 !
Liked and subscribed!!!! These videos are amazing!!!! So amazing I fall asleep so much faster at night when I watch them!!! No!! Do not in any way take that as a half ass insult!!...but, instead, it's honestly a very good compliment!!.
Lycoming built the XR-7755 ,36 cylinder,7,750 cu.in.producing 5,000 hp. Only 2 were ever built and production ceased in1944. I seem to recall another manufacturer creating a monstrosity of a radial engine for stationary use in power generation. I'll have to check my facts ,it's been many years.
@@theprojectproject01 - Dragging a few tons of lead 100 meters down a dirt road? And doing so to the point of destruction of the motor? I'm not so sure about heroic, glorious or noble.
Typo at 1:12 ... "DESIGN AND DEVELOMENT" should read DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. But I totally forgive you. Thought you might want to know. P.S. The M-507 variant would be a perfect match for a lightweight hill climb car like a Lotus or Fiat X19. Did I say that out loud? ;)
Good Video but no need for music. This engine is similar to the Napier Deltic which is a 18 cyl opposed piston Diesel with 3 crankshafts geared together in a triangle This was designed in 1947 for use in fast naval PT Boats taking the German Junkers two crankshaft opposed piston Diesel aircraft engine as the basis. There were other applications in Fast Locomotives, Mine Hunter Boats and others. The USA Navy used them in the Vietnam war in fast PT boats. The Royal Navy used them up to 2015 in Mine hunter vessels. I worked for Napier on the production of the Deltic in the 1960's which was a most interesting job.
The Buran a knock off? It has I higher payload rating and has atmospheric cruise capability and was also capable of completly autonomous flight, the design varies greatly. I wouldn't call it a knock off, but a better, more thought through realization of a reusable spacecraft with wings. They just stopped using it because it was way to expensive to operate. Which was one of the biggest cons of the STS...
Stopped using it? It completed ONE orbital flight. That's not using it, that's not even completing flight testing. It did vary in capability, however almost a decade after the shuttle flew, so stands to reason they'd have seen what we were doing and thought of other things that could be added.
I know a smart guy from ex jugoslaviia, before the us balkanized the region by CIA. He worked on them. Said it was madness but they liked it very quick routine to repair any cylinder. Was on a speed boat if I remember correct.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@Richardrefund 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Great video as always. Is there a chance that you might add metric measurements on screen when you have the imperial measurements written out?
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!
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.
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.
The algorithm is taking you on a tour my man. Enjoy it, your videos are great.
5:32 3 spark plugs by cylinder make 126 spark plugs on this tractor. Diesel version make sense.
_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.
Wow. My respect for Russian engineering continues to grow. Great video!
Missed a letter on your opener.. Love the channel.. Namaste!
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..
M501's overheated in patrol boats operating in tropical/warmer climates.
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.
Wow you are really cranking out them videos 🤩 Don't get burned out please 😊❤
Love this engine stuff. It's like Greg's. Keep em coming 💯
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 👨🔧
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
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
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.
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)
Thank you for makin this video...i am form Bangladesh... never thought my county oprate this engine
On corvet it's 3 those dizels for economy speed and 3 gas turbines for high speed.
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
I bet it sounds awesome!!
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 amount of moving parts compared to a jet turbine is bonkers.
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?
Cool engine but i imagine service is a nightmare on those.
That was fun . Looking forward to more. Good work .
glad the algorithm recommended me this channel
Instead of using a “turban” to power the compressor, he should have used a “turbine”. Religious Indian headwear seems like a bizarre choice here.
In WW2, the Americans could create silly 'Frankenstein' engines in a pinch as well, just look at the *Chrysler A57 multibank* , A 'star' configuration consisting of 5x 6cyl inline gas engines.
Then a shit ton of weight is put on the sled and the big boys come out. Love those Diesel pulls.
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
Most power in tractor pulling is still generated by isotov tv3 turbines they have an schaft output of 2600 horse power
I've known about this engine for a while now and still am majorly impressed. Thanks for a great video! Subbed.
Most of our engine designs, that were failed as aviation engines had a long and exiting life on the ground and on/under water: in tanks, boats, subs, generators etc. This is true for B2 diesel, oposed piston diesels, and this radial monster.
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.
I knew nothing of this engine before.
Thank you.
☮
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.
Thank you a great video and wonderful straight forward commentary...
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
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.
People will look back one day, when everything is powered by electromagnetics, plasma and fusion, and marvel at how well we enigeered such immense usable power from burning oil.
ah yes, another yakovlev masterpiece
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.
You asked so, how about the Douglas A26.
From WWII through Vietnam.
I second the motion, the Douglas Invader.
Would be great if you could include metric measurements as subtitles too for your viewers outside the usa :)
Amazing video! Great job
This radial in a nutshell:
Engineer: Welcome to R&D, how may I be of service comrade?
Chief Engineer: uh yeah can I get a uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............radial engine?
E: Yep, would you like to supersize that?
CE: **ABSOLUTELY**
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.
Liked and subscribed!!!! These videos are amazing!!!! So amazing I fall asleep so much faster at night when I watch them!!!
No!! Do not in any way take that as a half ass insult!!...but, instead, it's honestly a very good compliment!!.
nicely produced video. thank you for the interesting content
cover that gimlee glider event in canada after the switch to the metric system led to insufficient fuel
Lycoming built the XR-7755 ,36 cylinder,7,750 cu.in.producing 5,000 hp. Only 2 were ever built and production ceased in1944. I seem to recall another manufacturer creating a monstrosity of a radial engine for stationary use in power generation. I'll have to check my facts ,it's been many years.
Good lord. I thought the Wasp Major was ridiculous.
Have you ever seen the non running 56 cylinder version cobbled together out of spare parts somebody put together
Excellent - many thanks!
I like your style, subscribed
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
Лайк из уважения, коммент для продвижения!
What a horrible creeky voice! With music it is incomprehensible and grating.
I am always for keeping "obsolete tech" alive, you never know when you need it, and chances that you need it one day are in my opinion good.
And now it's reduced to tractor pulls. What an ignominious end.
Well, to the tractor-pull crowd, this is its crowning and heroic, most glorious and noble end.
@@theprojectproject01 - Dragging a few tons of lead 100 meters down a dirt road? And doing so to the point of destruction of the motor? I'm not so sure about heroic, glorious or noble.
Hilariously impressive
I believe Continental produced a radial with six cylinders in water jackets. Making, Maybe seven banks. Didn't make it before jets came slong. Thanks
Typo at 1:12 ... "DESIGN AND DEVELOMENT" should read DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.
But I totally forgive you. Thought you might want to know.
P.S. The M-507 variant would be a perfect match for a lightweight hill climb car like a Lotus or Fiat X19.
Did I say that out loud? ;)
there is a clicking noise,might be a valve,can you check it quickly?
Would have been a much better video without the music drowning out the speaker.
It was the Soviet pendant to the British Deltic, also based on the Jumo.
The most insane part is that they still build them
Good Video but no need for music.
This engine is similar to the Napier Deltic which is a 18 cyl opposed piston Diesel with 3 crankshafts geared together in a triangle
This was designed in 1947 for use in fast naval PT Boats taking the German Junkers two crankshaft opposed piston Diesel aircraft engine as the basis.
There were other applications in Fast Locomotives, Mine Hunter Boats and others.
The USA Navy used them in the Vietnam war in fast PT boats.
The Royal Navy used them up to 2015 in Mine hunter vessels.
I worked for Napier on the production of the Deltic in the 1960's which was a most interesting job.
Awsum video , amazing engineering, see..least we forget our past , for we will not learn.
well done.
thank you and that engineering is nut;s
After the war, "if you have fuel we will burn it" logic was used 😂
2:18 master rod is the one above the arrow.
What about the Navy's Skyshark? Let me know and maybe I can get some cockpit photos.
It seems like to do these engines justice you should have included torque figures along with the horsepower.
A treatment of the Rotary Radial Piston engine would be cool. Clerget,, Rhone, Adams Farwell...
GREAT STORY OF HISTORY !!!
I like to know how it compared to Lycoming liquid cooled radial engine xr7755.
The Buran a knock off?
It has I higher payload rating and has atmospheric cruise capability and was also capable of completly autonomous flight, the design varies greatly. I wouldn't call it a knock off, but a better, more thought through realization of a reusable spacecraft with wings. They just stopped using it because it was way to expensive to operate. Which was one of the biggest cons of the STS...
Stopped using it? It completed ONE orbital flight. That's not using it, that's not even completing flight testing.
It did vary in capability, however almost a decade after the shuttle flew, so stands to reason they'd have seen what we were doing and thought of other things that could be added.
It came later, and it's only better on paper, since they never really used it.
Oh wow the Russians made a huge motor that made 0.5hp/ci. Alco 251’s made close to 1hp/ci. The Alcoa’s were not even the best engines of that size.
Very nice video
Nice, when can I put one in my Miata?
Whoah whoah whoah..... did you say cubic inch? Holy fragaroley.
fun video...thanks so much.....
I subscribed while you were half way through the introduction.
And then there was the price.
Remember, if you have to ask, you can't afford it!
I know a smart guy from ex jugoslaviia, before the us balkanized the region by CIA. He worked on them. Said it was madness but they liked it very quick routine to repair any cylinder. Was on a speed boat if I remember correct.
No replacement for displacement, Da Comrade!
Hooked imediatly! I would like to see something on Junkers Jumo 213 and why a radial engine style cowling was used.