not sure about horizontal but here you have a radial MR2
Isn't the radial engine just a lighter engine with no other advantages? I mean, you would need 5 cam gears instead of 1 (or 2 DOHC) (Inline is the only 5 cylinder). Or could pushrods help? Also think of all the oil that sinks to the cylinder when the engine is off... Looks really cool though and would have amazing throttle response!
How do I swap an R2800 Double Wasp into a Miata.
/o/ can't into history
These early engines used Castor oil as the lubricant. Early pilots were well known to be covered in castor oil from these things, and shit their pants while flying from the laxative effect.
>These early engines used Castor oil as the lubricant. Early pilots were well known to be covered in castor oil from these things, and shit their pants while flying from the laxative effect.
I knew this. Don't know why or how but I do. I know all about random useless trivia and it will never help me make money.
This was a firing animation I made years ago as a concept for an 8 cylinder version.
There's too many moving parts in these things. Why can't we just use something simple like a turbine.
>The engine we need, but not the engine we deserve
We can do this. Also, Chrysler helped develop this tank.
If only you had some kind of search engine that you could type keywords into...
Rotary, not radial. Radials stayed put while the crankshaft moved, rotaries span for cooling on the crankshaft.
Inline engines > rotaries, though. Lower frontal area for less drag, which means higher speed and lighter weight. Easy to supercharge or turbocharge, so you don't need a shitton of piping that makes your plane pigfat.
Compare the USAAF's best attempts at a rotary fighter (P47) to the RAF's attempt at an inline-engined fighter (the Spitfire), and see the difference.
One was a pigfat tub, the other was graceful and agile.
>dat camshaft that isnt reall a shaft
dat is fantastic, literally one piece doing all the work