A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Engine Desing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #23  
Old May 19th 05, 10:39 PM
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Earlier, Sport Pilot wrote:

Most flat fours are not a boxer, and
many twins are not...


...on a non boxer
the pistons on the front and rear pair
will be going opposite directions


First, let me define the terms as I understand them:

The way I understand it, boxer motors are flat opposed engines in which
the connecting rods of opposing cylinder pairs do not share share a rod
journal on the crankshaft. Instead, they connect to the crankshaft at
journals that are spaced 180 degrees from each other. So arranged, each
opposing pair of pistons are both either on the down (power or intake)
stroke or on the up (exhaust or compression) stroke.

Conversely, flat opposed engines in which the connecting rods of
opposing cylinder pairs _do_ share share a rod journal on the
crankshaft are _not_ boxers. And again, that's just the way I
understand it, but a Dogpile or Google search pulls up lots of Web
pages that bear out that understanding.

And by that measure, most flat four motors _are_ boxers. VWs are that
way, and so are Soobs and Lycomings and Continentals. And certainly,
the Ferarri flat 12s are that way, or else the factory probably
wouldn't be calling them "Boxers."

As far as the relative motions of the various pairs of opposing
cylinders goes, I have never heard of that entering into the definition
of "Boxer." I won't say that it doesn't, but I will say that I won't
believe it until I see a credible cite to that effect.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ROP masking of engine problems Roger Long Piloting 1 September 25th 04 07:13 PM
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I Robert Clark Military Aviation 2 May 26th 04 06:42 PM
Autorotation ? R22 for the Experts Eric D Rotorcraft 22 March 5th 04 06:11 AM
Real stats on engine failures? Captain Wubba Piloting 127 December 8th 03 04:09 PM
Corky's engine choice Corky Scott Home Built 39 August 8th 03 04:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.