enginehistory.org

[wallan]

I've got mine pre-ordered.

Aviation engines

The History of Russian Piston Aero Engines
by Victor Kotelnikov
Crowood Press, £29.95
Hardcover | 192 pages | 1861267029 | June 2005 (UK)

Steam in the Air: The Application of Steam Power in Aviation During the 19th and 20th Centuries
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844152952/qid=1116328806/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/202-3303637-4397429

Other engines

From one of our members

The V12 Engine by K. Ludvigsen ISBN: 1844250040
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844250040/qid%3D1116328889/202-3303637-4397429


V10 Formula One Engine Technology by Ian Bamsey
0 9533524 04
http://www.motorbooks.co.uk/notes.asp?bookid=68382
THIS ONE IS A LIMITED EDITION

[jjuutinen]

Very interesting! Especially the two first ones are ones to my liking. And re Formula V-10 engines, maybe the decision to move to 2.4 litre V-8s has something to do with such new info on those V-10s?

[wallan]

I'll let you know when they are published.

[gryan]

Why the move away from the V-10? The V-10 is considered too powerful so the new F-1 rules mandate a 2.4 litre V-8 with a compulsory 90 degree bank angle whose major dimensions are set and with restrictions on what materials may be utilised within the engine (not allowed to use beryllium for instance). Will this get the "closer racing" the organisers lust after? Who knows? Who cares? Probably won't.

The move to 2.4 litre V-8 engines in Formula One is another misguided decision the organisers justify on the basis of "cost cutting" and "making the spectacle better for the TV viewer."

The cost of F-1 racing has become super expensive. While it would be safe to say that a large proportion of the money is wasted on gush ("star" drivers, silly promotions, gossip manufacturing, stunts and other banality etc) the ever more restrictive rules require larger and larger investments to hone small improvements out of the cars just to stay in the racing game. In the end it is the rules themselves that restrict innovation and banish good engineering practice to the point where increasing expense is the only result.

As for watching exciting close racing; if its racing action that is required there are far better formulae to watch (circle track, rallies, motorcycles, NASCAR and so on). F-1 has degenerated into a single file of cars parading around a course. They can't easily overtake for aerodynamic reasons (oops- rules again). The courses are so artificial that the largest bumps are only allowed to be millimetres high. This is the formula for boring to watch and boring to follow.

There is modest technical merit in F-1 these days. If it is new technology and sound engineering you want (like me) F-1 is definitely not worth the time.

[jjuutinen]

GRYAN, you have it absolutely right! This is the very same thing I have been preaching for a long time. In a way I am not a motor sport fan due to a reason I better not say here, but occasionally I get pretty annoyed by the sillyness of the rules.

In my opinion the very strict rules benefit the best funded teams as they have to funds to fine tune things. Remember, all major F1 innovations have usually been developed by smaller teams.

Apart from safety related rules (e.g. chassis impact resistance), the only engine design restrictions "my F1" racing would have would be that:
1) all teams must use methanol as the fuel
2) there would be a certain amount of fuel available per race, i.e. encouraging low SFC design

These would be the only engine restrictions.

[gryan]

I like those engine rules!

As far as race car design is concerned, F1 should be related to reality. That means bumps, pot-holes, repairs and patches on the track (like real roads). That means we get to see some real working, moving suspension again. It means very few restrictions on designers looking for innovative solutions to problems.

You are right about the rules pertaining to safety. There is a need to provide some reasonable safety for the driver (IF there is a driver- colleagues of mine prefer to make F1 a completely open technology formula which means the driver is optional, an artificially intelligent car would be legal in his scheme!).

Returning to engines; I'd enjoy seeing the use of unusal designs. Remember the Can Am? Porsche had a turbo flat 12 and were working on a 16 cylinder engine! One Can Am team had a car powered by several two-stroke engines. Even F-1 used to show some interesting design in engines. BRM ran a Tony Rudd designed H-16. Honda were said to be considering a W-24 when the rules were altered to specify a maximum number of cylinders (12 at that time). Fascinating stuff.

I'm open minded about what fuels are allowed. Just restrict the total amount of energy the cars can use for each race i.e. how many kW.hrs they can have. It doesn't matter what the form the fuel takes (ethanol, diesel, coal- if someone wants to try it).

Let's see what the real engineers can do with that!

[jjuutinen]

Well, as I am only 32 yrs old at the moment I can´t remember F1 projects too far back:)

I think having bumpier tracks would be a good idea. Suspension travel in current F1 cars looks definitely on the low side.

[gryan]

Another innovative F1 project long since forgotten is the Lion. It had hydraulic drive to 12 wheels. I'd like to have seen that one race.

Returning to reading material. I have plenty about Allied Piston engines but almost nothing about the Axis aircraft engines. Are there any good books (in English) about the technical history of, say, Junkers engines and/or DB engines?

I read a paper by Sir Roy Feddon (issued at the end of WW2 where the design philosophies of British and German engines are contrasted). That was most interesting and whet my appetite to know more about the German designs. I have not worked on any German aircraft piston engines and I'd like to know more about them.

Any suggested titles anybody?

Regards

Gerald

[wallan]

The Ludvigsen book, The V-12 Engine, has been published. (my copy was posted today: should get here Monday) I'l let you know what it is like ASAP. (I'm on a course, next week, so can't read it the day it arrives)

[wallan]

The reason beryillium was banned is supposed to be due to the health risks to the public. Pure beryllium dust is really toxic. People who work with compounds of it often get symptoms of hay fever and other respiratory ailments, (it scars the lungs) from minute amounts, so any crashes or bumps in a F1 car could release contaminants into the air, causing real problems to spectators, at the race track. (although, I think that is an excuse from teams that can't afford to use these expensive alloys: shades of 'our tyres might be dangerous, so why don't we slow all the cars down?')

[jfairchild]

Gerald,
There is a book entitled 'Junkers Aircraft & Engines, 1913-1945', by Anthony Kay ISBN 0851779859. I have not seen a copy so I've no idea how detailed the engine information is but it runs to 286 pages.

One I do have is 'Major Piston Aero Engines of World War II' by Victor Bingham, published by Airlife. ISBN 1 84037 012 2. About 190 pages, large format. It covers the usual allied engines but has short chapters on BMW 801, Jumo 211, DB 601 and developments plus Gnome 14, Hisso 12 and one on USSR State Factory engines. Packed with detailed technical information. I'm no expert but would definitely recommend it.

Jamie.

[wallan]

I've got the Junkers book, and it's OK. For more detailed information on the metallurgy and design of Axis engines, try to get a copy of

Steel in Enemy Aircraft: A Metallurgical Study of German and Italian Aircraft Engine and Airframe Parts

In true British fashion, this book was published during WW2 to raise funds for the war effort. The fact that it is based upon official reports of the engines of the enemy we were fighting at the time shows real confidence in producing a best-seller. It's also a surprisingly unbiased view, considering the era with C. G. Grey running The Aeroplane magazine.

There used to be lots of copies on www.addall.com and www.abebooks.com (just one showing at the moment at 55 dollars)

I should have said that it is mostly about engines.

Plus you can get copies of the Automotive Engineer reports of First World War enemy engines from the National Library of Scotland.

[jrussell]

Re the use of beryllium in race cars - In the 60's Porsche used beryllium brake rotors ( in the 906, I think). The engineers thought it would make a great rotor material. When the drivers started reporting that the fumes were making them violently ill, the team manager made aspersions about their "manliness", until the lead development driver ( a German) refused to drive the car so equiped - so much for industrial hygiene!
_________________
It runs best just before it blows!

[jjuutinen]

[jjuutinen]

BTW, any update on the status of the Russian Piston Engine book? I hope it has ample coverage of Mikulin´s AM series. Not only it is the only series produced aero engine of the time with variable geometry blower inlet with the Jumo 213 (the latter copied the former), it seems also to be the only series produced DOHC aero engine of the war. BTW, I wonder why other makers of 4-valve V-engines did not adopt double camshafts?

And one more thing, why did RR stupidly choose fixed cam lobe follower pads instead of rollers? According to A.A. Rubbra, when they were testing the ramp head, they already experienced high wear of the pad surface. Yet, they doggedly kept using those fixed pads.