rec.autos.simulators

Upside Down Track Idea

Larr

Upside Down Track Idea

by Larr » Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:44:47

Aren't piston aircraft engines Radial Engines ?

-Larry




> > "jon" wrote...
> > > > <snip>

> > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher
> > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or
> > > would they both have the same top speed?

> > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag.

> > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it
wouldn't),
> > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by
> the
> > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into
the
> > engine
> use a supercharger?

> > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque
> > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the
> > connecting rods.

> I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had the
> engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top), many other
> piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted, and one could
always
> use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make no
difference.

> druidh

druid

Upside Down Track Idea

by druid » Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:57:36

Some - but how small due you think the cylinders on a P51 would have to be
to fit into that sleek profile?

--

druidh

Not FAR to respond. . . . .


> Aren't piston aircraft engines Radial Engines ?

> -Larry





> > > "jon" wrote...
> > > > > <snip>

> > > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher
> > > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or
> > > > would they both have the same top speed?

> > > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling
drag.

> > > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it
> wouldn't),
> > > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset
by
> > the
> > > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into
> the
> > > engine
> > use a supercharger?

> > > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque
> > > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and
the
> > > connecting rods.

> > I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had the
> > engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top), many other
> > piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted, and one could
> always
> > use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make no
> difference.

> > druidh

Dave Henri

Upside Down Track Idea

by Dave Henri » Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:01:36


> Aren't piston aircraft engines Radial Engines ?

> -Larry





>> > "jon" wrote...
>> > > > <snip>

>> > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher
>> > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or
>> > > would they both have the same top speed?

>> > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling
>> > drag.

>> > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it
> wouldn't),
>> > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than
>> > offset by
>> the
>> > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it
>> > into
> the
>> > engine
>> use a supercharger?

>> > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque
>> > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons
>> > and the connecting rods.

>> I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had
>> the engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top),
>> many other piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted,
>> and one could
> always
>> use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make no
> difference.

>> druidh

   Many WWII engines were of Radial design and usually aircooled.  THe
inline engines like the Rolls Royce Merlin and Griffons that powered the
Spitfires and Mustangs were water cooled with radiators(the 'stang's
prominent pregant belly)   The Germans used both Radial(Focke Wolf) and
inline(Messerschmidt) and the Bombers were also split between using radial
and inline engines.  I wouldn't be suprised if availability had as much to
due with engine choice as design.

dave henrie

Magnus Svensso

Upside Down Track Idea

by Magnus Svensso » Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:06:33

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:28:04 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"


>"jon" wrote...
>> > <snip>

>> Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher
>> top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or
>> would they both have the same top speed?

>A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag.

>A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it wouldn't),
>would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by the
>engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into the
>engine and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque
>transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the
>connecting rods.

Err... The force of gravity is neglible in the operation of a piston
engine. The weight of the piston or con-rod or whatever is always
reciprocated by another piston + con-rod(or fly-weight if only 1 cyl).
The combustible gasses is not flowing into the chambers by gravity
either(not saying you said it was) but by underpressure by the moving
piston. To make an example with restrictor plates; you can calculate
quite precisely how much theoretical power you restrict the engine to
by a certain restrictor plate; it's the maximum amount of air you can
get through the hole with the air moving at the speed of sound(!) that
is the restriction. Given this, surely the force of 1g is neglible...

Now I agree that most engines, especially F1 engines, not designed to
do so probably won't survive an upside-down trick, because of the
problem keeping oil in the sump and oilpressure up. The Honda's were
blowing up at the exact same spot last year on the Kemmel straight at
Spa, because over the crest after coming from Eau Rouge they got a dip
in oilpressure, few seconds later ...-boom-.

Fillyourboot

Upside Down Track Idea

by Fillyourboot » Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:13:04


> It would obviously be an Arcade racer.  Real-World Physics aren't a
> consideration :)

And on that bombshell, wasn't Geoff Crammond planning a 'Stunt Car Racer'
update?

++
Fillyourboots

Ruud van Ga

Upside Down Track Idea

by Ruud van Ga » Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:46:32

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:13:04 +0000 (UTC), "Fillyourboots"



>> It would obviously be an Arcade racer.  Real-World Physics aren't a
>> consideration :)

>And on that bombshell, wasn't Geoff Crammond planning a 'Stunt Car Racer'
>update?

Yes, but I hope it's not a patch to the original. ;-)

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.