A new aircraft engine?
 

Is there a diesel / avtur version? :O

OC619

Looks interesting but the question is how well (if at all) would it work in multi-cylinder arrangement for aircraft that require higher power. And of course single-cylinder engines do not provide any reduncancy - compared with that of a normal flat-4, which still produces some power (probably enough for normal level flight) even if spark plugs on one cylinder go to hell or the intake becomes blocked.

I would just replace the flat-4 in my PA28 with 4 separate 1-cylinder units on the wings and I would have the same number of engines as the A380. CAA would approve, wouldn't they? :8

Porsche many years ago came to the conclusion that big bore, big displacement engines with few cylinders were impossible to balance correctly.
The 944 S had the biggest 4-cylinder engine in production at the time (3.0L) and it had an advanced counterbalancing system to try to minimize vibration, but it still vibrated more than their 6- and 8-cylinder ones.

The development of combustion engines has come to the end of the road. It's pointless and a waste to try to develop something in a 20 year perspective. It'll prob all be electric by then with some sort of turbine APU in hybrid setups.

Install two of them, one on each side of a Cri-Cri (Cricket) very light twin.

These are not entirely new.They have been used in models for some time.
Honda are reputed to be about to mass produce them for their smaller bikes.

Go nicely in one of these...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rSeriesIII.jpg

G

I don't really see the advantage... yes, it reduces side-load on the piston/cylinder, but it makes up for that by spinning it round and round which must surely increase wear. Not to mention all the gears and so on.

Someone's idea of the next type of ICE
Twice a many cranks and conrods, three or four extra gears per cylinder, and the little matter of rotary valves to solve. Oh and the cylinder/head assembly rotates in the cylinder block. :ugh:
Has he ever heard of KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid
Lets hope he solves all the problems.
Someone did produce rotary valve engins back in the 50's or 60's and they achived high rev's.

Looks like it will generate a lot of vibration. The oil will have to be special to keep those gears lubricated right next to the point of combustion and there desn't seem to be much flywheel mass. Not sure it will be that light either with all that gearing.

Agree re vibration. Single-cylinder motorbikes are called "thumpers": The Thumper Page

Isn't the propeller enough of a flywheel, for that matter?

Looks kind of clever, but instinct tells me that there is no more advantage and possibly more problems? Bearings on gears, gears, rotating pistons etc., must lead to more wear and tear?

Roll on ceramic engines which don't need any coolant or oil!

I would guess that traditional circular flywheels are much better at absorbing torque variations than long thin spindly prop blades.

The gear train/crankshaft assembly is going to be fairly heavy.

Remember the swashplate engine that was going to revolutionise light aircraft propulsion? It's in Wiki.

As a machine designer I used to work to the principle " You can have it better, sooner or cheaper, pick any 2. Very seldom is it possible to achieve all 3. This looks like it would meet none of them.