Minimum cylinder displacement?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum cylinder displacement?
Air and fuel molecules do not scale well with the size of engine. Which means that flames are stopped by things like fine metal meshes.
How small can piston displacement be so that the engine still works?
How small can piston displacement be so that the engine still works?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can go to about 2cc and still have a reliable, working engine (see model engines) but it would be much use on anything with a wing span of over a metre.
The problem isn't with the air molecules but with the integrity of the internal components. The lighter they are, the more likely to break. At the other end of the scale, if they are heavier it will sap engine power and require a larger displacement just to turn over or idle.
I'm sure you could go smaller if you had the technology or inclination but what would be the point? Everyone knows that with engines bigger is better!
Sorry, slipped into petrol-head mode then...
The problem isn't with the air molecules but with the integrity of the internal components. The lighter they are, the more likely to break. At the other end of the scale, if they are heavier it will sap engine power and require a larger displacement just to turn over or idle.
I'm sure you could go smaller if you had the technology or inclination but what would be the point? Everyone knows that with engines bigger is better!
Sorry, slipped into petrol-head mode then...
I own a model engine, named 'Merlin', which is 0.76cc displacement.
It has a stroke of almost exactly 1cm, and runs beautifully at around 12,000 rpm.
I believe there is another model, 'Dart', of 0.5cc displacement.
As these were commercially made, I am sure there are many other engines, some experimental, which are very much smaller than this.
It has a stroke of almost exactly 1cm, and runs beautifully at around 12,000 rpm.
I believe there is another model, 'Dart', of 0.5cc displacement.
As these were commercially made, I am sure there are many other engines, some experimental, which are very much smaller than this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know this is not anywhere near the smallest, but I used to have a Rossi 21. That's 3.5cc It revved over 30,000 rpm-I think 34,000 was a possibility with nitro fuel and a few mods.
Also-as it was a boat engine- it got to max revs, and there it stayed!
Most impressive!
Also-as it was a boat engine- it got to max revs, and there it stayed!
Most impressive!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure you could go smaller if you had the technology or inclination but what would be the point? Everyone knows that with engines bigger is better!
The stresses in moving parts depend on acceleration. Which means that if your individual pistons are smaller and have smaller stroke, you could run the engine at a faster rpm, and get more power out of a large number of smaller cylinders than you could have got from fewer and individually larger cylinders.
The biggest infernal combustion engine produces 115 000 horsepowers, and has 14 cylinders (in a straight row). But the largest mass produced plane with infernal combustion engines had IIRC something like 26 000 horsepowers, produced by 168 pistons distributed between 6 engines. Presumably for a reason.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: North Wiltshire, UK
Age: 78
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two smallest production engines I can recall are the Cox TD 010 glowplug - which had a swept volume of 0.01 cubic inches and the D.C. Bambi diesel which displaced 0.15cc. I have owned and flown both in the passing of fifty years aeromodelling.....
Anorak off - go! shambles back to the balsa dust....
Anorak off - go! shambles back to the balsa dust....
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
In my younger day we ran tiny little glowplug engines; the smallest made by Cox.
Here's a clue as to why they went out of fashion:
YouTube - Smallest production engine in the world .010cu in 0.33cc
Here's a clue as to why they went out of fashion:
YouTube - Smallest production engine in the world .010cu in 0.33cc
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A long way from home
Age: 44
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggest:
Worlds Biggest [email protected]
Smallest:
Worlds Smallest Engines
(ok, it's a wankel, but it's still internal combustion)
Worlds Biggest [email protected]
Smallest:
Worlds Smallest Engines
(ok, it's a wankel, but it's still internal combustion)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flame holders too
That's an interesting concept, what size of atomised droplet of fuel is just too big? In jet aircraft there must be a problem too, so-called flame holders I'm led to believe induce a carefully induced localised turbulence allowing the flame to "burn back" onto the burner and be stable and not lift-off and blow away. Is there a size restriction for that as well? Also might it not be the case that it just gets too difficult to practically control rich and weak extinction in engines that are very small.