Horizontally Opposed Engines...

cleared4theoption

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
363
Location
Flowery Branch, GA
Display Name

Display name:
Jeremy
...for you AMT's and Engineer types, a question. Is there a specific reason(or reasons) that opposed engines are preferred for use in aircraft? Is it just that the shape works better, or is there something about the direction of force on the crankshaft?? Something else?
 
180 degrees is the most efficient firing configuration, in addition to the items mentioned above. :D
 
I guess those guys making Merlin V-12s for P-51 Mustangs didn't know ****! :D

I can't help it if they did not read the engineering books. :rofl:

The Merlin V12 was anything but efficient. Powerful, yes, efficient? Not so much. ;)

You need to look at the VW bug! ;)
 
180 degrees is the most efficient firing configuration, in addition to the items mentioned above. :D

180 degree firing applies to four-cylinder engines. Sixes fire every 120 degrees. The 12-cylinder Merlin would have fired every 60 degrees. The alignment of the cylinders has nothing to do with firing intervals unless it`s a Harley or some stupid engine like the two-cylinder Tecumseh we had in a Yazoo riding lawnmower. One cylinder fires right after the other, and then there`s a big pause while they both exhaust and intake and compress again. Makes for a shaky engine.

Dan
 
Hey it was wartime. You go with what you have on hand, and you do it quickly or you lose the war. -Skip

I hope you noticed that big green smilie thing, Skip. It was a joke. I'm a CPA, not an engineer. In fact, there is no more beautiful sound than a Merlin humming along in a fly-by.
 
...for you AMT's and Engineer types, a question. Is there a specific reason(or reasons) that opposed engines are preferred for use in aircraft? Is it just that the shape works better, or is there something about the direction of force on the crankshaft?? Something else?

Packages well. Reasonably compact and lightweight. Not too bad for air cooling.

^^^^. This plus it is balanced from a primary and secondary force standpoint. I believe their is a fore aft rotational moment that's not eliminated..... But my books are at work.

Inline 4 cylinders require a balance shaft spinning twice crank speed to eliminate a primary shaking force.
Inline 6 is naturally balanced.
V6 60 degree angle is mostly balance in primary and secondary, but has a rocking front back moment.
V8 90 degree is naturally balanced.

Basically as the piston moves up and down, it requires a counter. It can be a balance shaft, or another piston. It gets really complex with V configs, but they do balance. An opposed engine balances easily, with the fewest cylinders, and typically requires very little counterweight. So it's also the lightest.

Without balancing forces, that energy has to go somewhere. So the engine shakes. You can add mass to reduce shaking, but not on airplanes.
 
Last edited:
I guess those guys making Merlin V-12s for P-51 Mustangs didn't know ****! :D

Actually, I believe that the V configuration was developed to allow a greater number of cylinders without becoming overly long (and still fit between the frame rails of a vehicle). Airplanes don't have the same limitation - so I wonder why the designers of the Merlin opted for an upright V. The Germans inverted theirs (DB601, Junkers Jumo) - here is an example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JUMO_213_E1.JPG

Others had different ideas - such as the British Napier Sabre (H-24):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre

Or (ohmigod) the Allison W-24 V-3420:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-3420. I've seen a couple of those.

Bottom line: many different configurations can be used (and just about everything has been tried). They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I prefer radials for propeller driven aircraft.

For interesting reading about engines follow this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_engines

Dave
 
the opposed 4 engine is naturally balanced. with the crank pins being 180* from each other, vibration is canceled. when 1 set of pistons is at TDC the other is at BDC
 
From a harmonics standpoint, paired three cylinder engines (V, straight or opposed) are smoother than paired two cylinder engines. That's why you don't find that many four or eight cylinder diesels.
 
From a harmonics standpoint, paired three cylinder engines (V, straight or opposed) are smoother than paired two cylinder engines. That's why you don't find that many four or eight cylinder diesels.

Actually, you find lots of them these days. The various GM and Ford diesels for the past 25+ years in their trucks have been V8s. Europe has seen many little 4-cylinder diesels, and there are a number of V6/V8 diesels you're also seeing over there.

In-line 6s are the best configuration for diesels from an engineering perspective, but like anything else, it's a matter of compromise to meet the requirements.

One item that wasn't mentioned was decreasing drag. Horizontally-opposed engines have an efficient profile that decreases drag and still works well for cooling. Plus, the width of the engine tends to be good for most single-engine planes. Twins might see a little bit of a benefit drag wise from in-line engines, but cooling something that long by air I would expect to be difficult.
 
engine_m14p-xdx_trans_450x417.GIF
 
Twins might see a little bit of a benefit drag wise from in-line engines, but cooling something that long by air I would expect to be difficult.

Not difficult at all. All the inlines (deHavilland Cirrus and Gipsy series, Menascos and rangers, all had transverse cooling baffling. The air comes in the front and is ducted all along one side and flows sideways through the cooling fins to the other side, where it exits the cowling. No different at all from the opposed engine taking air in both sides at the front and directing it downward and then out, and in fact the inline is slimmer than the opposed and still has no cooling issues.

I used to tow gliders with an Auster, powered by a Gipsy Major MK7. Full power for extended periods on hot summer afternoons, and it never overtemped.

A frontal view of the Gipsy. The cooling duct runs down the viewer's RH side:

81901_800.jpg


That duct is tapered, and keeps the differential pressure equal across all the cylinders.

Another view, with the duct recreated in clear plastic:

114%20DH%20Gypsy%20Major%201.jpg



The Gipsy Major was a four-banger, varying by model from 125 hp to 145 or more. The Gipsy Queen was a six, of anywhere from 205 hp to 330 hp. Cooling was the same:

300px-DHGipsyQueen.JPG


Gipsys were English. The American Menasco turned the other way, so the cooling came in on the other side:

Menasco%20Engine%20Installation.jpg


Dan
 
Last edited:
Somewhat related - Scion has a sports car out, and an ad claiming it's the first horizontally-opposed boxer engine in a car.

I went out and popped the hood on my Forester, thinking they must have switched me to an inline four or something, but nope.
 
Somewhat related - Scion has a sports car out, and an ad claiming it's the first horizontally-opposed boxer engine in a car.

I went out and popped the hood on my Forester, thinking they must have switched me to an inline four or something, but nope.

That commercial is kinda what prompted me to ask the question...they acted as if having a horizontally opposed engine was a benefit.:dunno:
 
In a car... like my Forester, it does lower the CG compared to a more "conventional" small SUV like the CR-V or the Pilot. It does feel a bit more solid in turns than its competitors.
 
Somewhat related - Scion has a sports car out, and an ad claiming it's the first horizontally-opposed boxer engine in a car.

I went out and popped the hood on my Forester, thinking they must have switched me to an inline four or something, but nope.

Ah, marketing baloney. No shortage of it, especially when the guys writing it are young and ignorant despite having resources we never did, like Google. Or maybe they're deliberately misleading the buyer?

The Volkswagen Beetle was first produced in 1938. With a horizontally-opposed boxer engine. They did that for 65 years.

Remember the Toyota pickup ad of a year or so ago? "With those big ol' leaf springs..." as if leaf springs were a forward leap in technology! My 1951 International pickup has those big ol' leaf springs. Did the Japanese just recently get a look under an old American truck?

Dan
 
the opposed 4 engine is naturally balanced. with the crank pins being 180* from each other, vibration is canceled. when 1 set of pistons is at TDC the other is at BDC

It's a little bit more complicated than that --- as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there are moments in an opposed 4 aircraft engine that aren't balanced, primarily since the opposing cylinders are offset and aren't really opposed from each other.

Chapter 11 of the the Sky Ranch Engineering Manual by John Schwaner contains a wonderful technical analysis of vibration and moments in our engines. This comes from page 403.

b48fvn.png

33w8wa9.png


Here's a link to excerpts of the book. It is a great reference for gearheads to browse through.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JE...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Somewhat related - Scion has a sports car out, and an ad claiming it's the first horizontally-opposed boxer engine in a car.

I went out and popped the hood on my Forester, thinking they must have switched me to an inline four or something, but nope.

Funny, my 1974 Subaru had a horizontally opposed boxer engine. I hate it when marketing folks try to re-write history.
 
Somewhat related - Scion has a sports car out, and an ad claiming it's the first horizontally-opposed boxer engine in a car.

I went out and popped the hood on my Forester, thinking they must have switched me to an inline four or something, but nope.

Listening to the ad a bit closer, "It's the world's first and only horizontally opposed boxer engine ........ with D4S direct and port fuel injection technology"


Ad department Gotcha.
 
Not difficult at all. All the inlines (deHavilland Cirrus and Gipsy series, Menascos and rangers, all had transverse cooling baffling. The air comes in the front and is ducted all along one side and flows sideways through the cooling fins to the other side, where it exits the cowling. No different at all from the opposed engine taking air in both sides at the front and directing it downward and then out, and in fact the inline is slimmer than the opposed and still has no cooling issues.

It is more difficult to cool longer engines evenly, and this only gets worse with more powerful engines that produce more heat. IO-720s were known for having cooling issues, as an example, not to mention crank issues because of the length of the crank. Sure, we see big I6 diesels with huge cranks and no crank issues. Those engines also weigh a ton (literally), and that's a problem for our aviation applications where weight is a big issue.

The fact that the Gipsy engines you flew didn't overtemp doesn't mean they had good cooling. It was probably a lot of extra drag, uneven, etc.

We saw a lot of engine designs in early aircraft. You'll notice that most of them are no longer in production.

The width of our horizontally opposed engines does work well for a typical single with side-by-side seating. As I said, twins could benefit from an in-line configuration, but the extra R&D required to produce the engines (not to mention the cost of keeping two completely different engine lines going) would have made it difficult.
 
It's a little bit more complicated than that --- as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there are moments in an opposed 4 aircraft engine that aren't balanced, primarily since the opposing cylinders are offset and aren't really opposed from each other.

Chapter 11 of the the Sky Ranch Engineering Manual by John Schwaner contains a wonderful technical analysis of vibration and moments in our engines. This comes from page 403.

b48fvn.png

33w8wa9.png


Here's a link to excerpts of the book. It is a great reference for gearheads to browse through.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JE...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
That may have a bearing on why the opposed sixes run smoother, (or at least seem to) than the opposed fours. I would suspect that the opposed eights would be even smoother. But I ain't no engineer.
 
From a harmonics standpoint, paired three cylinder engines (V, straight or opposed) are smoother than paired two cylinder engines. That's why you don't find that many four or eight cylinder diesels.

:confused: Tons of 4 and 8 cylinder Diesels out there
 
The opposed engine provides maximum cooling for minimal frontal area which makes the airplane more efficient, that is the only reason.
 
Packages well. Reasonably compact and lightweight. Not too bad for air cooling.

This is what I've heard, but you would think an inline or V would be better for streamlining...however I'm all the companies already researched and tested that theory in the 40s :lol:
 
This is what I've heard, but you would think an inline or V would be better for streamlining...however I'm all the companies already researched and tested that theory in the 40s :lol:

Not really, it's the cooling that causes the drag, and x HP requires x airflow across it to take away the heat which will add up to x drag regardless. When you water cool you get some extra options such as the scoop under the P-51.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the Gipsy engines you flew didn't overtemp doesn't mean they had good cooling. It was probably a lot of extra drag, uneven, etc.

Wouldn't thousands of Gipsy Major engines flying hundreds of thousands of hours without cooling problems be more of an indication of good design rather than luck?
 
Wouldn't thousands of Gipsy Major engines flying hundreds of thousands of hours without cooling problems be more of an indication of good design rather than luck?

It's also a matter of HP vs Surface Area. Why is it that Gypsys aren't powering more planes?
 
It's also a matter of HP vs Surface Area. Why is it that Gypsys aren't powering more planes?

They burned too much oil. The cylinders extend into the case to prevent oil running into them, but they still have to deal with oil dripping off the crank after shutdown, and oil scraped off the walls during run doesn't want to leave. With upright inlines, gravity will help get the oil off the walls, and in opposed engines there's no real obstacles to oil leaving the cylinder, but an inverted engine has gravity working against oil control.

So the plugs foul up and the oil consumption is considerable. The Auster I flew, towing gliders in the '70s, burned as much as a quart of W100 an hour, depending on the brand. IIRC, the Texaco lasted longer than the Shell. The airplane had a 12-quart oil tank.

And that leads us to another issue: more stuff under the cowl. The engine has three oil pumps: one to take oil from the tank and shove it into the engine's workings, and one scavenge pump at each end of the crankcase to extract the used oil and send it back to the tank. Changing pitch attitude demands two pumps, see.

And oiling the rockers becomes a problem. You're supposed to take the rocker covers off every 25 hours, dump out the old oil, and refill them with new oil and put them back on. Not a user-friendly idea. On my airplane, the lifters leaked enough to keep those covers full and then some, and it leaked out of the overflow tubes and made a mess in the cowl and down the belly.

This doesn't endear it to aircraft manufacturers trying to sell airplanes to guys in nice clean clothes. Oops, I mean men. There is a difference between men and guys, according to Dave Barry. Guys don't mind getting dirty. They aren't helpless when something breaks. Most women wish their husbands were guys.

'Nuff of that.

Still, it was a cool engine, with a distinctive sound, and pulled better than any opposed engine of equivalent horsepower, probably due to the seven-foot prop turning at a lower RPM. I'd be willing to put up with the leaky, oily mess if I had another one. Harley owners do, don't they?

Dan
 
Yep, and if you make an inline engine with the cylinders up, now you run into either visibility or prop clearance problems.... The horizontally opposed engine just is the best all around design for an air cooled engine in a plane. There's compromises in every design,you just have to work out which compromises work best for an application.
 
Inlines also have a longer crankshaft, and that adds weight.

There's one more factor... Again, it's just about finding the right compromise for the application. As long as the crank pins have a balanced split evenly divisible to the angle between the cylinders (this is why 90 degree V6 engines either are rough or have split crank pins like some of the Buick V6s and 60 degree V6s are smooth) the engine really could care less as to how you orient the cylinders.
 
They burned too much oil. The cylinders extend into the case to prevent oil running into them, but they still have to deal with oil dripping off the crank after shutdown, and oil scraped off the walls during run doesn't want to leave. With upright inlines, gravity will help get the oil off the walls, and in opposed engines there's no real obstacles to oil leaving the cylinder, but an inverted engine has gravity working against oil control.

So the plugs foul up and the oil consumption is considerable. The Auster I flew, towing gliders in the '70s, burned as much as a quart of W100 an hour, depending on the brand. IIRC, the Texaco lasted longer than the Shell. The airplane had a 12-quart oil tank.

And that leads us to another issue: more stuff under the cowl. The engine has three oil pumps: one to take oil from the tank and shove it into the engine's workings, and one scavenge pump at each end of the crankcase to extract the used oil and send it back to the tank. Changing pitch attitude demands two pumps, see.

And oiling the rockers becomes a problem. You're supposed to take the rocker covers off every 25 hours, dump out the old oil, and refill them with new oil and put them back on. Not a user-friendly idea. On my airplane, the lifters leaked enough to keep those covers full and then some, and it leaked out of the overflow tubes and made a mess in the cowl and down the belly.

This doesn't endear it to aircraft manufacturers trying to sell airplanes to guys in nice clean clothes. Oops, I mean men. There is a difference between men and guys, according to Dave Barry. Guys don't mind getting dirty. They aren't helpless when something breaks. Most women wish their husbands were guys.

'Nuff of that.

Still, it was a cool engine, with a distinctive sound, and pulled better than any opposed engine of equivalent horsepower, probably due to the seven-foot prop turning at a lower RPM. I'd be willing to put up with the leaky, oily mess if I had another one. Harley owners do, don't they?

Dan
Nice write up Dan. There's a few fixes/upgrades for the old Dripsies. Not enough to make them user friendly but they do help. The oil problems, most of them anyway, aren't too bad with some common fixes. The main fix is to simply install oil control rings. That fix stopped the oil burning. Oil leaking around the valve covers is usually caused by bent valve covers that don't seat. I've got a set of approved valve covers from Australia that don't leak at all. Still, it does drip quite a bit. I've been dripping Philips 25/60 oil for the last year or so.

There's also kit to install slick mags. I'm sticking with my BTH mags because with the Slicks, you have to give up the variable timing. I've got a spare set of BTH mags that I'm going to have rebuilt.

They do seem to be very powerful for a 145HP engine. I've never seen a torque curve for one but I'm told that it makes a lot of torque at low RPM. Here's a link to an old article by Budd Davidson about the chipmunk. He seemed to be a bit surprised by the performance (he did get the part about the brakes wrong - they're weird but easy to use)

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepChipmunk.html
 
Last edited:
They do seem to be very powerful for a 145HP engine. I've never seen a torque curve for one but I'm told that it makes a lot of torque at low RPM. Here's a link to an old article by Budd Davidson about the chipmunk. He seemed to be a bit surprised by the performance (he did get the part about the brakes wrong - they're weird but easy to use)

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepChipmunk.html


He had a hard-starting Gipsy in that article. Mine never gave me any such trouble. It had an electric starter that was seldom used, since the engine didn't have a generator. And carb ice! The Auster had the carb heat mechanically connected to the throttle and it came on once you backed off from wide open throttle. Even then, it iced up and quit on me once.

Getting it to shut down was a chore. The Auster's mixture was like the Chipmunks: backwards. The throttle pulled the mixture lever to rich when you closed it. Pushing the mix full forward wouldn't starve it enough to shut it down, so I'd apply full throttle, too, and even then it would chug along for awhile. Shutting off the mags would seldom shut off a hot engine; that hot carbon in the heads (from using oil) would glow and keep igniting the fuel and it would diesel along for a long time.

Dan
 
Somewhat related - Scion has a sports car out, and an ad claiming it's the first horizontally-opposed boxer engine in a car.

I went out and popped the hood on my Forester, thinking they must have switched me to an inline four or something, but nope.

You didn't know that FT-86 was a joint project of Subaru and Toyota? The exact same car is being sold in the U.S. as Subaru BRZ and Scion FR-S. Unlike Mazda 2 and Ford Fiesta, the Toyobaru twins are even built together in the same plant.
 
So far, knock wood, my plane has been easy to start. I do use my electric starter but I've got a generator. One trick I was told is to keep the impulse lubricated on the right mag. If you don't hear it click when you pull the prop through, it's stuck. I flew another chipmunk that had that problem. The short term solution was to tap on the mag with a block of wood prior to starting to free it up :eek:.

I've found that adding TCP or Decalin helps with keeping the plugs clean. I'm also using fine wire plugs. I thought fine wires were a recent invention but they've been around for many years.

Dave


He had a hard-starting Gipsy in that article. Mine never gave me any such trouble. It had an electric starter that was seldom used, since the engine didn't have a generator. And carb ice! The Auster had the carb heat mechanically connected to the throttle and it came on once you backed off from wide open throttle. Even then, it iced up and quit on me once.

Getting it to shut down was a chore. The Auster's mixture was like the Chipmunks: backwards. The throttle pulled the mixture lever to rich when you closed it. Pushing the mix full forward wouldn't starve it enough to shut it down, so I'd apply full throttle, too, and even then it would chug along for awhile. Shutting off the mags would seldom shut off a hot engine; that hot carbon in the heads (from using oil) would glow and keep igniting the fuel and it would diesel along for a long time.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Back
Top