I have given my opinion on that. Neither the cylinder count not the V angle of the BRM fits with the Autounion E-type engine projects. I tend to believe they used another engine as a template for downscaling, possibly the Napier Sabre aero engine autogyro suggested.xpensive wrote:The BRM H16 is not for discussion here, that was simply a couple of honest british engineers in Bourne placing two flat-8s on top of another.
The groundbolt here is whether those Bourne-gentlmen designed and built the BRM V16 kompressor on their own, did they?
I think not. The ball is yours, WB.
So this is where we finally find some common cround WB? "Es muss ein bischen ordnung sein!, nicht war?"WhiteBlue wrote:I have given my opinion on that. Neither the cylinder count not the V angle of the BRM fits with the Autounion E-type engine projects. I tend to believe they used another engine as a template for downscaling, possibly the Napier Sabre aero engine autogyro suggested.xpensive wrote:The BRM H16 is not for discussion here, that was simply a couple of honest british engineers in Bourne placing two flat-8s on top of another.
The groundbolt here is whether those Bourne-gentlmen designed and built the BRM V16 kompressor on their own, did they?
I think not. The ball is yours, WB.
I would never do a new design from scratch if I can take a short cut by up or downscaling existing and working design. Often you can combine existing modules into a new arrangement. I much rather invest my money into optimizing a scaled or re arranged design for my purpose. All development is iteration. If you start with something that is already debugged to a great extend you get to your finished product much faster and with higher cost efficiency. If you start from scratch you often cannot pin point the cause of problems. If you introduce gradual change and keep main aspects of a previous design it is so much easier to debug it.xpensive wrote:Theres simply no way in this universe that those bourne-bozos could have done it on their own. No way.
This is getting serious WB, like american engineers meeting Werner von Braun, or Boeing people touching an ME262?WhiteBlue wrote:I would never do a new design from scratch if I can take a short cut by up or downscaling existing and working design. Often you can combine existing modules into a new arrangement. I much rather invest my money into optimizing a scaled or re arranged design for my purpose. All development is iteration. If you start with something that is already debugged to a great extend you get to your finished product much faster and with higher cost efficiency. If you start from scratch you often cannot pin point the cause of problems. If you introduce gradual change and keep main aspects of a previous design it is so much easier to debug it.xpensive wrote:Theres simply no way in this universe that those bourne-bozos could have done it on their own. No way.
Long story short: The bourne-bozos probably had a template to start with. It may have been the A,B or C-Type engine and they downscaled it plus squashed it to get to another V angle. It is all speculation.
IMO it is definitely an F1 car. I can't imagine such radiator layout on 80s sportscar. But I don't know which model...WhiteBlue wrote:Thx, that looks like a Brabham rear end from the 80ties or was that something from sports cars? What did the text say?
Yeah, I remember that article. Amazing thing is that they purposely used blocks with mileage on them (at least 100,000 km!) so that the block would be stressed out.Giblet wrote:Great read about this particular engine in a few months old Racecar Engineering or Race Tech magazine. The quality of the article makes me think RCE.
