Bringing up the BRM H16

[Tom]

Back in 1966, when the engine regs changed to allow 3 litre normally aspirated, British Racing Motors commissioned the development of an unusual 16 cylinder engine, in an 'H' formation.
Can this be done in modern F1 cars? what are the disadvantages and advantages? what is it and how did it work (no wiki, it's useless on this subject) and can we have pics please?

N.B. Has anyone else noticed these Rover 25/MG ZX with the ridiculous orange grills? apparently these are BRM specials, don't know what special features are but Rover didn't do a very good job marketing that one.
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/r3gallery_02.jpg

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I've got a pic in a few books, I'll try n dig them out. But from what I understand its quite similar to a W formation engine (like in the Bugatti Veyron) whereby two V's are put together to make a W. But in this case they are put together not side-by-side. But bottom to bottm, so you have an X shape. With the H-16 they did this with two V-8's, the V-Angle of which was opened up to 180 degrees, to give an H, insted of X formation. (That's what I think anyway). From what else I know it was very heavy, and complicated, and actually didn't give much more power, so the power-to-weight of the engine alone was very poor.

Dunno if it would work today though...maybe too wide?

Anyway, engines in F1 now HAVE to be a V with Vee Angle of 90degrees. So it wont happen lol.

[Carlos]

From memory - The BRM H16 was derived from basically 2 flat 8's with the
2 crankshafts connected by gears. It was regarded as a very powerful engine at it's inception - the cylinder heads were DOHC/2valves. The
engine was extremely heavy. Jackie Stewert said it wasn't a motor but
a boat anchor. With all the duplication of parts it must have been. It had
a very high centre of gravity. No one could solve this problem. Lotus built a chassis for it but only competed with it a few times, before disgarding it.
Sir Jackie Stewert drove the BRM chassis with this motor. It was latter
disgarded and BRM next engine was a V12 of modest HP. The H16 was basically a pair of BRM's 1.5 litre V8's, Formula 1 engines, flattened out
and joined together.

[manchild]

I can't help it (again) to bring up sound of supercharged 1.5 liter V16 BRM for all those who haven't heard it before. Keep in mind that it's the sound of car made more than 50 years ago. Put the speakers volume up high and enjoy

http://gpl.krej.cz/mp3.html

[DaveKillens]

With a modern difffuser tunnel design, a straight inline engine is the best way to go, a narrow angle V the next best compromise. A flat engine would be an aero nightmare.
Intake and exhaust plumbing would suffer too, there would have to be some performance-robbing compromise involved. Oil spray coming down from the upper crankshaft would impact the lower crankshaft and seriously rob power due to oil windage. Assembly, inspection, and maintenance would also be much higher than a V. And where do you mount that auxiliaries, such as the oil and water pumps, and generator?
If overall length was the only requirement, an H makes sense. But for almost all other needs, it's a nice piece or precision boat anchor.

[Tom]

So if the engine had all these disadvantages why did BRM still use it?

Anyway, thanks everyone, alot of useful info there. Just one more idea, how about an old cyclo-aerostyle engine, like in the sopwith camel? [img::]http://www.pilotfriend.com/aero_engines/images3/21.jpg[/img] apart from size and cooling, what are the advantages and disadvantages in one of these?

And how about an inverted 'T' style configuration? you could easily make a 12 cylinder engine the length of a 4 by using a flat 8 with an in line 4 on top. Obviously not legal for F1, but a performance road car...

[DaveKillens]

Well, with that style of engine, the crankshaft was attached to the airframe, and the entire engine block and cylinders were mounted to the propellor. The entire engine rotated. It made for nice cooling when that was a big issue back then. Lubrication was by mixing castor oil in with the gas, and that's why you see pictures of pilots with blackened faces.
But the inertia of the rotating parts was VERY high, and gyrscropic precession was a major handicap. That's why the Camel killed more pilots on landing and takeoffs than combat.

[Tom]

The whole angine rotated? are you sure?
I heard that the torque produced by the prop was so high that it often flipped the plane over on takeoff.

Any advance on the T engine?

[manchild]

The whole angine rotated? are you sure?

Yep, whole engine rotated. Crankshaft was attached to frame while engine block, cylinders, heads and prop rotated together. That was the case with rotary star engines while radial star engines operated "normally".

Amazing 3D ilustrations of rotary and radial engines here http://www.griffwason.com/gw_pages/pw_wasp1.htm

[img::]http://www.griffwason.com/gw_images/Cle ... poster.jpg[/img]

[Tom]

Wow, sorry I doubted you Dave.

[DaveKillens]

I heard that the torque produced by the prop was so high that it often flipped the plane over on takeoff.

Actually, it was "Gyroscopic Precession" http://www.gyroscopes.org/behaviour.asp that messed things up. Because the entire engine crankase and cylinders were rotating, it imparted a huge gyroscopic effect. So when a pilot tried to rotate the nose upwards, the aircraft would do a severe yaw. If he tried to turn to the right or left quickly, the nose would rise or drop......... wicked stuff that killed a lot of inexperienced pilots.

[Tom]

I'm going to try and design a very simple model of my 'inverted T' engine on my basic CAD program using the bore and stroke measurements from our friend the DFV.

Let you know when it's finished.