Some weird local bulk sales place is selling this thing for $800.
It would take up a lot of a Challenge car budget but...
http://appleton.craigslist.org/ptd/3284939215.html
Maybe stretch a shaft drive motorcycle and have it behind you.... Or in the back of a ACVW ... Make yourself a slightly larger 'worlds smallest hellicopter'...
Hell, it would make a cool shop table
EDIT: I broke the thread title by trying to put a smiley in there. Sorry.
ZOMG DO IT.
...for inspiration.
That's what first came to mind. That and the MR2 (or was it a Fiero).
Isn't it missing some pushrods...?
It definitely needs to go in a car...I dunno how you'll cool it off without a propeller, but it needs to happen.
No way a radial aricraft engine is for sale in Oshkosk WI for $800.
Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?
Nope. Rare Pratt & Whitney model from the early 50's with fourteen overhead cams.
I'll see your little 7 cylinder... Pratt & Whitney R4360 - 28 turbocharged and supercharged cylinders, good for 4300 hp.
Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?
Probably on the backside.
Interesting trivia: The early rotary radial engines (as in the entire engine spins, the propeller is fixed) didn't have pushrods. Why? Because the intake charge went through the crank case and entered the cylinder from a valve in the piston!
If you think about it, not a lot of other ways to do it without FI if you are spinning the entire engine.
aircooled wrote:Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?Probably on the backside.
I am thinking those 2 nipples on the sides of the heads that line up with the nipples on the crankcase are for the pushrod tubes.
M Schettl Sales... I know they usually have some weird stuff, but man, that's a new one. Hell, for eight hunnerd bucks, go for it, just for E36 M3s and giggles. 
aircooled wrote:Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?Probably on the backside. Interesting trivia: The early rotary radial engines (as in the entire engine spins, the propeller is fixed) didn't have pushrods. Why? Because the intake charge went through the crank case and entered the cylinder from a valve in the piston! If you think about it, not a lot of other ways to do it without FI if you are spinning the entire engine.
Here's a guy that restored one. He says it'll go into a Nieuport replica.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYc-H8Wg-MQ&feature=related
RossD wrote: That's what first came to mind. That and the MR2 (or was it a Fiero).
MR2..
In reply to friedgreencorrado:
Whoa, I had no idea that the crankcase and cylinders spin with the prop. 
oldtin wrote: I'll see your little 7 cylinder... Pratt & Whitney R4360 - 28 turbocharged and supercharged cylinders, good for 4300 hp.
there is an engine under all that plumbing?
Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?
Why yes, yes it is.
Wonder what else is missing. Probably why it's only $800.
Anti-stance wrote:aircooled wrote:I am thinking those 2 nipples on the sides of the heads that line up with the nipples on the crankcase are for the pushrod tubes.Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?Probably on the backside.
Ding-ding, winner. 
Carbs should be on the back side, if they're not missing too.
Have some radial engine training, both in A&P school and from dad that was an aircraft mech specializing in engines. Dad was trained on radials in the early-50's. I went to A&P school in Alaska where they still fly radials, had one in class.
Anti-stance wrote: In reply to friedgreencorrado: Whoa, I had no idea that the crankcase and cylinders spin with the prop.
Yeah, it's crazy, right? Most of what I've read about WW1 aviation (and the recreations) talk about how difficult those aircraft were to handle on and off throttle, because of all the problems caused by the torque of the weight. It was like having a giant gyroscope in the nose.
That looks like a Jacobs R755. Cessna 190 and 195s use them. Would totally be worth $800 buck to one of those guys.
Anti-stance wrote:aircooled wrote:I am thinking those 2 nipples on the sides of the heads that line up with the nipples on the crankcase are for the pushrod tubes.Twin_Cam wrote: Isn't it missing some pushrods...?Probably on the backside.
Correctomundo
That is really freaking cool, but where the H-E-double-nine-iron would you find parts for it?
friedgreencorrado wrote:Anti-stance wrote: In reply to friedgreencorrado: Whoa, I had no idea that the crankcase and cylinders spin with the prop.Yeah, it's crazy, right? Most of what I've read about WW1 aviation (and the recreations) talk about how difficult those aircraft were to handle on and off throttle, because of all the problems caused by the torque of the weight. It was like having a giant gyroscope in the nose.
there was also the issue of them having total loss oiling systems.. that used Castor oil... just imagine what breathing that did to you as a pilot?
mad_machine wrote:friedgreencorrado wrote:there was also the issue of them having total loss oiling systems.. that used Castor oil... just imagine what breathing that did to you as a pilot?Anti-stance wrote: In reply to friedgreencorrado: Whoa, I had no idea that the crankcase and cylinders spin with the prop.Yeah, it's crazy, right? Most of what I've read about WW1 aviation (and the recreations) talk about how difficult those aircraft were to handle on and off throttle, because of all the problems caused by the torque of the weight. It was like having a giant gyroscope in the nose.
Those were rotary engines that had the total loss system. The engine in this thread is a radial.
Someone oughtta step up and take one for the team so we can all say we know of a car with a 7-cylinder engine
RossD wrote: EDIT: I broke the thread title by trying to put a smiley in there. Sorry.
No problem. Edited. 
You'll need to log in to post.
