PDA

View Full Version : Most advanced WW2 Piston Engine ?



mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 06:13 AM
The 'What if there had'nt been any Jets' thread has made me wonder about the ultimate piston engines. Did the Germans ever have anything to match the Napier Sabre ? If so how close were they to service introdcution. The reason I ask is that the performance figures for the Fw Fighter project with the BMW 802 engine are pretty close to that of late war Allied types like the Tempest V and the F4U4. I think jet engines killed off the development of the German piston engine - yet in Britain its development was continued for some years.

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 06:13 AM
The 'What if there had'nt been any Jets' thread has made me wonder about the ultimate piston engines. Did the Germans ever have anything to match the Napier Sabre ? If so how close were they to service introdcution. The reason I ask is that the performance figures for the Fw Fighter project with the BMW 802 engine are pretty close to that of late war Allied types like the Tempest V and the F4U4. I think jet engines killed off the development of the German piston engine - yet in Britain its development was continued for some years.

Viper2005_
04-05-2007, 06:50 AM
Rolls-Royce Crecy ftw.

JG52Karaya-X
04-05-2007, 06:56 AM
Jumo213 pwns y0

ImpStarDuece
04-05-2007, 07:03 AM
Sitting on the fence, but the likely Allied contenders for the most advanced enngine seem to me to be:


1. Napier Sabre:
Sabre IV (2,560 hp)
Sabre V (2,340 hp)
Sabre IIC (2,360 hp)

2. Bristol Centarus:
Centarus V (2,520 hp)
Centarus VI (2,580 hp)

3. Pratt & Whitney R-3350
R-3350-23 (2,200 hp)
R-3350-24W (2,500 hp)
R-3350-32W (3,700 hp)

4. Rolls-Royce Merlin 130/140 serise

Merlin 130 (2,080 hp)
Merlin 140 (2,180 hp)

5. Rolls Royce Crecy:
Crecy 10 (2,500 hp)

6. Rolls Royce Griffon

Griffon 85 (2,350 hp)
Griffon 100 (2,420 hp)
Griffon 57 (2,485 hp)

7. Pratt & Whitney R-4360

R-4360-51 (4,100 hp)

woofiedog
04-05-2007, 07:04 AM
A listing of WWII aircaft engines... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_engines

Also... http://www.enginehistory.org/burk.htm


Pratt & Whitney R-4360... http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4980/engine9.html

General characteristics
Type: 28-cylinder supercharged air-cooled four-row radial engine
Bore: 5.75 in. (146 mm)
Stroke: 6.00 in. (152 mm)
Displacement: 4,360 in³ (71.4 L)
Length: 96.5 in. (2 451 mm)
Diameter: 55 in (1397 mm)
Dry weight: 3,870 lb (1,755 kg)
Components
Valvetrain: Poppet, two valves per cylinder
Supercharger: Gear-driven single stage variable speed centrifugal type supercharger
Fuel system: Stromberg four-barrel pressure-type carburetor
Fuel type: 108/135 octane gasoline
Cooling system: Air-cooled
Performance
Power output: 4,300 hp (3,210 kW)
Specific power: 0.99 hp/in³ (45.0 kW/L)
Compression ratio: 6.7 : 1
Power-to-weight ratio: 1.11 hp/lb (1.83 kW/kg)


Napier Sabre... http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/index.htm (http://www.eagle.ca/%7Eharry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/index.htm)

General characteristics
Type: 24-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled H-type four-stroke aircraft piston engine
Bore: 5.0 in (127 mm)
Stroke: 4.75 in (121 mm)
Displacement: 2,238 in³ (36.7 L)
Length: 82.25 in (2089 mm)
Width: 40 in (1016 mm)
Height: 36 in (1168 mm)
Dry weight: 2,360 lb (1,070 kg)
Components
Valvetrain: Sleeve valve, four valves per cylinder
Supercharger: Gear-driven single-stage two-speed centrifugal type supercharger
Fuel system: Hobson injection-type carburetor
Fuel type: 100/130 octane gasoline
Cooling system: Liquid-cooled
Performance
Power output:

2,850 hp (2,065 kW) at 3,800 rpm and 13 psi (0.9 bar) intake boost
3,040 hp (2,200 kW) at 4,000 rpm war emergency power
Specific power: 1.36 hp/in³ (59.9 kW/L)
Compression ratio: 7:1
Power-to-weight ratio: 1.29 hp/lb (2.06 kW/kg)


Daimler Benz DB 610... http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db605.htm

Daimler-Benz DB 610 (contains 2x DB 605 each) 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines, 2,950 hp (2,170 kW)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aircraft_engine_DB_610_RH.jpg



The Daimler-Benz DB 605... http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm (http://w1.1861.telia.com/%7Eu186104874/db605.htm)

Basic technical aspects of the DB 605.

(This description and the following performance tables will be using metric measurements.)

- 60 degrees inverted V-12, pressure-cooled

- bore: 154 mm, stroke: 160 mm, total volume: 35,7 litres

- compression ratio: 7.5/7.3 (87 octane), 8.5/8.3 (96 octane)

- length: 2303 mm, height: 1050 mm, width: 762-845 mm

- dry weight: 730 - 745 kg, built-in weight: 764 - 815 kg

- 4 valves per cylinder, 1 overhung camshaft

- direct fuel injection

- single-stage variable speed mechanical compressor driven via a barometricly controlled hydraulic clutch (the DB 605L had a two-stage compressor)

- rpm: max. 2800, climb: 2600, max. cruise: 2300

- performance: 1435 - 2000 hp at sea level

- rated altitude in climbing condition: 5.8 - 8 km (again excluding DB 605L) .

- several versions ecquipped to utilise MW-50 or GM-1

p1ngu666
04-05-2007, 08:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Nomad

i think most of the german ideas where simply bolting on another engine at the back of the orignal

woofiedog
04-05-2007, 01:13 PM
It would have been interesting to see what the Napier Nomad engine could do in a marine application. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
04-05-2007, 01:25 PM
If the question is 'what is the best German aero engine in development by the end of the war?', the answer is very simply : DB 603N, easily the most impressive engine of the Germans by any account. It was producing massive amounts of power and having a massive rated altitude at the same time. I'd just love seeing that engine being bolted onto a 109K. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I am not sure how far they got with it though, but it was an improved existing DB 603LA.

The DB 605D was aiming for 2.3ata and for about 2300 PS in a very compact package, the Jumo 213 was going up for 2600 or so HP, gotto check that out though. KH probably knows the BMW 801 better; I don't think the rest of the exotic projects deserve much attention.

Regarding the Sabre, it's a powerful and very advanced engine, no doubt about that - a bit problematic through it's service as well. But the Sabre's power output is to be looked upon like a radial rather than a sleek inline - look at the frontal area, it's frontal area is almost as big as the BMW 801, and 30% greater than a DB 605 or Merlin. The Sabre is producing a lot of power, and a lot of drag as well - just compare with the FW 190D-9 with the 'less impressive' Jumo 213. Engine effiency is always a big factor.

WarWolfe_1
04-05-2007, 02:13 PM
My vote would go to the F8F.....before anyone says it....it was designed and flown during WW2, and was on it's way to combat when the war ended, so it does count.

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 02:15 PM
DB 603:

# Bore: 162 mm (6.38 in)
# Stroke: 180 mm (7.09 in)
# Displacement: 44.5 L (2,715 in³)
# Length: 2610.5 mm (102.8 in)
# Diameter: 830 mm (32.7 in)
# Dry weight: 920 kg (2,030 lb)

Napier Sabre:

# Bore: 5.0 in (127 mm)
# Stroke: 4.75 in (121 mm)
# Displacement: 2,238 in³ (36.7 L)
# Length: 82.25 in (2089 mm)
# Width: 40 in (1016 mm)
# Height: 36 in (1168 mm)
# Dry weight: 2,360 lb (1,070 kg)

BMW 801:

* Type: 14-cylinder supercharged two-row air-cooled radial engine
* Bore: 156 mm (6.14 in)
* Stroke: 156 mm (6.14 in)
* Displacement: 41.8 litres (2,550 in³)
* Length: 2,006 mm (79 in)
* Diameter: 1,290 mm (51 in)
* Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,325 lb)


The Napier Sabre is closer to the DB 603 in dimensions than it is to the BMW 801 Kufurst. I thought that the BMW 801 was one of the most compact radials of WW2 ?

XyZspineZyX
04-05-2007, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
My vote would go to the F8F.....before anyone says it....it was designed and flown during WW2, and was on it's way to combat when the war ended, so it does count. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought they were talking about engines.

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
My vote would go to the F8F.....before anyone says it....it was designed and flown during WW2, and was on it's way to combat when the war ended, so it does count. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol wrong thread but I know what you mean ! I love the F8F but I dont think it counts as WW2 - definitly WW2 era but the Ta 152 H shot down more bandits than it for F Sake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - all 24 of them

XyZspineZyX
04-05-2007, 05:30 PM
why are we equating power output with most advanced engine?

There are guys in my car club that make 500 rwhp with pushrod V8s designed in 1969 that are naturally aspirated

The 240 hp supercharged V6 in my '97 Buick is more advanced and makes half the power

Why aren't we talking about fuel injection and speed/density carburetors?

WarWolfe_1
04-05-2007, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
My vote would go to the F8F.....before anyone says it....it was designed and flown during WW2, and was on it's way to combat when the war ended, so it does count. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol wrong thread but I know what you mean ! I love the F8F but I dont think it counts as WW2 - definitly WW2 era but the Ta 152 H shot down more bandits than it for F Sake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - all 24 of them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JR_Greenhorn
04-06-2007, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
why are we equating power output with most advanced engine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My thoughts as well. The misleading thing about power outputs is comparing engines that were near the end of their development cycle with those that were nearer to the beginning. I see a few things as key factors for advancement among the engines discussed above.


First, despite all the problems associated with sleeve valves, the one huge advantage they give is a significant reduction in cylinder height. That can either be used to reduce frontal area, or to increase stroke with the same frontal area . Kurfurst brings up a good point that the Sabre was huge like a radial, but just think how much bigger it would be if you had to stack poppet valve equipment on top of those four banks of cylinders.

Conversely, look at the stroke of the Bristol Centaurus compared to the stroke of say, an R-2800. Both engines have the same bore, but the Centaurus packs a whole bunch more displacement into a slightly smaller diameter engine. When comparing power, bear in mind that the R-2800 was among the most developed engines of the war, and that the Centaurus' development was cut short by the end of the war and the jet age. While the intrinsic problems of sleeve valves were never truly mastered, the R-2800's development took great strides towards reducing the cooling problems limiting radial engines in general. If the sleeve valve concept could have benefited from further rapid wartime development, who knows what the Sabre and Centaurus might have become?

Something else I think that would have become more commonplace was higher engine speeds. The Sabre made big power numbers, but its displacement isn't really that big (it's within a litre of the DB605, for instance). However, the short stroke of the Sabre allowed for higher engine speeds, up to the neighborhood of 4000rpm compared to the more common 2400-3000rpm of most V and radial engines of the war. By definition, higher engine speed means more power, and the smallish bore and flatish, clean combustion chamber of the Sabre should have led to good efficiency (however offset by the large number of cylinders to feed, and reduced by sealing and other sleeve valve problems).



The winner in my mind, however, is the R-4630. Although it was a huge engine, there were a lot of very advanced ideas going on in this engine. For instance, from the start the R-4360 used the same cylinders as the R-2800, so as the R-2800 was pushed for more power and efficiency, the R-4360 benefited directly. Another telling comparison between the two engines is the reduction in frontal area afforded by using 7 cylinders per rank as opposed to 9. The best way to see this is to look at the R-4360-powered F2G Super Corsairs. The Corsair fuselage was designed around the R-2800, but when the R-4360 was installed, the engine cowling is smaller than the fuselage is.

The R-4360 took cooling very seriously. Air cooling doesn't really work unless the air is purposely ducted both to and from the source of heat. Hanging cylinders (or radiators) "out in the breeze" isn't very efficient--the air has no reason to pass through the fins instead of simply blowing around the cylinder as whole, and avoiding the obstructed flow through the fins. Radial engine cooling development preceding the war for the most part concentrated on preventing the air from bypassing the cylinders completely (look at how nacelles grew and blended into the fuselage over time), but the R-4360 covers its fine-pitch, slitting saw-cut fins with distinctive sheetmetal baffles and ducts to direct air where it's needed and keep it out of areas it isn't.

Another cooling advance can be seen on the R-4360-powered XP-72. Fan-cooling combined with close cowling instead of free air cooling through a large opening was what would have been next, and the Germans and especially the Russians had been doing this from early in the war. The BMW 801 in the FW 190 is fan-cooled, and so is the ASh-82 in the La-5/7 series. However, the FW 190 doesn't show progressively tighter cowling/smaller air inlet like the La's do (compare the smaller opening of the La-7 cowling to the La-5). In the XP-72, the Americans got around to doing this in a fighter, and I think the results would have been impressive.

Vike
04-06-2007, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
If the question is 'what is the best German aero engine in development by the end of the war?', the answer is very simply : DB 603N, easily the most impressive engine of the Germans by any account. It was producing massive amounts of power and having a massive rated altitude at the same time. I'd just love seeing that engine being bolted onto a 109K. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DB603N Wow! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
Thanks for this info Kurfurst! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW,what do you think about the BMW 802,a twin-row radial engine i evoked just here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1301096745?r=9911040845#9911040845)? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

@+

zugfuhrer
04-06-2007, 02:12 AM
All carburator feed engines should be excluded.

Other advanced things like automatic adjustments of rpm, manifold pressure, mixture, pitc are also measures of advancements.
An engine that need loots of finetuning from the pilot isnt advanced.

If you should rate the most advanced piston engine for cars today, no carburator feed engine would top the list.

Sleve valve would you have such an engine on your car?

StG2_Schlachter
04-06-2007, 02:34 AM
What about the BMW 803?

Badsight-
04-06-2007, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
What about the BMW 803? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/BMW803.jpg

Sergio_101
04-06-2007, 02:54 AM
Oh yes, if Jets never worked out?
Lycomings R-7755 was the way of the future.
Allison was working on a 6840 48 cylinder monster
and Wright was working on a 4010 CID 22
cylinder version of the R-3350.

Germany and Britian were also working on some
monsters as was Japan.

Bigger banked and modular engines were the future
but gas turbines ended it.

Sergio

JtD
04-06-2007, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

BMW's 801 is nothing more than a pirated
thinly disguised Wright R-2600. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you got to admit that the Germans were masters of thin disguises. Into that thin layer they squeezed a different bore, stroke, displacement, diameter, lenght, weight, cooling system, charger, injection system...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it was a lot less reliable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the 801 was famous for unpredictable engine failures. That's why the Germans mounted midgets directly behind the engine to fix anything that went broke. The midget was also equipped with pedals so he could provide a least some propulsion in case the 801 was unrepairable.

mynameisroland
04-06-2007, 03:28 AM
More Sabre info pirated from P1ngu a while back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6131088673/p/1

There is a section that states the max inservice power delivery was 3750HP and that this was a continous rating http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

This is probably the Sabre VII variant I reckon

Here is another link which shows how close the Brits were to beating old Willy Messerschmit to the world speed record with an estimated 500mph being achievable by this little number.

http://www.airracinghistory.freeola.com/aircraft/Napier-Heston%20Racer.htm

Here is another link for a Sabre VII this time using MW50 type injection


The Napier Sabre VII (in photo) was capable of 3500 hp @ 3850 rpm @ sea level with 20 psi boost with water/methanol
injection. The Sabre is a 24 cylinder H engine with sleeve valves. Displacement is 2240 cu in (36.65 litres).

http://www.enginehistory.org/buckel_galleries.ht


Sergio does make one important point. The Sabre was producing similar HP to the bigger US radials on half the displacement and with a lower front area. It also was saw war service from late 1941 in the Typhoon although there were lots of problems. By 1944 it was pretty reliable engine - for the kind of performance figures it was producing.

JuHa-
04-06-2007, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

BMW's 801 is nothing more than a pirated
thinly disguised Wright R-2600. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wikipedia:
In the 1930s, BMW took out a license to build the Pratt & Whitney Hornet engines. By the mid-30s they had introduced an improved version, the BMW 132.

132-&gt;139-&gt;801
Using same logic, R-2800 was nothing more than a pimped out Hornet engine.

To me comparing R2800 and BMW801 is interesting, as they share a common starting point.

JR_Greenhorn
04-09-2007, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Other advanced things like automatic adjustments of rpm, manifold pressure, mixture, pitc are also measures of advancements.
An engine that need loots of finetuning from the pilot isnt advanced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, but I don't think it's that black and white. For instance, the kommandogerat system was advanced on it's own, but did it make the engine it was applied to advanced as well? The BMW 801 was an advanced engine for its time, especially because of it's cooling system in the FW 190. Advanced engine, advanced control system, no arguments. However, should the Jumo 213 be considered an advanced engine? How about if it used a kommandogerat system?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
If you should rate the most advanced piston engine for cars today, no carburator feed engine would top the list. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True, but for entirely different reasons than for aircraft. About the only thing modern automotive fuel injection systems have with late war aero fuel injection systems is basic principles.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Sleve valve would you have such an engine on your car? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldn't not have a sleeve valve engine in my car simply because it used sleeve valves. The engine would have to stand on its own merits, sleeve valves or not, before I would choose it for my car.

The problem with sleeve valves in cars is that cars don't usually take advantage of any of the packaging advantages sleeve valves can provide. Lower overall cylinder heights allow for lower hoodlines, which is the reason the Corvette still uses pushrod-actuated OHV. However, most cars have enough space that developing a sleeve valve engine wouldn't be worth it.



I see a different situation in motorcycles. Motorcycles, like WWII fighter aircraft, still have their shapes strongly influenced by the engine they use. A current design problem in the American cruiser bike market is developing large displacement, long stroke, narrow angle V-twin engines (long considered a "slice" out of a radial engine) to fit in low chassis with low seat heights.

Cycle World had an interesting article for the release of Kawasaki's 2000cc Vulcan cruiser. In the article, they discussed cylinder height as a primary design issue, and they repeatedly compared Kawasaki's 2000cc OHV V-twin to a flathead (or sidevalve or "L" head) engine that would theoretically be possible within the same cylinder height. This exact same problem is covered in motorcycle designer James Parker's column in this month's Motorcyclist.

In a later issue of the same magazine, a new engine from the Harley aftermarket firm S&S was showcased. The X-wedge had many features considered advanced for the intended application and market. However, to reach the engine's displacement goal, the V-angle had to be widened to prevent the larger-bore pistons from contacting each other at the bottom of their strokes.

This is where I think sleeve valves would have the greatest advantage in modern engine design. Imagine a large-displacement, heavyweight cruiser of the type still wildly popular in the US. With a sleeve valve engine replacing a pushrod OHV engine, the stroke can be made longer to reach displacement goals within the tighter V-angles. Alternately, the entire motorcycle can be made smaller if a sleeve valve engine were used at the same stroke to reduce cylinder height.


My point in all of this is just because a concept like sleeve valves was never fully developed 60 years ago, doesn't mean that concept could not potentially have a place in our day and age. Like any engine concept outside of the accepted norm, sleeve valves had to overcome their own problems and the status quo before they could be proven. In this case, the necessary development time was cut short by the jet age.

Blutarski2004
04-09-2007, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
In the article, they discussed cylinder height as a primary design issue, and they repeatedly compared Kawasaki's 2000cc OHV V-twin to a flathead (or sidevalve or "L" head) engine that would theoretically be possible within the same cylinder height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Well, I know from personal experience that the reduced height of the HD flathead motor was mainly due to the lower mounting of its oil leaks.

;-]

Sergio_101
04-09-2007, 05:16 PM
As a manufacturer of HD based V-twins I can give
an honest assesment and critique on a couple of
comments posted here.

A Harley Davidsion is not really close to
"long considered a "slice" out of a radial engine"

Only in appearance.

Truthfully all HD engines use one or more cams.
Sporsters use 4 cams, EVO hogs use one.
"Twin Cam" engines use two cams.

Most radial engines use a ring cam.
All combat worthy poppet valve radials used ring cams.
The exception being sleeve valve radials.

All Harleys and Harley clones use a "Blade and Fork"
connecting rod arrangement except the "V-Rod" engine.

No HD based engines use a master rod, exception
being a couple of weird one off three cylinder HD replicas.

Harleys actually have more in common with WWII era V-12s.

As to sleeve valves in a modern motorcycle.
Manufacturing issues aside, the issues are still many.
#1 is oil control. Sleeve valve engines are oil pigs
especially when cold.
#2 is the fact that there is NO manufacturing base for
parts.
#3 cooling would be a challenge in an engine that lacks a
60+ mph blast of air at all times.
Remember, the sleeve floats/reciprocates and has no contact with the
cooled surface.

Most components including pistons would have to be custom
one off pieces.
The crankshaft and rods can be HD or after market.

It is questionable if a sleeve valve engine could
make the same power as a modern poppet valve engine.

But it would be neat. Maybe some day I will give it a try.

Willys built a sleeve valve engine in the 1920's
called the "Knight".
It worked great but was an oil pig.
For it's day it was not much worse than poppet valve engines.
It ran better and made more power than it's competitors.
two things did the Knight in, oil consumption
and sleeve valve liner wear.
re-Building them is a Knightmare......

You see folks, I do this for a living.

A 1957 283 CID Chevy and a 1997 350 CID Chevy are different internals
in bore, stroke and intake design.
But they are based on the same engine.

So is are Soviet Ash radials and the BMW-801, based on Wright radials.

BMW also built P&W Hornets under lisence before WWII, and during the war.
I doubt the lisence fee's were paid during the war....;-)

Prat&Whitney's R-2800 started life as a 2,680 CID
engine, a twin row R-1340.
When P&W learned that Wright was developing a R-2600
they bumped the displacement to 2,800 cid.
I read recently where P&W R-2800 "C" series
cylinders are being adapted to R-1340s in
crop dusters.
All air cooled P&Ws are very close in all respects.

Harley flat heads were designed to "leak".
They drip oiled the chain:-)
Before the "45" flat head many early HD motors were "total loss lubrication".
That ment that all oil and grease after
lubricating once was dumped on the road.
It was a common practice in early engines.

Sergio