Craig,
All F1 engines are V10's. Years ago after the turbo era there was V8's, V10's and V12's. Then Renault became particularly dominant with a V10. The V8's were lightest, but least powerful, the V12 were largest and heaviest but most powerful. V10 was the in between and a better compromise. Because of Renaults success even Ferrari stopped making V12's and went to V10's. A few years ago they changed the rules to make only V10's legal.
Their engines represent cubic dollars tho. Each cylinder is 300cc, last years BMW engine revved to 19000 rpm. This is equal to the average peak revs of my 17.2cc A100!!!!
Built right a 2 cylinder 180 should be more compact and weigh less than 2 geared 90's. Gears is entirely another problem. But the approach of building a 2 cylinder 180 in a common block with the cylinders next to each other and gearing the cranks is one I mentioned earlier, it would be an engine similar to a Rotax 256. But with both cylinders vertical. Two pipes out the back, two carbs at the front. My preference would be to have the output shaft at crank speed from one side, but it could have an integrated step-up gear train for a shaft in the middle. Higher revs equate to higher friction losses... But the high revs/low torque could make it useful for monos. If the revs are high enough standard 90 size props could be used. I doubt that many will take the load however....
Such an engine should be lighter than two geared seperate 90's, and also much narrower. It would probably fit in a 6" tub like an original Eagle. Considering the number of standard parts, particularly P&L's, cranks, discs or drums etc, it would be a relatively easy project to prototype.
Biggest problem I see for such an engine is gears. To take the sort of power we are talking about with any decent life, these will not be off-the-shelf gears. They will be expensive.
Hmmm, I'm getting interested in such a beast. Anyone else? Maybe I need to do some drawings....
Nitrocrazed racing: Shirley you can't be serious...
