... That places staying home above building cars, doesn't it?...
That would be my response to "is it worth the effort?". After many years of blown-alky competition (up to 9,000 RPM), using all the common remedies for windage effects (aerated oil, etc.), I'll gladly put lots of effort into this experiment.
Thanks for the responses. I'll try to answer some of the concerns:
> Dry sump- that's a given for this project (along with windage tray and scraper). But like my other hemi (V8), I won't be pulling more than about 3 in.Hg. depression in the crankcase. Sizing the scavenge pump larger creates more oil aeration (by nature of any drysump system). As for reducing the density of the crankcase "fluid" (mostly air) via more scavenging, I see that as a pretty insignificant contribution to windage reduction.
> Surface attachment- order of magnitude smaller effect than going to full-round.
> My additions will maintain the center-of-mass of each counterweight at its original location, thus will not alter the balancing considerations.
> I acknowledged in my original post that nothing can be done about windage created by the reciprocating stuff. But this still leaves "interrupted" counterweights as a very significant factor.
> Radial acceleration of 8,500 G is calculated- 10,000 RPM, but +/- about 5% on radial distances of filler-segment centers-of-mass from crank centerline. Acceleration vectors other than radial are not known (would need comprehensive torsional displacement analysis throughout the crank), but I can almost guarantee they would be at least one order of magnitude less than radial.
> Cycles to failure- just for a moment, ignore any crank twisting, and consider this example: say I make a clean run, accelerating the engine to some speed, then decelerate to a stop. That whole run would cause
one cycle of stress in my attachments, while the reciprocating pieces underwent many thousands of cycles. But, yes, cranks do dynamically twist- but do not create tangential accelerations on the order of 8,500 Gs.
> Hollow box construction- rigidity at 8,500 Gs could be problematic. Unless I got into ultra-expensive carbon-fiber science, which doesn't correspond with my shade-tree approach.
> I'm purposely not showing any attachment schemes, since I'm still studying various methods.