Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages


Williams ws. Rankin

Posted by Howard Langdon 
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 21, 2006 01:24PM
Hi Harry

You are right. I don't have the numbers to do your engine. The power density bounces all over the place with exhaust pressure variation. The minum is around 3 HP/cuin with the exhaust pressure just below end of expansion pressure. At 20 PSIA exhaust pressure the power density goes to around 6 HP/cuin.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 21, 2006 08:28PM
Andy. It was a joke. I got the Williams running at 11 am on the 21. It runs on 25psi air.
It runs well.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 22, 2006 12:33PM
Hi Andy
the condencer is in the engine block where the bottom of the pistons equilize the preasure. This preasure is 20 psi "absolute" so compression of 27 X 20 is 540psi which reduces the clearance volume lower than the Williams Engine. The cyclone is uniflow. there is no line or throttle losses or cylinder losses and exaust and condencer heat is recycled. We donnot use a boiler as that is for cooking potatos. We call it a heat exchanger as that is what it is . I still call water the fuel for the engine and combustable fuel for the heat exchanger as this where its BTS's are given up and transfered to the engine via the water. Super critiacal is used with a high vortex recycleing flame front to achive the highest generator efficency. The recycled heat calc is 39% (not to be confused with eng eff.)
This is my point of fiew as an inventer, as you have to look at things differently some times to achieve a goal. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat.
good luck Peter and Bill as you seem to have some good ideas donnot let them get you down. Basic steam developement in our field seems to have stagnated.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 22, 2006 05:13PM

Well thanks to something I had started investigating for no particular reason and Andys qwestion I just came up with a modification at the boilers superheater which should add about 5% more efficiency to the cycle. It does involve reheat and two moving parts, so there is no magic but doesn't effect the main engine it'self. Well I guess it does increase the total Hp by 28%.

I'll run it past Peter since he is in the middle of boiler design and needs something to slow him down. LOL

Anyway I think we are starting to see that cats skeleton.

Thanks for the support Harry ----------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 23, 2006 12:31PM
Hi Herry

The Williams engine has an efective 0.00 clearance as it fully compresses the residual steam to inlet pressure. When it over compresses it compansates by letting the clearance increass and/or letting the excess steam flow back into the steam chest. If you are not fully compressing back to inlet pressure then you have clearance losses.

Why does everybody wont to change termanolgy that has been used for over 100 years? Water is the working fluid (not fuel). No one calls hydrolic fluid, fuel!

And sense when do we use compression (or expansion) ratio as pressure ratios. They are and always have been volume ratios. 20 PSIA x 27 = 540 PSIA, 27 is not compression ratio. The ideal gass formuls for isentropic expansion: P1*V1^k = P2*V2^k.

P2/P1 = (V1/v2)^k = 27. V1/V2 = (P2/P1)^(1/k) = 27^1/1.27 = 13.4.

Using k = 1.27 that is a compression ratio of around 13.4. About half what you clamed.

I look at things in different ways to. But that doesn't mean ignoring science. Theodynamics theory has been proven out. It is a well founded science. No problem in looking it things in different ways. It's the essense of invention. But is is also a common banner of scam artists, free energy kooks, snake oil salesmen, etc... Come to think of it. So is switching the meaning of termonology. And Herry, I really don't think you are any of thoes bad types.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 23, 2006 01:29PM
I said it was a point of view. In the inventing process some times you turn things upside down to solve a problem, and that is what I do. I am a profesional inventor and have had my company for 41 years and earned my living off of my inventions and patents. I have 14 original patents pending on the Cyclone engine. I have built steam engines 40 years ago and have patents on ic engine and have built them also.On my own money.I have never ignored physics and have always excelled in the subject. I also do not make efficency claimes without tests. When you build an engine let me Know as I donnot think you are one of those bad types. No problem in spelling thing in different ways.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 24, 2006 12:13AM
Howard: Good deal, running on 15 psi. Shows friction ain't too bad in there. My guess is your engine has the rankine cams in good running order, and engaged for this test?

Andy: Regeneration is a big factor in Harry's system, which really complicates the analysis. Remember the multi-stage regenerative cycle systems you wrote about? Now, imagine if we could get that kind of efficiency in a car. I have an idea on the back burner that is roughly similar in principle to the multi-stage regenerators, but theoretically scalable to a car-sized variable-load system. Want to get my current knuckle-dragger fun design running first. Very interesting calcs on triple-expansion engine size, btw.. Hmmm...

Bill: Great. Just what I need, another slowdown. LOL. Actually the boiler is all blueprinted, need to get burner running well first before building boiler. As with everything else, boiler design will probably change during building and after initial rounds of testing. Your superheater idea sounds interesting.

Harry: Thanks. Not to worry, nothing gets me down. I always end up having a good laugh at the futility of internet negativity. It's just grumpy words on a computer screen, and easily turned off. When I started out in real estate, I ignored 10x worse scare stories & negativity, went ahead, and succeeded. "Impossible" is my speciality. smiling smiley I love a challenge, and designing/building a good steam car is the "funnest" challenge of all. I have various doubts about various ideas & approaches, my own & others', but I never let mere doubts or criticism stop my quest, and most people seem to take the same approach; may their tribe increase.

Good notes on inventing; reverse thinking & unconventional ("crazy"winking smiley brainstorming are part of the creative process, providing the needed subject matter for rigorous analysis & building/testing. Self-funding is the way to go. Investors will just buy in and then say stuff like, hey, build a diesel instead. Like you, I don't make efficiency or other claims. The uncannily smooth, silent, torquey performance, better than gas car mpg, alternative fuel capability, simplicity, low cost, convenience, durability, and other improvements in my upcoming steam car are not claims but merely design goals at present, and always "subject to building and testing", a phrase I use often. Of course, I expect to achieve these goals, otherwise I wouldn't try.

My boiler should be great for baking potatoes; just put 'em under smoke cap and maintain low firing rates to compensate for exhaust flow restriction. Or add some extra cooking space to smoke cap? To get the skins really crisp, though, I might have to downsize the economizer a bit. One hour of leisurely chuffing around town should do it. [Homer Simpson voice] Mmmm, steam car baked potatoes. Add refrigerated sour cream dispenser in cockpit, and a flowerpot of chives on bracket on front fender, and we're in biz. LOL

I think you are on the right track, maximizing regeneration in your system; keep up the good building work and I sincerely wish you good test results and commercial success.


New design pilot light in progress here; also buildability improvement to burner flameholder. Amazing how designs change during building & testing. Busy busy, so I don't have time to keep up with all the discussions here, but sincere best wishes to all.


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 24, 2006 12:50PM
Thanks Peter a good sence of humor is necessary in what we do.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
March 25, 2006 05:29PM
HI Peter. Yes it was running on the ranking cam. It’s really sharp sound. Not like a leaky sternly AC
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
April 08, 2006 07:55PM
HI George. How duds a6 circuit Lamar sound. With helical coils and the steam drum in thcenter coil. And the pump in the drum. And airs preheat er. J.Peos.will help me with the calculations
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 02, 2006 07:06PM
HELP WANTED. Will a sternly guy post and tell me war I can get hi temp packing. Also graphite string packing
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 03, 2006 08:42AM
Hi Howard,
Look in Mcmastercarr book or www.mcmastercarr.com
How is your engine and boiler coming,what about an update.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 04, 2006 07:57PM
HI Harry. The engine runs grate on air I am working on on the green monsters boiler. I did hydro on it and its ok the burner and casing needed works is in mounting it on a Small trailer. It ole fires 20 GU INS per avower. It will give 200 hip it will have to do for the dine o test. It looks like it will be by a major university.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 14, 2006 07:38PM
HI Harry take a look at the model steam hydroplane post. On the Britain’s steam car club. Website
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 15, 2006 02:43PM
isn't it wonderful to see a steam system out perform an ic.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 16, 2006 09:40PM
HI Harry. I wood like to no how many pounds of steam vay are getting per square foot of boiler
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 17, 2006 05:24PM
Hi Howard,
The engine appears to be a uniflow with a bump valve as I can't see any out side valve, correct me if I'm wrong. We are using a rule of thumb of 1sq ft for 1cu in engine displasement. 1/4" tube is 1sq ft for 15 ft so it appears to be close. that thing is all superheater. Amazing little machines.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 17, 2006 10:30PM
Hello Howard,

On the big Williams, how large is the steam pipe going into the steamchest and how big is the steamchest? I am getting into steamchest design as I am finding that my newer valve design is not leaving much volume for the steamchest.

Thank You ---------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
May 18, 2006 08:12PM
HI Bill the pipe is 1 over 2-inch inlet it divides in two pipes. One enters each end of the steam chest. The chest is the top of the hid. We all mead to tacke a good look at the little hideroe.its steam beet in I.C power and vary have been doing it for a long time.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 01, 2006 08:11PM
HI Bill. The Williams yous a flat check valve. 5 Over 8 inches.the boble yous a ball over 8.i hope Vis help
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 02, 2006 12:00AM
Thanks Howard,

The Williams cylinder bore is bigger than my 3 inch bore so a 5/8 inch check valve should work for mine also. I will probably put it into the piston crown as the heads space is pretty taken up already.

Other than for water slugs it shouldn't get much use.

Of course, how often will a boiler put out too much pressure?

Best --------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 04, 2006 09:35PM
HI Bill any boiler will prime wan cold. You will have water in the cylinders check out the Atkinson steam wagon. It haed valve in the Piston
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 25, 2006 03:44PM
Premise: The williams cycle can exceed 100% rankine cycle efficiency. We will define 100% rankine cycle efficiency as the rankine cycle with no losses. The williams cycle therefore can act as the rankine cycle with out losses. The williams cycle does this only at the shortest cut off and the clearance tailored for recompression to inlet pressure. So at longer cut offs the efficiency goes down. This is also the trend with other rankine engines. The “rankine religion” orthodoxy does not allow thinking outside the box. Acceptance that there are ways around the rankine cycle is difficult unless one challenges existing doctrine. Efficiency is the key the modern steam engine. To compete with the modern gas and diesel the efficiency has to be equal or greater, and greater is better. The williams were figuring that their cycle was about 25% greater than the rankine cycle. This would barely put them is a completive situation. Additional ideas such as variable clearance, variable recycled mass, and “zero-cutoff”with proper development could put a steam engine in a competitive position. We need more converts to be thinking alone these lines, if steam is ever going to become a reality.
Progress report
1) green monster boiler: 85% complete, installed on small trailer, with auxiliaries ( this will be the shop boiler to test the
williams engine.)
2) williams engine: assembled and runing on air.
3) testing by a major university is in the discussion phase.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 25, 2006 06:58PM
Hello Howard,

Good to hear of the progress.

The ideal Rankine cycle is based upon the premise of complete expansion to exhaust or condenser pressure. The work produced is the change in enthalpy or H1 -H2. Commonly taken as the maximum Rankine efficiency.

When we have a zero clearance and loss counterflow engine that say does this kind of expansion, then H1 -H2 accounts for the energy transfered into work. The counterflow:
(1)takes in steam with a constant pressure process.
(2)expands the steam isentropically to condenser pressure
(3)exhausts the steam at condenser pressure and pushes it out of the cylinder.

Now enthalpy is composed of two elements; U - the internal energy of the steam and PV a work function as pressure times volume is work. In BTUs then it is U +PV/J.

When run through an engine the constant pressure admition is the PV work, when expanding the change in internal energy is the work done. When exhausting at exhaust pressure the engine does work on the steam PV again. U1+P1V1/J -[U2+P2V2/J] = BTUs of work done.

Notice that the work of pushing the steam out of the cylinder is subtracted from the engine.

Now with a High Compression Unaflow there is an exhaust from the end of expansion pressure down to condenser pressure but there in no work being done in pushing the steam out of the cylinder. There is no way to exhaust a Unaflow if it has expanded down to condenser pressure.

The residual steam is recompressed and the work done in recompressing is returned to the engine. Therefore: U1 +P1V1/J -[U2] = BTUs of work done. The gain over the "ideal" Rankine cycle is then P2V2/J.

Say the Williams is running at 1000 X 1000 and expanding by 27. This will then drop to about 20 psia and 22 ft^3/lb 1186 BTUs. So H1-H2 = 319 BTUs of work per pound.

But the Williams by recompressing isn't pushing the steam out of the cylinder. So say from 20 psia end of expansion the cylinder exhausts to 12 psia and starts recompressing. By not having to push the steam out at 12 psia the engine is gaining work to the tune of 48 BTU/lbm. If stuff were calculated from the end of expansion pressure then 81 BTU/lbm.

Now 81/319 = .25 and 48/319 = .15, a 15 -25% efficiency increase over a comparable counterflow or "ideal" Rankine cycle depending how one figures it. Not too shabby.

So I believe that the efficiency gain is not comming from the amount of residual steam but the fact that the engine doesn't have to work to push the steam out of the cylinder.

Not to brag, Howard but my engine should do all that the Williams claims in short cutoff when at full bore. 27 is my minimum expansion ratio.

There ain't no box.

Best of times ------------ Bill G.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 25, 2006 08:43PM
V HI BILL: what is the estimated efficiency of your engine? The Williams has a 16 to 1 expansion ratio.C.C.W.williams spent 35yr.to develope the the engine.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 25, 2006 10:14PM
Hello Howard,

Without any other cycles, just the compound unaflow, the design goal is 30% minus boiler. That is allowing some inefficiency of expansion and compression. Some of it is still under consideration as I have been working on the inlet valving but the thermo looks solid.

Good valving is not easy and it much influences the dynamics of the engine so I will have to go through it all again soon. Again that efficiency is at full throttle. It goes up some from there.

Howard I am moving faster than Williams because I am not working alone nor in a vacuum. I may not always agree but I pay a lot of attention to what people are saying, it all gets considered. Even that guy steamers.org while I couldn't stand the blaming and abusive way he was communicating I heard that the valving has to be ample. My effective valve opening is 4 1/2 times the big Williams per cylinder, that is if I got the dimentions of the Williams valve correct.

Without the Phorum, SACA, and the people I've met here I might still be working on my rotary engine. Thanks to Jim Crank and some comments from some others I dumped that after two weeks. They had already been down that road.

There will be a modern steam car.

Best ---------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 26, 2006 11:57AM
Hi Bill and Howard.

A Rankine cycle is not just full expansion. I don't know the details of when they stoped describing all the Rankine cycles. I have an old book. It describes 3 diferent rankine cycle (actuall six, more on that later) The three types of Rankine cycles are:

Full expansion.

Partial (or incomplete) expansion.


Engine efficiency is the the actuall engine's mesured efficiency compared to it's eqlivant cycle above. If you have a partial expansion engine you compare it against an equilivant partial expansion cycle.

All of the above however are zero clearance non-compression cycles.

Clearance can be a very big loss or verry small depending on the amount of expansion. As you increase the expansion ratio (by shorter cutoff) the clearance losses increase. It simply a mater of the relation of volume of steam at cutoff to the clearance volume.

No one can debate that compression eliminates clearance loss. But getting efficiency better efficiency then the full expansion cycle is very very doubtful.

I have used several methods to calculate the enthalpy of the residual steam at the point compression begins. And no mater the enthalpy calculating method the efficiency of any compression cycle never will exceed that of the full expansion cycle. But again going back to the old method of comparing an engine against an equilivant cycle. The high compression cycle efficiency will equal or exceed the zero clearance cycle depending on the enthalpy of the residual steam. The question of how to calculate the residual enthapy is the problem. On the one hand some believe that it should be as if it had isentropicly exanded all the way down. Even though part of that expansion did no work. I don't believe and there is evidense that it has greater heat content then isentropic expansion would indicate. We see that in the uniflow temperature traces that Peter posted. It shows the compression temperature going above the inlet steams temperature. A sure indication the compression started with higher enthalpy then fully isentropicly expanded steam. Doing the pressure drop at the exhaust open to be a non-work isoenthalp does not work corectly as the energy does not balance out. I.I. energy in is not equal to the work output plus the energy out the exhaust. But how ever the temperature gain looks about right compared to the uniflow data.

At any rate Howard the full expansion compression cycle will not be more efficient then a zero clearance full expansion cycle. A full expansion cycle with full compression to inlet pressure will have the same efficiency as the full expansion zero clearance cycle. Both are constant entropy cycles.

In my books the uniflow is classed as a Rankine cycle even though it ignores compression. It acknolages compression in that cycle but chooeses to ignore it in cycle calculations for simplicity. The Williams engine is just a uniflow engine with some variable clearance. So it is running a Rankine cycle.

There are efficiency gaines to be made with heat recovery and higher expansion ratio. Multi-stage high compression engines. Compression is not limited to uniflow engines. In fact the gain in efficiency observed in uniflow engines coiensides with calculated efficiency gaines fo high compression cycles. Which leads me to question the reasioning of the uniflows good efficiency (which some times is better then the equilivent zero clearance Rankine cycle) to be the ellimination of the alternat heating and cooling of the steam ports. Even with seperate ports the non-comprssion counter flow engine does not come up to the efficiency of the uniflow engine.

The six basic Rankine cycles described in my book are the three types again split into engine cycles and full cycles. These two splits are basicly the same except the full cycle includes boiler and engine while the engine cycle uses a set 180 degree feed water temp and atmospheric exhaust pressure.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 26, 2006 05:45PM
No matter how you slice it, the Williams engine used the Rankine cycle, so thinking that it can exceed the theoretical maximum is simply dreaming.
The only thing that the Williams had, was the ability to match compression pressure to the incoming valve chest pressure. Tom Kimmel's photos showed that, and how they did it.

All the things you mention are just variables on the basic Rankine cycle, altering the parameters inside of which the engine goes through it's operating cycles.

In my library, I have good engineering books that do treat the reciprocating engine in great detail.
Some mention high compression, unaflow exhaust, minimum clearance, heat losses from initial condensation and re-evaporation, losses from high clearance and gains to be had from minimum clearance, even variable clearance over 90 years ago, and everthing else one can possibly think of. Plus how to include them when calculating the engine's efficiency.
There just is nothing new that has not been thought of long ago, when the introduction of turbines spelled the death of reciprocating engines.

The only thing that matters, is to eliminate every possible loss in all departments.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 27, 2006 10:26AM
Hi Jim.

Glad you got my point. The Williams engine ran on the Rankine cycle. But the thing is, and maybe you book might have the answer: How is the residual steam properties calculated? What process is the pressure drop when the exhaust opens. Jerry in his paper treated it as isoenthalp (constant enthalpy). Ted says it should be isentropic. I do not think either of thoes processes is correct. Isoenthallp does not agree with the conservation of energy Neither does isentropic. That law is (in this context) that the exhaust must contain the energy that is not converted into work. But just maybe constant pressure work is a motor process as that work was done in the boiler (it is the work produced by the phase change volume change) and transmited to the motor "hydrolic". What I do know is that from the temperature chart Peter H. posted and the fact that the williams does better then it's equilivant zero clearance cycle. The residual steam enthalpy is greater then if it expanded isentropicly. Now don't take that to meane that the Williams ever does better then a full expansion Rankine cycle. With a full expansion - compression cycle the entropy is constant, Admission is at a constant steam state. It expandes to exhaust pressure along a constant entropy and sense it is at exhaust pressure there is no property changes during exhaust and entropy remains the same so upon compression to inlet pressure along that entropy line it's state is the same as the inlet steam. You have simply eliminated the clearance loss. It is the partial expansion cycle that is of interest. At the end of expansion the pressure drops. And the enthalpy during a free expansion does not follow a constant entropy line. There is no (or verry very little) work done by the free expansion to exhaust pressure. The enthalpy is greater then if it expanded isentropicly and upon compression to inlet pressure it's heat content is greater then the incomming steam. The increased heat content of the mixture(at cutoff) means that you expand along a line of higher entropy then the inlet steams would have alone. The expansion does a bit more work. And of course the end of expansion state is different that if just inlet steam were expanded. That in turn effects the residual steam properties. Calculating a partial expansion compression cycle has a catch 22. It is circular dependent. Calculating such a cycle by hand is an auful lot of work. My cycle calulator loops through the cycle calculation many many times to come up with a repeating compression cycle where all points are stable to some degree. It loops thousands of times calculating the steam points to 5 duguts. Every time you do the mix calculation of the residual and inlet steam to get the cutoff state and it is different then the last time the end of expansion will be different and thus the residual state will be different and thus the mix at cutoff.

My old books goes into compresion also. But not on an analetical level. It is just talked about. But also when thoes old books were wrtten and reciprocating engines were in common use the high pressures we are using in automobiles were not common. The old books I have covering reciprocating engines considered 300 PSIA to be high pressure. Except for uniflow engines very short cutoffs were not common. The gain from compression is insignificant at thoes low pressures and long cutoff. It is when the cutoff aproaches the clearance that compression gains become significant. With 5% clearance and 5% cutoff you have close to a 50/50 mix of resdual steam and fresh inlet steam. The heat content of the residual steam is close to, or greater, then half the heat content at cutoff. But at 20% cutoff the residual steam acounts for 1/5 the total heat content at cutoff. And this is a circular process. The heat content at cutoff directly effects the heat content of the residual steam.

No mater how you figure the heat content of residual steam (constant enthalpy process, constant entropy process or some were in between). A compression never gets better efficiency then the zero clearance full expansion cycle. But it can do better then it equilivant partial expansion cycle. Even in my old book they say that a Uniflow engine some times does better then it's (equilavent zero clearance) Rankine cycle. In my old books they always compare an engine to it's equilavant Rankine cycle. As you say the cycle parameters are the same. They use the equilavant expansion ratio cycle as the yard stick to compare engine efficiency.

One other thing is that in the book's analysis of cycles. They are not including any heat recovery devices. When you are recovering some of that wast heat it should be possable to achieve a little better efficiency. Possably do better then the cycle. But to be fair if your cycle models your system the ideal cycle should always do better then the real engine.

Anyway: I would like to know how your book calculated the residual steam properties. How do the calculate a compression cycle?

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
June 27, 2006 04:06PM
Hi Andy,
How are the compression cycles computed in relation to RPM we found this to be a factor as the compression was raised as it was increased ie a modern ic engine with high compression won't run below 600rpm. The Williams also added this feature of a higher rpm engine. The Cyclone raises it's compression as rpm is increased and at starting and lower rpm it dumps its clearance into a reheater. This has shown up in tests and appears to be over looked.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

All files from this thread

File Name File Size   Posted by Date  
ThrottlingTurnDown.pdf 58.1 KB open | download Andy 11/22/2005 Read message
ThrottlingTurnDown.pdf 62.3 KB open | download Andy 11/22/2005 Read message
hydro.jpg 123.5 KB open | download HLS 02/14/2006 Read message
P1010001aa.JPG 113.5 KB open | download Rolly 03/09/2006 Read message
P1010003aa.JPG 66.8 KB open | download Rolly 03/09/2006 Read message
P1010002aa.JPG 65.3 KB open | download Rolly 03/09/2006 Read message
SingleExpansion Vs Co.pdf 111.7 KB open | download Andy 03/10/2006 Read message
SingleExpansion Vs Co.pdf 111.6 KB open | download Andy 03/13/2006 Read message
HLS Vs Compound size.pdf 112.1 KB open | download Andy 03/13/2006 Read message
HLS Vs Compound =PD.pdf 111.7 KB open | download Andy 03/13/2006 Read message
HLS engine.pdf 64.8 KB open | download Andy 03/14/2006 Read message
HLS engine.pdf 73.6 KB open | download Andy 03/15/2006 Read message
Rankin.pdf 171.9 KB open | download Andy 03/15/2006 Read message
HLS engine.pdf 74.6 KB open | download Andy 03/15/2006 Read message
Endiing temp 850.pdf 28.2 KB open | download Andy 10/02/2006 Read message
Endiing temp X27.pdf 28.1 KB open | download Andy 10/02/2006 Read message
Fickett.JPG 66.9 KB open | download frustrated 10/05/2006 Read message
Over Expansion 1.pdf 24.2 KB open | download Andy 10/24/2006 Read message
FlowSpeed.pdf 23.7 KB open | download Andy 11/14/2006 Read message
Material.pdf 16.9 KB open | download Rolly 11/20/2006 Read message
white cliffs project engine.jpg 499.8 KB open | download grblake 06/30/2007 Read message
SV pickup.jpg 81 KB open | download Rolly 07/05/2007 Read message
112908ab.jpg 82.3 KB open | download Jeremy Holmes 11/29/2008 Read message
112908b1.jpg 87.6 KB open | download Jeremy Holmes 11/29/2008 Read message
Dieter engine.pdf 294.8 KB open | download Rolly 11/30/2008 Read message
Bryan Tractor.JPG 108 KB open | download Rolly 12/01/2008 Read message
Bryan Engine photos.jpg 84.6 KB open | download Rolly 12/01/2008 Read message
p1010002aa.jpg 36.4 KB open | download Rolly 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor1.jpg 136.6 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor2.jpg 111.8 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
Tractor3.jpg 137.9 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor4.jpg 159.5 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor5.jpg 113.6 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor6.jpg 98.1 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
071709a.jpg 77.4 KB open | download Jeremy Holmes 07/16/2009 Read message