Flying on the Cheap - Wood

wrote:
wrote:

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Respectfully, I was comparing the Honda engine with the Toyota
engine.

... But it has nothing to do with airplanes. ...

That depends on whether or not either one is any good for
airplanes. Which as you point out, is probably not the case.

But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

--

FF

wrote:

But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

Back in the 70's there was a Honda car TV commercial that featured an
airplane builder that loved his Honda car so much, he powered his plane
with the same engine. It shouldn't be that hard to find out what
happened to that plane.

Tony

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I remember getting 50 mpg while cruising at 60 mph in my 1300cc
Civic with the CVCC engine turning about 500 rpm slower than
my brother's Toyota Corolla. So I think it was a damn fine
fuel efficient high torque at low rpm engine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Respectfully, I was comparing the Honda engine with the Toyota
engine.

... But it has nothing to do with airplanes. ...

That depends on whether or not either one is any good for
airplanes. Which as you point out, is probably not the case.

He has NO IDEA whether or not Honda car engines would be good or bad
for airplanes. The hardcore DIY converters seem to be much more
interested in the Suzuki/Geo engines, but that doesn't mean the Hondas
would be bad. I have no idea what Honda engines weigh, which since they
have a superior reliability record even in markets like Germany where
people run them WOT for a long time (and since they are used as
outboard powerheads at power settings equal or higher than in the cars,
again with apparently superb reliability) would probably be the main
factor. Of course, most any car engine is going to outperform a
Lycoming today in terms of engine life at WOT. The Lycoming is a 1930s
farm tractor engine built using WWI split crankcase, bolt on cylinder
technology and belongs, really, in a museum. If it were really so great
it would find many other uses besides aircraft. The military used them
in generators and lifeboats and found they were cantankerous and
troublesome and sensibly got rid of them. If only they had reefaged
them instead of selling them surplus they would have done Experimental
aviation a great favor.


But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

The CVCC was a low intensity (vis-a-vis Ford PROCO, for example)
stratified charge system designed primarily for emissions compliance
without using catalytic converters, which were very expensive to
maufacture and required unleaded gas which sold at a premium back then.
(I'm old enough to remember the days of "punching" catalysts and filler
restrictors to burn leaded gas at considerable savings-and satisfaction
of F'ing the EPA, which we hated.) Since aircraft engines are not
emissions controlled and unleaded gas is a lot cheaper than avgas, the
advantage is nonexistent.

CVCC was pretty troublesome, to be honest, and there were a fair
number of people who converted their CVCC Hondas to the Canadian
non-CVCC head and carb at some point in the car's lifecycle,
particularly in areas where the cars didn't rust but which were outside
emissions inspection areas-of course, most garages couldn't tell the
difference anyway.

Here is what a Honda engine can do in an airplane:

http://www.firewall.ca/cam100.htm


Hope this helps

J.P.

He has NO IDEA whether or not Honda car engines would be good or bad
for airplanes. The hardcore DIY converters seem to be much more
interested in the Suzuki/Geo engines, but that doesn't mean the Hondas
would be bad. I have no idea what Honda engines weigh, which since they
have a superior reliability record even in markets like Germany where
people run them WOT for a long time (and since they are used as
outboard powerheads at power settings equal or higher than in the cars,
again with apparently superb reliability) would probably be the main
factor. Of course, most any car engine is going to outperform a
Lycoming today in terms of engine life at WOT. The Lycoming is a 1930s
farm tractor engine built using WWI split crankcase, bolt on cylinder
technology and belongs, really, in a museum. If it were really so great
it would find many other uses besides aircraft. The military used them
in generators and lifeboats and found they were cantankerous and
troublesome and sensibly got rid of them. If only they had reefaged
them instead of selling them surplus they would have done Experimental
aviation a great favor.


But I still wonder if the CVCC combustion system would be
good for an airplane engine.

The CVCC was a low intensity (vis-a-vis Ford PROCO, for example)
stratified charge system designed primarily for emissions compliance
without using catalytic converters, which were very expensive to
maufacture and required unleaded gas which sold at a premium back then.
(I'm old enough to remember the days of "punching" catalysts and filler
restrictors to burn leaded gas at considerable savings-and satisfaction
of F'ing the EPA, which we hated.) Since aircraft engines are not
emissions controlled and unleaded gas is a lot cheaper than avgas, the
advantage is nonexistent.

CVCC was pretty troublesome, to be honest, and there were a fair
number of people who converted their CVCC Hondas to the Canadian
non-CVCC head and carb at some point in the car's lifecycle,
particularly in areas where the cars didn't rust but which were outside
emissions inspection areas-of course, most garages couldn't tell the
difference anyway.

Here is what a Honda engine can do in an airplane:

http://www.firewall.ca/cam100.htm


Hope this helps

J.P.

I can offer no opinion regarding the longevity at comparable power loadings.
But, they do seem to be honest about the weight comparison.

Peter