If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:15:15 -0700 (PDT), bildan
wrote: On May 20, 10:27Â*am, cavelamb wrote: bildan wrote: On May 20, 2:01 am, Dancing Fingers wrote: Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to use a Honda Goldwing engine. Â*Did that ever come to fruition? I've not heard of it. Actually, the cylinders, pistons, rods and crank from the Honda 1800cc Valkyrie flat-6 combined with a aircraft style case would hit the spot for fans of smaller airplanes. Â*However, it would still need a PSRU. something like 260 pounds for 80 hp? I wouldn't think so. The crank is light enough to use as a dumbbell and that's heavier than the cylinder blocks. Just guessing of course, but I'd say 180 lbs for 100HP which is better than an O-200. They ARE heavy because the trans is integral - and the trans does not handle the prop as a PSRU. One I am aware of lost the gears in several hours of flying. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
On May 21, 5:21 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote: my docs say "rated horsepower" which makes me think that there is a calculation used to derive the figure not an actual 2750rpm measurement. the 74hp at 2500 rpm seems to be measured. They normally take a brake horsepower reading, with the engine at redline RPM and full throttle. Torque times RPM times 6.28 divided by 33,000 gives HP. BUT: The O-200 makes its 100 hp at 2750. The C-90 its 90 hp at 2475. Everyone knows that drag increases by the square of the increase in speed, so the O-200's prop theoretically has 19% more drag than the C-90's. The C-150's prop is narrower and I think a bit shorter than the prop on the Aircoupe I flew with its C-90, so its drag might be a bit less to start with, but overall the losses will still be higher at 2750. So adding RPM to gain hp is a poor way to go. That's why PSRUs are better than direct-driving a tiny prop at 4000 RPM. And it's also why a 110-hp Corvair, if it's running at 3300 or some such RPM, isn't going to outdo an O-200. Dan |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
40 hp engine (was: what engines are making successful aero engineconversions?)
Bob schreef:
I think the topic (40hp engine) is of sufficient interest internationally to justify some form of permanent address on the internet. The problem is only going to become worse. Well here goes for what it's worth: a certain Mr. Doutard from France fitted a reduction to the 2-cylinder Citroen Visa car engine. Unfortunately he passed away some 6 year ago and I could no trace of a follow-up. The idea seems excellent though. Actually there is one such engine in my car right now but of course it is not on offer. The guy in France from whom I got it had heard rumours of some Italian doing much the same thing, with the extra addition of a turbo-charger. That seems a bit weird on a 2-cylinder boxer... Who knows more? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Zero time Aero Vee / Monnett engine | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 30th 05 06:02 AM |