Engine Sizing and Selection

[Toks Desalu]

I am in process of searching for an engine.....well two engines. I am
looking at approimately 100 to 120 horsepower engine each. I am sure that
most people would strongly recommend a reputed aircraft engines. However, I
do not want to limit myself to it. I wanted to see everything before I can
make my decision. Of course, the lighter the engine is, the better. Please
feel free to suggest anything to me. I think I just completed my research on
reputed aircraft engines. I might miss something, so don't hesitate to
mention anything that I might miss. I am currently looking and studying the
rotary engines. Any input about it? Any website about it? Is there any
converted auto engines with horsepower that I am looking for? I will get
into auto research later on, but feel free to talk about it. I will keep all
the posts to my hard drive. Anything related to engines, you better speak
out!!!!!

Toks Desalu
PP-SEL
Dyin' to fly!

[[email protected]]

Take a look at the BMW R1100S conversion, there are hundreds running
in Europe made by a German company called Takeoff Gmbh. Takeoff will
sell you just the redrive or the entire engine and exhaust, ready to
bolt on. The complete engine is about $8000, is rated at 100
horsepower, and uses a brand new BMW engine with dual ignition, etc.
That's a heck of an alternative to an O-200 when you consider that it
is 20 lbs lighter and includes Motronic engine management. The
Takeoff parts are beautiful. This is much more than bolting a Rotax C
gearbox on a motorcycle engine. What I want to do is take that engine
and put an RB RAcing turbo system on it. Balancing fuel requirements
and the strength of the gearbox, 115-120 horsepower is about all I can
ask for without adding supplemental fuel, but the RB turbo system will
maintain that power all the way to 30,000 feet with the help of an HKS
boost controller.


On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 04:43:52 GMT, "Toks Desalu"
> wrote:

:I am in process of searching for an engine.....well two engines. I am
:looking at approimately 100 to 120 horsepower engine each. I am sure that
:most people would strongly recommend a reputed aircraft engines. However, I
:do not want to limit myself to it. I wanted to see everything before I can
:make my decision. Of course, the lighter the engine is, the better. Please
:feel free to suggest anything to me. I think I just completed my research on
:reputed aircraft engines. I might miss something, so don't hesitate to
:mention anything that I might miss. I am currently looking and studying the
:rotary engines. Any input about it? Any website about it? Is there any
:converted auto engines with horsepower that I am looking for? I will get
:into auto research later on, but feel free to talk about it. I will keep all
:the posts to my hard drive. Anything related to engines, you better speak
:out!!!!!
:
:Toks Desalu
:PP-SEL
:Dyin' to fly!
:
:

[G. A. Loeffler]

http://www.takeoff-ul.de/Motoren/motoren.html

one of my favourite choices, you may also view the August 2003 page of my
website
http://www.loeff.de/Eingangsseite.html (sorry for the bad English)

-loef


"karel adams" > wrote in message
...
>
> > schreef in bericht
> ...
> > Take a look at the BMW R1100S conversion, there are hundreds running
> > in Europe made by a German company called Takeoff Gmbh.
>
> do you have any URL?
> my friend google did not enlighten me
>
>

[Paul Lee]

Jabiru makes a 120hp aircraft engine - Jabiru 3300A - $13,000 brand new.
http://www.usjabiru.com/
It includes accessories: Starter, Exhaust, Ram Air Ducts,
Voltage Regulator, Oil Cooler, Alternator, Voltage Regulator, Rubber Mount
Bushings, Prop Guides, Mounting Hardware.

"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message news:<cMlob.52374$ao4.144039@attbi_s51>...
> I am in process of searching for an engine.....well two engines. I am
> looking at approimately 100 to 120 horsepower engine each. I am sure that
> most people would strongly recommend a reputed aircraft engines. However, I
> do not want to limit myself to it. I wanted to see everything before I can
> make my decision. Of course, the lighter the engine is, the better. Please
> feel free to suggest anything to me. I think I just completed my research on
> reputed aircraft engines. I might miss something, so don't hesitate to
> mention anything that I might miss. I am currently looking and studying the
> rotary engines. Any input about it? Any website about it? Is there any
> converted auto engines with horsepower that I am looking for? I will get
> into auto research later on, but feel free to talk about it. I will keep all
> the posts to my hard drive. Anything related to engines, you better speak
> out!!!!!
>
> Toks Desalu
> PP-SEL
> Dyin' to fly!

[Big John]

Karel

Hold on to your Google with both hands.

Note on Drudge today indicates that Microsoft is thinking about buying
Google :o(

Big John


On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:01:24 -0000, "karel adams"
> wrote:

>
> schreef in bericht
...
>> Take a look at the BMW R1100S conversion, there are hundreds running
>> in Europe made by a German company called Takeoff Gmbh.
>
>do you have any URL?
>my friend google did not enlighten me
>

[Jay]

Since you are using 2 engines, you are in a different position from
the typical experimental aero application as far as the reliability of
each individual componant, and the composite reliability of the system
as a whole. You haven't shared the particular engine configuration
you're planning (e.g. push-pull vs. left right) but the use of two
engines brings additional challenges and opportunities.

Opportunities:
Single ignition motors
Operation at high average outputs
Use of 2 stroke power plants.

Since you have 2 engines, you essentially have redundant everything,
completely decoupled. Real about my twin engine pitch at:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
pair, its down right usuable.

Please share your engine configuration with the group.

Rotary- IMHO great possibilites, sports car engine- high power/weight
ratio for a conversion, fail soft operation (will not seize), 2
plugs/cylinder by default.

[nuke]

Here are some engine related web pages I've collected. Hope they're of some
use.
nuke

collections of links
http://www.aviator.cc/engines.html
http://www.homebuilt.org/vendors/powerplants/powerplants.html
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~fortuned/homeb.html
http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/avlinks/engines.htm
http://www.homebuilt.org/vendors/powerplants/powerplants.html

individual vendor pages
Mazda-based
http://www.atkinsrotary.com/
http://powersportaviation.com/
diesels
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
http://www.smaengines.com/en/index_en.shtml
http://www.zoche.de/
Subaru-based
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/
http://www.crossflow.com/crossflow.html
others
http://franklinengines.com/index.cfm
http://www.jabiru.net.au/engines/enginesin.html
http://www.kodiakbs.com/
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/
http://www.tcmlink.com/
"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:cMlob.52374$ao4.144039@attbi_s51...
> I am in process of searching for an engine.....well two engines. I am
> looking at approimately 100 to 120 horsepower engine each. I am sure that
> most people would strongly recommend a reputed aircraft engines. However,
I
> do not want to limit myself to it. I wanted to see everything before I
can
> make my decision. Of course, the lighter the engine is, the better. Please
> feel free to suggest anything to me. I think I just completed my research
on
> reputed aircraft engines. I might miss something, so don't hesitate to
> mention anything that I might miss. I am currently looking and studying
the
> rotary engines. Any input about it? Any website about it? Is there any
> converted auto engines with horsepower that I am looking for? I will get
> into auto research later on, but feel free to talk about it. I will keep
all
> the posts to my hard drive. Anything related to engines, you better speak
> out!!!!!
>
> Toks Desalu
> PP-SEL
> Dyin' to fly!
>
>
>

[AlwaysLearning]

Before you look into the many auto and motorcycle conversions, with
their "shell game" of horsepower claims, take a look into a couple of
certified aircraft engines you can buy for similar costs, with much
greater simplicity and ease of installation. I'm assuming you're in
Europe, so my two choices there would be a)PZL Franklin O-235, and
b)Moravia LOM inline, (I forget the designation.) Both engines have
been around forever, and you can buy a factory remanufactured engine
in either one for under 10K, unless prices have gone up, lately. And
both engines have accessories, engine mounts, etc., that were
designed, or can be easily fabricated/duplicated from a certified
aircraft.

[Toks Desalu]

Nah-
I am in good ol' America!

Toks

[Barnyard BOb --]

(Jay) wrote:


>There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
>Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
>single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
>pair, its down right usuable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dictionary.com

DOWNRIGHT = Thoroughgoing; unequivocal
USUABLE = ????

DOWNRIGHT useable -- to you, Fearless Fosdick....
in the safety of your padded cell and rarefied atmosphere.

DOWN HEREon planet earth....
Multi-engine LIABILITY is what it's called by
most experienced pilots that walk the walk.

BULL**** FLAG set for "double trouble".


Barnyard BOb -- multi-engine rated since 1969

[Morgans]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> (Jay) wrote:
>
>
> >There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
> >Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
> >single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
> >pair, its down right usuable.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Dictionary.com
>
> DOWNRIGHT = Thoroughgoing; unequivocal
> USUABLE = ????
>
> DOWNRIGHT useable -- to you, Fearless Fosdick....
> in the safety of your padded cell and rarefied atmosphere.
>
> DOWN HEREon planet earth....
> Multi-engine LIABILITY is what it's called by
> most experienced pilots that walk the walk.
>
> BULL**** FLAG set for "double trouble".
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- multi-engine rated since 1969

Finally, something we both agree on. The only thing I have seen, not in
operable condition more than a Ford, is...
a two cycle rotexx.

Friends don't let friends fly two cycles.
--
Jim in NC

[Toks Desalu]

you are right.

I am looking at a simple conventional, left-right engine high-wing aircraft,
that will carry two people.

By the way, nice concept.

"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> Since you are using 2 engines, you are in a different position from
> the typical experimental aero application as far as the reliability of
> each individual componant, and the composite reliability of the system
> as a whole. You haven't shared the particular engine configuration
> you're planning (e.g. push-pull vs. left right) but the use of two
> engines brings additional challenges and opportunities.
>
> Opportunities:
> Single ignition motors
> Operation at high average outputs
> Use of 2 stroke power plants.
>
> Since you have 2 engines, you essentially have redundant everything,
> completely decoupled. Real about my twin engine pitch at:
>
> http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html
>
> There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
> Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
> single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
> pair, its down right usuable.
>
> Please share your engine configuration with the group.
>
> Rotary- IMHO great possibilites, sports car engine- high power/weight
> ratio for a conversion, fail soft operation (will not seize), 2
> plugs/cylinder by default.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:23:04 -0600, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
> (Jay) wrote:
>
>
>>There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
>>Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
>>single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
>>pair, its down right usuable.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Dictionary.com
>
> DOWNRIGHT = Thoroughgoing; unequivocal
> USUABLE = ????
>
>DOWNRIGHT useable -- to you, Fearless Fosdick....
>in the safety of your padded cell and rarefied atmosphere.
>
>DOWN HEREon planet earth....
>Multi-engine LIABILITY is what it's called by
>most experienced pilots that walk the walk.
>
>BULL**** FLAG set for "double trouble".
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- multi-engine rated since 1969

Didn't we go through this discussion talking about inline twins.

A twin powered by two unreliable engines is just an underpowered
single waiting to happen.

--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[Barnyard BOb --]

Dillon Pyron > wrote:

>>>There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
>>>Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
>>>single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
>>>pair, its down right usuable.

>
>Didn't we go through this discussion talking about inline twins.

Yep.

>A twin powered by two unreliable engines is just an underpowered
>single waiting to happen.

In my real life flying experience...
Hardly that good, Dillon. 8-(

Wannabees love to dabble in 'loser concepts' since all it takes
is napkin, pen and an audience. It's the 'visions of grandeur'
thing and the Internet that keeps them keep hammering away.
If a whacky scheme is presented often enough, maybe, it can
somehow magically becomes legitimate? You know...
through the magic of 'new technology', ad nauseum.

It's new moon time.
Can hardly wait for the full moon phase.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Jay]

Thanks for the positive feedback on my concept plane. That sounds
like you're doing something new too. Have you decided on a pair of
pushers or pullers? Have you modeled it yet? You're looking at
200-240 HP to carry 2 butts in the air, that sounds like you're after
some performance and SE possibilities.

Regards

"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message news:<dTGob.74373$Tr4.196556@attbi_s03>...
> you are right.
>
> I am looking at a simple conventional, left-right engine high-wing aircraft,
> that will carry two people.
>
> By the way, nice concept.
>
> "Jay" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Since you are using 2 engines, you are in a different position from
> > the typical experimental aero application as far as the reliability of
> > each individual componant, and the composite reliability of the system
> > as a whole. You haven't shared the particular engine configuration
> > you're planning (e.g. push-pull vs. left right) but the use of two
> > engines brings additional challenges and opportunities.
> >
> > Opportunities:
> > Single ignition motors
> > Operation at high average outputs
> > Use of 2 stroke power plants.
> >
> > Since you have 2 engines, you essentially have redundant everything,
> > completely decoupled. Real about my twin engine pitch at:
> >
> > http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html
> >
> > There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
> > Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
> > single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
> > pair, its down right usuable.
> >
> > Please share your engine configuration with the group.
> >
> > Rotary- IMHO great possibilites, sports car engine- high power/weight
> > ratio for a conversion, fail soft operation (will not seize), 2
> > plugs/cylinder by default.

[Big John]

BOb

Three touch and goes in right seat of SNB in 1965. Sign'd off as an
Instructor Pilot.

The Navy sure did things different <G>

Big John


On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:23:04 -0600, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

----clip----

Barnyard BOb -- multi-engine rated since 1969

[Toks Desalu]

Puller, Jay.
I have the rough draft, but I haven't layout the design yet. That should
come up later. I am just following the book, step by step on designing an
aircraft. In my theory, I am concerned about two things. If I design the
aircraft for high performance, there is a possible that it could pose weight
and balance problem. In another word, if i design to satisfy the weight and
balance, the aircraft could produce high drag. My theory could be wrong, but
I am sure that I will figure it out later. For now, I am looking at various
engines and decide which one.

[Toks Desalu]

Thanks, Nuke.
I have already cover most of them, but I haven't seen the rest. So,
thanks!
Toks

[David O]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>It's new moon time.
>Can hardly wait for the full moon phase.

On the planet earth, the new moon was a week ago. If your new moon
was yesterday, it could begin to explain much.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>It's new moon time.
>>Can hardly wait for the full moon phase.
>
>On the planet earth, the new moon was a week ago. If your new moon
>was yesterday, it could begin to explain much.
>
>David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although my new moon really wasn't yesterday....
It's was close enough for the intended purpose.
Your response could begin to explain much, too. <g>

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Barnyard BOb -- says...

>Although my new moon really wasn't yesterday....
>It's was close enough for the intended purpose.
>Your response could begin to explain much, too. <g>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

Hey Unka Bob
We didn't have a new Moon this year in our parts I think it's the Solar storms
in my neighborhood. Gravity is less too since my plane flys better since it got
cold...

Chuck (I looked in the mirror and saw my moon was sagging)S

[David O]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>Although my new moon really wasn't yesterday....
>It's was close enough for the intended purpose.
>Your response could begin to explain much, too. <g>

I have been told that I defy explanation. As for the moon, however,
on my planet, Earth, the moon was closer to full than new yesterday.
A full moon and a total lunar eclipse will occur this coming weekend.
I expect that some barnyard animals might become especially agitated
during this period. :)

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.html

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:
>
>>Although my new moon really wasn't yesterday....
>>It's was close enough for the intended purpose.
>>Your response could begin to explain much, too. <g>
>
>I have been told that I defy explanation. As for the moon, however,
>on my planet, Earth, the moon was closer to full than new yesterday.
>A full moon and a total lunar eclipse will occur this coming weekend.
>I expect that some barnyard animals might become especially agitated
>during this period. :)
>
>http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.html
>
>David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Didn't know about the upcoming eclipse.

As usual, you are unpredictable
while always informative. {8-D

Agitatingly yours,
Barnyard BOb ---

[Rob Turk]

"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:mnGob.73419$HS4.639796@attbi_s01...
> Nah-
> I am in good ol' America!
>
> Toks
>

If you don't mind using engines from good ol' down under, then Jabiru is an
excellent choise. 120HP at 83Kg (~170lbs), well constructed and well
supported by two very active dealers in the US. Check out the Jabiru engines
forum on http://groups.yahoo.com to learn more about real-life experiences
with these.

Rob

[Jay]

Dillon Pyron > wrote in message
> A twin powered by two unreliable engines is just an underpowered
> single waiting to happen.

And when that happens, you land and get it fixed. But in the mean
time you have an aircraft well powered by a pair of engines with power
to weight ratios difficult to match at a cost within the reach of the
working man, with a composite reliability that exceeds a single 4
stroke.

It's true that the lone 2 stroke engine is typically paired with
aircraft that land off field as matter of course (golf) or can put
down pretty much anywhere when there is a failure (powered parachute).
But there are applications where weight is of paramount importance
(Hey, isn't that every airplane?) like ultralights. So thats the idea
of the dual system. and of course less engine weight means, less
airframe structure required to support it, less power required to
lift, and less wing to support all that, and less fuel to push all
that, etc...

BTW, Isn't that RV-4 with the 13B in it sweet looking?
http://powersportaviation.com/images/Engines/Airplane2.jpg
Getting rid of those cheeks really cleans things up. The RV-6 doesn't
seem like such a great fit since Vans already made the frontal area
large in anticipation of the opposed cylinder engine.

[Barnyard BOb --]

(Jay) wrote:

>Dillon Pyron > wrote in message
>> A twin powered by two unreliable engines is just an underpowered
>> single waiting to happen.
>
>And when that happens, you land and get it fixed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How utterly frigging cavalier and delirious can one get?
Tell of your real life experiences at this sort of thing.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Big John]

Dillon

The J-79 in the F-104 was great when it ran and a piece of crap when
it didn't which it didn't on numerous occasions.

They put a pair of them in the F-4 and every one knows how that bird
performed.

Big John

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:02:24 GMT, Dillon Pyron >
wrote:

----dlip----


There are very high output 2 stroke motors available around 1hp/lb.
Mainly adapted from snow mobile (Rotax) applications. Used as a
single, the realibility is below what most people desire, but as a
pair, its down right usuable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BOb

----clip----

A twin powered by two unreliable engines is just an underpowered
single waiting to happen.

[Jay]

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Dillon
>
> The J-79 in the F-104 was great when it ran and a piece of crap when
> it didn't which it didn't on numerous occasions.

Sounds like a 2 stroke, high power/weight... when it works.
>
> They put a pair of them in the F-4 and every one knows how that bird
> performed.
>
> Big John

So would this be an example of the when the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts? You might say even the whole is the product (of the
reliabilities) of the parts.