Hyabusa flat 8

[bildan]

'been scratchin' some paper.

It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
blocks. The electronic fuel injected 'busa puts out about 130HP so
two theoretically could make 260HP.

With 8 cylinders, the power pulses overlap a little so wouldn't put
too much stress on a planetary PSRU in a nose case.

In the opposed configuration, the stock rods work so only the crank,
PSRU and case would have to be fabricated. CNC does that sort of
thing well.

The result would be smaller and lighter than an O-200 - although that
doesn't take the liquid cooling system into consideration. Still
scratchin' but this thing looks cool.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

bildan wrote:
> 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> blocks. The electronic fuel injected 'busa puts out about 130HP so
> two theoretically could make 260HP.
>
> With 8 cylinders, the power pulses overlap a little so wouldn't put
> too much stress on a planetary PSRU in a nose case.
>
> In the opposed configuration, the stock rods work so only the crank,
> PSRU and case would have to be fabricated. CNC does that sort of
> thing well.
>
> The result would be smaller and lighter than an O-200 - although that
> doesn't take the liquid cooling system into consideration. Still
> scratchin' but this thing looks cool.

Report back when you have it running and the first 100 hours run ok.

THEN it would look cool.

Until then it's just another net fantasy...

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Mar 5, 11:31*am, bildan > wrote:
> 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> blocks...

Interesting. I'd like to see the SolidWorks and FEA on that crank, I
bet the webs and bearings get awful narrow when you go and double the
number of big ends strung along it.

Also, is there any credible evidence that this little motor actyally
does put out 130hp for any appreciable amount of time?

Having developed and raced tiny Formula IV road bikes, I came to
appreciate that the devil is in the details. And the more details you
have, the greater the opportunity for bedevilment.

The more I study airplane engines and their operating environment, the
more I come to appreciate the underrecognized genius of the big,
simple, slow-turning flat fours that came out of the 1930s. Parts you
leave on the ground will never break in flight.

Thanks again, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 11:31 am, bildan > wrote:
> 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> blocks...

Interesting. I'd like to see the SolidWorks and FEA on that crank, I
bet the webs and bearings get awful narrow when you go and double the
number of big ends strung along it.

Also, is there any credible evidence that this little motor actyally
does put out 130hp for any appreciable amount of time?

Having developed and raced tiny Formula IV road bikes, I came to
appreciate that the devil is in the details. And the more details you
have, the greater the opportunity for bedevilment.

The more I study airplane engines and their operating environment, the
more I come to appreciate the underrecognized genius of the big,
simple, slow-turning flat fours that came out of the 1930s. Parts you
leave on the ground will never break in flight.

Thanks again, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

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

I have always been a big fan of alternative power plants, but Bob just said
a mouthful, and it's very well stated.

Forgive me for plagiarizing your analogy Bob, but I really like it.

Much like the sound barrier, there is a demon that lives in every PSRU.
Although several designs are quite promising these days, I still don't think
anyone has found the proper solution. They just can't compare to the overall
reliability of the status quo. It's a design thing, that has never been
resolve without adding too much weight.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"bildan" > wrote in message
...
> 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> blocks. The electronic fuel injected 'busa puts out about 130HP so
> two theoretically could make 260HP.
>
> With 8 cylinders, the power pulses overlap a little so wouldn't put
> too much stress on a planetary PSRU in a nose case.
>
> In the opposed configuration, the stock rods work so only the crank,
> PSRU and case would have to be fabricated. CNC does that sort of
> thing well.
>
> The result would be smaller and lighter than an O-200 - although that
> doesn't take the liquid cooling system into consideration. Still
> scratchin' but this thing looks cool.

Cool, indeed! How much do you think you would have to sell it for, if you
were to sell them?
--
Jim in NC

[bildan]

On Mar 5, 12:54*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:31*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> > It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> > too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> > blocks...
>
> Interesting. I'd like to see the SolidWorks and FEA on that crank, I
> bet the webs and bearings get awful narrow when you go and double the
> number of big ends strung along it.
>
> Also, is there any credible evidence that this little motor actyally
> does put out 130hp for any appreciable amount of time?
>
> Having developed and raced tiny Formula IV road bikes, I came to
> appreciate that the devil is in the details. And the more details you
> have, the greater the opportunity for bedevilment.
>
> The more I study airplane engines and their operating environment, the
> more I come to appreciate the underrecognized genius of the big,
> simple, slow-turning flat fours that came out of the 1930s. Parts you
> leave on the ground will never break in flight.
>
> Thanks again, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

The Hyabusa's 130HP from 1300cc is about the most conservative power
estimate there is. The bikes will go 180MPH as long as the fuel
lasts. The engine is considered bulletproof in the motorcycle
application.

Well, yes but the cylinder blocks aren't directly across from each
other being staggered for wider the webs. Unlike those slow turning
fours, there isn't much torque from each power pulse - just a whole
lot of them.

With a flat 8 you have the choice of a 'boxer' with each rod on its
own crank pin or the alternative with rods from opposing cylinders on
the same crank pin.

[bildan]

On Mar 5, 3:59*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:54*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 11:31*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> > > It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> > > too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> > > blocks...
>
> > Interesting. I'd like to see the SolidWorks and FEA on that crank, I
> > bet the webs and bearings get awful narrow when you go and double the
> > number of big ends strung along it.
>
> > Also, is there any credible evidence that this little motor actyally
> > does put out 130hp for any appreciable amount of time?
>
> > Having developed and raced tiny Formula IV road bikes, I came to
> > appreciate that the devil is in the details. And the more details you
> > have, the greater the opportunity for bedevilment.
>
> > The more I study airplane engines and their operating environment, the
> > more I come to appreciate the underrecognized genius of the big,
> > simple, slow-turning flat fours that came out of the 1930s. Parts you
> > leave on the ground will never break in flight.
>
> > Thanks again, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>
> The Hyabusa's 130HP from 1300cc is about the most conservative power
> estimate there is. *The bikes will go 180MPH as long as the fuel
> lasts. *The engine is considered bulletproof in the motorcycle
> application.
>
> Well, yes but the cylinder blocks aren't directly across from each
> other being staggered for wider the webs. *Unlike those slow turning
> fours, there isn't much torque from each power pulse - just a whole
> lot of them.
>
> With a flat 8 you have the choice of a 'boxer' with each rod on its
> own crank pin or the alternative with rods from opposing cylinders on
> the same crank pin.

I went to check and the 'advertised' HP for the Hyabusa is 191 from
1300cc.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
bildan > wrote:

> On Mar 5, 3:59*pm, bildan > wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 12:54*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 5, 11:31*am, bildan > wrote:
> >
> > > > 'been scratchin' some paper.
> >
> > > > It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> > > > too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> > > > blocks...
> >
> > > Interesting. I'd like to see the SolidWorks and FEA on that crank, I
> > > bet the webs and bearings get awful narrow when you go and double the
> > > number of big ends strung along it.
> >
> > > Also, is there any credible evidence that this little motor actyally
> > > does put out 130hp for any appreciable amount of time?
> >
> > > Having developed and raced tiny Formula IV road bikes, I came to
> > > appreciate that the devil is in the details. And the more details you
> > > have, the greater the opportunity for bedevilment.
> >
> > > The more I study airplane engines and their operating environment, the
> > > more I come to appreciate the underrecognized genius of the big,
> > > simple, slow-turning flat fours that came out of the 1930s. Parts you
> > > leave on the ground will never break in flight.
> >
> > > Thanks again, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
> >
> > The Hyabusa's 130HP from 1300cc is about the most conservative power
> > estimate there is. *The bikes will go 180MPH as long as the fuel
> > lasts. *The engine is considered bulletproof in the motorcycle
> > application.
> >
> > Well, yes but the cylinder blocks aren't directly across from each
> > other being staggered for wider the webs. *Unlike those slow turning
> > fours, there isn't much torque from each power pulse - just a whole
> > lot of them.
> >
> > With a flat 8 you have the choice of a 'boxer' with each rod on its
> > own crank pin or the alternative with rods from opposing cylinders on
> > the same crank pin.
>
> I went to check and the 'advertised' HP for the Hyabusa is 191 from
> 1300cc.

Is it supercharged? It MUST be a high-revving mother!

My 1967 Porsche 911S (normally-aspirated) gets 180 hp at 7500 RPM.

To reduce the displacement by 35% and add 5% power, there are only three
ways to do it:
1. Supercharging
2. High RPM
3. A combination of #1 and #2 above.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> bildan > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 3:59*pm, bildan > wrote:
> > > On Mar 5, 12:54*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 5, 11:31*am, bildan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 'been scratchin' some paper.
> > >
> > > > > It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> > > > > too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> > > > > blocks...
> > >
> > > > Interesting. I'd like to see the SolidWorks and FEA on that crank, I
> > > > bet the webs and bearings get awful narrow when you go and double the
> > > > number of big ends strung along it.
> > >
> > > > Also, is there any credible evidence that this little motor actyally
> > > > does put out 130hp for any appreciable amount of time?
> > >
> > > > Having developed and raced tiny Formula IV road bikes, I came to
> > > > appreciate that the devil is in the details. And the more details you
> > > > have, the greater the opportunity for bedevilment.
> > >
> > > > The more I study airplane engines and their operating environment, the
> > > > more I come to appreciate the underrecognized genius of the big,
> > > > simple, slow-turning flat fours that came out of the 1930s. Parts you
> > > > leave on the ground will never break in flight.
> > >
> > > > Thanks again, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
> > >
> > > The Hyabusa's 130HP from 1300cc is about the most conservative power
> > > estimate there is. *The bikes will go 180MPH as long as the fuel
> > > lasts. *The engine is considered bulletproof in the motorcycle
> > > application.
> > >
> > > Well, yes but the cylinder blocks aren't directly across from each
> > > other being staggered for wider the webs. *Unlike those slow turning
> > > fours, there isn't much torque from each power pulse - just a whole
> > > lot of them.
> > >
> > > With a flat 8 you have the choice of a 'boxer' with each rod on its
> > > own crank pin or the alternative with rods from opposing cylinders on
> > > the same crank pin.
> >
> > I went to check and the 'advertised' HP for the Hyabusa is 191 from
> > 1300cc.
>
> Is it supercharged? It MUST be a high-revving mother!
>
> My 1967 Porsche 911S (normally-aspirated) gets 180 hp at 7500 RPM.
>
> To reduce the displacement by 35% and add 5% power, there are only three
> ways to do it:
> 1. Supercharging
> 2. High RPM
> 3. A combination of #1 and #2 above.

It sounds as if you will have a very expensive grenade if you do it
wrong!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[bod43]

On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "bildan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 'been scratchin' some paper.
>
> > It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> > too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> > blocks. *The electronic fuel injected 'busa puts out about 130HP so
> > two theoretically could make 260HP.
>
> > With 8 cylinders, the power pulses overlap a little so wouldn't put
> > too much stress on a planetary PSRU in a nose case.
>
> > In the opposed configuration, the stock rods work so only the crank,
> > PSRU and case would have to be fabricated. *CNC does that sort of
> > thing well.
>
> > The result would be smaller and lighter than an O-200 - although that
> > doesn't take the liquid cooling system into consideration. *Still
> > scratchin' but this thing looks cool.
>
> Cool, indeed! *How much do you think you would have to sell it for, if you
> were to sell them?

I am not an expert but I doubt that there is any point in
doing a flat 8 when compared to the existing V8
conversions based on this engine.

The flat 4 Lycoming/Continental configuration makes sense
because of the number of cylinders and the use of air
cooling. I forget what way the crank is done but
it has at least tolerable balance and good enough
cooling of the rear cylinder.

The proposed Hyabusa flat 8 project does not seem
an advantage to the existing V8 Hyabusa conversions
that you can just go and buy today. A V8 (with a 2
plane crank as you would use) has perfect balance
and even firing. Due to water cooling there is no need
to consider cooling air flow round the cylinders.

What you just might do is increase the installed frontal area.

I have the idea that mechanical failure of the original 4 cyl
engines (or any high performance japanese bike engine) is
pretty much unheard of but I am not at all sure.

Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
when operated in a constant load regime,
say at 130bhp.

[TOG@Toil]

On 6 Mar, 11:03, bod43 > wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:

<snip interesting stuff>
>
> Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
> idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
> when operated in a constant load regime,
> say at 130bhp.

You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.

A Gold Wing 1500 or 1800 lump might be more suitable, IMHO.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, "TOG@Toil"
> typed
>On 6 Mar, 11:03, bod43 > wrote:
>> On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
><snip interesting stuff>
>>
>> Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
>> idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
>> when operated in a constant load regime,
>> say at 130bhp.
>
>You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.

Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
way to go.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

It's important is that last ell.

[platypus]

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, "TOG@Toil"
> > typed
>> On 6 Mar, 11:03, bod43 > wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>
>> <snip interesting stuff>
>>>
>>> Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
>>> idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
>>> when operated in a constant load regime,
>>> say at 130bhp.
>>
>> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>
> Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
> way to go.

The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive engines
for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back to
cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that approach
that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?

[Champ]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:40:21 GMT, "platypus"
> wrote:

>The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive engines
>for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
>Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back to
>cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that approach
>that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?

They last as long as they have to, which is usually the length of the
race. There are significant advantages to having increased
performance (winning), and not many for increased mtbf.

It's perfectly possible to tune and engine to the load you describe
*and* achieve high reliability.
--
Champ
What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger
ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R600 racer (for sale) | ZX10R racer (broken)
neal at champ dot org dot uk

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, platypus
> typed
>Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, "TOG@Toil"
>> > typed
>>> On 6 Mar, 11:03, bod43 > wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip interesting stuff>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
>>>> idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
>>>> when operated in a constant load regime,
>>>> say at 130bhp.
>>>
>>> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>>> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>>> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>>
>> Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
>> way to go.
>
>The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive
>engines for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard
>life. Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they
>throttle back to cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing
>vehicles that approach that sort of use are in motorsports, and how
>long do they last?

Full *rated* power. If the Bus engine were to be de-rated to 130BHP it'd
barely be breaking sweat in the climb.

Of course, you could have one of those cool "War Emergency Power" seals
on the throttle to enable you to get more power when your microlight has
a pair of marauding Bf109s on its tail...

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

It's important is that last ell.

[Mark Olson]

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:

>> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>
> Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
> way to go.

If you're forced to use a higher-revving engine, yes- but gearboxes
or belts and cogs introduce problems of their own, which is why a
relatively large displacement slow-revving engine (which doesn't need
four valves/cylinder, multiple chain drive cams with cam chain
tensioners, etc.) makes a lot of sense for aircraft.

[TOG@Toil]

On 6 Mar, 14:15, Mark Olson > wrote:
> Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
> >> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
> >> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
> >> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>
> > Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
> > way to go.
>
> If you're forced to use a higher-revving engine, yes- but gearboxes
> or belts and cogs introduce problems of their own, which is why a
> relatively large displacement slow-revving engine (which doesn't need
> four valves/cylinder, multiple chain drive cams with cam chain
> tensioners, etc.) makes a lot of sense for aircraft.

Which was what I was thinking. I mean, what was max revs for a Merlin?

<Googles>

Hm. About 3000rpm. Just off tickover for a 'Busa.

[vaughn]

"bod43" > wrote in message
...
>I have the idea that mechanical failure of the original 4 cyl
>engines (or any high performance japanese bike engine) is
>pretty much unheard of but I am not at all sure.

It matters little, because now you are making a whole new engine for a
totally different application, with no track record and the distinct
possibility of new and exciting failure modes. Further, the same can be
said about the reiliability for most any automotive engine in its intended
application, but the track record of automotive aero conversions is spotty
at best.

Just thinking outside the box... Since the proposed Hyabusa Flat 8 engine
will need a PSRU anyhow; how about two Hyabusa engines put together into a
twin-pack? The result would likely weigh a tad more than a simple flat 8,
but now you have two known engines combined with twin-engine redundancy.

Vaughn

[bildan]

On Mar 6, 8:38*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "bod43" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I have the idea that mechanical failure of the original 4 cyl
> >engines (or any high performance japanese bike engine) is
> >pretty much unheard of but I am not at all sure.
>
> * *It matters little, because now you are making a whole new engine for a
> totally different application, with no track record and the distinct
> possibility of new and exciting failure modes. *Further, the same can be
> said about the reiliability for most any automotive engine in its intended
> application, but the track record of automotive aero conversions is spotty
> at best.
>
> Just thinking outside the box... *Since the proposed Hyabusa Flat 8 engine
> will need a PSRU anyhow; how about two Hyabusa engines put together into a
> twin-pack? *The result would likely weigh a tad more than a simple flat 8,
> but now you have two known engines combined with twin-engine redundancy.
>
> Vaughn

There is little difference between the existing V8 Hyabusa and a flat
8 in terms of bottom end design. The V8 has proved bulletproof
@400HP. Pretty much everything learned with the V8 Hyabusa conversion
applies to a flat 8.

Of course it would need to be geared - torque peak is near 8000 RPM.
However, there is a weight trade off. These little screamers, which
are more like turbines than tractors, can use a light crank because
they use a whole lot of tiny power pulses instead of a few humongous
ones to produce power. The Hyabusa is on the extreme opposite end of
the power/RPM spectrum from a Lycoming.

Weight savings in the crank can be shifted to the PSRU which would be
a planetary gearset with maybe 5 planet gears for lots of tooth
engagement and strength. The gear ratio would need to be 4 or 5:1 so
spur gears or cog belts aren't the best choice since the small gear or
cog would be small with too few teeth engaged. A planetary allows
large ratios with lots of tooth engagement for strength.

Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
whereas the airplane engine would have only one. The standard sport
bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
wants to shift. This results in an instant shift with horrific
transient loads suffered by the crank and drive train. An aircraft
powerplant would never see this abuse.

Why is a flat 8 better than a V8? Mainly a higher thrust line for
prop clearance and better ballance. To do that with a V8, it would
have to be inverted.

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> "bildan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 'been scratchin' some paper.
> >
> > It looks like a 2.6L flat opposed 8-cylinder could be made will not
> > too much difficulty from two Suzuki Hyabusa motorcycle cylinder
> > blocks. The electronic fuel injected 'busa puts out about 130HP so
> > two theoretically could make 260HP.
> >
> > With 8 cylinders, the power pulses overlap a little so wouldn't put
> > too much stress on a planetary PSRU in a nose case.
> >
> > In the opposed configuration, the stock rods work so only the crank,
> > PSRU and case would have to be fabricated. CNC does that sort of
> > thing well.
> >
> > The result would be smaller and lighter than an O-200 - although that
> > doesn't take the liquid cooling system into consideration. Still
> > scratchin' but this thing looks cool.
>
> Cool, indeed! How much do you think you would have to sell it for, if you
> were to sell them?
>


http://www.h1v8.com/page/page/1562068.htm

Hartley is pushing his nice V8 busa in every race series but it's kinda
expensif.

HTH

Tom -lurking and enjoying the knowledgable posts- De Moor

[Catman]

bildan wrote:
<snip>
>
> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. The standard sport
> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
> wants to shift.

I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
> saying something like:

>bildan wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
>> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. The standard sport
>> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
>> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
>> wants to shift.
>
>I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.

Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.

[Catman]

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
> > saying something like:
>
>> bildan wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
>>> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. The standard sport
>>> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
>>> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
>>> wants to shift.
>> I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
>
> Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.

I must confess I'm not massively keen on it. I tend to stick with the
'pull clutch, change gear, release clutch' technique. Unless I'm doing
clutchless upshift, of course.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

[bildan]

On Mar 6, 10:19*am, Grimly Curmudgeon >
wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
> > saying something like:
>
> >bildan wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. *The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
> >> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. *The standard sport
> >> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
> >> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
> >> wants to shift.
>
> >I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
>
> Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.

Nope, "pre-load and clutch" is how Sport Bike constant mesh,
progressive transmissions are DESIGNED to be shifted. It just shows
how much abuse these engines and transmission are intended to take.

[Catman]

bildan wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:19 am, Grimly Curmudgeon >
> wrote:
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
>> > saying something like:
>>
>>> bildan wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
>>>> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. The standard sport
>>>> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
>>>> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
>>>> wants to shift.
>>> I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
>> Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.
>
> Nope, "pre-load and clutch" is how Sport Bike constant mesh,
> progressive transmissions are DESIGNED to be shifted. It just shows
> how much abuse these engines and transmission are intended to take.

Popcorn, anyone?

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"platypus" > wrote in message
...
> Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, "TOG@Toil"
>> > typed
>>> On 6 Mar, 11:03, bod43 > wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip interesting stuff>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
>>>> idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
>>>> when operated in a constant load regime,
>>>> say at 130bhp.
>>>
>>> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>>> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>>> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>>
>> Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
>> way to go.
>
> The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive engines
> for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
> Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back
> to cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that
> approach that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?
>

Not true at all.

Ever driven a gas powered motor home, pulling a boat trailer. I drove a 6500
series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe. It
was 100% power almost all the time, and always at lease 75% on the highway.
I have seen lots of auto engines successfully suffer MORE abuse than
aircraft engines in many circumstances, and most often do it without proper
maintenance. Some school bus and UHaul truck engines deserve to be in the
Motor Sports Hall of Fame.

But that doesn't solve all the propeller and PSRU issues.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "bod43" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I have the idea that mechanical failure of the original 4 cyl
>>engines (or any high performance japanese bike engine) is
>>pretty much unheard of but I am not at all sure.
>
> It matters little, because now you are making a whole new engine for a
> totally different application, with no track record and the distinct
> possibility of new and exciting failure modes. Further, the same can be
> said about the reiliability for most any automotive engine in its intended
> application, but the track record of automotive aero conversions is spotty
> at best.
>
> Just thinking outside the box... Since the proposed Hyabusa Flat 8 engine
> will need a PSRU anyhow; how about two Hyabusa engines put together into a
> twin-pack? The result would likely weigh a tad more than a simple flat 8,
> but now you have two known engines combined with twin-engine redundancy.
>

Eliminate a lot of question marks with the experimental crank and rods too.

[bildan]

On Mar 6, 10:26*am, Catman > wrote:
> Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> > drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
> > > saying something like:
>
> >> bildan wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. *The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
> >>> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. *The standard sport
> >>> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
> >>> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
> >>> wants to shift.
> >> I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
>
> > Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.
>
> I must confess I'm not massively keen on it. I tend to stick with the
> 'pull clutch, change gear, release clutch' technique. Unless I'm doing
> clutchless upshift, of course.
>
> --
> Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
> Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
> 116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
> Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

Of course! You're thinking of ENGLISH bikes - that's different. We
all know how reliable those are. If the tranny can be shifted without
a clutch, it's not a Japanese sport bike.

My Kawasaki can't be shifted without the clutch but it shifts great
with the pre-load & clutch method and has done so reliably since '86.

[Catman]

bildan wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:26 am, Catman > wrote:
>> Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
>>> > saying something like:
>>>> bildan wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
>>>>> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. The standard sport
>>>>> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
>>>>> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
>>>>> wants to shift.
>>>> I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
>>> Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.
>> I must confess I'm not massively keen on it. I tend to stick with the
>> 'pull clutch, change gear, release clutch' technique. Unless I'm doing
>> clutchless upshift, of course.
>>
>> --
>> Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
>> Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
>> 116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
>> Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
>
> Of course! You're thinking of ENGLISH bikes - that's different. We
> all know how reliable those are. If the tranny can be shifted without
> a clutch, it's not a Japanese sport bike.

Oh dear.

>
> My Kawasaki can't be shifted without the clutch but it shifts great
> with the pre-load & clutch method and has done so reliably since '86.

Can't afford a newer one?

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

[Peter Dohm]

"TOG@Toil" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Mar, 14:15, Mark Olson > wrote:
>> Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
>> >> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>> >> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>> >> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>>
>> > Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
>> > way to go.
>>
>> If you're forced to use a higher-revving engine, yes- but gearboxes
>> or belts and cogs introduce problems of their own, which is why a
>> relatively large displacement slow-revving engine (which doesn't need
>> four valves/cylinder, multiple chain drive cams with cam chain
>> tensioners, etc.) makes a lot of sense for aircraft.
>
> Which was what I was thinking. I mean, what was max revs for a Merlin?
>
> <Googles>
>
> Hm. About 3000rpm. Just off tickover for a 'Busa.

Hmm, some more...

By that line of reasoning, turbines should be really problematic.
No wonder FAA requires additional certification for pilots to fly turbine
aircraft.

Peter :-))))

[Peter Dohm]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "platypus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
>>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, "TOG@Toil"
>>> > typed
>>>> On 6 Mar, 11:03, bod43 > wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Mar, 21:57, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip interesting stuff>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe someone on uk.rec.motorcycles might have an
>>>>> idea as to the expected life span of a hyabusa engine
>>>>> when operated in a constant load regime,
>>>>> say at 130bhp.
>>>>
>>>> You'd need to boost the low and midrange torque to swing a prop, as
>>>> props rotate relatively slowly, don't they? I think a 'Busa engine
>>>> would last forever is detuned to 130bhp.
>>>
>>> Depends on the prop, but I would think that gearing down would be the
>>> way to go.
>>
>> The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive engines
>> for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
>> Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back
>> to cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that
>> approach that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?
>>
>
> Not true at all.
>
> Ever driven a gas powered motor home, pulling a boat trailer. I drove a
> 6500 series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back
> hoe. It was 100% power almost all the time, and always at lease 75% on the
> highway. I have seen lots of auto engines successfully suffer MORE abuse
> than aircraft engines in many circumstances, and most often do it without
> proper maintenance. Some school bus and UHaul truck engines deserve to be
> in the Motor Sports Hall of Fame.
>
> But that doesn't solve all the propeller and PSRU issues.
>
>
>
Nicely said.

[Ace[_2_]]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>
>"platypus" > wrote in message
...

>> The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive engines
>> for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
>> Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back
>> to cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that
>> approach that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?
>>
>
>Not true at all.
>
>I drove a 6500
>series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe. It
>was 100% power almost all the time, and always at lease 75% on the highway.

But that;s true of nearly all agricultural vehicles, which is why they
tend to use understressed, low-revving, low-tech motors. And just
because you can drive them on the road doesn't make the road-going
vehicles.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"TOG@Toil" > wrote

> Which was what I was thinking. I mean, what was max revs for a Merlin?
>
> <Googles>
>
> Hm. About 3000rpm. Just off tickover for a 'Busa.

But all the high power Merlins and such had gear reducing for their props.
They had to, to keep tip speed down for their gigantic props.

Gear reducing is doable. Even more used, and very, very reliable, are belt
PSRU units. Replace the belt at 200 hours or so, and fly with confidence,
if the bearings and such are properly designed.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>
>>"platypus" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive
>>> engines
>>> for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
>>> Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back
>>> to cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that
>>> approach that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?
>>>
>>
>>Not true at all.
>>
>>I drove a 6500
>>series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe. It
>>was 100% power almost all the time, and always at lease 75% on the
>>highway.
>
> But that;s true of nearly all agricultural vehicles, which is why they
> tend to use understressed, low-revving, low-tech motors. And just
> because you can drive them on the road doesn't make the road-going
> vehicles.
>

These were not ag vehicles. Passenger car engines were popular back then in
all the class C motor homes, school buses, and light weight dump trucks. My
Chevy was a 350-2v with probably nothing more than the heavy duty 4 bolt
main block. It also had a 4 speed manual transmission, and 2 speed rear. I
would commonly shift the low gears as high a 4000-5000 rpm. The gross weight
on the entire package was around 30,000 lbs.

[Brian Whatcott]

Champ wrote:
>> ... automotive engines
>> for aircraft ... have a very hard life.
>> Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back to
>> cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that approach
>> that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?
....
> It's perfectly possible to tune and engine to the load you describe
> *and* achieve high reliability.

SW Oklahoma is arid, so there is plenty of business for engine
rebuilders, dealing with the farmers who run (ex-) auto engines
at high load - day and night - for the irrigation season. The hours rack
up fast.

I talked to one builder 2 or 3 years ago. Details escape me now, but the
approach was not that dramatic, to produce a 10 thousand hour engine BMO
That's when an engine doing 2000 hours in a season, lasts several years.
They use auto cutouts for low oil, and hot cooling water of course.
Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
factor, apparently.

The load is relatively kind, it's true - a water pump: kinda like the
fluid flywheel on an automatic. The bores are hard chrome, the valves
are metal cooled, the seats are hard-faced inserts(If I remember...)
some other details of that kind.
The oil changes are a religious ceremony.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

TOG@Toil wrote:
>... I mean, what was max revs for a Merlin?
>
> <Googles>
>
> Hm. About 3000rpm. Just off tickover for a 'Busa.

I THINK that was the prop shaft - like many other aero recips
it's limited by 0.9 c at the prop tips at the top end of the tach.
But the crank was driven by pistons breathing gas though a duplex
compressor system - driving a PRU.
Then again - in War mode its overhaul time was measured
in the hours you can count on one to two hands.
Low compression heads on the Merlin
were the choice for civil airliners post war.

Brian W

[bildan]

On Mar 6, 1:10*pm, Catman > wrote:
> bildan wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 10:26 am, Catman > wrote:
> >> Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> >>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> >>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman
> >>> > saying something like:
> >>>> bildan wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. *The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
> >>>>> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. *The standard sport
> >>>>> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
> >>>>> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
> >>>>> wants to shift.
> >>>> I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
> >>> Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.
> >> I must confess I'm not massively keen on it. I tend to stick with the
> >> 'pull clutch, change gear, release clutch' technique. Unless I'm doing
> >> clutchless upshift, of course.
>
> >> --
> >> Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
> >> Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
> >> 116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
> >> Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
>
> > Of course! You're thinking of ENGLISH bikes - that's different. *We
> > all know how reliable those are. *If the tranny can be shifted without
> > a clutch, it's not a Japanese sport bike.
>
> Oh dear.
>
>
>
> > My Kawasaki can't be shifted without the clutch but it shifts great
> > with the pre-load & clutch method and has done so reliably since '86.
>
> Can't afford a newer one?
>
> --
> Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
> Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
> 116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
> Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

Don't need a new one - It's a Japanese motorcycle and they run
forever. However, my old Triumph Bonneville wasn't safe to ride
further than I was prepared to push it - something about the Lucas
electrics. You know, Joe Lucas, Prince of Darkness.

[bildan]

On Mar 6, 6:30*pm, Brian Whatcott > wrote:
> TOG@Toil wrote:
> >... *I mean, what was max revs for a Merlin?
>
> > <Googles>
>
> > Hm. About 3000rpm. Just off tickover for a 'Busa.
>
> I THINK that was the prop shaft - like many other aero recips
> it's limited by 0.9 c at the prop tips at the top end of the tach.
> But the crank was driven by pistons breathing gas though a duplex
> compressor system - driving a PRU.
> Then again - in War mode its overhaul time was measured
> in the hours you can count on one to two hands.
> * Low compression heads on the Merlin
> were the choice for civil airliners post war.
>
> Brian W

..9C!!!! I've heard of a Warp Drive propeller but 90% the speed of
light! Wow.

[Ace[_2_]]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>
>"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>>>I drove a 6500
>>>series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe.

>> But that's true of nearly all agricultural vehicles,

>These were not ag vehicles.

*Whhhooooooosh*

[Catman]

Ace wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>> "Ace" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>>> I drove a 6500
>>>> series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe.
>
>>> But that's true of nearly all agricultural vehicles,
>
>> These were not ag vehicles.
>
> *Whhhooooooosh*

This isn't going well, is it?

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

[The Older Gentleman]

Brian Whatcott > wrote:

> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
> factor, apparently.

I have to ask: why?


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[The Older Gentleman]

Brian Whatcott > wrote:

> TOG@Toil wrote:
> >... I mean, what was max revs for a Merlin?
> >
> > <Googles>
> >
> > Hm. About 3000rpm. Just off tickover for a 'Busa.
>
> I THINK that was the prop shaft - like many other aero recips
> it's limited by 0.9 c at the prop tips at the top end of the tach.

Didn't the Harvard's prop tips go supersonic?

> But the crank was driven by pistons breathing gas though a duplex
> compressor system - driving a PRU.
> Then again - in War mode its overhaul time was measured
> in the hours you can count on one to two hands.
> Low compression heads on the Merlin
> were the choice for civil airliners post war.
>
Hm. Makes sense. That said, Merlins were hardly used in 'proper' civil
aircraft. The York and the Lancastrian, of course, both of which were
Lancaster variants. And the Tudor, which was a failure.

Can't think of any others, though I'd be delighted to be informed. Most
of the piston-engined civil airliners I can think of used air-cooled
radial engines.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[Brian Whatcott]

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Brian Whatcott > wrote:
>
>> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
>> factor, apparently.
>
> I have to ask: why?
>
>

I don't have the definitive answer - but here's my guess.
Those pump engines tend to be carbureted, and atomizing the gas at high
throttle would be an issue. Burning dirty is not good for engines.
(One reason why fuel injected engines with ECUs in cars tend to go 100K
easily these days)
Natural gas gets you 100% atomization out of the box.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>... - like many other aero recips
>> it's limited by 0.9 c at the prop tips at the top end of the tach.
>
> Didn't the Harvard's prop tips go supersonic?
>
....
>> Low compression heads on the Merlin
>> were the choice for civil airliners post war.
>>
> Hm. Makes sense. That said, Merlins were hardly used in 'proper' civil
> aircraft. The York and the Lancastrian, of course, both of which were
> Lancaster variants. And the Tudor, which was a failure.
>
> Can't think of any others, though I'd be delighted to be informed. Most
> of the piston-engined civil airliners I can think of used air-cooled
> radial engines.
>
>
Here's Wiki's idea of the direct uses: not to mention tanks, boats, and
a car (!)

* Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
* Avro Lancaster
* Avro Lincoln
* Avro Tudor
* Avro York
* Boulton Paul Defiant
* Bristol Beaufighter
* Curtis P-40 Kittyhawk
* de Havilland Mosquito
* de Havilland Hornet
* Fairey Barracuda
* Fairey Battle
* Fairey Fulmar
* Handley Page Halifax
* Hawker Hurricane and Sea Hurricane
* Hispano Aviación HA-1112
* North American Mustang X
* Short Sturgeon
* Supermarine Seafire
* Supermarine Spitfire
* Vickers Wellington
* Westland Welkin

Aircraft with sonic tips have a noisy bark....

Brian W

[Peter Dohm]

"Brian Whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> Brian Whatcott > wrote:
>>
>>> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
>>> factor, apparently.
>>
>> I have to ask: why?
>>
>>
>
> I don't have the definitive answer - but here's my guess.
> Those pump engines tend to be carbureted, and atomizing the gas at high
> throttle would be an issue. Burning dirty is not good for engines.
> (One reason why fuel injected engines with ECUs in cars tend to go 100K
> easily these days)
> Natural gas gets you 100% atomization out of the box.
>
> Brian W

That is most likely the reason. We used to run a standby generator on
propane, and never saw any unburned carbon buildup in the oil. So I would
expect natural gas to be at least as good.

Peter

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember bildan > saying
something like:

>> >> Keep in mind how the motorcycle works. *The bike has a 6-speed gearbox
>> >> whereas the airplane engine would have only one. *The standard sport
>> >> bike shift technique, approved by the factory, is to apply a large
>> >> force to the shift lever and then tap the clutch lever when the rider
>> >> wants to shift.
>>
>> >I don't think it is, you know. ISTBC of course.
>>
>> Some people just like rebuilding gearboxes.
>
>Nope, "pre-load and clutch" is how Sport Bike constant mesh,
>progressive transmissions are DESIGNED to be shifted. It just shows
>how much abuse these engines and transmission are intended to take.

You really don't have a ****ing clue, do you?

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (The
Older Gentleman) saying something like:

>Brian Whatcott > wrote:
>
>> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
>> factor, apparently.
>
>I have to ask: why?

It's a very clean-burning fuel and the oil lasts for ages, or more
accurately, keeps hold of its properties a fair bit longer than oil
that's steadily getting mankier and mankier in a petrol engine.

[The Older Gentleman]

Grimly Curmudgeon > wrote:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember (The
> Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>
> >Brian Whatcott > wrote:
> >
> >> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
> >> factor, apparently.
> >
> >I have to ask: why?
>
> It's a very clean-burning fuel and the oil lasts for ages, or more
> accurately, keeps hold of its properties a fair bit longer than oil
> that's steadily getting mankier and mankier in a petrol engine.

Thanks all. Very interesting. I knew they were clean engines, but never
thought or the aircraft application.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[The Older Gentleman]

Brian Whatcott > wrote:

> > Hm. Makes sense. That said, Merlins were hardly used in 'proper' civil
> > aircraft. The York and the Lancastrian, of course, both of which were
> > Lancaster variants. And the Tudor, which was a failure.
> >
> > Can't think of any others, though I'd be delighted to be informed. Most
> > of the piston-engined civil airliners I can think of used air-cooled
> > radial engines.
> >
> >
> Here's Wiki's idea of the direct uses: not to mention tanks, boats, and
> a car (!)
>
> * Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
> * Avro Lancaster
> * Avro Lincoln
> * Avro Tudor
> * Avro York
> * Boulton Paul Defiant
> * Bristol Beaufighter
> * Curtis P-40 Kittyhawk
> * de Havilland Mosquito
> * de Havilland Hornet
> * Fairey Barracuda
> * Fairey Battle
> * Fairey Fulmar
> * Handley Page Halifax
> * Hawker Hurricane and Sea Hurricane
> * Hispano Aviación HA-1112
> * North American Mustang X
> * Short Sturgeon
> * Supermarine Seafire
> * Supermarine Spitfire
> * Vickers Wellington
> * Westland Welkin

And how many of those were civil airliners, eh???

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>
>"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"platypus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>> The thing that everyone seems to forget when promoting automotive
>>>> engines
>>>> for aircraft is that most piston aero engines have a very hard life.
>>>> Take-off and climb is full power or very nearly, then they throttle back
>>>> to cruise at 75% or thereabouts. The only roadgoing vehicles that
>>>> approach that sort of use are in motorsports, and how long do they last?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not true at all.
>>>
>>>I drove a 6500
>>>series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe. It
>>>was 100% power almost all the time, and always at lease 75% on the
>>>highway.
>>
>> But that;s true of nearly all agricultural vehicles, which is why they
>> tend to use understressed, low-revving, low-tech motors. And just
>> because you can drive them on the road doesn't make the road-going
>> vehicles.
>>
>
>These were not ag vehicles. Passenger car engines were popular back then in
>all the class C motor homes, school buses, and light weight dump trucks. My
>Chevy was a 350-2v with probably nothing more than the heavy duty 4 bolt
>main block. It also had a 4 speed manual transmission, and 2 speed rear. I
>would commonly shift the low gears as high a 4000-5000 rpm. The gross weight
>on the entire package was around 30,000 lbs.
>
The 2bbl 350 wasn't even a 4 bolt block. Only "select" 4 barrel
engines were 4 bolt.
The small block 400 also was USUALLY not 4 bolt.
396 and 454 were common RV (and truck) engines, along with the 402.
In heavier trucks you were more likely to get "real truck" engines
like the 366 etc.

Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).

Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
well.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:10:10 +0100, Ace > wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>>>I drove a 6500
>>>>series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe.
>
>>> But that's true of nearly all agricultural vehicles,
>
>>These were not ag vehicles.
>
>*Whhhooooooosh*
How about a 292 six in a 3/4 ton pickup towing a 22 ton tri-axle?
Hauled farm tractors and equipment all over Ontario with that rig.
What did a Cockshutt 1950T weigh fully ,loaded? Or a White A4D?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Brian Whatcott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> Brian Whatcott > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
>>>> factor, apparently.
>>>
>>> I have to ask: why?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't have the definitive answer - but here's my guess.
>> Those pump engines tend to be carbureted, and atomizing the gas at high
>> throttle would be an issue. Burning dirty is not good for engines.
>> (One reason why fuel injected engines with ECUs in cars tend to go 100K
>> easily these days)
>> Natural gas gets you 100% atomization out of the box.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> That is most likely the reason. We used to run a standby generator on
> propane, and never saw any unburned carbon buildup in the oil. So I would
> expect natural gas to be at least as good.
>

Exactly the reason, as well as the reason late model fuel injected engines
live so much longer.

In the 60s and 70s it was common place to overhaul auto engines with 60k to
80k miles that would always require boring and oversized pistons. Today it's
common place to overhaul engines with 150k miles that require nothing more
than deglaze honing and new rings.

Unburned liquid fuels on the top of the piston rings are constantly
competing with oil from the bottom. This keeps the rings operating in a
diluted mix. Natural gas, propane and now even fuel injection, eliminates or
greatly reduces the dilution, and pistons and cylinders usually last 2 to 3
times longer, and more. The best example is a piston type air compressor.
They often seem to last forever even in continuous use.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Brian Whatcott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> Brian Whatcott > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
>>>> factor, apparently.
>>>
>>> I have to ask: why?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't have the definitive answer - but here's my guess.
>> Those pump engines tend to be carbureted, and atomizing the gas at high
>> throttle would be an issue. Burning dirty is not good for engines.
>> (One reason why fuel injected engines with ECUs in cars tend to go 100K
>> easily these days)
>> Natural gas gets you 100% atomization out of the box.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> That is most likely the reason. We used to run a standby generator on
> propane, and never saw any unburned carbon buildup in the oil. So I would
> expect natural gas to be at least as good.
>

Exactly the reason, as well as the reason late model fuel injected engines
live so much longer.

In the 60s and 70s it was common place to overhaul auto engines with 60k to
80k miles that would always require boring and oversized pistons. Today it's
common place to overhaul engines with 150k miles that require nothing more
than deglaze honing and new rings.

Unburned liquid fuels on the top of the piston rings are constantly
competing with oil from the bottom. This keeps the rings operating in a
diluted mix. Natural gas, propane and now even fuel injection, eliminates or
greatly reduces the dilution, and pistons and cylinders usually last 2 to 3
times longer, and more. The best example is a piston type air compressor.
They often seem to last forever even in continuous use.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>>
>>These were not ag vehicles. Passenger car engines were popular back then
>>in
>>all the class C motor homes, school buses, and light weight dump trucks.
>>My
>>Chevy was a 350-2v with probably nothing more than the heavy duty 4 bolt
>>main block.
>>
> The 2bbl 350 wasn't even a 4 bolt block. Only "select" 4 barrel
> engines were 4 bolt.

That's why I said probably.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
> dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
> Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).
>
> Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
> optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
> well.

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

And everyone else, no, I will not go into the reason for this attitude,
again.
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> > wrote
>
> > Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
> > dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
> > Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).
> >
> > Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
> > optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
> > well.
>
> The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
> engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
> the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>
> I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
> the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>
> And everyone else, no, I will not go into the reason for this attitude,
> again.

I don't think that there is a very large "anti-auto engine crowd." That
said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who view the auto
conversion field as a potential minefield.

I have known personally several people who used (or attempted to use)
auto conversions in airplanes.

One individual had a turbocharged Chevy/custom gearbox installation that
worked fairly well and put out gobs of power. Due to some bad decisions
in selecting suppliers who could not deliver a finished product on
schedule, he went broke. He also had one of the top auto racing gurus in
the country helping him.

Another group went broke trying to develop a big-block auto conversion
and ended up selling it to an engine company. They spent about 10 years
and bales of money.

Another built a neat-looking plane around a direct-drive Buick V-6. I
believe he ran out of money trying to sell the kit.

A personal friend installed a Subaru-based setup in a Glastar and had
two engine failures to/from Oshkosh. Only luck kept him out of a forced
landing in deep woods. I specifically recall telling him that I did not
think much of the engine package -- that it appeared that they had not
thought things out. He had planned to fly around the world in this setup.

There have been several other V-8 based direct drive instalaltions that,
frankly, were very rough-looking and ended up as catastrophic failures.

I have a friend who has a very nice Stuart 51, with a big-block Chevy
and PSRU. He is taking small steps to make sure that it all works as
desired.

That said, if you think you can negotiate the minefield of enging
development, have at it, but please, acquire all the technical hepl and
talent you can get.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[[email protected]]

In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
>
> The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
> engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
> the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>
> I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
> the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

--
03 GS500
66 Velocette LE Mk3
68 Bantam D14S
81 CB250RS

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
>>
>> The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
>> engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired
>> of
>> the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>>
>> I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has
>> had
>> the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>
> There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
> purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
> In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
> trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
> serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
>
> --
> 03 GS500
> 66 Velocette LE Mk3
> 68 Bantam D14S
> 81 CB250RS
>

The Continentals and Lycomings that I have seen have less thrust bearing
surface than I would have expected, and in applications that require a psru,
the prsu will be taking the thrust loads as well as the gyroscopic loads.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> I don't think that there is a very large "anti-auto engine crowd." That
> said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who view the auto
> conversion field as a potential minefield.
>
> I have known personally several people who used (or attempted to use)
> auto conversions in airplanes.

Snip some examples

> There have been several other V-8 based direct drive instalaltions that,
> frankly, were very rough-looking and ended up as catastrophic failures.
>
> I have a friend who has a very nice Stuart 51, with a big-block Chevy
> and PSRU. He is taking small steps to make sure that it all works as
> desired.
>
> That said, if you think you can negotiate the minefield of enging
> development, have at it, but please, acquire all the technical hepl and
> talent you can get.

No doubt, that it can be, and usually has been a good way to go broke, if
you try to produce setups.

Anyone who thinks they will save gobs of money is fooling someone.

That said, there are ways to get the bugs out, and study of failures and
successes are a part of it.

Note that I said I would feel good about getting into a plane that had the
bugs worked out of the conversion, or something along that line. I guess
that line should have been emphasized, because that is the key.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
> purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
> In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
> trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
> serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
True, but I believe the conversation was about PSRU equipped engines, in
which side loads on the crankshaft and thrust loads will have been taken
care of by the PSRU. (or should have in well engineered PSRU's)

A well engineered PSRU is a beast that has been mastered, many times. It is
not a black art, until you get into long shafts, and strange things like
that.

The other thing that will bite an auto engine package is the other stuff on
the engine. Alternators, uninterruptible power if voltage is needed for
ignition and or fuel pump, cooling and anything else mounted on the engine
necessary to keep it running.
--
Jim in NC

[Stuart Fields]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
>> >
>> > The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of
>> > these
>> > engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so
>> > tired of
>> > the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>> >
>> > I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has
>> > had
>> > the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>>
>> There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
>> purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
>> In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
>> trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
>> serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
>
> That is where PSRU design takes up the mission. A good PSRU will have
> the thrust bearings, etc. required for the mission.
I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is direct
drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh several
times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems. I believe
a cooling hose once. I also don't believe he did it for cost savings. @
10cents per hour for labor he probably has tens of thousands of dollars in
it. However he can get Vne at less than full throttle and doesn't worry
much about 100LL. He is also a good engineer with a darn good oily thumb.
Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
every thing but acquisition costs.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
> > I don't think that there is a very large "anti-auto engine crowd." That
> > said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who view the auto
> > conversion field as a potential minefield.
> >
> > I have known personally several people who used (or attempted to use)
> > auto conversions in airplanes.
>
> Snip some examples
>
> > There have been several other V-8 based direct drive instalaltions that,
> > frankly, were very rough-looking and ended up as catastrophic failures.
> >
> > I have a friend who has a very nice Stuart 51, with a big-block Chevy
> > and PSRU. He is taking small steps to make sure that it all works as
> > desired.
> >
> > That said, if you think you can negotiate the minefield of enging
> > development, have at it, but please, acquire all the technical hepl and
> > talent you can get.
>
> No doubt, that it can be, and usually has been a good way to go broke, if
> you try to produce setups.
>
> Anyone who thinks they will save gobs of money is fooling someone.
>
> That said, there are ways to get the bugs out, and study of failures and
> successes are a part of it.
>
> Note that I said I would feel good about getting into a plane that had the
> bugs worked out of the conversion, or something along that line. I guess
> that line should have been emphasized, because that is the key.

Precisely! Unfortunately, I have seen too many that had catastrophic
results. Too many were attempting to fly before the bugs had even been
identified.

I have come to the conclusion that aircraft engine design is as much art
as it is science. After all, the engines we normally fly (and take for
granted) are those from which all (or at least, most) of the bugs have
been eliminated. Some bugs still emerge, such as the infamous O-320H,
dual mags, cracking crankcases on big-bore Continentals, etc.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
wrote:

> In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
> >
> > The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
> > engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
> > the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
> >
> > I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
> > the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>
> There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
> purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
> In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
> trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
> serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

That is where PSRU design takes up the mission. A good PSRU will have
the thrust bearings, etc. required for the mission.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[The Older Gentleman]

Stuart Fields > wrote:

> Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
> without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
> every thing but acquisition costs.

As one who's just bought the car that houses it, it will be interesting
to see whether the Subary flat-four diesel finds any aircraft
applications.

Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50 Triumph Street Triple
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

The Older Gentleman schreef:

> Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
> in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
> airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

Not sure if you are aware but you are posting to
news://rec.aviation.homebuilt ; where this subject has been discussed
several times. Though of course the story is not ended, not by a long
way. I am considering an aero-conversion of the Subaru flat-4 diesel but
will need engineering help as I'm not schooled in mechanics.

If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
www.dair.co.uk - that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

KA

[Morgans[_2_]]

> I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is
> direct
> drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh several
> times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems.

Wow, I would like to see that set-up. Did he have to move the fire wall
forward, for ballance?

I would not use any auto engine, without at least an additional bearing for
thrust added to the crank. I had a 350 chevy crank in a van that was 25
thousands over spec, in end slop. That was without any thrust on the
engine.


--
Jim in NC

[The Older Gentleman]

jan olieslagers > wrote:

> The Older Gentleman schreef:
>
> > Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
> > in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
> > airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....
>
> Not sure if you are aware but you are posting to
> news://rec.aviation.homebuilt ; where this subject has been discussed
> several times.

I can see the x-post, yes. But I'm not a regular subscriber to the ng
(well, never looked at it, to be honest), so I didn't know.

>Though of course the story is not ended, not by a long
> way. I am considering an aero-conversion of the Subaru flat-4 diesel but
> will need engineering help as I'm not schooled in mechanics.
>
> If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
> www.dair.co.uk - that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.
>
Thanks for that. I'm a hot air balloon fiend, so aerostats are always of
interest.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50 Triumph Street Triple
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:55:16 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
>> dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
>> Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).
>>
>> Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
>> optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
>> well.
>
>The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
>engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
>the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>
>I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
>the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>
>And everyone else, no, I will not go into the reason for this attitude,
>again.
With the possible exception of the 912S.
Those 912s stand up VERY well but the price!!!!!!!

[[email protected]]

On 08 Mar 2009 02:52:33 GMT, wrote:

>In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
>>
>> The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
>> engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
>> the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>>
>> I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
>> the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>
>There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
>purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
>In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
>trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
>serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
Which is a TOTAL nonissue on most auto conversions, as MOST use a
PSRU.
Direct drive auto conversions, other than the Corvair,(and VW) are
extremely rare.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:54:53 -0700, "Stuart Fields" >
wrote:

>
>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of
>>> > these
>>> > engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so
>>> > tired of
>>> > the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>>> >
>>> > I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has
>>> > had
>>> > the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>>>
>>> There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
>>> purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
>>> In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
>>> trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
>>> serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
>>
>> That is where PSRU design takes up the mission. A good PSRU will have
>> the thrust bearings, etc. required for the mission.
>I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is direct
>drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh several
>times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems. I believe
>a cooling hose once. I also don't believe he did it for cost savings. @
>10cents per hour for labor he probably has tens of thousands of dollars in
>it. However he can get Vne at less than full throttle and doesn't worry
>much about 100LL. He is also a good engineer with a darn good oily thumb.
>Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
>without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
>every thing but acquisition costs.
>
Forget the aquisition cost - it's the maintenance/rebuild that kills
you. Certified parts are pricey. An average auto conversion can be
zero timed for the cost of doing one jug on a "real" aircraft engine.

[[email protected]]

In uk.rec.motorcycles The Older Gentleman > wrote:
> Stuart Fields > wrote:
>
> > Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
> > without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
> > every thing but acquisition costs.
>
> As one who's just bought the car that houses it, it will be interesting
> to see whether the Subary flat-four diesel finds any aircraft
> applications.
>
> Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
> in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
> airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

Yup, Thielert engines are used by Diamond aircraft.
http://www.centurion-engines.com/
Diesel engines running on aviation kerosene.

--
03 GS500
66 Velocette LE Mk3
68 Bantam D14S
81 CB250RS

[Morgans[_2_]]

"The Older Gentleman" > wrote
>
> Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
> in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
> airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

Check out Diamond Aircraft
<http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/index.php>

They had problems with their engine supplier going bankrupt, and were left
without support for their engines, but have gotten another engine program
going quickly. I can't recall if it was the Mercedes engine that went belly
up, or if they are going to a Mercedes engine.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Forget the aquisition cost - it's the maintenance/rebuild that kills
> you. Certified parts are pricey. An average auto conversion can be
> zero timed for the cost of doing one jug on a "real" aircraft engine.
>
Right. You could overhaul to new a auto engine conversion every 500 hours,
and still be money ahead.

In reality, you probably will be able to go to well over 2,000 hours with a
auto engine that has been flown frequently, at reasonable power outputs,
without problems.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> With the possible exception of the 912S.
> Those 912s stand up VERY well but the price!!!!!!!

That's the word on the street, but, the company!

I just will not allow myself to get into an aircraft with an engine made by
a company I trust so little.

It sure limits your (read my) choices in the light sport aircraft field.
--
Jim in NC

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
typed
>In uk.rec.motorcycles The Older Gentleman
> wrote:
>> Stuart Fields > wrote:
>>
>> > Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
>> > without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
>> > every thing but acquisition costs.
>>
>> As one who's just bought the car that houses it, it will be interesting
>> to see whether the Subary flat-four diesel finds any aircraft
>> applications.
>>
>> Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
>> in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
>> airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....
>
>Yup, Thielert engines are used by Diamond aircraft.

You might want to check up on recent developments here.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

It's important is that last ell.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
typed
>On 08 Mar 2009 02:52:33 GMT, wrote:
>
>>In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans > wrote:
>>>
>>> The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
>>> engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
>>> the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.
>>>
>>> I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
>>> the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.
>>
>>There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
>>purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
>>In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
>>trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
>>serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
> Which is a TOTAL nonissue on most auto conversions

Get used to it.

He's wrong a lot.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

It's important is that last ell.

[[email protected]]

On 08 Mar 2009 21:40:07 GMT, wrote:

>In uk.rec.motorcycles The Older Gentleman > wrote:
>> Stuart Fields > wrote:
>>
>> > Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
>> > without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
>> > every thing but acquisition costs.
>>
>> As one who's just bought the car that houses it, it will be interesting
>> to see whether the Subary flat-four diesel finds any aircraft
>> applications.
>>
>> Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
>> in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
>> airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....
>
>Yup, Thielert engines are used by Diamond aircraft.
>http://www.centurion-engines.com/
>Diesel engines running on aviation kerosene.


WERE. What is the status since Thielert's bankrupsy?

[Stuart Fields]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is
>> direct
>> drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh
>> several times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems.
>
> Wow, I would like to see that set-up. Did he have to move the fire wall
> forward, for ballance?
>
> I would not use any auto engine, without at least an additional bearing
> for thrust added to the crank. I had a 350 chevy crank in a van that was
> 25 thousands over spec, in end slop. That was without any thrust on the
> engine.
>
>
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim: Try Contact Magazine and look for Gary & Shar Spencer.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:00:13 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> With the possible exception of the 912S.
>> Those 912s stand up VERY well but the price!!!!!!!
>
>That's the word on the street, but, the company!
>
>I just will not allow myself to get into an aircraft with an engine made by
>a company I trust so little.
>
>It sure limits your (read my) choices in the light sport aircraft field.

Bombardier is a very highly regarded company - most of it's products
are in the top 10% of their competition - but ANY 2 stroke engine, to
me, is suspect.
I know, in theory they are almost bulletproof because they have so few
moving parts - but in practice they are fragine.

Heck, I won't even take my chainsaw up a ladder, why would I fly
behind one????
TBO on the 2 stroke stuff is PITIFUL.

[[email protected]]

In uk.rec.motorcycles wrote:
> On 08 Mar 2009 21:40:07 GMT, wrote:
>
> >In uk.rec.motorcycles The Older Gentleman > wrote:
> >> Stuart Fields > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
> >> > without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
> >> > every thing but acquisition costs.
> >>
> >> As one who's just bought the car that houses it, it will be interesting
> >> to see whether the Subary flat-four diesel finds any aircraft
> >> applications.
> >>
> >> Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
> >> in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
> >> airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....
> >
> >Yup, Thielert engines are used by Diamond aircraft.
> >http://www.centurion-engines.com/
> >Diesel engines running on aviation kerosene.
>
> WERE. What is the status since Thielert's bankrupsy?

Diamond are now using Austro diesel engines.
http://www.diamond-air.at/home+M52087573ab0.html

AFAIK Centurian are now building Thielert engines again but ICBW.

--
03 GS500
66 Velocette LE Mk3
68 Bantam D14S
81 CB250RS

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> but ANY 2 stroke engine, to
> me, is suspect.
> I know, in theory they are almost bulletproof because they have so few
> moving parts - but in practice they are fragine.
>
> Heck, I won't even take my chainsaw up a ladder, why would I fly
> behind one????
> TBO on the 2 stroke stuff is PITIFUL.

Yep. Yet they touted that crap as AIRWORTHY.

I wonder how many people are pushing up daisies, because of that attitude.
--
Jim in NC

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember jan olieslagers
> saying something like:

>If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
>www.dair.co.uk - that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

I recall a Rolls-Royce WW2 service manager told me he was utterly
gobsmacked when he saw the Krauts were using diesels in some of their
bombers. At the same time, he was quite impressed, although the diesel
story was spread around as some sort of negative propaganda - weight,
lack of power, etc.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying
something like:

>Yup, Thielert engines are used by Diamond aircraft.
>http://www.centurion-engines.com/
>Diesel engines running on aviation kerosene.

Only thing though - sooner or later, you can absolutely guarantee some
numpty ******* will fill it and run it (albeit briefly) on petrol.
TBO, iwt, for that, surely?

[TOG@Toil]

On 9 Mar, 07:49, Grimly Curmudgeon >
wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember jan olieslagers
> > saying something like:
>
> >If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
> >www.dair.co.uk- that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.
>
> I recall a Rolls-Royce WW2 service manager told me he was utterly
> gobsmacked when he saw the Krauts were using diesels in some of their
> bombers. At the same time, he was quite impressed, although the diesel
> story was spread around as some sort of negative propaganda - weight,
> lack of power, etc.

It wasn't the most successful application, it must be admitted.
Obviously you'd have had the inherent reliability of a diesel compared
with the petrol engines of the era (the Junkers 86 was a pre-war
design), but the criticisms of weight and lack of power would have
been valid, and for a warplane, lack of power is an absolute no-no[1].

There were some German wartime flying boats that used diesel engines,
too. Rather successfully, actually, but then flying boats can't really
be classed as combat aircraft, no matter how many defensive guns they
carried.

The R101 airship used diesel engines, which were then really untried
technology as far as aircraft went, and they were unsuccessful. Had
the thing not crashed and the British airship programme continued,
it's almost certain the R101 would have been re-fitted with petrol
engines.

The Graf Zeppelin used spark-ignition engines, but fuelled with
natural gas called Blaugas, stored uncompressed. This was a bit like
propane, and was named after its inventor rather than its colour. The
beauty of Blaugas for airships was that it weighed more or less the
same as air and so as the fuel was used up, it didn't affect the trim
of the airship. I think the engines also ran on, and the craft
carried, petrol but I cba to Google right now.

[1] Well, for any aircraft, I'd have thought[2]
[2] And motorcycle :-)

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

TOG@Toil schreef:
> but the criticisms of weight and lack of power would have
> been valid,

Would they really? Have you ever checked the power/weight ratio of the
JuMo diesels?

[bildan]

On Mar 9, 5:44*am, "TOG@Toil" > wrote:
> On 9 Mar, 07:49, Grimly Curmudgeon >
> wrote:
>
> > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> > drugs began to take hold. I remember jan olieslagers
> > > saying something like:
>
> > >If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
> > >www.dair.co.uk-that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.
>
> > I recall a Rolls-Royce WW2 service manager told me he was utterly
> > gobsmacked when he saw the Krauts were using diesels in some of their
> > bombers. At the same time, he was quite impressed, although the diesel
> > story was spread around as some sort of negative propaganda - weight,
> > lack of power, etc.
>
> It wasn't the most successful application, it must be admitted.
> Obviously you'd have had the inherent reliability of a diesel compared
> with the petrol engines of the era (the Junkers 86 was a pre-war
> design), but the criticisms of weight and lack of power would have
> been valid, and for a warplane, lack of power is an absolute no-no[1].
>
> There were some German wartime flying boats that used diesel engines,
> too. Rather successfully, actually, but then flying boats can't really
> be classed as combat aircraft, no matter how many defensive guns they
> carried.
>
> The R101 airship used diesel engines, which were then really untried
> technology as far as aircraft went, and they were unsuccessful. Had
> the thing not crashed and the British airship programme continued,
> it's almost certain the R101 would have been re-fitted with petrol
> engines.
>
> The Graf Zeppelin used spark-ignition engines, but fuelled with
> natural gas called Blaugas, stored uncompressed. This was a bit like
> propane, and was named after its inventor rather than its colour. The
> beauty of Blaugas for airships was that it weighed more or less the
> same as air and so as the fuel was used up, it didn't affect the trim
> of the airship. I think the engines also ran on, and the craft
> carried, petrol but I cba to Google right now.
>
> [1] Well, for any aircraft, I'd have thought[2]
> [2] And motorcycle :-)

Keep in mind that while the Jumo 205 was a successful diesel aero
engine, It was built at a time when titanium and other high strength,
light weight alloys weren't available.

Aero diesels under development today use titanium in many parts and
high strength aluminum alloys elsewhere to achieve a much better power-
to-weight ratio. Most better 1LB/HP. All will use universally
available JET A rather than diesel fuel - although they can use that
too if the temperature is high enough.

To return to the subject, the stock Hyabusa uses titanium valves and
rods.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:03:51 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> but ANY 2 stroke engine, to
>> me, is suspect.
>> I know, in theory they are almost bulletproof because they have so few
>> moving parts - but in practice they are fragine.
>>
>> Heck, I won't even take my chainsaw up a ladder, why would I fly
>> behind one????
>> TBO on the 2 stroke stuff is PITIFUL.
>
>Yep. Yet they touted that crap as AIRWORTHY.
>
>I wonder how many people are pushing up daisies, because of that attitude.


If you totally ovehaul a Rotax 2 stroke every 300 hours and are VERY
carefull with what fuel and oil you run, they are unlikely to kill
you. Go 500 hours, run ethanol fuel or the wrong oil, have the mixture
off - and it's just a matter of WHEN.

[The Older Gentleman]

bildan > wrote:

> To return to the subject, the stock Hyabusa uses titanium valves and
> rods.

Hayabusa, ffs, Hayabusa.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50 Triumph Street Triple
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[Jim[_22_]]

"TOG@Toil" > wrote:
>The R101 airship used diesel engines, which were then really untried
>technology as far as aircraft went, and they were unsuccessful. Had
>the thing not crashed and the British airship programme continued,
>it's almost certain the R101 would have been re-fitted with petrol
>engines.

The thinking apparently was that the diesel was less flammable (for
whatever reason fire risk was at the back of the minds of the
designers). Although as I understand it this was all to no avail since
there were also separate engines for starting the diesels, which were
petrol.

You couldn't make this stuff up.