A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hyabusa flat 8



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 6th 09, 11:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
TOG@Toil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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.
  #12  
Old March 6th 09, 11:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
Wicked Uncle Nigel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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.

  #13  
Old March 6th 09, 01:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
platypus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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?

  #14  
Old March 6th 09, 01:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
Champ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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
  #15  
Old March 6th 09, 01:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
Wicked Uncle Nigel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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.

  #16  
Old March 6th 09, 02:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
Mark Olson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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.
  #17  
Old March 6th 09, 02:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
TOG@Toil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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.
  #18  
Old March 6th 09, 03:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Hyabusa flat 8


"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




  #19  
Old March 6th 09, 04:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,uk.rec.motorcycles
bildan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default Hyabusa flat 8

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There I was, flat on my back... Kyle Boatright Home Built 5 August 16th 07 05:34 AM
Flat tire Viperdoc[_4_] Piloting 11 June 4th 07 02:57 PM
Flat Tires? Jay Honeck Owning 40 August 31st 05 01:59 AM
Wrinkly flat panels [email protected] Home Built 27 March 6th 04 02:12 PM
Flat Spin JJ Sinclair Soaring 34 February 10th 04 05:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.