Hyabusa flat 8

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

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

"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.

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.

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

"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 :-))))