# Boxer Diesel Weight

Discussion in 'Subaru' started by flyboyjohn7, Apr 18, 2009.

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

1. Sep 20, 2017

### rv7charlie

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 17, 2014
Messages:
448
176
Location:
Jackson
Same here. And bare block weight is near worthless, if you're adding gear drive, supercharger, turbo, intercoolers, etc etc .

Configure the engine as it will fly, hang it on a scale, & post a pic of the weight.

(I still haven't heard how it makes 50% more power than the car, reliably.)

2. Sep 20, 2017

### tspear

Joined:
Feb 13, 2014
Messages:
777
173
Location:
Oneida
Ron,

Good luck. At $75K, you are higher then even www.purepowerm.com/ With two of them in the V-Twin it very likely breaks the budget. Tim 3. Sep 20, 2017 ### tspear ### tspear #### Well-Known Member Joined: Feb 13, 2014 Messages: 777 Likes Received: 173 Location: Oneida Ron, I could not find such information. There are references that it is comparable to an O-360. But depending on model, there is an almost 50lb variance. At one point you may have had the information, but it no longer appears to be listed. Tim 4. Sep 20, 2017 ### rv6ejguy ### rv6ejguy #### Well-Known Member Joined: Jun 26, 2012 Messages: 3,749 Likes Received: 2,792 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada I'm curious how you'll receive certification when you can't control/ document the parts inventory or process control of all the parts which go into the engine. The FAA won't buy into that as far as I know which means the LAA likely won't either and even LSA engine regs require something of the sort. Anyway, certification almost always leads to pricing for the customer outside the realm of reason and leaves a tiny market for rich folks who can buy it. Last edited: Sep 20, 2017 cheapracer likes this. 5. Sep 20, 2017 ### cheapracer ### cheapracer #### Well-Known Member Joined: Sep 8, 2013 Messages: 5,498 Likes Received: 3,850 Location: Australian :roll: Love it! But anyway, she's French and doesn't read English. In fact she's lazy, doesn't clean, does almost nothing except watch TV all day, yet commands twice the salary of most Carers. I don't know why I put up with her ... Ron, this is YOUR link, and Members here can not find the weight, this is your problem, not ours. There is every important detail about the engine on that page, but there is no mention of actual and very critical weight, other than a nonsensical reference to the 0-360. I am of the opinion that it is intentional and somewhat deceptive. Of course you could have just mentioned, "Guys, I see the issue here, I'll get the web guys on to it straight away" and won some Brownie points. 6. Sep 20, 2017 ### tspear ### tspear #### Well-Known Member Joined: Feb 13, 2014 Messages: 777 Likes Received: 173 Location: Oneida The FAA has recently been working with EAA, Dynon and a few others where they are using COTS products in a certified solution. Maybe they are considering expanding this solution... Tim 7. Sep 20, 2017 ### Ron Gandy ### Ron Gandy #### Member Joined: Jun 29, 2016 Messages: 12 Likes Received: 2 Location: United Kingdom (England) Hi BJC the current weight for the full firewall frame inclusive engine is 507 lbs plus a further 46 lbs for the MT hydraulic propeller and spinner. All that is needed is a fuel feed and return plus a power lead to the starter. Ron cheapracer likes this. 8. Sep 20, 2017 ### rv6ejguy ### rv6ejguy #### Well-Known Member Joined: Jun 26, 2012 Messages: 3,749 Likes Received: 2,792 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada I have a copy of the ASTM LSA engine requirements in front of me and I don't see how this engine could comply with those unless they accept Subaru's QC standards. I'm doubtful if Fuji would be interested to supply that or would even bother in small numbers like this, or expose themselves to liability concerns for no real return for a few thousand dollars worth of engine sales per year. None of this makes sense to me. What we don't need is another$75K engine for light aircraft.

Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
cheapracer likes this.
9. Sep 20, 2017

### rv7charlie

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 17, 2014
Messages:
448
176
Location:
Jackson
So, this is *everything*? All mechanical components, all water radiators, all oil coolers, engine controller (is that redundant?), motor mount, etc?

If so, then the engine/controller/fuel pump/redrive/boost assy is probably around 400-425 pounds, right? Thank you for the info.

Now we have a number for weight. Can you publish the dyno run records? And more importantly, can you address how you achieve the 50% increase in HP over the car's rating, and maintain a reasonable level of reliability and durability? Have you run the engine on a dyno for at least 50 hours (IIRC, that's all the US FAA requires) at any of the published power ratings? I'd like to see the records of a 50 hour run at 200 HP, your max continuous rating (which is ~33% greater than the car's ~112KW/150HP max rating). I should add that I probably wouldn't have asked for this, if you hadn't jacked up the engine's HP rating so much over the car's rating. Your takeoff rating of 240 HP is 60% greater than the car's rating.

Please don't feel personally attacked when people ask these questions. If you've been around experimental aviation for more than a few years, you should know that there have been *many* pie-in-the-sky companies that have come and gone, taking homebuilders' hard earned money with them. You should expect, and be prepared to answer, any and all technical questions. And once you've answered all those satisfactorily, you should be prepared to answer questions about your company's history, financial underpinnings, and ethical history.

Oh, and one last thing; a piece of advice: publicly attacking a potential customer's intellect and education is not an effective way to generate sales.

Charlie

rv6ejguy and Jerry Lytle like this.
10. Sep 20, 2017

### rv7charlie

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 17, 2014
Messages:
448
176
Location:
Jackson
Yet another thing:
The web site says cruise at 160 HP burns 6.3 US gal/hour. Check my math. Most references say Jet-A is 6.84 lbs/gal. That, times 6.3 gal, =43.092 lbs. 43.092/160 yields a BSFC of 0.269325.

Now, 160 HP is 10 more than the max rated HP in the car. Your web site claims 0.27 BSFC at that HP. The most efficient *stationary*, or ship's, internal combustion engines I could find hover right around that number. And those engines are so big a man can walk around in each cylinder. No mobile engine I've found comes anywhere close. Most are 0.33 & up. Reference I used, for convenience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
Scroll to the chart about 2/3 down the page.

Care to disclose how y'all have achieved such record breaking success? And why you're bothering with a/c homebuilders for your market?

Charlie

BoKu, Monty and rv6ejguy like this.
11. Sep 20, 2017

### TFF

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 28, 2010
Messages:
11,729
3,321
Location:
Memphis, TN
cheapracer likes this.
12. Sep 20, 2017

### cheapracer

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 8, 2013
Messages:
5,498
3,850
Location:
Australian
You got me! :roll:

13. Nov 14, 2017

### Ron Gandy

#### Member

Joined:
Jun 29, 2016
Messages:
12
2
Location:
United Kingdom (England)
go to cktaeroengines.com

14. Nov 14, 2017

### rv6ejguy

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
Messages:
3,749
2,792
Location:
Why not just put the prices on the website?

dino likes this.
15. Nov 16, 2017

### Ron Gandy

#### Member

Joined:
Jun 29, 2016
Messages:
12
2
Location:
United Kingdom (England)
16. Nov 16, 2017

Joined:
Aug 16, 2013
Messages:
2,359