Briggs vanguard conversions

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,825
Location
US
I'll have to ask. I make no claims of being an engine building guru.
We're a tough crowd. Hey,But you'd be out here throwing cabbages at me if I'd posted the same fhing-- it's what friends do for friends.
at least he's done some work and reported in, so that's good.
 

TiPi

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
275
Location
Mackay (AUS)
So if your engine is rated at 100hp at 5800 rpm, and you only get 5650rpm at wide open throttle in level cruise, then you have a cruise prop and you never see 100hp in normal flight.
The important number for the airplane designer to know (using this engine) is what hp is available for climb at 5350 rpm. The 100hp at 5800 rpm is not relavent.
Now if you install an extreme climb prop then you can cruise at 100hp with 5800rpm.
For 5 minutes! That's why I set the prop to <5,500rpm in cruise climb (80kts). I can climb from sea level to 9,500' at WOT, sometimes taking 20' and stay within the Rotax parameters for unlimited WOT operation.
The Briggs doesn't have a hard redline like the Lycosaurus, Rotax, Jabiru etc. You as the builder/designer decide where you want to run your engine and build/specify a prop to suit.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,419
Location
North Carolina
These numbers are plausible:
The original engine has a ve of 70% and a torque of 43.5Nm.
Going to 100% ve is already an increase to 62Nm
Add the 3psi boost (+20% ve) takes the torque to 74Nm (54.5lbf.ft)
Torque on a turbo engine will increase with rpm as the turbo kicks in so "peak torque @ 2,600 rpm" is not peak, seems to have ben recorded at that rpm as this is the default "peak torque rpm" for industrial engines.
The mods so far are 3psi of boost, for which an extra 56% of torque appears to have been generated.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,825
Location
US
The 33hp is max, not continuous. From the German POH:
Max take-off power: 33hp @ 3,600rpm
Max continuous power: 30hp @ 3,300rpm
Fuel burn @ 75%power: 5.9 lt/h
Fuel burn @ max power: 7.1 lt/h
Fuel burn @ 55% power: 4.6 lt/h
Thanks, those fuel burn numbers match the HP numbers.
I think Minisport would be better off to provide more complete specs/information on these new, modified engines. With the Hirths, prospective buyers can go to the Hirth web site and learn everything they need to know. With the SE-33, they depend on MiniSport. There's not much there.
Thanks again
 

TiPi

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
275
Location
Mackay (AUS)
Thanks, those fuel burn numbers match the HP numbers.
I think Minisport would be better off to provide more complete specs/information on these new, modified engines. With the Hirths, prospective buyers can go to the Hirth web site and learn everything they need to know. With the SE-33, they depend on MiniSport. There's not much there.
Thanks again
The SE-33 is the "Minisport" engine, not available as an engine only to my knowlegde. That might change if the demand is there but it would be a bare engine. The FWF kit is for the SD-1.
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,657
Location
YMM
We're a tough crowd. Hey,But you'd be out here throwing cabbages at me if I'd posted the same fhing-- it's what friends do for friends.
at least he's done some work and reported in, so that's good.
One of the reasons I went with him, and he already knows he's building an aircraft engine. Not airboat. And he's still happy to play and Dyno test as he goes. He may chime in, he was already aware of this thread when we were discussing sending it to him.

Theres a long way to go yet... We're still talking next spring/summer before it comes back.
 

poormansairforce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
923
Location
Just an Ohioan
Torque on a turbo engine will increase with rpm as the turbo kicks in so "peak torque @ 2,600 rpm" is not peak, seems to have ben recorded at that rpm as this is the default "peak torque rpm" for industrial engines.
This is what I was pointing out. The hp number isn't crazy, maybe a little optimistic....34 or so would sound better.
 

karmarepair

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
87
Location
United States
I discard post 1235 because I don't know what KM is.
I wondered that too.
Elsewhere in the same literature the vendor describes this engine as being 35 HP, which matches the peak the dyno curve is showing. But perhaps some of Vigilant1's "near Missouri" skepticism is in order...
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,825
Location
US
The SE-33 is the "Minisport" engine, not available as an engine only to my knowlegde. That might change if the demand is there but it would be a bare engine. The FWF kit is for the SD-1.
Yes, and the kit is quite complete (engine mount, cowling, etc to fit the SE-33 to the SD-1). It sells for a bit over $5K in the US.
 
Last edited:

JohnB

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
61
Just another random data point . Well known builder in the Legal Eagle community replaced his "37 hp" 1/2vw with a "45hp" new engine. Difference in performance was not in line with advertised 18% power increase so test clubs were brought into play and it was determined the new engine was more on the order of 40 hp. Returned to builder for evaluation. Test clubs said better but not there yet. Dual carbs plus a couple other changes brought power to advertised level. The test clubs made tracking real world power and incremental improvements easy. I will use them. JohnB
 

JohnB

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
61
HELP!! I'm old and need adult supervision. SOMEWHERE in one of these 3 threads of the B&S 810 engine is a factory drawing of the mounting bolt spacing John @ ACE needs to quote a redrive. I can't find it after an hour of searching. Anyone? THANKS JohnB
 

Neal Scherm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
47
Location
Riverside, CA
Hello all,

I am new to this forum, but have been around experimental aircraft for a long time. Lots of dollars thrown into the air to watch fly away :)
In the past I have worked on Subaru and Rotary engine installs as alternatives to Lycosaurus and Continentals. The aircraft I flew required 120 - 150hp and these engines worked well in that range.
They were complicated and required a LOT of effort to make work, but it was worth the challenge .

Recently, I have decided to look into flying again after a many year layoff. During that time, my life changed and my mission has as well. Rather than look into a fast cross country flier, I am more drawn to a slow and low regime. I built and flew a Rans S14 before and loved the freedom of the "FAT" ultralight.
I have flown both long distance and short country hop style of flight and enjoyed it most when no passengers were bothering me. That leads me to look at a single seat S-14 style plane with about 40-50hp required. Hearing that you are supposed to find an engine and then build the plane around it, I decided to see what was available. My only requirement was that it be a 4 stroke. After flying a "Bluehead" I was not interested in the noise, maintenance and fuel thirst. It is my opinion that for all the weight you save on the engine, you have to spend it back on fuel...

I have a way too familiar knowledge of VW engines, so the half and full engines were not on the list. Everyone has an opinion. That's why there are so many car manufacturers. My opinion is that VW's are prone to crank issues. The only way to make decent HP is to put a redrive on it and that would cure the crank issue as well. However, they are expensive now and they are heavy. They do have the cool Diehl case with the alternator mount. Maybe we need one of those for this engine??? It has good mounting points built in.

After previewing the '49 forum and looking at a few other decent sources, I have set my mind on the B&S 61. I have looked at the vertical mount '49 engine and can see the interest at that price point, but by the time I build it to 50hp, I've invested a bit of work. I'm trying to bypass that fun this time. The '61 has displacement and I understand there is no replacement for that.
In addition, it is designed as a horizontal platform, so there again is no pesky fun involved in flipping it.
I believe that the 993cc engine will make 50hp at 4600rpm for 5 mins and 40hp at 3600 forever. With very little of that great fun involved :) In fact, I believe it so much that I ordered a 35hp one today.
Being the kind that doesn't want to reinvent the wheel, I am asking all ya' all with any experience with this engine to share your thoughts.
Now, here is where I will throw in a curve. Years ago, I mounted a Rotax "C" box to a Subaru EJ22 and installed it in a Kitfox Vixen. Again, lots of that GREAT fun... But, it showed me what a good gearbox it is and that it could handle 120hp all day. It weighed 17lb for the box and another 14 for the flywheel and adaptor and was a clean install.

I thought to myself (yes, it hurts when I do that) why not mount a c box to the '61? Guess what?, They don't make the "C" anymore. They only make the "B" and the "E". The b would work great on a 40hp, but not 50. The "E" is the "C" with a starter built into the gearbox with a sprag clutch. Same way they run the 914. The "C" was 17.5lbs. The "E" is 24.5lbs. Something tells me the starter weighs 7lbs. The "E" can handle 100hp all day long WITH a 72" prop. I know 'cause my 14 had a 582 with an "E" box with a warpdrive prop. It was fun.
However, I then realize that it removes the starter, the flywheel and the ring gear from the engine. I wonder what that weighs. Then the epiphany. All I need is the bare engine, a mounting bracket, a gearbox, intake with a good EFI system, exhaust pipes and an alternator. How much will that weigh?

I am going to find out. The engine will be here in the next week. The gearbox will be here Friday. I guess my winter is taken... I plan to run the gearbox off the flywheel side leaving the PTO for accessories. They make the drive lug pretty easy to attach I found out. This will also give me great possibilities for a Dynafocal engine mount to help absorb all that shakin' going on. I will cut the bottom mounting lugs off and shave a tiny bit there as well. It will run a lightweight flywheel with the pick ups, but don't need a ring gear. It will also drive a 50 amp alternator so I can listen to my tapes on my Walkman.

Please, if any of you have worked with the '61, could you let me know any issues you encountered or cool ideas you have.

Fly safe,

Neal

P.S. No grief on the drawing please. It was a quickie and I just need the prop location and general outline...

61 e box.jpg
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,825
Location
US
Neal,
Are you dead set on using a PSRU? The S-14 is reasonably clean, and going with a direct drive setup (prop mounted to the flywheel) would save you money, weight, and probably a lot of development time. You could then use the stock starter, alternator, ignition, etc. No, I don't have experience with it, but lot of folks are flying their SD-1s with a prop mounted to the flywheel of the 49 series engine.
These little engines get pretty good prop efficiencies with direct drives and shorter props. Yes, you'd get better TO and climb with a PSRU and a big prop mounted way high, but at cruise the thrust might not be very different at all from a direct drive. A lot might depend on your available clearance/prop length given the S-14 tail boom. You might need the extra prop hub height a PSRU provides
 
Last edited:

TiPi

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
275
Location
Mackay (AUS)
Hello all,

I am new to this forum, but have been around experimental aircraft for a long time. Lots of dollars thrown into the air to watch fly away :)
In the past I have worked on Subaru and Rotary engine installs as alternatives to Lycosaurus and Continentals. The aircraft I flew required 120 - 150hp and these engines worked well in that range.
They were complicated and required a LOT of effort to make work, but it was worth the challenge .

Recently, I have decided to look into flying again after a many year layoff. During that time, my life changed and my mission has as well. Rather than look into a fast cross country flier, I am more drawn to a slow and low regime. I built and flew a Rans S14 before and loved the freedom of the "FAT" ultralight.
I have flown both long distance and short country hop style of flight and enjoyed it most when no passengers were bothering me. That leads me to look at a single seat S-14 style plane with about 40-50hp required. Hearing that you are supposed to find an engine and then build the plane around it, I decided to see what was available. My only requirement was that it be a 4 stroke. After flying a "Bluehead" I was not interested in the noise, maintenance and fuel thirst. It is my opinion that for all the weight you save on the engine, you have to spend it back on fuel...

I have a way too familiar knowledge of VW engines, so the half and full engines were not on the list. Everyone has an opinion. That's why there are so many car manufacturers. My opinion is that VW's are prone to crank issues. The only way to make decent HP is to put a redrive on it and that would cure the crank issue as well. However, they are expensive now and they are heavy. They do have the cool Diehl case with the alternator mount. Maybe we need one of those for this engine??? It has good mounting points built in.

After previewing the '49 forum and looking at a few other decent sources, I have set my mind on the B&S 61. I have looked at the vertical mount '49 engine and can see the interest at that price point, but by the time I build it to 50hp, I've invested a bit of work. I'm trying to bypass that fun this time. The '61 has displacement and I understand there is no replacement for that.
In addition, it is designed as a horizontal platform, so there again is no pesky fun involved in flipping it.
I believe that the 993cc engine will make 50hp at 4600rpm for 5 mins and 40hp at 3600 forever. With very little of that great fun involved :) In fact, I believe it so much that I ordered a 35hp one today.
Being the kind that doesn't want to reinvent the wheel, I am asking all ya' all with any experience with this engine to share your thoughts.
Now, here is where I will throw in a curve. Years ago, I mounted a Rotax "C" box to a Subaru EJ22 and installed it in a Kitfox Vixen. Again, lots of that GREAT fun... But, it showed me what a good gearbox it is and that it could handle 120hp all day. It weighed 17lb for the box and another 14 for the flywheel and adaptor and was a clean install.

I thought to myself (yes, it hurts when I do that) why not mount a c box to the '61? Guess what?, They don't make the "C" anymore. They only make the "B" and the "E". The b would work great on a 40hp, but not 50. The "E" is the "C" with a starter built into the gearbox with a sprag clutch. Same way they run the 914. The "C" was 17.5lbs. The "E" is 24.5lbs. Something tells me the starter weighs 7lbs. The "E" can handle 100hp all day long WITH a 72" prop. I know 'cause my 14 had a 582 with an "E" box with a warpdrive prop. It was fun.
However, I then realize that it removes the starter, the flywheel and the ring gear from the engine. I wonder what that weighs. Then the epiphany. All I need is the bare engine, a mounting bracket, a gearbox, intake with a good EFI system, exhaust pipes and an alternator. How much will that weigh?

I am going to find out. The engine will be here in the next week. The gearbox will be here Friday. I guess my winter is taken... I plan to run the gearbox off the flywheel side leaving the PTO for accessories. They make the drive lug pretty easy to attach I found out. This will also give me great possibilities for a Dynafocal engine mount to help absorb all that shakin' going on. I will cut the bottom mounting lugs off and shave a tiny bit there as well. It will run a lightweight flywheel with the pick ups, but don't need a ring gear. It will also drive a 50 amp alternator so I can listen to my tapes on my Walkman.

Please, if any of you have worked with the '61, could you let me know any issues you encountered or cool ideas you have.

Fly safe,

Neal

P.S. No grief on the drawing please. It was a quickie and I just need the prop location and general outline...

View attachment 90087
Hi Neil, well done on your approach to this engine. I don't have personal experience with the 54 or 61 series but here are a couple of things that I picked up on my journey for the 49:
- cast flywheel might be marginal at your planned top rpm. Most race mobs specify billet flywheels for rpms above 4,500
- cast crank, just be aware
- mounting holes on the flywheel side are for the alternator coil and tin ware and are marginal for mounting the engine, might work with some creativity
- check out the mud boat providers, some good and useful info on the big block engines

Can I suggest to start a new project or thread so we can follow much easier? Many threads seem to go on forever and get side-tracked frequently.

Good luck and have fun, TiPi
 

Neal Scherm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
47
Location
Riverside, CA
Neal,
Are you dead set on using a PSRU? The S-14 is reasonably clean, and going with a direct drive setup (prop mounted to the flywheel) would save you money, weight, and probably a lot of development time. You could then use the stock starter, alternator, ignition, etc. No, I don't have experience with it, but lot of folks are flying their SD-1s with a prop mounted to the flywheel of the 49 series engine.
These little engines get pretty good prop efficiencies with direct drives and shorter props. Yes, you'd get better TO and climb with a PSRU and a big prop mounted way high, but at cruise the thrust might not be very different at all from a direct drive. A lot might depend on your available clearance/prop length given the S-14 tail boom. You might need the extra prop hub height a PSRU provides
Thank you for you thoughts,
So I should have mentioned that I am not going to be building another S-14. I am looking for something a little less draggy.
Direct drive limits prop size and performance. The prop will be spinning 2000 rpm at 4500 engine rpm. 65" as opposed to 45 or so. I don't like the stress a direct drive places on a crank. Lyco's have a LOT of bearing support. These little guys, not so much.
The stock flywheel and such weigh as much as the gearbox that replace them. I would think the extension would weigh more when said and done. But, I will know for sure when I get a base weight on the engine.
 

Neal Scherm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
47
Location
Riverside, CA
Hi Neil, well done on your approach to this engine. I don't have personal experience with the 54 or 61 series but here are a couple of things that I picked up on my journey for the 49:
- cast flywheel might be marginal at your planned top rpm. Most race mobs specify billet flywheels for rpms above 4,500
- cast crank, just be aware
- mounting holes on the flywheel side are for the alternator coil and tin ware and are marginal for mounting the engine, might work with some creativity
- check out the mud boat providers, some good and useful info on the big block engines

Can I suggest to start a new project or thread so we can follow much easier? Many threads seem to go on forever and get side-tracked frequently.

Good luck and have fun, TiPi
Thank you,
One of the reasons for the elimination of the factory flywheel. Others have changed it for a lighter one.
Vangaurd engine = forged. This is the marine 35hp.
That's why I want to mount the engine from the PTO end. Lots of holes :)

I will start a new thread when I get the engine and can get so photos and data. Also, I will take your suggestion on the mudboaters.

Fly safe,

Neal
 

John Penry-Evans

Active Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
42
Location
UK / India
Well let's do a thread rather than making the ranger thread even harder to follow ;)

I had grabbed a 23hp vanguard v-twin the other day at a garage sale. Attached to a siezed up trash pump for under 100$. EFI, 12v electric start.

Did have that ranger in mind - as it's a project I wouldn't mind right now.

Some reading and googling tells me there's just about everything available to make these work as aircraft engines. Everything from Pistons, sleeved cylinders, billet/cnc/forged/cast rods and hundreds of cams to choose from, stoker kits, I did see mention of a dual sparkplug and larger valve head option over on a lawnmower racing page. There's actually some details on turbo (using that geo metro 3cyl turbo) and smog pump superchargers odd as that sounds.

Spin on oil filter, says we've got some oil cooling options, on top of just air cooling.

It's interesting how many options are out there, and it seems fitting to maybe start talking about what's needed to make one work for that the ranger design.
------ > Hello. Our red
Well let's do a thread rather than making the ranger thread even harder to follow ;)

I had grabbed a 23hp vanguard v-twin the other day at a garage sale. Attached to a siezed up trash pump for under 100$. EFI, 12v electric start.

Did have that ranger in mind - as it's a project I wouldn't mind right now.

Some reading and googling tells me there's just about everything available to make these work as aircraft engines. Everything from Pistons, sleeved cylinders, billet/cnc/forged/cast rods and hundreds of cams to choose from, stoker kits, I did see mention of a dual sparkplug and larger valve head option over on a lawnmower racing page. There's actually some details on turbo (using that geo metro 3cyl turbo) and smog pump superchargers odd as that sounds.

Spin on oil filter, says we've got some oil cooling options, on top of just air cooling.

It's interesting how many options are out there, and it seems fitting to maybe start talking about what's needed to make one work for that the ranger design.
So, just to clarify, you have a B&S Vanguard horizontal shaft engine of the 38XX series, 627cc, with EFI (something like this one). Is that right?
It will be a good little engine t play around with, get weights, etc. We've had a few threads on similar engines, including this one from a guy who ran the h*ll out of his when using an Ace redrive and a lot of aftermarket parts (that thread got a bit heated, but there's good information if you can read around the flames).
Direct drive would save weight, complexity (some TV issues) and possibly cost.
I don't think you'll get 35 reliable continuous HP from this engine, whether run in direct drive or with a PSRU, just due to the heat rejection issues. Some folks believe there's some "padding" in the B&S HP numbers and that, with proper attention to airflow, they can be run at higher HP for a long time. I think that would need to be shown.
------- > If it helps anyone, we`ve been making successful redrives for commercial V-Twins since 2010. Also for singles for the smaller 200 cc up to 460 cc. www.aceaviation.co.uk
Anyone can email us for information. info@aceaviation.co.uk
We are a British aero sports company based at Ooty, IndiaUSA image.jpg
 
2
Top