Your computations reflect my thinking. With this kind of torque, I would be able to turn my very coarse prop at the power to give me good takeoff performance, and with shifting gears, I would also be able to utilize that coarse pitch for high speeds. All my work, WHICH IS MINIMAL since the only thing I am doing is adapting a strong prop shaft support to the engine, is empirical. I really don't care about "numbers" yet, because I have yet to prove the concepts. The engine is ready to mount into the plane right now with its prop adapter already on. I just have to mount the cog belt drive, and connect things. But, I do have other projects with much higher priorities. The engine conversion is a labor of love, because that is where my real interests lie. And, if it doesn't work, then I will remount the VW that came with the plane, and sell the whole thing. Very little cash out, and a nice idea at least that satisfies my curiosity as to whether I could revolutionize aviation. Or not.
-
Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.
For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.
Embark on your journey now!
Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!
New engine for Sonex.
- Thread starter tdpilot
- Start date
poormansairforce
Well-Known Member
Will you have a support bearing outside of the output pulley to take side loads from the belt?
The ratios of engine to output shaft are "interesting".
As an aging Britbike guy, i'm not sure i accurately understand the Honda engine's architecture; but it seems that into the gearbox, the ratio is pretty close to .550. 1st gear is 1.90, so x another .526, = .290 at the output shaft (5000 rpm engine, 1450 rpm output shaft)
5th gear is .697, so .550 x 1.435= .790 at the output shaft (5,000 rpm = 3950rpm output shaft) (Online reference sources were used for gear ratios for VTX1300 engine. I carried the operations on my calculator, but some answers above are rounded within less than 1%. )
It's probably going to only be practical (useful) to use 2 or 3 adjacent gears (out of 5) in the box. Again, my familiarity is ancient Britbikes so this may or may not apply: Top gear & bearings arranged to take full power 100% of the time. Lower gears & bearings were not expected to be used for constant running. If this applies, then your ratio between the final drive and the propshaft should probably be based on the top 3 gears; and dependent on the diameter prop you hope to drive.
There's a lot of weight, heat, wear, & lost power in the 3 steps of ratios (Primary & secondary drive in the engine, drive ratio between transmission output shaft and propshaft) not including the loss in the tranny itself. Seems like chopping off the gearbox and using a cheap electric controllable prop would be more efficient.
But i already said that in a previous post.
moving along, any chance you'll at least try the set up on a sled/test stand for a few hours with the intended prop and check all systems before moving it onto your airplane?
smt
Edited:
PS: In digging deeper i see that once again, i got confused by which Honda 1300 is to be used. Numbers above are in reference to the V-twin, not the V4. Without adding further confusion, my intended points are:
1.) because of primary reduction between engine and gearbox in a motorcycle powertrain, the output shaft in 5th gear may be close to the final drive ratio of a given propeller, at high cruise speed. Verify.
2.) the ratios in a bike box are fairly wide; in terms of efficient propeller driven rpms - probably only 2 or 3 will be useful - choose them biased toward high gear as that is probably the one the manufacturer made most durable for steady high output.
3.)Is it really a good idea to keep all the stages of rpm manipulation up and down, for an airplane engine?
Good luck, many of us are interested in your success.
As an aging Britbike guy, i'm not sure i accurately understand the Honda engine's architecture; but it seems that into the gearbox, the ratio is pretty close to .550. 1st gear is 1.90, so x another .526, = .290 at the output shaft (5000 rpm engine, 1450 rpm output shaft)
5th gear is .697, so .550 x 1.435= .790 at the output shaft (5,000 rpm = 3950rpm output shaft) (Online reference sources were used for gear ratios for VTX1300 engine. I carried the operations on my calculator, but some answers above are rounded within less than 1%. )
It's probably going to only be practical (useful) to use 2 or 3 adjacent gears (out of 5) in the box. Again, my familiarity is ancient Britbikes so this may or may not apply: Top gear & bearings arranged to take full power 100% of the time. Lower gears & bearings were not expected to be used for constant running. If this applies, then your ratio between the final drive and the propshaft should probably be based on the top 3 gears; and dependent on the diameter prop you hope to drive.
There's a lot of weight, heat, wear, & lost power in the 3 steps of ratios (Primary & secondary drive in the engine, drive ratio between transmission output shaft and propshaft) not including the loss in the tranny itself. Seems like chopping off the gearbox and using a cheap electric controllable prop would be more efficient.
But i already said that in a previous post.
moving along, any chance you'll at least try the set up on a sled/test stand for a few hours with the intended prop and check all systems before moving it onto your airplane?
smt
Edited:
PS: In digging deeper i see that once again, i got confused by which Honda 1300 is to be used. Numbers above are in reference to the V-twin, not the V4. Without adding further confusion, my intended points are:
1.) because of primary reduction between engine and gearbox in a motorcycle powertrain, the output shaft in 5th gear may be close to the final drive ratio of a given propeller, at high cruise speed. Verify.
2.) the ratios in a bike box are fairly wide; in terms of efficient propeller driven rpms - probably only 2 or 3 will be useful - choose them biased toward high gear as that is probably the one the manufacturer made most durable for steady high output.
3.)Is it really a good idea to keep all the stages of rpm manipulation up and down, for an airplane engine?
Good luck, many of us are interested in your success.
Last edited:
Not planning on it, Danman, tho I might possibly. That would be a rather heavy addition. The forces that the shaft will be subjected to by the belt are rotational and torsional. torsional is what the shaft is designed for, of course, and the rotational forces are also of a sideload type that is evenly spread across the shaft in all directions as it turns. Sideloads are generally assumed to be critical in the type of bending forces encountered with a prop strike, or extreme gyroscopic forces such as in an Acro plane such as my Christen Eagle. The Eagle, by the way, is shaft-limited in some planes--It requires a solid shaft to be legal in competition. That is a somewhat unusual shaft in most planes with an IO-360. Some lighter shafts in that engine have parted company with the plane. And it hasn't been the shaft that failed, but the flange. You have to remember tho that the acro shaft flange suffers extreme gyroscopic loads, repeatedly every single flight. Either one of those forces are far outside of what the Honda shaft will be subjected to in driving a simple belt gear--it doesn't have the leverage of a propeller. I don't foresee it being a problem, but that is again one of the things that will only be proven when I actually fly the plane. --- After about 1,000 hours of "proofing", which of course I will never reach. And, I guess I am a little jaundiced about the chances of the shaft breaking. If it did, it would only result in a precautionary, thrustless landing. It won't cause anything drastic like losing a prop would.
poormansairforce
Well-Known Member
Ok, I just figure most shaft drive engines are not designed for a side load. Good luck 
Actually, they are in the bearings. It is the strength of the shaft that might be affected, which is why the VW engine is really a kinda skeptical engine for aircraft. If you get a hard prop strike, even with a wood prop, you have the probability of bending the shaft. That will lead to potential, even probable failure if uncorrected. Your comment has been well received by this pilot/engine developer.Ok, I just figure most shaft drive engines are not designed for a side load. Good luck
poormansairforce
Well-Known Member
Its called experimental for a reason.
I asked because my son and I used that technique in his go kart when we mounted a v-twin MC shaft drive engine on it. The short splined shaft didn't look too solid with a sprocket for 50 hp. Hopefully yours is longer with more area to mount a pulley. I can't wait to see this on a plane.What is your intended cruise rpm on the engine?
From torque curves published on the web, it looks like the Honda at aprox 5500rpm could be competitive with a 2180 VW at 3300 rpm. (Would have aproximately the same HP & torque (with reduction to 3300 rpm propshaft) at 5500, as the VW does at 3300 direct drive. (At least without the gearbox drag on the Honda :^) ) The Honda's torque and HP fall off faster with lower revs, than does the VW, though. Above 6,000rpm, the Honda appears to win, but can it be used for more than TO & occasional rapid climb?
5500rpm looks like about the same as 103mph in the bike? Thoughts on TBO? For instance, if it is cheap and easy to overhaul, even 500 hrs might be acceptable. ( crudely, same as 51,500 miles @ 103MPH on the bike) Of course I have no idea what is actually a reasonable guess.
So if you can make it work with no loss in aerodynamic efficiency, it's down to whichever is lighter and more durable, and then which is more cost effective.
Really wish you'd get done "sandbagging" (your storm surge barriers ) & get on with trying the engine.
smt
From torque curves published on the web, it looks like the Honda at aprox 5500rpm could be competitive with a 2180 VW at 3300 rpm. (Would have aproximately the same HP & torque (with reduction to 3300 rpm propshaft) at 5500, as the VW does at 3300 direct drive. (At least without the gearbox drag on the Honda :^) ) The Honda's torque and HP fall off faster with lower revs, than does the VW, though. Above 6,000rpm, the Honda appears to win, but can it be used for more than TO & occasional rapid climb?
5500rpm looks like about the same as 103mph in the bike? Thoughts on TBO? For instance, if it is cheap and easy to overhaul, even 500 hrs might be acceptable. ( crudely, same as 51,500 miles @ 103MPH on the bike) Of course I have no idea what is actually a reasonable guess.
So if you can make it work with no loss in aerodynamic efficiency, it's down to whichever is lighter and more durable, and then which is more cost effective.
Really wish you'd get done "sandbagging" (your storm surge barriers
) & get on with trying the engine.smt
Re Honda output shaft. I am NOT mounting my prop to it. The engine shaft neither carries nor is subjected to any prop loads. As to the engine output, again the only thing the engine is handling is torque, with some side loads as it is delivering power to a belt rather than a shaft. I think it will handle that. ALL prop loads are applied to the prop shaft adapter, and I have the strongest prop adapter in the world with widely supported twin bearings that has ever been built. All prop loads are on it.
The ENGINE is not actually hauling anything weight-wise, and trying to compare motorcycle weights and airplane weights is not even a reasonable comparison. A plane's engine is not carrying or driving ANY weight, and only the prop is pulling the plane thru the air. In cruise, any engine is pretty lightly loaded.
As to testing, I think I pretty well have that in hand. I have done the initial test flights of 13 homebuilts, I currently fly my own Christen Eagle, and I have over 10,000 hours of instruction-given flying, including inverted flat spins. I also have taught bush and high-altitude flight out of Leadville, Colorado, (highest airport on the continent at 9,927' ASL), in my own Cessna 180. Which, by the way, is the World's Best-Overall Plane, no questions allowed.
The ENGINE is not actually hauling anything weight-wise, and trying to compare motorcycle weights and airplane weights is not even a reasonable comparison. A plane's engine is not carrying or driving ANY weight, and only the prop is pulling the plane thru the air. In cruise, any engine is pretty lightly loaded.
As to testing, I think I pretty well have that in hand. I have done the initial test flights of 13 homebuilts, I currently fly my own Christen Eagle, and I have over 10,000 hours of instruction-given flying, including inverted flat spins. I also have taught bush and high-altitude flight out of Leadville, Colorado, (highest airport on the continent at 9,927' ASL), in my own Cessna 180. Which, by the way, is the World's Best-Overall Plane, no questions allowed.
Aviacs--good questions. I really will have no idea about actual engine RPM's until I actually try it. Everything is really related to prop RPM's and pitch rather than engine RPM's--I HOPE the engine speeds, via the transmission, will be easily adaptable to the needed prop RPM's. I have flown a couple of different VW-powered homebuilts, and if my setup doesn't vastly improve that performance, I will trashcan the entire project! One of those things came the closest to killing me of any engine I have ever flown behind.
TBO time? Who in their right mind would try to overhaul one of these things when a relatively brand-new engine is so commonly available at virtually any junk yard? And to that point, have you ever heard of anyone running a HONDA engine into the ground??? Heheh. They are virtually indescructable.
Unfortunately, the Honda experiment is sidelined on a back shelf right now. The Storm Surge Barrier project is taking off bigtime, and I am buried in giving conferences on that for the foreseeable future. My SSB ideas are new concepts entirely as to how to build them, and are environmentally friendly, easy from an engineering and building concept, and relatively cheap. Total changes from anything that has ever been built, and endorsed by Clark Stanage, who is the lead water control engineer of the USAoC, by several quantum levels. Eventually, I hope to build them from Galveston, Texas, to Bar Harbor, Maine. Doing so will save the USA about a trillion dollars a year in hurricane costs and damage.
TBO time? Who in their right mind would try to overhaul one of these things when a relatively brand-new engine is so commonly available at virtually any junk yard? And to that point, have you ever heard of anyone running a HONDA engine into the ground??? Heheh. They are virtually indescructable.
Unfortunately, the Honda experiment is sidelined on a back shelf right now. The Storm Surge Barrier project is taking off bigtime, and I am buried in giving conferences on that for the foreseeable future. My SSB ideas are new concepts entirely as to how to build them, and are environmentally friendly, easy from an engineering and building concept, and relatively cheap. Total changes from anything that has ever been built, and endorsed by Clark Stanage, who is the lead water control engineer of the USAoC, by several quantum levels. Eventually, I hope to build them from Galveston, Texas, to Bar Harbor, Maine. Doing so will save the USA about a trillion dollars a year in hurricane costs and damage.
