New Ultralight - Engine configuration

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

If you were to build an ultralight what engine configuration would it have?

  • Tractor - single engine

    Votes: 37 58.7%
  • Pusher - single engine

    Votes: 21 33.3%
  • Other - please let us know what that would be

    Votes: 5 7.9%
  • Tractor - single engine

    Votes: 37 58.7%
  • Pusher - single engine

    Votes: 21 33.3%
  • Other - please let us know what that would be

    Votes: 5 7.9%

  • Total voters
    63

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,752
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
If he means the engine burns 1.9 l/hr. while outputting 16 hp, the claims here are simply nonsense. This implies that the engine achieves WAY better BSFC figures (around .19) than the best stationary diesels in the world. This is a thermodynamic impossibility. I'm not sure why so many new aviation engine manufacturers make such ridiculous claims. The D motor guys recently made similar claims of around .25 for their engine-also impossible.

If you guys can really do this, don't waste time in the experimental aircraft market, sell your ideas to Toyota, GM or Ford and become billionaires. You are a lot smarter than all their engineers.

When you do stuff like this, it is hard for any educated potential buyers to believe any of your other claims. Just produce a reliable, lightweight, affordable design, tell the truth and you should do well even if the fuel burn is the same as existing designs.

By the way, could someone tell me, "In what past century that BSFC formula was developed", maybe when Henry Ford started building cars?.
I hope you are not serious with this comment? If you are serious, it shows you know nothing about engine design at all.
 

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,510
Location
Clatsop, Or
I really like the pusher layout. That said in a single engine per FAR 103 "guidelines" where do you put a tail. There's no room for performance in this class so we might as well go conventional, especial for a design committee unless they're working on an individuals vision with a large budget. Also swing a large prop, might as make sure it never runs out of thrust. Just make a good ol' plane. For the experience. My 2 cents.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
I think it's just a typo. 1.9*6lb(Wt per Gal)/20 = 0.57. I think he wrote "l" instead of "g".
 

msogren

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
17
I like the noisy, hot, windy thing behind me. The ride is much more pleasant. I do have an antiwire tube down the front of the plane and anti prop tube near the engine. MM
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,454
Location
NJ
You guys are a tough crowd, they are just trying to make a "small fortune in aviation", still looks like a nice engine. Good Luck
 

haiqu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
274
Location
Australia & New Zealand

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
8,137
Location
Rocky Mountains
Well, another piece of vapourware ...
We need a new noun to describe projects like this one. Using the strict definition of "vaporware" this particular project doesn't qualify because it actually existed and consumed fuel on a test stand.

Maybe Blole-ware (Black hole) to describe projects that are destined to self implode and no longer be visible?
 
Last edited:

mwflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2014
Messages
87
Location
St. Louis, MO USA
How about "dreamware"? Or if you want to get all 'cultured'..."somniware"

For the original topic: Pusher. I envision flying without anything in front or around to block the view. Even rudder pedals seem too obstructive. The Wright Brothers had it right, fly prone, or crouched over like a crotch rocket. Maybe that would attract a different group of thrill seekers to aviation. Fly like a bird with nothing in front but your beak.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,812
Location
North Carolina
1.9 Gallons per hour is possible. Bit of a mistake to make though, I bet a lot of people saw the claimed fuel consumption and lost faith in the idea.
 

Floydr92

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
372
Location
Scotland
other - 2 small wing mounted pushers, counter rotating.

- distributing the load over the wing reduces the bending moment on the spar
- dual engine redundancy, can fly on one
- small 2 strokes are cheap...buy 2 to make up the power needed
- nothing obstructing pilot view
- clean undisturbed air over fuselage, and leading edge
- could suck in the boundary layer and allow slightly higher AOA

downsides...might be a little heavier.
 

Tarkus

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
22
Location
LA county CA
Pusher or tractor depends on personal pref, and design parameters. Am I fully enclosed or swinging in the breeze ???
What I'd like is a small efficient Turbofan, might add affordable to the wish list while I'm at it.
 
Top