# New Ultralight - Engine configuration

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

• ### Other - please let us know what that would be

• Total voters
63

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
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
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
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
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

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member
It has become very quiet around the Arseneau engines, is the engineer and inventor still on track?
Bst rgds Erkki

#### Blackhawk

##### Well-Known Member
You will have to ask him yourself; I am no longer associated with Arseneau Engines.

His email is: [email protected]

#### MotoChaos

##### Member
Tractor
I like the looks of a tractor/tail dragger combo... Just personal preference I guess.

#### proppastie

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
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

#### cheapracer

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
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
LOL if you are referring to them starting out with a "large fortune"! :gig:

#### haiqu

##### Well-Known Member

Hi Rienk,

The engines have just been released, but take no notice of the chain reduction drive that was only for testing purposes; the engine comes with a belt reduction.

Normal retail is $3990 complete, but they are available for a limited time through Indiegogo for$2600

The Boxer 200T Engine - making flying safer | Indiegogo

They are built in Canada by Arseneau Engines

Home

Well, another piece of vapourware ...

#### Hot Wings

##### Grumpy Cynic
Log Member
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
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.

#### deskpilot

##### Well-Known Member
..................... Maybe that would attract a different group of thrill seekers to aviation. Fly like a bird with nothing in front but your beak.
Already done. It's called a Wing suit.

#### Rienk

##### Well-Known Member
Already done. It's called a Wing suit.
Are those flown with a tractor or a pusher?

#### mwflyer

##### Well-Known Member
Gravity is not my friend. Wing suit needs power. Hmmm. Five alarm chili and a match? That would be a pusher.

#### JamesG

##### Well-Known Member
Here is the tractor version.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
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
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
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.