Nissan's new 400 bhp engine

Discussion in 'General Auto Conversion Discussion' started by Richard6, Feb 2, 2014.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 2, 2014 #1

    Richard6

    Richard6

    Richard6

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN USA
  2. Feb 2, 2014 #2

    sachaknoop

    sachaknoop

    sachaknoop

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Netherlands
    How can they make an engine with a better power to weight ratio as a formula one car engine????
     
  3. Feb 2, 2014 #3

    raven-rotor

    raven-rotor

    raven-rotor

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Taos, NM
    Richard

    Saw this info earlier this week on the Rotary Wing gyro forum. After 19 years of converting auto engines for aircraft, it did way more than just pique my interest. Even if this new engine design is 50% heavier than stated with all the rest of the accessories not included in the 40 kilo long block photo and is derated to 300HP for more reliability for full take off power in aircraft use, Nissan® has stumbled onto a sweet spot in piston engine design that could change the face of light aviation. It shows what you can do with a purpose built engine that does not have all the emission bells and whistles now required on street vehicles and all the engine block mounting pads for air-conditioning, power steering, etc. Too bad it is not likely to ever see mass production in its race form, but it shows what is possible with the right engineering with todays technology.

    Jeron Smith
    Raven ReDrives Inc.
    303-440-6234
     
  4. Feb 2, 2014 #4

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,131
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    Location:
    Australian
    They haven't, F1 had 90kg engines that made 900+hp many years ago then the FIA changed the rules to V8 and 2.4 litre with a minimum weight limit of 95kgs other wise the current 750hp 2.4 would be down to an estimated 80kgs or less by now (well up until the end of 2013 that is). Note the 2.4 is a heavily restricted engine and the designs have been mandated for many years now to reduce costs in F1 or they would be back up near 900hp again.

    Secondly, that is a turbocharged engine that specifically needs an intercooler and piping to make 400hp, that will add around 10kgs.

    Of course this year they have 1.6 turbo engines in F1 and are already at 750hp but I am not sure if that's with or without the energy recovery systems they are mandated to use.
     
    sachaknoop and rv6ejguy like this.
  5. Feb 2, 2014 #5
    Is there a power graph of this engine available. At what rpms does it produce what hp? All that being said, I wonder if a non turbo one might still be made to
    prodeuce sufficient hp for a cub or something similar.
     
  6. Feb 2, 2014 #6

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,787
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    7500 rpm and no, without a ton of boost, this engine wouldn't be a lot more impressive than any other modern, aluminum atmo engine out there.

    4 ways to make power- rpms, boost, cubes and nitrous. Take your pick.
     
    Brian Clayton likes this.
  7. Feb 2, 2014 #7

    Richard6

    Richard6

    Richard6

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN USA
    And only being a three cylinder, one can only wounder about how much vibration that engine will have. At that weight, and from the photos, it looks like there is no counter balance shaft.

    Richard
     
  8. Feb 2, 2014 #8

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,817
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    They would not have chosen that configuration if it didnt work, there is definitely something we arent seeing. A hell of a lot of industrial and smaller engines are 3 cylinders. And A straight 6 is known for having little vibration, not needing the same balancing as a V-8. This is essentially a half inline 6. Not to mention, odd numbers tend to have their benefits with vibration. The reason 3 bladed props are considered best, is that the frequencies are less likely to be resonant. Vibration from identical components in even numbers, on opposing sides...can magnify itself very easily.

    In other words, if two parts are producing the same forces, the forces can be layered on top of each other, continuously build into one huge vibration, one wave, which eventually breaks the entire component. If something has three identical components, the vibration waves are at odd spacing... they arent going to build on each other.

    Just like 3 phase power, the three waves are offset from each other... while if you take two single phase lines... the power builds on itself... one huge wave.
     
  9. Feb 3, 2014 #9

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,787
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    When it comes to TV, 3 cylinder engines are unquestionably worse than 4 cylinder engines. I believe this engine is being used to drive a genset so in this case, TV in this might not be much of a concern compared to driving a prop through a reduction gear.
     
  10. Feb 3, 2014 #10

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,817
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Nissan has a significant history of using 3 cylinder engines in its small cars... and the problems are reduced by a magnitude as the size is reduced. One of the reasons that people often claim there is a size limit to 3 cylinder engines... but farm vehicles proved that wrong a long time ago.
     
  11. Feb 3, 2014 #11

    JamesG

    JamesG

    JamesG

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
    Because its a 3 cylinder slice of Formula 1 tech?
     
    Holtzy3 likes this.
  12. Feb 3, 2014 #12
    To me, the 7500 rpm would take it out of any consideration that I have. My personal preference is something you can direct drive,
    because elevated rpms always mean more internal stress. No matter how good an engine is, or how its designed, lower stress levels are always preferable in an airplane. I was wondering if it might produce significantly
    less horsepower at lower rpms while still being sufficient to power some of the light sport aircraft. Its usually about 1/2 hp per cu in at the lower rpms.........but given the compact design and light weight, that might offset
    small cubes and low hp somewhat. Also if its used with some of the small single seat aircraft (koala ?), the engine may be able to use a smaller prop and increase the rpms somewhat....thereby gaining some additional hp.
    All of this is just pie in the sky speculation on my part, but it was just worth thinking about what might be possible.
     
  13. Feb 3, 2014 #13

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,787
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Turbos can make many DD engines weight competitive. Nothing really new in that aspect as it's been well known and demonstrated for a long time.

    All things being equal, a modern 4 valve, atmo engine will produce power in a "roughly" linear fashion. If stock power peak is 100hp at 6000 rpm, you'll see around 50 at 3000 rpm.
    Adding boost to the equation changes everything. It's not too hard to have 100hp at 3000 rpm by adding about 8-12 psi boost on the same engine- given good fuel at least as you are nearly doubling chamber pressure to do this and detonation becomes a real concern on pump gas.

    I submit that there is nothing too special about this design. By the time the other accessories are installed and rpm and boost are brought down to more mundane levels for use in aircraft, I can't see it being a lot lighter than a turbo G10. In any case, it's never likely to be available for public consumption and if it was, it would be too expensive to consider. This is a limited run race engine, not a mass produced engine.
     
    cheapracer and Brian Clayton like this.
  14. Feb 4, 2014 #14

    Jeffd

    Jeffd

    Jeffd

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Overland Park, Kansas USA
    I Have always been interested in direct drive, eliminating the requirement for a PSRU. So... what does it take to make an engine (say an LS3 or something similar) live at 3000 rpm with enough boost to make 1-1.2 hp/cu in? Minimum fuel octane required?

    Counterpoint is that the first objection most will have is the potential problem with bolting a prop direct to the crankshaft as some have done - and by the time you make an isolated shaft extension or something like the Wittmans' bellhousing/shaft extension you are halfway or more there to a simple single mesh gearbox.

    Jeff
     
  15. Feb 4, 2014 #15

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,787
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    I think the problems with TV are much less likely using a V8 and gearbox since there are no torque reversals. As you say, by the time you build an extension/ isolation system to streamline the installation and take the bending loads off the crank, you might as well add a couple gears...

    On pump gas with the high stock CR the LS3 has, it might be hard to achieve that sort of specific output. Lowering the CR a couple points should make it possible with 6-7 psi boost. If you ran 100LL, I would think you could leave the CR stock and do this.

    A 3 cylinder is a different story, especially a small, high hp one.
     
  16. Feb 4, 2014 #16

    raven-rotor

    raven-rotor

    raven-rotor

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Taos, NM
    Ross

    I had sent a PM to you to make sure you had seen this new Nissan engine. After all our development work with the Suzuki® G10 3 cylinder and always wishing for more displacement/more power to compete on level ground with the Rotax® 912/914 series engines, the jump to a 1.5L is a significant step. BMW is already in the pipeline with a production version of their 1.5L 3 cylinder auto engine as well. Yes the Nissan® DIG-T will weigh in at 140-150 lbs. with turbo and all accessories but this is the same weight class as the Rotax® 912S, a little less than the 912Si, and significantly less than the 914 Turbo.

    The game changer is that even derated and derated again to the most conservative fashion for aircraft use, this engine will have 150HP and weigh in at 150 lbs. One pound per HP is the Holy Grail of reliable engines for aircraft. The Nissan® engine layout will do this without even breaking a sweat. I will talk more about the reliability of this type of turbo design in a Suzuki® conversion that we already have flying in another post.

    Jeron
    Raven ReDrives Inc.
    303-440-6234
     
  17. Feb 4, 2014 #17

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca

    Thats a lofty goal indeed IF the engine is ready to drive a propeller at that weight. After all, a good 7.5cc model ducted fan engine was cranking out several HP 20+ years ago, and that's a far more favorable power/weight.

    The problem is not making power - the problem is making thrust.
     
  18. Feb 4, 2014 #18

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,131
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    Location:
    Australian
    ..and small motocross bikes make 300hp per liter, where do we stop? - I think we all understand that 100 +- 20 hp engines for 2 seater light aircraft are what we are all refering too.
     
  19. Feb 4, 2014 #19

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,787
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    It's only a guess but I bet this thing is running something like 90 inches to make this kind of hp. Let's halve that MAP to 45 inches and see 200hp, lets take the rpm down to 5000, now we have 133hp. I think the life might not be that impressive at this power level. If I read this right before, it's only 660cc? 200hp/L is pretty high specific output for longevity IMO. This thing is light because it's tiny. It's a moot point anyway because I doubt it will ever see mass production. There are already many other proven and light turbo 660 engines in Japan which you might actually be able to obtain.
     
  20. Feb 4, 2014 #20

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Of course. It was the "Holy Grail" of power/weight that I was referring to. That's not much of an accomplishment unless you can make that claim "ready to fly".
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014

Share This Page

arrow_white