Single engine 300-400hp pusher

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by KC135DELTA, Jan 29, 2010.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 8, 2010 #61

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
    Here is Orion's comment, big diameter vs small one
    This might be useful too :) http://ibis.experimentals.de/downloads/torsionalvibration.pdf

    Seb
     
  2. Oct 8, 2010 #62

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,943
    Likes Received:
    3,419
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I will get some pix; give me some time on it. Yea, 20% to one of the rotors on a Ch46 or 47 is called a bad day.
     
  3. Oct 8, 2010 #63

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
    Thank you, please don't hurry with it, we can wait for it, 2 months left to Christmas, it would be a nice gift for some of us:).

    Seb
     
  4. Nov 7, 2010 #64

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the aircraft in the 3rd picture of your post? It almost looks like a mini mirage f1.
     
  5. Nov 7, 2010 #65

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
  6. Nov 7, 2010 #66

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    [​IMG]

    I always found that style very appealing for a side by side two seater but never had an idea it could look as good as this one.
     
  7. Nov 7, 2010 #67

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    It's quite a complicated aircraft (cowl flaps, RG, turbo, variable pitch, flaps). A pilot I know commented that it was comparable in systems management to a Bonanza or a light twin. Maintenance and complexity are there as well.

    There's also no point in putting the outline that way for a powered aircraft. If the engine is in the middle; a pusher prop makes much more sense. The only reason the Stemme doesn't have a pusher prop is the folding blade requirement.
     
  8. Nov 7, 2010 #68

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    How do they control the pitch on the propeller?

    If the prop was at the very back it could fold straight back and trail, but that needs long landing gear.
     
  9. Nov 17, 2010 #69

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
    Not exactly pusher, but it also has a drive-shaft, it's Isatis AEROJAMES | ISATIS 01 | ULM | FRANCE, I would love to see some pixs of the propulsion system, drive-shaft, couplings, etc, it has a BMW motorcycle engine.

    btw found one more pix of the Stemme S6 engine, with coupling unfortunately quality of it isn't very good, but comparing it with a conventional Rotax engine pix5, I would say that there is nothing more there, besides that rubber coupling.

    Seb
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  10. Nov 18, 2010 #70

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
    Jarno I don't know what is your sight condition, but I need to go to the optician :gig:.
    [​IMG]
    Do you know that it's Limbach engine on the picture not Rotax (this pix is from first manual http://www.stemme.de/man/s10v/afm_us/altern_pages_fix.pdf page 20), you wrote that nr 6 is a torsional vibration absorber, it was torsional vibration absorber for the Limbach engine. Take a closer look at this engine, it's a direct drive Limbach (check out this head cover, there is single cover on each side, Rotax has 2 on each side).

    The Rotax has a gearbox, it has torsional vibration absorber between the engine and the gearbox, like Marcotte pix1, Aerotech pix2 (seems that they also use BMW donuts, check out pix 5 for BMW rubber), Mistral pix3, and any other pix 4 (as I was expecting they use BMW donuts Rotary Wing Forum - View Single Post - VW Redrive). Molt used a Flexidyne coupling because he had too, same with Orion 801, and I bet same with VK-30, all those planes had direct drive engines.

    I'm not surprise that I couldn't find big difference between those two Rotax engines which I posted in post 69, the only difference between them is that flexible rubber coupling, I also bet with you about a bottle of Heineken, that you will find similar coupling in that Isatis, which I posted also in post 69.

    Seb
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  11. Nov 22, 2010 #71

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    I'm sure the designers and customers are all impressed with the complication too, it's like getting gold plated doors for your fireplace.

    I can think of a LOT of reasons for putting the prop in front, and if it can be made to look good enough (like the S-10 does) when the engine is in the middle then it's a Done Deal!

    Let me tell you I'm really glad that side view of the S-10 was posted here because I always wanted to do that and when I reconsidered it for my design it's like it all fell perfectly in to place.

    So my plane is now a tandem wing tractor rather than a tandem wing pusher, the design hardly needed to change to accomplish it - and it looks better.
     
  12. Nov 22, 2010 #72

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is everyone in consensus that this is possible?

    2,000lbs empty
    3,800lbs MTOW

    400hp turbo-normalized to FL300
    Carbon composite construction

    270-280knt cruise

    300knts~ max

    The turbo normalized mooney is capable of 240knts on 280hp and it isn't nearly as clean of a design as this.
     
  13. Nov 22, 2010 #73

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Those weights might be a tad optimistic (a pusher has the driveshaft and stuff, so I'd expect it a bit heavier as a tractor).
    No idea where to find a 400HP engine (350 is the max of the "known") engines and others are much heavier.
    With that 350HP, the Lancair IVP achieves similar performance, so I don't think that's unrealistic:
    Lancair IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  14. Nov 23, 2010 #74

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have some prospects as far as diesel goes, but until then you can modify the IO-720 to be water cooled. It uses the same cylinders as the IO-540.

    I'm not too concerned with getting it ~2,000 pounds either.
     
  15. Nov 23, 2010 #75

    Kristoffon

    Kristoffon

    Kristoffon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Brazil
    wouldn't it be saner to pick up a corvette engine with ~500 hp stock?

    certainly the potential problems in transforming a lycoming to water cooling dwarf those with possibly unreliable psrus
     
  16. Nov 23, 2010 #76

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    3,385
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    If you run a redrive and allow the engine to spin then you can make more than 1000 HP with the LSx engine, but not for very long. Running direct drive makes more sense from a reliability and weight standpoint, but it looks like you are limited to about 315HP (normalized).
     
  17. Nov 23, 2010 #77

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0

    This engine (RED A03 Aero-Diesel) produces 500hp at 3,900rpm.

    [​IMG]

    It is more power than I want and more expensive than what I am looking for but ultimately it proves the concept. As far as the long term goes I have found that making a straight six diesel used in large trucks useable for aircraft isn't that far of a stretch. A Custom aluminum block with iron sleeves, aluminum heads and accessories has been done before. This route we will have a proven, reliable engine that weighs ~500-600 pounds and produces ridiculous power/torque around 2,000rpm (Direct drive) and a long service life.


    It might seem complicated but there are so many shops out their specializing in diesel engine modification I have no doubts that it is possible.
     
  18. Nov 23, 2010 #78

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    KC135DELTA

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    The overall concept is to make the most aerodynamic airplane out of the lightest materials and power it via the most efficient power source. ---> Pusher configuration, carbon composites, diesel engines.

    If it can cruise at ~300mph on ~20gph of JET-A I believe it would sufficiently kill the VLJ phenomenon. Not to mention the significantly reduced costs involved compared to a twin turbine jet. Also single engine pilots could fly it without a twin engine certificate or a type rating.
     
  19. Nov 23, 2010 #79

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Yeah, all those paper engines. Maybe, because they're only paper engines they don't fly.
    Seriously; a truck engines weights about 2500 lbs (500HP). You might be able to shave 1000 lbs of it, but that's already optimistic. You won't even get off the ground in your design then.

    700 lbs for that "red" engine? Sorry, but I simply don't believe them. The lightest diesel that comes close is the 350HP Thielert 4.0. That's over 700 lbs with all accessorizes and pretty optimized.

    Whether you guys put me at the "nay-sayers", or at the "common sense" group is up to you. Let me say just this. I'ts quite easy to think up an engine that's light, great, reliable and so on. Corvette engines are popular... for those thoughts. Nobody did it successfully though, and those who finally got it flying usually ended up more expensive, much heavier, less reliable. Actually, most threw out the engine finally and replaced it with a decent aircraft engine.
    I'm not saying it can't be done. Just ask yourself whether you really can do that much better as all those other guys who tried.

    If you're going for a Diesel; I see two reasonable routes:
    *Lean the truck-engine. Still incredibly heavy and therefore performance (T/O run, climb) will suck
    *Go with a proven car-engine (direct drive). That way it runs far below design strength. Think the big BMW engines or so. Still 600 lbs for 200 HP.
     
  20. Nov 23, 2010 #80

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,578
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    At this end of the power range, I'm all with Autoreply. Especially with a new design. And I'm hearing noises about "killing the VLJ phenomenon", which suggests production is in somebody's mind. If you want to sell it Part23 certified, you're going to need to have the engine certified, too. And you have not seen paperwork, I'm told, until you try to certify an engine for aero use. If there are any production plans in your mind, go with an already certified aero engine.

    Of course, if 100LL goes south without a drop-in substitute, things get really interesting really fast.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white