35 kW out of 89 kg is 47 hp and 196 lb. At 4 lb/hp, that is very heavy for the power. You can probably shave pounds with tube manifolds and a straight flywheel (sounds like they use a dual mass flywheel} but it is not like you will halve its weight. Then you most likely will still need to come up with a different turbo, different intercooler, different radiator, oil cooler and ducting all appropriate for the flight mission. It is not sounding like a decent starting point for an airplane engine to me.A figure that I found said 89kg, didn't specify what is included in that weight.
And that, sir, should still be one of the MAINSTAYS of experimental, cheap flying. Ultralights costing $100k+ with leather, etc. does not tickle me. I can buy 3 fairly decent C172`s for the price of 1 slightly used RV.Thanks for the additional info; makes sense.
While we're never going to try something like that in our RV-derivatives, it's great to see real world examples of stuff like this flying successfully. There are still guys building Ford Model A powered Pietenpols, so installing a small heavy diesel isn't total nonsense. For a low&slow flyer, if I could fly at Kolb/Cub speed on half the fuel burn of a Rotax 582, why would I care what the plane (or engine) weighed? Especially if I could do it for the price of a couple of a/c engine cylinders. There's cost, and then there's *value*. Cub style flying is fun, but it doesn't have $100K -$200K of *value* to me. But a 'second airplane' for a few thousand $ might make a lot of sense.
Ok, I know. Cert vs. self-do, etc. Not going there.And that, sir, should still be one of the MAINSTAYS of experimental, cheap flying. Ultralights costing $100k+ with leather, etc. does not tickle me. I can buy 3 fairly decent C172`s for the price of 1 slightly used RV.
Wellll,[snip]I can buy 3 fairly decent C172`s for the price of 1 slightly used RV.