The 140 hp gap

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,904
Location
Evansville, Indiana
Even in Swedish we have the same word for "feel" and "know a person", so the misstake is understandeble, still funny though.
LOL Well, depending upon where you're feeling the person, you might really get to know them....at least carnally. ;)
 

Jan Carlsson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
1,860
Location
Sweden
The C-90 cub had a swing mount, or have is more correct, but it takes some planing with controls and wires to make it useful.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
BTW, that's ceased, not seized.
Thanks for pointing that out. Seems the long days have taken their toll..
What were your impressions on the NA engines?
Not impressive from a performance point of view, a Rotax is lighter and puts out 50% more power. Apart from that, it's German engineering at it's best. Well thought-out an no significant problems except for stellar price and low power/weight ratio.
20k euro ($26k dollars?) doesn't seem unreasonable. Remember, my "fallback" engine is an O-360, which is $30k naturally aspirated and carbureted.
Well, this was the 100-ish HP engine and that was around 6 years ago. So I really don't have a clue, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's considerably more.
 

fadec

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
105
Location
New Zealand
Hmm, the LOM M332SH is interesting. It's not noticeably lighter that the O-360 by listed dry weight (249 lbs vs 255), but of course translating that into FWF weight takes experience with the specific engine that I don't have. Supercharger included in that weight, very nice; 140 hp max, 120 hp cruise, definitely in the target range. And the ability to pick up a mid time engine right now for $9000 is certainly tempting. I'll keep it in the back of my mind and search for another 50 lbs, but this continues toward the examples of "things that fit my design at least somewhat better than an O-360".

Being an inverted inline engine it will likely have a seperate dry sump oil system which may not be part of the listed weight. Note the one you found for sale has a 24V electrical system which means a heavier battery but (potentially) lighter wiring. Length of the engine could also be an issue regarding cg.

Out of curiosity I guestimated some numbers and if lycoming did build a certified 140hp 4cyl turbo engine (TIO-260?) it would likely still weigh more than the lightest O-360 and depending on where the turbo was mounted it could be longer as well
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Out of curiosity I guestimated some numbers and if lycoming did build a certified 140hp 4cyl turbo engine (TIO-260?) it would likely still weigh more than the lightest O-360 and depending on where the turbo was mounted it could be longer as well
And if you move that to the rear? Have both the radiator and the turbocharging behind the pilot? C of G issue solved, or isn't this practical for most turbo conversions?
 

addaon

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
1,696
Location
San Jose, CA
That way leads to a full WWII style intercooler setup with more piping than structural members. :)

Turbo weights seem quite small, though, in practice, especially compared to fancier (Powerflow, etc) exhausts. They're heavier, sure, but by a handful of pounds, from the numbers I can find.
 

revkev6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
425
Location
massachusetts
I wish menasco had been able to stick with making engines! back in the 30's with mid 70's octane gas they were making 150hp out of their 300lb supercharged inverted 4. looks very similar to the LOM engine. I can only imagine what 70 years, another 25 octane and fuel injection would have done to those numbers!

we could all be making little keith ryder death traps :gig:
 

fadec

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
105
Location
New Zealand
And if you move that to the rear? Have both the radiator and the turbocharging behind the pilot? C of G issue solved, or isn't this practical for most turbo conversions?


It would be hard to justify on a small aircraft though it is possible, the P-47 is the obvious example, but there would be a lot more to it than just bolting on an extension pipe. For example ensuring the carbon monoxide stays inside the exhaust ducting and out of the cockpit/cabin. Aircraft piston engine exhausts are notorious for cracking, corroding and leaking. Another is a remote turbo will need its own oil supply. Then there are the obvious weight/space/heat/effieciency issues.
 

fadec

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
105
Location
New Zealand
Turbo weights seem quite small, though, in practice, especially compared to fancier (Powerflow, etc) exhausts. They're heavier, sure, but by a handful of pounds, from the numbers I can find.
I'd forgotten that dry weight doesn't include exhaust on naturally aspirated engine. However Powerflow for O-360 is about 23lbs according to installation sheet, but TIO-360 is about 60lbs heavier than average IO-360 and that doesn't include final exhaust pipe from turbo to outside

TIO360.jpg
 

Attachments

Grelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
257
Location
Surrey, UK
Hey Addaon,

ULPower have announced the availability of their new range of six cylinder engines. The smallest of which is 140Hp, as you requested.

ULPower

Grelly
 

JimC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
141
What about an ECI O-340 crank in a O-320-E2A? With stock pistons, it'll give you 9.2:1 compression and close to 170 hp.
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,183
Location
Zagreb HR
There's a 160HP turbo VIJA engine that weighty 88 kg and will be available in France soon...

Produits

The only problem I see is finding a nice and cheap variable pitch propeller for this engine. This engine is a legendary Suzuki with so many variations, whoever rides bikes knows it is both reliable and consumes less than any rotax.

The ultimate engine would be a Kawasaki ZX10R engine with a turbo charger or a compressor, it is some 70ish kilos heavy and with the right prop could be a blast.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
...maybe they enjoy flying gliders but also enjoy repairing engines, thus they desire a configuration that requires both. ;)
I fly sailplanes and maintain my own motorcycle. Same results, more fun ;)
Actually, this one is oil cooled. Proved to be better than the previous versions in the eighties that were air cooled.

Suzuki Advanced Cooling System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, technically it's oil and air cooled (just like my bike). The problem is that without sufficient air cooling, the oil cooling won't prevent the engine from massively overheating, if you tape over the inlets of a BMW R series with a full cover for example it'll overheat while stationary. Air-cooled motorcycles have absolutely massive cooling drag at speed and that's less than ideal, especially because there are so many good 4-in-line watercooled engines.

The new BMW R1250 might make for a very interesting aircraft conversion. Liquid-cooled 2-piston boxer and capable of 140+ hp at max rpm.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
6,242
Location
US
The new BMW R1250 might make for a very interesting aircraft conversion. Liquid-cooled 2-piston boxer and capable of 140+ hp at max rpm.
If I remember correctly, you had proclaimed a bit of skepticism about the ability of the R1200 to maintain high HP levels for an extended time (based on your own experiences with these/similar BMW engines in bikes). For the 1150/1200/1250, do you have a guesstimate of what % of the max rated power you'd be willing to count on for cruise flight? I'd think the limiting factor would be the ability to dump heat. The oilheads make it a bit easier to increase the surface area for oil/air heat transfer, which is handy.

I'm still thinking of the potential of a "caveman" R1200: Sell the complex/finicky engine controller, fit an aftermarket electronic ignition (with magneto backup for Mom and the kids) and a stone-simple carburetor. I'd expect fuel efficiency and max HP to suffer a bit without the EFI, but the simplicity would be a big plus. Maybe an R1250 could pump out 120 HP in this configuration, close to filling the "140 HP gap."
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
If I remember correctly, you had proclaimed a bit of skepticism about the ability of the R1200 to maintain high HP levels for an extended time (based on your own experiences with these/similar BMW engines in bikes). For the 1150/1200/1250, do you have a guesstimate of what % of the max rated power you'd be willing to count on for cruise flight? I'd think the limiting factor would be the ability to dump heat. The oilheads make it a bit easier to increase the surface area for oil/air heat transfer, which is handy.
Most designs that fly them simply expose the heads with full airstream flow and have forced flow on the exhausts. Works fine in a draggy slow aircraft.

The 1250 is it's liquid-cooled successor (head liquid-cooled, rest oil-cooled). That solves the massive drag problem and also another problem. On the bike (1200) the exhausts face forward. Unless you have a pusher, your exhausts (which can easily get red hot) are in the worst possible position. The 1250 has downward exhausts pipes, so it's a lot easier to cool those. If you cut off that massive sump you have a sleek design with a low of power and reasonably low weight (including the PSRU).
 
Top