Usable single-seater on 24 hp?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
3,848
Location
capital district NY
1835cc is about 115ci and 2180cc about 133ci, Cont. A-65 170ci (O-170) When you go liquid cooled and propeller reduction the dynamics change but people seem to overdo it and expect to much with not enough displacement. It isn't a straight hp swap and I don't know what the curve or factor is but empirically it could be figured out with as much data as is available. I mean think about it put an engine in place of a 3600rpm 60hp that has to do 6000rpm to push 60hp and it obviously hasn't the same torque, and yes that does matter. You can use a smaller displacement engine but maybe to compensate to some degree for torque it has to put out 70hp (just throwing out a number) to be equal in reality, it isn't the same.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,562
Location
US
For the record, the original VP-2 flew with an 1835cc VW and in subsequent testing was upgraded to 2070cc and finally 2180cc. Performance was improved with the 2180 but not as much as you might think, climb at full gross was 400 fpm with the smallest engine and 450 fpm with the largest. That seems to be more of an indictment of the VW engine than the airframe in my mind.
How is it an indictment of the VW engine? Of course things change with density altitude, etc, but the 2180cc VW engine in front of my Sonex allows 2 folks to fly with better than 450 fpm ROC.
Unless something is very wrong, it is hard to see how adding 15hp to the nose of a VP-2 (1835cc =60hp , 2180cc =75 hp) only improved ROC by 50 fpm.
 
Last edited:

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
3,848
Location
capital district NY
How is it an indictment of the VW engine? Of course things change with density altitude, etc, but the 2180cc VW engine in front of my Sonex allows 2 folks to fly with better than 450 fpm ROC.
Unless something is very wrong, it is hard to see how adding 15hp to the nose of a VP-2 (1835cc =60hp , 2180cc =75 hp) only improved ROC by 50 fpm.
because it was only about 18ci
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,562
Location
US
because it was only about 18ci
It's a bit more than 20 CI. HP -->thrust is what allows climb, the 75 hp is a legit max power for a 2180cc VW engine. If that plane was getting 400 fpm with an 1835cc engine, there's no explaining why it would only get 450 with a 2180. The engines weigh virtually the same.
 
Last edited:

Himat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
2,865
Location
Norway
The Micro-IMP did fly on 25hp.;)

What astonish me is that you are talking about designing for 100 to 150kg pilots! Ok, I have grown heavier by the years, but I am still less than 90kg. Not tall, but at 180cm not short either.
 

TiPi

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
207
Location
Mackay (AUS)
SD-1 Minisport
33 hp B&S, 240 kg gross - 130 kg empty - 26 kg fuel = 84 kg (185 lb) pilot + incidentals
slight correction: the SD-1 can be built with an empty weight of 120kg with the 33hp V-twin (meeting the German 120kg class). Fuel is 28lt eg 20kg so enough useful load for 100kg pilot & incidentals.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,014
Location
World traveler
On the VWs, I would say that those engines were not as well-developed as they could have been since those were the early days of VW-powered aircraft in the USA. Specifically, the prototype VP-2 was using a 60" diameter prop (60 x 30 with the small engines and 60 x 32 with the bigger ones), which suggests to me they were running at lower RPMs than is now typical for aircraft VWs.

Himat, it's not 150 kg pilots but 150 kg useful load (including fuel), but regardless it's seems better do design for how people are rather than how they should be. In the USA, the average adult male is 5' 9" (175 cm) tall and weighs about 200 lb (91 kg). Obviously, there is quite a range above and below that, so to include the majority of adults you need to accommodate larger and smaller weights and sizes. For men, even if you exclude the heaviest 10%, you still need to go up to 256 lb (116 kg or so), so about 120 kg ready to fly. Add in fuel and the rest and you are quickly approaching 150 kg.

TiPi, I was trying to find numbers for similar engines and the SD-1 130 kg empty weight was taken from this magazine flight test review: https://www.pilotweb.aero/features/flight-tests/flight-test-spacek-sd-1-minisport-1-5350149
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,258
Location
Memphis, TN
A-65 turning 2500 rpm is about 136 ft lb of torque. A VW making 65 at 3600 is about 95 ft lb of torque. That’s a pretty good difference. I think it’s worth working backwards from the prop and what performance one wants. Pick the performance, pick the prop that should give it, then figure out engine with/without drive that can deliver. The other way around always ends up short with associated disappointment.
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,728
Himat: There was a time I could do 6 chinups but weighed 82 kilos. That was a long time ago.

TFF: I think it's unnecessarily restrictive to pick the prop first. You might pick something that would be best for an A-65, but if you picked an engine and redrive with a choice of ratios, you might want more reduction and a larger prop for a slow plane or less reduction and a smaller prop for something light and fast. Unfortunately, we don't have infinite choices. If we had CVT redrives, THEN you could pick the prop first.

PMAF: Minus any losses in the redrive.
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,728
If the smaller displacement engine has the same horsepower, than it should spin up the same prop almost as fast as a larger displacement, direct drive engine. The only difference would be the slight loss in the redrive. (I'm neglecting the mass of the moving parts in the engine, because I think the small engine would have an advantage.)
 

TiPi

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
207
Location
Mackay (AUS)
On the VWs, I would say that those engines were not as well-developed as they could have been since those were the early days of VW-powered aircraft in the USA. Specifically, the prototype VP-2 was using a 60" diameter prop (60 x 30 with the small engines and 60 x 32 with the bigger ones), which suggests to me they were running at lower RPMs than is now typical for aircraft VWs.

Himat, it's not 150 kg pilots but 150 kg useful load (including fuel), but regardless it's seems better do design for how people are rather than how they should be. In the USA, the average adult male is 5' 9" (175 cm) tall and weighs about 200 lb (91 kg). Obviously, there is quite a range above and below that, so to include the majority of adults you need to accommodate larger and smaller weights and sizes. For men, even if you exclude the heaviest 10%, you still need to go up to 256 lb (116 kg or so), so about 120 kg ready to fly. Add in fuel and the rest and you are quickly approaching 150 kg.

TiPi, I was trying to find numbers for similar engines and the SD-1 130 kg empty weight was taken from this magazine flight test review: https://www.pilotweb.aero/features/flight-tests/flight-test-spacek-sd-1-minisport-1-5350149
no worries, this one has the larger fuel tank (35lt vs 28) and fitted with the rescue system (9kg). If you want to fly on 24hp, minimum weight is required eg no luxuries. There are a few SD-1 units flying with the 630cm3 B&S, roughly 24hp. Suitable for "UL pilots" only. One plane has racked up over 1,000h now. I'm pretty much the average bloke in weight, just a bit shorter :(
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,562
Location
US
no worries, this one has the larger fuel tank (35lt vs 28) and fitted with the rescue system (9kg). If you want to fly on 24hp, minimum weight is required eg no luxuries. There are a few SD-1 units flying with the 630cm3 B&S, roughly 24hp. Suitable for "UL pilots" only. One plane has racked up over 1,000h now. I'm pretty much the average bloke in weight, just a bit shorter :(
Yep, the SD-1 looks to be a great fit for the desired specs in the original post. As a kit- built plane, it can't be finished as inexpensively as a from-plans design, but the kit prices seem reasonable and it does save a lot of scrounging.
 

mullacharjak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
143
Location
Peshawar Pakistan
2674as.jpg Mini straton D7/D8 would easily fly with the V twin engine.A conventional landing gear may be added.But the wing needs to be simplified like a kolb Ultrastar maybe.
 
Last edited:

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
3,848
Location
capital district NY
I liked the sound of geared engines, 2800rpm max engine 1260rpm propeller. It is the sound I object with smaller geared engines, it clouds my objectivity. I would expound but sensitivity issues regarding others … .
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,761
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
SPEAKING of the Kolb series....

Matthew I know tis wasn't nearly what you had originally imagined, but what if you put the V-twin on a Kolb 103 Firefly? It would likely not meet Part 103 any more, of course, the V-twin is heavier than the 2-strokes, but you said Part 103 wasn't a deal-breaker..

BUT, they are shown to be able to fly reasonably well on low power, they're the "cleanest" of the ultralight airplanes.

You'd have incredibly good folding wings and tail, Kolb's signature "secret sauce". It works really well.

With a little attention paid to the aileron hinge system (use something other than Kolb's piano hinges), you would have a very good flying airplane that could store in the smallest space possible for a conventional configuration.

(edit) Oratex and Tuffy bike wheels and a wood prop might get you back to 254 pounds.
 
Last edited:
Group Builder
Top