BMW cycle engine in homebuilt?
John Souders
motorcycle engines in homebuilts?
These are very tough engines giving in excess on 50hp, come as 650,
750, and 1000 cc, and I am sure that somewhere there are reduction
drives etc made for these.
FYI the new (and far too expensive) 1000cc BMW twin engine is rated at
about 90hp, and is sure to be a very solid engine.
MikeT nyc
it?
Frank Bates
>
> Does anyone have any info on the use of older (or any) BMW Boxer twin
> motorcycle engines in homebuilts?
> These are very tough engines giving in excess on 50hp, come as 650,
> 750, and 1000 cc, and I am sure that somewhere there are reduction
> drives etc made for these.
The Dec 1994 issue of Pacific Ultralights Monthly (an Australian
publication) has an article on Gerry Goodwin (who incidentally flew
the gyros in Mad Max II), a manufacturer of metal gyro blades, who
is involved in a project to develop the BMW R100 (1000cc 82hp 72kg)
for use in ultralights etc. According to the article work has been
extensive, involving replacing the starter with a Rotax, new pinion
/ring gear, coil replaced with Yamaha unit, new exhaust system, Sprag
one way clutch, and a Rotax "C" gearbox with a specially developed
doughnut coupling.
Another article in the same issue has details of one of these engines
installed in a Spacewalker ultralight, driving a 68" X 52" pitch prop.
At the date of the article it had done 150 hrs and was producing
a climb rate of 600 fpm @5000rpm, cruise speed of 70 kts @ 4000 rpm,
and fuel consumption of 11 litres/hour.
The article gives addresses for Gerry Goodwin and for Peter Kayne (the
owner/builder of the Spacewalker), if you want these please e-mail
me.
Frank Bates
<ba...@iconz.co.nz>
jgraham
>
> Actually, the gearbox itself could serve as a reduction drive, couldn't
> it?
of a Honda Gullwing 4 cylinder, horizontally opposed engine that
was being promoted as suitable for a homebuilt aircraft. The
proposal mentioned that the integral transmission would be employed
to serve as a reduction drive. According to my memory, the Honda
engine would be run in a certain gear, e.g., 3rd, and that the other
gears were eliminated.
If you were to have ridden motorcycles a lot you wouldn't consider
a motorcycle engine as a suitable engine for an aircraft. They
are very complex engines with very high performance. The motorcycle
engine design is sort of equivalent to the aerodynamic concept of
wing loading. In a world of compromise, to get something you
probably have to give up something. Fly an airplane with 38 pounds
per square foot wing loading? Not me. Beyond my ability. Limited
safety factor. Hyperperformance crotch rocket engine in an airplane
that you want to fly? Probably not. A Suzuki 1100 cc engine is
a marvel of quality and performance. So is a Lycoming aircraft
engine. Go with safety and dependability.
Terrrrapin
"Nieuport Meets Yamaha" by Richard Giles in Kitplanes, Volume 12, Number
10, October 1995. (1986 Virago 1100 cc air-cooled V-twin, 80 hp)
Mr. Giles list the following benefits to the V-twin Yamaha:
* Lightweight aluminum construction
* A choice of five reduction ratios via the transmission
* A means to disengage the propeller by use of the clutch
* A complete electrical system
* A pressurized oil lubrication system
* An electric starter
* A torisonal vibration damping system built into the transmission
As a side note, I owned a Yamaha 175cc two stroke for five years, rode it
to death, could start it in three kicks or less at zero degrees F and one
kick at average spring-summer-fall temperatures, and never did anything to
the motor other than change the gearbox oil. While I understand jgraham's
point, 'why not use airplane engines in airplanes?' I wonder if there are
exceptions to the rule, i.e.: worse performing two strokers "made" for
planes (after they ripped them out of the snowmobiles) than the legnedary
reliability of Japenese motorcyle engines?
John Souders
David Kirschbaum
Jg> a motorcycle engine as a suitable engine for an aircraft. They
Jg> are very complex engines with very high performance. The motorcycle
Jg> engine design is sort of equivalent to the aerodynamic concept of
Jg> wing loading. In a world of compromise, to get something you
Jg> probably have to give up something. Fly an airplane with 38 pounds
Jg> per square foot wing loading? Not me. Beyond my ability. Limited
Jg> safety factor. Hyperperformance crotch rocket engine in an airplane
Jg> that you want to fly? Probably not. A Suzuki 1100 cc engine is
Jg> a marvel of quality and performance. So is a Lycoming aircraft
Jg> engine. Go with safety and dependability.
Phththth. I put 80,000 miles (mostly high-speed, 4500+ RPM
cruising) on my 1971 BMW R75-5. It never, repeat, NEVER
stopped, lost power, shut down, coughed, aborted, misfired, or
in ANY WAY delivered ANYTHING but what it was supposed to ..
for every single one of those 80,000 miles. I'd replace the
plugs and points every 10,000 miles whether they needed it or
not, the oil filter every 4 or 5,000 miles, the air filter
every 10,000 miles. Didn't baby it whatsoever.
Until it dropped a valve. (Goddamned nolead gas)
80,000 miles divided by average 50 MPH (let's say) .. 1600
hours. Not so shabby.
Ok, so if I wasn't averaging so fast? 80,000 / 40 MPH = 2000
hours.
62 rated HP, as I recall, from 750 cc.
David Kirschbaum
... "Any aircraft can last a lifetime if you're careless enough."
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
David Wood
-snip-
>If you were to have ridden motorcycles a lot you wouldn't consider
The BMW opposed twin that they are talking about isn't that high tech
and doesn't have that high a specific output. It's an air cooled, two valve
per cylinder,pushrod operated valves, hemispherical combustion chamber
engine. It's not any more complicated than a VW engine. BMW is pretty
conservative with their engine design. Dual plug conversions are readily
available- dual ignitions, I've not heard of. No carb heat, though.
-Dave
Russell McGinnis
Interestingly, the well-known blue/white BMW logo is in fact a stylized
representation of a spinning airplane propeller. That is because BMW
manufactured aircraft engines thru both world wars. I myself have over
200,000 miles of high-throttle operation of BMW cycles. The engines
are elegant and bulletproof. I have seen photos of single-place yard-
hopping homebuilts using those engines. I think that the newer high
displacement engines might have some aero applications if they were
effectively geared down. The only problem is that they are expensive
and we can only expect to take even more of a pounding with regard to
the German mark.
Russ McGinnis
St. Pete, Florida
Craig Wall
>Phththth. I put 80,000 miles (mostly high-speed, 4500+ RPM
>cruising) on my 1971 BMW R75-5. It never, repeat, NEVER
>stopped, lost power, shut down, coughed, aborted, misfired, or
>in ANY WAY delivered ANYTHING but what it was supposed to ..
>for every single one of those 80,000 miles. I'd replace the
>plugs and points every 10,000 miles whether they needed it or
>not, the oil filter every 4 or 5,000 miles, the air filter
>every 10,000 miles. Didn't baby it whatsoever.
Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
at 100% continuous output.
If you don't think so, BET ME MONEY! I'd call you names to goad
you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
$5000?
Craig Wall
.
dave_sutton
I've got an uncle who built a Bobcat in Germany using a modified R75/5 engine. Works perfectly.
"Theory is valid only insofar as it reflects reality"
"Any fighter pilot who doesn't believe that he is
the best in the business is in the wrong business"
David Sutton, RED STAR AVIATION, pil...@planet.net, EAA Flight advisor and lots more other stuff.
"Sales of Exotic Aircraft from Antonov to Zlin"
Wil Dixon
Ok, you're on. You line'em all up, run the snot out of them, send me
a notarized list of EVERY motorcycle engine ever made and I'll send
you the 5G's.
You shot your mouth off, start delivering.
Wil
>.
Wil Dixon
>In article <49b84s$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, wild...@uiuc.edu says...
> Ok, here's the bet. You convert an aircooled BMW engine, put it on
> a dynoed test stand and run it 100 hrs at 100% rated power. All real
> airplane motors are capable of this. You won't get 30 minutes out of
> that Beamer.
WRONG, you stated ALL motorcycles engines and that is the challenge.
Either put up or shut up.
> You might want to talk to the guy that spent $20,000 trying to get
> around the same problems with a GoldWing engine before you take this
> bet. Sure, you can fly an airplane with a motorcycle engine- but it'll
> be an overweight, low powered, unreliable piece of shit. It's a good
> motorcycle engine, alright- but aircraft motors, like boat motors,
> are constant output installations, not pulsatile producers like car
> and motorcycle installations. It won't cool- WE KNOW THIS.
We being? With your quick gun and dirty mouth your credibility isn't
to high.
> Craig Wall
>.
ow...@davies.mv.com
> In article <95112415...@vertigo.com>, david.ki...@vertigo.com says...
>
> >Phththth. I put 80,000 miles (mostly high-speed, 4500+ RPM
> >cruising) on my 1971 BMW R75-5. It never, repeat, NEVER
> >stopped, lost power, shut down, coughed, aborted, misfired, or
> >in ANY WAY delivered ANYTHING but what it was supposed to ..
> >for every single one of those 80,000 miles. I'd replace the
> >plugs and points every 10,000 miles whether they needed it or
> >not, the oil filter every 4 or 5,000 miles, the air filter
> >every 10,000 miles. Didn't baby it whatsoever.
>
>
> Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
> for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
> at 100% continuous output.
>
> If you don't think so, BET ME MONEY! I'd call you names to goad
> you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
> $5000?
>
>
>
>
I do so love the consistently civilized tone of the discussions on the Net!
(Of course, I'd have to admit to the occasional transgression myself. But I do try to
avoid this kind of abusiveness. It so rarely seems useful.)
Craig Wall
>WRONG, you stated ALL motorcycles engines and that is the challenge.
>Either put up or shut up.
Screw you-*I* made the challenge. Offer still good for *any* currently
produced motorcycle engine, and I believe *that* covers all in the
sense that we're talking about a conversion that could be replicated at
will and thus advance aviation for homebuilders.
I've got a sailboat worth about $5000. *ANY* currently produced motor
cycle engine that will run, converted for aircraft use without replacing
the cylinder and head, for 100 hours at 100% output (as given in the
owner's manual), takes it.
Craig (..any and ALL motorcycle engines..) Wall
Don't you think people have TRIED this?
Craig Wall
>
>cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) wrote:
>
>
>>>Phththth. I put 80,000 miles (mostly high-speed, 4500+ RPM
>>>cruising) on my 1971 BMW R75-5. It never, repeat, NEVER
>>>stopped, lost power, shut down, coughed, aborted, misfired, or
>>>in ANY WAY delivered ANYTHING but what it was supposed to ..
>>>for every single one of those 80,000 miles. I'd replace the
>>>plugs and points every 10,000 miles whether they needed it or
>>>not, the oil filter every 4 or 5,000 miles, the air filter
>>>every 10,000 miles. Didn't baby it whatsoever.
>
>
>> Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
>>for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
>>at 100% continuous output.
>
>> If you don't think so, BET ME MONEY! I'd call you names to goad
>>you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
>>$5000?
>
>
>a notarized list of EVERY motorcycle engine ever made and I'll send
>you the 5G's.
>
>You shot your mouth off, start delivering.
>
>Wil
Ok, here's the bet. You convert an aircooled BMW engine, put it on
a dynoed test stand and run it 100 hrs at 100% rated power. All real
airplane motors are capable of this. You won't get 30 minutes out of
that Beamer.
You might want to talk to the guy that spent $20,000 trying to get
around the same problems with a GoldWing engine before you take this
bet. Sure, you can fly an airplane with a motorcycle engine- but it'll
be an overweight, low powered, unreliable piece of shit. It's a good
motorcycle engine, alright- but aircraft motors, like boat motors,
are constant output installations, not pulsatile producers like car
and motorcycle installations. It won't cool- WE KNOW THIS.
Craig Wall
.
brum...@cinti.net
of ratios, and shaft output too!
Sven Jerlhagen AR/AF Soft Support
aircraft at this power level. Assuming the top speed
of your motorcycle is 100 mph (full throttle 62 hp),
at 50 mph the engine puts out approximatly
(50/100)^3 * 62 = 8 hp in average. Sure you can get
decent dependability at 25 or maybe 40% power by
reinforcing some parts.
/Sven Jerlhagen
Andrew McKenzie
> Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
>for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
>at 100% continuous output.
>
- Bet I couldn't afford deleted ;->
Surely most aircooled engines overheat at 100% output without
that cooling breeze from the whirly thing up front.
Lots of aircraft can't even be idled for more than 3 or 4 minutes
without overheating. I don't disagree that a BMW engine, although
superficially attractive, would probably make a poor aircraft engine,
but isn't that to do with weight> You could presumably
design a suitable cowl to keep it cool.
Although driving at full throttle may not constitute 100% power
I have certainly driven small bikes at full throttle for more than
half an hour, and BMWs at substantial throttle for up to 3 hours
at a time and more than 100 hours in aggregate!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew McKenzie e-mail: A.McK...@bgs.ac.uk
Hydrogeology Group Tel: +44 (0) 1491 692295 (Direct)
+44 (0) 1491 838800 (Switchboard)
Fax: +44 (0) 1491 692345
------------British Geological Survey, Wallingford, UK--------------
Craig Wall
That's right- it would have to be derated severely
to be reliable, and then it doesn't look quite so high
performance. The engine is plenty strong- but it just
wasn't designed with the heat dissipation in mind that
an aircraft engine requires. No motorcycle engine is.
Outboard motors are another thing- but here the
problem is that you need to take the lake along with
you to cool it....
Craig Wall
.
Craig Wall
>
>In article <49a99i$f...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>, cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) says:
>
>> Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
>>for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
>>at 100% continuous output.
>>
>
>- Bet I couldn't afford deleted ;->
>
>Surely most aircooled engines overheat at 100% output without
>that cooling breeze from the whirly thing up front.
>
>Lots of aircraft can't even be idled for more than 3 or 4 minutes
>without overheating. I don't disagree that a BMW engine, although
>superficially attractive, would probably make a poor aircraft engine,
>but isn't that to do with weight> You could presumably
>design a suitable cowl to keep it cool.
>
>Although driving at full throttle may not constitute 100% power
>I have certainly driven small bikes at full throttle for more than
>half an hour, and BMWs at substantial throttle for up to 3 hours
>at a time and more than 100 hours in aggregate!
Sorry, Andrew- but full throttle operation on a motorcycle is
NOT 100% power, unless you are climbing a hill or have the brake on.
Brief bursts of 100% power that total 100hrs are a FAR cry from
even 30 minutes of true full power continuous operation. Once that
motor gets heat soaked the show is over. High throttle settings out
on the road MIGHT get you up to 30-40%.
The problem with all motorcycle engines is that they simply are
not designed with the thermal paths to conduct that heat away at the
rates required to prevent detonation and finally seizure. They ARE
designed to handle *pulses* of heat- but a lot of people have gone
broke trying to deny that the problem is intrinsic to stock motors,
and *sorry*- motorcycle designers want competitive motorcycles, and
one with the additional weight and expense necessary to have a dual
use motor just isn't competitive.
Weight isn't the problem for Beamers- it's the heat, even with
lots of airspeed. You can derate it to solve the heat problem,
but then it *is* too heavy. You *might* blower cool it, but it'll
take a lot of horsepower to do it right, and then the output drops
and again it's too heavy for what you get. And even the liquid-
cooled bike motors overheat in aircraft installations, because they
simply aren't designed to be heat soaked. The problem is in the
design of the head, usually, but they also lack adequate cooling
fins in most cases, and the metal just doesn't contain enough "meat".
Pass the word and save people the aggravation. This has been
tried throughout the history of aviation, with *exactly* the same
results. The reason I get so damned annoyed is that no one apparently
reads anymore. *Every* historical account of airplanes with converted
motorcycle engines ends the same way: the motor overheated.
Craig Wall
Milo
>
>In article <49f2qd$l...@kwuz.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk>, A.McK...@bgs.ac.uk says...
>>
>>In article <49a99i$f...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>, cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) says:
>>
motorcycle engines,one would think with a big enough radiator heat
would not be a problem ,it sems to me that they would be a good option
for aircraft use , ie honda shadow 1100cc ,liquid cooled and 2 sparkplugs
per cylinder
Craig Wall
>
>>What about the thermal dissipation efficiency of liquid cooled
>motorcycle engines,one would think with a big enough radiator heat
>would not be a problem ,it sems to me that they would be a good option
>for aircraft use , ie honda shadow 1100cc ,liquid cooled and 2 sparkplugs
>per cylinder
There was a guy a few months back that spent about $20,000, as I
recall, trying to do that very thing. He finally concluded that the
head just could not handle the required heat flow, and that was after
working on it for years with professional engineering help.
Be my guest- I'd love to see a decent conversion. But unless you
can bribe a designer at the Honda plant in the old country, the motors
won't do it, because they are designed not to. The problem isn't
getting rid of the heat once it's in the coolant- it's getting it out
of the head region itself.
Craig Wall
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
: at 100% continuous output.
All of them do? Every single air and water cooled engine?
*Every* one?
: If you don't think so, BET ME MONEY! I'd call you names to goad
: you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
: $5000?
If you are going to stick to your *all* statement I could use
someone to finance my IFR rating.
--
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
There are no ordinary moments.
Chris E. Becht
: Pass the word and save people the aggravation. This has been
: results. The reason I get so damned annoyed is that no one apparently
: reads anymore. *Every* historical account of airplanes with converted
: motorcycle engines ends the same way: the motor overheated.
That's not true.
Hendersons tended to shake the airplane to pieces LONG before
they ever had a chance to overheat.
--
Life is like a cow.
You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
But, umm... different somehow.
Howard Jones
: cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) wrote:
: >>>>Phththth. I put 80,000 miles (mostly high-speed, 4500+ RPM
: >>>>cruising) on my 1971 BMW R75-5. It never, repeat, NEVER
: >>> Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
: >>>for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
: >>>at 100% continuous output.
: > Ok, here's the bet. You convert an aircooled BMW engine, put it on
: > airplane motors are capable of this. You won't get 30 minutes out of
: > that Beamer.
: WRONG, you stated ALL motorcycles engines and that is the challenge.
: Either put up or shut up.
no he didnt, the comment was that no motorcycle engine was up to snuff
as an aircraft engine because it, among other things, could not dissipate
the heat generated at full power. have a *close* look at a lycoming and
you will see an enormous fin difference. even using methanol fuel for
cooling as model aircraft engines do I think you'd still be pushing it.
personally I find craig's battles quite funny, there is always a reality
card up his sleeve which the other guy never seems to see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Jones, (how...@perth.dialix.oz.au) _--_|\
66 Towton Way, Langford 6147, Western Australia / \
Freeflight Aeromodeller,Tyre Kicker & Current Pilot! *_.--._/
Corby Starlet Plans #279....RAAF Association Flying Club Member V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:*) , <-----dont shoot me I already plead insanity.
Charles V. Boehnlein
In article <49g0bu$9...@atlas.uniserve.com>, Milo (trav...@uniserve.com) writes:
>In article <49fc0d$6...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>, cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) says:
>>
>>In article <49f2qd$l...@kwuz.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk>, A.McK...@bgs.ac.uk says...
>>>
>>>In article <49a99i$f...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>, cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) says:
>>>
>motorcycle engines,one would think with a big enough radiator heat
>would not be a problem ,it sems to me that they would be a good option
>for aircraft use , ie honda shadow 1100cc ,liquid cooled and 2 sparkplugs
>per cylinder
>
A recent issue of EAA Experimenter had a story
about a pilot installing a Yamaha motorcycle motor in his
plane. I cant remember if it was water or air cooled but I
can look it up and get the pilots name ect., if anyone is
really interested.
Charlie
--
Charlie V. Boehnlein c...@letsfly.win.net
Try my aviation Homepage: http://www.win.net/~letsfly
(Homepage updated on November 19th)
Send Your Ultralight GIF Files (UUENCODE) Attatched To Email
FTP location: ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/letsfly
Louisville KY. Ultralight Pilot and Ham Op AD4HH
jgraham
Okay guys. Here is a comment. BMW motorcycles that I have known
have Bing Carburetors. I have seen the pin in the slide housing
that locates the slide vibrate and fall out of six BING carburetors.
It was so bad that we would take every new carburetor of the spigot
and clean the body and the pin with Tide detergent and epoxy it in
place with Sears Filled Epoxy. It was an epoxy sort of like JB Weld.
Have you ever had the slide locating pin fall out? The slide turns
sideways and the cutaway of the slide is out of register and the
bike goes to about mid throttle and you can't shut it off unless you
have a thumb operated kill button that you can reach while you are
bombing across the desert on some road. It can be fatal. I wouldn't
like it in an airplane. You would have to get into the pattern and
set up a landing and pull the mixture or turn off the gas somewhere
along the approach. It could be messy. I had a friend who was
flying a 7KCAB Citabria and the throttle cable fell off in flight. It
was stuck on about 40% power. He flew to a nearby airport and landed.
He pulled the mixture and coasted up to a hanger where repairs were
made. He did it. Can everybody. I know that the Rotax uses Bing
Constant Velocity Carburetors. The British sports cars used the
Simpson's Union Constant Velocity Carburetors. German motorcycles
are heavy heavy. Why use a BMW engine when you can use a certified
airplane engine? The cost would be about the same when it was done.
I don't know the details but I see Jim Rogers the investment guru on
CNBC TV regularly. He rode his BMW around the world. His crankcase
split open while riding through Russia. It was a new motorcycle and
I doubt that it was undergoing the strains of an airplane application
when it split. Read his book, "Investment Biker" for more details.
Homebuilt + Harley Davidson engine Never
Homebuilt + BMW engine Maybe
Homebuilt + Better Japanese models Maybe
Homebuilt + Lycoming or Continental Yes
J. Graham
..
Milo
>
>
>In article <49g0bu$9...@atlas.uniserve.com>, Milo (trav...@uniserve.com) writes:
>>In article <49fc0d$6...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>, cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) says:
>>>
>>>In article <49f2qd$l...@kwuz.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk>, A.McK...@bgs.ac.uk says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <49a99i$f...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>, cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) says:
>>>>
>>>What about the thermal dissipation efficiency of liquid cooled
>>motorcycle engines,one would think with a big enough radiator heat
>>would not be a problem ,it sems to me that they would be a good option
>>for aircraft use , ie honda shadow 1100cc ,liquid cooled and 2 sparkplugs
>>per cylinder
>>
>
> A recent issue of EAA Experimenter had a story
>about a pilot installing a Yamaha motorcycle motor in his
>plane. I cant remember if it was water or air cooled but I
>can look it up and get the pilots name ect., if anyone is
>really interested.
>
> Charlie
>
>--
was a 1100cc air cooled engine from a yamaha virago, he claimed at the
time that he had something like 60 trouble free hrs on it ,the only short
coming that I could see was that he mounted the 6 foot prop directly on the
output shaft of the tranny (shaft drive) I don't think that that bearing
is going to hold up for very long due to the large gyroscopic moments.
The engine was in a nieuport replica.
Howard Jones
: What better re-drive for that engine than the one that comes with it? Your choice
maybe, but I doubt it, it was designed for totally different loads and
stresses from a totally different direction.
--
Howard Jones, (how...@perth.dialix.oz.au) _--_|\
66 Towton Way, Langford 6147, Western Australia / \
Freeflight Aeromodeller,Tyre Kicker & Current Pilot! *_.--._/
Corby Starlet Plans #279....RAAF Association Flying Club Member V
~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charlie Kuehmann
It looks like we may get to see if Craig will get to part with his $5000.
8^) In a recent newsletter from the folks at Europa they discuss a new
development program to convert a BMW engine for use in that plane. For
more details you could try the online Europa newsletter at
<http://www.avnet.co.uk/europa/news12.html#12>. The engine is a BMW
1100cc RS 90 bhp 2cyl engine w/ 4v/cyl, Bosch fuel injection and is air
and oil cooled. Evidently they have commissioned the design and
production of a reduction drive. They make no promises as to performance,
reliability, or availability, just that they are going to work on it. I
have no strong opinions one way or another on this controversial topic,
but, I wish the Europa folks luck and am happy that there are such people
around to further homebuilt aviation(after all, it is experimental,
right?).
Cheers,
Charlie
--
Charles J. Kuehmann
The contents of this post are the opinions of the author and no one else.
Klein Gilhousen
>
> But feel free. Show me a currently produced motorcycle engine the
> can run at 100% output for 100 continuous hours, and you can take
> my 22ft MacGregor.
>
>
> Craig (I'm waiting...) Wall
>
Well, the Continental TSIO-360 can't do it either, i.e., 100% output,
continuously, at least not as installed in the Seneca III. This engine,
the KB variant, provides 220 hp for five minutes max and only 200 hp
continuously. I'd guess there are lots of other examples of aircraft
engines that have time limits on max power. But I'll leave it to
others to name them all.
I used to own a BMW R-90S and it was undoubtably the finest motorcycle
I ever rode. I guess I'd be surprised to discover that it was
unable to fun flat out indefinitely. An airplane has even better
cooling than the bike what with that big fan out front.
And no, I'm not interested in the wager. I'd rather spend the time
flying (not to mention the money if I should lose.)
Klein Gilhousen
Golden Eagle N421KG
Yak-55M N41126
Matt Lawrence
: In article <49g38i$5...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com says...
: >
: >Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
: >: Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
: >: for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
: >: at 100% continuous output.
: >
: >
: >*Every* one?
Well, I used to ride my Suzuki at WOT in 5th gear for 45 minutes at a
time and I never had a problem with it overheating.
[...deleted...]
: But feel free. Show me a currently produced motorcycle engine the
: can run at 100% output for 100 continuous hours, and you can take
: my 22ft MacGregor.
Take the bet! All that needs to be done is to figure out how to deal
with the crankcase (and maybe transmission) oil changes & replenishing.
Yes, there is a trick to it. It's the same argument that's being used
for auto conversions. Go get a SMALL motorcycle engine, like a 100cc
Honda, and use it.
-- Matt
Craig Wall
>
>Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
>: Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
>: for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
>: at 100% continuous output.
>
>All of them do? Every single air and water cooled engine?
>
>*Every* one?
Yup. Do you see a single full power conversion?
>
>: If you don't think so, BET ME MONEY! I'd call you names to goad
>: you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
>: $5000?
>
>If you are going to stick to your *all* statement I could use
>someone to finance my IFR rating.
The operative statement was that *the BMW* makes a lousy conversion;
with the observation that it was for the same reason that all of them
do.
But feel free. Show me a currently produced motorcycle engine the
can run at 100% output for 100 continuous hours, and you can take
my 22ft MacGregor.
stephen j beaver
>In article <490orv$3...@nimitz.fibr.net> jgraham <jgr...@txdirect.net> writes:
>-snip-
>>If you were to have ridden motorcycles a lot you wouldn't consider
>>a motorcycle engine as a suitable engine for an aircraft.
>-snip-
>The BMW opposed twin that they are talking about isn't that high tech
><snip>
>-Dave
I seem to recall that there was a european certified aircraft fitted with the BMW
twin engine. The ASK-14 motor glider was available with that engine I think.
Of course in a motor glider, it is no big deal if the motor stops and it is generally
used only for short times to gain altitude.
Steve
Dirk Rackley
This is getting more interesting than womens mud wrestling at Billy Bob's
tavern.
To think I dropped my Genie subscription because I wanted to be part of the
Internet techno dudes.
:)
Dirk
////////////////////////////////____________________________________
| Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient >
| Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly. >
| vor...@teleport.com | >
| Dirk Rackley *---{*}---* Rule 1. Maintain propulsion >
|___________________________________________________________________>
,,
shown on Beyond 2000, the TV show.
Seemed to be working fine for them, although I've no idea how much time
it had.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: > Ok, here's the bet. You convert an aircooled BMW engine, put it on
: > a dynoed test stand and run it 100 hrs at 100% rated power. All real
: > airplane motors are capable of this. You won't get 30 minutes out of
: > that Beamer.
Oh no you don't. No weaseling out, Craig. You said "all" and
we all saw it. You did say "all" unless you misspelled "BMW".
So, where's my five grand, Craig. :-)
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Screw you-*I* made the challenge.
Hey, Craig. This is supposed to be fun. Easy does it, ok?
: Offer still good for *any* currently
: produced motorcycle engine, and I believe *that* covers all in the
: sense that we're talking about a conversion that could be replicated at
: will and thus advance aviation for homebuilders.
: I've got a sailboat worth about $5000. *ANY* currently produced motor
: cycle engine that will run, converted for aircraft use without replacing
: the cylinder and head, for 100 hours at 100% output (as given in the
: owner's manual), takes it.
Please define "converted for aircraft use" for us.
: Craig (..any and ALL motorcycle engines..) Wall
: Don't you think people have TRIED this?
Uh, yes. BMW has, in fact, run their engines in that manner
as a demonstration.
One other thing, though. Airplane engines don't always run
at 100% continious, do they?
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: > cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) writes:
: > In article <95112415...@vertigo.com>, david.ki...@vertigo.com says...
: >
: > >cruising) on my 1971 BMW R75-5. It never, repeat, NEVER
: > >in ANY WAY delivered ANYTHING but what it was supposed to ..
: > >for every single one of those 80,000 miles. I'd replace the
: > >plugs and points every 10,000 miles whether they needed it or
: > >not, the oil filter every 4 or 5,000 miles, the air filter
: > >every 10,000 miles. Didn't baby it whatsoever.
: >
: > for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
: > at 100% continuous output.
: > you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
: > $5000?
: >
: > Craig Wall
: >
: >
: I do so love the consistently civilized tone of the discussions on the Net!
Oh come on. Craig is just *loud* and strident. There is nothing
insulting about his post. Hey, have fun with it like I did.
So, where's my $5,000 bucks Craig? I need that IFR rating.
:-)
: (Of course, I'd have to admit to the occasional transgression myself. But I do try to
: avoid this kind of abusiveness. It so rarely seems useful.)
Hey, at least he's not e-mail harrassing those he disagrees with.
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>One other thing, though. Airplane engines don't always run
>at 100% continious, do they?
I've resisted jumping into this but...well, yes they often do.
As Craig has pointed out, an aircraft engine must run at least 150
hours (I believe Craig has thrown down the gauntlet at 100 hours but the
actual certification requirements are 150 hours) at full power with no
appreciable wear to even meet certification standards. Furthermore, all
of the current breed are warranteed to TBO at maximum power. In other words,
Lycoming (or Continental) will give you a new engine if you buy it, take
it home, and immediately start running it at full power and it doesn't
make it 2000 hours. I.e. if it doesn't run for at least 83.33 days
straight.
In the real world, yeah most fixed-wing aircraft engines spend their
lives at 65-75% power. Rotocraft engines often run all day at 100%
however and they're not much different.
greg
Terry Schell;x3332
auto engines for that matter), and I *do* think there are some
serious drawbacks... but I don't think that Craig proposed the
correct test to see if they are viable.
For a BMW engine to be a viable alternative to a traditional engine,
all it needs to do is be reliable while putting out as much power as
a traditional motor *of the same weight* does. It does not need to
put out 100% continuous power! If a 130 hp BMW weights the same as a
85 hp continental, it only needs to be reliable at 65% power. You
simply derate the engine. They do this with heavy equipt. diesels all
the time to reflect the expected use. If the BMW is reliable while
running at the same hp/lb, and costs less, it is the better engine.
Does anyone have a good estimate of the weight of a BMW engine (with
the required gearing)?
Requiring it to put out 100% power based on it's motorcycle hp
rating is absurd. We could just as easily but that continental on a
dyno and find it puts out 110 hp at 4000 rpm, call it a 110 hp motor,
and watch it explode at 50hrs of dyno time running at 100%
continuous.
Craig isn't going to lose his boat on this bet - but he might be
wrong about the viability of motorcycle engines in planes.
IMHO,
Terry
Craig Wall
>Craig isn't going to lose his boat on this bet - but he might be
>wrong about the viability of motorcycle engines in planes.
>
>IMHO,
>Terry
You are quite correct, Terry- you'll have to derate an engine
from a pulsatile application to get a continuous duty powerplant.
My point here is that performance figures for automotive or
cycling applications are red herrings, and there is simply a
never-ending stream of people that are suckered into thinking that
they've lit on a notion that hasn't been tried before, because
"*surely* it will work; why just look at these numbers!"...because
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. IOWs.
Surely indeed,
*Surely* homebuilding has come to the point where we don't have
to keep repeating these same mistakes. *Surely* we can inoculate
new homebuilders with a healthy sense of *history* in homebuilding,
and maybe try to fade some of this stereotype image of Gyro Gearloose
hacking putt-putts into Sonerais and littering neighborhoods with
"a man in a homemade airplane narrowly escaped injury when his flimsy
craft landed on a schoolyard fence" type of media opportunities.
I don't have anything against experimentation, but reinventing
the wheel when it comes to powerplants seems a very good place to
discourage the notion that "it's easy- everyone's doing it".
It is NOT easy to make an airplane motor. No amount of wishing
will make it so, and making sure people understand why may just
prevent that next media event that results in legislation "for our
own good".
So go ahead- make that Beamer into a Franklin. But don't kid
yourself about it being in the same league as a motor designed from
the ground up to do the job- at least not until you have proved it.
Funny thing... no one's really proved it yet, have they?
There is a solution, and that is to operate as if the engine
could quit at any moment- not an impossible thing to do; some of
us have done it for years. But if you think you can drive an easy
conversion into the sky with the same abandon you do that Cessna,
think again. *Please*.
Craig Wall
Steve Bukosky
> A recent issue of EAA Experimenter had a story
>about a pilot installing a Yamaha motorcycle motor in his
>plane. I cant remember if it was water or air cooled but I
>can look it up and get the pilots name ect., if anyone is
>really interested.
Please do Charlie. I would be interested in which engine. Yamaha has
held to air cooled engines longer than most.
One other engine that I have not heard being considered are the Suzuki
engines. These are air and OIL cooled. The radiator is actually an
oil cooler. The engine has nozzles that spray oil on the underside of
the piston. These engines have been turbo charged and nitrous oxide
enhanced to over 400 HP and are a favorite of drag racing. Granted
the power is used for only around 9 seconds rather than 100 hours!
Steve Bukosky
sbuk...@execpc.com
Agent .99a
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>One other engine that I have not heard being considered are the Suzuki
>engines. These are air and OIL cooled. The radiator is actually an
>oil cooler. The engine has nozzles that spray oil on the underside of
>the piston. These engines have been turbo charged and nitrous oxide
>enhanced to over 400 HP and are a favorite of drag racing. Granted
>the power is used for only around 9 seconds rather than 100 hours!
Just FYI - oil cooling jets are pretty common in aircraft engines. They
exactly as you described in your posting for the Suzuki engines. They
can be found in many higher output Lycomings and Continental engines.
greg
Hank Blackstock
early 80's I was the tuner for a BMW that was raced in the AMA
roadrace series. We did experiance mechanical problems but
overheating was not one of them. Bigggest problem was
crankshaft flex resulting in loss of rod bearing clearance.
This however was due to extremely high RPM (8700 the normal red
line on the BMW twin is 7200). This of course should not come
into play in an aircraft application.
100% power has been refered to in this thread. We were
problably running the engine at 150% or more of the rated power
be it for short periods of time. At Daytona it can somewhat
longer than at most other tracks.
The BMW twin may or may not be suitable for an aircraft
but I believe that it comes closer than any of the other
aircooled motorcycle engines due to its basic design. The new
BMW twins (4 valve heads and fuel injection) also offer
interesting possiblities.
Just my two cents worth, Hank
Hank Blackstock
Hank Blackstock
Craig Wall
>Please define "converted for aircraft use" for us.
By "converted", I mean in the true homebuilder's sense of the word.
1) Done by simple substitution, i.e. removing the engine from a
motorcycle and bolting on a prop, at the minimum.
The idea here is that a homebuilder's conversion, the purpose of
which is to get into the air safely at minimum costs, should be
easily accomplished by the "man in the street". This means the
use of an engine that is commonly available, so that the first
few don't deplete the supply for the rest.
2) Things I would consider to be invalidtion of the "homebuilder's
conversion" concept would be replacing the cylinders and heads
(this makes the engine not converted, but re-designed); conversions
by the factory (then it's not a homebuilder's conversion, but a
factory conversion); the drive to the prop is of less concern.
3) Things I would consider valid techniques for a homebuilt conversion
would include blowers and spraybars, heat pipes, removing metal to
get better power-to-weight ratios; carburation and exhaust and
timing work, including new cams and electronics.
4) Given that it was accomplished with the above limitations and
opportunities, I would consider an engine to be an uncompromising
success if it gave it's *full rated horsepower* in the motorcycle
application in the *converted* format, for 100hrs at 100% output,
continuous duty.
That is provided that the motorcycle operation wasn't derated in the
first place, and that the power to weight ratio was equal to that
of a comparable certified engine, as should the burn of normal
fuels, NOT alcohol, be also.
Sporting? I get to keep the engine. I'd like about 60hp, please.
Craig Wall
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <49g0bu$9...@atlas.uniserve.com>, trav...@uniserve.com says...
: >
: >>What about the thermal dissipation efficiency of liquid cooled
: >motorcycle engines,one would think with a big enough radiator heat
: >would not be a problem ,it sems to me that they would be a good option
: >for aircraft use , ie honda shadow 1100cc ,liquid cooled and 2 sparkplugs
: >per cylinder
: There was a guy a few months back that spent about $20,000, as I
: recall, trying to do that very thing. He finally concluded that the
: head just could not handle the required heat flow, and that was after
: working on it for years with professional engineering help.
: Be my guest- I'd love to see a decent conversion. But unless you
: can bribe a designer at the Honda plant in the old country, the motors
: won't do it, because they are designed not to. The problem isn't
: getting rid of the heat once it's in the coolant- it's getting it out
: of the head region itself.
Then how can a lowly VW engine work?
Sandwich Maker
"Requiring it to put out 100% power based on it's motorcycle hp
[]
"rating is absurd. We could just as easily but that continental on a
"dyno and find it puts out 110 hp at 4000 rpm, call it a 110 hp motor,
"and watch it explode at 50hrs of dyno time running at 100%
"continuous.
fyi & fwiw -- o-200s are commonly run at 4000 or 4100 in formula
airplanes to make more power. they aren't run higher because a
destructive crank vibration sets in at ~4300.
dunno 'bout tbo, though...
--
| PRIORITIES
Andrew Hay | URGENT get someone else to do it right away
a...@andr.ub.com | RUSH try to look at it before the weekend
| ASAP whenever...
John R. Johnson
engine changes consisted of Stellite exhaust valves to handle the higher
temperatures and a rod cap with an oil hole that squirted oil on the
bottom of the piston on the opposite cylinder. These modifications
allowed them to increase the RPM by 200 and up the power from 65 to
75. Lycoming did something similiar with their 55 HP engine to get it
up to the 65 HP it produces in the old Taylorcraft BL65.
John
John Souders
writes:
>
>I have been watching this thread with great interest.... In the
>
>
Many thanks for your 2 cents worth:
Out of interest, do you remember how much a R75 or R100 weighs.
Also what was the tated max HP at rpm.
Mark Ambrose
some kind of litmus test for an aircraft engine. There are aircraft engines in
use that have restrictions against using 100% rated power for longer than a
few minutes. The Rotax 912, which is generally considered a pretty decent
4-stroke engine, has a limitation of using 100% power for only two minutes.
Does this mean that since these engines cannot pass the 100% power for 100
hours test that they are somehow inferior? Or does it mean that if an engine
can pass this test it is a superior engine to all the rest? I imagine there
are many small 2-strokes that could easily pass this test. So what?
What does it prove if you get an engine to pass a test like this? No one
operates an engine that way in the real world. I would suspect that if any
engine can perform this it isn't living up to its potential.
As an aside I am a project manager at NASA for the Perseus and Raptor RPV's
(remotely piloted vehicles). These two unmanned drones are designed to fly at
altitudes of 65,000 to 85,000 feet for as long as 48 hours non stop. NASA has
contracted with Scaled Composite for the Raptor and Aurora Flight Sciences for
the Perseus. Both aircraft are using the Rotax 912 in a highly modified format
(ie: twin turgocharged in one application and closed loop in another-where
the exhaust is fed back into the engine and mixed with bottled oxygen). The
engine is considered very reliable and fuel efficient and by the way it
probably wouldn't pass the 100% power for 100 hrs test.
Mark Ambrose
Not speaking for NASA or the federal government
John R. Johnson
engines had TWO power ratings. One good for 5 minutes and the other
good for continuous. Generally they were pretty close together. If
you ran longer than the rated time at the higher, temporary rating,
you were expected to tear down the engine for inspection. This "tear
down for inspection" process is what is commonly called a "major
overhaul."
For example, the engine in my airplane is rated at 300 HP for 5 minutes
at 2300 RPM and for 285 HP continuous at 2200 RPM. I merely set my
prop governor limit to 2200, so that I don't have to worry about
throttling back. I figure that is 285 HP isn't enough, 300 probably
isn't going to save my bacon either! If I am running that close to
my margin, I am running TOO close.
John
Hank Blackstock
Hank
Craig Wall
>Then how can a lowly VW engine work?
1) it's an aircraft engine to start with
2) it often overheats anyway (since in cars it is
blower cooled) unless you either derate it
or add more cooling (e.g. an oil cooler)
Also, the term "lowly' is nothing to sneeze at;
it's a simple design and not quite as critical
as a paper-thin bike engine.
Never-the-less, VW's tend to overheat. Sure, there
are people that fly them without problems. But
I definitely DON'T recommend you use one without
a CHT installed.
Craig (..or use those cylinders with extra cooling fins..) Wall
DENNIS CLARK
throttle.Our own US military uses them in the "Hunter" remotely piloted
recon aircraft. An officer in charge of maintenance told me they fly at
full throttle (100% power) from take off until just before touch down.
Missions can last 19 hrs. Over haul is scheduled for 600 hrs. He says
wear is not the problem, it is just military requirements. As far as I
know there are three homebuilts flying with this Engine in North
America. Check it out for yourself. Moto Guzzi is an Italian Motorcycle
This basic engine has been in production since 1949
James I .Lewis
test the interest here for Helicopters and Ultra-Light helicopters
particularly. I'm new to the online thing and am trying to connect with
others of the same interest. I have been a member of the EAA in the
past and member of local Rotor craft clubs, but have been flying C-150,
H-300, R-22 and ultra-lights mostly the last eleven or so years. I'm
building an ultra-light helicopter now using Rotax 503 and Adems-Wilson
technoligy. I don't know how to determine if my other post got through
or not so I thought I would try again with anohter post in this forum.
Later Jim jim....@decoy.com
Stephen Barker
Message-ID: <466860...@theranch.demon.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, Dec 02, 1995 23.49.34
Organization: None
Reply-To: Ste...@theranch.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 23
X-SMTP-Posting-Host: theranch.demon.co.uk [Sun, 3 Dec 95 0:59:35 GMT]
In article: <49p3ma$g...@cloner3.netcom.com> le...@ix.netcom.com(James I
.Lewis ) writes:
> Path:
theranch.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!peer-news.britain.eu.net!EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
> From: le...@ix.netcom.com(James I .Lewis )
> This has nothing to do with any previous topics but I would like to
> test the interest here for Helicopters and Ultra-Light helicopters
> particularly. I'm new to the online thing and am trying to connect with
> others of the same interest..................
> Later Jim jim....@decoy.com
>
>
Yr msg came thro' loud and clear Jim.
I am not very au fait with rotorcraft but it is my dream. There is another
group that may interest you called rec.aviation.rotorcraft where you may get
more interest. I am a low hrs fixed winger but hope to buy an autogyro...
and then ..... so keep up the info.
--
Stephen Barker
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: no he didnt, the comment was that no motorcycle engine was up to snuff
: as an aircraft engine because it, among other things, could not dissipate
: the heat generated at full power. have a *close* look at a lycoming and
: you will see an enormous fin difference. even using methanol fuel for
: cooling as model aircraft engines do I think you'd still be pushing it.
: personally I find craig's battles quite funny, there is always a reality
: card up his sleeve which the other guy never seems to see.
And a 'reality card' that bit him was his use of the word "all"
in conjunction with the word "engines". It meant, all production
engines -- even *water cooled* ones.
Anyway, he even said "modified for A/C use." or something close.
And *that* could include a larger radiator. :-)
Gocha, Craig. Where's my $5,000 bucks. :-)
Chris Lasdauskas
>c...@letsfly.win.net (Charles V. Boehnlein) wrote:
>> A recent issue of EAA Experimenter had a story
>>about a pilot installing a Yamaha motorcycle motor in his
>>plane. I cant remember if it was water or air cooled but I
>>can look it up and get the pilots name ect., if anyone is
>>really interested.
>Please do Charlie. I would be interested in which engine. Yamaha has
>held to air cooled engines longer than most.
>One other engine that I have not heard being considered are the Suzuki
>engines. These are air and OIL cooled. The radiator is actually an
>oil cooler. The engine has nozzles that spray oil on the underside of
All engines are oil cooled. But not necessarily in the way you described.
My (rather old) Yamaha enhanced the natural oil cooling of the engine by
having a radiator for the oil ie an oil-cooler, but otherwise being an
'air-cooled' engine.
Chris
--
Chris Lasdauskas _--_|\ Email : c...@sirocco.geol.utas.edu.au
Dep't of Geography & / au \ Phone : +61 02 207 611 (fax 202 989)
Environmental Studies \_.--._/ GPO Box 252C, Hobart,
University of Tasmania V <------ TAS, Australia, 7000
AV8OR1
aircraft. I would try to replace the rear cover of the transmission with
one with proper bearing support for a prop shaft. Seems like a great
idea. These things are 100-200k mi engines.
Milo
Yeah its too bad the thing costs 9 grand
David Wood
My Haynes manual for BMW twins lists the R-75/5 and /6 at 463 lbs,
Kerb weight (full fuel tank, tools etc.). The R-75/7, R-100/7 at 474.
R-100S,CS at 485, R-100RS at 507. R-100RT 1979-80 at 516, 1981
on at 525 lbs.
HP = R75 = 50 HP @ 6200 RPM max continuos cruising 6500 RPM, max RPM 7400.
R100 = 60,65,67 or 70 HP depending on year at 6500,6600,7000 and 7250
RPM, respectively. Max continuos RPM 6800-7200 depending on year.
Max RPM 7300-7400 RPM,depending on year.
-Dave
AV8OR1
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>If I may ask, why are you using that metric. Do a/c engines use
>the 100 fer 100 in testing?
I suspect he's using a derivation of the federal rules for certifying
aircraft engines.
Those rules require, among other things, that the subect engine
be run at 100% of its rated continous power for 150 hours. During
the run oil temperature, cylinder head temperature, and coolant
temperature (if applicable) must be held at redline. The engine
must complete the test and show no appreciable wear during a subsequent
teardown inspection.
greg, not Craig
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <49g38i$5...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com says...
: >
: >Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
: >: Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
: >: for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
: >: at 100% continuous output.
: >
: >All of them do? Every single air and water cooled engine?
: >
: >*Every* one?
: Yup. Do you see a single full power conversion?
That doesn't mean it isn't possible, Craig. That was my only
point.
: >
: >: If you don't think so, BET ME MONEY! I'd call you names to goad
: >: you into it, but I've used up my quota this month. Shall we say
: >: $5000?
: >
: >If you are going to stick to your *all* statement I could use
: >someone to finance my IFR rating.
:
: The operative statement was that *the BMW* makes a lousy conversion;
: with the observation that it was for the same reason that all of them
: do.
: But feel free. Show me a currently produced motorcycle engine the
: can run at 100% output for 100 continuous hours, and you can take
: my 22ft MacGregor.
If I may ask, why are you using that metric. Do a/c engines use
the 100 fer 100 in testing?
Just curious.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <49g38i$5...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com says...
: >
: >Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
: >: Phththth yourself. A BMW would make a LOUSY aircraft engine
: >: for the same reason ALL motorcycle engines do: they overheat
: >: at 100% continuous output.
: >
: >All of them do? Every single air and water cooled engine?
: >
: >*Every* one?
: The operative statement was that *the BMW* makes a lousy conversion;
: with the observation that it was for the same reason that all of them
: do.
And I got you on the fact that you said ALL (as in every single
production engine).
You may be right about the BMW engine. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just trying to make five grand on your statement, which
set's you up to be wrong, no matter what.
Steve Bukosky
>Try the Moto Guzzi V75. It has gone 123 hrs on a dyno at full
>throttle.Our own US military uses them in the "Hunter" remotely piloted
>recon
I had thought of them. I believe some or all of them have shaft
drive. The V twin design would hamper cowling and the engine is a
shaker. Probably the two biggest items which would make it
undesirable for a homebuilt.
Steve Bukosky
sbuk...@execpc.com
Agent .99a
John Souders
>
>In article <49npka$g...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
says...
>
>
>
Craig, I wonder if you know what the BMW Boxer twin is by your
reference to "paper thin bike engines".
Also, both my BMW engine and the VW would be blower cooled in an
aircraft, only the fan is a little larger that in a VW car!!!!
Howard Jones
: Howard Jones (how...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: : no he didnt, the comment was that no motorcycle engine was up to snuff
: : as an aircraft engine because it, among other things, could not dissipate
: : the heat generated at full power. have a *close* look at a lycoming and
: engines -- even *water cooled* ones.
: Anyway, he even said "modified for A/C use." or something close.
:
but donn, most motorcycles have integral gearboxes and crankcases with
transverse shafts. I for one would **never** consider the engine in
my Kawasaki BR250 even remotely suitable for aircraft use.
4 valves in the head, liquid cooled and capable of a redline of 11,500rpm.
the bloody thing is optimised all wrong for aircraft use.
the only motors we **might** consider are for shaft drive bikes and even then
I'll stand by the runway and wave you goodbye.
and just because a lycoming is rated at 2000 tbo doesnt mean that it will
always make the distance. I can show you a o-320-e2d that was stuffed at
1140hrs......but gads it was fuel efficient!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Jones, (how...@perth.dialix.oz.au) _--_|\
66 Towton Way, Langford 6147, Western Australia / \
Freeflight Aeromodeller,Tyre Kicker & Current Pilot! *_.--._/
Corby Starlet Plans #279....RAAF Association Flying Club Member V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Ok, here's the bet.
You mean a *new* one, Craig. :-)
: You convert an aircooled BMW engine, put it on
: a dynoed test stand and run it 100 hrs at 100% rated power. All real
: airplane motors are capable of this. You won't get 30 minutes out of
: that Beamer.
Well, we got you because you didn't give us a definition of "convert"
and "real".
Whydoyathink we got lawyers?
: It won't cool- WE KNOW THIS.
Conversion == bigger radiator.
I win. :-)
John R. Johnson
takeoff power" to be different from "rated continuous power." If the
"rated takeoff power" is greater than "rated continuous power" there
will be a time limitation, such as "5 minutes" that is applied to t he
higher horsepower rating.
John
On 3 Dec 1995, Gregory R. TRAVIS wrote:
> In <49ra6a$i...@fred.uswnvg.com> dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () writes:
>
> >If I may ask, why are you using that metric. Do a/c engines use
> >the 100 fer 100 in testing?
>
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Enough namecalling. Share your toys.
: I've got an uncle who built a Bobcat in Germany using a modified R75/5 engine. Works perfectly.
But will it run at 100% power for 100 hours?
whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting)
> Because, when Dr. Porsche designed the VW engine back in the thirties, he
> purposely sized the internal air passages to horsepower limit the engine
> so that it could be run for long periods at full throttle without self-
> destructing. Basically he designed the engine in such a way that it is
> automatically derated! He did this to make an inexpensive, reliable,
> engine for the "People's car."
> {stuff deleted}
--
I always thought it was bizarre that my 1971 VW Beetle's owner's manual had the
following:
Top speed: 81 mph
Cruising speed: 81 mph
I'm running from memory here, so the 81 may not be correct, but that is the
number that sticks in my noggin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew S. Whiting, P.E. | PP-ASEL-IA | All opinions expressed herein are
Corning Incorporated | C-182K/A | strictly personal.
whiti...@corning.com | |
John Souders
>
>I believe the 1000cc boxer engine would be very nice for the right
size
At last a positive conmment. I would like to find a reduction drive
that fitted onto the crank, and loose the gearbox completely. I would
really like to find someone who has done this?>
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Try the Moto Guzzi V75. It has gone 123 hrs on a dyno at full
There it is.
: Check it out for yourself. Moto Guzzi is an Italian Motorcycle
: This basic engine has been in production since 1949
--
Mark Kromer
>Try the Moto Guzzi V75. It has gone 123 hrs on a dyno at full
>full throttle (100% power) from take off until just before touch down.
>Missions can last 19 hrs. Over haul is scheduled for 600 hrs. He says
>wear is not the problem, it is just military requirements. As far as I
>know there are three homebuilts flying with this Engine in North
>This basic engine has been in production since 1949
This enigne design was initially introduced in Moto Guzzi motorcycles in the
late '70s, not 1949. It is a member of a smaller family of 90deg V-twins
(350cc-750cc) that was developed from the "big block" (700cc-1100cc) V-twins
introduced in the mid sixties. I'm not suprised that it was developed into an
aircraft engine, Moto Guzzi motorcycle engines are simple, robust and long
lived. I ride a 1978 850 LeMans and I'd fly it if it had wings. I couldn't
say that about any of the other motorcycles I've owned (and after my RD400
experience, you definitely wouldn't catch me flying a two-stroke).
- )V(ark)< ma...@trvlnet.com
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: Also, the term "lowly' is nothing to sneeze at;
: it's a simple design and not quite as critical
Paper thin bike engine.
BMW
Moto Guzzi
Gold Wing
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: I keep seeing reference to running at 100% rated horsepower for 100 hours as
: some kind of litmus test for an aircraft engine. There are aircraft engines in
: use that have restrictions against using 100% rated power for longer than a
: few minutes. The Rotax 912, which is generally considered a pretty decent
: 4-stroke engine, has a limitation of using 100% power for only two minutes.
: Does this mean that since these engines cannot pass the 100% power for 100
: hours test that they are somehow inferior? Or does it mean that if an engine
: can pass this test it is a superior engine to all the rest? I imagine there
: are many small 2-strokes that could easily pass this test. So what?
I was reading an article in Plane and Pilot last night that
stated that a *brand new* plane was rated for 100% for only
five minutes, then you had to reduce.
: What does it prove if you get an engine to pass a test like this?
An argument.
: No one
: operates an engine that way in the real world.
Someone claimed it happend frequently.
Russell McGinnis
Somebody pooh-poohed Guzzi engines as "shakers," but I've met a
a number of Guzzi riders and none of them complained about vibes.
I'm to understand that a _ninety-degree_ V engine has a tendency
for "secondary" imbalances to offset "primary" imbalances. Any
Guzzi, Ducati or mech. eng. types care to shed some light on the
vibration issue?
Russ McGinnis
St. Pete, Florida
--
LINUX, the operating system that Bill Gates doesn't want you to know
about.
Charles K. Scott
ma...@access5.digex.net (Matt Lawrence) writes:
> Well, I used to ride my Suzuki at WOT in 5th gear for 45 minutes at a
> time and I never had a problem with it overheating.
Unless while using WOT in 5th gear you are also at the proper rpm for
max hp production, you weren't running at full power. Wide open
throttle may be several thousand rpms below peak power which means you
were running "derated". In order to reach max power, the engine must
reach peak rpms. Most vehicals are geared so that they cannot reach
redline in top gear.
Corky Scott
**
>I've resisted jumping into this but...well, yes they often do.
>As Craig has pointed out, an aircraft engine must run at least 150
>hours (I believe Craig has thrown down the gauntlet at 100 hours but
the
>actual certification requirements are 150 hours) at full power with no
>appreciable wear to even meet certification standards. Furthermore,
all
>of the current breed are warranteed to TBO at maximum power. In other
words,
>Lycoming (or Continental) will give you a new engine if you buy it,
take
>it home, and immediately start running it at full power and it doesn't
>make it 2000 hours. I.e. if it doesn't run for at least 83.33 days
>straight.
This sounds like a good sales tool. I wonder why Lyc & Cont don't make
this one of their main advertising points. Maybe a secret warranty.
How many of you out their have herd of this.
>In the real world, yeah most fixed-wing aircraft engines spend their
>lives at 65-75% power. Rotocraft engines often run all day at 100%
>however and they're not much different.
>greg
lets get back to reality here. The following is copied from the
CFR 14 if you doubt what you see here go to your library and check it
out.
I didn't see any reference to 150 hrs at 100% power or even 100 hrs.
Show us the proof of what you say. Here is mine.
Code Of Federal Regulations
ENDURANCE TEST CFR 14 PARTS 1-59 Jan 1 (1994)
#33.49
(a) General. Each engine must be subjected to an endurance
test that includes a total of 150 hours of operation (except
as provided in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section) and,
depending upon the type and contemplated use of the engine,
consists of one of the series of runs specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, as applicable.
The runs must be made in the order found appropriate by the
Administrator for the particular engine being tested.
During the endurance test the engine power and the
crankshaft rotational speed must be kept within +/-3 percent
of the rated values. During the runs at rated takeoff power
and for at least(35) hours at rated maximum continuous
power, one cylinder must be operated at not less than the
limiting temperature, the other cylinders must be operated
at a temperature not lower than 50 degrees F. below the
limiting temperature, and the oil inlet temperature must be
maintained within +/-10 degrees F. of the limiting
temperature. An engine that is equipped with a propeller
shaft must be fitted for the endurance test with a propeller
that trust-loads the engine to the maximum thrust which the
engine is designed to resist at each applicable operating
condition specified in this section. Each accessory drive
and mounting attachment must be loaded. During operation at
rated takeoff power and rated maximum continuous power, the
load imposed by each accessory used only for an aircraft
service must be the limit load specified by the applicant
for the engine drive or attachment point.
(b) Unsupercharged engines and engines incorporating a
gear-driven single-speed supercharger. For engines not
incorporating a supercharger and for engines incorporating a
gear-driven single-speed supercharger the applicant must
conduct the following runs:
(1) A 30-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 5
minutes at rated takeoff power with takeoff speed, and 5
minutes at maximum best economy cruising power or maximum
recommended cruising power.
(2) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2
hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum
continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 75 percent rated maximum
continuous speed.
(3) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2
hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum
continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 70 percent rated maximum
continuous power and 89 percent maximum continuous speed.
(4) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1\2
hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum
continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 65 percent rated maximum
continuous power and 87 percent maximum continuous speed.
(5) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2
hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum
continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 60 percent rated maximum
continuous power and 84.5 percent maximum continuous speed.
(6) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2
hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum
continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 50 percent rated maximum
continuous power and 79.5 percent maximum continuous speed.
(7) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 2 1/2
hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum
continuous speed, and 2 1/2 hours at maximum best economy
cruising power or at maximum recommended cruising power.
*******************************************************
Paragraph 33.49, Endurance Test (explanation)
Finch Books Converting Auto Engines for Experimental
Aircraft. Third Edition Pg. 116
Let's assume you are testing a 220-horsepower auto engine.
In general, an engine must operate a total of 150 (one
hundred fifty) hours, total time, to be certified. The
detonation test, vibration tests, and any other test, or
deducted from parts of the 150-hour test.
Basically, there are seven separate tests that last 20
hours, and one of the seven tests last 30 hours. Here are
the tests:
1. A 30-hour run @ 5 minutes of 220 hp (take-
off) and 5 minutes @ 121 hp.
2. A 20 hour run at 1 1/2 hours at 200 hp,
alternated with 1 1/2 at 121 hp.
3. 20 hours at max cruise power, usually 75%,
and alternate with 1 1/2 hour periods of
121 hp. And so forth.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
| Northwest Aero Products “Pioneers Always Take The Arrows” |
| Roy D. Johnson Pvt, Instrument, ASEL, ASES EAA, AOPA, SPA |
| email nwa...@ix.netcom.com Ph #(206)735-5022 Fax #(206)939-1578 |
| web page Http://www.halcyon.com/wpowers/nappage1.html |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Howard Jones
: PS: The heavy flywheel would help damp torsional stress.
but "heavy flywheels" have the effect of reducing the destructive harmonic
vibration rpm's on the crankshaft down into the upper rev range that you need
for climb out. it is exactly this reason why VW conversions are only
recommended for wooden props and the stock flywheel is discarded for a light
aluminium casting. by reducing the rotating weight (inertia) the vibration
rpm's occur higher than redline and you have a usable engine as a result.
motor cycle engines are optimised for totally different forces.
Craig Wall
>
>And a 'reality card' that bit him was his use of the word "all"
>in conjunction with the word "engines". It meant, all production
>engines -- even *water cooled* ones.
>
>Anyway, he even said "modified for A/C use." or something close.
>
>And *that* could include a larger radiator. :-)
>
>Gocha, Craig. Where's my $5,000 bucks. :-)
>
If you'd been reading, Donn, you'd know that I meant to include
the water cooled engines as well. Larger radiators don't do it,
because the problem is in the head- you can't transfer the heat
to the water fast enough, so a larger radiator doesn't help.
Ask the guy that went broke trying to convert a Honda GoldWing.
He spent $20,000 on professional engineering work and he was no
fool- he came to the conclusion that there was just flat no way to
do it with the production heads. He couldn't add metal and he
couldn't improve the water passages- anything he did made it worse.
Your $5000 is still in my pocket. Like I said- show me the engine.
Craig (..sorry, ya *don't* got me..) Wall
Shanley Mark Stephen
> I keep seeing reference to running at 100% rated horsepower for 100 hours as
> some kind of litmus test for an aircraft engine. There are aircraft engines in
> use that have restrictions against using 100% rated power for longer than a
> few minutes.
I think we maybe using the term "rated" and "Take Off" power terms rather
loosely. Your statements forced me to dig out my old A&P books, here is
what they contained.
From "Aircraft Powerplants" 5th edition by Bent/McKinley, McGraw-Hill, Chp
2, Pg 14,15;
"The rated power, also called the standard engine rating, is the maximum
horsepower output which can be obtained from an engine when it is
operated at specified rpm and manifold pressure conditions established as
safe for continuous operation. This is the power guaranteed by the
manufacturer of the engine under the specified condtions and is the same
as the METO power." METO=maximum except take-off
"The takeoff power of an engine may be about 10 percent above the maximum
continuous power-output allowance. This is the usual increase of power
output permitted in the United States, but in British aviation the
increase above maximum cruising power may be as much as 15 percent.
...Maximum continuous power is also called the ... METO power."
"Powerplant Section Textbook" Aviation Maintenance Publishers, Chp 1, pg 18
"Before an engine is granted its Approved Type Certificate,..., It must
prove its reliability by an endurance run witnessed by the FAA in which
it is operated for 85 hours at maximum continuous power, 15 hours at
takeoff power, and 50 hours at high cruise power. After this amount of
running, the engine is disassembled and it must show no sign of abnormal
wear nor any indication of impending failure."
> The Rotax 912, which is generally considered a pretty decent
> 4-stroke engine, has a limitation of using 100% power for only two minutes.
> Does this mean that since these engines cannot pass the 100% power for 100
> hours test that they are somehow inferior?
It seems we are using different terms again? 100% vs. rated power? I would
call your 100% power TO power, is it within 10-15% of METO power/rated
power/maximum continuous power? Maybe the problem lies in Military vs.
Civilian specs.
Rotax somehow inferior? I don't know, but maybe using non-standard and
undefined terms makes the engine sell better or appear more powerful
than engines using commercial "rated power". In order for any comparison
to be valid all defined terms would have to be uniform. If the Rotax has a
FAA Type certificate what is the engine power rating?
> As an aside I am a project manager at NASA for the Perseus and Raptor RPV's
> (remotely piloted vehicles). These two unmanned drones are designed to fly at
> altitudes of 65,000 to 85,000 feet for as long as 48 hours non stop.
It sounds like fun.
I hope this info helps.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com wrote:
: : Howard Jones (how...@perth.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: : : no he didnt, the comment was that no motorcycle engine was up to snuff
: : : as an aircraft engine because it, among other things, could not dissipate
: : : the heat generated at full power. have a *close* look at a lycoming and
: : engines -- even *water cooled* ones.
: : Anyway, he even said "modified for A/C use." or something close.
: :
: but donn, most motorcycles have integral gearboxes and crankcases with
: transverse shafts. I for one would **never** consider the engine in
: my Kawasaki BR250 even remotely suitable for aircraft use.
: 4 valves in the head, liquid cooled and capable of a redline of 11,500rpm.
: the bloody thing is optimised all wrong for aircraft use.
I have a ninja 250 with a redline of 14,000 rpm. Of course that wouldn't
make a decent engine. However, there just *may* be one or two engines
out there, once "converted" for a/c use, that would work.
And that negates the "there aren't *any* engines suitable" argument.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <8B6203C.0210...@swsbbs.com>, dennis...@swsbbs.com (DENNIS CLARK) says:
: >
: >Try the Moto Guzzi V75. It has gone 123 hrs on a dyno at full
: >throttle.Our own US military uses them in the "Hunter" remotely piloted
: >recon aircraft. An officer in charge of maintenance told me they fly at
: >full throttle (100% power) from take off until just before touch down.
: >Missions can last 19 hrs. Over haul is scheduled for 600 hrs. He says
: >wear is not the problem, it is just military requirements. As far as I
: >know there are three homebuilts flying with this Engine in North
: >America. Check it out for yourself. Moto Guzzi is an Italian Motorcycle
: >This basic engine has been in production since 1949
: Yeah its too bad the thing costs 9 grand
the *engine* ??
Charles K. Scott
> In article <49npka$g...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com says...
>
> >Then how can a lowly VW engine work?
In article <49pv4n$q...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>
cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) writes:
> 1) it's an aircraft engine to start with
Are you sure about this Craig? I know the configuration is similar to
aircraft boxer design but the rev range is all wrong and it really
didn't make much horsepower in it's original form. Do the history
books state that Dr. Porsche originally made the engine for aircraft?
Corky Scott
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In <49ra6a$i...@fred.uswnvg.com> dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () writes:
: >If I may ask, why are you using that metric. Do a/c engines use
: >the 100 fer 100 in testing?
: I suspect he's using a derivation of the federal rules for certifying
: aircraft engines.
: Those rules require, among other things, that the subect engine
: be run at 100% of its rated continous power for 150 hours. During
: the run oil temperature, cylinder head temperature, and coolant
: temperature (if applicable) must be held at redline. The engine
: must complete the test and show no appreciable wear during a subsequent
: teardown inspection.
Thank you for elaborating, Greg.
Craig Wall
No- I only meant it was the same configuration that he used for
aircraft engines- IOW's the "lineage" was derived from aircraft
engines. You are correct about the operating parameters being
wrong for aircraft use- although the original 28hp 1100cc engine
made a much better conversion than the later engines, albeit a
bit on the heavy side. Derated that far down, cooling wasn't a
problem...carb icing was.
Craig Wall
.
Craig Wall
However, there just *may* be one or two engines
>out there, once "converted" for a/c use, that would work.
>
>And that negates the "there aren't *any* engines suitable" argument.
So find one. Like I said, I have a 22ft cabin sailboat worth about
five grand. Full rated (METO equivalent) power to be the same as the
motorcycle book max power (since that's the figure proponents throw
in my face when they say how great it's going to be); 100hr at 100%
*power output* (not 100% throttle).
Liquid cooled engines with huge radiators accepted: installed power-to-
weight ratio must be the same as an O-200 Cont. (I'll allow it to be
up to 15% worse, or as much improved as you can get.)
Craig Wall
John R. Johnson
"People's Car." It is NOT an aircraft engine, it just looks kind of like
one because it is air cooled and four cylinder opposed. One of the major
problems with VW conversions is the stubby crankshaft. There is NO real
good way to bolt on a prop and when you do, the back side of the prop and
the forward curve of the exhause manifold on the two cylinders nearest to
the prop come pretty close together. Unfortunately, it is not more an
aircraft engine than the Corvair engine was, appearances notwithstanding.
John
Howard Jones
: : my Kawasaki BR250 even remotely suitable for aircraft use.
: : 4 valves in the head, liquid cooled and capable of a redline of 11,500rpm.
: : the bloody thing is optimised all wrong for aircraft use.
:
: I have a ninja 250 with a redline of 14,000 rpm. Of course that wouldn't
: make a decent engine. However, there just *may* be one or two engines
^^^^^^^
: out there, once "converted" for a/c use, that would work.
: And that negates the "there aren't *any* engines suitable" argument.
may !? isnt that counting the chickens before they hatch ?
but I concede that in the thousands of motorcycle engine designs there may
be just one or (stretching it) even two. but the bet was for one actually
running the 100hrs at full chat in front of him.
but of course you wouldnt take the opinion of anyone who rides a bike anyway
:-)
--
DENNIS CLARK
hand. The V75 is comparable to the 582 Rotax in price and horsepower,
but weighs less the a ready to fly 503. The 82 HP V1100 can be had for
around $8000 conciderably less than the 912 with two more take off horse
power
DENNIS CLARK
never ridden one .
Imagine a single cylinder engine at top dead center, at this point the
counterweight is at it's maximum effect, countering the mass of the
piston as it comes to a sudden stop then starts in the other direction.
You might think that a 100% balance factor would give a vibration free
engine. Not so, when the piston is in mid travel it needs no
counterweight at all. But the weight is bein thrown in a direction not
needed. 90 degrees to the piston travel path. The Italians add a second
cylinder at 90 degrees to the first. Then you can balance at 100%. As
the crankshaft is rotating the balance mass is smoothly vectored from
one cylinder to the other. Some American industrial engine manufacturers
have adopted this con figuration to drastically reduce vibes with out
balance shafts and other heavy whirling objects. This 90 Degree V even
works the good old fashioned AMERICAN V8 If not for power they are noted
for smoothness. The techno-boys call this perfect primary balance. The
Harley is a 45 degree V so dont think back to your ride on the old
Sportster. there are other factors that affect the smoothness of an
engine but this is the best way to get a smoother less complex, lighter
engine
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <4a82h1$i...@fred.uswnvg.com>, dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com says...
: However, there just *may* be one or two engines
: >out there, once "converted" for a/c use, that would work.
: >
: >And that negates the "there aren't *any* engines suitable" argument.
The point is, I don't have to.
If you have ever heard the Amazing Randi (debunker of con artists
posing as psychics) speak you will be familiar with his statements
about absolutes that state that something *cannot* possibly exist
enlightening.
Basically, your statement *cannot* by it's very nature, be correct
or supportable.
"Man will never fly."
RLocknane
The VW engine is not a motorcycle engine, which was the original thread.
The bet was a motorcycle engine.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: but I concede that in the thousands of motorcycle engine designs there may
: be just one or (stretching it) even two. but the bet was for one actually
: running the 100hrs at full chat in front of him.
: but of course you wouldnt take the opinion of anyone who rides a bike anyway
: :-)
Of course I would as I've been riding motorcycles since 1975.