Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Motorcycle Engines...again

Expand Messages
  • Dan Grunloh
    ... limit. For me to be warm and fuzzy about it, it ll need full instruments, brakes (that can hold the plane at full throttle), You might want to abandon
    Message 1 of 53 , Mar 1, 2007
      --- In Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Heiter"
      <heiter@...> wrote:

      >
      > My overall goal is an ultralight Airplane, that meets the 254 pound
      limit. For me to be 'warm and fuzzy' about it, it'll need full
      instruments, brakes (that can hold the plane at full throttle),

      You might want to abandon that one. Very few UL's have brakes
      that can hold the plane at full throttle (especially on grass).
      You can install all the brakes you want but there isn't
      enough friction with the ground for a light UL. For those
      legal UL's that operate mostly on pavement (rare) it is possible,
      if your engine is weak enough. :-)

      Brakes are a convenience but rarely actually needed for
      true ultralights operating from sod. They are essential
      when taxiing on pavement around other airplanes. Since you
      want cabin heat, that implies it will be totally enclosed making
      it impossible to put your feet down for an engine run-up.

      I flew for 12 years with no brakes and never an incident.
      The new CGS Hawk Classic flew all week at the Sun-N-Fun
      airshow with no brakes, and no problems.

      In the 25 years history of UL's the best designers out there
      have yet to produce a legal craft fitting your desires. The
      secret of a true successful UL is to figure out how to avoid
      needing all those extras and still have a good plane.

      Hint: Get yourself a good wrist altimeter and save about
      a pound off your instrument panel. Skip the whole panel
      and save 7 lbs. Open cockpit often don't need airspeed
      indicator, you can feel the wind. Save another 15 lbs on
      your enclosure. Cabin heat ducts and metal work weigh more
      than a sweater and the sweater is not included in the 254 limit.

      Think "ultralight".

      --Dan Grunloh


      cab heat, a comfy seat and it needs to 'sip' fuel. 'pie in the sky'
      maybe-maybe not. My experience has been that if you just keep trying
      and looking you can atleast get outside the box and bring a few new
      ideas to the discussion.
      > Brad
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Ron & Mary Ohler
      > To: Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:55 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Small4-strokeEngines] Re: Motorcycle Engines...again
      >
      >
      > Well, you asked. Not in my opinion. You may have an improvement
      over a 2 stroke. I would think that the fuel burn per Hp would be less
      than a similar 2 stroke. No having to mess with carrying 2 stroke oil
      with you on cross country flights. Beyond that is all up to proving
      the design. I don't expect to see as good a fuel burn nor as low a
      maintenance as a lower rpm, direct drive 084 but please feel free to
      try it. I suspect that the final drive torque may actually have an
      improvement over the 084. So it is possible that the performance may
      actually be between a 2 stroke and an 084. Jim Stephenson offered to
      trade/sell me a motorcycle engine that he had started just such a
      conversion on back .... geesh... 13 years ago. I'd already done the
      work on designing and building the first 2 cyl Corvair and really
      didn't need another project.
      > Ron
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Brad Heiter
      > To: Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:33 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Small4-strokeEngines] Re: Motorcycle Engines...again
      >
      > 82 to 86 CB450 Honda up date:
      >
      > Ok, I took an engine apart and making a few guesses it looks like
      a CB450 engine less redrive, oil cooler and fuel system would be about
      92lbs. If a complete engine came in under 120lbs would it be worth the
      effort? A stock engine makes about 44hp and with a better exhaust and
      intake maybe it'll get to about 48hp at takeoff with ??? around 30hp
      continuous. Is this worth the effort or am I just trying to reinvent
      the 4A084?
      >
      > Brad
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • andy berg
      It has been more than 20 yrs. and I worked on the new diesel at the time (Lseries) I am not sure I remember the numbers correctly. The engine line for the
      Message 53 of 53 , Mar 10, 2007
        It has been more than 20 yrs. and I worked on the new diesel at the time (Lseries) I am not sure I remember the numbers correctly. The engine line for the 2cylinder 4stroke was in Mpls,MN (where I worked) I think that engine was referred to as the (Qseries maybe NQ I can't remember) the largest was the 60ci. some refinements were made to boost the hp. I think however, it would be short on power to weight for your aplicaton.

        Hugh <hugh@...> wrote: Randy, I'd like to hear more about the onan you mention, I had gotten
        the impression the Q1 was flown with a B48 onan so the configuration of
        your engine greatly interests me with my 60 cube p224 project. Hugh.

        --- In Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com, "randy" <andypilotttt@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > -If anyone is interested I have an onan 60cu. never ran. I worked at
        > onan back when the Q series was used in the Q1. Management wouldn't
        > consider selling it as an aircraft engine of course.
        >






        ---------------------------------
        Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
        Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.