Geoff13 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Nissans new 40kg 400hp engine that will fit into your carry on luggage. At 400hp we only need to have it idling to get the power we need for 600kg MTOW. http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/7071/Nissans-40kg-400HP-Engine.aspx 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 not if you can't buy it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 That engine and the announcements have been around for a while - that weight is without the electrical control boxes, without exhaust and without ant gear redrive to bring the output back to a usable speed for us... 40kg + 10kg exhaust maifold and exhaust + 5-8kg for a cooling system + 12-15kg for redrive ... and suddenly your looking at weight similar to the 912 and whilst it might have more power available it will cost you more petrol through it ... and its not available and I am pretty sure Nissan are not going to go into aircraft ... just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 Ahh yes but automotive technology has for year mirrored the race teams. Flow down will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Ahh yes but automotive technology has for year mirrored the race teams. Flow down will happen. So you're saying that the most 'advanced' aircraft engine we have today - the 912IS - is exhibiting race technology ... from which decade - the 1990's?? And if thats the time lag to entry we should expect to see some of this in aircraft in another 25 years? Sorry but electric will sort out its shit before then 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 just like the cost of an "ultralight" reasonably cheap but then add all the accessories hanger, license, landing fees, asic card, nifty nav gear, best head sets, aviator sunnies and cool jacket, ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 aviator sunnies and cool jacket, ouch! To be fair, ain't the last two only a requirement after obtaining a FIR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I've seen aero engines in cars and car engines in aeroplanes and usually should have been left in their original locations. Purpose built HAS to be better than adaptation. The one thing going for some engines though, is they are mass produced and cheap. An aero engine is neither. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 A bit more realistically; (Copied from elsewhere) While two-cylinder engines with about 1000cc of displacement power Polaris RZRs, Can-Am Mavericks and Arctic Cat Wildcats, Yamaha doesn’t really make a high performance twin. Its only big twins are found in its Star line of cruiser motorcycles. If my thawed out grey matter is correct, a three-cylinder engine might be in our future. Yamaha uses triples in both its motorcycle (847cc, 115 horsepower) and snowmobile (1049cc, 130 horsepower) lineups. A triple would be unique for the Sport UTV segment, but I’d imagine Yamaha wants to be different. Of course, if Yamaha wanted to be really different it could put one of its screaming four-cylinder sportbike engines in a new UTV. An entire racing class was made for people who put a Yamaha YZF-R1 motorcycle engine into Yamaha Rhino chassis, but that seems a touch extreme for a stock machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 For anyone interested; Yamaha FJ1200 (air cooled) components weighed 2 days ago, complete top end comprising cylinder/pistons/cylinder head/camshafts assembly – 26kgs, complete crankshaft assembly with rods - 14kgs, empty crankcase upper/lower assembly – 12kgs, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Interesting topic. I researched lots of interesting car and bike engines, but I was disappointed to discover that, once you added a PSRU etc, none was as light as a Jab 2.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Interesting topic. I researched lots of interesting car and bike engines, but I was disappointed to discover that, once you added a PSRU etc, none was as light as a Jab 2.2. That's because they aren't designed for that specific mission, take the components of say a TRX 850 Yamaha engine specifically setup to power a prop only and you would beat the Jab's weight. That's why I weighed those specific FJ1200 parts, 45kgs for a long engine (custom crankcase) and about 13 to 15 kgs more for a runner. A Rotax is lighter than a Jab with PSRU and water cooling because it was designed for that mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 After 30 plus years of riding, I could not recommend most bike engines. Even with a gearbox most are designed for a constantly changing rev rate not what a aircraft needs. But and the is always a but- the classic flat twin BMW motors are quite suitable. They do not have to rev hard for good power and are built to sustain high speeds for long distances. No they are not the lightest or most powerful but are damn near bullet proof. The older BMW r series had a orange line for maximum sustained revs for long periods and a redline for maximum revs about 7 % higher. They were the first bike engines to be designed for sustained revs all day long, day after day after day. They were engineered to a standard not a price point. At 75% power, fast cruise for a aircraft or road bike they will do it for a easy 1000-1500hrs. Just service it well and don't expect it to be a race bike engine. They are push rod and simple to work on, the opposite of almost any other bike engine. The other been a Moto Guzzi engine very similar inside but V twin and crap electrics. Mechanical failure is almost unheard of and is user/mechanic caused not the design or inherent quality of the beast. Removal and replacement of a head and barrel in the bike is a 30-60 minute job- that is after a huge amount of Kms. The BMW R series air cooled and later much more powerful oil cooled injected motors are very popular in europe and are found on all sorts of aircraft. A good motor and box combo for a aircraft is a small fraction of the cost of a rotax. And a rebuild cost peanuts compared as well. The four cylinder BMW K series (injected) is a bit heavy but is known as the "brick" and if cared for is also almost impossible to kill. At 300,000 kms they might be down on power a little but still just keep going. Even though a four cylinder they are very punchy in torque and only rev to 7300. Very under-stressed and the opposite of almost all other bike engines. They are designed to be easily serviced not a nightmare like most. They come from a period when Germany had a gentlemans agreement of no more than 100hp, so designed for tough and smooth not next years marketing headline. The BMW bike engines have the big bonus of a separate gearbox so are a relatively easy match to a rotax or similar gearbox. The crank is hefty and the bearings particularly the output side are very robust. Strong enough to take direct prop loads, not that you would as a gearbox is the go. The R1 yamaha is a lovely bit of kit but is race orientated and the last thing I want turning a prop. Remember you life depends on the engine to keep turning not just outright power for a short buzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 AEven with a gearbox most are designed for a constantly changing rev rate not what a aircraft needs. Oh this old myth again; An engine doesn't give one hoot about what it's used for and neither does it know. There is 3 basic parameters that identify an engine's ability to hold high constant rpms, the load cycle of the conrod, the ability of the piston and cylinder to displace heat and the ability of the head to cylinder sealing. I can't think of a car or bike engine of the last 30 years that wouldn't sit at 90% of redline all day long. You can't actually tell me of any unreliable engines these days can you, and look at how many engine reco shops there isn't nowadays. They love BMW's though (cars), keeps the few head shops around busy - go drop in and ask them for yourself if you think I'm having a go at you and your Bloody Massive Wallet.. BTW, It's standing joke in the motorcycle trade how reliable and how many miles a BMW twin does - they seem to forget to mention how many times the heads have been off for valve grinds and how many sets of rings they have had to get to those "huge" mileages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Brand "loyalties" are subjective. A.piston or bearing doesn't know what brand is on the tank An F1 racing engine is not for an aeroplane . A good racing engine won't be built for high hours . It's built for power and weight and bulk. Built with an emphasis on life the last two will suffer, and it won't be as competitive. Four valve heads really need liquid cooling. That's been shown over more than 100 years now. Oil is nowhere near as effective as water for transferring heat. A liquid cooled motor is more complex and ancillaries need maintenance.. Pumps, seals, hoses, thermostats, heat exchangers, variable airflow ducts/shutters High specific output engines are by definition more critical. A high load bearing will fail very quickly if all the conditions it needs aren't met. Oil specs, flow., and temperature. You rely on the oil flow to get the heat out of the bearing.. High revving engines need reduction gearing. Extra cost, weight and maintenance and a reliability factor as well. It is possible to run NO redrive on some specifically designed motors, particularly in OUR type of aircraft but they need high torque (bigger displacement) and a bit more ground clearance for the prop, and could retain aircooling. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 the 4 valve oil cooled BMW's where very reliable compared to the 2 valve predecessors. the water cooled ones should run forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 The only water cooled ones are the K series. They are a car engine on it's side. Note.... I have been updated on this.. Boxers from 2013..Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 they changed the R twins in 2014 now water cooled with integrated gearbox and clutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Are you thinking of the vertical twins replacing the 650 "Twinspark" single. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 back to sleep m8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Are you thinking of the vertical twins replacing the 650 "Twinspark" single. Nev The boxer R1200GS became liquid cooled in 2013, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 OK.. I always thought it needed it. Thanks Dazza. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now