Student Pilot Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 It's not a rotary. The power is derived from reciprocating pistons. Whether they transmit their reciprocating motion to a rotating motion via a crank or some cam set-up is irrelevant. It's not an appropriate description..(my view). Nev.. What about one of those monosorp le rhone things, they derived the power from pistons but they were called rotaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palexxxx Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 In late 2009 we will begin production of three different size, High Torque Multi-fuel Radial Piston engines which will be Air-cooled and Fuel Injected. We have Patents for the engines already in place for some countries with more to be submitted in early 2009 to give us full world wide protection. Who is the "we" you refer to in the original post? Do you have a company name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Common Guys, Does it really matter what Blackhawk calls it, trumps to him for having a go:thumb_up: There has been more posts on this thread regarding correctness of a name than there has of encouragement. He asked a question in the first thread asking would people use them so a business plan get get sorted, not did he call it the correct thing. Just to be correct here is the definition of rotary ro⋅ta⋅ry adjective, noun, plural -ries. –adjective 1.turning or capable of turning around on an axis, as a wheel.2.taking place around an axis, as motion.3.having a part or parts that turn on an axis, as a machine. So according to example three it can be called a rotary. Go for it Blackhawk and I wish you all the best:thumb_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 mono soupape. Means single valve.(in French, the country where most of these engines originated This is just ONE design on a consistant theme where these engines (and many others) were called rotaries insomuch as the entire engine (which was attached to the prop.) rotated about the crankshaft, so clearly, they were distinct, and I would suggest ,are entitled to use the name (which defines their character).and they were the first. This engine has yet to establish it's bonafides to claim that definative title. To suggest that, by asserting this, I am being hard on anybody is ridiculous. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Getting back to more important issues, the cam drive reminded me of my earlier post re the Revetec motor. http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/engines-props/5686-interesting-new-engine.html I'm glad to see someone else trying a 'new' approach as well, so good luck to you Graeme. Keep us informed. Would be nice to see a few schematics but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Good idea and along the lines that I have been looking for. I've been considering engine options for my project. Diesel fuel has a high level of availability out bush (more so than ULP or even AVGAS). 120hp is in the right range but the big killer will be the cost and cost to run. mmm 'Radial type' design and cowlings for a ch-7??. Gibbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Gazer Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 BlackHawk or DeltaHawk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gofastclint Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 More pics would be good. Even if its just the petrol version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Just to throw another 'type' into the hat, Revetec call theirs an Orbital engine. Any more suitable names? Would sit well in the nose of my Wyvern. Pity it's not air cooled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Pilot Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Hansome machines those Wyverns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Would "swash plate" be a suitable name for it? Diesel can mean more than just running on diesel fuel nowadays, there are several diesel engines in use running on Avtur. The correct name for that type of engine is Compression Ignition, which was invented by Rudolph Diesel, hence the name. The Russian Vedenyec radial engine is used in a lot of GA planes, both factory and home built. I am waiting for the reports of the first run of the engine and what it can do on a dynamometer, then how it goes in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gofastclint Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Hey guys, ever heard the story about the big bull and the little bull standing on top of the hill? I think the little bull needs to become a big bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieselten Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Zoche (the "vapourware" engine), Thielert (company in receivership, ridiculous low TBO times for critical components), SMA (ever seen an aircraft powered by one of those?), Wilksch (huge openings in the cowling to get the air through the intercooler so performance compromised) and DAIR...and so the list goes on...aero-diesel engines. They're like honest politicians. In theory they exist, but no-one 's actually seen or heard one. However, I applaud your courage in having a go. I suspect you may well make a small fortune out of your endeavours - but you'll have to start with a large one to do it! When you have a hundred aircraft being hauled around by your engines then perhaps you will have staked a place in the aviation engine market. But remember, you are up against Textron-Lycoming, Teledyne-Continental and Rolls Royce, as well as Franklin, Rotax and Jabiru. Some of these names are very big players who will look less than favourably on an upstart newcomer. I think the suggestion to look at initially penetrating the stationary engine market is a good one...it created the PT6 from the ST6, after all. That will get you the hundreds of thousand of hours in service you'll need to really dial in the engines for aviation use. After that...if we can still get liquid hydrocarbon fuel of any sort of calorific value at an affordable price...perhaps you will have a market, even if it is only a niche market. Past experience suggests I should not hold my breath waiting to see this latest offering any time soon. I just wish I could be more optimistic about this...but I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 A lot of the alternative engines we have been told about in the last few years have used other than reciprocating pistons, connected to a crankshaft. So far I cannot remember one of them being a viable alternative to the traditional type. It seems to me that the problems of lubrication cannot be overcome, but I would really like to know what the experts consider is causing the failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 google 'dynacam' engine and tell me what you think and why it has not made production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Mac Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Hi Blackhawk, To answer your original question, I would be interested in an 85-95 hp version, hopefully cheaper than a Jab 2.2, but need an installed weight of around 65-70 kg for a Sierra/Cheetah. Thanks, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Mac Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Hi Blackhawk, To answer your original question, I would be interested in an 85-95 hp version, hopefully cheaper than a Jab 2.2, but need an installed weight of around 65-70 kg for a Sierra/Cheetah. Thanks, Mark Forgot to say, joked with Garry about a Radial for the Cheetah, I called it a 'Mini-Yak' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Don't think the Cheetah is anywhere near the same shape as a Yak and would look a bit odd with a radial. I am still trying to conjure up a few more dollars to order the Sierra, but it looks like June at the earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Mac Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 You're right, doesn't look like a Yak , apologies to Ross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Neat one Mark, neat Oh, and it's not soo bad looking either. so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David F Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Engine Hi Blackhawk Good on you for having a go.Seriously though if you build an engine that is superior in power to weight output,operating cost ,extended TBO and above all keeps running and ONLY stops when it it switched off if you put it in an aircraft and display the above benefits you will sell a truckload and then some. Dave 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