Car Engines Used For Flying Airplanes l Viking Aircraft Engines
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- In today’s aviation experimental world, you can build your own airplane by buying a kit and choosing whichever engine you like to fly. Buying an engine for your airplane is one of the most expensive cost to your build, if not the most expensive. This is why some builders choose to buy an engine first before they purchase the kit of airplane to build.
Subscribe for MORE: goo.gl/1VMCk5
Support Mojogrip on by grabbing some merchandise: teespring.com/...
Or Become A Patron / mojogrip
THANK YOU!
Generally a certified aircraft engine will cost on average $15,000 - $30,000. And this is just for the 150HP engines and below. If you want power output in the 180 HP plus region, then you’re going to shell our more dollars. This is where auto conversion engines comes in.
Auto conversion engines are basically car engines that are retooled and used for flying. Or as Jan from Viking aircraft will tell you; we try to do as little as we can to our Honda engines to change it. So why use a car engine to fly airplanes? well for one, it’s less expensive to buy and to maintain. This is because car engines like Honda are already mass produced and parts/labor are available everywhere.
Some are still very skeptical about using car engines for flying. Jan covers some of those concerns in this video. More questions about aircraft engines will be answered in future videos we are uploading this week, so stay tuned.
My Gear:
Main Camera - amzn.to/2Co5X4N
Backup Camera - amzn.to/2CspKA3
Action Camera - amzn.to/2pY1XjU
Handheld Cam Stabilizer - amzn.to/2S1Cq6q
Main Tripod - amzn.to/2RTxekV
Audio Recorder - amzn.to/2NRgjfo
Lavalier Microphone - amzn.to/2pZs3TD
Microphone Windscreen - amzn.to/2S5PJmi
Music:
bensound.com
..the very first time I spot a car engine in a plane, was in Brazil. They used Toyota Corolla turbocharged engine with CVT gearbox on propeller. Works amazing. Was 2002
I have a K24a4 in my Honda. 200,000 miles at say an average of 50 miles an hour is 4000 hours. Even with less than perfect maintenance and pretty much driving the heck out of it for the past 16 years it still doesn’t burn oil and it has never not started. The only thing I’ve ever done to the engine is one valve adjustment, and one set of spark plugs. I have to say that reliable is the only way to describe it. When you hear how often piston aircraft engines from 70 years ago have to be serviced and rebuilt and fussed over to be safe, I say it’s time to replace them all with a Honda K-series engine.
This guy talks at length about how that engine was built from the ground up to be turbo charged that’s probably just to pacify Old school guys that aren’t used to turbo chargers. The K series engines in typical production hondas are fairly detuned. They will take tons of boost . There are videos out there of these engines on dynos running 10,000 RPM and nearly 1000 hp. You can do better than 400 hp without even beefing it up with just mild boost.
I'm planning on building a small 2 seat bush-type airplane and with these engines available, I think it's a great option. thank's for the information MojoG!
In reference to the engine that powered the Wright Bros first several,(or more) aircraft they designed,and built, they did all of their own machining,even designed and built their own wind tunnel for testing. I read about them back in the 50's when I was a kid. They had a dream to fly,and fly they did. They changed the world forever...
In the 1950s the one place Jodel (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodel) was powered by a Volkswagen Beetle engine. When we fled from communist Hungary in 1950 my Father, a then young aeronautical engineer, worked for them. An interesting work, as he said, since the Jodels were made of wood.
Great video, really interesting (I'm a You tuber too and what a win for you. The guy does all the talking. No script and an easy edit, plus great in depth coverage. What a hit!)
You haven't uploaded any videos
Thank You man i learned so much from your video.. Thanks again
Skeptics should after watching this, head over to Peter's "Building the raptor prototype" channel, and see a vw 3.0 diesel powerplant in action powering a 4 seater carbon fibre new experimental build. Really just awesome.
Your interviews are getting better and better. This guy Jan from Viking Aircraft Engines is being very modest with the information he is providing because he has a vast experience in the business second to none. What really needs to happen in light sport is for a guy like him to offer an aircraft kit with engine for 20 to 25 K complete. He mentions the CH 701 several times but something a little less STOL that could cruise closer to 90 to 100mph might be where the market could absorb more customers. Maybe press him on this the next time you see him please.
Are there any reliability figures for automotive engines on aircraft?
To paraphrase Paul at AV web, they never fail.
Average Honda engines last 150k miles and those little 4 bangers in civics run at extremely high rpms cruising the highway. Mine used to run 4k rpm at 70mph for example, and it had no problem doing that at 180k miles, for a 20hr XC trip. The max rev on mine was 6900 for the red line and iirc about 7500 when it would cut fuel.
I think 3k rpm was more common, average speed 30mph, 150k/30mph is 5000 operating hours, on average, in mostly stop and go traffic. So the engine is under max stress as it revs up under load, and often up 4500-5k rpm before down shifting into cruise. Many pushing 6000-7000 hours without anything but oil and coolant changes.
Why not also use the cars transmission and the drive shaft to turn a reduction drive to spin the prop ...I mean you would get a ton of torque and you could keep the engine running the way it’s designed to also using the engine torque at low rpm is how you keep a car running for over 300,000 miles right? I mean I know anyone who owned a car knows that right?
Now, THAT's what I'm talking about! Honda spent millions (Billions, over the years?) developing hearty, long lasting, durable motors that have a jewel like quality- and, Viking-smartly- is using them to make aircraft engines. I agree with Jan- why re-engineer the already engineered? Sure, ounces count, but...The only thing that I note is the overall height of the motor from the base of the oil sump to the top of the valve covers- it 'seems' pretty tall. Cowl packaging is a blended art/science, and, Mr. Eggenfeller seems to be the Dr. Frankenstein (mad scientist) of the business!
I only wish a 100- 120HP motor with small dimensions (hmmm, 1.0 - 1.3L 3 or 4 cylinder, anyone?) that weighs a smidgen under 200 Lbs. all in, for say, $8 - $10k that uses mogas, and, parts can be picked up at your local O'Reilly's/ Pep Boys... It seems that Rotax owns the market, and, is priced far out of the reach of the average builder. Ford's 1.0 Liter 3 cylinder Eco Boost is a pretty sexy concept motor, and, there are tons of motorcycle engines that could be considered (and, basic packaging work has already been done).
That Pegasus 0 - 100 is really dreamy- opposed 2 cylinder, air-cooled, off the shelf parts, but, at 58 HP- misses the target. It works in so many other ways- no gearing needed, no coolant lines or radiators, compact dimensions... Aarghhh!
Color me crazy, but, the venerable VW motor was designed in the late 1930's. Sure, millions upon millions have been manufactured, trillions of miles have been driven, bladdy, bladdy... It's 80 years old. Surely, a low revving, massively over-square air-cooled motor could be developed...direct gas injection, small turbo, computer controlled... Think, a modern design of the Corvair motor.... Why not?
Kudos to Viking for making a business out of Honda motor conversions- lots of work has gone into FW packages by Jan Eggenfeller- I know I would have his motors at the top of a short list if I was building right now...
Jan lots of talk and claims but where are the happy customers. He had his Subaru conversions go bust, leaving builders in the dust. A viking PSRU failed causing an accident. Get a Lycoming O320 and call it a day, go fly. Don't experiment with the power plant.
I am sorta on the fence here. The new tech is nice but it has vulnerabilities as well. Honda is not as reliable as it used to be. It really depends on how long they been making that particular engine and what has been done to adapt it to an airplane. The Honda will probably far outlast an air cooled conventional airplane engine.
@@perry9492 why not get an LS or honda k24. They are proven powerplants with a big aftermarket.
@@gmcjetpilot So how long do you suggest we stay stuck with 1950s era power? Well past time to progress.And the cost to run and maintain 60 year old technology is absurd.
@@gmcjetpilot You act like Lycomings don't fail, they do. Regularly
I wonder kind economy and power you'd get if you put a Volkswagen diesel t.d.i. in one of those aircrafts?
ive looked at at a lot of automotive engnes for my RV- imho the best of the bunch is the Mazda Rotary for the durability, power, torque, and low weight- more like a turbine than a piston bumper.
Reliability with rotary engines is pretty bad. Honda k24 is light and has a big aftermarket. LS is not as heavy as you think. Mercedes M104 3.2 liter is also very cheap(under 1000dollar), reliable and can make crazy power with a turbo.
Although a straight six probably doesnt fit
@@TTURBOVOLVO ... not if you remove the troublesome oil injectors and mix oil directly with gasoline... and rotaries LOVE turbocharging. The next favorite is the Subaru boxer. Incidentally, the RX8's on the racing circuit go the entire season while the piston engines are rebuilt after each race.
Rotary and durability can not be used in the same sentence..😂
Good stuff!!! I've been waiting on this one. I'm wondering, though, what's the max altitude difference between the engines?
🦁✌
Good question.. Soul
Ditto I would like to know what massairflo sensor is used to accommodate the altitude difference
7:47 Have you ever thought that Dean Phillips wished he was good enough to be called an Aussie?
Would these engines work for a gyrocopter?
What do you do when the vtec kicks in?
😂😂😂
You go supersonic
Barely get thrown back in your seat but act like you're breaking the sound barrier.
I was looking at homemade ultralight builds and was thinking why don’t these guys just use a car engine ......lol someone allready is doing that ...I swear you can find anything on RUclips lol ....but really that’s a damn good idea I kinda had a feeling someone else has allready thought of it
I really like that idea and have seen it on many experimental planes. Have you put any of you engines in a BearHawk aircraft?
What would be the most promising engines for a conversion? What are the side effects of the completely different air density/speed, temperature, vibration and RPM/torque/power airplanes have to tolerate?
How can the different working conditions be tolerated better (besides changes in the ECU)?
Cool video! 👍
As a complete honda guy myself.. it sounds like they're using the L15's. I could only imagine what those planes would do if they used the K20C1 thats in both the accord 2.0t, the civic type R, the Acura TLX, & Acura RDX. The power ranges from 252hp to 306hp depending on which car it came from.
Great Interview and lay out of the specs.
I love my Viking 130!
Is there a diesel auto conversion equivalent to the Lycoming 360 used for the Zenith 810
wow, that was interesting !
Nice video, should have asked him about his Subaru Engine debacle.
ohhh snap!
Not a debacle, a recession, still a lot of happy Subaru customers out there flying today. You pick up the pieces and keep going. This is explained more in Mojo's other video on that -Alissa
God ...another negative nancy.....who else is trying to make aviation's reasonable,????.....not fred pinchuk.
@Fred Pinczuk Exactly. Or his 180hp Viking Turbo to Alaska trip where he mysteriously never arrived and played his standard cover up game. Funniest part is he left his GPS tracker recording following his off field landing. PM/DM me for screenshots.
@@shmio As noted in this video the turbo engine has a different gear box and bearings. Prototypes always have teething issues in this case the 130 gearbox was inadequate for the 5 blade loads in sustained conditions - exactly what you want in any prototype testing.
Wow..
Thank you
I am from India.. I wish to buy a car and have plans to convert that car to Electric and use the engine in a bush plane.. Which model of car you suggest me?
Sir. Please give me all guidelines about this aircraft. I wanna build this
Have u ever used an all aluminum chevy v8 in an airplane ?
Keep in mind that “Honda quality” doesn’t mean that Honda tests engines at 5000 rpm at full load for 2000 hours.
Very Interesting
Good video, interesting stuff
hi mojogrip im pretty sold on car engines for use on airplanes these days yove got honda flyecho smart diesel mecedes a few others
Really interesting stuff 👍👍
Currently shopping for a power plant for my experimental. Am intrigued by this company since there are a lot of VERY loyal customers. I guess my concerns lie in two areas. He’s basically indicated that they do everything they can to stick to the auto engine design, making complete sense. Piggyback Hondas hundreds of millions of dollars and R&D and their proven track record. I get that, it’s established and built in value. BUT, where does the $17k sticker price come from when it’s a salvaged motor with minimal changes? I wonder about redundancy as well with single plugs driven by an ecu. Electrical failure = forced approach??? Happy to be corrected if that’s not the case.
Great job but poor control panel.I hope if you develop it a little..thanks
very nice
I would only use a 1uzfe only v8 that is cheap that can make heaps of power supper light weight and only car engine that is certified by FAA.
I was not expect to see such a video like that explaining almost every thing about car engine as an airplane engine. Thank you very much 💐
Did anyone hear the part when they said they do not do a tear down and inspection of these engines, before they sell them? Am I crazy in expecting that someone selling aircraft engines would be more responsible.
Very interesting. Thumbs up.
Wonder why automotive industry has such reliable electronic ignition systems but in kit aircraft, after market ignition systems are plagued with reliability problems. We have a 172 in our club with ElectroAir ignition and that thing only runs good for a month before the wires get burned out. It’s going back to twin mags and ElectroAir stuff is going in the garbage.
Because Honda Sells 450,000 Accords a year, and Ford sells 900,000s F-150s a year. There's a lot of development money pouring into cars.
MojoGrip is a non technical person new to aviation. For decades people have been touting how great Auto engines are modern better. No.
1) My RV-7 powered by a Lycoming IO360 can out run any "modern" car engine. I have +210 MPH top speed and Econ cruise around 25-27 MPG. If I go to LOP and slow down I approach 30 MPG. My plane is 100''s of pounds lighter than any similar RV plane with a "modern" auto engine conversion and faster with more useful load.
2) In the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's the Equiv of 100's of billions was spent in design, testing, manufacturing, metallurgy. My Lyc benefits from this R&D and service history. ALSO A 1950's LYC IS NOT A CURRENT LYC or Continental. There have been continuous improvements, including cylinder coatings. As an engineer there are NO better materials or processes available today which aircraft engines can be made with. Sodium filled valves, forged crank, best steels... on and on. The exception of course is TURBINE engines which became mainstream for military and commercial aviation in the 1960.
*So why not a Turbine for my RV-7? Too much HP, too expensive to buy/operate for a small personal plane. However for a cabin class personal/corporate/business and part 135/121 operations, which I have flown over my career, King Air 200, Metroliner SA227, Caravan 208, TBM 700, they are great... That's "Modern". However the operating cost per hour are in the $1000's. For a GA piston plane it is less than $100/Hr. No reciprocating MODERN car engine beats the Lycoming or Continental. It is the direct drive and air cooled design that is optimal, designed and engineered specifically for aircraft and aircraft only.*
*The new Cirrus has a Continental TSIO-550K, which produces 315 hp (235 kW) with a 7.5:1 compression ratio and can run on 94 octane fuel. This is a turbocharged inter-cooled SINGLE LEVER engine, which controls throttle, prop and mixture. That is modern. Car engine is better? Ha ha absurd.*
3) My Lyc IO360 RV-7 has all the benefits of engineering, design and materials from the past to present. Plus I have electronic ignition and FI. www.flyefii.com/products/efii-systems
There are certified Electronic ignition and even electronic FI for aircraft engines. In fact most of the modern part of Auto engines is in the ignition and fuel delivery Electronics. Crankshaft cams valves connecting rods Pistons really haven't changed very much. TSIO-550K mentioned above is a state of the art engine. Its a far cry from a 1950's Contenental O-470. However Magnetos and Mechanical Fuel Injection works so well, so simple and reliable for an engine that operates at only a few RPM/Pwr settings (idle, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach) most of the time, WHY MAKE IT ELECTRICALLY DEPENDENT? Then the plane must have complicated electrical system back ups. An aircraft engine with mechanical fuel pump, mechanical fuel distribution, self contained powered magnetos is electrically independent. Car engines need electricity or they stop running.
4) My RV7 can do + 210 mph and get 27 MPG in Econ cruise at 8000-18000 feet. With full EGT/CHT/FF from my engine monitor I can run lean of peak (LOP) and get 30 MPG.... Cars struggle to do that at 70 mph and I am going 170-190 MPH. BTW with engine monitoring of all cylinders CHT/EGT, Fuel Flow, as well as OP, OT and FF makes it is easier to operate more efficiently, as mentioned LOP. Although not directly the engine this engine monitoring was unheard of until in the 1950's. Now they are cheap and very useful. Before say 1990's most planes only had OP, OT, FP... as well as RPM. MAP if equipped w/ controllable prop. No CHT or EGT typically. If it had CHT or EGT it was on one cylinder only, not all 4 or 6. Fuel flow? Also rare. So to pretend we are flying around 1950's style with no GPS is absurd. Engine monitoring adds safety as well as each cylinder can be monitored.
5) My old 1950's RV7 weights 100's of lbs less than any automotive engine conversion and out preforms ANY auto-conversion in a similar plane.... while being FAR MOIRE RELIABLE. There has been a few attempts to make a totally new Recip engines for aircraft which have come and gone. Lycoming an Contential still around for a reason. They are the optimal aircraft engine. Direct drive and air cooled is key.
6) Reliable - all car engines run at RPM's well above 2700 RPM. Car engines make their peak power at high RPM for acceleration and then back down to lower RPM (and low power) . That's FINE for a car. In a plane a car engine requires a PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit). You know a PROP has to turn less than 2800 RPM (slower is even better for efficiency). These PSRU's needed to turn the auto engines high RPM down. PSRU's are often crap, and a source of failure and cost and weight. Car engines are made to drive a transmission and drive-train to wheels on a road. Also car engines are NOT NOT NOT designed to run at 75% power continuously. You get on the freeway and then go back to 20% power to do 35-65 MPH. A Lyc can run at 100% power all day because it was DESIGNED TO DO THAT....
7) You can buy a BOLT ON Lycoming and go fly for under $30,000. You can get a used one and rebuild for under $12,000. A car engine may seem cheap, but by the time you finish installing it with your hodgepodge of works arounds, PSRU, draggy radiator, modify the cowl and engine mounts, add fuel system that can operate at altitude, redundant electrical system, the cost in time, weight, complexity will result in slower, heavier plane and COST MORE..... IT IS NOT WORTH IT... TRUST ME... I KNOW. I have followed this for 40 years, This channel is by a non-technical guy who is new to aviation. He is clueless. I built two planes with Lycs and seen over a 100 auto engine planes. They all have less payload, look weird and don't fly well.
9) Water cooling is great in cars. In planes with high speed and no stop and go traffic it is heavy, draggy and a source of failure. Water cooled aircraft engines is not new, going back to WWI. There is a reason why the radial engines in Military and commercial aviation dominated up to the 1960's until Turbines. In fact radial engines are still around... and making a living.
10) Show me this better engine, cheaper, lighter, more reliable than a Lyc or Continental. When you come up with a MODERN engine (proved not on paper or MojoGrip propaganda) that outperforms my Lycoming in every metric, for less money, I will buy it. For decades I have heard this promise of GREAT new engine.... All failed. I have seen Subaru, Mazda (Wankel/Rotary), Ford V6, Chevy V8 and many others come and go. They were all going to be Lycoming killers. I propose we keep using Lycs and TCM's (Continental) until something better comes (not pie in the sky MojoGrip videos).....
Is forced induction better for flying at high altitudes? Do the naturally aspirated engines starve for oxygen at all?
So buddy in the passenger seat with laptop in hand waiting for VTEC to kick in isn't a thing at 30000 feet?
Have you ever looked into using the Mazda Wankel engine in a plane? I’ve been told that it has been done with great results. The horsepower to weight ratio is fantastic. What would be involved in making a Wankel air worthy?
I don't think anyone wants a finicky ultimately unreliable and very very thirsty rotary in their plane.
It would be great for a kamikaze pilot. A rotary would not survive being under a nearly full load for hours straight. Apex seals would go, and it would consume its own oil until failure.
Im sold! Viking enine is definitely for me.
This is awesome!
You should use and swap a Subaru FA20 Turbocharged Boxer engine into the plane.
nice video and i like it but the question is can a Toyota v6 be converted to an aircraft engine as well?
FV2400-2tc. Twin turbocharged 1UZ
Do they have any issues with not having redundant systems like like ignition and single plugs, etc?
With modern engines running at proper a/f you dont have the fouling issues carb engines have. Electronic ignition is much more reliable than older systems as well, it's not an issue.
how would it sound if you put like an audi v10 or a lambo v12
Another great use of Honda and Suzuki product is the guy in Ohio that makes the T51....they use the Honda V6 245HP....amazing performance and economy for under 200 Grand --and it is a two place!!...and sexy as hell!!!
3/4 scale P51...50 kt stall..and cruise at 178kts...and nd under 9 GPH. ..WANT ONE!!
I heard that car engines couldn't be used in planes because they where too small and didn't make enough torque, I guess it's not true
Put a K20 in it!
I saw a video last night where a guy put a small block v8 into his Zenith aircraft. His [plane is a Homebuilt project too. Here's the link ruclips.net/video/rCNnEgRkdXc/видео.html
Any diesel engines?
Right! What you said. 🤔
answered many questions
Great
I have been thinking.
Using gas/petrol auto engines means that the torque curve is biased towards the upper portion of the rev range.
This necessitates a speed reduction gearbox.
Why not use a turbo Diesel engine? Sure it’s a cast iron block, but there is no need for a speed reduction gearbox.
The torque band is in the low to mid range of the rpm curve.
The Toyota 1KD-FTV seems to be an excellent fit.
170 hp at 3400 rpm and peak torque of 260lb/ft/352 nm between 1800-3400 rpm.
The intercooler is also mounted on top of the engine.
There would little fabrication work for an install apart from the engine mounts
What do you think?
Well … Weight !
SuperYellowsubmarin yes, since it’s a diesel, it’ll be a cast iron block.
But you won’t need a speed reduction box.
That should balance it out
@@sumit_john You may have a good idea there.
hi great vid,,,can this be done for lets say a cessna---152 ,,,,,
Planning on getting a used Sonex in a few years. I'll keep an eye on these motors in the meantime to see how they compare to Sonex's AeroVee 2.1 Engine Kit (80hp/$7500) and turbo version (100hp/$11k).
I'm seeing some...controversey on using a car engine in an airplane. But even Sonex uses a VW conversion; and I have COMPLETE faith in the design of their airplane frame.
Can anyone point me to any real data on the give-and-take of these various motors. Or is it like paramotors, a total crapshoot?
paramotors are not even a comparison. They are mostly 2 stroke motors with old carb tech and definitely not reliable.
Could they do a single seater with the little Mitsubishi engine with a turbo on it
Jan tried adding a turbo to the 110 engine a few years back. It had issues that created questions to the overall reliability of the engine and was abandoned. If the engine comes designed for turbo then it will have one. eg the Honda Accord engine.
Hallo sir. Do i have a 1.3l suzuki engine if i install it on zenith ch 701?please explain about the engine above?thank you
how much is a price horsepower Mitsubishi engine
Would it work if i just put wings in my car?
Can one fly upside down with a car engine without stalling ?
amazing
Make a helicopter 4 seat ☺️
So do you use any Ford engines, or any LS or LT-based Chevy engines? Or do you know a company or flight team that does? Looking for someone to feature/highlight at one of my events. @mojogrip
can we fly from 160cc motorbike engine
Dude Imagine buying a corvette v8 engine and tuning it with the ecu that plane would haul ass
This is safe or not
I've got both a Honda, AND a Mitsubishi!!!! Although my Mitsubishi engine is a turbo diesel out of a 4wd. How would that go??
I wonder why they don't convert some of the larger auto engines? There are a lot of auto engines available now with 300 or more Hp.
Haven't you heard of tuned Supra, gtrs, etc? 1000hp, easy. Hell, a gtr makes 600 hp stock.
I wonder why you said 300
I would take an LS3 engine and shove it in a airplane, I mean those engines are reliable as fuck and powerful as hell so I would take one of those and shove it in a plane
A number of people do offer LS engines, the issue is they are heavier and more powerful than almost all experimental aircraft are designed for.
These engines, use car gas or aviation gas?
Both can be used but regular gasoline is better for these engines.
@@Human.agnostic.aethist Premium 91 or 93 octane, because the turbo will be better, avoid piston knock, with car gas the fuel cost be significant less. I think than the Lycoming and Continental aircraft engines is time to convert to ECU with electronic fuel injection, better fuel deficiency and less emissions. I am Car Mechanic, but also made modifications to cars, like turbos, reprogram or re-flash ECU, install racing ECU to cars and program it in dyno, I think the aviation conventional engines are outdated, the technology now offer more HP vs weight. The Rotax is taking advantage of this.
Also they are using the stock internals? Connecting Rods, Pistons, etc.
@@noeramirez4975 great to hear your words , I don't know about USA fuel ratings ,as you said it's true ..BTW how about premium fuel availability there in airports?? Yes Lycoming and continental needs updates moreover their fuel prices are keeping high ...how about diesels in those ? because diesels offer better fuel economy and less pollution compared to avgas moreover we can use jet-a too . Availability worldwide.. can go long range..... Planning VW 2.0Tdi engine conversion in future but issues with engine weight
@@noeramirez4975 yes mostly ... But depends on engine condition.
How many times do I have to block this guy's channel to not have to see him
First comment and I liked this cause I knew knowone els will☹️☹️
Can you put a 5.0 in a plane 😂 I’m not even joking this is serious question
So I guess there is no need for carb heat?
Does it use car gas or avgas .???
Both/Either
They should put these in the Cirrus.
Cirrus was certified one and they can't put in it unless the customer opts to remove type certification.
Do the same with the car engine
I'm surprised you use Mitsubishi car engines, as they generally don't hold up well.
Also the Honda 1.5L turbo has an issue getting gas in the oil.
www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/honda-delays-cr-v-turbo-engine-fix-details-rollout-plans/
I wonder if a 2JZ would fit in this.
Ah yes Mitsubishi; developer of the Zero... Banzai! Banzai!
Viking's are pretty trick, for a +400 hp, LS-9 V8 conversion see: www.V8seabee.com
Also, check out: www.Raptor-aircraft.com They use an Audi V6, turbo diesel
I guess it might be a dumb question but, is he asking $18k for the used engine or the engine and kit with it?
Sorry Gary, YOu already know the answer to this. www.continentalmotors.aero/titan/engines/x340.aspx
:D A 2JZ with a 1000hp in this plane would be funny :D
Where’s the LS? Lol
All I'm saying 2JZ GTE
10:49 a sting of untrue statements. "All the war birds are liquid cooled". Not true, most air cooled radials. "Wright Brothers used a car engine." Not true, they made their own engine from scratch purpose built. The Horz opposed Lycoming was a generator. Wrong the O-290 (1940) was used as a generator, but the O-320 and O-360 built for aircraft came out in 1955. Similar but not the same. Just because an engine is versatile or used for other uses is not a bad thing. Consider he wants to use a car engine in an airplane, that is a poor criticism.
Have you considered motorcycle engines? Honda especially last forever.
Hi Tom , I have also thought of m/c engines .
A Honda 4 cly 4 cycle will spit out heaps of power.
But only at higher rpms , and i wonder if they may not be quite beefy enough in the crank .
A top dressing company in NZ spent truck loads converting their , 400 H/P - 8 cly lyc powered Fletcher fleet to a big block alloy Ford V8s , or to be more precise that was the plan.
They never made it past the first prototype . The prop just created to much power for the crankshaft. They cracked.
After 3 or so cranks i believe Ford US came over to see if they could help.
But it was no go Ford said the crank was unable to absorb the H/P the prop created due to its own weight when spun up.
Cheers Grant
👍
i want to do work under you . i'm associate engineer of mechanical please help me to make my future bright.
🙂