Kr friends, I know There are à lot of engines,I already bought 8 heads ago a limbach 80HP. My kr Friends in the Netherlands help me with their experiance to decide to leave the limbach as is and to go for 100 hp. ( over here we are most of THE time flying from grass runway) What type of engine would I buy, what is the most cheapest way. Weight, fuel consumption."..............
If you want to buy an corvair this is very Nice but over here in no issue, because you cant find this engine over here. O-200 is very Nice but very expencife. Rotax, very Nice,very light, very prici, à lot of fuel concumption. So and if you have à few friends and they are flying with the bmw 1100S. It is an easy decision. Is the same weight as the limbach and the Same fuel consumption. They bought an bike and sell all parts. What was left was 1000 EUR for the engine. There are over here in Europa I think at least 15 flying, nobody has problems with the gearbox. There ar 2 or 3 engine failures in the past, this is Now modifed ( checking glas from the oil came out). At this moment there are 2 flying with the 1200s engine. This one has the same 100hp but is 8 kg lighter, the only thing is the new electronica is not yet plug and play. If bosh Will come with plug and play Engine management I Will go for the 1200. The problem is that all the BMW engines are in front of à cherry BX-2 aircraft. From the dutch FAA I need an certified kr with an BMW in front or it needs to be on the drawings by THE designer. I have still one year to build before I start with the engine so I have time to arrange à few things. Thanks stef Stef and Ted are building the KR-2S see http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2 -----Oorspronkel bericht----- Van: krnet-boun...@mylist.net namens Patrick and Robin Russo Verzonden: zo 3-7-2011 13:50 Aan: KRnet Onderwerp: Re: KR> BMW engine Todd You are correct. In some cases you do not need a gear box. I know of at least one aircraft that simply bolted on a V-6 Buick to the front of his plane,,, straight from the car..attached a prop...and merrily and reliably flew about for several years. The owner was satisfied with the performance but was always aware that the restricted RPM used to keep prop speeds manageable also robbed him of the potential HP that the Buick had at higher RPM. Explanation;..If the Buick is rated as 180HP at 5500RPM and you restrict it's use to 3400rpm, you get perhaps 100 HP. (I am exaggerating all figures for illustration). NOW, is 100HP acceptable for an engine that ways 250 lbs.??...or 2.5lbs/HP My question then is this: What is the rated HP of your BMW and at what RPM? What is the weight of the engine? What is the actual HP at 3400 RPM (prop)? Will it turn out to be 40HP and 145 lbs in weight??...or 3.6 lbs/HP. Will 40HP satisfy you in a KR1?. Don't laugh, it might! In the early years of VW use in homebuilts, 40-50 HP was common. I once did a KR2 with 1800cc VW and I doubt very much that it yielded more than 50HP. Yes, of course you can do all of the things that you imagine. If the engine is light and you wish to make a longer motor mount or forward fuselage,...easily done! I did that once, just for looks. But I did extend the tail section aft and ultimately put my battery behind the seat. This is what you will do, work it out!! It's really as simple as you imagine it to be. There is a thrill in doing what you imagine and a wonderful self-satisfaction in working out the basic math. To some extent the following is true;, The larger the prop, the faster you'll go but how do you keep the tip speed down. Run a large prop around 2200 RPM, design an engine that runs optimally at the speed giving you all of the power you need for SAFE, FAST, EFFICIENT flight. I recall in the past that BMW engines were being used in Europe so I suggect that you google it. > In a message dated 7/2/2011 5:22:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > rdrace...@aol.com writes: > > Why would you need the gearbox? Couldn't you just attach the propeller > directly to the flywheel, or to the front of the crankshaft somehow. I > have > ridden BMW twins for years, and they chug along quite comfortably at > 3200-3400 rpm. It seems like that would be just about right for a KR1. > and I > would think the light weight would be an asset. If C.G. is a problem > couldn't you just extend the front end a tad to give the engine more Arm > and > balance it out? > > Todd Thelin > Spanaway, WA > > _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
