Hi thanks for all you do. I've learned a lot and I thought I knew it all. HA
I am looking at putting a honda 1.8 liter port injected 150 HP engine in a plane I am building. There will be a reduction drive of 2.333 to 1(prop).
I expect at take off Engine rpm to be 5400 rpm ( no more than 5 minutes ) and cruise 46 to 4800 rpm. This engine application will require the engine to run most of its life in the high 4000's. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. There is a lot of back and forth in the home builders community in "that engine was desinged to run at 2500 rpm for long lengths of time. It wont be dependable running it high rpms all the time". I think hondas are great products and running it constantly all the time at about 1000 rpm below red line should be perfectly fine. Im going to run amsoil and change the oil every 25 hours.
Thanks for your in put. Next state you should move to is Florida : ) Thanks again M Bobek
What size & type of aeroplane do you intend to use it in?
While heavy jet transports usually have a maximum takeoff thrust time limit (5 or 10 minutes), I’ve been in a C150/152/172 far too often with the throttle fully in (full tanks & on a hot day) where I’ve needed all the thrust I could get, to climb to 3000ft. In such a scenario, do you or will you trust your life with an experimental engine?
What’s the risk vs benefit analysis with using this engine vs a Lycoming/Continental 160hp engine?
Is this the one you’re considering? -
https://www.vikingaircraftengines.com
I would have never thought car engines a viable option.
Maybe for drones.
Yes the viking is what i am looking at. Traditional certified aircraft engines have very old technology are heavier per horsepower, less fuel efficient cost more per HP, constantly having valve sticking problems, frequent cooling problems, magneto issues, cam issues-spaulding are issues we come to expect, can have issues like carb ice sneak up on you, and in 80 years traditional aircraft engines have had very little changes in design, innovation, materials or engineering. I far as I can see the traditional airplane piston manufactures in the USA are dinosaurs and do VERY LITTLE RND to improve their products. They are just fat cats sitting on their butts and ancient technology. They have not made any significant advances in close to a century. They have a governmental certification ,they think, that makes them better. I DONT THINK SO- thalidamide , bextra, cylert, were all drugs sanctioned by the FDA and then had to be with drawn. Just because the government puts their blessing on something does not ensure its safety, efficacy, or dependability. I could go on and on but suffice it say modern automotive engines offer many advantages and safety over the dinosaurs we call lycoming and continental, unfortunately.
The auto conversion engine-when set up right-offers many advantages to traditional aircraft engines both in safety and dependability. I've been flying since the eighties but have had several issues , emergency's and cancelled flights related traditional aircraft engines both lycoming and continental. Im looking very much forward to building my own plane and using a product for a power plant that has decades of continuous RND, improvements in materials, design, technology AND has built Millions and millions of dependable internal combustion engines . I've driven hondas for decades and look very forward to putting one in my plane. I will definitely feel safer behind a Honda engine and know it will last a long time! I'm estimating a TBO on the engine choice to (1.8 liter 150 hp) be easily 5000 hours. This is probably a conservative estimate as there is not much stop and go in planes.
Don't fly over my house in that thing!
