Fuel injection, sure. Automotive carbs don't work upsidedown. But turbos? Pfft nah. No need for a snail. Would invest in an all-angle dry sump oiling system too. Aircraft can fly upside down(and WILL fly upside down if I'm at the controls) so making sure the engine doesn't go bang when upsidedown is important. I'd be half tempted to try this with a ford 300 since they're already pretty much cammed for it(The one in my F150 turns 1750RPM at 75MPH and loves it!) and would need minimal modification for air use, but those things are FUCKING HEAVY.

A hot v6 would be awesome .

love the ole v8 s simple and good

There is no STC to put a PT6 turbo prop on a Cessna 152, try again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And who would want to anyway?

I did training in a 152 and a 172 and really doubt that anyone has put a turboprop on one. Not that it can't be done but I'd like to see it done.

I was thinking the same thing. Exceeding stress levels is suicide.

It also weighs likely double, is designed for a useful load of thousands of pounds, has a frontal area and coefficient drag that reflect its use. It has little to do with the engine, and lots to do with what the engine is inside of.

4.2 gph ?? That is amazing ! Obviously the engine just loafing, not laboring like the Lycoming

150lbs diff...

C of G difference???@@MatHelm

I bet some stuff migrated to the nose.

35% to 8% efficiency? Nope. The Atkinson cycle of the type which is "faked" on the Prius and other engines is a function of camshaft timing, to mimic a longer expansion cycle versus the compression cycle. And note that airplane engines, unlike car engines, can be run at very stable speeds, allowing mixture to be adjusted for best economy; my little airplane got 16 mpg at 130 mph.

So you are saying the WWII era engines in planes can't be more efficient?

While the mixture in your engine may be adjustable, so is the mixture on any modern fuel injected engine. Only it's done electronically. Also, if you think that auto engines can't be run at constant rpm, you are mistaken.

Not what I said; I said that airplane engines were DESIGNED to do so, over a very narrow operating range. This is not true of auto engines. I am, however, a fan of higher-speed geared engines, and some auto conversions (the Austro diesels, etc.) are working out beautifully.

The thing about more range is why would you want to sit in that plane for more than 3 hours?

It would be driven with a 4:1 gear box. I wouldn't want a turbo busa engine in my plane....

I have a Ford Small Block with an aftermarket aluminum block. Weighs about 300 for the long block, with intake and huge racing oil pan. I was thinking something like this would be great for that. With the larger bore from the aftermarket block it displaces 358 ci (5.8L).

Helicopter mode

Napa has gone downhill so hard between hiring rude and inept retail staff and cheaping out on their formerly great store brand items that I just don't go there anymore. I miss Kragen but tolerate o'Reilly. And if you want a quality filter, look for Wix.

Do you sell napa gold filters?🤣

what are "NODDY problems" ?

Y Knot, NODDY = No Double Dare You.

Bugle oil.

John Denver ran out of gas. It had nothing to do with the canard....

You do realize why a speed brake is installed on a long right? It has like a 3 degree descent rate idlimg, that's not nose into the ground by my standards

Well... he's an engineer and a pretty smart dude if you've met him... so I'm going to have to disagree with you there...

Yep. Just note the RPM he quotes for the horsepower rating. It will run forever at that. At at 1,000 hours, he says "no appreciable wear".

Aircraft engines are not designed to run at 100% horsepower. Throttle at cruise vs throttle on takeoff is completely different for most aircraft. Moreover, auto engines are built to closer tolerances, go through dramatically more testing, and are all around much more sophisticated machines than a standard air cooled carbureted aviation engine. Liquid cooling means that the engine operates at a much more uniform temperature across a variety of environments. Given that aircraft, by their nature, experience greater temperature differentials than automobiles, water cooling is potentially much more beneficial for aircraft than automobiles. As for an automobile engine being able to perform at a percentage of peak power for a given amount of time, this would depend very much on the engine in question and its implementation. The engine failures in modern high performance engines at the limits are often the result of insufficient cooling, or a failure of the cooling system itself (e.g. a hose), which would be a consideration. However, stock engines can be abused quite a bit (and often are) without failing.

Lycoming and Continental engines are so behind the time's and are OUTRAGEOUSLY over priced for 1950/60's technology. I'm building a small kit plane now a "Precision" it's a clone of a small RV, I have a Honda 1.5 litre FIT engine in it, such a simple design w/all the modern accessories, only trouble I'm having is the "knock sensor" and the "timing sensors" because of the computer. but Viking Aircraft engine's have all the replacement part's to correct the problem, plus I've decided to just cough up the cabbage and get those and a nice oil bath gear to gear reduction unit from them, they're not cheap but proven, after its all done I figured I saved enough by using that Engine to dam near pay for my plane.. about 6 month's to go, it should be ready, baring any other problems.

1.5 liters isn't really enough displacement. You will be running at high fucking RPM to suck in the same amount of air as an real airplane engine. Have fun with that. 1950s/60s technology is not bad at all. Air-cooled and pushrod engine? Thanks, I like it simple.