irm750 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Just how sweeeet would this be if built into a paramotor??? 800cc [youtubevideo] [/youtubevideo]400cc (9.9Kg) Video - http://www.valachmotors.cz/images/vm420.mpg Spec - http://www.valachmotors.cz/en/index10.html I'm still drooling! Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surrey-dad Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Calling Jock - this looks like your next project mate Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommcb6016 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I was going to build one of these last year but was looking at 2000hrs+ [youtubevideo] [/youtubevideo]Decided to give it a miss ... for now Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 WOW!!!! I love it! how much do the engines cost I wonder? SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irm750 Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share Posted October 4, 2009 Quite expensive!!! http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=7458&Desc= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbertflyer Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 http://www.compactradialengines.com/mz430.html Been flying one for 12 years. Low noise, great sound, no vibration, direct drive 1700-3700revs, 4.5l/h with a decent pg wing, 600+hrs & still going great. Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Calling Jock - this looks like your next project mate Andy nice sound/now if only it sounded like a spitfire..looks expensive..norbert flyers koing sounds great 600hrs and still going strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Delicious! But 9.5 ltrs/hr ... less so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irm750 Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 But if W.O.T. stands for wide open throttle then 9.5L doesn't seem such a bad compromise for all that deliciousness (if that's a word?). Would be unusual to be at full throttle for a whole hour!!! Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Agreed. If 65kg of thrust can be had from the little beast. I recon I could half that under normal flight. Still loads of wedge though!! SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbertflyer Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I run up 142kg full fuel on a 130kg 31sqm Gradient Aspen2 DHV2 wing and level flight is at 2800 revs on trim and 3250 revs on full bar for a 98cm scimitar prop. I can get 2hrs from the Konig on a 10L tank with a bit to spare, if I dont fly too high. Mine was the last of the German made engines before Konig went under, so doesn't have the electronic ignition nor in flight recharging which CRE added after Zanzottera had it. Max revs for me is 3700 - I think because the carb is detuned and exhaust manifold is primitive. TTS oil always. No serious maintenance in 12 years except a bing49 carb clean out a few years ago. There's also a 4 cyl version. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gulfstream1 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 These multi-pot radial engines are HOMEMADE - plans for various sizes/configurations can be purchased from http://www.agelessengines.com - a small company in the States run by a chap called Lee Hodgeson. They are very popular amongst the large scale model flying community. Plus Points: they are aircooled - so mechanics are a lot more straight forward (compared to water cooled), but they are 4 stroke, so that off-sets (or partly off-sets) any weight advantage of 2 stroke, but with a piston firing every 40degrees or so (in the 9 cylinder example) these engines are going to have great torque graphs. Questions: not certain about the power/weight advantage - if any, or the fuel consumption - both these figures are great on the full size aero-engine examples (the rationale behind the design and their use in aircraft), but as scaled down model engines, I'm not so sure. Take the Moki R400 5 cyl Radial Engine (as linked to in a couple posts above) - its a 5cylinder 400cc engine (large by PPG standards) weighing in at 9,5kg's producing 23hp. With all bits 'n pieces added (to include prop), the weight goes up to around 13kg's. The hp figure versus weight and engine capacity, sounds somewhat below what is possible with other engines. Can anyone comment? They have a pressurised lubrication system, the mechanical design along with the rpm/hp/torque relationship is designed for direct drive (i.e. prop mounting directly to the crank output shaft) - though some mod work will be needed to drive the prop (in "pusher" configuration). Theres a lot going for them potentialy, but reliability is going to be down to construction [quality] as they are homemade engines. Does anyone have hp and fuel consumption figures for the 9 cylinder engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik_Y Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Pagojet [youtubevideo] [/youtubevideo][youtubevideo] [/youtubevideo]I think the normal 1 cyl 2 strokes has the best performance for paramotor but if I would get a radial it would be a 4-stroke like the Moki as the sound and feeling would be the biggest reason to have a radial. [youtubevideo] [/youtubevideo] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 From 2009 to 2013!!! welcome back you old thread you. SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik_Y Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I know, found it through google and thought I should revive it with the videos I found. Here's Scarlett Mini which is under development and is made for human aviation so it's a lot more reliable then the Moki and those RC plane engines. http://vernermotor.eu/engines/scarlett-mini-3/ http://vernermotor.eu/engines/scarlett-mini-5/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptwizz Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Multi cylinder engines work better in larger displacements, when the cylinders are close to optimum size. The optimum size for a high speed IC engine cylinder seems to be around 350cc. A smaller cylinder has much less capacity for a little less weight, while a larger cylinder has much more capacity for a little more surface area and is more likely to have cooling problems. Aircraft radials have the benefit of 'free' forced air cooling, so the cylinders can be quite large at (3000cc each on a 3500hp 18 cylinder dual radial!) A single cylinder engine is technically a radial, in that all the cylinders drive a single crank throw. It is the single crank throw which makes the radial design attractive for aviation, giving a short, light crankshaft and case compared to a similar sized inline engine. All that becomes insignificant when a radial coughs and splutters into life, clearing the cylinders one by one until the crisp crackle of pure engineering porn takes over . This is what keeps me in the workshop late in the evenings in the depths of winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.