How Much Are These Aircraft Engines?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.พ. 2019
- Sponsored by: www.wingswap.com/? Subscribe for MORE: goo.gl/1VMCk5 Become A MojoGrip Patron / mojogrip
Add me on Instagram goo.gl/U7Fcca
Part II of my interview with Mark Kettering of Aeromomentum aircraft engines at the US sport aviation expo. In this video segment, Mark addressed the critics of auto-conversion engines used for flying. He also discussed some of the technology that goes into their Suzuki based engines.
Typically certified aircraft engines have a TBO (time before overhaul) which can be costly. But experimental aircraft engines give some leeway when it comes to management and overhauling your engine. There are some experimental engines that doesn’t require a time limit or time before overhaul. But as Mark mentioned in this video, Aeromomentum engines do have a 2000 hours TBO. Although the engine can be flown safely past that, the TBO is recommended by the company.
Here are the pricing of the different Aeromomentum engines
- Aeromomentum AM10 = 75 hp $7,500
- Aeromomentum AM13 = 100 hp $8,500
- Aeromomentum AM20T = 117 hp $10,000
For more details, go to aeromomentum.com
Music:
bensound.com - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
i love how hes very technical ..you can tell he gives it a ton of thought .
I’d like to see a review of these engines.
Wow learned a lot from doing it wrong but I’m really interested in the EPS V8 diesel which is getting certified very soon now. Was that engine on display?
On the AM website there are HP engines over 200, is there a video that talks to these engines?
2:50 what he is saying about Direct Injection is completely true. I have a 2017 ford focus ST turbo charged ecoboost 2.0 engine 250 hp. Fast little car but what I didn't know was how bad this problem is. The real problem comes from PCV gasses which get pumped into the intake builds up junk on the intake valve. I already had to clean the intake valves one time.
That's a load of bs man. Direct injection trumps regular port injection hands down. Run a catch can, and happy days
I think it more as to do with the brand vehicle u find early carbon issues say Ford, VW i got a 2015 Hyundai and it makes power like new.. Honda earth dream, my old Lancer Cedia GDI from 2001 to 2010 no issues.. maybe one day but at this point i get reasonable life out of them
My Mazda skyactiv is direct injection. Got over 80k miles on it. Zero issues. I don’t think carbon fouling is huge of an issue as it is made out to be. Using a car engine in airplane though it might be an issue as the engine is running in regimes not originally designed for. Do agree with mark simpler is better for airplane. I’d prefer port injection to direct in a airplane for less complexity
@@260bossute To say it is BS is to ignore the thousands of cars out there with the same problems. A catch can make things a bit better, but the problem did not go away.
Not to mention the gasoline dilution of engine oil with the Honda direct injection. Major design flaws with that one and banned in some markets, such is the unreliability. I've have a Honda car, bike and lawnmower, and I freely admit that engine is better used as a boat anchor.
They look great. How much do they cost. Looking for an ultralight engi6
The Mazda skyactive 4 cyls don't have the carbon problems and make 185hp with aluminum block. Wonder why that engine isn't being tested?
I totally agree about VVT & direct injection, and cylinder deactivation.... Have no place in an aircraft engine. It adds significant weight and complexity, simply put: it's more crap to go wrong.
That said, there's no reason great quality lightweight automotive based engines can't be used in many applications.
Aerobatics is where I differ on that though.
I love this engine can't wait to see it in a plane.
They've been offereing them and selling many in Aventura II aircraft for a while now. Very positive reviews so far.
Chines make Suzuki converted to aircraft, SubaruAir PL done to same in Quindao , but they were more clever and sold out the production to the military for the implementation in to drones and never bothered to export .
I'd like to see this in a Cessna 172.
Why? An 0-300 has 145 HP. This 117. Great little engine but not for a 172.
Not in US you cannot put a car engine into a certified plane, out of FAA jurisdiction , anything is possible. Ideal would be some small countries without much regulations.
👍
4,000 hour's! What experimental Craft should I put that baby in.
Zenith 750 cruzer or Ran s-21 outbound , those would be my picks
I’m thinking I had heard that one was in an airboat!
Like to see it in a plane
th-cam.com/video/6YbLiGiJt9I/w-d-xo.html
Not sure why you would blueprint an aviation engine. Race teams blue print auto engines to get every ounce of hp from minimum tolerances as specified by the manufacturer yet they have a TBO of 2 hours coz they are so tightly built... I thought a bit of slack Alice would be called for in the air. Less performance and more reliability surely must be the yard stick, yet makes sense to have equal mass in each pot I guess.... Does it have an extra bearing on the crank?
I've spoken to Mark and the 'blueprinting' he is speaking of is simply precision balancing the complete rotating assemble. A smoother running engine is a more reliable engine. The engine and components are NOT run to a higher hp than was originally designed; there is a lot of safety margin within this engine. As for the extra bearing, I'm assuming you are speaking of the Corvair engine which has been used in aircraft engine conversions. The Suzuki G series engines use a different architecture and don't need the 'extra' bearing.
@1:40 . . . " Suzuki, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and . . . Mitsubishi"
where have all the American brands gone?
That's an easy one, all the main American brands are either A. WAYYYY to big/heavy, or B. Wayyy too complicated with electronics, which brings us back to A., making them too heavy. These engines are light and perfectly fine on the reliability front. American brands just aren't really there much anymore with reliability on smaller engines, last reliable engine to come out of America are the Chevy LS series, which ofc are entirely too heavy for these smaller planes, i've seen 'em on bigger planes quite a bit.
i don't want to sound too harsh but Americans brand engine have gone down the toilet.. the few bullet proof engines that were built are now watered down to nothing
The Chevy LS engines are still great engines but suitable for around 300+ HP. They worked great in planes thta need the higher HP, like Seabees.
aluminium block V8 engine have idiot sure working alltime perfect and not stop newer if want run. and cost 2000-3000$ and can diy convertt to ewery plane ,power have good ower 100hp-200hp.perfect if have nortmal human and little budget only.
Sooo, what this guy says is Viking Aircraft does everything wrong by using Honda direct injected engines?
@Matthew Hoopes that's because he mark is wrong.. completely wrong about direct injection
@@carlmccall7198 team.valvoline.com/diy/truth-behind-carbon-buildup I'm still trying to figure this all out like everyone else. If Mark is wrong, could you provide a source to back up that claim? Thanks.
I am sure mark did NOT say Honda direct injection engines are all wrong. The earlier models do have problems with injector leaks and fuel dilution. If Honda is having a bad time fixing it, I doubt Viking would have the resource. Did anyone bother to find out how the problems were solved for the Subaru engines before Viking?
And I thought I knew about engines ?
direct injection sucks ....port injection way better
wery less power and wery expensive cost, scammer thief customer money. need be 200hp less than 5000$ then have economic and possiple use all aircraft. change old cesna come economic good longlive plane, old cessna can buy 5000-20 000$ and chgange new motor less than 5000$ have perfect option all new pilot.
You don't know crap about carbon fouling then ..