Kawasaki entering GA market

I already like the fact they're proposing usable power ratings in their petrol offerings (>150hp continuous). that's been my biggest frustration with rotax and the automotive retrofits. Wish them luck, hopefully they find a market in the experimental space, and are able/willing to sell to that market (fac-built is cooked).
 
Hengelo said:
Tiny market, high risk, low appetite for innovation. Very curious.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find this venture is not only about "GA" aircraft per se. There are a few articles out there on this move especially detailing their collaboration with Toyota, Yamaha, Honda, and Suzuki on alterative piston powerplants. Hyundai also has a similar project its been working for a number of years. I think the interesting part to their approach is their use of in-line architecture and liquid cooling.
 
I am hoping for someone to develop either an affordable turbine or a H2 fuel cell-powered electric motor (300 HP either way).
Either one would be a huge improvement over a piston engine.
 
A company nearby mods and supports Kaw 440 cu 2-strokes for the 103 market. They seem to be well received. 'Course that's how Rotax decided to develop the 912.
 
8500 RPM? What reciprocating engines run that fast for 2,000 hours? I can't think of any.
 
kyleb said:
8500 RPM? What reciprocating engines run that fast for 2,000 hours? I can't think of any.
Click to expand...
One-way kamwikazie drones only need to be reliable for one flight, and a ton of drone engines have been used in the last year or two.
 
kyleb said:
8500 RPM? What reciprocating engines run that fast for 2,000 hours? I can't think of any.
Click to expand...
I believe the engine has an integral reduction gearbox to take the 8500 to a more useful value. And using a motorcycle engine as a core foundation I would expect to see those higher max rpms. Regardless, I dont think you'll see too many STCs to retro that engine into an legacy airframes on a number of levels from what I've seen and read.
 
Bell206 said:
I believe the engine has an integral reduction gearbox to take the 8500 to a more useful value. And using a motorcycle engine as a core foundation I would expect to see those higher max rpms. Regardless, I dont think you'll see too many STCs to retro that engine into a legacy airframes on a number of levels from what I've seen and read.
Click to expand...
My concern isn’t about gearing it down. It’s about running a recip at 8500 rpm and expecting it to have a reasonable TBO.
 
kyleb said:
My concern isn’t about gearing it down. It’s about running a recip at 8500 rpm and expecting it to have a reasonable TBO.
Click to expand...
Interesting tangent...How long does it need to last? Would TBO 500 hrs be acceptable if it was a $7500 engine?
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping for someone to develop either an affordable turbine or a H2 fuel cell-powered electric motor (300 HP either way).
Either one would be a huge improvement over a piston engine.
Click to expand...
Funny how you used "H2" when that Kaw H2 ICE is the basis for some of their potential offerings. They had a 300 hp version of that one could buy (the street version only had 200 hp.)
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping for someone to develop either an affordable turbine or a H2 fuel cell-powered electric motor (300 HP either way).
Either one would be a huge improvement over a piston engine.
Click to expand...
How would it be an advantage?

The major disadvantage I see of H2 is lack of range. Even storing the H2 as liquid doesn't help. Two molecules of H2 react with one molecule of O2. The way around the range issue is to create better storage matrices. This could be adsorption, or storage as part of another molecule such as ammonia, methanol, metal hydrides, or something else. There's been a lot of work done in this area but no breakthroughs that I know of. While H2 has more energy then gasoline on a per-weight basis, the H2 energy per-volume is very low.

See here: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
 
Jim K said:
Interesting tangent...How long does it need to last? Would TBO 500 hrs be acceptable if it was a $7500 engine?
Click to expand...
So long as it (probably) wont come from together in those 500 hours. Whats a rotax spin at? 5800? The 2000 hour tbo number seems rather arbitrary anyway
 
The unacknowledged benefit for engines like these isn’t retrofitting legacy GA; it’s new airframe designs that can benefit from them. Sure, E/AB is likely the space to most take advantage of that and something I’m okay with.
 
kyleb said:
My concern isn’t about gearing it down. It’s about running a recip at 8500 rpm and expecting it to have a reasonable TBO.
Click to expand...


Current inline sport bike engines have redlines well above 10k rpm. The H2 motor redlines at 12.7 from the factory. The Honda CBR 250 redline is 19k rpm. Most of these engines could sit at 8500 all day long with no stress.
 
aterry1067 said:
Current inline sport bike engines have redlines well above 10k rpm. The H2 motor redlines at 12.7 from the factory. The Honda CBR 250 redline is 19k rpm. Most of these engines could sit at 8500 all day long with no stress.
Click to expand...

The real questions likely revolve around turbo system design and cooling to get the 200hp. A CBR250 is a 45hp motor; about half that at 8500rpm.
 
kyleb said:
My concern isn’t about gearing it down. It’s about running a recip at 8500 rpm and expecting it to have a reasonable TBO.
Click to expand...
Things that are a problem at high speeds.
Valves - getting them open (stress) and closed (springs and inertia) in time. Overhead cams help a lot with this by reducing reciprocating mass. Also several valves per cylinder.
Cylinders - the issue in the cylinder is less RPM and more mean piston speed. A short stoke high rpm engine can have similar piston speeds to a long stroke low RPM engine and would last about the same time. Coatings like Nikasil cut the wear on the bore significantly.
Bearings - 8500 is not that fast. Guess how fast your turbocharger is spinning...
 
kyleb said:
My concern isn’t about gearing it down. It’s about running a recip at 8500 rpm and expecting it to have a reasonable TBO.
Click to expand...
Except from what I've read of the specs, this engine series makes best power at 8000-8500. But who says it will be turning a prop? Remember GA is not just Part 91 recreational aircraft.

Ed Haywood said:
I would bet drones and air taxis influenced their perception of market growth potential.
Click to expand...
More likely hybrid-electrical power units. Here's one aviation project that uses the KW engine.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep. I'd buy three and have two ready to go at any given time!!
Click to expand...
That was kind of where I was going. Especially EAB. Yeah, It'd be a pain in the ass to swap engines every couple years, but a lot of that could be emiliarated with some forethought like tieing everything into a big harness with a single plug. A lot of the time swapping a lyco is spent wiring, installing accessories, installing the fuel system, timing the ignition. If all that stuff came attached, I bet you could do it in half a day easy.

I'm a fan of big, slow, low rpm direct drive engines, but if the cost per hour is lower... The issue with lycos is the cost to assemble... lots of skilled manual labor(although parts are outrageous too). Maybe kaw could do to engines what swatch did to mechanical watches. Engineer them to be mostly machine assembled, perhaps at the cost of being non serviceable.
 
lol 'saki is gonna STC those motors ? Sure. There are literally dozens of new airplanes built every year. ROI anyone? As for hydrogen... another nope. About 5-7 years ago the big trucking companies made a push for hydrogen. We had quite a few Werner hydrogen trucks at my old job. The drivers called the extra parts on the back of the cab 'the coffin'. I wonder why?

Car motors have been in airplanes since the beginning. Ole Charles Taylor copied one for the Wright boys. It was even all aluminum.

Problem is that airplane owners are stupid. Even though I can dig up multiple examples of well designed car motor installs the average 100LL sniffer would rather pay $30k for an overhaul, or more likely replace a jug for a few grand every year or so than have to be 'limited' by a 500 hour overhaul that costs $2500. Yet paying $1500 for magneto rebuilds every 500 hours is not given a second thought.

I'm putting a car motor in my E/AB. Flying is simply unaffordable if I have to use Lycoming or Continental motors up front.
 
Bell206 said:
More likely hybrid-electrical power units. Here's one aviation project that uses the KW engine.
Click to expand...

Interesting that we have not seen many hybrid attempts in the EAB world. Seems like the engineering would be within the reach of at least some DIYers. Maybe there have been and I'm just not paying attention.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Interesting that we have not seen many hybrid attempts in the EAB world. Seems like the engineering would be within the reach of at least some DIYers. Maybe there have been and I'm just not paying attention.
Click to expand...
I can't come up with a performance based solution where Hybrids win in aviation. Batteries are too heavy. Genset to electric motor may have utility, but that's no slam dunk.

Now, if you're selling point is around CO2 or other environmental angles, hybrids may check the box.
 
kyleb said:
I can't come up with a performance based solution where Hybrids win in aviation. Batteries are too heavy. Genset to electric motor may have utility, but that's no slam dunk.
Click to expand...

Oh I have no clue about that, just seems like the idea would be irresistible to tinkerers. Like recumbent bikes or canards, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
kyleb said:
I can't come up with a performance based solution where Hybrids win in aviation.
Click to expand...
Hybrid powertrains have been used in other industries for decades due to the efficiencies and power output of electric motors. And until recently, the physical weight and management of hybrid propulsions systems for aircraft was very limited. Now with various “breakthroughs” since about 2010 the ability of hybrid powertrains that are compatible for aviation use are being continually developed. So for the same reasons those other industries went to hybrid electric powertrains, the aviation side is finally catching up. Regardless, there is no single answer to that question as each application is still specific to the intended job, so to try and compare "performance-based solution" to an existing aircraft requires specific context. If that makes sense.

kyleb said:
Now, if you're selling point is around CO2 or other environmental angles, hybrids may check the box.
Click to expand...
Except you'll find the hybrid powertrain projects that are not funded by “green dollars” are the only ones that are succeeding and making to the certification levels. While green power is a selling point in some circles, its not the main reason driving the advancements from what I’ve seen.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Interesting that we have not seen many hybrid attempts in the EAB world. Seems like the engineering would be within the reach of at least some DIYers. Maybe there have been and I'm just not paying attention.
Click to expand...
I think it’s the access and cost of the current aviation compatible components that has kept the E/AB world on the sidelines for now. But from what I’ve seen I think in the next 5-7 years there will enough knock-off hybrid components on the market that will give E/ABr’s the opportunity to pursue it on many levels.
 
I don’t understand why people think hybrid makes any sense in aircraft. It only works in cars because of stop and go traffic and regen braking. You don’t stop or sit at lights in an airplane. Once the battery is drained you’re hauling dead weight. Stupid idea.
 
Salty said:
I don’t understand why people think hybrid makes any sense in aircraft. It only works in cars because of stop and go traffic and regen braking. You don’t stop or sit at lights in an airplane. Once the battery is drained you’re hauling dead weight. Stupid idea.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that it might allow a smaller, more efficient, high-rpm, mogas engine (like the Kaw), operating a generator instead of having to have a PSRU to step down from 8500+ to 2700. However, by the time you add up the weight of the motor, generator, engine, and battery, it's much heavier than a good old Lycosaur.

An interesting suggestion from AI when I was working on this...a series hybrid. Instead of a high compression 200hp Lyco, a 150hp Rotax with a small motor to make up the difference on takeoff and climb. AI claimed it could be done with about the same weight as an io-360. Benefit would be mogas and higher efficiency. Downside is way more cost & complexity.

Every time I try to come up with a new way to skin the cat, the "antique" designs don't look so bad after all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top