Airplane project inside

MINK · May 10, 2012

Powerstroked162 said:
You don't joke around about 7.3 power. Thing will probably make so much torque it'll shred the hull anyway.

stfu......altitude is a hoe

Snake · May 10, 2012

Diesel ain't gonna fly. Pun intended.

My father in law built a Kitfox tail dragger in his garage years ago and is an IP. He sold the plane a while back but is still crazy smart on this kind of stuff.

Hotrodtractor · May 10, 2012

I predict this project will never get off the ground.

Snake · May 10, 2012

Hotrodtractor said:
I predict this project will never get off the ground.

LOL

MINK · May 10, 2012

Hotrodtractor said:
I predict this project will never get off the ground.

Powerstroked162 · May 10, 2012

Guys, lets try to not muck this thread up with gay pics(mink) and useless posts. A 7.3 in a plane is totally do-able. No reason why it won't happen

MINK · May 10, 2012

Powerstroked162 said:
Guys, lets try to not muck this thread up with gay pics(mink) and useless posts. A 7.3 in a plane is totally do-able. No reason why it won't happen

Thats all you got?

Projected take off date?

Powerstroked162 · May 10, 2012

MINK said:
Thats all you got?

Projected take off date?

Before finals in october. Probably fly it in. Landing a 7.3 plane in the parking lot of a diesel event would be badass!!

JD3020 · May 10, 2012

Powerstroked162 said:
Guys, lets try to not muck this thread up with gay pics(mink) and useless posts. A 7.3 in a plane is totally do-able. No reason why it won't happen

I agree, its totally do-able. I could even drop 2 7.3's in a 172 if i wanted to. But would the plane hold up to the weight and still fly properly? Hell no it wouldn't.

Now on a serious note i was flipping through Flying magazine a month or two back and ran across an article on the future of diesels, and it sounds pretty promising. Just seems like the main issue is weight, even with smaller engines.

Snake · May 10, 2012

Powerstroked162 said:
Guys, lets try to not muck this thread up with gay pics(mink) and useless posts. A 7.3 in a plane is totally do-able. No reason why it won't happen

Shirley you jest. (see what I did there? LOL)

Snake · May 10, 2012

Wait. Are you talking about making a dirigible? A Zepplin? Cause that would work. LOL LOL

Arisley · May 10, 2012

Snake said:
Wait. Are you talking about making a dirigible? A Zepplin? Cause that would work. LOL LOL

With Twin 7.3's. It would be a Lead Zeppilin.

Did you see what I did there?

Charles · May 10, 2012

Something like this would probably be more receptive to a heavier engine package:

As for actually flying.... good luck with legality with it being experimental and all.

The power to weight ratio is struggling hard on a 7.3 for the air. Continuous power would probably need to be in the 1000hp range to support that engine, and it's simply not going to happen. Not even close.

Best case might be simply the ability to get off the ground and land again without melting a piston or splattering yourself across the ground if this was attempted in something like a Cessna.

Powerstroked162 · May 10, 2012

Charles said:
Something like this would probably be more receptive to a heavier engine package:

As for actually flying.... good luck with legality with it being experimental and all.

The power to weight ratio is struggling hard on a 7.3 for the air. Continuous power would probably need to be in the 1000hp range to support that engine, and it's simply not going to happen. Not even close.

Best case might be simply the ability to get off the ground and land again without melting a piston or splattering yourself across the ground if this was attempted in something like a Cessna.

I think we would have to address props first probably. The sheer torque and power of the 7.3 would most likely disintegrate the prop hub on start up. It would probably have to be some type of hardened alloy, maybe even miraging material to ensure durability.

Viking · May 10, 2012

Powerstroked162 said:
I think we would have to address props first probably. The sheer torque and power of the 7.3 would most likely disintegrate the prop hub on start up. It would probably have to be some type of hardened alloy, maybe even miraging material to ensure durability.

adamantium?

Powerstroked162 · May 10, 2012

Viking said:
adamantium?

1930magma probably. Friggin plane is gonna have a ton of power on top when those chargers light!

JoeDaddy · May 10, 2012

This reminds me of the stacking chicks thread...

I think you should put a 7.3 in the nose of a Inline paper wing cub. Wouldn't fly... But it would make for a spectacular YouTube fail.

On a serious note there's a company that sells kits designed around Harley 88" V-twins. The one I saw sounded incredible!

Found it http://www.skyray.us/price.htm

http://m.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=/watch?v=vIs45EByKNE&v=vIs45EByKNE&gl=US

Zmann · May 10, 2012

Hmm I suggest a basement build

IIRC that's how Mike Rowe became popular?

Snake · May 10, 2012

Steve, you sucked me in for a couple of posts. Well played! LOL

powerSmokin · May 10, 2012

A few things to consider would be:
What range to most cessnas run (RPM wise)
How cold will the engine get when going to the higher altitudes
Burn rate of ruel, there is a reason why Jet Fuel is used in planes
Weight ratio and the center line of the engine compared to the whole plane
Will it be FAA approved?
Amount of torque at the prop but yet maintaining the right amount of speed to the prop.
Electronics obviously
Also the durability of the engine compartment (will it hold the weight without damaging the hull) going up and down along with turbulance is alot of stress for that small of a plane.