Honda Goldwing Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
am interested in making performance mods to a 2009 1800 engine. want to get at least 150hp, 200hp would be even better, along with similar increases in torque.

have g**gled for performance mods but have not found any. dont want to turn it into a 10,000rpm screamer. would like to keep relatively same power curve. Idea is to replace a lycoming o-290g on an experimental airplane.

does anyone have any suggestions on where I can find info/parts for these kinds of mods?

thank you for your help
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
This seems like a bizarre idea to me. One the engine is not certified for aircraft. Two you are changing an air cooled engine for a water cooled one and the extra weight could up set your CG. What are you going to do about the trans? Now it you are really set on this course I'd start looking for a set of Valkire heads cams and intakes as they do produce more output than a regular goldwing engine. That being said I don't know it they will fit a 1800. Did Honda make a Valkire in a 1800??
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,670 Posts
CDNRIDER
Yes, Honda did make the Valkyrie Rune 1800, but the engine is identical to the GL-1800.
The GL-1500 Wing and 1500 Valkyrie engines were different.
I'd not like to be the one to explain this to the FAA. Almost every year in Florida at the Sun and Fun Fly In, there's at least one crash with experimental aircraft. You'd actually do better with a V-twin engine, as you could use the output shaft for the prop, no need to worry about a trans and it's air cooled and you can get some very big motors.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,670 Posts
Joe,
Well now I know why there are no new Goldwings for 2011, Honda is concentrating on something with Wings. I believe I'd rather take a smaller lighter engine up instead of a heavy Wing engine, but then that's just me.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
26,270 Posts
Now that is off the hook, Lord 'tunderin' dat's mean!
Now back to the O/P with the egine idea. I also thing the GL engine is too heavybut then it depends on the airframe that it's going into. Lift and drag co-efficients and wing loading and lots of other factors to deal with (are you an aeronautical engineer by chance?). Any engine can be made to work in an aircraft and thats what EAC category is all about really. What you have to weigh is the risk vs success ratio; but I'll stick with my certified airplane thanks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,670 Posts
If its FAA approved or the Canadian equivalent, I'll fly in it.
Not too big on 'Homemade', too many crash at the Sun and Fun Fly In every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Wow! All this chatter & only one response that even attempts to provide useful info. (Thank you by the way.)

Actually, the engine it would be replacing is a Lycoming O-290G, which is a ground power unit engine converted for aircraft use. So, it wouldn't be replacing a true aircraft engine with a motorcycle engine. The dry weight of that engine is 264lbs, with fluids it is going to weigh in around 270+lbs. Concerns over CG issues have already been considered.

Concerns over watercooling are also misplaced. Watercooled aircraft engines have been used very successfully for longer than most of you have probably been alive. (See P-38 Lightning & P-51 Mustang for 2 examples.) The watercooled engines offer many advantages over aircooled aircraft engines. They are more efficient because they don't use fuel for engine cooling as aircooled engines do. They don't have problems with shock cooling as aircooled engines do. Multi-coil ignitions eliminate the need for dual magnetos. Also, bear in mind that the general aviation aircooled Lycoming & Continental engines are based on 40 - 60 year old technology. Still these engines will cost you around $26,000 for a 200 cubic inch, 100hp product, a 560 cubic inch, 300hp product will cost over $50,000. Whereas newer auto & motorcycle engines are based on state-of-the art technology which is generally more powerful & efficient, are just as reliable, if not more so, have greater parts availability, & are MUCH cheaper.

As for "homemade" aircraft crashes, the primary concern after the event is WHY the crash occurred so that similar occurances can be avoided in the future. Generic comments on aircraft accidents involving "homemade" or experimental aircraft without an examination of WHY the accident occurred are meaningless.

For anyone with a SERIOUS interest in this subject who is looking for similar info later on, additional research has shown that a better option appears to be the Suburu flat-4 or flat-6. the flat-4 comes in 3 variations: 170hp naturally aspirated; 225hp turbo (Forester model); & 305hp turbo (Impreza WRX STI model), all cost less than $3,000 for a used engine. With only moderate tweaking it will produce in the neighborhood of 460hp. All of this at a weight of only 260lbs including radiator & intercooler when stripped of non-essential items. Also, small bock Chevy engines are being used with great results in larger aircraft.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,670 Posts
Merlain7,
You did throw us all an interesting post and one that was certainly different. I have seen a V-twin engine used on an experimental aircraft and it did fly. The news never reports WHY, when a crash happens at the Sun & Fun Fly In, they just report to the viewers that it happened and that the FAA will investigate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
Merlain 7,

welcome from NC. Gotta say we have had some strange posts here lately.
Didn't see this one coming.

Sounds like you are an expert with experiemental engines.

Good luck with your project. Would love to hear how it works out.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
26,270 Posts
Merlain7 you have to forgive my seemingly cynical nature regarding your original post, I've been around airlplanes of all descriptions since I was a little duffer in the very early sixties. My father flew in and out of commercial fishing camps in the fifties in things like Cessna Cranes, Barkley Grows and Fairchild 82's. Growing up beside the second largest military training base in Canada pretty much hooked me on aircraft and flying for life. Like some of the members here on this forum I hold a full commercial license with group 1 IFR with several type endorsements both single and multi-engine. The endorsements I don't carry are turbine, aerobatic and amphib/sea plane. As I'm sure you understand, there are lots of wannabe's that talk the talk but coudn't find their arse with both hands when it comes to actually flying, let alone building an aircraft. Something that I firmly believe we can blame the ultralight category on (those of you that actually have built and do fly u/l category and adv. u/l this isn't a shot at you), just the under-trained and misinformed minority that have a very limited amount of very dangerous knowledge that are doomed to oblivion in a one-way spiral dive.
The Subaru engines you mention are very viable choices (proven) and I would certainly suggest one of them. As to liquid cooling it has long been known that liquid cooled engines are more efficient/durable and are capable of far greater horsepower than air cooling hence their popularity in so many early miltary aircraft applications. If you are set on working with a GL engine, I would strongly suggest going with the good ole hairdryer (turbo) for the added performance you are looking for. Good luck in your quest and for goodness sake watch your attitude (indicator):D
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top