Laser Engines development.

[kevin b]

44 minutes ago, Chris Walby said:

Now look here this sort of out of the box tinkering is going to raise peoples blood pressure to bursting point and just where do you think this will end up?

 

The Laser Appreciation Society members will be left destitute and deranged by the number of possible configurations as first it was simple choice of single or V, then came along the inline twins. And now a boxer version...this is the slippery road to a radial Laser if you ask me.

 

 

PS - Great bit of work Jon and we all appreciate your skill and perseverance with engine design and support.  

 

Did somebody mention a laser radial ?

 

[Nick Somerville]

That’s going to make fuel tank positioning a doddle with the carbs so close to the centre line.

[Jon H]

What size radial? 300??  For bore/stroke and various other reasons the 3 sizes possible are 300, 450/65 or 540. All will be 3 cylinder to reduce cost for us and for you, reduce complexity, reduce weight and a bunch of other options. Its an engine, not an ornament so 3 cylinders is the way forward at this time. If you want to spend loads of money, OS can help ? http://www.ripmax.com/Item.aspx?ItemID=L-OS37010 

 

Flat twins. The reason i am pushing them with the upper echelons is the tank height situation. Its really easy with the flats and they will fit all the standard lycoming style cowls and fit radials as well. So WWII fighters with radial engines are now much easier to engineer. 

 

They do vibrate more than the twins but its an acceptable level. you can just feel more of a thrub through the bench than with the V but its not something i expect most people to notice. I only notice as i use them all the time. The exhaust note is very pleasant too. 

 

As for what will come of the flat twins my boss seems to have had his interest piqued by how spectacularly bodgetastic the first one was. The drawing for the 200 crankcase is done so its just a case of making some now. He seems to be dead keen so perhaps within a few weeks. 

 

Assuming i get the larger case for the 300 on the machines at the same time we will have 160, 200, 240 and 300 as options. The 240 has me intrigued as its going to be almost microscopic but rev like a mentalist. Would be great for anyone wanting a warp speed acro/wots wot xl. 

 

Early engines will probably have no exhausts but none of our competitors ship twins with exhausts either. I will see if i can get the new exhaust design on the machines as well but it might be too much too soon. 

[Nick Cripps]

This is really great news, Jon, I'm looking forward to seeing the first batch.

 

Intrigued by the top of the crankcase on the 300, is that a cylinder head bodged in place just to hold it all together or does it serve any practical purpose, eg cooling?

[Nick Somerville]

Put me down for a radial Jon. Can you explain how the sizes work out as it clearly isn’t as simple as multiplying the singles by three.

[Jon H]

3 hours ago, Nick Cripps said:

This is really great news, Jon, I'm looking forward to seeing the first batch.

 

Intrigued by the top of the crankcase on the 300, is that a cylinder head bodged in place just to hold it all together or does it serve any practical purpose, eg cooling?

 

Yea its a random head nailed on top. It was only there to cover the crankshaft inspection hole although it probably is good for cooling!

 

 

Nick, radial sizes are as simple as multiplying. The 300 is 3 100's, the 450 is 3 150's etc ? 

[John Stainforth]

47 minutes ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

 

Yea its a random head nailed on top. It was only there to cover the crankshaft inspection hole although it probably is good for cooling!

 

 

Nick, radial sizes are as simple as multiplying. The 300 is 3 100's, the 450 is 3 150's etc ? 

And here was I thinking that you may have designed the world's first 2 1/2 cylinder engine!

[mike skingle]

Jon

Please put me down for a 540 radial and a 200 or 310 flat twin.

Cheers Mike 

[Ron Gray]

Hell's teeth, a 540 radial, now that it some beast!

[Jon H]

24 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Hell's teeth, a 540 radial, now that it some beast!

 

Designed it years ago. nearly 90cc and in theory capable of turning 24 or 26x10 props with ease. I designed it to fit my 1/4 andersen La7 as i bought the recommended saito 450r3, only to find it no more powerful than a laser 360v but double the weight and chewing up fuel. I knew it would not be powerful enough for a 97'' 30lb WWII fighter so sold the saito and drew up a new engine. 

 

I have the conrod sat on the bench. if i can get the link rods, link rod pins and a few other bits made i can weigh all the parts, calculate the reactions and hopefully work out the counterbalance needed for the crank. Then the crank can be drawn, manufactured...etc. At 90cc it would probably need to be petrol though to succeed in the market, which is a pain. I would probably use a glow version myself just for the simplicity but that is getting ahead of myself. 

 

Mike, a 310 flat might be a thing. Discussions are ongoing about discontinuing the 300v and going 310 instead. I made 310v prototypes about 6 years ago but never went further as they were more difficult to tune than the 300v. Since then i found out why, fixed it, and now we are finally running short of cylinders for the 300 so might ditch it as its one less liner to make. Jury is still out on that one mind. The snag with a 310 flat is that it would be wider than the 300 so might not fit cowls, but at only 6mm its hardly a show stopper. 

 

 

In any case, the general overview of my testing so far is i can offer all of the current V twin sizes as flat twins without vibration issues but this presents another problem.

 

With the 2 inline engines and the flats that is 7 new engines added to the range, plus at least another 7 i am keen to work on and the petrol already in development makes 15 total. plus the 11 in the current range gives us 26. 

 

Assuming i produce engines at my peak rate on my own it would take 7 weeks to build a batch of everything. That would mean that if i sold more than one engine of a given single cylinder size over a 10 day period, or more than one v/flat over a 25 day period, or one inline in a 50 day period, i would be unable to keep pace with demand. Also note that to work at my peak rate i would not be able to answer any calls, emails, do any repairs, or send anything in the post.

 

I think a larger work force is required as well as a complete revision of how we do things as i think i have only hit peak rate production for 5 non consecutive days in 10 years on the job. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Martin McIntosh]

Interesting. I shall now give up any hope of a 300V, but what would the total width of a 310 flat be?

[Jon H]

17 minutes ago, Martin McIntosh said:

what would the total width of a 310 flat be?

 

 

310 anything will likely be next year if it happens at all. We would need to drop the 200v as well and make it a 210 to save ourselves the crank and rod manufacture. Its all about the shared components between the engines and gets a bit involved as the 100 would also need to change and become a 105. There is a fair bit to consider and nothing is set in stone. 

 

A 200 or 300 flat would be 200mm wide as they use the same stroke. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Hopefully I haven’t missed something Jon, but why the (small) increase in capacity?

[Jon H]

25 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Hopefully I haven’t missed something Jon, but why the (small) increase in capacity?

 

The 100, 200, 150 and 300 all share the same stroke. The 100 and 150 share a conrod, the 200 and 300 share conrods and cranks. The 100 and 200 share cylinders, the 150 and 300 used to share cylinders. All 4 engines share pushrods and pushrod tubes. 

 

We dropped the 150 and replaced it with the 155. The stroke increased to get the extra capacity with the same bore but i never took this stroke onto the other engines except in testing where i made a 310v but found it difficult to set up. As a result it never moved forward but i have since fixed it. I built a 105 as well but it had the short rod at the time and it ran fine. 

 

The 155 uses a new stroke and conrod length (to keep the rod angle the same and prevent added side loading on the piston) as well as a new cylinder, pushrods and tubes. 

 

With the 150 dropped, its a liner we have to make and its got only one job in the 300v where as before it had 2 jobs. The 155 liner, crank and rod also have only one job and its another set up on the machines to make all the new parts that are fractionally different to the others. It even gets into stupid levels of complexity as we need to stock another set of head bolts for the 155 where before the 100-300 used the same bolts. 

 

The conversation being had is surrounding changing everything to the new stroke. If so i end up with 105, 210, 155 and 310. changing things over would have streamlining advantages when it comes to production due to all the common parts and machine set's. However, the new engines would be slightly taller than the old ones so might not fit as well in cowls... The 160 and 200 also share a crankcase but this would need to be modified to allow a 210 to fit due to the increased crank throw. This would also require a new backplate and mount for the 160/200.

 

Oh and i forgot about the inlines...they would need new crankcases and cam box's as well to make them into 210's....and the rod's would not clear the crankcase through bolts as they are so that cant work without a total redesign of the crankcase bolt spacing. 

 

So its all very complicated. 

 

Bet you wish you never asked ? 

 

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I hadn’t expected such a comprehensive answer but thanks for taking the time!  I suppose there’s a little self-interest involved as I was wondering about spares availability for existing engines in the long term. 

[J D 8]

    Very interesting to hear about all the options and production capabilities an engine maker has to take into account.?

[Dale Bradly]

12 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

i can weigh all the parts, calculate the reactions and hopefully work out the counterbalance needed for the crank.

This kinda stuff is the difference between yourself and those who of us who engineer things with a big hammer or a bigger hammer.

Care to share what goes into this? 

[Nick Cripps]

Well, Jon isn't going to hit his peak production rate today ?

[Jon H]

Martin - We will always keep spares available. I still have a handful of 150 crankshafts left for that very reason. 

 

Dale -   This gives a bit of an overview of the general principals.  https://antiqueairfieldia27.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/balancing_radial_engines_part_1.pdf If you want to google some lectures on engine balancing by all means do. just make sure you fill out your will first as a brain bleed might result from some of them! 

 

Nick - what else is new? 

 

[John Stainforth]

2 hours ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

 

The 100, 200, 150 and 300 all share the same stroke. The 100 and 150 share a conrod, the 200 and 300 share conrods and cranks. The 100 and 200 share cylinders, the 150 and 300 used to share cylinders. All 4 engines share pushrods and pushrod tubes. 

 

We dropped the 150 and replaced it with the 155. The stroke increased to get the extra capacity with the same bore but i never took this stroke onto the other engines except in testing where i made a 310v but found it difficult to set up. As a result it never moved forward but i have since fixed it. I built a 105 as well but it had the short rod at the time and it ran fine. 

 

The 155 uses a new stroke and conrod length (to keep the rod angle the same and prevent added side loading on the piston) as well as a new cylinder, pushrods and tubes. 

 

With the 150 dropped, its a liner we have to make and its got only one job in the 300v where as before it had 2 jobs. The 155 liner, crank and rod also have only one job and its another set up on the machines to make all the new parts that are fractionally different to the others. It even gets into stupid levels of complexity as we need to stock another set of head bolts for the 155 where before the 100-300 used the same bolts. 

 

The conversation being had is surrounding changing everything to the new stroke. If so i end up with 105, 210, 155 and 310. changing things over would have streamlining advantages when it comes to production due to all the common parts and machine set's. However, the new engines would be slightly taller than the old ones so might not fit as well in cowls... The 160 and 200 also share a crankcase but this would need to be modified to allow a 210 to fit due to the increased crank throw. This would also require a new backplate and mount for the 160/200.

 

Oh and i forgot about the inlines...they would need new crankcases and cam box's as well to make them into 210's....and the rod's would not clear the crankcase through bolts as they are so that cant work without a total redesign of the crankcase bolt spacing. 

 

So its all very complicated. 

 

Bet you wish you never asked ? 

 

 

I understand your need to streamline production as much as possible by standardising parts, but I think it would be a pity if this was done at the expense of backward compatibility with some of the existing engine models. Surely, increasing the capacity of the 200V to 210 only requires increasing the stroke by about 5%, which is something like 0.06", and then ditto for the diameter of the crankshaft. I don't think the small increase in stroke would be much of an issue in accommodating the new engines in planes designed for the old ones, but changing the spacing of the mounting holes on the backplate and engine mount could be quite a pain in the neck. Hopefully, there is enough leeward to maintain the current spacing of the mounting holes on the engine mounts even with slightly enlarged crankcases.

[Manish Chandrayan]

Mixed bag feeling personally. Excited at the new possibilities but the chance of the 300v being phased out would be really lamentable 

[Martin McIntosh]

If I am in the market for a 310 flat I shall also need to know the distance from the rear of the mount to the prop driver. If it will be the same as a 300V then no problem because my `in build` SF would take a 180 if it is light enough, otherwise a 300V would have been my choice.

 

By the way, I bought a very early 155 and the long stroke allows it to turn the same 18x8 as a 180, albeit at slightly lower revs.

[Jon H]

10 hours ago, John Stainforth said:

I understand your need to streamline production as much as possible by standardising parts, but I think it would be a pity if this was done at the expense of backward compatibility with some of the existing engine models. Surely, increasing the capacity of the 200V to 210 only requires increasing the stroke by about 5%, which is something like 0.06", and then ditto for the diameter of the crankshaft. I don't think the small increase in stroke would be much of an issue in accommodating the new engines in planes designed for the old ones, but changing the spacing of the mounting holes on the backplate and engine mount could be quite a pain in the neck. Hopefully, there is enough leeward to maintain the current spacing of the mounting holes on the engine mounts even with slightly enlarged crankcases.

 

Backwards compatibility is a bit of a non issue really. Most engines outlive their models anyway so its likely to be an uncommon problem. That said, i can do the 210/310 conversion without moving the bolts. Just the internal and external dims. Only the inline would need new mounting dimensions but that is another issue for another day. To be honest, if i didnt tell anyone i changed the innards and just sold them under the old names its very unlikely anyone would notice any differences at all. Only the added power and extra 3mm on the cylinder height would give the game away. 

 

Martin, there is no 310 flat. it is theoretical and will only appear if we change the strokes across the whole range as discussed. Assuming i get cases made it will be 160, 200, 240 and 300 on offer to begin with and maybe forever. Length is different to the v i think, cant remember what i did when drawing it so will have to check. I think its a smidge longer but its gone 1am as i write this and i am too sleepy to recall. 

 

Manish - the 300 would be replaced by a 310 so who would really care? Nobody complained when we ditched the 150 in favour of the 155 and other brands change their line up very regularly. While i can understand a little sentimentality it wont stop me changing things if i think there is something to be gained. 

 

 

[Manish Chandrayan]

Jon, it's not a question of 300 changing to 310.

It's the prospect of 'V' changing to 'flat' that I was mentioning.

Or did I read it wrong and you intend to make the V and flat both in 310?

If that's the case, I don't see an issue. 

But if not, then discontinuation of the V twin will certainly bother people who were looking for a narrower engine that was easier to cool than an inline 

 

 

[Tim Flyer]

Here is an idea /suggestion which I would like to make ….just in case it’s seen as a useful addition. 
 

How about having a “storage oil fill/drain plug” on the bottom of the crankcase?

In use the hole would be sealed by fitting of a screw so would have limited impact on dimensions  .
For storage a nipple would be temporarily fitted to enable the crankcase to be easily filled with oil.  Having the additional hole in the crankcase might enable quicker oil filling.  

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tim Flyer