Which small engine would you bring back?

[cluttonfred]

I love old airplanes and old airplane engines, but the air-cooled radial and inline designs of the 1920s-30s are now long gone. If you were to choose one of those old engines to bring back into production with modern accessories, materials and manufacturing techniques, which would it be? Gypsy? Ranger? Hirth? Renault? Bristol? Pobjoy? Leblond? Kinner? Warner? Aeronca? Or...? I am thinking light sport and general aviation here, so let's keep it under 200 hp.

[champ driver]

Keeping it under 200 HP, I would pick the Menasco or the Warner, if HP wasn't a problem, I would pick the Curtiss D-12. Think of the possible classic type planes you could build with those engines.

[pacerpilot]

The Warner or Aeronca. They both have enormous applications.

[cluttonfred]

I like the Aeronca, but I think it would only be useful for single-seaters--2013 people are, on average, both taller and fatter than 1933 people. I have always liked the simplicity of the Aeronca, right down to the exposed, finned, oil tank for cooling. A larger, more powerful equivalent with modern ignition and fuel delivery would be great fun for sporty single-seaters and light two-seaters. Warner or another small radial would be fantastic--I have actually spoken to the Rotec guys at Oshkosh about a 5-cylnder model to join their 7- and 9-cylinder ones, but they don't seem interested.

[Tom Downey]

The Warner 165 they simply run so well, no oil leaks and easy to work on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrfc5YOpBY8

[JimRice85]

Definitely Warners. Lots of great planes out there need them.

[cluttonfred]

I'll have to say, yes, please, for the Warners, but a modern Armstrong Siddeley Genet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Genet) or something in that class would interest me even more. A little five-cylinder radial producing 80 hp at only 2200 RPM would be a really challenge to the Rotax 912.

3211 3212

An updated Pobjoy in that power range would be even better in that, while its higher RPM would give less of that classic radial sound, the lighter weight and higher thrust line would make it far easier to adapt to existing designs.

3213 3214

[rwanttaja]

I'm holdin' out for a Szekely. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Boatright]

Whichever one filled this bill:
85-100 hp at 2400 rpm or less
Inline, inverted, aircooled
Less than 230 lbs

[cluttonfred]

I'm holdin' out for a Szekely. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Nah, too hard to market, nobody can spell it, a bit like Wana...Wantta...Watan...you know. ;-)

[rwanttaja]

Nah, too hard to market, nobody can spell it, a bit like Wana...Wantta...Watan...you know. ;-)

Oooo, THAT's it, I've got to start a company to start building them: The "Wanttaja Szekely" engine.

On the other hand, perhaps not. It sounds like some sort of exotic hoof-and-mouth disease....

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

How about a 100 HP Gnome rotary engine (of WWI fame) built with modern materials?

http://www.cams.net.nz/Gnome%20Remanufacture.html

http://www.cams.net.nz/Images/Gnome-outside-small.jpg

[cluttonfred]

I am sure that there would be a small market for a modern rotary for the WWI replica crowd, but given all the disadvantages in terms of handling due to gyroscopic precession, I'd much rather see a small radial of similar size and power.

[Kurt Flunkn]

Menasco D-4 Super Pirate gets my vote!

[fastaviationdata]

Warner, because of its seven-cylinder, air-cooled and radial piston engine. That's why it was the most commonly seen of the small radials for US-built pre-WWII era aircraft.

[imacfii]

We are looking at producing Warner parts and later, complete engines. Let me know you interest..
Russward@hotmail.com