39
this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
39 points (77.5% liked)
Technology
71083 readers
3127 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I thought the video was pretty convincing, this engine seems pretty badass.
Honestly, this engine could be a pretty big deal for a few industries, small aircraft especially. Switching to these two stroke engines could improve the power/weight ratio of your engine by nearly 2x and not lose any fuel efficiency in the process, for small aircraft that's a really big deal.
For a specific example, a Cessna 172 carries about 300 lb of fuel, and we know that the plane's performance improves significantly when it's tank is nearly empty, the top speed for example is about 15% higher on a nearly empty tank. Its standard 4 stroke engine weighs about 250 lb, so a 125 lb weight reduction would mean a proportional improvement, not just to top speed, but also shorter takeoff distance, faster climb, higher max takeoff weight, etc.
(Side note, the impact of weight is so great in small aircraft that you can see similar performance improvements by going on a diet and getting some exercise)
I'm curious if this actually ends up being significantly lighter though.
I doubt it'll end up replacing a conventional two stroke motorcycle, as it's far more complex. But I could see it used in aircraft.
People will go to some great lengths for a little extra performance. Think of the Wankel engine, it works, but this is basically the same sort of power/weight improvement and it's immensely less complicated and more practical with this 2 stroke engine. But that crazy Wankel engine has actually gone into mass production in a few cases, notably in the much loved Mazda RX-7.
And let me be clear, this 2 stroke is far more practical than the rotary Wankel engine.
And yeah, I agree. I don't see this replacing most existing two stroke engines, a cheap simple engine is generally cheap and simple for a reason, price and complexity are usually the greatest factors in those cases. It's the existing 4 stroke engines that need to watch out, those are the engines that this is a clear upgrade from. I mean if you look at any car with a turbo charger, it would be better off with this engine, with either more horsepower or less weight.