Yep can be done but worth it?
UPDATE:
Original post in 2005, Consulted with manufacture of NO2 systems technical dept. They where very helpfull. I'll tell you want I learned. Its interesting and have hard numbers which I'll in address comments below:
Scott DellAngelo:You got guts to put the 'gas' on an airplane!!!! Few motors survived.
No guts, for altitude use only, aka normalizer.
Pierre Smith: We made around 25 HP from a 5 horse Briggs and Stratton, turning 10,000 RPM, stock RPM 3600! Yes, you can get a whole bunch of extra HP from a bottle but the end result ain't pretty.
Thanks Buddy, yep, just looking for may be sea level hp at say 8,000-10,000 feet. Not practical per below.
RV8RIVETER:I talked with an engine guru a couple of years ago. He ran a few numbers and just to "normalize" at 15k ft a std 20 lb nitrous bottle would only last 60-100 seconds or so, forgive me I am going by memory. Since a very large bottle would be needed I moved that idea to the scrap heap.
Here is what I learned about NO2 from "NO2", normally it goes in as a liquid. Part of the HP gain is the rapid cooling as it vaporizes and makes the incoming air denser, as well as acting partly as an oxidizer itself. My research and input from Tech support at NO2 is to run the NO2 in the gas state, for many reasons. There are some challenges but its doable. Practical? Read on.
NO2 typically is used for mass HP for short periods. My spec was say 5-10 hp for 1.5-2 hours. Feeding liquid NO2, duration will be short. Also liquid flow is so small for 10 HP, the orifice is too small for practical purposes. Further with liquid you waste a lot in the bottle. You buy 20 lbs of NO2, you only get a fraction of that in liquid out of the bottle. When the liquid is gone, the bottle has lots of gas remaining. Going with NO2 gas-state you can use all of the NO2. Again this only works for small small HP gain, but this is what I want. It is indeed unusual.
The down side of using NO2 in Gaseous state is you loose the COOLING effect. The KEY idea behind NO2 is the liquid becomes gas, vaporizing in the induction, inside the engine. This cools the incoming air charge and the higher air density increases HP further.
The only worry with running gas from the bottle/valve/regulator/jet is freezing, because the expanding is going on in the bottle or down stream. However at the low flow it should not be an issue. There are "heaters" to help the bottle freezing issue. Normally you want liquid only going into the engine, so that is why you see cars with NO2 systems BLOW off the GAS, to bleed the lines and fill them with liquid NO2.
The idea of course was to get an edge in a cross country and pick up a handful of MPH and not peal the paint off, while I could remove it, leaving may be a fire wall penetration and air box hole to plug.
RV8RIVETER, bingo on the duration. To get not even get 2 hours and 5-10 HP, and would take at least two 40 lb bottles, I recall from my calcs and the numbers NO2 engineering gave me.
The most I could HOPE and dream of getting would be 4 to 4.8 mph? So over 2 hours it would shave may be 2-2/3 minutes off? Just flying cleaner and navigating better would help more. Trying to get more than 5-10 HP for 1 or 2 hours with NO2 is not practical in my opinion. HOWEVER some crazy guy might try it, but it will take a BIG bottle.
airguy:increased horsepower results in increased heat rejection........ avoiding trashing the engine with a lean mixture.
Right, see above, normalizing to get say from 65% power back to 75% power.
I was also going with a
DRY system, no separate GAS line/jet. Mixture is manually add the mixture control, since it would be leaned at altitude. Again 10 hp is not much at 8,000 feet. However Id have to be careful with the mixture and NO2. I'd have more enough mixture control with the carb to accomodate small about of NO2.
For those who don't know, NO2 systems are usually WET systems. Usually they have TWO lines, one injecting NO2 (liquid) and another injecting RAW gasoline into the induction. The extra fuel balances the denser air charge. The NO2 wet systems are really about making 100-500 HP or more not 10 HP.
BikePilot: How about supercharger driven by a second, small engine in the back seat (basically a gigantic leaf blower)?
I saw a "Lightning" (4 place composite, retract) at Reno years ago with the Aux engine and blower in the cockpit. Heck yes, interesting.
Mike Scan be made to work, I doubt if the "pleasure would be worth the all the pain".
Roger that. My conclusion as well. I might try a small prototype with used borrowed parts some day for fun.
Yarddart Ray Lettrell:Pitts has NOS, flew the Lakeland show . He had it for years , no problems.
Interesting thanks. The NO2 technical department was more than happy to help me and I was NOT the first to call. He had no problem with it being for an airplane. He was also intrigued with my 10 hp for 2 hours requirement. NO2 would engineer the parts and send me a kit for I guess under $1000. I think I could find some used NO2 parts and make a small prototype for limited flight test, for $200?
Airguy Greg you would absolutely HAVE to use a CS prop, have your cylinders and pistons (and maybe crank) upgraded to take the additional chamber pressure.
Yea see above, idea is say normalizing 70% back to 75% power.
Low Pass Bryan: I've thought about this a fair amount and have come to a couple of conclusions.
N2O systems don't have to destroy the engine.
N2O is real good for drag or short duration racing.
My interest in boost comes more with altitude normalizing or boosting at cruise altitudes. This means 1+ hr flights. The complexity and volume limitations don't make N2O worthwhile for me. Want it for fast climbs or say 100 mi races? May well be a viable choice! Let us know what you learn.
Yep we are on the same page and conclusion, but would not use it for climbs my self. My mission, airshow cross-countries like Oshkosh Airventure or Aircraft Spruce Dashes. Did them years ago and they a blast, win, place or show, its fun. Funny thing is more times than not flying high is a waste. Flying LOW negates the need for NO2 all together, since my criteria is not to exceed 100% rated HP. Wide open on deck strategy works, unless the winds are very favorable (and known) at altitude.
RVpilot Bill:Can't you see the expression on the Rocket jockey's face when he's outclimbed off the runway by a 180HP, fixed pitch RV-8 ??? Can you say.. Priceless!
Now that would be fun.
bumblebee:... NOx is the bestest fastest cheapest way to convert an air cooled 360 into "fully vented" 270 or 180.
Not sure what a fully vented 270 or 180 is, but you are right I think? There is no substitute to getting say a IO390 210 HP engine. Of course turbo charging would be the gold standard. However for a daily flyer I want a basic O360 (180HP). The idea was a bolt on, bolt off, quick add on to make a little difference. Per the bottom line, and NO2 tank fills are NOT free, tt's expensive, its not worth it to me, but........3 min on a 150 min race may be worth it to some hard core racer.
Bottom line: IT WOULD WORK, but the difference is little, may be 2-3 minutes faster time, for a one-tank X-C race. Its not worth it, but the mental exercise and learning about NO2 was fun.
Thanks for the input. If any one wants details, contacts, cost let me know.