Click for Abeking Click for Burger Click for Ocean Alexander Click for Northern Lights Click for Glendinning

The "Buck" engine

Discussion in 'Technical Discussion' started by kmb1949, Jul 25, 2014.

You need to be registered and signed in to view this content.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 3
  1. wdrzal, Aug 9, 2014
    #21
    wdrzal

    wdrzal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    414
    Location:
    Allegheny Mountains of Western Pa
    With all the proprietary untested castings where would you get the expertise? I think of all the different Formula 1 piston engines, Cat, Mtu and GE & Rolls Royce turbine engines. There has been outstanding success and some real blunders along the way. These have been developed & improved over decades & Billions of R&D costs.
    There engines metallurgy, casting methods , annealing/hardening processes are some of there most closely guarded secrets.

    Seldom is a new design engine successful right off the drawing board, but I wish you good luck on your endeavor.
  2. kmb1949, Aug 9, 2014
    #22
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    With the computer software available today, FEA etc. and with the destructive testing analysis available today, there is very little that can't be reproduced. In the end extensive test cell and field testing will prove the product.
  3. K1W1, Aug 10, 2014
    #23
    K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,427
    Location:
    My Office
    Hi,

    No one has actually said it won't. It is having the financial and mental strength to get all the way to the end that will be the deciding factors.

    I have been involved in some of the problems from the big manufacturers.

    The level of intense frustration at the seeming unwillingness to listen to end users and failure to pay any attention to log sheets, photos and videos of their engines problems causes some pretty bad discussions around in the business but they still keep on going only because the problem engine is not their only product if all your eggs are in the one basket you will not have that luxury and will instead have to tough it out from start to finish just in order to survive.
  4. kmb1949, Aug 10, 2014
    #24
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    I agree completely that it is challenging (the funding is paramount). The mental challenge for me is not a concern. Building and cranking my first engine was the most fun that I have ever had with my cloths on. From the first pattern and mold design to tightening the last bolt, it was exciting. My biggest problem was getting big OEM suppliers like Bosch and Delphi to take me seriously. Dealing with most large publically traded companies (even when you want to be their customer) is just plain hard. No one thinks that a little guy can do something like this and they have no interest in the small order or customer. But a small determined guy can do this. On our web site, you can watch a completely from scratch 6.7 liter diesel run, so it can be done. And if it can be done once it can be done again and again. The product can be fully tested and it can be a successful addition to the engine market.

    One problem is that big companies are a pain in the butt to do business with and no one wants to make a decision because they are all afraid of loosing their jobs. If you are having a problem with your Cat or Cummins engine, good luck getting to the engineer who designed it or to the one who oversees the production of it. There is a chain of command like you are in the army. The other problem is that it is hard for a customer to take a chance on a new provider due to the 5 year warranty and the service network concerns. What I would like to see is a focused marine engine producer that is small enough to be personal yet large enough to address any service network concerns the customer may have. I have spent years doing research and I have done my best to listen to the problems that the end users and mechanics face. From those discussions I have designed into the product more than fifty improvements that will make this engine a pleasure to own and a pleasure to repair. For me, capital is the only missing part of the equation and if the capital is found, I expect there to be many more discussions with the end users and mechanics as the project moves forward.

    There are only about 6 or 8 primary engine producers. Most have existed for more than 125 years. When they all started there weren't any computers that performed FEA calculation or ran operation simulations. Metallurgy was no where as advanced as it is today. CNC machines did not exist and 3D printers were fantasy. With the aid of existing technology, engine design and production, is not nearly as daunting a task, as it was for Clessie Cummins.
  5. Old Phart, Aug 10, 2014
    #25
    Old Phart

    Old Phart Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    I dunno
    Too Funny.


    Back in the day of taking only a tractor (truck) for a ride from point a to b and back (Roadway test), a small company that salvaged parts from several trucks to make one dependable, new to them truck (think Consolidated Freightways and Freightliner), a Cummins engine was acquired. Cummins were used for irrigation and setup accordingly - not good for a truck engine situation. The truck with the Cummins was noted for excessive oil usage - check the fuel, add the oil; as opposed to check the oil and add the fuel. One young driver, nepotism, was given the opportunity to take the truck for a test run from Portland to Boise and back, if he managed to complete the run to Boise, without a tow because of a wreck or a dead engine - forgetting to add oil, en route. He, truck, and engine made it to Boise and he was allowed to make the return run to Portland. Upon arrival to Portland, the owner wanted to know how he made the journey without adding much oil. After the owner promised not to fire him, he enlightened the owner as to what he did to the engine after only a few miles down the road. Seems the young lad was raised on a farm and had a gift for things mechanical and after hearing all the does and don't prior to his bobtail test run, he knew what needed to be done to the engine. He kept his job and lived a colorful long life.

    Moral of the story - Engine manufacturers don't always have the best understanding of their product.
  6. P46-Curaçao, Aug 10, 2014
    #26
    P46-Curaçao

    P46-Curaçao Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2013
    Messages:
    734
    Location:
    Curaçao (CW), Hollywood (FL) and Amsterdam (NL)
    I’m a handy man with almost everything, but not an expert in anything. I have the utmost respect for what the Buck crew achieved till now, wowww what a great achievement!!

    I (will) follow this thread with great interest, and hope the ‘Buck Crew’ keep up the good work and finally succeed with their plans!!!
  7. kmb1949, Aug 12, 2014
    #27
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    Thanks for the encouragement. Maybe someone will eventually see the benefit of the designs and step up to help commercialize it.
  8. Old Phart, Aug 12, 2014
    #28
    Old Phart

    Old Phart Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    I dunno
    Just curious.

    Would you be able to produce a Buck engine comparable to a

    MTU 16V 2000 M94 2600hp, in size, weight, and fuel efficiency?
  9. kmb1949, Aug 12, 2014
    #29
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    The MTU engine is 35.7 Liters. Our 2.5-16 engine is 40 Liters. Making the required 2600 HP should not be an issue since we will be less HP per liter. As for the size, the Buck should be close. It will probably be less in width and height. The length might be 3 or 4 inches longer. The weight should be much less. I would guess that the Buck might have a dry weight of around 5500 to 6000 pounds.

    If you were to use the 5.0-10 engine, it would be 50 liters and be approximately the same width and height. The length would be 80 inches or less where as the MTU is 123 inches. The weight should be even less. With the larger displacement, the engine should perform better and longer.
  10. K1W1, Aug 12, 2014
    #30
    K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,427
    Location:
    My Office
    Hi,

    What type of boost pressure are you running on your higher output models ( theory of course if none have been built)?
  11. kmb1949, Aug 12, 2014
    #31
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    On one prototype we were making 30 to 40 psi and the indicated BSFC was .28.
  12. rgsuspsa, Aug 12, 2014
    #32
    rgsuspsa

    rgsuspsa Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    A very telling indication of at the least, bad data for BSFC calculations. Such an assertion
    places all your prior representations into doubt. You should revisit your test procedures,
    data acquisition techniques and calculations prior to making a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) claim of .28 Lbs. of fuel per Horsepower-Hour.


    Ron Sparks
  13. kmb1949, Aug 12, 2014
    #33
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    As I stated, this was the indicated BSFC. The dynamometer uses two fuel flow meters. One reads the fuel flow in and the other meter is on the tank return line. The computer subtracts the return flow from the inlet flow and does the calculations. Right or wrong, this is what the computer was reporting. This was a 5 liter 4 cylinder diesel engine making 340 hp at 2800 rpm and close to 40psi boost. Call me a liar but I have the recorded dynamometer run data somewhere. This figure is certainly not something I would publish without further testing and verification, it is only what I saw.
  14. rgsuspsa, Aug 12, 2014
    #34
    rgsuspsa

    rgsuspsa Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    You have published it, on this forum.
  15. kmb1949, Aug 12, 2014
    #35
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    Take a look at this.

    Using BSFC #'s

    .28 is not an unusual # for a 4 stroke diesel engine.
  16. Old Phart, Aug 12, 2014
    #36
    Old Phart

    Old Phart Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    I dunno
    Just trying for a real world comparison, Motor Yacht Pumpkin received a refit to optimize slower speed efficiency with the use of four MTU 16V 2000 M94 2600hp engines - smaller replacing larger.


    Just curious if you would offer something that could efficiently occupy the same space.

    Pumpkin4Jets.jpg
  17. kmb1949, Aug 12, 2014
    #37
    kmb1949

    kmb1949 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    NC
    Buck engine

    Do you have any engine room pictures?
  18. Marmot, Aug 12, 2014
    #38
    Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,311
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    If you posted real numbers for real engines people would see that .28 lb/hp-hr is about 15 percent better than the most efficient 4-stroke marine diesels in existence today and equal to the Sulzer 12RTA96C with waste heat recovery which with an overall efficiency of nearly 55 percent, is the most economical slow speed 2-stroke diesel engine propulsion system on the planet today.

    If you have, your future may be platinum filled without having to risk a dime manufacturing and selling hardware ... just sell your secrets to Wartsila, M.A.N., or B&W.
  19. Old Phart, Aug 12, 2014
    #39
    Old Phart

    Old Phart Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    I dunno
    No.

    Website:

    Mangusta 165 | OVERMARINE GROUP


    The website configuration shows the normal engine configuration.


    Motor Yacht Pumpkin received a refit using a four engine configuration and improved water jets.
  20. K1W1, Aug 12, 2014
    #40
    K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,427
    Location:
    My Office
    Hi,

    I did a sea trial on one last year with a pair of 4000 series MTU's, I was told it was also available with 3 of them in it.

    Given the space on the one I was on I would not think there would be much room if they had a third biggie or 4 smaller ones in there.
Page 2 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.