Lycoming engine fails! Pilot survives!

[floater]

http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"floater" > wrote in message
om...
> http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html

Just imagine how much traction this story would get if the thing had had a
auto conversion on it.

Rick Pellicciotti

[Big John]

Rick

Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles and
marine applictions.

Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions <G>

Big John


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:45:49 -0600, "Rick Pellicciotti"
> wrote:

>
>"floater" > wrote in message
om...
>> http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html
>
>Just imagine how much traction this story would get if the thing had had a
>auto conversion on it.
>
>Rick Pellicciotti
>

[Jay]

"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
single-engine aircraft," he said.

Well said Mr. Swears.

90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?



"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message news:<3fbbc471$1@ham>...
> "floater" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html
>
> Just imagine how much traction this story would get if the thing had had a
> auto conversion on it.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti

[C J Campbell]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
| Rick
|
| Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles and
| marine applictions.
|
| Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions <G>
|

Actually, I thought their current engines are based on an engine used for
power generators.

[Paul Lee]

Strange his N534S registration record does not show airworthiness
certificate yet. Was that his maiden flight?

(floater) wrote in message >...
> http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/18/news/story4.html

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>Rick
>
>Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles and
>marine applictions.
>
>Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions <G>
>
>Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/

Kaiser and Fraiser enjoyed....
auto engines by CONTINENTAL.
http://www.geocities.com/gaac_oh/1955_Kaiser_Manhattan.html


Barnyard BOb -- a wealth of useless information

[Corky Scott]

On 19 Nov 2003 17:16:03 -0800, (Jay) wrote:

>"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
>single-engine aircraft," he said.
>
>Well said Mr. Swears.
>
>90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?

Just taking a guess, but if he was heading for San Francisco at this
time, his airplane must have been pretty heavily loaded. I've always
been impressed with how high the landing speed of many of the canards
is. This one, at it's max fuel load could easily have been around 80
or so. The guy probably did not want to let it get to the speed where
the canard lost lift and the nose pitched down.

I think even the Grumman F6F Hellcat landed slower than 90.

Corky Scott

[Mark Hickey]

- Barnyard BOb - > wrote:

>I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
>LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
>http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
>http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/

Didja buy it new? ;-)

Mark Hickey

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>>I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
>>LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
>>http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
>>http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/
>
>Didja buy it new? ;-)
>
>Mark Hickey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ouch.
I be wounded.

Bought it from the little ol' lady
that only drove it to Church on
Sunday when I was 7 teen.


Barnayrd BOb -- older than dirt

[John Stricker]

Not unusual. I cross the fence at 100 knots in the Twin Comanche and land
at 85 knots or so on a normal length runway.

John Stricker

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 Nov 2003 17:16:03 -0800, (Jay) wrote:
>
> >"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
> >single-engine aircraft," he said.
> >
> >Well said Mr. Swears.
> >
> >90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?
>
> Just taking a guess, but if he was heading for San Francisco at this
> time, his airplane must have been pretty heavily loaded. I've always
> been impressed with how high the landing speed of many of the canards
> is. This one, at it's max fuel load could easily have been around 80
> or so. The guy probably did not want to let it get to the speed where
> the canard lost lift and the nose pitched down.
>
> I think even the Grumman F6F Hellcat landed slower than 90.
>
> Corky Scott

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Jay) wrote in message >...
> "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
> single-engine aircraft," he said.
>
> Well said Mr. Swears.
>

OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one
engine alone you face twice the risk you do in a single-engine.

--

FF

[Brian Cox]

> >
> >Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles and
> >marine applictions.
> >
> >Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions <G>
> >
> >Big John
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
> LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
> http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/
>
> Kaiser and Fraiser enjoyed....
> auto engines by CONTINENTAL.
> http://www.geocities.com/gaac_oh/1955_Kaiser_Manhattan.html
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- a wealth of useless information

My father-in-law has a Massey Ferguson tractor. The nameplate on the
engine indicates that it was manufactured by Continental in Kalamazoo,
MI. The logo is the same as on my Continental IO-470s.

[B2431]

>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)

(Jay) wrote in message

>> "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
>> single-engine aircraft," he said.
>>
>> Well said Mr. Swears.
>>

>OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face
twice the risk you do in a single-engine.
>
>
>FF
>
Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago.
He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
dragging a second engine if one failed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Big John]

Dan

I thought he (his support group in St Louis) couldn't scrape up enough
money to buy a twin?

Big John

On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>
(Jay) wrote in message
>
>>> "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
>>> single-engine aircraft," he said.
>>>
>>> Well said Mr. Swears.
>>>
>
>>OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face
>twice the risk you do in a single-engine.
>>
>>
>>FF
>>
>Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago.
>He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
>dragging a second engine if one failed.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Big John]

Corky

Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines <G>

Big John


On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:55:55 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On 19 Nov 2003 17:16:03 -0800, (Jay) wrote:
>
>>"It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
>>single-engine aircraft," he said.
>>
>>Well said Mr. Swears.
>>
>>90MPH was the slowest he could get it before he went into the drink?
>
>Just taking a guess, but if he was heading for San Francisco at this
>time, his airplane must have been pretty heavily loaded. I've always
>been impressed with how high the landing speed of many of the canards
>is. This one, at it's max fuel load could easily have been around 80
>or so. The guy probably did not want to let it get to the speed where
>the canard lost lift and the nose pitched down.
>
>I think even the Grumman F6F Hellcat landed slower than 90.
>
>Corky Scott

[Blueskies]

..
"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> Dan
>
> I thought he (his support group in St Louis) couldn't scrape up enough
> money to buy a twin?
>
> Big John
>
> On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> >
> (Jay) wrote in message
> >
> >>> "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
> >>> single-engine aircraft," he said.
> >>>
> >>> Well said Mr. Swears.
> >>>
> >
> >>OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face
> >twice the risk you do in a single-engine.
> >>
> >>
> >>FF
> >>
> >Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago.
> >He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
> >dragging a second engine if one failed.
> >
> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it
would run for the required time and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs...

[BllFs6]

>> >He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
>> >dragging a second engine if one failed.
>> >

which brings up an interesting concept....

a twin engine plane where you can dump/drop the bad engine when it quits
working....


certainly not a trivial thing......but with modern explosive bolts and/or other
clever mechanical means ya never know.....

dumping a bad engine over land or near the airport probably NOT worth the
bother....

Being able to drop a bad engine halfway across crossing the ocean....probably
more worth considering.....

take care

Blll


I wonder if Burt Rutan considered dropping one of voyager engines at some point
in the voyager flight?

[Kevin Horton]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:40:36 +0000, Blueskies wrote:

> .
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan
>>
>> I thought he (his support group in St Louis) couldn't scrape up enough
>> money to buy a twin?
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>> >
>> (Jay) wrote in message
>> >
>> >>> "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
>> >>> single-engine aircraft," he said.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well said Mr. Swears.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone
>> >>you face
>> >twice the risk you do in a single-engine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>FF
>> >>
>> >Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long
>> >time ago. He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he
>> >couldn't see dragging a second engine if one failed.
>> >
>> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
> From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is
> why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it would run for the required time
> and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs...

I would imagine that given the large fuel load required, the weight for a
significant portion of the flight would have been high enough that the
aircraft would not have been able to maintain altitude if one engine
failed. So in this case all a second engine would have done would be
double the odds of ending up in the drink for a significant portion of the
flight.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[B2431]

>From: (BllFs6)
>Date: 11/21/2003 6:47 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>> >He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
>>> >dragging a second engine if one failed.
>>> >
>
>which brings up an interesting concept....
>
>a twin engine plane where you can dump/drop the bad engine when it quits
>working....
>
>
>certainly not a trivial thing......but with modern explosive bolts and/or
>other
>clever mechanical means ya never know.....
>
>dumping a bad engine over land or near the airport probably NOT worth the
>bother....
>
>Being able to drop a bad engine halfway across crossing the ocean....probably
>more worth considering.....
>
>take care
>
>Blll
>
>
>I wonder if Burt Rutan considered dropping one of voyager engines at some
>point
>in the voyager flight?
>
Dropping an engine would tend to mess up one's center of gravity a tad.

The only case I can see where it might work would be in the Ju-52(3M). It
origionally flew with only the nose engine. I guess punching off the outboards
might not mess up things too bad unless you are on the ground an catch one.

The question is why throw away a few kilodollars worth of perfectly good
engine?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Riley]

On 22 Nov 2003 09:13:08 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

:>From: (BllFs6)
:>Date: 11/21/2003 6:47 PM Central Standard Time
:>Message-id: >
:>
:>>> >He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
:>>> >dragging a second engine if one failed.
:>>> >
:>
:>which brings up an interesting concept....
:>
:>a twin engine plane where you can dump/drop the bad engine when it quits
:>working....
:>
:>
:>certainly not a trivial thing......but with modern explosive bolts and/or
:>other
:>clever mechanical means ya never know.....
:>
:>dumping a bad engine over land or near the airport probably NOT worth the
:>bother....
:>
:>Being able to drop a bad engine halfway across crossing the ocean....probably
:>more worth considering.....
:>
:>take care
:>
:>Blll
:>
:>
:>I wonder if Burt Rutan considered dropping one of voyager engines at some
:>point
:>in the voyager flight?
:>
:Dropping an engine would tend to mess up one's center of gravity a tad.
:
:The only case I can see where it might work would be in the Ju-52(3M). It
:origionally flew with only the nose engine. I guess punching off the outboards
:might not mess up things too bad unless you are on the ground an catch one.
:
:The question is why throw away a few kilodollars worth of perfectly good
:engine?

It would violate the rules of the NAA and FAI, the groups that award
the records, or they certainly would have used drop tanks. They
didn't even drop out their - ahem - used food.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Kevin Horton > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:40:36 +0000, Blueskies wrote:
>
> >>
> >> On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>
> >> (Jay) wrote in message
>
> >> >>> "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a
> >> >>> single-engine aircraft," he said.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well said Mr. Swears.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone
> >> >>you face
> twice the risk you do in a single-engine.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>FF
> >> >>
> >> >Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long
> >> >time ago. He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he
> >> >couldn't see dragging a second engine if one failed.
> >> >
> >> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >>
> > From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is
> > why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it would run for the required time
> > and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs...
>
> I would imagine that given the large fuel load required, the weight for a
> significant portion of the flight would have been high enough that the
> aircraft would not have been able to maintain altitude if one engine
> failed. So in this case all a second engine would have done would be
> double the odds of ending up in the drink for a significant portion of the
> flight.

Yes. Lindbergh's decision to fly a single engine aircraft was the
example an old engineer used when explaining to me the difference
between redundancy and multiple opportunities for failure.

--

FF

[John Stricker]

Probably a Massey Harris, not a Massey Ferguson and, most likely, a model
101. Same company, but nothing similar to an aircraft engine. Up to about
20 years ago, guys slapped a turbo on them, revved them to about 5500 rpm,
and used them for tractor pullers. Stock they had about 50 hp, I've seen
them pull over 250 on a dyno running about 20 psi boost. Haven't seen one
modded up like that for years, though. Massey used a lot of Continentals
and Standard engines as well as their own engines back then.

Now that I think about it, though, I do think they used a Continental in the
135 and 235 series of MF tractors, 4 cylinders, something like 35 hp.
Anything bigger than that in MF, though, was either a Waukesha, Perkins, or
their own.

Massey used Continentals in a few things including combines and other
equipment.

John Stricker

"Brian Cox" > wrote in message
om...
> > >
> > >Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles and
> > >marine applictions.
> > >
> > >Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions <G>
> > >
> > >Big John
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
> > LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
> > http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
> > http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/
> >
> > Kaiser and Fraiser enjoyed....
> > auto engines by CONTINENTAL.
> > http://www.geocities.com/gaac_oh/1955_Kaiser_Manhattan.html
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb -- a wealth of useless information
>
> My father-in-law has a Massey Ferguson tractor. The nameplate on the
> engine indicates that it was manufactured by Continental in Kalamazoo,
> MI. The logo is the same as on my Continental IO-470s.

[Morgans]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message

> Now that I think about it, though, I do think they used a Continental in
the
> 135 and 235 series of MF tractors, 4 cylinders, something like 35 hp.
> Anything bigger than that in MF, though, was either a Waukesha, Perkins,
or
> their own.
>
> Massey used Continentals in a few things including combines and other
> equipment.
>
> John Stricker

I worked on a friend's MF, and to my surprise, it had a Cessna hydraulic
pump, used for the power steering!
--
Jim in NC
>
> "Brian Cox" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > >
> > > >Lycoming started life manufacturing piston engines for automobiles
and
> > > >marine applictions.
> > > >
> > > >Guess their curraent engines are just auto conversions <G>
> > > >
> > > >Big John
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > I once owned a 1938 Auburn with....
> > > LYCOMING STRAIGHT 8.
> > > http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
> > > http://auburn-duesenberg-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/
> > >
> > > Kaiser and Fraiser enjoyed....
> > > auto engines by CONTINENTAL.
> > > http://www.geocities.com/gaac_oh/1955_Kaiser_Manhattan.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Barnyard BOb -- a wealth of useless information
> >
> > My father-in-law has a Massey Ferguson tractor. The nameplate on the
> > engine indicates that it was manufactured by Continental in Kalamazoo,
> > MI. The logo is the same as on my Continental IO-470s.
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:41:37 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Corky
>
>Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
>this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines <G>
>
>Big John

Big John, to the best of my knowledge, I try not to nitpick. I try to
present facts as I know them.

I believe that there are various auto engines that can be successfully
converted and I believe it strongly enough that I'm assembling a Ford
V6 in my shop that will be the engine I fly behind.

You weren't here when this subject was first aired many years ago, but
there were many sceptics... actually that's not a strong enough word.
There were some extremely vocal critics of the concept who felt that
no auto engine would work in an airplane. One of them was an auto
engineer, a guy who used to work for the Chaparal Racing Team with Jim
Hall. He was absolutely positive that V configured auto engines would
disintegrate (literally) under the stress. He also believed they
could not cool because the coolant passages were too small and the
cylinders too close together. He was wrong.

In order to build a reliable auto conversion, you do have to do your
homework. You have to safety wire just about everything that could
come off including the oil pan bolts. You have to build using
accepted aviation practices. There have been guys who screwed gas or
oil lines into the block and then ran them to the firewall. They
broke. You can't mount pipes solidly to the block and run them for
any distance, prop vibration will eventually crack them.

The guy who developed the Ford V6 discovered that the stud that holds
the air filter can and will unscrew and drop into the engine, if you
don't safety wire it. How did he discover this? Because it did. It
was one of the many flights in which he coasted back to the runway.

By now, many guys have successfully built and flown the Ford V6. One
guy accumulated more than 2,000 hours without anything falling off or
failing. Others are in the over a thousand hours hobbs time category.
For some reason, success stories like this don't seem to matter to
those who feel using an auto engine won't work.

I do intend to test run the engine extensively. I'm fabricating an
engine test stand along with the engine assembly process. While it's
true this doesn't exactly duplicate the stresses encountered during
flight, it's the best I can do, and better than just hanging it on the
airframe and testing the engine during the very first flight. One
thing at a time please.

Corky Scott

[Big John]

To walk before you run.

Didn't mean to draw a long history Corky. I've followed the discussion
here for a while and inspected and evaluated converted engines, etc.
for many years. I just wanted to point out another bit of triva that
you could use in protecting yourself from the 'nit pickers' who have
taken you to task on the Group.

Big John


On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:22 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:41:37 -0600, Big John >
>wrote:
>
>>Corky
>>
>>Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
>>this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines <G>
>>
>>Big John
>
>Big John, to the best of my knowledge, I try not to nitpick. I try to
>present facts as I know them.

----clip----

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:22 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:41:37 -0600, Big John >
>wrote:
>
>>Corky
>>
>>Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
>>this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines <G>
>>
>>Big John
>
>Big John, to the best of my knowledge, I try not to nitpick. I try to
>present facts as I know them.
>
>I believe that there are various auto engines that can be successfully
>converted and I believe it strongly enough that I'm assembling a Ford
>V6 in my shop that will be the engine I fly behind.

Who is the guy near Lakeland that uses, or used the Aluminum small
block Chevy in the Lancair IV-P? Think it was just shy of 400 cu
inch.

He did a lot of testing including dyno work.
After he had the front web separate on take off he went out and
purchased the equipment to cast his own blocks. He figured the front
web was too weak to take the PSRU stresses.

I talked to him at Oshkosh a few years back and he figured that he had
over 7 figures into the engine operation at that time.
Admittedly there are few of us who can afford to do that, but he was
developing a lot of useful information the rest of us could, or might
be able to use.

He had flown the rig to Oshkosh from Lakeland in about 3 hours, so
that sucker did haul. Don't know about engine life and durability
though.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:40:13 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:


>Who is the guy near Lakeland that uses, or used the Aluminum small
>block Chevy in the Lancair IV-P? Think it was just shy of 400 cu
>inch.
>
>He did a lot of testing including dyno work.
>After he had the front web separate on take off he went out and
>purchased the equipment to cast his own blocks. He figured the front
>web was too weak to take the PSRU stresses.
>
>I talked to him at Oshkosh a few years back and he figured that he had
>over 7 figures into the engine operation at that time.
>Admittedly there are few of us who can afford to do that, but he was
>developing a lot of useful information the rest of us could, or might
>be able to use.
>
>He had flown the rig to Oshkosh from Lakeland in about 3 hours, so
>that sucker did haul. Don't know about engine life and durability
>though.
>
>You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
That would be Jim Rahm of Enginair. In a former life he was the no. 2
guy behind "HURST" as in Hurst shifters. Auto's and hotrodding were
his life, until he discovered aviation. Hotrodding an airplane just
seemed a natural to him.

You're right, the engine had a LOT of engineering and dyno development
and so far has performed flawlessly. The PSRU on the other hand, has
been problematic. The PSRU was the one thing he felt should be done
by people who knew how to do them, and contracted NIS to develop one.

To make a long story short, the PSRU did not work well and things have
been in litigation for a while. Making a PSRU to handle 120 to 180
horsepower is one thing, making one to handle over 400 horsepower is
something entirely different.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:20:55 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

The PSRU was the one thing he felt should be done
>by people who knew how to do them, and contracted NIS to develop one.
>
>To make a long story short, the PSRU did not work well and things have
>been in litigation for a while. Making a PSRU to handle 120 to 180
>horsepower is one thing, making one to handle over 400 horsepower is
>something entirely different.
>
>Corky Scott

Sorry, that should be NSI.

Corky Scott

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:57:49 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:20:55 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:
>
> The PSRU was the one thing he felt should be done
>>by people who knew how to do them, and contracted NIS to develop one.
>>
>>To make a long story short, the PSRU did not work well and things have
>>been in litigation for a while. Making a PSRU to handle 120 to 180
>>horsepower is one thing, making one to handle over 400 horsepower is
>>something entirely different.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>

Thanks Corky,

I appreciate the info.
As I see it (and I don't know squat about PSRUs except their goal) a
high ratio PSRU as used in a turbo prop which has a very high ratio
(planetary) is easier to build than say the 2:1 or 3:1, BUT the
planetary also has the advantage in being used on an engine without
pulses being inherent in their operation.

The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not
only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other
imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any
resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and
negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means
next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems).
Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of
pluses and minuses.

BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course
those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't
exactly babied either.

Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the
Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but
they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a
drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I
talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had
plenty of reserve.
I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front.

>Sorry, that should be NSI.

I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum
based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was
right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web
broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web
broke and it was a high pucker factor.

That sucker sure did go though. The only thing that would have been
able to beat him from Lakeland to Oshkosh would have been a jet and it
would have had to have been a direct, non stop flight.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:


>The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not
>only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other
>imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any
>resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and
>negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means
>next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems).
>Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of
>pluses and minuses.

Most manufacturers seem to take the attitude that big is strong and
bigger is stronger. In order to resist the impulses and resonances
you mention, they just design huge gears to take the load.

>BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course
>those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't
>exactly babied either.

Yup, the Roll Royce Merlin uses a spur gear reduction drive, driven
off a torque tube. Those gears are some big. Every single one of the
big radials also used a reduction drive, but was a planetary type, not
spur. I think the low TBO was more due to the nature of the treatment
of the engine during combat than something inherent in the design.
But come to think of it, they still don't have a very high TBO even
now, when they don't have to be run up to military power for every
takeoff.

By the way, the Rolls Royce Griffon engine was sort of two 12 cylinder
engines siamesed together for a total of 24 cylinders. I'd hate to
work on that thing.

>Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the
>Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but
>they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a
>drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I
>talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had
>plenty of reserve.
>I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front.
>
>>Sorry, that should be NSI.
>
>I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum
>based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was
>right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web
>broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web
>broke and it was a high pucker factor.

I hadn't heard that the web broke. The story I got was that they did
some computer analysis of the engine design and factored in the prop
forces that would be transferred to the block by the PSRU and decided
to add material to the block where the PSRU bolted on. Of course, Jim
could have told me this AFTER the engine broke, don't know.

Corky Scott

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not
> >only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other
> >imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any
> >resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and
> >negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means
> >next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems).
> >Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of
> >pluses and minuses.
>
> Most manufacturers seem to take the attitude that big is strong and
> bigger is stronger. In order to resist the impulses and resonances
> you mention, they just design huge gears to take the load.
>
> >BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course
> >those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't
> >exactly babied either.
>
> Yup, the Roll Royce Merlin uses a spur gear reduction drive, driven
> off a torque tube. Those gears are some big. Every single one of the
> big radials also used a reduction drive, but was a planetary type, not
> spur. I think the low TBO was more due to the nature of the treatment
> of the engine during combat than something inherent in the design.
> But come to think of it, they still don't have a very high TBO even
> now, when they don't have to be run up to military power for every
> takeoff.
>
> By the way, the Rolls Royce Griffon engine was sort of two 12 cylinder
> engines siamesed together for a total of 24 cylinders. I'd hate to
> work on that thing.
>
> >Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the
> >Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but
> >they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a
> >drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I
> >talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had
> >plenty of reserve.
> >I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front.
> >
> >>Sorry, that should be NSI.
> >
> >I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum
> >based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was
> >right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web
> >broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web
> >broke and it was a high pucker factor.
>
> I hadn't heard that the web broke. The story I got was that they did
> some computer analysis of the engine design and factored in the prop
> forces that would be transferred to the block by the PSRU and decided
> to add material to the block where the PSRU bolted on. Of course, Jim
> could have told me this AFTER the engine broke, don't know.
>
> Corky Scott
Corky,
Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER:

http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.spitfire.org

[Peter Dohm]

Rick Pellicciotti wrote:
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not
> > >only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other
> > >imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any
> > >resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and
> > >negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means
> > >next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems).
> > >Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of
> > >pluses and minuses.
> >
> > Most manufacturers seem to take the attitude that big is strong and
> > bigger is stronger. In order to resist the impulses and resonances
> > you mention, they just design huge gears to take the load.
> >
> > >BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course
> > >those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't
> > >exactly babied either.
> >
> > Yup, the Roll Royce Merlin uses a spur gear reduction drive, driven
> > off a torque tube. Those gears are some big. Every single one of the
> > big radials also used a reduction drive, but was a planetary type, not
> > spur. I think the low TBO was more due to the nature of the treatment
> > of the engine during combat than something inherent in the design.
> > But come to think of it, they still don't have a very high TBO even
> > now, when they don't have to be run up to military power for every
> > takeoff.
> >
> > By the way, the Rolls Royce Griffon engine was sort of two 12 cylinder
> > engines siamesed together for a total of 24 cylinders. I'd hate to
> > work on that thing.
> >
> > >Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the
> > >Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but
> > >they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a
> > >drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I
> > >talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had
> > >plenty of reserve.
> > >I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front.
> > >
> > >>Sorry, that should be NSI.
> > >
> > >I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum
> > >based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was
> > >right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web
> > >broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web
> > >broke and it was a high pucker factor.
> >
> > I hadn't heard that the web broke. The story I got was that they did
> > some computer analysis of the engine design and factored in the prop
> > forces that would be transferred to the block by the PSRU and decided
> > to add material to the block where the PSRU bolted on. Of course, Jim
> > could have told me this AFTER the engine broke, don't know.
> >
> > Corky Scott
> Corky,
> Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER:
>
> http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> http://www.spitfire.org

However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon engines:
1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which
rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the
Merlin engined aircraft. I have been told that it killed a few
unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on
take-off. :-(
2 On the Lancaster, and on at least one single engined attack
aircraft (I can't recall the name), it was equipped with a pair
of concentric contra-rotating propellers. As you say, though,
the engine itself was similar but BIGGER.

Regards,

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:41:37 -0600, Big John >
> wrote:
>
> >Corky
> >
> >Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in
> >this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines <G>
> >
> >Big John
>
> Big John, to the best of my knowledge, I try not to nitpick. I try to
> present facts as I know them.
>
> I believe that there are various auto engines that can be successfully
> converted and I believe it strongly enough that I'm assembling a Ford
> V6 in my shop that will be the engine I fly behind.
>
> You weren't here when this subject was first aired many years ago, but
> there were many sceptics... actually that's not a strong enough word.
> There were some extremely vocal critics of the concept who felt that
> no auto engine would work in an airplane. One of them was an auto
> engineer, a guy who used to work for the Chaparal Racing Team with Jim
> Hall. He was absolutely positive that V configured auto engines would
> disintegrate (literally) under the stress. He also believed they
> could not cool because the coolant passages were too small and the
> cylinders too close together. He was wrong.
>
> In order to build a reliable auto conversion, you do have to do your
> homework. You have to safety wire just about everything that could
> come off including the oil pan bolts. You have to build using
> accepted aviation practices. There have been guys who screwed gas or
> oil lines into the block and then ran them to the firewall. They
> broke. You can't mount pipes solidly to the block and run them for
> any distance, prop vibration will eventually crack them.
>
> The guy who developed the Ford V6 discovered that the stud that holds
> the air filter can and will unscrew and drop into the engine, if you
> don't safety wire it. How did he discover this? Because it did. It
> was one of the many flights in which he coasted back to the runway.
>
> By now, many guys have successfully built and flown the Ford V6. One
> guy accumulated more than 2,000 hours without anything falling off or
> failing. Others are in the over a thousand hours hobbs time category.
> For some reason, success stories like this don't seem to matter to
> those who feel using an auto engine won't work.
>
> I do intend to test run the engine extensively. I'm fabricating an
> engine test stand along with the engine assembly process. While it's
> true this doesn't exactly duplicate the stresses encountered during
> flight, it's the best I can do, and better than just hanging it on the
> airframe and testing the engine during the very first flight. One
> thing at a time please.
>
> Corky Scott

First, I apologize for the delayed posting in the middle of a thread.
I can only say that it has been a strange week ...

My personal view, not fully substantiated be research, is that most
(and possibly all) of the current automotive engines can be successfully
converted for aircraft use. However many of them have shortcomings that
make them less attractive.

I might not bother with an engine that I expect to have significant
vibration modes other than torsion. For example; I doubt that I would
convert any of the three cylinder engines, even if it had balance shafts,
as an inline four could be a much smoother installation. My hypothesis
is that the pitch oscillation of the three cylinder, and possibly some
of the 90 degree vee six, engines would add stresses to the propeller
and PSRU. OTOH, there are a lot of 90 degree vee six engines flying...

Probably the best question is not whether an automotive engine can be
made reliable; but whether a purpose-built engine is available and
competitively priced for the application. For example, Jabiru offers
ram air cooled engines of 80 and 120 horsepower; provided that the
aircraft is fast enough to use a 60 inch diameter prop. Rotax offers
engines with a hybrid cooling scheme...

As I recall, Blanton's conversion was originally for glider towing.
According to the story I was told, the reduction drive allowed the Ford
vee six to produce thrust similar to a much more powerful direct
drive aircraft engine--at towing speeds. Unfortunately, the story
later circulated that the engine produced mathematically ridiculous
amounts of horsepower...

So, I may eventually build with an automotive conversion. Or may not.
The choice is not "open and shut".

Regards,
Peter

[Big John]

Roger

Merlin (in P-51) turned 3000 rpm on take off. Prop speed was 1500 rpm
(2 to 1 reduction gearing).

Engine life was about 250+/- hrs (not in combat).

Probably happened but never heard of the reduction gearing 'going
west'. Was not a 'common' failure mode to be worrried about.

Big John


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:57:49 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:20:55 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:
>>
>> The PSRU was the one thing he felt should be done
>>>by people who knew how to do them, and contracted NIS to develop one.
>>>
>>>To make a long story short, the PSRU did not work well and things have
>>>been in litigation for a while. Making a PSRU to handle 120 to 180
>>>horsepower is one thing, making one to handle over 400 horsepower is
>>>something entirely different.
>>>
>>>Corky Scott
>>
>
>Thanks Corky,
>
>I appreciate the info.
>As I see it (and I don't know squat about PSRUs except their goal) a
>high ratio PSRU as used in a turbo prop which has a very high ratio
>(planetary) is easier to build than say the 2:1 or 3:1, BUT the
>planetary also has the advantage in being used on an engine without
>pulses being inherent in their operation.
>
>The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not
>only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other
>imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any
>resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and
>negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means
>next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems).
>Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of
>pluses and minuses.
>
>BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course
>those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't
>exactly babied either.

----clip----

[RR Urban]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:13:03 GMT, Peter Dohm >
wrote:

>
>However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon engines:
>1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which
> rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the
> Merlin engined aircraft.




> I have been told that it killed a few
> unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on
> take-off. :-(

>Regards,
>
>Peter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Really.

Who told you such?
Sounds like wannabee myth and legend
without some serious documentation.


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Rich S.]

"karel adams" > wrote in message
...
>
> . . . he's certainly a serious guy with a lot of flying hours (though less
than UB of course)
> and he's a university teacher besides.

He's a pilot AND a university teacher? And you believe ANYTHING he says?
Wow!

Rich S.

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"RR Urban" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:13:03 GMT, Peter Dohm >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon engines:
> >1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which
> > rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the
> > Merlin engined aircraft.
>
>

All Griffon engines rotated in the opposite direction of the Merlin.

>
> > I have been told that it killed a few
> > unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on
> > take-off. :-(
>
> >Regards,
> >
> >Peter
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't believe this for a minute. Pilots put in rudder inputs based on
what the airplane is DOING, not what it is expected to do. I fly an
airplane (from time to time) that requires full left rudder at the start of
the takeoff roll (Nanchang CJ-6, left turning engine, non steerable nose
wheel). When I get out of it and get back in my Waco (right turning engine,
tailwheel) I don't start steering it to the left automatically, I do
whatever I have to do with the rudders to keep it straight.

There have been many times that I needed full left rudder at the start of my
takeoff with the Waco (hard crosswind from the right).

Rick Pellicciotti

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:27:25 -0600, "Rick Pellicciotti"
> wrote:


>Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER:
>
>http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm
>
>Rick Pellicciotti
>http://www.spitfire.org
>
>
Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of the Napier Sabre type H engine.

It was used in the Typhoon and Tempest.

See: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/

Corky Scott

[RR Urban]

>> > I have been told that it killed a few
>> > unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on
>> > take-off. :-(
>>
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Peter
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Really.
>>
>> Who told you such?
>> Sounds like wannabee myth and legend
>> without some serious documentation.
>
>I was told about serious difficulties for pilots converting
>(though not about casualties ) in exactly this story
>in my PPL ground course. The teacher's identity
>is available though not on this forum, but he's certainly
>a serious guy with a lot of flying hours (though less than UB of course)
>and he's a university teacher besides.

>Just before this, he had explained that the TO procedure
>for powerful fighters like the P51 Mustang prescribed
>several precise steps of adding power and corrective steering,
>with lifting the tail somewhere in between.
>
>KA - first flight real soon now
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry Karel,
All really experienced pilots I know... just FLY THE AIRPLANE
when they are through reading 'the book'.

Your instructor may be a serious guy as a professor, but as a
first class pilot, I have some reservations. Read Rick Pellicciotti's
post and you will be on the right track, IMHO.

Maybe BIg John, as an experienced P-51 pilot, will add
to your knowledge base about P-51 TO procedures.
By the book....AND by his personal experience.
What say you, John? <g>

FWIW....
No question, the military has 'numbers' for everything.
As aviation cadets in the '50's, the USAF had us
memorize tons and tons of precise numbers.
****... they even had exact procedures for us
underclassmen on how to eat a military meal.

It was a bitch Karel, a real bitch !
Half the guys washed out early on.

Barnyard BOb - first flight way over 50 years ago.

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:27:25 -0600, "Rick Pellicciotti"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER:
> >
> >http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm
> >
> >Rick Pellicciotti
> >http://www.spitfire.org
> >
> >
> Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of the Napier Sabre type H engine.
>
> It was used in the Typhoon and Tempest.
>
> See: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/
>
> Corky Scott

Yes, that was a manly engine if there ever was one.

Rick

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:50:52 GMT, Peter Dohm >
wrote:


>As I recall, Blanton's conversion was originally for glider towing.
>According to the story I was told, the reduction drive allowed the Ford
>vee six to produce thrust similar to a much more powerful direct
>drive aircraft engine--at towing speeds. Unfortunately, the story
>later circulated that the engine produced mathematically ridiculous
>amounts of horsepower...
>
>So, I may eventually build with an automotive conversion. Or may not.
>The choice is not "open and shut".
>
>Regards,
>Peter

Not exactly Peter. Blanton's conversion was for anyone who wanted to
use it, fast airplanes or slow. Turns out, one guy who did want to
use it belonged to an Aussie glider towing club. His original intent
was to see if he could certify the engine in Australia for that
purpose.

He got the engine and PSRU from Blanton at a time when Blanton was
declining in health and mind. The PSRU had a lot of problems and the
glider group spent a LOT of time refining the carburation and
induction. Eventually they got it right, both with the PSRU and the
induction and it's been towing gliders ever since. That was some
seven or eight years ago. The engine and PSRU are still going strong
and have not been overhauled or required overhaul since they finished
their development.

They tow gliders in their Pawnee with this engine, which in it's
former life, used a Continental O-470. The Ford 3.8 swings the same
prop the 0-470 did, at the same prop rpm. The Ford burns
SUBSTANTIALLY less fuel than the 0-470 did doing the same operation.

There's a very specific reason for this: The typical glider operation
involves a takeoff with glider in tow, a climb to 5,000 or so feet,
release and return to the airport for another tow immediately. That's
all it does, no cross country where the engine would be leaned out for
best fuel burn.

Under these identical operations, the Ford uses less fuel because once
the glider is cast off, the pilot simply closes the throttle to idle
and returns to the field with the engine at idle the entire time.
When they were using the 0-470, the engine came back under power and
also used full rich during the climb to release, which engaged the
power valve and used a lot of fuel.

As to the mathematically ridiculous amounts of horsepower being
reported, there was only one person claiming that, David Blanton, the
original developer. He was mistaken. Unfortunately, he had the type
of personality that did not allow him to accept criticism or
corrections (hmm, sounds like he'd fit right in here :-)). His method
of calculating horsepower had him claiming nearly 300 horsepower at
sea level for a 232 cid V-6 at 4800 rpm. Without supercharging,
that's just not possible. Others have checked their rated power with
a dyno and have produced a far more believable 180 to 235. The guy
who managed 235 got it by turning the engine at 5300 rpm. That's more
than I dare go. Almost all the builders use 4800 as the redline.

Blanton also originally specified a 500 cfm two barrel carburator. If
you do the math using the standard carb sizing formula from Holley
(Engine Size (CID) X Maximum RPM / 3456=CFM) you get 322.222 cubic
feet per minute (232x4800/3456). Sure, the 500 CFM carburator will
work, after all it did for years, but it's overkill and wastes gas.
Those who dared to buck Blanton (because they knew carburation, could
apply the formula and realised they were over-carbing) discovered that
using a 350 CFM carburator worked just fine, gave equal power but used
less fuel. This is not conjecture, this has been reported several
times by those who made the switch. One guy reported going from 9 or
10 (can't remember exactly) gallons per hour to 8 gallons per hour.

Blanton is gone now, and unfortunately his "take no prisoners" stand
in regards the horsepower issue, cost him a lot of credibility before
he died.

People still remember that issue when the mention of using a Ford V-6
comes up.

Corky Scott

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:19:59 -0600, RR Urban wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:13:03 GMT, Peter Dohm >
> wrote:
>
>
>>However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon
>>engines: 1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which
>> rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the Merlin
>> engined aircraft.
>
>
>
>
>> I have been told that it killed a few
>> unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on
>> take-off.
>> :-(
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Peter
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Really.
>
> Who told you such?
> Sounds like wannabee myth and legend
> without some serious documentation.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

Have a look at "Spitfire, a Complete Fighting History", Alfred Price,
1991, page 97. The caption to a photo of a Spitfire XII says "The Griffon
rotated the opposite direction to the Merlin; thus, instead of the
accustomed swing to the left during take-off, the Griffon Spitfires swung
strongly to the right. On one occasion a pilot took off in one of the new
Spitfires without receiving a briefing on this important difference. As
he lined-up for take-off he wound on full right rudder trim and put on a
bootful of right rudder to catch the expected fierce torque from the
engine when it took effect. He pushed open the throttle, and with
everything set the wrong way, the Spitfire swung viciously to the right
like an unleashed animal; she finally got airborne at ninety degrees to
the intended direction of take-off, narrowly missing a hangar in her path.
It was an extremely attentive young man who landed the Spitfire a few
minutes later, to learn the mysteries of the new version!"

The photos clearly show the prop it pitched in the opposite direction on
the Griffon Spits. But, according to this book at least, this didn't kill
a few pilots.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[David O]

Kevin Horton > wrote:

>The photos clearly show the prop it pitched in the opposite direction on
>the Griffon Spits. But, according to this book at least, this didn't kill
>a few pilots.

And for those who don't have ready access to a picture, here is a
Griffon powered Spitfire sporting a beautiful five-blade prop at
Oshkosh 2002,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2002/page84.html

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"David O" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Horton > wrote:
>
> >The photos clearly show the prop it pitched in the opposite direction on
> >the Griffon Spits. But, according to this book at least, this didn't
kill
> >a few pilots.
>
> And for those who don't have ready access to a picture, here is a
> Griffon powered Spitfire sporting a beautiful five-blade prop at
> Oshkosh 2002,
>
> http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2002/page84.html
>
> David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>
And here is what will be the only flyable Seafire F.47 with Griffon engine
and contra rotating 3-blade props:

http://www.spitfire.org/images/seafire.jpg

Restoration not quite complete.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.spitfire.org

[Big John]

Karel

P-51 take off

Release brakes.
Smoothly move throttle full forward to 'gate'. (61 inches & 3000 rpm)
Stick in neutral to keep tail wheel on ground.
Steer with rudder peddles and tail wheel while accelerating.
At 40-50 mph smoothly pick tail up to get forward visibility and at
same time add MORE right rudder to counteract torque.
Rotate 90-95 and take off and accelerate to climb speed.
Start trimming bird (which you do through out flight with airspeed
and/or power changes).

All that being said--------------------

Was watching one of the sister Squadrons (80th FIS) make take offs
with full drop tanks and 6 HVAR's (close to full load for bird).

One pilot started his T/O roll and about the time he got full power on
saw the elevator go full down (stick forward) so he could pick up tail
and see over the nose.

Aa soon as the tail wheel left the ground the bird immediately made a
90 degree left turn, ran off runway into a 6 foot drainage ditch. Took
all of 5 seconds for this to happen.

So, it doesn't pay to play around with the torque on the Merlin <G>

Big John


Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:51:10 -0000, "karel adams"
> wrote:

----clip----

....................., he had explained that the TO procedure
>for powerful fighters like the P51 Mustang prescribed
>several precise steps of adding power and corrective steering,
>with lifting the tail somewhere in between.

[David O]

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote:

>And here is what will be the only flyable Seafire F.47 with Griffon engine
>and contra rotating 3-blade props:
>
>http://www.spitfire.org/images/seafire.jpg
>
>Restoration not quite complete.
>
>Rick Pellicciotti
>http://www.spitfire.org


Terrific!

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Whunicut]

>Karel
>
>P-51 take off
>
>Release brakes.
>Smoothly move throttle full forward to 'gate'. (61 inches & 3000 rpm)
>Stick in neutral to keep tail wheel on ground.
>Steer with rudder peddles and tail wheel while accelerating.
<snipped>

Tail wheel locked?
Or is that included in the pretakeoff check?

Warren

[Big John]

Waren

Probably should have mentioned ???? .

However.

Taxiing to run up 'pad' at end of runway, tail wheel was hard
connected to rudder and rudder peddles (your term locked). You
couldn't control the A/C and taxi with the tail wheel unlocked and 'S'
for ahead clearance.

When you got to run up pad you normally had to unlock (stick full
forward) the tail wheel to pivot on one wheel to get nose pretty much
into the wind.

You didn't want to run up pointing downwind for several reasons. Over
temp of engine and any tail wind reduced the effectiveness of the up
elevator used to keep from nosing over on run up.

After run up, you had to lock the tail wheel (stick back and move
rudder peddles back and forth until the lock engaged) You could then
steer the aircraft onto the R/W and line up.

Since you had to have the tail wheel engaged to taxi onto R/W, I never
checked it when in Number One for take off as was locked to taxi on
the R/W. Lots of words to answer a simple question :o)

Big John

All that being said, we had a couple of pilots that never flew on
'jock hangs' (Group mission with 60 A/C and full ordnance load of drop
tanks or bombs and HVAR's.). Taxiing out with tail wheel locked they
would put in full rudder and then hit the brake with the turn. This
caused the tail of A/C to skid sideways and would roll the tire off
the rim and blow it. ie, instant abort :o(

Big John

On 06 Dec 2003 15:38:38 GMT, (Whunicut) wrote:

>>Karel
>>
>>P-51 take off
>>
>>Release brakes.
>>Smoothly move throttle full forward to 'gate'. (61 inches & 3000 rpm)
>>Stick in neutral to keep tail wheel on ground.
>>Steer with rudder peddles and tail wheel while accelerating.
><snipped>
>
>Tail wheel locked?
>Or is that included in the pretakeoff check?
>
>Warren

[Whunicut]

>Waren
>
>Probably should have mentioned ???? .
>
>However.
>
>Taxiing to run up 'pad' at end of runway, tail wheel was hard
>connected to rudder and rudder peddles (your term locked). You
>couldn't control the A/C and taxi with the tail wheel unlocked and 'S'
>for ahead clearance.
>
>When you got to run up pad you normally had to unlock (stick full
>forward) the tail wheel to pivot on one wheel to get nose pretty much
>into the wind.
>
>You didn't want to run up pointing downwind for several reasons. Over
>temp of engine and any tail wind reduced the effectiveness of the up
>elevator used to keep from nosing over on run up.
>
>After run up, you had to lock the tail wheel (stick back and move
>rudder peddles back and forth until the lock engaged) You could then
>steer the aircraft onto the R/W and line up.
>
>Since you had to have the tail wheel engaged to taxi onto R/W, I never
>checked it when in Number One for take off as was locked to taxi on
>the R/W. Lots of words to answer a simple question :o)
>
>Big John
>
>All that being said, we had a couple of pilots that never flew on
>'jock hangs' (Group mission with 60 A/C and full ordnance load of drop
>tanks or bombs and HVAR's.). Taxiing out with tail wheel locked they
>would put in full rudder and then hit the brake with the turn. This
>caused the tail of A/C to skid sideways and would roll the tire off
>the rim and blow it. ie, instant abort :o(
>
>Big John
>
>On 06 Dec 2003 15:38:38 GMT, (Whunicut) wrote:
>

Good post, Big John.
I remember the SNJ had the same set-up. Well, the later models did. The earlier
ones, you were on your own, with the tailwheel unlocked. ;)

Warren

[Bruce A. Frank]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> Corky Scott wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:50:52 GMT, Peter Dohm >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >As I recall, Blanton's conversion was originally for glider towing.
> > >According to the story I was told, the reduction drive allowed the Ford
> > >vee six to produce thrust similar to a much more powerful direct
> > >drive aircraft engine--at towing speeds. Unfortunately, the story
> > >later circulated that the engine produced mathematically ridiculous
> > >amounts of horsepower...
> > >
> > >So, I may eventually build with an automotive conversion. Or may not.
> > >The choice is not "open and shut".
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Peter
> >
> > Not exactly Peter. Blanton's conversion was for anyone who wanted to
> > use it, fast airplanes or slow. Turns out, one guy who did want to
> > use it belonged to an Aussie glider towing club. His original intent
> > was to see if he could certify the engine in Australia for that
> > purpose.
> >
> > He got the engine and PSRU from Blanton at a time when Blanton was
> > declining in health and mind. The PSRU had a lot of problems and the
> > glider group spent a LOT of time refining the carburation and
> > induction. Eventually they got it right, both with the PSRU and the
> > induction and it's been towing gliders ever since. That was some
> > seven or eight years ago. The engine and PSRU are still going strong
> > and have not been overhauled or required overhaul since they finished
> > their development.
> >
> > They tow gliders in their Pawnee with this engine, which in it's
> > former life, used a Continental O-470. The Ford 3.8 swings the same
> > prop the 0-470 did, at the same prop rpm. The Ford burns
> > SUBSTANTIALLY less fuel than the 0-470 did doing the same operation.
> >
> > There's a very specific reason for this: The typical glider operation
> > involves a takeoff with glider in tow, a climb to 5,000 or so feet,
> > release and return to the airport for another tow immediately. That's
> > all it does, no cross country where the engine would be leaned out for
> > best fuel burn.
> >
> > Under these identical operations, the Ford uses less fuel because once
> > the glider is cast off, the pilot simply closes the throttle to idle
> > and returns to the field with the engine at idle the entire time.
> > When they were using the 0-470, the engine came back under power and
> > also used full rich during the climb to release, which engaged the
> > power valve and used a lot of fuel.
> >
> > As to the mathematically ridiculous amounts of horsepower being
> > reported, there was only one person claiming that, David Blanton, the
> > original developer. He was mistaken. Unfortunately, he had the type
> > of personality that did not allow him to accept criticism or
> > corrections (hmm, sounds like he'd fit right in here :-)). His method
> > of calculating horsepower had him claiming nearly 300 horsepower at
> > sea level for a 232 cid V-6 at 4800 rpm. Without supercharging,
> > that's just not possible. Others have checked their rated power with
> > a dyno and have produced a far more believable 180 to 235. The guy
> > who managed 235 got it by turning the engine at 5300 rpm. That's more
> > than I dare go. Almost all the builders use 4800 as the redline.
> >
> > Blanton also originally specified a 500 cfm two barrel carburator. If
> > you do the math using the standard carb sizing formula from Holley
> > (Engine Size (CID) X Maximum RPM / 3456=CFM) you get 322.222 cubic
> > feet per minute (232x4800/3456). Sure, the 500 CFM carburator will
> > work, after all it did for years, but it's overkill and wastes gas.
> > Those who dared to buck Blanton (because they knew carburation, could
> > apply the formula and realised they were over-carbing) discovered that
> > using a 350 CFM carburator worked just fine, gave equal power but used
> > less fuel. This is not conjecture, this has been reported several
> > times by those who made the switch. One guy reported going from 9 or
> > 10 (can't remember exactly) gallons per hour to 8 gallons per hour.
> >
> > Blanton is gone now, and unfortunately his "take no prisoners" stand
> > in regards the horsepower issue, cost him a lot of credibility before
> > he died.
> >
> > People still remember that issue when the mention of using a Ford V-6

>
> You are exactly right, and I misworded my posting. However I never
> realized that anyone, even Blanton, had been nutty enough to claim
> rearly 300 horsepower. However, IIRC, Blanton claimed around 250 HP
> from less than 4000 rpm. The power claim was preposterous, but at
> least the speed and pressure wouldn't send parts flying.
>
> BTW, I did see a Blanton powered Pacer at Willis GliderPort in south
> east Florida a half dozen years ago. The previous owner had used it
> to tow gliders, and it had been trouble-free. IIRC, it was operated
> at about the same rpm, and produced about the same power, as Ford
> would have specified in a car or truck--in other words 3600 rpm and
> 140 to 160 horsepower. However, the larger diameter prop was more
> effective at towing speeds.
>
> Peter

That was probably John Byrd's tug. Never had a wrench to it for about
800 hours now, doing nothing but glider towing. Let me amend that, he
has taken a couple of cross countries to SC and, I think, TX for glider
events.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|