Diesel engine

[Bryan]

Has anyone been able to find the weight on the VW V10 diesel engine? This
engine produces 550 lb/ft of torque at 2000 rpm and 310 hp at 3750 rpm.
Sounds like a great candidate for aircraft to me.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

[Pete Schaefer]

What's the continuous rated power? Peak power numbers are meaningless for
aircraft.

"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone been able to find the weight on the VW V10 diesel engine? This
> engine produces 550 lb/ft of torque at 2000 rpm and 310 hp at 3750 rpm.
> Sounds like a great candidate for aircraft to me.

[Bryan]

I have need been able to find any real specs on this engine except that it
has an aluminum black with steel reinforcement and sleeves. Should be light
for the available power. Might be able to go without gear reduction just
using a prop shaft with thrust bearings coupled directly to the crank or
flywheel.

"Pete Schaefer" > wrote in message
news:8JSic.32612$IW1.1418846@attbi_s52...
> What's the continuous rated power? Peak power numbers are meaningless for
> aircraft.
>
> "Bryan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Has anyone been able to find the weight on the VW V10 diesel engine?
This
> > engine produces 550 lb/ft of torque at 2000 rpm and 310 hp at 3750 rpm.
> > Sounds like a great candidate for aircraft to me.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

[Pete Schaefer]

Sure, but you might find that it can only handle 50% continuous power (or
less), which would put it way behind what, say, a DeltaHawk can do. Unless
you have a ton of money, time, and aircraft engine development
experience................


"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> I have need been able to find any real specs on this engine except that it
> has an aluminum black with steel reinforcement and sleeves. Should be
light
> for the available power. Might be able to go without gear reduction just
> using a prop shaft with thrust bearings coupled directly to the crank or
> flywheel.

[Bryan]

Good points! I have no idea how to find out what the continuous rated power
would be on this engine. I would love to have a DeltaHawk engine but as you
put it, I do not have a ton of money. I was leaning heavily toward the
Mazda rotary, looks like the way to as there are many flying already and
components are available.

Thanks

"Pete Schaefer" > wrote in message
news:ngTic.32866$IW1.1433613@attbi_s52...
> Sure, but you might find that it can only handle 50% continuous power (or
> less), which would put it way behind what, say, a DeltaHawk can do.
Unless
> you have a ton of money, time, and aircraft engine development
> experience................
>
>
> "Bryan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have need been able to find any real specs on this engine except that
it
> > has an aluminum black with steel reinforcement and sleeves. Should be
> light
> > for the available power. Might be able to go without gear reduction
just
> > using a prop shaft with thrust bearings coupled directly to the crank or
> > flywheel.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

[Pete Schaefer]

I'm curious as to what kind of airframe you're considering putting something
like this in? Something fast, I'd assume. Also, something non-aerobatic.
Some kind of fast cruiser?

You might want to contact some people at VW to see if you can get some
detailed info on the engine. It could very well turn out that it would make
a great airplane engine, but there are a ton of unknowns at this point. How
would you go about examining the suitability of the engine for aviation use?
You're looking at a very non-trivial problem. Better know how to speak some
German, too.

I've watched the Mazda B13 thing closely over the last couple of years.
There are some interesting possibilities there, but none of the good options
look very cheap. You'll still spend a lot of time wringing the engine out
on the ground before you can gain enough confidence that you've done all
your homework. Granted, doing a homebuilt, you'll spend a bunch of your
time doing engine integration no matter what. Just gotta make sure to have
a sound approach to engine risk-reduction if you're going a non-standard
route. That means knowing the risks and being able to plan for them.

BTW: This summer, I'm starting work on an RV-8A. I'm tentatively penciling
in a DeltaHawk 180HP inverted V-4. I'm encouraged by their progress over
the last year. However, I won't hesitate to change my plans if some big
gotchas emerge with their design. Their first production run starts soon.
I figure they get to have two more years of maturity on the design before I
order mine. It's gonna cost a bunch, but I feel there is a resonably
controllable risk factor going with an engine that new.

"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> Good points! I have no idea how to find out what the continuous rated
power
> would be on this engine. I would love to have a DeltaHawk engine but as
you
> put it, I do not have a ton of money. I was leaning heavily toward the
> Mazda rotary, looks like the way to as there are many flying already and
> components are available.

[Bryan]

Just started construction of a BD-4 from plans. This is a fast airplane. I
have been looking very seriously at the Mazda engine for some time. The
engine builder for Tracy Crook believes he can get a very reliable 220 hp
out of the new Renesis engine.

The reason I was looking into the VW is that I would like to get better fuel
economy and more power would not be bad either. When I saw the power
ratings on this engine and found that it is all aluminum I thought that it
may make a good aircraft engine. VW diesel engines have proven to be very
reliable in the past although producing a lot of vibration. From what I
read on this engine the vibration may no longer be a problem as they are now
using a balance shaft (90 degree V10 is not naturally balanced). And being
a V10 5.0 liter engine should run very smooth. Another interesting feature
that I would like to investigate about this engine is that since it is
controlled by direct injection and has no manifold vacuum to work with, it
has an air pump for other controls (emission controls) that may be used for
a vacuum pump (for gyro instruments).

Overall it just looks like a very good candidate for a high performance
aircraft engine. And if this could be done without gear reduction may save
some money (and another possible failure point).


"Pete Schaefer" > wrote in message
news:KNXic.34118$w96.2428876@attbi_s54...
> I'm curious as to what kind of airframe you're considering putting
something
> like this in? Something fast, I'd assume. Also, something non-aerobatic.
> Some kind of fast cruiser?
>
> You might want to contact some people at VW to see if you can get some
> detailed info on the engine. It could very well turn out that it would
make
> a great airplane engine, but there are a ton of unknowns at this point.
How
> would you go about examining the suitability of the engine for aviation
use?
> You're looking at a very non-trivial problem. Better know how to speak
some
> German, too.
>
> I've watched the Mazda B13 thing closely over the last couple of years.
> There are some interesting possibilities there, but none of the good
options
> look very cheap. You'll still spend a lot of time wringing the engine out
> on the ground before you can gain enough confidence that you've done all
> your homework. Granted, doing a homebuilt, you'll spend a bunch of your
> time doing engine integration no matter what. Just gotta make sure to
have
> a sound approach to engine risk-reduction if you're going a non-standard
> route. That means knowing the risks and being able to plan for them.
>
> BTW: This summer, I'm starting work on an RV-8A. I'm tentatively
penciling
> in a DeltaHawk 180HP inverted V-4. I'm encouraged by their progress over
> the last year. However, I won't hesitate to change my plans if some big
> gotchas emerge with their design. Their first production run starts soon.
> I figure they get to have two more years of maturity on the design before
I
> order mine. It's gonna cost a bunch, but I feel there is a resonably
> controllable risk factor going with an engine that new.
>
> "Bryan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Good points! I have no idea how to find out what the continuous rated
> power
> > would be on this engine. I would love to have a DeltaHawk engine but as
> you
> > put it, I do not have a ton of money. I was leaning heavily toward the
> > Mazda rotary, looks like the way to as there are many flying already and
> > components are available.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

[Capt.Doug]

>"Bryan" wrote in message >VW diesel engines have proven to be very
> reliable in the past although producing a lot of vibration.

Is this engine offered in the US? Is it offered with a turbocharger?

D.

[Bryan]

This is turbocharged (the only way they make it). It is now available in
the US, it is the VW touareg.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Bryan" wrote in message >VW diesel engines have proven to be very
> > reliable in the past although producing a lot of vibration.
>
> Is this engine offered in the US? Is it offered with a turbocharger?
>
> D.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

[Jay]

Hi Pete,

What factors dictate the difference between max and continuous rated
power? The main one I can think of is the ability to remove waste
heat. And of course a diesel produces less waste heat per unit HP
than a spark ignition engine.

Regards

"Pete Schaefer" > wrote in message news:<8JSic.32612$IW1.1418846@attbi_s52>...
> What's the continuous rated power? Peak power numbers are meaningless for
> aircraft.
>
> "Bryan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Has anyone been able to find the weight on the VW V10 diesel engine? This
> > engine produces 550 lb/ft of torque at 2000 rpm and 310 hp at 3750 rpm.
> > Sounds like a great candidate for aircraft to me.

[George A. Graham]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Pete Schaefer wrote:

> I've watched the Mazda B13 thing closely over the last couple of years.
> There are some interesting possibilities there, but none of the good options
> look very cheap.

I think mine is a good option, and it is cheap. My 13b has flown over
400 hours in the last five years, and cost less than $2000. My fuel
burn is always less than a Lycoming at same speed/distance. It has
not had one hiccup inflight. I used the standard gearbox in second
gear, and it works fine.


You'll still spend a lot of time wringing the engine out
> on the ground before you can gain enough confidence that you've done all
> your homework.

This we agree on! Few would be dumb enough to leave mother earth and
wonder if the motor will make good power. In my case, the weather was too
cold to do layups anyway, so I enjoyed the time spent testing my motor.

BTW, I repair turbocharged diesel engined trucks for my living, and often
wonder if a part would be as reliable if it weighed one-tenth of what
the good ones weigh in at. Not likely.

The BSFC of the Mazda wankle can get as good as .42, where the Lycoming
is over .5, and the turbo diesel is best at .36 lbs/hp/hr.

I am aware that most people should avoid trying to craft their own
airplane engine, but if you are so inclined, the Wankle rules!

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:16:54 -0400, "George A. Graham" >
wrote:

>The BSFC of the Mazda wankle can get as good as .42, where the Lycoming
>is over .5, and the turbo diesel is best at .36 lbs/hp/hr.
>
>I am aware that most people should avoid trying to craft their own
>airplane engine, but if you are so inclined, the Wankle rules!

Hey George, good to hear from you. The Lycoming engine can get as low
as .38 BSFC when properly set up. Few pilots seem willing to go there
though as it requires leaning past peak. See John Deakin and "Mixture
Magic" in the AVWeb columns. The GAMI folks demonstrate the above
fuel burn routinely on their test stand. Auto engines tend to be at
..42 as you mention. I think lower BSFC with the big bore aircraft
engines has to do with large pistons and long stroke, I think, not
absolutely sure.

I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
try to go flying without any test runs.

Corky Scott

[Richard Lamb]

wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:16:54 -0400, "George A. Graham" >
> wrote:
>
> >The BSFC of the Mazda wankle can get as good as .42, where the Lycoming
> >is over .5, and the turbo diesel is best at .36 lbs/hp/hr.
> >
> >I am aware that most people should avoid trying to craft their own
> >airplane engine, but if you are so inclined, the Wankle rules!
>
> Hey George, good to hear from you. The Lycoming engine can get as low
> as .38 BSFC when properly set up. Few pilots seem willing to go there
> though as it requires leaning past peak. See John Deakin and "Mixture
> Magic" in the AVWeb columns. The GAMI folks demonstrate the above
> fuel burn routinely on their test stand. Auto engines tend to be at
> .42 as you mention. I think lower BSFC with the big bore aircraft
> engines has to do with large pistons and long stroke, I think, not
> absolutely sure.
>
> I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
> it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
> people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
> try to go flying without any test runs.
>
> Corky Scott

Corky, your engine is liquid cooled, right?
Go for it and have fun.

But air cooled engines should generally _not_ be run static at high
power
for long periods - (ESPECIALLY VW conversions).

Richard
(Just my opinion, I could be wrong...)

[Ernest Christley]

wrote:

> I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
> it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
> people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
> try to go flying without any test runs.
>
> Corky Scott

And don't just run it on the ground. You've got to instrument that
baby. Get a bunch of temperature probes and stick one to everything you
can. Add a handful of accelerometers to measure vibration at multiple
points if you can get your hands on them. I've read that the biggest
advances in aviation power during the second world war came about due to
improvements in instrumentation. It makes sense. You won't know what
to strengthen or cool if you don't know what's hot or under harmonic
vibrations.

Someone here mentioned an adjustable strobe light at night to look for
harmonics.


--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[L.D.]

Jay wrote:

>Hi Pete,
>
>What factors dictate the difference between max and continuous rated
>power? The main one I can think of is the ability to remove waste
>heat. And of course a diesel produces less waste heat per unit HP
>than a spark ignition engine.
>
>Regards
>
>"Pete Schaefer" > wrote in message news:<8JSic.32612$IW1.1418846@attbi_s52>...
>
>
>>What's the continuous rated power? Peak power numbers are meaningless for
>>aircraft.
>>
>>"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Has anyone been able to find the weight on the VW V10 diesel engine? This
>>>engine produces 550 lb/ft of torque at 2000 rpm and 310 hp at 3750 rpm.
>>>Sounds like a great candidate for aircraft to me.
>>>
>>>
I always thought the difference between max and continuous rated hp was
its ability to not self destruct at a low or reasonable TT. Lots of
factors come to play here. Example, an engine that is rough at higher
rmp would, from lack of better words, shake it's self apart. You know
the faster it turns the more centrifical force. The harder it rubs the
faster it will ware. Of course heat is a factor also, the faster it
turns, the more fuel you putting through there, the hotter it gets. It
also gets hotter from rubbing harder. If you turn the engine from an
external power source, it will build up heat and the faster you turn it
the hotter and that is with no internal combustion. Now I know that heat
wouldn't ruin an engine, but it adds.

[George A. Graham]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 wrote:

> Hey George, good to hear from you. The Lycoming engine can get as low
> as .38 BSFC when properly set up.

Hi Corky. You don't really believe that now, do you?

Those motors burn 8 to 10 gph near the ground - that ain't .38.
>
> I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
> it throughout the summer at high power settings.

Great! It took me a long time to feel confident about mine, but I
did learn alot, and am very happy with it.

Mounting on a trailer or truck lets you move around the countryside,
so you don't make everyone angry. (Even the airport managers would shoo
me off after a few hours of prop/engine noise).

We wish you well, and hope you can visit us in Florida someday.
We are near the SRQ airport, have a Mustang convertible to loan,
an extra room etc.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[Richard Lamb]

Ernest Christley wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
> > it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
> > people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
> > try to go flying without any test runs.
> >
> > Corky Scott
>
> And don't just run it on the ground. You've got to instrument that
> baby. Get a bunch of temperature probes and stick one to everything you
> can. Add a handful of accelerometers to measure vibration at multiple
> points if you can get your hands on them. I've read that the biggest
> advances in aviation power during the second world war came about due to
> improvements in instrumentation. It makes sense. You won't know what
> to strengthen or cool if you don't know what's hot or under harmonic
> vibrations.
>
> Someone here mentioned an adjustable strobe light at night to look for
> harmonics.
>
> --
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
> "Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
> alleviated by information and experience."
> Veeduber


Good point. Excellent point, in fact.

My engine is a VW. Not a certified aircraft engine.

Quite a bit less then $1,000,000 has been spent on detailed engineering,
testing, analysis, etc to convert this into a safe aircraft engine.

Even though haven't spent much of that million on engineering, I don't
seem to have much left for instrumentation :( I suspect the coffee
fund).

Accelerometers struck out - cost, complexity, and I wouldn't know what
to do with them anyway.


One thing I would like to instrument is the carburetor temperature.

Not a permenant gauge on the panel (I have one - but there's no space).
Just a low buck way of monitoring the carb temp in flight for a while to
see whazzappenin and see if pulling the carb heat knob is really doing
anything.


The carb is below the engine (KR2 style intakes manifold from GPAS)
where it is not warmed much from engine heat.

One of these days I want to make new exhaust pipes with a proper
carb heat muff.

But for now, I wonder if the air passing thru the cylinder fins would
be hot enough (too hot enough?) to work well - or not?

Only way to know for sure is to measure it.

Isn't there supposed to be a way to do that with a digital multimeter
and thermosistor, or thermocouple (what)?

Richard


PS: thanks for remembering the harmonics thread, Robert. (:it was fun:)

I remember thinking(back then) that I wanted to take a real good look
a the engine installation on the new plane for harmonic reactions.

I even asked around and found someone who have an old variable speed
disco strobe for the job.

But the engine wasn't ready to run back then, and I forgot about it.
Until now.

Thanks.

Richard

[Pete Schaefer]

Heat is usually the big one. How you get rid of it is critical, of course.
Dave Driskoll (DH) can probably tell us all more about this. One of the
things that is really cool about the DeltaHawk engines is that they are
designed to be run continuously at max (pretty sure about this.....Dave, are
you there?). That's a lot of full-time horses.

"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi Pete,
>
> What factors dictate the difference between max and continuous rated
> power? The main one I can think of is the ability to remove waste
> heat. And of course a diesel produces less waste heat per unit HP
> than a spark ignition engine.

[Richard Lamb]

Pete Schaefer wrote:
>
> Heat is usually the big one. How you get rid of it is critical, of course.
> Dave Driskoll (DH) can probably tell us all more about this. One of the
> things that is really cool about the DeltaHawk engines is that they are
> designed to be run continuously at max (pretty sure about this.....Dave, are
> you there?). That's a lot of full-time horses.
>

That't what it takes for aircraft ops.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:06:46 -0400, "George A. Graham" >
wrote:

>Mounting on a trailer or truck lets you move around the countryside,
>so you don't make everyone angry. (Even the airport managers would shoo
>me off after a few hours of prop/engine noise).

I think it actually will fit in the back of my pickup (haven't taken
the time to measure yet), and as you know, we live right next to some
pretty dense woods. I could trundle it up to the logging landing
above us and run it all day without bothering anyone.

My worry is to tie it down REALLY well because I will be using the IVO
prop to generate the load and I'll have to pitch the prop to allow the
engine to make 4,800 rpm, after it's run in a bit. At that rpm, there
will be lots of thrust, don't want that engine and stand leaping off
the truck and wailing into the woods. ;-)

I feel I need to have a hobbs meter and carefully thought out
documentation of the engine runs so that the DAR can see that the
engine has been thoroughly tested. So all the instrumentation that
the engine would normally have in the cockpit, should be there on the
little instrument panel I've attached to the test stand. That means
the EGT guage so I can adjust the mixture and test to see if it will
run smoothly lean of peak. I need to be standing there in the howling
wind taking down readings at regular intervals throughout the testing.

Corky Scott

[Ernest Christley]

Richard Lamb wrote:

>
> PS: thanks for remembering the harmonics thread, Robert. (:it was fun:)
>
> I remember thinking(back then) that I wanted to take a real good look
> a the engine installation on the new plane for harmonic reactions.
>
> I even asked around and found someone who have an old variable speed
> disco strobe for the job.
>
> But the engine wasn't ready to run back then, and I forgot about it.
> Until now.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard

Radio Shack has a strobe for about $20. It's cheap, and won't even give
an epiletic a fit, but it has variable timing and does flash. You just
won't be able to use it in direct sunlight. Wait 'till evening or find
an old barn?

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[[email protected]]

In article >, Ernest Christley > wrote:
Another strobe that many people have in their shop is an automotive timing
light. You can wind a simple coil of a few dozen turns and put it in the
trigger clip. Then, any convenient signal source such as an audio signal
generator can be used to produce the timing signals.

good luck,
tom pettit

>
>>
>> PS: thanks for remembering the harmonics thread, Robert. (:it was fun:)
>>
>> I remember thinking(back then) that I wanted to take a real good look
>> a the engine installation on the new plane for harmonic reactions.
>>
>> I even asked around and found someone who have an old variable speed
>> disco strobe for the job.
>>
>> But the engine wasn't ready to run back then, and I forgot about it.
>> Until now.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Richard
>
>Radio Shack has a strobe for about $20. It's cheap, and won't even give
>an epiletic a fit, but it has variable timing and does flash. You just
>won't be able to use it in direct sunlight. Wait 'till evening or find
>an old barn?
>

[Dave Driscoll]

Richard Lamb wrote:

>Pete Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>>Heat is usually the big one. How you get rid of it is critical, of course.
>>Dave Driskoll (DH) can probably tell us all more about this. One of the
>>things that is really cool about the DeltaHawk engines is that they are
>>designed to be run continuously at max (pretty sure about this.....Dave, are
>>you there?). That's a lot of full-time horses.
>>
>>
>>
>
>That't what it takes for aircraft ops.
>
>
Pete is quite correct, dumping heat is major hurdle to continuous power
operations and unfortunately it is generally not as simple as adding
larger radiators or oil coolers. Extracting BTU's from the oil or
coolant is really the simple part of the problem. Getting BTU's from
the combustion chamber, through the cylinder sleeves, piston crowns, and
fire plates without cooking the coolant, your bearings, or any of the
aforementioned parts can be quite challenging.

As a simple example, the VW TDI uses an oil squirter to spray cooling
oil on the bottom of the piston. That system is designed to remove a
BTU's at a certain rate and remain in equilibrium, IE stable oil
temperature at a certain HP (this would be the maximum continuous HP).
If we decide to increase the max. HP we now have to remove more BTU's
with the oil to maintain a stable temperature, this means more oil needs
to be sprayed. Ok put a bigger orifice on the oil jet. Unfortunately
putting on a larger jet reduces oil pressure which is bad for the main
bearings, so in addition to the larger jet, we now need to put a larger
oil pump on the engine to give us the required oil pressure. Oops that
bigger pump uses some of the additional HP that you thought you were
going to get and now we repeat the process with a larger jet and oil
pump so we net out the HP we are really after. Ok now that we've go
that solved, we notice that all the extra oil flinging around in the
crank case is too much for our current ring pack and we need a new
design there for better oil control. This new ring pack will of course
mean more friction, less net HP, etc., etc., etc. (bang head here)......

As Pete commented, the DeltaHawk is rated for continuos duty throughout
its HP range (as are most aircraft engines), most automotive engines are
not. While there certainly have been a number of very successful
automotive conversions, all of the successful ones have been the result
of a significant engineering and test efforts (a program which I suspect
is probably not unlike developing an aviation diesel from scratch).


Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk LLC

[Del Rawlins]

In > charles.k.scott@
dartmouth.edu wrote:

> I think it actually will fit in the back of my pickup (haven't taken
> the time to measure yet), and as you know, we live right next to some
> pretty dense woods. I could trundle it up to the logging landing
> above us and run it all day without bothering anyone.

If it were me, I would try to pick up a used trailer and turn that into
my test stand. Then you won't be risking damage to your engine from
repeated loading/unloading operations every time you want to do some
testing. This assumes that you will want to use your pickup truck for
things other than a test stand.

> run smoothly lean of peak. I need to be standing there in the howling
> wind taking down readings at regular intervals throughout the testing.

You could get one of those surveillance camera setups that are
advertised in various places and mount it to read your instruments. You
would then be able to monitor them from the relative comfort of your
pickup cab.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:15:28 GMT, wrote:

>In article >, Ernest Christley > wrote:
>Another strobe that many people have in their shop is an automotive timing
>light. You can wind a simple coil of a few dozen turns and put it in the
>trigger clip. Then, any convenient signal source such as an audio signal
>generator can be used to produce the timing signals.
>
>good luck,
>tom pettit

But what's a fella to do with the flashing light? What are you
checking and what's it all mean?

I mean the engine's going to have this 74" diameter prop on it and
it's bound to vibrate some. How do you tell what's normal and what
isn't?

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:48:31 -0500, Dave Driscoll
> wrote:

>As Pete commented, the DeltaHawk is rated for continuos duty throughout
>its HP range (as are most aircraft engines), most automotive engines are
>not. While there certainly have been a number of very successful
>automotive conversions, all of the successful ones have been the result
>of a significant engineering and test efforts (a program which I suspect
>is probably not unlike developing an aviation diesel from scratch).

Mostly really interesting information Dave, but your remark about auto
engines not being rated at continuous maximum power prompts me to ask
if it's time to repost that article I have that was written by an auto
engineer who ran the engine test cells at (not sure which major
manufacturer he worked for but it's in the article).

To synopsize, they beat those engines up pretty well, trying to blow
them. They plan to sell not just hundreds, or thousands of engines,
but millions of them. Selling an engine that turns out to have an
endemic problem would be catastrophic for sales. So they run them
literally for hundreds of hours at full throttle and peak rpm. That's
just one test.

None of the auto manufacturers can afford to neglect this kind of
engine development so every single one does these types of destructive
tests to make sure the engine can stand it.

So while the typical auto engine may not be designed to produce
maximum continuous power, they sure can do it.

Corky Scott

PS, I will repost the article if there is enough interest. I get
requests to do so about once a year.

[Bryan]

I would like to see the article.


> So while the typical auto engine may not be designed to produce
> maximum continuous power, they sure can do it.
>
> Corky Scott
>
> PS, I will repost the article if there is enough interest. I get
> requests to do so about once a year.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:09:59 -0700, "Bryan" >
wrote:

>I would like to see the article.

As you wish.

Please note, the article below was published in Contact! Magazine some
several years ago when Mick Myal was the publisher. He's retired from
the magazine now but was at the head at the time of the article so I
left that part in. I've made some editorial comments here and there
in the text.

Corky

Max Freeman is the engineer in charge of GM's Premium Engine programs
and has written an article for Mick Myal in the latest "Contact!"
magazine regarding the development and testing of their new PV6
aluminum 90° bank angle V-6. It's a lot of technical stuff about why
they chose this configuration or mechanical design over that, which is
why I like it.

He also wrote about the kind of developmental testing done on the
engine to make sure that customers get an engine they can depend on,
and I'd very much like to quote that section in full because it should
lay to rest the question of whether auto engines can take the kind of
power settings aircraft engines routinely manage.

"PERFORMANCE

The engine in production form for 1999 develops 215 HP at 5600 RPM and
230 foot pounds of torque at 4400 rpm. As a routine part of an engine
development program we tested the engine at full power, maximum RPM.
We ran it at 6000 RPM, pulling 215 HP at wide open throttle, for 265
hours. That's a continuous 265 hours of wide open throttle, far worse
than autobahn driving, because even on the German Autobahn, you
wouldn't be at 6000 RPM. THAT IS A STANDARD DURABILITY TEST.
(emphasis mine) We run many engines through this test as a matter of
course.

Specific development focus is on the crank, pistons, rods, block
structure, timing drive wear; we get a lot of full load cycles in a
hurry. It isn't necessarily designed to replicate customer driving
but to get development answers. Wear and fatigue are accelerated.
The test is particularly applicable in proving out dampers and their
effectiveness. If the damper is not properly tuned to the engine the
crankshaft will inevitably break in that time period. (note, this is
evidence you should not discard the stock damper when using the auto
engine for aircraft power)

A number of other engine tests are utilized. We use a variety of
specific tests to accelerate engine wear and to look at fatigue
failures. The cyclic endurance test is now called PTED (power train
endurance). It closely approximates cyclic durability. The engine is
cycled from its torque peak to its horsepower peak, at wide open
throttle, then down to idle, then accelerates up to shift points, then
back down to the torque peak and then horsepower peak. This test is
run for 400 hours. Once again, it's a wide open throttle test for 400
hours. The RPM for this engine, ranged between 4400 and 6000 RPM,
back and forth in about a 5 minute cycle. The dyno computer will
occasionally bring the engine down to idle, up to 6500 RPM shift
points, and then back to the 4400 - 6000 RPM 5 minute cycle.

Thermal cycle tests are run to define engine capability under cold
weather condition. We run the engine at full throttle at 4000 RPM,
bring it down to idle, stop it, switch the coolant valves to drain the
hot coolant, pump the chilled coolant from the chiller until the metal
temperature stabilizes at 0 degrees F. Frost forms on the outside of
the block, as the cold coolant rushes into the engine. When it
stabilizes at 0 F, we motor the engine, start it, come to full
throttle at 4400 RPM, the valves switch and the coolant temperature
starts to climb. It climbs back up to 260 degrees F. It takes 10 -11
minutes to complete one cycle. The engine must pass 600 cycles
without any sign of failure. We typically run 1200 cycles and a probe
test will run 1600 cycles. That's a (sic) excellent gasket killer
test. Head gaskets are the first to fail because of the rapid
expansion and contraction.

A powertrain endurance test simulates in-vehicle operation. The
Ypsilanti plant uses it for testing transmission. We, of course, use
it to look at engine performance. The equipment consists of an
engine/transmission combination, which sits on a dyno with large steel
inertia wheels. The inertia wheels are being driven by the
transmission output shaft, just like in a car. They cycle is brutal;
the engine is at idle in gear. The engine accelerates wide open to
6200 RPM, upshift occurs, 6200 RPM is reached, upshift occurs to 3rd,
6200 RPM is reached, upshift occurs to 4th, the wheels turn up to 135
MPH depending on the application. The second half of the cycle calls
for a closed throttle down to 70 MPH, then wide open throttle with a
downshift to 2nd, the engine goes back up to top speed, coasts down so
that the transmission selects down to a lower range. The engine is in
an overrun condition all the way down to idle; i.e., the engine is
being used for braking. That's one cycle. One transmission life
cycle is typically 12K - 13K cycles of the above test. We will run an
engine through 4 or 5 transmissions. This is a very harsh schedule
for the engine, particularly because of the overrun braking.
Cylinders and rings suffer the most on this test.

We run some idle tests to verify low speed operation. The engine is
run at idle for about 2000 hours to make sure of adequate oil flow at
idle.

We use all those engine tests in addition to fleet tests and extensive
vehicle road testing. The customer can be assured that the PV6 engine
is a thoroughly tested advanced design that matches or exceeds
competing offerings."

I don't believe engine testing for aircraft certification approaches
this intensity, duration or severity.

My thanks to Mick Myal for his continued excellence in publishing his
magazine.

Corky Scott

[Dave Driscoll]

wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:48:31 -0500, Dave Driscoll
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As Pete commented, the DeltaHawk is rated for continuos duty throughout
>>its HP range (as are most aircraft engines), most automotive engines are
>>not. While there certainly have been a number of very successful
>>automotive conversions, all of the successful ones have been the result
>>of a significant engineering and test efforts (a program which I suspect
>>is probably not unlike developing an aviation diesel from scratch).
>>
>>
>
>Mostly really interesting information Dave, but your remark about auto
>engines not being rated at continuous maximum power prompts me to ask
>if it's time to repost that article I have that was written by an auto
>engineer who ran the engine test cells at (not sure which major
>manufacturer he worked for but it's in the article).
>
>To synopsize, they beat those engines up pretty well, trying to blow
>them. They plan to sell not just hundreds, or thousands of engines,
>but millions of them. Selling an engine that turns out to have an
>endemic problem would be catastrophic for sales. So they run them
>literally for hundreds of hours at full throttle and peak rpm. That's
>just one test.
>
>None of the auto manufacturers can afford to neglect this kind of
>engine development so every single one does these types of destructive
>tests to make sure the engine can stand it.
>
>So while the typical auto engine may not be designed to produce
>maximum continuous power, they sure can do it.
>
>Corky Scott
>
>PS, I will repost the article if there is enough interest. I get
>requests to do so about once a year.
>
>
>
>
Corky,

I'm pretty sure I've read the article that you are describing in the
past and absolutely agree that testing in the automotive world is quite
severe. However, unless you happen to have access to those test
results, the true duty cycle of the engine is a unknown. There are a
number of very successful automotive conversions that are flying, and in
deference to your point, some of the them with fairly modest
modifications required for acceptable endurance. However, all of them
required some modification and then some serious testing to concretely
demonstrate their endurance. The thrust of my point was not to imply
that automotive engines cannot be successfully modified for use in
aircraft, they quite conclusively can, but rather to demonstrate some of
the challenges that can be encountered in making any required
modifications and what those modifications might be.

Given that the original poster in this thread was asking about the
converting an automotive diesel its perhaps appropriate to examine the
modifications that were made to the Thielert Centurion. The 1.7
Centurion is essentially a modified Mercedes engine, a product which is
certainly respected for endurance and reliability within the automotive
world. I have been told by Thielert representatives (and I'm going from
memory here) that the modifications included the crank, pistons,
injection system, oil pump, turbo, and obviously the reduction unit (not
what I would consider a short list and one that is certainly supported
by a cursory examination of the the engine). In addition, even with all
of these changes, the currently quoted TBR (replacement not overhaul) is
1000 hours (to be fair, they anticipate 2400 hours and I suspect that is
probably still a conservative figure). Personally, I think that the
Thielert engineers did a very professional job and from their published
data they have extensively validated their engine through testing..
However, this illustrates quite clearly the point that regardless of
pedigree, once modification of basic engine system begins it can get
quite complicated quickly.

Personally, potential commercial competition aside, I'd love to see the
original poster successfully convert a 10 cylinder VW diesel for
aviation. I think it would be a really cool project. I'd also do my
best as a citizen of the homebuilding community to help him do it safely
and successfully. That said, I've been down the path you're on
regarding your static test installation. If you're interested, shoot me
your e-mail with your number, I think I can save you some grief on that
project.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk Engines LLC

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:10:09 -0500, Dave Driscoll
> wrote:

>The thrust of my point was not to imply
>that automotive engines cannot be successfully modified for use in
>aircraft, they quite conclusively can, but rather to demonstrate some of
>the challenges that can be encountered in making any required
>modifications and what those modifications might be.

I understand.

The engine I'm attempting to use is the Ford 3.8L V6. This engine was
originally modified by David Blanton back in the early 70's. I
hesitate to mention his name because he got mired in controversy
towards the end of his life claiming really exhorbitant horsepower for
the engine as used in the airframe.

The 3.8 needs a different cam in order to develop the power it should.
You can also install Wiseco pistons which create a 9 to 1 compression
ratio. Some guys haven't changed the pistons and managed to fly
anyway.

My understanding is that the new V6, the 4.2, is capable of being used
as is, without any modifications, which means not changing the cam. I
don't know that for a fact, it was stated to me by Jerry Schweitzer,
who has built a number of Ford engines and flew behind the 4.2 in his
RV4. He knows more about the engines than I do.

The intake manifold needs some modification and the carburator should
have the McNeilly leaning block installed so you can lean out the
mixture as you climb.

Some guys use the original fuel injection and electronic ignition. No
one engine is modified in the same manner, it's part of the problem of
knowing what to do.

One thing that is or should be common is safety wiring all external
and some internal bolts so that they cannot back out.

Not everyone does this.

Corky Scott

[David Munday]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:06:46 -0400, "George A. Graham" >
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 wrote:
>
>Hi Corky. You don't really believe that now, do you?
>
>Those motors burn 8 to 10 gph near the ground - that ain't .38.

Hey George, what's your firewall forward ... err, aft weight with the
mazda transmission? Any adea how it compares to, say an o-320 all up?

--
David Munday -
Webpage: http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday
"Adopt, Adapt, and Improve" -- Motto of the Round Table

[George A. Graham]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, it was written:

> Hey George, what's your firewall forward ... err, aft weight with the
> mazda transmission? Any adea how it compares to, say an o-320 all up?

Hi Dave, It must be very close to the Lycoming, as my airplane weighs
940 lbs empty, same as most O-320 powered canards. But no, I have not
yet weighed the motor separately. I might do so in the future, as I'd
like to repaint my motor mount with epoxy paint.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[George A. Graham]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 wrote:

> I mean the engine's going to have this 74" diameter prop on it and
> it's bound to vibrate some. How do you tell what's normal and what
> isn't?
>

Burt Rutan says that the prop should turn about 2600 rpm static, and that
also makes a very good cruise rpm. My setup would turn my first prop
over 3000 static, but my good prop only 2400. I use that same number
for my cruise rpm which is 5200 rpm engine speed. I know that it will
run for hours at that speed. No doubt, others will be more sophisticated.

If you do find a resonant rpm, you'll know it right away.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[Ernest Christley]

wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:15:28 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, Ernest Christley > wrote:
>>Another strobe that many people have in their shop is an automotive timing
>>light. You can wind a simple coil of a few dozen turns and put it in the
>>trigger clip. Then, any convenient signal source such as an audio signal
>>generator can be used to produce the timing signals.
>>
>>good luck,
>>tom pettit
>
>
> But what's a fella to do with the flashing light? What are you
> checking and what's it all mean?
>
> I mean the engine's going to have this 74" diameter prop on it and
> it's bound to vibrate some. How do you tell what's normal and what
> isn't?
>
> Corky Scott

I like that timing light idea. With my laptop and a simple program I
can have a lot more range than is possible with the RatShack thing I have.

Corky, the strobe will slow down any flexing due to vibrations to the
point where you can clearly see it. Sorta makes it slow motion. I
would say that if you can clearly distinquish the flexing in a motor
mount or other supporting part, then it is way too much, and you should
consider a redesign. It may not tell you anything interesting at all,
it's just an easy way to see what and where the vibration are and how
much they are shaking what. But you are right, just because it's moving
doesn't mean it's coming apart. I'll counter that you can decide what
is normal for yourself once you see it moving, and I'll bet dollars to
donuts that if you do see a lot of movement you'll be an expert on what
is normal before the engine leaves the ground 8*) (Yes, that was a long
winded way of saying, "I don't rightly know.")

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[jc]

wrote:

<snip>
>
> So while the typical auto engine may not be designed to produce
> maximum continuous power, they sure can do it.
>

Even the highest power ratings (for offroad machinery) is for not much over
50%, with car racing next. Just compare the mpg with specific fuel
consumption eg 20 mpg(imp) @ 60 mph = 3gph = 21 lb hr ~ 40 hp @ 0.5
lb/hp/hr for a 150hp motor.


regards

jc

[Richard Lamb]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> >
> > But what's a fella to do with the flashing light? What are you
> > checking and what's it all mean?
> >
> > I mean the engine's going to have this 74" diameter prop on it and
> > it's bound to vibrate some. How do you tell what's normal and what
> > isn't?
> >
> > Corky Scott
>
> I like that timing light idea. With my laptop and a simple program I
> can have a lot more range than is possible with the RatShack thing I have.
>
> Corky, the strobe will slow down any flexing due to vibrations to the
> point where you can clearly see it. Sorta makes it slow motion. I
> would say that if you can clearly distinquish the flexing in a motor
> mount or other supporting part, then it is way too much, and you should
> consider a redesign. It may not tell you anything interesting at all,
> it's just an easy way to see what and where the vibration are and how
> much they are shaking what. But you are right, just because it's moving
> doesn't mean it's coming apart. I'll counter that you can decide what
> is normal for yourself once you see it moving, and I'll bet dollars to
> donuts that if you do see a lot of movement you'll be an expert on what
> is normal before the engine leaves the ground 8*) (Yes, that was a long
> winded way of saying, "I don't rightly know.")
>
> --
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
> "Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
> alleviated by information and experience."
> Veeduber

:) "I don't rightly know", either, Earnest, but it's fun to play with.

Right on about the motion, and with the vibration of the engine
running there is visible motion.

A guitar string on a guitar that is waving back and forth will move -
back and forth. But the string is still straight. It is just waving
back and forth with the guitar - way below it's resonant frequency.

When plucked, it "bows". Flexes into a new shape. The string is
resonating at some frequency based on the length, tension, and
the string's physical properties (cross section, material, windings?)

When the moment is frozen with the strobe, you can see the curvature.


So the apparent motion of the engine mount tubes is just normal
vibration.

But if there is detectible curvature or flexing, there is a resonant
response.

The thing about the variable frequency strobe is that it makes it
easy to look at different response frequencies on the test article.

Like the choke cable where it looped around the front of the engine -
unsupported.

Dumb.


Richard

[Richard Lamb]

"George A. Graham" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, it was written:
>
> > Hey George, what's your firewall forward ... err, aft weight with the
> > mazda transmission? Any adea how it compares to, say an o-320 all up?
>
> Hi Dave, It must be very close to the Lycoming, as my airplane weighs
> 940 lbs empty, same as most O-320 powered canards. But no, I have not
> yet weighed the motor separately. I might do so in the future, as I'd
> like to repaint my motor mount with epoxy paint.
>
> George Graham
> RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
> Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

George, reliable information like that is exceptionally hard to come by.

If you go the trouble to weigh everything, please share it with us?


Richard

[kumaros]

"Dave Driscoll" > wrote in message ...
(snipped) Corky,

I'm pretty sure I've read the article that you are describing in the past and absolutely agree that testing in the automotive world is quite severe.

(snipped)

Given that the original poster in this thread was asking about the converting an automotive diesel its perhaps appropriate to examine the modifications that were made to the Thielert Centurion.

(snipped)

Personally, potential commercial competition aside, I'd love to see the original poster successfully convert a 10 cylinder VW diesel for aviation. I think it would be a really cool project. I'd also do my best as a citizen of the homebuilding community to help him do it safely and successfully. That said, I've been down the path you're on regarding your static test installation. If you're interested, shoot me your e-mail with your number, I think I can save you some grief on that project.

Dave Driscoll
DeltaHawk Engines LLC

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Truer words were never spoken. This is an admirable attitude that all manufacturers should adopt. Thank you Mr. Driscoll.
If it were not for the cost, the DeltaHawk engine would be my first choice too. With its increased ground clearance, inverted in a Cozy MK-IV, it would be the ideal engine. Its price, however, even though justified, compared to Lycoming and Continetal offerings, would represent half a year's income for me, making it esentially unreachable. As potential alternatives I regard the new common-rail, double or variable geometry turbo-diesels that have recently appeared on the world market. The Isuzu 3.0 liter V6 176 HP, the Ford-Jaguar-Peugeot 2.7 liter V6 207 HP and weighing 202 kg, the VW 2.5 or 3.0 liters V6 TDI 180 - 225 HP 220 kg diesels would all be viable options with their HP to weight ratio of 1/1. Just a quick search on mobile.de for low-mileage, intact motor, accident total write-offs yields several potential donor vehicles for under EUR 5.000. You buy the donor vehicle, remove engine and electronics and sell off the rest to recover some of the initial cost. The cost of the engine alone would be one to two thousand EUR. Then of course, as others in this thread have mentioned, comes the hard part. The Isuzu 3.0 liters V6 with its 177 HP would definitely require a redrive, the Jaguar with its 207 HP and the VW 3.0 liters V6 with its 225 HP and massive torque maybe not. "Die Qual der Wahl". The good thing is that since the airframe won't be ready for another 2-3 years, by that time there will be a reliable track record for these engines. After configuring the engine package there comes the testing. I would never fly behind (er... I mean in front) of an untested junker engine. My test-bed for the next one hundred or more hours, with diligent collection of all pertinent data on my laptop, would be a bayou style air-boat, built on the basis of my little catamaran. If the engine plus redrive plus propeller package survives this ordeal, then it's time for taxiing, eventually flying.
Useful links:
1) Isuzu 3.0 liters V6: http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/corporate/engine/lineup.html
2) Ford-Jaguar-Peugeot 2.7 liters V6: http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/tech/2/112.htm
3) VW Audi 2.5 - 3.0 liters V6 TDI:
english: http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/previews,view,Audi.spy?artid=22231&pg=5
german: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/d/48696
4) And because these are really "schöne Motoren": http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/rafael.haeusler/motoren.shtm
Thank you for reading my ramblings.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Del Rawlins > wrote in message >...
> In > charles.k.scott@
> dartmouth.edu wrote:
>
> > I think it actually will fit in the back of my pickup (haven't taken
> > the time to measure yet), and as you know, we live right next to some
> > pretty dense woods. I could trundle it up to the logging landing
> > above us and run it all day without bothering anyone.
>
> If it were me, I would try to pick up a used trailer and turn that into
> my test stand.

Uh, what about putting a muffler on it? Won't it be flying with
some kind of muffler or tuned exhaust system or something that
cuts the noise?

Hey, I'm just asking.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On 28 Apr 2004 15:23:49 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Uh, what about putting a muffler on it? Won't it be flying with
>some kind of muffler or tuned exhaust system or something that
>cuts the noise?
>
>Hey, I'm just asking.

A muffler was definately part of my original plans, but I just don't
have room to install a muffler and route the exhaust in behind the
radiator to augment the exit airflow. I could test the engine with
several mufflers clamped on though.

It may not make an enormous amount of noise because the exhaust
headers will only be 1 3/8" in diameter and each runner will be 40
inches long. Then they collect into two 2" tubes that themselves will
be about three feet long.

The noise will definately be directional so I might be able to turn
the engine away from the houses and run it without disturbing anyone.

We live next to the woods so if I aim it at the trees... I'll just
have to see how things go.

First I have to fabricate the headers, then set the engine in the test
stand and get serious about running it.

Corky Scott

[sidk]

Richard,
Check this out... four K-type thermocouples and readout for $100! I
have had one for a couple years and it gets used every flight. Omega
is a well-respected name in industrial/scientific community.

http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH501DK

Sid Knox
Velocity N199RS
Starduster N666SK
KR2 N24TC
W7QJQ


> One thing I would like to instrument is the carburetor temperature.
>
> Not a permenant gauge on the panel (I have one - but there's no space).
> Just a low buck way of monitoring the carb temp in flight for a while to
> see whazzappenin and see if pulling the carb heat knob is really doing
> anything.
>
>
> The carb is below the engine (KR2 style intakes manifold from GPAS)
> where it is not warmed much from engine heat.
>
> One of these days I want to make new exhaust pipes with a proper
> carb heat muff.
>
> But for now, I wonder if the air passing thru the cylinder fins would
> be hot enough (too hot enough?) to work well - or not?
>
> Only way to know for sure is to measure it.
>
> Isn't there supposed to be a way to do that with a digital multimeter
> and thermosistor, or thermocouple (what)?
>
> Richard
>
>

[Richard Lamb]

sidk wrote:
>
> Richard,
> Check this out... four K-type thermocouples and readout for $100! I
> have had one for a couple years and it gets used every flight. Omega
> is a well-respected name in industrial/scientific community.
>
> http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH501DK
>
> Sid Knox
> Velocity N199RS
> Starduster N666SK
> KR2 N24TC
> W7QJQ
>
> > One thing I would like to instrument is the carburetor temperature.
> >
> > Not a permenant gauge on the panel (I have one - but there's no space).
> > Just a low buck way of monitoring the carb temp in flight for a while to
> > see whazzappenin and see if pulling the carb heat knob is really doing
> > anything.
> >
> >
> > The carb is below the engine (KR2 style intakes manifold from GPAS)
> > where it is not warmed much from engine heat.
> >
> > One of these days I want to make new exhaust pipes with a proper
> > carb heat muff.
> >
> > But for now, I wonder if the air passing thru the cylinder fins would
> > be hot enough (too hot enough?) to work well - or not?
> >
> > Only way to know for sure is to measure it.
> >
> > Isn't there supposed to be a way to do that with a digital multimeter
> > and thermosistor, or thermocouple (what)?
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >


Thanks Sid, Very intereseting site.
And yes, that puppy just might solve my silly problems...

Richard