It's finally running!

[Corky Scott]

Got the Ford 3.8L V6 running Sunday. Finally.

I got back from taking a friend flying at noon and finished up
buttoning it up.

Here's the background: This is a modified 3.8L V6 with a Northwest
Aero PSRU. The engine was completely rebuilt with the block baked,
bead blasted and scoured, then bored and honed to fit new 9 to 1
compression ration pistons from Wiseco. The crank was sent out to be
turned and new bearings were installed for the crank and con rods.

The heads were planed and I needed four new intake valves. New seals,
new guides, valves lapped in and 1 to 8 ratio roller rockers with new
lifters.

New cam per David Blanton's original specs. Regardless his
strangeness with horsepower claims, no one found fault with the
camshaft specs. No reason to, the design was spec'd out to one of the
premier camshaft engineers in Detroit and he got it right.

The cam was milled from a solid billet rather than regrinding the
original so the original, standard length pushrods could be re-used.

New stock Ford valve springs were used. I fabricated a test stand on
casters that I can drag into my Tacoma and drive it up into the woods
for testing away from civilization. I built it tall enough so that
the engine could run with the prop installed.

But it wouldn't run. I spent three weeks fooling with it trying to
get it running with no success. Finally someone asked if I had any
intake suction. That's the one test I had not done. Carb removed,
hand over intake opening, crank the engine and nothing. No vacuum at
all.

I used to be a certified auto mechanic and never misstimed an engine
in my life, but I'd misstimed this one. I pulled the timing chain
cover off and stared in disbelief. The camshaft was at least 5 teeth
away from where it should be.

So I reset it and double and triple checked that it REALLY was correct
now, scraped off the old gaskets, installed new and buttoned things
up. Cranked it with my hand across the intake manifold opening and it
tried to suck my hand through the opening. Even after I'd stopped
cranking, the suction remained. That was an encouraging sign.

By Sunday afternoon I was pouring in hot water (to make the engine a
little easier turning over) and ready to try it.

Starter switch to on, ignition on, fuel pump on, instruments on and
start! Row row row row row... nothing.

Flip the throttle in and out a few times: Row row row row... nothing.

Recheck timing by cranking the engine with the ignition off and finger
in the no. 1 spark plug hole till it blows my finger out indicating
it's on compression and then hand turn the engine to TDC and check
where the rotor in the distributer is pointing. Hmmm, it's actually
off some so I twist the distributer to align it better.

Try checking the timing using the timing light and no flashing. Could
that be the problem, no ignition? Recheck everything with a test
light, all is functioning properly, what's going on here? Oooops,
timing light clip has fallen off the battery. I re-attach it and
crank the engine and now the timing light is flashing properly. I can
now fine tune the distributer to get the timing at 8 degrees BTDC.
Obviously, the ignition is working.

Ready again, hearing protection on: Row row row... nothing, not a pop.

Ok, time for auxiliary starting fuel. Grab the acetylene torch and
crank up the acetylene and stick the tip into the carburator with the
butterfly valve half open to allow the gas in to the intake manifold.

Row row row row... **BAAAARRRRROOOOOOMMMMMM**BRAP BRAP BRAP, it's
running. I pulled the tip out and slammed the throttle shut and
darned if it didn't continue to run, albeit somewhat roughly, and very
VERY loudly.

I spent the next half hour fiddling with various adjustments and
finally got it running reasnably smoothly, at least at idle and up to
2,000 rpm. But man that thing is *L*O*U*D* loud, and mean sounding.
It sure doesn't sound like grandma's Plymouth.

I need to quiet that down or I won't be able to take it into the woods
and run it without upsetting folks for miles around.

Perhaps "Supertrapp" mufflers?

Anyway, it's running, the psru is tracking smoothly and this is a
milestone. It has a little leak of oil from the front crankshaft oil
seal, not sure what's going on with that yet but it isn't severe.

I also runs a bit rough when revved up past 3,000 but I'm not sure
what's happening there either, I haven't check to see if the timing is
advancing. That's another test yet to do.

So I'm fairly pleased right now. Next step is to bolt on the prop and
run the engine in and then do some long term testing at various power
settings. I spent a lot of time modifying the intake manifold per
Ford V6 STOL suggestions and specifications to have an engine that
will run smoothly at 4,800 rpm but that's with the prop installed. I
also custom fabricated the exhaust headers, making each tube exactly
40 inches long precisely to prevent a rough running hard to tune
engine. More testing to follow.

These tests need to be carefully documented so that the DAR can verify
that the engine has been tested. It's important for me too. ;-)

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:19:32 -0800, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>Congrats!
>
>It sure feels good when a project that you have been working on for a long
>time finally comes to life!
>
>If you decide to do dyno testing, I'd be interested in the results. My
>Dyno2000 desktop dyno program says Blanton's claims of 260+ HP are right on
>the money. It also fits well with known performance of the 5.0L Ford. This
>thing is not far from a 5.0l with one bank lopped off. A 5.0L will put out
>350 HP without any tricks much at all. (6/8)*350hp=262.5hp.
>
>The others here claiming that it won't do over 200 HP must be using stock
>heads, stock cam and manifolds. Dyno2000 says that will get about 200hp.

The engine cubic inch displacement is 232. The piston compression
ratio is 9 to 1. The camshaft is what amounts to a 3/4 race cam and
I'm using the typical two barrel holley carburetor. The most
outrageously modified 3.8 I've ever heard of had higher compression
ratio pistons, special connecting rods and the guy was willing to rev
it to 5300 rpm. He dynoed out at 235 horsepower and I for sure would
not want to be standing near the engine when it was doing that. I
think he may have had a different carb on it too.

Blanton was missusing the formula when he dynoed his engines. It's
simply not possible to get that much power from 232 cubic inches and a
two barrel carburetor without supercharging or revving it to 8,000
rpm.

We don't do that, we limit rpm normally to around 4,800.

All the Blanton engines that have flown have not demonstrated that
they are producing anywhere near 260 horsepower. If they were, we'd
be seeing some very high fuel consumption figures because you cannot
make 260 horsepower and yet burn only 8 gallons per hour.

The actual figures just do not add up. Most guys are getting from 180
to 200 horsepower, with most of those closer to 180.

I'd be happy to report 180 horsepower but I cannot run the engine
without the psru attached, and I don't think the engine will fit on a
dyno with it installed.

Corky Scott

[Ron Webb]

Corky

> The engine cubic inch displacement is 232. The piston compression
> ratio is 9 to 1. The camshaft is what amounts to a 3/4 race cam and
> I'm using the typical two barrel holley carburetor. The most
> outrageously modified 3.8 I've ever heard of had higher compression
> ratio pistons, special connecting rods and the guy was willing to rev
> it to 5300 rpm. He dynoed out at 235 horsepower and I for sure would
> not want to be standing near the engine when it was doing that. I
> think he may have had a different carb on it too.

Thanks for those specs. I'll plug'em into dyno2000 and email you the
predicted torque and HP curves if you're interested...(do you know the CFM
rating on the carb?)


> Blanton was missusing the formula when he dynoed his engines.


I've heard this said before, but it's not likely. Even if he was using the
most primative dyno imaginable. The formula is HP=(torque * RPM)/5252. The
dyno would provide torque directly. I have Blantons engineering package, and
I can't believe that someone capable of that impressive package literally
can't count (which is what he is being accused of here)

But none of that matters much. If a 302 cubic inches (5.0l Ford) can produce
350 hp - Which it can if every hot rod dyno test for the last 20 years is to
be believed) then 232 cubic inches can produce 262 by simple ratios.

Even normally aspirated with no nitrous the 3.8 liter should produce over
260 HP if you get the intake, carb, heads, cam, and exhaust flowing
correctly. At least so says 3 different sources.

One thing though. You mention "special rods". I definately would not fly
behind any engine using powdered metal or cast rods. A set of good forged
rods would be my minimum for internal mods.

The above has been a theory of mine for quite a while. I know that a lot of
folks do not agree. That's why I wanted you to let me know if you dyno.

Thanks
Ron Webb




It's
> simply not possible to get that much power from 232 cubic inches and a
> two barrel carburetor without supercharging or revving it to 8,000
> rpm.
>
> We don't do that, we limit rpm normally to around 4,800.
>
> All the Blanton engines that have flown have not demonstrated that
> they are producing anywhere near 260 horsepower. If they were, we'd
> be seeing some very high fuel consumption figures because you cannot
> make 260 horsepower and yet burn only 8 gallons per hour.
>
> The actual figures just do not add up. Most guys are getting from 180
> to 200 horsepower, with most of those closer to 180.
>
> I'd be happy to report 180 horsepower but I cannot run the engine
> without the psru attached, and I don't think the engine will fit on a
> dyno with it installed.
>
> Corky Scott

[Ron Webb]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message

> Assuming what RPM and compression ratio? Are you using numbers that
> are perfectly reasonable for a street rod, but are higher than the
> airplane guys are willing to fly behind?


Richard

Good question. Since RPM is in the equation, I should certainly specify.

Blanton used a self imposed limit of 4800 RPM, so that is what I used as
well. It is very close to the HP peak when using the Blanton cam. A the
standard street/race cam that is used on dyno2000 yields 302 HP at 6000. A
bit high for our purposes even with forged internals. But at 4800 it shows
262 HP. Blanton's plans derate this a bit and only claim 230 hp.

As for compression ratios, I have run the simulation assuming compression
ranging from 9:1 to 10.5:1 - At 5000RPM, 9:1 yields 261 HP, while 10.5
yields 296 (both at the flywheel). Needless to say, I'll stay with the lower
ranges.

Note that I can make it show 160 HP just as easily. A 2 barrel 300 cfm carb
and stock low heads, cam and shorty headers are all it takes.

This desktop dynamometer program- if it can be trusted - is a wonderful way
to know what to upgrade and what to leave alone. I have references to a
couple of engine building competitions in the past couple of years where it
helped new guys compete with people who have been around for a long time,
and hit the HP figures dead on.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:38:24 -0800, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>Note that I can make it show 160 HP just as easily. A 2 barrel 300 cfm carb
>and stock low heads, cam and shorty headers are all it takes.

But Ron, you just described what V6 STOL owners **DO** use for the
engine. The 500 CFM two barrel carburetor was tried but was found
unsuitable for the engine because it's too much carb. If you use the
usual carburetor air flow formula which is: CFM = (engine size in
cubic inches) x (maximum RPM) / 3456.

Plug in the figures without taking into consideration the pressure
drop inside the carburetor and the answer is 322.22 CFM.

Be realistic, how can an unsupercharged 232 cid engine, limited to
4800 rpm and choked by a carb flowing only 300 CFM make 260
horsepower? Oh I forgot, factor in the altitude too, which as you
know has a negative effect on power as you get higher.

I'm the only builder I know of who has fabricated headers designed to
enhance the power of the engine. All others have "shorty" exhaust
stacks which, as you mentioned, have a detrimental affect on power.
I've heard of only one builder who spent the money to have his heads
professionally modified. My recollection is that he spent a lot of
money and didn't gain much power.

Corky Scott

[Dan Nafe]

In article >,
Corky Scott > wrote:

> unsupercharged 232 cid engine, limited to
> 4800 rpm and choked by a carb flowing only 300 CFM make 260
> horsepower? Oh I forgot, factor in the altitude too, which as you
> know has a negative effect on power as you get higher.

What are you doing for mixture control?

[Peter Dohm]

> >Note that I can make it show 160 HP just as easily. A 2 barrel 300 cfm
carb
> >and stock low heads, cam and shorty headers are all it takes.
>
> But Ron, you just described what V6 STOL owners **DO** use for the
> engine. The 500 CFM two barrel carburetor was tried but was found
> unsuitable for the engine because it's too much carb. If you use the
> usual carburetor air flow formula which is: CFM = (engine size in
> cubic inches) x (maximum RPM) / 3456.
>
I had a copy of Desktop Dyno for a while. (In other words, I forgot to look
for the installation disk after the latest HDD rebuild) And was dazzled by
the horsepower predictions for a number of engines--provided that you were
willing to run them hard and fast, use big pipes and a very big carb (or
throttle body), and also use a cam that was optomized for a fairly high rpm.
I really had my doudts about the engine pulling from idle; as I suspect that
a propeller load is vaguely similar to a torque converted. I also admit
that I am chicken and not willing to run a small-block continuously much
above about 4000 rpm, and would feel more comfortable around 3600 to 3800.
That, a conservative cam, a lower compression ratio, and a small enough
intake to idle smoothly would probably give me around 160 hp.

[ower]

> In article >,
> Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>
"It is finally running"
Snip.

Have you notified "The Barnyard Thing"?

[Ron Webb]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:38:24 -0800, "Ron Webb" >
> wrote:
>
>>Note that I can make it show 160 HP just as easily. A 2 barrel 300 cfm
>>carb
>>and stock low performance heads, cam and shorty headers are all it takes.
>


> But Ron, you just described what V6 STOL owners **DO** use for the
> engine.


Yea, I know. That's why I threw that in there.

It's not what Blanton did though. He ported his own heads, and had his own
cam custom ground. I don't remember what he used for a carb, but I'll bet it
was bigger than a 300 CFM 2 barrel. He also made his own headers (parts are
available now from northwest aero).

All that adds up to substantiating Blanton's claims, and simultaneously
explaining why others have not done as well.

[Darrel Toepfer]

ower wrote:

> "It is finally running"
>
> Have you notified "The Barnyard Thing"?

He said "running" not flying... ;)

[ower]

"Darrel Toepfer" > skrev i meddelandet
. ..
> ower wrote:
>
> > "It is finally running"
> >
> > Have you notified "The Barnyard Thing"?
>
> He said "running" not flying... ;)

OK, was just looking into the future.
May all your mornings be sunny.

[stol]

Congrats to you Corky.

It is always an exciting time to hear a creation bark to life. And to
have the redrive tracking properly the first time is icing on the cake.

Ben

www.haaspowerair.com

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:10:16 -0800, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>Yea, I know. That's why I threw that in there.
>
>It's not what Blanton did though. He ported his own heads, and had his own
>cam custom ground. I don't remember what he used for a carb, but I'll bet it
>was bigger than a 300 CFM 2 barrel. He also made his own headers (parts are
>available now from northwest aero).
>
>All that adds up to substantiating Blanton's claims, and simultaneously
>explaining why others have not done as well.

Blanton used (originally) a 500 CFM version of the Holley two barrel
carburetor. He experimented with the 300 CFM model and decided
unequivally that the only one to use was the 500 CFM unit. Blanton
was given to unequivical pronounciations... frequently. When you read
his newsletter, it's full of figuritively loud statements about how
this works, how that works and what idiots everyone else in the world
is for not listening to him.

The cam is nothing special, it's what everyone who converts a 3.8
uses. As I mentioned, it's one of the few things he got right right
out of the box and he did not design it himself. He had a cam guru he
was acquainted with do it for him and that guy managed to get it
right.

When you limit the 3.8 to a maximum of 4,800 rpm and have it breathing
through a 300 cfm carb, it doesn't matter what kind of cam you have in
it, it's simply not enough engine to produce more than about 200
horsepower. The engine speeds and compression ratio and breathing
just don't allow it.

I know of no individual other than Blanton who claims their engine saw
260 horsepower on a dyno. All others range from 160 (virtually stock
and without the cam and pistons) to 235 hp (higher compression pistons
than Blanton specified, after market rods and at 5,300 rpm).

For all his machining expertise, Blanton just got the figures on his
dyno runs wrong. Doesn't it bother you that no one else on earth was
able to duplicate Blanton's dyno runs? Isn't that the acid test:
Being able to duplicate test results?

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:53:51 -0400, Dan Nafe >
wrote:

>> unsupercharged 232 cid engine, limited to
>> 4800 rpm and choked by a carb flowing only 300 CFM make 260
>> horsepower? Oh I forgot, factor in the altitude too, which as you
>> know has a negative effect on power as you get higher.
>
>What are you doing for mixture control?

Some use a MacNeilly leaning block and at least one individual chose
to fly his without any provision for leaning.

I have the leaning block and during my original attempts to start the
engine, converted the carb back to original specs in order to
eliminate that (carburetion) as a problem.

Now that the engine is running, I'll be putting the leaning block back
on because all testing will have to be done with the engine in it's
flying condition.

With the leaning block, which is added on to the carb float chamber on
top of the valve body, you can run at full rich, or lean it to full
lean which kills the engine. Just like the carbs in any standard type
aviation carburetor.

Corky Scott

[dwoolery]

Congratualtions Corky. I look forward to further postings. Mine has
about 10 hours on it. Runs well but I expect to have many more hours
on it before the airframe is finished. I can discuss some of my
problems and solutions if it would be helpful.

David

[Corky Scott]

On 26 Apr 2005 13:09:39 -0700, "dwoolery" > wrote:

>Congratualtions Corky. I look forward to further postings. Mine has
>about 10 hours on it. Runs well but I expect to have many more hours
>on it before the airframe is finished. I can discuss some of my
>problems and solutions if it would be helpful.
>
>David

Thanks for the offer David. I have a couple of wierd things happening
that I have to work through, plus some modifications of the test stand
before I can begin in earnest.

There is a small oil leak around the front oil seal. Not sure what's
going on with that but I had to remove the timing chain cover to fix
my boo boo with timing the camshaft and the oil pan gasket broke when
I did this. I used a lot of blue RTV to reinstall, but I did not drop
the oil pan to either remove or reinstall so there might be a problem
there that won't be fixed unless I remove the oil pan and replace the
gasket. I didn't want to do that because all the oil pan bolts are
safety wired. I wired them when I could rotate the engine upside down
and work in comfort. Can't do that now...

I'm using a used Modine oil cooler which gets the heater hoses routed
to it. It bolts on top of the oil filter housing and the oil filter
bolts on top of it. I'll have to remove the cooler and see why it's
leaking.

I installed baffles in the tailpipes to reduce the extraordinarily
loud bark of the exhaust last night. That seems to have ameliorated
the noise somewhat, but Daisy the lab took off when I started it last
night anyway...

I also need to reinstall the leaning block and see if the engine will
rev to 3,000 and beyond without stumbling.

Finally, I now have the proper sized bolts from IVO for the prop. I
need to install the prop and then step into a new consciousness to run
the engine with the prop. Till now it's just been a loud engine and I
can walk around it and make adjustments as necessary. With the prop
installed, things will be different, the prop could cut pieces of me
off if I walk into it. The prop will also attempt to pull the test
stand into the woods so all engine running will have to be conducted
with the stand chained down.

Corky Scott

[Bruce A. Frank]

Dave,

Since I don't seem to have the time to get the next issue of the
newsletter out, why don't you talk some here about the trials and
tribulations (if any) of getting your engine going.

dwoolery wrote:

> Congratualtions Corky. I look forward to further postings. Mine has
> about 10 hours on it. Runs well but I expect to have many more hours
> on it before the airframe is finished. I can discuss some of my
> problems and solutions if it would be helpful.
>
> David

--
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.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote

With the prop
> installed, things will be different, the prop could cut pieces of me
> off if I walk into it.

Might I suggest that you made something like a rail, to be a slight physical
barrier between you and the prop? It doesn't need to be anything more than
a visual reminder, like a 2 x 4 strapped across the back of the truck, but
that should be enough of a visual reminder to help, if things start to go
wrong.

I too, add my congrats to getting to this milestone. Keep us informed.
--
Jim in NC

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:16:13 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>Might I suggest that you made something like a rail, to be a slight physical
>barrier between you and the prop? It doesn't need to be anything more than
>a visual reminder, like a 2 x 4 strapped across the back of the truck, but
>that should be enough of a visual reminder to help, if things start to go
>wrong.
>
>I too, add my congrats to getting to this milestone. Keep us informed.

That's a good idea Jim, I sure have enough lumber laying around to rig
something up.

Corky Scott

[dwoolery]

Hi Bruce,

Good to hear from you. As I mentioned above my engine has about 10
hours on it. For a quick review, it is out of an '84 T'Bird and has
forged pistons, reground cam, new lifters and push rods, Beecher
underdrive pulleys, Blanton redrive, modified water pump (larger
impeller and backing plate), Holley 350cfm carb, Ford sandwich oil
cooler, short exhaust stubs and the expansion tank you welded for me.
It is hung on the airframe so I can start it up and run it whenever I
go out to the airport, which isn't too much lately. Initially my goal
was to get it running and keep it cool. I hung a radiator out of a 3.0
Taurus vertically about a foot under the motor. I mounted the fan from
the same car behind the radiator. Coolant temps were Ok but oil temp
kept climbing. Then I hung a copper/brass radiator from a 280Z
horizontally under the motor with the fan on top pulling through the
radiator and blowing on the engine. I also mounted a stacked plate oil
cooler under the radiator so the fan could pull through it. On hot
days coolant temps stayed at 185, pressure was less than 10 and oil
temps stayed a few degrees above coolant. Everything was perfect.
Then I changed it. I installed a new aluminum radiator in the tail
with a larger fan. The stacked plate oil cooler just hangs up front
with a computer fan pulling air through it. I also installed a sensor
and relay to control the cooling fan. The coolant temp is still fine
but the oil cooler needs more air through it and the coolant pressure
is all over the place. Spark plugs look good except #5. It is silver
gray. I'm putting in some Bosch platinum +4 plugs this weekend. If
anyone wants pictures let me know.

David