V8 fuel flow

[Robert Bates]

I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was derated
to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does anyone
have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite a
savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.

[stol]

Robert Bates wrote:
> I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was
derated
> to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does
anyone
> have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite
a
> savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.

My Zenith 801 is running a 347 cu in all aluminum Ford V-8. I detuned
it to about 310 hp to keep the plane from breaking in half and on take
off I am burning 11.8-12.3 an hour. I throttle back to a fuel burn of
6.5 or so for cruise. Remember, on aircooled motors they use 30-40 % of
the fuel just to cool the heads/cylinders. Being liquid cooled we can
shift that cooling demand to our radiators and burn less fuel in the
process.

Ben Haas N801BH

[Robert Bates]

That is impressive! What weight did the engine end up at with the PSRU and
is the engine stock?



"stol" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Bates wrote:
> > I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was
> derated
> > to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does
> anyone
> > have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite
> a
> > savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.
>
> My Zenith 801 is running a 347 cu in all aluminum Ford V-8. I detuned
> it to about 310 hp to keep the plane from breaking in half and on take
> off I am burning 11.8-12.3 an hour. I throttle back to a fuel burn of
> 6.5 or so for cruise. Remember, on aircooled motors they use 30-40 % of
> the fuel just to cool the heads/cylinders. Being liquid cooled we can
> shift that cooling demand to our radiators and burn less fuel in the
> process.
>
> Ben Haas N801BH
>

[stol]

The engine is far from stock. It uses a Ford Motorsports block, cocla
crank. H beam rods, titaniam valves etc. The best stuff one can buy. It
did cost me 12,000+ to build including the redrive but thats far less
expensive then a comparable certified 300 hp motor.If you are a true
motor head you will appreaciate pics of it. here are a few links of the
plane. There are some on Jays, alexisparkinn's site, Beltedairs'site
and www.ch701.com.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh2.jpg
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh1.jpg

Firewallforward weight including a three bladed inflight adj prop is
less then 420 lbs. A little lighter then a fully dressed 0-360Lyc and
twice the power in a detuned state. It is basically a full race sprint
car motor capable of 800+ hp so it is just idleing along,

Ben

[Robert Bates]

Thanks for the links. That is one beautiful engine and the weight is better
than I thought. I'll bet it sounds nice too. I have been leaning toward an
experimental with a V8 since I talked with a friend who ate a sprague gear
on his 421 which lead to a 50k rebuild and six weeks of waiting. Granted, a
520 or 540 is less but still...



"stol" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The engine is far from stock. It uses a Ford Motorsports block, cocla
> crank. H beam rods, titaniam valves etc. The best stuff one can buy. It
> did cost me 12,000+ to build including the redrive but that's far less
> expensive then a comparable certified 300 hp motor.If you are a true
> motor head you will appreciate pics of it. here are a few links of the
> plane. There are some on Jays, alexisparkinn's site, Beltedairs'site
> and www.ch701.com.
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh2.jpg
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh1.jpg
>
> Firewallforward weight including a three bladed inflight adj prop is
> less then 420 lbs. A little lighter then a fully dressed 0-360Lyc and
> twice the power in a detuned state. It is basically a full race sprint
> car motor capable of 800+ hp so it is just idleing along,
>
> Ben
>

[ELIPPSE]

Robert Bates wrote:
> I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was
derated
> to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does
anyone
> have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite
a
> savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.

Hi, Robert!
Typically, the SFC of 4-stroke IC engines, liquid or air-cooled, is
0.5lb/hp-hr at best power mixture of about 12.5:1 A-F. Leaned for max
economy this will range from O.45 to 0.38 depending upon the engine.
Those that have 0.38 are very efficient. Some new Continentals or
Lycomings are getting this value leaned for best economy. The 10.9
gal/hr says that this engine, if it's leaned for best economy, is
producing between 148hp and 168hp, or about 50% power. "Cruise" is an
ambiguous designator, and doesn't really convey any information about
the engine's operating parameters! Be careful of these kind of claims!
So to get a good estimate of an engine's full-throttle, max. power
output, divide the fuel flow in gallons/hour by 0.5 then multiply this
by the weight of the fuel, which for av-gas averages about 5.85lb/gal.
Paul

[Robert Bates]

Hi Paul!

Thanks for the formula.


"ELIPPSE" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Bates wrote:
> > I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was
> derated
> > to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does
> anyone
> > have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite
> a
> > savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.
>
> Hi, Robert!
> Typically, the SFC of 4-stroke IC engines, liquid or air-cooled, is
> 0.5lb/hp-hr at best power mixture of about 12.5:1 A-F. Leaned for max
> economy this will range from O.45 to 0.38 depending upon the engine.
> Those that have 0.38 are very efficient. Some new Continentals or
> Lycomings are getting this value leaned for best economy. The 10.9
> gal/hr says that this engine, if it's leaned for best economy, is
> producing between 148hp and 168hp, or about 50% power. "Cruise" is an
> ambiguous designator, and doesn't really convey any information about
> the engine's operating parameters! Be careful of these kind of claims!
> So to get a good estimate of an engine's full-throttle, max. power
> output, divide the fuel flow in gallons/hour by 0.5 then multiply this
> by the weight of the fuel, which for av-gas averages about 5.85lb/gal.
> Paul
>

[Peter Dohm]

"ELIPPSE" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Bates wrote:
> > I was reading on a site about someone running a Chevy LS1 that was
> derated
> > to 320hp and bone stock that was running 10.9 gal/hr at cruise. Does
> anyone
> > have experience with these engines? If it is accurate, that is quite
> a
> > savings over Lycoming and Continentals of that HP.
>
> Hi, Robert!
> Typically, the SFC of 4-stroke IC engines, liquid or air-cooled, is
> 0.5lb/hp-hr at best power mixture of about 12.5:1 A-F. Leaned for max
> economy this will range from O.45 to 0.38 depending upon the engine.
> Those that have 0.38 are very efficient. Some new Continentals or
> Lycomings are getting this value leaned for best economy. The 10.9
> gal/hr says that this engine, if it's leaned for best economy, is
> producing between 148hp and 168hp, or about 50% power. "Cruise" is an
> ambiguous designator, and doesn't really convey any information about
> the engine's operating parameters! Be careful of these kind of claims!
> So to get a good estimate of an engine's full-throttle, max. power
> output, divide the fuel flow in gallons/hour by 0.5 then multiply this
> by the weight of the fuel, which for av-gas averages about 5.85lb/gal.
> Paul
>
Hmmmmm... Interesting...

Since I can't seem to get started on a real airplane project, due to
currently living in a condominium (aaarrrggghh!!!) and not being ready to
spend money on both hangar rent and the project, I've been reduced to
*fantasy* airplanes on a doodle pad...

What makes this interesting is: If I assume that I will do everything
practical to aerodynamically clean up the airframe, take full advantage of
the reduced ram air pressure requirement for a liquid cooling system, use a
fixed pitch prop, and still use the age-old formula of 0.2G static thrust to
allow for successful grass field operation; then I end up with a projection
of 50% power at cruising speed and altitude and 100% rpm as configured for
the application.

Therefore, someone using a constant sped prop and the same cruising speed,
which is conservative operation of the engine, should almost exactly match
Elippse's calculated numbers.

With my fixed pitch prop, I would expect slightly poorer fuel flow numbers,
although that alone would never pay for the constant speed prop.

Remember, however, that the example given was for a STOL aircraft where the
constant speed prop is used to gain much greater static thrust (a/k/a runway
acceleration). So long as we both use conservative numbers for maximum rpm,
and well designed drive systems, both engines should be extremely reliable.

Peter

p.s.: My alternative doodles with _standard_ aircraft engines end up
cruising at about 60% of maximum power as configured. That can be raised to
between 65% and 70% by using a smaller diameter prop and higher rpm, as
advocated by Steve Witman and others. That means winding the engine up to
110% to 115% on take off and initial climb.

[Dan Nafe]

In article om>,
"stol" > wrote:

>
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh2.jpg
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh1.jpg
>
> Firewallforward weight including a three bladed inflight adj prop is
> less then 420 lbs. A little lighter then a fully dressed 0-360Lyc and
> twice the power in a detuned state. It is basically a full race sprint
> car motor capable of 800+ hp so it is just idleing along,
>

Wow!

[Dave Hyde]

Dan Nafe wrote...
> "stol" > wrote:
> > Firewallforward weight including a three bladed inflight adj prop is
> > less then 420 lbs. A little lighter then a fully dressed 0-360Lyc...
[...]
>
> Wow!

Wow is right...what did they have to do to get an
O-360 150 lb over its dry weight to make this comparison?

Dave 'porky' Hyde

[Blueskies]

"stol" > wrote in message ups.com...
> The engine is far from stock. It uses a Ford Motorsports block, cocla
> crank. H beam rods, titaniam valves etc. The best stuff one can buy. It
> did cost me 12,000+ to build including the redrive but thats far less
> expensive then a comparable certified 300 hp motor.If you are a true
> motor head you will appreaciate pics of it. here are a few links of the
> plane. There are some on Jays, alexisparkinn's site, Beltedairs'site
> and www.ch701.com.
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh2.jpg
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/builder-pics/bh1.jpg
>
> Firewallforward weight including a three bladed inflight adj prop is
> less then 420 lbs. A little lighter then a fully dressed 0-360Lyc and
> twice the power in a detuned state. It is basically a full race sprint
> car motor capable of 800+ hp so it is just idleing along,
>
> Ben
>

Nice looking setup. Where are your radiators and are they and the coolant included in the weight?

[Ron Webb]

> Wow is right...what did they have to do to get an
> O-360 150 lb over its dry weight to make this comparison?
>
> Dave 'porky' Hyde
>


Dry weight of an I0-360 is listed as 293#
(http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/avlinks/engines.htm#Engines2)
Add a starter (18#), an alternator (12 #), Prop (30# or so), Vacuum pump,
external oil filter and cooler, The engine mount itself, two magnetos,
....did I forget anything?...

On mine, the FWF total weight is well over 400# and that's with a lot of
experimental stuff to cut weight.

[Dave Hyde]

Ron Webb wrote...

> Dry weight of an I0-360 is listed as 293#

Dry weight of an O-360, which is what the OP
referred to, is 30 lb less. I contend that
you'd have to work hard to get the FWF above
420 lb.

Do you *really* think accessories and oil
(in flight adjustable prop, not CS) make up
25% of a representative FWF weight?

Dave 'economics of scale' Hyde

[Morgans]

"Ron Webb" > wrote

> Dry weight of an I0-360 is listed as 293#
> (http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/avlinks/engines.htm#Engines2)
> Add a starter (18#), an alternator (12 #), Prop (30# or so), Vacuum pump,
> external oil filter and cooler, The engine mount itself, two magnetos,
> ...did I forget anything?...
>
> On mine, the FWF total weight is well over 400# and that's with a lot of
> experimental stuff to cut weight.
>

The weight being compared was with a ground adjustable prop, also. How much
that would weigh is...?
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ron Webb" > wrote
>
>> Dry weight of an I0-360 is listed as 293#
>> (http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/avlinks/engines.htm#Engines2)
>> Add a starter (18#), an alternator (12 #), Prop (30# or so), Vacuum pump,
>> external oil filter and cooler, The engine mount itself, two magnetos,
>> ...did I forget anything?...
>>
>> On mine, the FWF total weight is well over 400# and that's with a lot of
>> experimental stuff to cut weight.
>>
>
> The weight being compared was with a ground adjustable prop, also. How much
> that would weigh is...?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

That is an in-flight adjustable prop, not constant speed but still adjustable. I think the writer is saying the weight
compares favorably with a IO-360 with all accessories and a constant speed prop. The only real operational issue is the
requirement to watch the prop pitch control vs. manifold pressure and twiddle as necessary to set the power; not quite
as easy as a constant speed but configurable never-the-less...

[Morgans]

"Blueskies" > wrote

> That is an in-flight adjustable prop, not constant speed but still
adjustable. I think the writer is saying the weight
> compares favorably with a IO-360 with all accessories and a constant speed
prop. The only real operational issue is the
> requirement to watch the prop pitch control vs. manifold pressure and
twiddle as necessary to set the power; not quite
> as easy as a constant speed but configurable never-the-less...
>

Right. I think other people's hesitations about the poster saying the V-8
is lighter, is possibly justified. Nevertheless, the possible heavier
weight should be more than offset by the higher HP, and I commend someone
giving alternate power a real, (from how it appears) well thought out
application, a chance to work.

As far as claims of fantastic economy goes, I think that anyone claiming to
be getting *substantially* better than .38 lbs/hp/hr, even with a modern
liquid cooled engine, are suspect.


Good luck to the OP. I wish I were involved in the project. Test test
test, before flying!
--
Jim in NC

[stol]

Morgans wrote:
> "Blueskies" > wrote
>
> > That is an in-flight adjustable prop, not constant speed but still
> adjustable. I think the writer is saying the weight
> > compares favorably with a IO-360 with all accessories and a
constant speed
> prop. The only real operational issue is the
> > requirement to watch the prop pitch control vs. manifold pressure
and
> twiddle as necessary to set the power; not quite
> > as easy as a constant speed but configurable never-the-less...
> >
>
> Right. I think other people's hesitations about the poster saying
the V-8
> is lighter, is possibly justified. Nevertheless, the possible
heavier
> weight should be more than offset by the higher HP, and I commend
someone
> giving alternate power a real, (from how it appears) well thought out
> application, a chance to work.
>
> As far as claims of fantastic economy goes, I think that anyone
claiming to
> be getting *substantially* better than .38 lbs/hp/hr, even with a
modern
> liquid cooled engine, are suspect.
>
>
> Good luck to the OP. I wish I were involved in the project. Test
test
> test, before flying!
> --
> Jim in NC

Let me clear up some things. My plane is tied down in its hangar at
almost 7000 feet msl. So the 310 hp is down 22% right off the bat, now
it's at 240 or so. The fuel flow for that HP range is damn close. I
agree that any motor running below .38-.40 is pushing the limit on
thermal dynamics of current technology. I admit that there is some
cutting edge stuff in my motor that helps squeeze out more hp per pound
of fuel. For instance my egt is running 1600 + on takeoff but this also
has an explanation. my probe is in the collector, not the head pipe so
the the egt number looks high for sure. Took me a while to find some
trick collector gaskets that can stand that kind of temp. An aircooled
motor in the low .40 range is kinda hard to believe. Now if they add
some ceramic goodies to their product they might get close. Lyc and
Cont are realizing they are so far behind the tech curve that stating
the FADEC is the future of their aircooled powerplants is like buying a
bridge somewhere. Truth is Horsepower=Heat. The better one converts
that to motion is ahead of the pack. I believe Dave Hyde asked the
question ,How did a 0-360 gain so much weight.Well, lets add things up.
0-360 "Bare" and dry is 293,, Maybe,, add starter,Flywheel, ringgear,
alt, fuel system and pump, fuel lines, shrouds, mags, wiring harness,
brackets, exhaust system, mufflers, heat muffs, Scat tubes, clamps,
oil filter, oil, oil cooler,oil lines,engine mount, cowling, prop,
governor, bolts, nuts, Etc !!!!! I have weighed a Lyc all dressed out
and it is alot heavier then most people think. Only in America can one
create a better flying mouse trap....God Bless the USA !!!!!!!
Ben Haas N801BH Jackson Hole Wyoming

[Corky Scott]

On 17 Jan 2005 19:46:11 -0800, "stol" > wrote:

>I admit that there is some
>cutting edge stuff in my motor that helps squeeze out more hp per pound
>of fuel. For instance my egt is running 1600 + on takeoff but this also
>has an explanation. my probe is in the collector, not the head pipe so
>the the egt number looks high for sure.

Why would that be Ben? Why would the probe being in the collector see
a higher temp than if it (they) were in the header pipe?

Is the fuel setup a bit on the rich side?

Also, it looks like you had the headers coated, which company did you
choose for the process?

Thanks, Corky Scott

[Cy Galley]

Exhaust system was left out.
"Ron Webb" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > Wow is right...what did they have to do to get an
> > O-360 150 lb over its dry weight to make this comparison?
> >
> > Dave 'porky' Hyde
> >
>
>
> Dry weight of an I0-360 is listed as 293#
> (http://home1.gte.net/ikvamar/avlinks/engines.htm#Engines2)
> Add a starter (18#), an alternator (12 #), Prop (30# or so), Vacuum pump,
> external oil filter and cooler, The engine mount itself, two magnetos,
> ...did I forget anything?...
>
> On mine, the FWF total weight is well over 400# and that's with a lot of
> experimental stuff to cut weight.
>
>

[stol]

Lean mixture makes the exhaust hotter, not a rich mixture. There was a
good article about egt.s on the web from AERA, tech showing a similar
motor on the dyno. Where the pipes merge at the collector it was
noticably brighter and hotter. I spend a while tonight looking for that
article to give ya the link, darn if I can find it now. Headers came
coated from the manufacturer, Sanderson..

[Blueskies]

"stol" > wrote in message oups.com...
> Lean mixture makes the exhaust hotter, not a rich mixture.


Up to a point, then it gets cooler...

[[email protected]]

stol wrote:

> My Zenith 801 is running a 347 cu in all aluminum Ford V-8. I detuned
> it to about 310 hp to keep the plane from breaking in half and on
take
> off I am burning 11.8-12.3 an hour.

Ben,

This equates to a BSFC of about 0.22 , essentially "impossible".



> Remember, on aircooled motors they use 30-40 % of
> the fuel just to cool the heads/cylinders.

Please explain the reasoning behind this (IMHO bizarre ) statement.


Sid Knox
Oklahoma
Velocity N199RS
Starduster N666SK
KR2 N24TC
W7QJQ

[Corky Scott]

On 20 Jan 2005 21:57:24 -0800, wrote:

>stol wrote:
>
>> My Zenith 801 is running a 347 cu in all aluminum Ford V-8. I detuned
>> it to about 310 hp to keep the plane from breaking in half and on
>take
>> off I am burning 11.8-12.3 an hour.
>
>Ben,
>
>This equates to a BSFC of about 0.22 , essentially "impossible".

Sid, you must have missed the following, it explains a lot:

>"Let me clear up some things. My plane is tied down in its hangar at
>almost 7000 feet msl. So the 310 hp is down 22% right off the bat, now
>it's at 240 or so. The fuel flow for that HP range is damn close. I
>agree that any motor running below .38-.40 is pushing the limit on
>thermal dynamics of current technology. I admit that there is some
>cutting edge stuff in my motor that helps squeeze out more hp per pound of fuel.
>Ben Haas N801BH Jackson Hole Wyoming"

Ben wrote:
>> Remember, on aircooled motors they use 30-40 % of
>> the fuel just to cool the heads/cylinders.

Sid asks:
>Please explain the reasoning behind this (IMHO bizarre ) statement.

When properly set up aircooled engines with fixed timing (which
describes all of them except for those equipped with electronic
aftermarket timing or FADEC) are advanced to full power, the fuel
system is designed to produce a strongly overrich mixture in order to
prevent detonation and overheating.

There may be some confusion as to how an overrich mixture actually
achieves this. The answer in depth may be found at:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html

REALLY simplifying the explanation, since the timing is fixed, the
only way to vary the timing is by varying the mixture. The speed of
combustion within the combustion chamber will vary from very lean to
ideal to very rich: going from slow (relatively speaking) to fast and
back to slow again respectively.

Engineers preset the point of ignition in order for the peak pressure
point to occur at 16 degrees after top dead center while at full power
and full rich mixture. This is the point where the combustion reached
it's maximum pressure during the combustion process. Engineers have
long known that the PPP should occur at 16 degrees ATDC for maximum
power and cooling.

If the mixture is leaned while under full power the combustion will
speed up. If the combustion speeds up, the PPP may begin to occur at
close to TDC. If the PPP is occurring at TDC, all that pressure has
no where to go and pressure and temperatures skyrocket.

This is why you do NOT lean the mixture while the at full power and
taking off, unless you are at a high altitude airport, which is
another story. It's also why you should NOT pull back the throttle in
an effort to "save" the engine. Pulling back the throttle slows the
engine (fixed prop), which brings the PPP close to TDC (bad).

Anyway, the rich mixture for takeoff allows the engine to achieve it's
best PPP location at 16 degrees ATDC which allows the engine to
produce maximum power and not overheat. It does not cool the engine
by hosing down the combustion chamber with excess fuel.

Corky Scott

[stol]

Please read the followup post I did for an explaination. You seem to
have pasted the SEA level output I quoted, not the real enviorment it
is flying . I am SURE the fuel consumption will be a lot higher DOWN
there.So Lets see, 12.6 X X 6 is 73 pounds per hour divided by 240 hp
gaves a number in the low three range. The main reason I am seeing 12.2
or so GPM is because I don't use FULL power. The whole idea is to have
plenty of EXTRA HP and use just what one needs for the task at hand.
Maybe one day when I get real crazy I will throttle it up some more, if
the plane don't break in half.. After all I only have two feet to push
on the right rudder. After 60+ hours on this package it has
demonstrated everything I was expecting and more. The motor is WAY
smoother then a Lyc or Cont, starts on the first couple of turns
everytime and can burn either 100LL or car gas. I do commend you on
taking the WRONG numbers to make your calcs with. IMHO you are bizarre
in your approach. But what the hell, this is a free country, better
yet. Come on out and strap yourself in and see for yourself, is ya
promise not to throw up in my plane.. Bring Barnyard Blob anong too..I
am betting all three of the planes you list below your name has a
aircooled engine in them,

Ben Haas

[Dave Hyde]

stol wrote...

> After 60+ hours on this package it has
> demonstrated everything I was expecting and more.

I don't doubt that someday someone will build
a successful auto conversion. Maybe someone
already has. Maybe it's you. But you sure
as snot don't know for sure after only "60+ hours"
unless that plus adds a zero or two to that 60.

Dave 'accelerated service test' Hyde

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:21:19 GMT, "Dave Hyde" > wrote:

>I don't doubt that someday someone will build
>a successful auto conversion. Maybe someone
>already has. Maybe it's you. But you sure
>as snot don't know for sure after only "60+ hours"
>unless that plus adds a zero or two to that 60.

Does 2,000+ hours count? There is a Ford V6 STOL that achieved that
mark several years ago. The owner/builder reached that time and tore
the engine and PSRU down for inspection. He found no discernable wear
in the cylinders and the belt appeared still viable. My understanding
is that he installed new bearings and replaced the psru's cog belt
anyway.

Bruce can likely give more detailed information.

Bruce can also give numbers on how many of the Ford conversions are
over 1,000 hours.

Corky Scott

PS, I did not see where Ben claimed anything other than that he built
the conversion and it is working fine so far.

[Bruce A. Frank]

Years ago when I lived in PA I watched as a FWF 0-320 was pulled off a
plane at the FBO (can't remember what plane). Just for the information the
mechanic weighed the package, wet without the metal prop. The weight came
to 420 lbs which was only 20 pounds less than the FWF Ford V-6 installed in
the mechanics plane.

stol wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
> > "Blueskies" > wrote
> >
> > > That is an in-flight adjustable prop, not constant speed but still
> > adjustable. I think the writer is saying the weight
> > > compares favorably with a IO-360 with all accessories and a
> constant speed
> > prop. The only real operational issue is the
> > > requirement to watch the prop pitch control vs. manifold pressure
> and
> > twiddle as necessary to set the power; not quite
> > > as easy as a constant speed but configurable never-the-less...
> > >
> >
> > Right. I think other people's hesitations about the poster saying
> the V-8
> > is lighter, is possibly justified. Nevertheless, the possible
> heavier
> > weight should be more than offset by the higher HP, and I commend
> someone
> > giving alternate power a real, (from how it appears) well thought out
> > application, a chance to work.
> >
> > As far as claims of fantastic economy goes, I think that anyone
> claiming to
> > be getting *substantially* better than .38 lbs/hp/hr, even with a
> modern
> > liquid cooled engine, are suspect.
> >
> >
> > Good luck to the OP. I wish I were involved in the project. Test
> test
> > test, before flying!
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Let me clear up some things. My plane is tied down in its hangar at
> almost 7000 feet msl. So the 310 hp is down 22% right off the bat, now
> it's at 240 or so. The fuel flow for that HP range is damn close. I
> agree that any motor running below .38-.40 is pushing the limit on
> thermal dynamics of current technology. I admit that there is some
> cutting edge stuff in my motor that helps squeeze out more hp per pound
> of fuel. For instance my egt is running 1600 + on takeoff but this also
> has an explanation. my probe is in the collector, not the head pipe so
> the the egt number looks high for sure. Took me a while to find some
> trick collector gaskets that can stand that kind of temp. An aircooled
> motor in the low .40 range is kinda hard to believe. Now if they add
> some ceramic goodies to their product they might get close. Lyc and
> Cont are realizing they are so far behind the tech curve that stating
> the FADEC is the future of their aircooled powerplants is like buying a
> bridge somewhere. Truth is Horsepower=Heat. The better one converts
> that to motion is ahead of the pack. I believe Dave Hyde asked the
> question ,How did a 0-360 gain so much weight.Well, lets add things up.
> 0-360 "Bare" and dry is 293,, Maybe,, add starter,Flywheel, ringgear,
> alt, fuel system and pump, fuel lines, shrouds, mags, wiring harness,
> brackets, exhaust system, mufflers, heat muffs, Scat tubes, clamps,
> oil filter, oil, oil cooler,oil lines,engine mount, cowling, prop,
> governor, bolts, nuts, Etc !!!!! I have weighed a Lyc all dressed out
> and it is alot heavier then most people think. Only in America can one
> create a better flying mouse trap....God Bless the USA !!!!!!!
> Ben Haas N801BH Jackson Hole Wyoming

--
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.

[stol]

Geez. Once again I screwed up and posted my results from my auto
conversion on the wrong web group. You see I was trying to inform all
the EXPERIMENTAL people that are " dreaming, thinking about, building
or just curious about homebuilt aircraft and dumb me I posted it on the
CERTIFIED plane group instead I put it here.........


Wait !!!!!


late breaking news !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is the rec.aviation. HOMEBUILT. newsgroup. Please Dave Hyde find
something wrong with this ...

Ben' thank god I don't have a certfied Lycoming crank that will break
in my plane' Haas.

[stol]

Very well explained Corky !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Big John]

Blueskies

Are you saying that if you lean the mixture until engine quits, then
the EGT goes down?

I'm still alive but lurking :o)

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:09:06 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"stol" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> Lean mixture makes the exhaust hotter, not a rich mixture.
>
>
>Up to a point, then it gets cooler...
>

[Blueskies]

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies
>
> Are you saying that if you lean the mixture until engine quits, then
> the EGT goes down?
>
> I'm still alive but lurking :o)
>
> Big John
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:09:06 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"stol" > wrote in message oups.com...
>>> Lean mixture makes the exhaust hotter, not a rich mixture.
>>
>>
>>Up to a point, then it gets cooler...
>>
>

Well, some folks argue for best economy they lean the mixture then go past peak to the lean side of peak which lowers
EGT...YMMV

[[email protected]]

Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one I
was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 = 0.29
BSFC.

Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be proud
to show.

73,
Sid

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message oups.com...
> Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
> change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one I
> was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
> fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
> computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
> If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 = 0.29
> BSFC.
>
> Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
> installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
> Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be proud
> to show.
>
> 73,
> Sid
>

What is the fuel used in that engine - autogas, 100LL?

[stol]

wrote:
> Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
> change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one
I
> was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
> fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
> computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
> If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 =
0.29
> BSFC.
>
> Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
> installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
> Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be
proud
> to show.
>
> 73,
> Sid

Thank you sir. I am using a JPI 450 fuel flow gauge and it is still in
the calibrate test mode. It appears to read a bit on the low side,
maybe 8 to 10 % I am making repeated flights to verify the true flow
though it. Ya see I used the bigger transducer to be sure of proper
flow though it in case I needed to gravity feed to motor in case both
fuel pumps fail. That change probably confuses the 450 head unit. I am
sure the flows to the carb and engine are correct as all my plug cuts
show a good color and after years of being in the engine development
business I am pretty sure what a proper running engine should feel
like. To answer the other guys question, so far I have only used 100LL
just to make sure I don't get too far off baseline. I do admit I have a
new respect for test pilots,, thats for sure.. I will keep posting
results as they are produced. Ya have to keep in mind I realize this
thing might do me in on the next flight, but thats the price to pay for
pushing the envelope.

Ben Haas N801BH

[stol]

wrote:
> Ben, I misunderstood the 310-to-240 derate... however, even with that
> change, YOUR numbers still do not work. In your first post (the one
I
> was replying to...(you changed to 12.6 in this last post)) you stated
> fuel flow of "...11.8-12.3 an hour...". If one uses 12.3, this
> computes to (12.3 x 5.85)/240 = 0.3
> If one uses the 11.8 number, this computes to (11.8 x 5.85)/240 =
0.29
> BSFC.
>
> Now, to say something nice..... I found the photos of your engine
> installation to show nothing less than beautiful workmanship!!
> Regardless of how the numbers shake-out, it is a conversion to be
proud
> to show.
>
> 73,
> Sid

Thank you sir. I am using a JPI 450 fuel flow gauge and it is still in
the calibrate test mode. It appears to read a bit on the low side,
maybe 8 to 10 % I am making repeated flights to verify the true flow
though it. Ya see I used the bigger transducer to be sure of proper
flow though it in case I needed to gravity feed to motor in case both
fuel pumps fail. That change probably confuses the 450 head unit. I am
sure the flows to the carb and engine are correct as all my plug cuts
show a good color and after years of being in the engine development
business I am pretty sure what a proper running engine should feel
like. To answer the other guys question, so far I have only used 100LL
just to make sure I don't get too far off baseline. I do admit I have a
new respect for test pilots,, thats for sure.. I will keep posting
results as they are produced. Ya have to keep in mind I realize this
thing might do me in on the next flight, but thats the price to pay for
pushing the envelope.

Ben Haas N801BH