Oh those CERTIFIED plane engines !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stol]

For all you guys and gals building a homebuilt plane DO NOT use a auto
engine conversion or any other option that is not FAA certified, Ya see
the feds and Lycoming have a lock on the market providing "quality and
time tested powerplants". Let's see now. it all started a few years
back when Lycoming had a brain fart and decided they knew more about
crankshafts then god, so they redid them, with the FAA's blessing of
course. Ya know the feds demand strict safety testing and "high"
quality control over certified parts. Well, that batch of hundreds had
several break and kill a few innocent souls, So they recalled them and
redesigned the problem out of them and in the meantime kept hundrends
of planes grounded for months while they " patched" the issue. They
introduced a "New and Improved" crank that would cure all their issues.
Well, those broke at a alarming rate and killed 14 innocent souls. All
the while with the feds watching this all unfold. Lycoming then tried
to sue the forging company that stamped out the cranks that THEY speced
the design for. Well, that didn't fly either.


So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
strike rule in aviation..

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/maintenancePublications/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

ya, I am the bad guy trying to get ol Barnyard Blob to wake up. <G>

[[email protected]]

> So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
> strike rule in aviation..
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love it... "While there has been no failures..."

But the 'early crankshaft retirement' is even more hilarious.
Lycoming makes it sound as if they're sending kids to summer camp
instead of commiting wilful murder by selling a product known to be
defective.

-R.S.Hoover

[Montblack]

("stol" wrote)
> So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
> strike rule in aviation.

<http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/maintenancePublications/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf>


Today's AvWeb lead story:

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/586-full.html#191678>
Lycoming Woes Continue: 5100 Crankshafts To Be "Retired"

(From the link)
"In previous recalls totaling some 2400 crankshafts, Lycoming has paid for
the engine work to various degrees, even reimbursing owners for hangar
expenses and loss of use in the 2003 recalls. Not this time. Owners affected
by the crank retirement will get a discount deal on the replacement
crankshaft -- $2000 for the shaft, plus a box full of free parts such as
gears, bearings, piston ring sets, connecting rod bolts and nuts and seals.
But they're on their own for engine assembly, repair and reinstallation,
which field overhaul shops tell us will add another $4000 to $5000 to the
job if the crank is replaced proactively or before the engine reaches
routine TBO. Further, owners will have to ship the retired crankshaft back
to Lycoming to obtain the discount price, also at their own expense. The
$2000 offer applies to crankshafts for any engine and is substantially below
list price for a new part, especially for six-cylinder engines."

"Lycoming says it will ramp up production of replacement crankshafts but as
in previous recalls, priority will go to government operators and Part 121
and Part 135 operators, with private owners last. What's not known is if
this recall withdraws all of the potentially defective crankshafts from the
market. (We queried Lycoming about this but haven't received a reply yet.)
The crankshafts in question were manufactured between March of 1997 and
March of 2002."


Montblack

[Peter Dohm]

> > ya, I am the bad guy trying to get ol Barnyard Blob to wake up. <G>
> >
>
> You must have a lot of patience, a barrel full?, to get that one to
> see the light.
>
Certaninly more patience than I cam muster!

[jls]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("stol" wrote)
> > So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
> > strike rule in aviation.
>
>
<http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/maintenancePublication
s/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf>
>
>
> Today's AvWeb lead story:
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/586-full.html#191678>
> Lycoming Woes Continue: 5100 Crankshafts To Be "Retired"
>
>

But the mandatory service bulletin leaves out O-320's and O-235's.

One wonders if Teledyne is getting its alloys from the same source. I doubt
it.

And where are the reports of deaths or personal injury caused by the bad
cranks? Do we have a cite from a Lycophobe?

[Kyle Boatright]

Is there something that indicates that:

1) Uncertified cranks from uncertified manufacturers are a more reliable
product

2) If there was a problem with an uncertified crank from an uncertified
manufacturer, the manufacturer would notify owners of the potential problem.

Otherwise, I don't see this as a certified vs non-certified issue.

KB

[Ron Webb]

> Is there something that indicates that:
>
> 1) Uncertified cranks from uncertified manufacturers are a more reliable
> product
>

The point is not that Ben Haas forged 4340 steel crank for his Ford
conversion is a better product (it is, but that's not the point) - the point
is that the Lyc product is not magic, perfect, and made by elves in the
black forest, as the price and some of the folks here would have us believe.

Let a few Corvair cranks break after 40 years, and it's no longer a viable
motor, but Lyc gets a pass when they have (far worse) trouble??

P.T. Barnum had it right!






> 2) If there was a problem with an uncertified crank from an uncertified
> manufacturer, the manufacturer would notify owners of the potential
> problem.
>
> Otherwise, I don't see this as a certified vs non-certified issue.
>
> KB
>

[Richard Lamb]

jls wrote:

> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>("stol" wrote)
>>
>>>So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
>>>strike rule in aviation.
>>
>>
> <http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/maintenancePublication
> s/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf>
>
>>
>>Today's AvWeb lead story:
>>
>><http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/586-full.html#191678>
>>Lycoming Woes Continue: 5100 Crankshafts To Be "Retired"
>>
>>
>
>
> But the mandatory service bulletin leaves out O-320's and O-235's.
>
> One wonders if Teledyne is getting its alloys from the same source. I doubt
> it.
>

Just guessing here, but aren't the O-235 adn O-320 cranks solid rather than
hollow (for constant speed props)?

[RapidRonnie]

Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
that huge knowledge base.

[Richard Lamb]

RapidRonnie wrote:

> Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
> can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
> in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
> would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
> Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
> that huge knowledge base.
>

Gently disagree, Ron.

The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
see on the race track.

Apples and oranges again...

Richard

[Ron Webb]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> RapidRonnie wrote:
>
>> Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
>> can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
>> in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
>> would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
>> Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
>> that huge knowledge base.
>>
>
> Gently disagree, Ron.
>
> The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
> see on the race track.
>
> Apples and oranges again...
>
> Richard

Perhaps, but it is entirely possible to use a Geschwender chain drive or one
of several belt drives that have all been around for 30 years themselves.
Their job is to match the prop to the crank. The loads on the crank can be
reduced to nothing but torque, and the torsional vibration issues dealt
with. The engineering has been done, and it works.

The NorthWest Aero belt drive http://www.northwest-aero.com/ as an example,
was derived (I think) from the Blanton PSRU that has been around since the
1960's. Many Ford 3.8 and GM 4.3l V6's and 350 V8's have been run many
thousands of hours. Improvements have been made over the years (better
belts, different bearings, easier adjustments.

If there has been a failure of a properly maintained one in the last few
years, I'd love to hear about it.

Failures of auto conversions tend to be stupid stuff anyway. This guy
http://www.epi-eng.com/Prop-SudnStop.htm somehow left one of those blue
paper towels inside his cowling. It got sucked through the turbocharger,
shredded, and completely clogged the air filter. Bad...but not the fault of
the fact that it was an auto engine.

[stol]

The vast majority of auto conversions use a PSRU to transmit the power
from the motor to the prop. Ron has pointed that out nicely. You can
see mine up close by going to my website and clicking on pics. Quick,
simple and a picture is worth a thousand words.


Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

[[email protected]]

>Just guessing here, but aren't the O-235 adn O-320 cranks solid rather than
>hollow (for constant speed props)?

They are hollow, and some models of the engines have
provision for a governor. That hollow crank has been the subject of an
AD; the front end of the crank gets cold in flight due to the prop's
heat loss and the hollow bore, open to the case, gets condensation and
oil in it. Those mix and form sludge and acids that eat away at the
inside of the bore and weaken the crank. See:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/E7B86DE103CB30E78625684D006644B5?OpenDocument

Hollow shafts are stiffer than solid shafts. The stresses are
all concentrated in the outside wall, with no central material to act
as a fulcrum to stretch the outside on bends. Try bending a piece of
5/8" bar and one of 5/8" tube sometime (same material, of course) and
see the difference. The bar will bend, but the tube will resist bending
until it suddenly kinks. Cranks need to be stiff, especially where they
are loaded with gyroscopic forces, and need to be light, so they're
mostly hollow.

Dan

[Ron Webb]

>
> The motor is actually a 347 cu in displacement, that was obtained by
> using a stroker crank and .030 overbore.

Yea, that's a very common thing to do. All the parts available. Right now
there are probably 100 or so of those cranks on ebay.


> The whole thing is not really that inexpensive to create
> because the bare Ford aluminum block by itself is 4400.00 dollars.

That's why I went with a Ford SOHC 4.6l instead, for my personal project. I
found a short block - new - aluminum block and forged internals for $400 on
EBay. Another $1K for heads and all the other stuff, and the motor was
running. I didn't realize how much bigger physically the 4.6l is than the
5.0l pushrod motor.

It's on an (modified Adventurer) Amphibian, with a pusher configuration and
mounted right at the CG. With a pusher, you want the prop traveling through
air that is uniform all the way around, and disturbed as little as possible.
My cowl will be a big cylinder, uniform all the way around centered on the
prop flange so the size is not really a problem for me, but it'd not be the
best choice for a normal tractor aircraft. Weight is not much over 450#, but
the footprint is huge in comparison.

Like I said - your choice is much better! But I'm having fun anyway...

[stol]

Ron wrote;

My cowl will be a big cylinder, uniform all the way around centered on
the
prop flange so the size is not really a problem for me, but it'd not be
the
best choice for a normal tractor aircraft. Weight is not much over
450#, but
the footprint is huge in comparison.


Like I said - your choice is much better! But I'm having fun anyway...


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


If ya got a digital cam I would love to see some pics of the project
your building.

Send it to stol83001 at yahoo dot com.

Ben

[Mark Hickey]

"stol" > wrote:

> My same package is at 434 lbs and can be configured to put out
>from 120 hp all the way to 600+. The 600 number is for takeoff and
>five minutes, then you have to throttle it back to the the low 5's to
>get it to live.

Getting an honest 600 horsepower from a 347 cubic inch engine would
require doing things to it that would seem to be quite incompatible
with service in an aircraft. Approaching 2 horsepower per cubic inch
requires either significant turbo/supercharger boost and/or turning
the engine at VERY high rpms.

Have you actually dyno'd the engine to check the realistic horsepower?
400 would probably be enough to do VTOL on a CH801... ;-)

Mark Hickey

[Richard Lamb]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> "stol" > wrote:
>
>
>>My same package is at 434 lbs and can be configured to put out
>
>>from 120 hp all the way to 600+. The 600 number is for takeoff and
>
>>five minutes, then you have to throttle it back to the the low 5's to
>>get it to live.
>
>
> Getting an honest 600 horsepower from a 347 cubic inch engine would
> require doing things to it that would seem to be quite incompatible
> with service in an aircraft. Approaching 2 horsepower per cubic inch
> requires either significant turbo/supercharger boost and/or turning
> the engine at VERY high rpms.
>
> Have you actually dyno'd the engine to check the realistic horsepower?
> 400 would probably be enough to do VTOL on a CH801... ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey

I'm kind of curious about how Chris Heintz feels about hanging such a
monster motor on his airplane.

His web site says 150 to 240 bhp with max installed weight of 440 lbs.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/performance.html

[stol]

Richard said:

I'm kind of curious about how Chris Heintz feels about hanging such a
monster motor on his airplane.

His web site says 150 to 240 bhp with max installed weight of 440 lbs.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I am under the 440 lbs as he spec'd out. Altho that is a old number,
even since the 801 disintagrated over Calif a few years back .Zenith
reduced it to 400 lbs if I remember correctly. I do check my airframe
very closely often and it shows no signs of deforming anywhere, I am
based at 6500 msl so the 330 sea level nuumbers are reduced by about
25-30%, that puts my set up in the 250-260 range. I will need to be
careful when I get my toy down to sea level where thick air lives
though. I should add the Calif crash was not caused by the plane
though, "we hope". The NTSB found a high level of drugs in the pilot
and passengers blood which apparently lead to them to believe they
invincable while doing areobatics. They won't do that again.

Ben
N801BH

[Mark Hickey]

"stol" > wrote:

>Seeing how this same engine design and componants are used in the
>Nascar truck series week after week with some teams going several race
>weekends without freshening up the motor pretty much explains how
>bulletproof the package is. Also keep in mind they are putting out
>closer to 750 hp @ 8800 rpms or so this year.

A couple thoughts there - turning an American V8 at 8800 rpm on an
airplane wouldn't be something I'd be tempted to do - even once, and
I'm demonstrably more stupid than most people.

And those Craftsman Series trucks aren't running WOT all day long.
"Several race weekends" involves only a few hours (maximum) at full
power, and even then it's not at all unusual to see them leave their
motors on the ground in pieces down the back straight.

> Keep in mind too they are
>flat tappet motors too. Mine is a full roller set up which adds alot of
>available HP due to much less friction in the motor.

There's a difference, but it's not that big. Remember that any
difference would be converted to heat, and if you were losing any
meaningful percentage of the power by heating the cam and lifters, the
top of the motor would melt in VERY short order (since the oil would
stop working).

The other issue you'd have to face is that if your PSRU is optimized
for cruise speed (to give you reasonable cruise at the "low" RPM you
run it at cruise), you're gonna be spinning that prop WAY past its
design limits at 8800 rpm.

Mark Hickey

[stol]

A couple thoughts there - turning an American V8 at 8800 rpm on an
airplane wouldn't be something I'd be tempted to do - even once, and
I'm demonstrably more stupid than most people.

And those Craftsman Series trucks aren't running WOT all day long.
"Several race weekends" involves only a few hours (maximum) at full
power, and even then it's not at all unusual to see them leave their
motors on the ground in pieces down the back straight.



> Keep in mind too they are
>flat tappet motors too. Mine is a full roller set up which adds alot of
>available HP due to much less friction in the motor.


There's a difference, but it's not that big. Remember that any
difference would be converted to heat, and if you were losing any
meaningful percentage of the power by heating the cam and lifters, the
top of the motor would melt in VERY short order (since the oil would
stop working).

The other issue you'd have to face is that if your PSRU is optimized
for cruise speed (to give you reasonable cruise at the "low" RPM you
run it at cruise), you're gonna be spinning that prop WAY past its
design limits at 8800 rpm.


Mark Hickey


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


No need wasting any more of my time on you. This is America and we all
have our own opinions. You clearly didn't read my previous post or my
explainations of using a percentage of power. This afternoon I will be
flying in an auto engine powered plane while you sit there and fly your
keyboard.... Have fun and type safely......

Ben

[stol]

This is Mark Hickey's profile...........

Geez, ya think he's a pilot?????

Most people I know that love bicycles are TREE HUGGERS and hate powered
things. Like we didn't figure that out on the previous posts you made..


The Veep's shooting spree. rec.bicycles.tech moments ago
Oh those CERTIFIED plane engines !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rec.aviation.homebuilt moments ago
Making Motorcycle Engines Fly... Litterally. rec.motorcycles.tech
7 hours ago
Bike Fit rec.bicycles.tech 7 hours ago
Road Tires. rec.bicycles.tech 7 hours ago
The Veep's shooting spree. rec.bicycles.tech 8 hours ago
The Bikes of China rec.bicycles.misc 8 hours ago
Oh those CERTIFIED plane engines !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rec.aviation.homebuilt 8 hours ago
how long must threaded fork be to make it threadless
rec.bicycles.tech 41 hours ago
The Veep's shooting spree. rec.bicycles.tech 41 hours ago

[Cal Vanize]

stol wrote:
> For all you guys and gals building a homebuilt plane DO NOT use a auto
> engine conversion or any other option that is not FAA certified, Ya see
> the feds and Lycoming have a lock on the market providing "quality and
> time tested powerplants". Let's see now. it all started a few years
> back when Lycoming had a brain fart and decided they knew more about
> crankshafts then god, so they redid them, with the FAA's blessing of
> course. Ya know the feds demand strict safety testing and "high"
> quality control over certified parts. Well, that batch of hundreds had
> several break and kill a few innocent souls, So they recalled them and
> redesigned the problem out of them and in the meantime kept hundrends
> of planes grounded for months while they " patched" the issue. They
> introduced a "New and Improved" crank that would cure all their issues.
> Well, those broke at a alarming rate and killed 14 innocent souls. All
> the while with the feds watching this all unfold. Lycoming then tried
> to sue the forging company that stamped out the cranks that THEY speced
> the design for. Well, that didn't fly either.
>
>
> So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
> strike rule in aviation..
>
> http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/maintenancePublications/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf
>
> Ben
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ya, I am the bad guy trying to get ol Barnyard Blob to wake up. <G>

I've got a reason for delaying any decision regarding a kit or the
engine. TBOs asice, theres the basic reliability factor. I'm not
comnfortable with the current options based on the remote areas I would
plan to go.

i know there aren't that many engine failures, but I have a magnetic
draw to Murphy. He'd certainly be my passenger running somewhere
between Calgary and Anchorage.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Hollow shafts are stiffer than solid shafts. The stresses are
> all concentrated in the outside wall, with no central material to act
> as a fulcrum to stretch the outside on bends. Try bending a piece of
> 5/8" bar and one of 5/8" tube sometime (same material, of course) and
> see the difference. The bar will bend, but the tube will resist bending
> until it suddenly kinks. Cranks need to be stiff, especially where they
> are loaded with gyroscopic forces, and need to be light, so they're
> mostly hollow.
>

More importantly a hollow shaft that is the same weight as a solid
one will have a larger diameter which gives you much better
stiffness, especially in torsion, for the same weight.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> RapidRonnie wrote:
>
> > Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
> > can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
> > in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
> > would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
> > Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
> > that huge knowledge base.
> >
>
> Gently disagree, Ron.
>
> The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
> see on the race track.
>

If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.

I have never heard of anyone breaking the crankshat in their family
car,
that includes VWs. That tells me that auto manufacturers in general
and VW in particular have sucessfully designed their cranks to last
indefinately under nominal and even somewhat more adverse than
nominal conditions.

One supposes, however, that auto manufacturers do not make the
crank a whole lot stronger than needed to achieve that result.
A part that lasts indefinately is not improved by making it last
longer than indefinately when doing so would add weight which,
especially to a high RPM moving part, is generally a bad idea.

There are a lot of VW powered airplanes, and it is not uncommon
for the crankshaft to break in those.

If we make the unremarkable assumption that GM did not over-
design their Corvair crankshats any more than VW did theirs then
the Corvair crankshaft failures are quite predictable.

It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
standard engine, don't you think?

--

FF

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Hollow shafts are stiffer than solid shafts. The stresses are
>> all concentrated in the outside wall, with no central material to act
>> as a fulcrum to stretch the outside on bends. Try bending a piece of
>> 5/8" bar and one of 5/8" tube sometime (same material, of course) and
>> see the difference. The bar will bend, but the tube will resist bending
>> until it suddenly kinks. Cranks need to be stiff, especially where they
>> are loaded with gyroscopic forces, and need to be light, so they're
>> mostly hollow.
>>
>
> More importantly a hollow shaft that is the same weight as a solid
> one will have a larger diameter which gives you much better
> stiffness, especially in torsion, for the same weight.

Yes. The outer diameter of the hollow tube will be slightly larger than
the solid rod. On the drawing board, if the outer diameter is strictly
limited (by crank journal diameter), or slightly limited (if the block
allows slightly larger journals), then changing the crankshaft from
solid for hollow this may or may not be an issue. (Pretty wordy!)

In reality, swapping out a solid crankshaft for a hollow one of equal or
at least sufficient strength and stiffness is not always simple,
prudent, or even possible. (Pretty wordy again!)

Here is a good reference for anyone (regardless of their level of
engineering knowledge):

http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/section_square_case_12.htm

You can play with the numbers a bit. Moment of inertia is directly
related to stiffness (in torsion) while (cross section) area is directly
related to weight. Section modulus is directly related to bending strength.


PS- Fred, you (and others in this thread) obviously have a good handle
on this stuff. My post is mostly directed to the audience. Disclaimer,
I'm 99% sure I got the working definitions right. Corrections are
welcome :)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
> > RapidRonnie wrote:
> >
> > > Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
> > > can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
> > > in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
> > > would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
> > > Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
> > > that huge knowledge base.
> > >
> >
> > Gently disagree, Ron.
> >
> > The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
> > see on the race track.
> >
>
> If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
> failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.
>
> I have never heard of anyone breaking the crankshat in their family
> car,
> that includes VWs. That tells me that auto manufacturers in general
> and VW in particular have sucessfully designed their cranks to last
> indefinately under nominal and even somewhat more adverse than
> nominal conditions.
>
> One supposes, however, that auto manufacturers do not make the
> crank a whole lot stronger than needed to achieve that result.
> A part that lasts indefinately is not improved by making it last
> longer than indefinately when doing so would add weight which,
> especially to a high RPM moving part, is generally a bad idea.
>
> There are a lot of VW powered airplanes, and it is not uncommon
> for the crankshaft to break in those.
>
> If we make the unremarkable assumption that GM did not over-
> design their Corvair crankshats any more than VW did theirs then
> the Corvair crankshaft failures are quite predictable.
>
> It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
> a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
> standard engine, don't you think?

Automotive crankshafts are designed to take loads in predominately
torquing modes, while aircraft crankshafts have to take bending and
thrust loads, due to the fact that they have a very large flywheel
hanging on the end, which resists changes in direction.

Either engine will work quite nicely for the purpose for which it was
intended. It is when you change the mission that you had better
understand how the mission changes the operating environment vs the
design parameters.

[Richard Lamb]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>>RapidRonnie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
>>>>can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
>>>>in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
>>>>would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
>>>>Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
>>>>that huge knowledge base.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Gently disagree, Ron.
>>>
>>>The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
>>>see on the race track.
>>>
>>
>>If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
>>failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.
>>
>>I have never heard of anyone breaking the crankshat in their family
>>car,
>>that includes VWs. That tells me that auto manufacturers in general
>>and VW in particular have sucessfully designed their cranks to last
>>indefinately under nominal and even somewhat more adverse than
>>nominal conditions.
>>
>>One supposes, however, that auto manufacturers do not make the
>>crank a whole lot stronger than needed to achieve that result.
>>A part that lasts indefinately is not improved by making it last
>>longer than indefinately when doing so would add weight which,
>>especially to a high RPM moving part, is generally a bad idea.
>>
>>There are a lot of VW powered airplanes, and it is not uncommon
>>for the crankshaft to break in those.
>>
>>If we make the unremarkable assumption that GM did not over-
>>design their Corvair crankshats any more than VW did theirs then
>>the Corvair crankshaft failures are quite predictable.
>>
>>It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
>>a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
>>standard engine, don't you think?
>
>
> Automotive crankshafts are designed to take loads in predominately
> torquing modes, while aircraft crankshafts have to take bending and
> thrust loads, due to the fact that they have a very large flywheel
> hanging on the end, which resists changes in direction.
>
> Either engine will work quite nicely for the purpose for which it was
> intended. It is when you change the mission that you had better
> understand how the mission changes the operating environment vs the
> design parameters.

And, as Orval had likely experienced himself,
(dam long limber chain drives?)
PSRU's may take the gyroscopic forces out,
but can add harmonic resonance issues that
may be even tougher to deal with than a simple
broken crank shaft...

It all looks so easy on paper...

Richard

[Morgans]

> wrote

> If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
> failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.

If you would read the site again, I think you will find that the breaking
problem is limited to higher speed airplanes, not stuff like aircampers,
right?

> It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
> a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
> standard engine, don't you think?

Some manufacturers, at certain times in their lifespan, are less comfortable
with cutting design strength margins too closely. GM is more likely to
build hell for stout, than are many of the imports, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 14:22:07 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
>> failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.
>
>If you would read the site again, I think you will find that the breaking
>problem is limited to higher speed airplanes, not stuff like aircampers,
>right?
>
>> It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
>> a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
>> standard engine, don't you think?
>
>Some manufacturers, at certain times in their lifespan, are less comfortable
>with cutting design strength margins too closely. GM is more likely to
>build hell for stout, than are many of the imports, IMHO.

And even more than the "aircraft" manufacturers, where weight IS the
enemy, and where change for improvement's sake is very much frowned
upon. If you change or improve something, you are admitting something
was less than perfect, and leaving yourself vulnerable to that
"unwashed horde" known as the "legal proffesion".

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Richard Lamb > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Lamb wrote:
> >>
> >>>RapidRonnie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
> >>>>can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
> >>>>in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
> >>>>would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
> >>>>Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
> >>>>that huge knowledge base.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Gently disagree, Ron.
> >>>
> >>>The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
> >>>see on the race track.
> >>>
> >>
> >>If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
> >>failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.
> >>
> >>I have never heard of anyone breaking the crankshat in their family
> >>car,
> >>that includes VWs. That tells me that auto manufacturers in general
> >>and VW in particular have sucessfully designed their cranks to last
> >>indefinately under nominal and even somewhat more adverse than
> >>nominal conditions.
> >>
> >>One supposes, however, that auto manufacturers do not make the
> >>crank a whole lot stronger than needed to achieve that result.
> >>A part that lasts indefinately is not improved by making it last
> >>longer than indefinately when doing so would add weight which,
> >>especially to a high RPM moving part, is generally a bad idea.
> >>
> >>There are a lot of VW powered airplanes, and it is not uncommon
> >>for the crankshaft to break in those.
> >>
> >>If we make the unremarkable assumption that GM did not over-
> >>design their Corvair crankshats any more than VW did theirs then
> >>the Corvair crankshaft failures are quite predictable.
> >>
> >>It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
> >>a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
> >>standard engine, don't you think?
> >
> >
> > Automotive crankshafts are designed to take loads in predominately
> > torquing modes, while aircraft crankshafts have to take bending and
> > thrust loads, due to the fact that they have a very large flywheel
> > hanging on the end, which resists changes in direction.
> >
> > Either engine will work quite nicely for the purpose for which it was
> > intended. It is when you change the mission that you had better
> > understand how the mission changes the operating environment vs the
> > design parameters.
>
> And, as Orval had likely experienced himself,
> (dam long limber chain drives?)
> PSRU's may take the gyroscopic forces out,
> but can add harmonic resonance issues that
> may be even tougher to deal with than a simple
> broken crank shaft...
>
> It all looks so easy on paper...

I didn't experience it myself, but I have witnessed a few less than
spectacular results. One was a Ford V-6 in a Mustang II -- very poor
job, V-belt broke and took out the ignition -- fatal.

Another two were in Stewart 51s: one was a Ford V-8 with full electronic
fuel injection, etc. The computer took awhile to set up for high power,
then took awhile for low power. It got some bent valves. Owner replaced
it with a Walther turbine after only four flights.

Another S-51 had a chain drive PSRU, which started eating up the PSRU
housing because of chain slop -- there were no tensioners on the chain.

I have also seen a few successes, too. One was the late George Morse's
Olds V-6 in his Skybolt and later in the Prowler. He found that you need
an AN water pump instead of the automotive one and that you also need a
coolant pressure indicator, in addition to temperature.

Another success (so far) is an S-51 with a V-8 (geared PSRU) that ahs
been flying here for about a year. I don't know what problems (if any)
he has had, but he is taking small steps.

As I posted earlier, you CAN fly, successfully, on automotive
conversions, but it is not for the novice and technically-inexperienced.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> If I may be forgiven (or not) for reading about the Corvair crank
> >> failures with rectal vision, they should not have surprised anyone.
> >
> >If you would read the site again, I think you will find that the breaking
> >problem is limited to higher speed airplanes, not stuff like aircampers,
> >right?
> >
> >> It is highly unlikely that any auto manufacturer is going to put
> >> a crankshaft that is a whole lot stronger than needed into a
> >> standard engine, don't you think?
> >
> >Some manufacturers, at certain times in their lifespan, are less
comfortable
> >with cutting design strength margins too closely. GM is more likely to
> >build hell for stout, than are many of the imports, IMHO.
>
> And even more than the "aircraft" manufacturers, where weight IS the
> enemy, and where change for improvement's sake is very much frowned
> upon. If you change or improve something, you are admitting something
> was less than perfect, and leaving yourself vulnerable to that
> "unwashed horde" known as the "legal proffesion".
>
I also love to pick. However, let's also remember that improvements and
vendor changes also have a way of restarting the entire field experience
process--as has been discussed earlier in this thread, and also in AvFlash,
with regard to Lycoming...

[Cal Vanize]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Some manufacturers, at certain times in their lifespan, are less comfortable
> with cutting design strength margins too closely. GM is more likely to
> build hell for stout, than are many of the imports, IMHO.

There's a little difference. When the engine breaks in your car, you
can pull off the road and call a tow truck.

[Morgans]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> I have also seen a few successes, too. One was the late George Morse's
> Olds V-6 in his Skybolt and later in the Prowler. He found that you need
> an AN water pump instead of the automotive one and that you also need a
> coolant pressure indicator, in addition to temperature.

What do you mean by an AN water pump?

One of the common things people say about auto conversions, is that they are
not designed to run at the high power outputs that are needed for aircraft.

It seems, however, that most of the problems are in the stuff that is bolted
to the engine. PSRU's fail, water pumps go out, belts fly around, fuel
delivery is not up to the job, cooling is not good enough, whatever. The
engines are rarely the problem, though.

Good design and doing what other successful converters have done, looks to
be the key.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
> >
> > Some manufacturers, at certain times in their lifespan, are less
comfortable
> > with cutting design strength margins too closely. GM is more likely to
> > build hell for stout, than are many of the imports, IMHO.
>
> There's a little difference. When the engine breaks in your car, you
> can pull off the road and call a tow truck.
>
>
True ... but ...
Engines in cars rarely break. Possibly as rarely as _real_ airplane
engines. However, I have seen a broker crank in a 40 HP Volkswagen, which
my brother and I bought. We rebuilt another engine and installed it with no
further problems. I also used to know a truck mechanic who saw the
occasional broken crank; usually, or perhaps always, after seeing a failed
torsional harmonic dampened--and trying without success to convince the
owner to replace it.

I leave it to the reader to make the connection; as I have beaten that dead
horse far too much, and not only on this NG.

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cal Vanize" > wrote
> >
> > There's a little difference. When the engine breaks in your car, you
> > can pull off the road and call a tow truck.
>
> Humm, I don't know a single person that has had a broken crank, in his
car.
> Can you say the same about your friend's airplanes?
>
> When an auto engined airplane powerplant fails, it is almost always not
the
> engine, but what has been bolted to it. It seems like airplane engines
are
> always blowing jugs off, sticking valves, and breaking rods and cranks.
> They are not confidence inspiring, to me.
>
> True, auto engines in airplanes have a way to go, but if someone were to
put
> the effort into making a standard package, and perfecting it, they would
> really go far. Some are getting really close.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
You've summed it up quite well, Jim.

Peter in FL

[Morgans]

"Cal Vanize" > wrote
>
> There's a little difference. When the engine breaks in your car, you
> can pull off the road and call a tow truck.

Humm, I don't know a single person that has had a broken crank, in his car.
Can you say the same about your friend's airplanes?

When an auto engined airplane powerplant fails, it is almost always not the
engine, but what has been bolted to it. It seems like airplane engines are
always blowing jugs off, sticking valves, and breaking rods and cranks.
They are not confidence inspiring, to me.

True, auto engines in airplanes have a way to go, but if someone were to put
the effort into making a standard package, and perfecting it, they would
really go far. Some are getting really close.
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
> > I have also seen a few successes, too. One was the late George Morse's
> > Olds V-6 in his Skybolt and later in the Prowler. He found that you need
> > an AN water pump instead of the automotive one and that you also need a
> > coolant pressure indicator, in addition to temperature.
>
> What do you mean by an AN water pump?

IIRC, George meant to use a water pump such as used on Merlins or
Allisons. he found the automotive pumps to be lacking.



> One of the common things people say about auto conversions, is that they are
> not designed to run at the high power outputs that are needed for aircraft.
>
> It seems, however, that most of the problems are in the stuff that is bolted
> to the engine. PSRU's fail, water pumps go out, belts fly around, fuel
> delivery is not up to the job, cooling is not good enough, whatever. The
> engines are rarely the problem, though.

True! If you isolate the engine from unintended stresses, it will work a
lot better, but those same stresses manifest themselves in other places,
unless you are really sharp anticipating them.


> Good design and doing what other successful converters have done, looks to
> be the key.

True -- that is *ALWAYS* the case! Add in "good practices" also.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Cal Vanize" > wrote
> >
> > There's a little difference. When the engine breaks in your car, you
> > can pull off the road and call a tow truck.
>
> Humm, I don't know a single person that has had a broken crank, in his car.
> Can you say the same about your friend's airplanes?

I had a broken crank in a 356C Porsche (rebuilt engine/chromed crank). I
think the real problem was that the shop that chromed the crank didn't
bake it properly to eliminate hydrogen embrittlement.


> When an auto engined airplane powerplant fails, it is almost always not the
> engine, but what has been bolted to it. It seems like airplane engines are
> always blowing jugs off, sticking valves, and breaking rods and cranks.
> They are not confidence inspiring, to me.
>
> True, auto engines in airplanes have a way to go, but if someone were to put
> the effort into making a standard package, and perfecting it, they would
> really go far. Some are getting really close.

I had an E-225 swallow a valve in a Bonanza once -- shook like hell at
anything over 1500 RPM!

[Morgans]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> IIRC, George meant to use a water pump such as used on Merlins or
> Allisons. he found the automotive pumps to be lacking.

I was unaware that a water pump for a Merlin or an Allison would fit on an
American V-8! <g>

Really, though, I don't understand what he would be referring to. Is it
something like what is commonly used on racing (NASCAR) engines? What
companies make something compatible, in that design?

I had always thought that special design was needed to get the accessories
running at a slower than stock RPM, either by using a smaller than normal
drive pulley, or larger than normal accessory pulley. I would think that
better bearings would be good things for a water pump.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Morgans wrote:
> "Cal Vanize" > wrote
>
>>There's a little difference. When the engine breaks in your car, you
>>can pull off the road and call a tow truck.
>
>
> Humm, I don't know a single person that has had a broken crank, in his car.
> Can you say the same about your friend's airplanes?
>
> When an auto engined airplane powerplant fails, it is almost always not the
> engine, but what has been bolted to it. It seems like airplane engines are
> always blowing jugs off, sticking valves, and breaking rods and cranks.
> They are not confidence inspiring, to me.
>
> True, auto engines in airplanes have a way to go, but if someone were to put
> the effort into making a standard package, and perfecting it, they would
> really go far. Some are getting really close.

Many people ARE working on it, of course.

A friend in Hondo has been for several years.
He runs the local crop dusting service and flies Snows, AgTrucks, and a couple
of small Cessnas. There are a few Garret powered planes as well - sweet, but
pricey to purchase, and operate.

One season, he replaced 13 cylinders on ONE of his 1835s.
THAT'S a chunk of change, folks!

His idea is to use a large block V8 to power his fleet, and has had one up
and flying. That one used a belt driven PSRU, and actually flew a few hours
before it was lost in a hangar fire. Reliability was never fully explored,
but there were some doubts as to how long it would have lasted in service.

The next step was to have a gearbox designed - by a well known name in this
field. Several years, a lot of drawings, and planning - and money? before
this one was dropped.

The current plan is for a chain drive. Another well known name in the field,
but this guy says he can have it up and running in 60 days.

The FAA agrees that the duster fleet needs modernized power and is very
interested in the results. No dusters - no food - and an epidemic of RATS!

My own feeling is that the crop dusting fleet NEEDS this kind of power and
reduced operating costs! And the aircraft size makes it quite adaptable to
such engines. As opposed to very small, very light, very experimental
airframes.

Given enough time and money....

Richard

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
> > IIRC, George meant to use a water pump such as used on Merlins or
> > Allisons. he found the automotive pumps to be lacking.
>
> I was unaware that a water pump for a Merlin or an Allison would fit on an
> American V-8! <g>
>
> Really, though, I don't understand what he would be referring to. Is it
> something like what is commonly used on racing (NASCAR) engines? What
> companies make something compatible, in that design?
>
> I had always thought that special design was needed to get the accessories
> running at a slower than stock RPM, either by using a smaller than normal
> drive pulley, or larger than normal accessory pulley. I would think that
> better bearings would be good things for a water pump.

I, also, am not sure what George was referring to. Military engines have
standard accessory mountings, so, I am assuming that coolant pumps would
simply bolt on to the accessory cases. You would have to add a similar
provision to an auto engine.

Yes, bearings were the weak point in the auto pumps.

[Smitty Two]

>
> The FAA agrees that the duster fleet needs modernized power and is very
> interested in the results. No dusters - no food - and an epidemic of RATS!
>

No dusters, no chemicals in our food, and an epidemic of fresh organic
food with actual nutrition still in it.

Yes, I live in Kookyfornia. Save it.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Smitty Two > wrote:

> >
> > The FAA agrees that the duster fleet needs modernized power and is very
> > interested in the results. No dusters - no food - and an epidemic of RATS!
> >
>
> No dusters, no chemicals in our food, and an epidemic of fresh organic
> food with actual nutrition still in it.
>
> Yes, I live in Kookyfornia. Save it.

Know how you can tell if the food you eat is organic? Just look for
"occupants", or, if you have already bitten into it, look for *half8 an
"occupant."

[Cal Vanize]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> True ... but ...
> Engines in cars rarely break. Possibly as rarely as _real_ airplane
> engines. However, I have seen a broker crank in a 40 HP Volkswagen, which
> my brother and I bought. We rebuilt another engine and installed it with no
> further problems. I also used to know a truck mechanic who saw the
> occasional broken crank; usually, or perhaps always, after seeing a failed
> torsional harmonic dampened--and trying without success to convince the
> owner to replace it.
>
> I leave it to the reader to make the connection; as I have beaten that dead
> horse far too much, and not only on this NG.

And the failed cranks in these cases resulted in the car being pulled
off to the side of the road.

I've had a thrown rod in a VW, a broken distributor in a Corvair and a
jumped timing chain in a Ford. In all cases the result was getting towed.

Maybe aircraft engines are better built. In my 900+ hours I haven't had
any problems in the air, but I have flown planes that have had failures
in their history. Makes my wonder how long it'll be before my hand is
dealt.

[Richard Lamb]

Oh, this looks like fun!

Morgans wrote:
> "Cal Vanize" > wrote
>
>
>>I've had a thrown rod in a VW,
>
>
> What can you say about that one. VW (if it was a beetle) engines were over
> stressed, even in a car, IMHO, and I would not trust one further than I
> could throw it. I owned one, too.

cast cranks break.
even in cars.

> > a broken distributor in a Corvair
>
> I don't know what to say about that one. Would more complete inspection (as
> a airplane engine would get) have caught it? I can't comment further,
> without knowing more about the type of failure.

I busted a distributor drive in an old '65 ford van.

the "cause" was a rusty gas tank that kept clogging the fuel filter.
made the poor beast chug so hard at times that it finally broke the drive.


>
>>jumped timing chain in a Ford.
>

busted a timing belt in my little bronze Les Nesman K-car.
was running real smooth, then stopped.
about 88,000 miles

> How many K miles? Timing chains are a maintainance item. They (and
> sprockets) wear out, and need to be replaced. Almost always, they fail at
> well over 100 K miles.
>
>
>>In all cases the result was getting towed.


"San Antonio Center, this is experimental triple nickel,
20 miles west at 5000 feet.
Um, we seem to have a little situation here.
Looks like we broke a timing belt.
Can you contact AOPA and have them send out a tow plane?
QUICKLY!?!?"

>
>
> I wonder how many hours that comes up to, in driving hours, and more
> importantly, how many hours toral, the failed units had on them. My guuess
> is that the total would make your 900 flying hours look like a tiny
> fraction.


100,000 miles at 50 miles per hour average should be right near 2000 hours.

100 hours at the same average 50 mile per hour is a paltry 5000 miles.

Can you imagine tearing into a running automobile engine that often.
Just to see if it was ok?

[Cal Vanize]

Morgans wrote:

> "Cal Vanize" > wrote
>
>
>>I've had a thrown rod in a VW,
>
>
> What can you say about that one. VW (if it was a beetle) engines were over
> stressed, even in a car, IMHO, and I would not trust one further than I
> could throw it. I owned one, too.

In our family history, we blew out jugs, head gaskets, two thrown rods.
Not a great record.


>
> > a broken distributor in a Corvair
>
> I don't know what to say about that one. Would more complete inspection (as
> a airplane engine would get) have caught it? I can't comment further,
> without knowing more about the type of failure.

Actually a broken distributor shaft. Car had a few miles on it, but
hardly high mileage.

>
>
>>jumped timing chain in a Ford.
>
>
> How many K miles? Timing chains are a maintainance item. They (and
> sprockets) wear out, and need to be replaced. Almost always, they fail at
> well over 100 K miles.
>

Fairly low miles. Around 15k, IIRC. Just outside of warranty in its day.


>
>>In all cases the result was getting towed.
>
>
> I wonder how many hours that comes up to, in driving hours, and more
> importantly, how many hours toral, the failed units had on them. My guuess
> is that the total would make your 900 flying hours look like a tiny
> fraction.

At avg. of 50 mph (easy highway miles) that would be 45,000 miles in
cars. At that mileage, the Ford had its timing chain jump and both of
hte VW engines that threw rods failed within that mileage.

Corvair had more miles, in the 70k range, but it had other problems that
would have disqualified is as reliable transportation.

[Morgans]

"Cal Vanize" > wrote

> I've had a thrown rod in a VW,

What can you say about that one. VW (if it was a beetle) engines were over
stressed, even in a car, IMHO, and I would not trust one further than I
could throw it. I owned one, too.

> a broken distributor in a Corvair

I don't know what to say about that one. Would more complete inspection (as
a airplane engine would get) have caught it? I can't comment further,
without knowing more about the type of failure.

> jumped timing chain in a Ford.

How many K miles? Timing chains are a maintainance item. They (and
sprockets) wear out, and need to be replaced. Almost always, they fail at
well over 100 K miles.

> In all cases the result was getting towed.

I wonder how many hours that comes up to, in driving hours, and more
importantly, how many hours toral, the failed units had on them. My guuess
is that the total would make your 900 flying hours look like a tiny
fraction.
--
Jim in NC

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 05:53:36 GMT, Richard Lamb
> wrote:

>Oh, this looks like fun!
>

>
>I busted a distributor drive in an old '65 ford van.

V8? - Most common problem there was the oil pump, which was driven by
the same drive as the distributor. I've seen a few of those twist off
- but usually when starting, not on the road. Generally on vehicles
that didn't know what an oil change was.
>
>the "cause" was a rusty gas tank that kept clogging the fuel filter.
>made the poor beast chug so hard at times that it finally broke the drive.

So it was a maintenance issue.
>

>busted a timing belt in my little bronze Les Nesman K-car.
>was running real smooth, then stopped.
>about 88,000 miles

And the factory recommends, for good reason, that the belt be changed
at 90,000km, which is 55,000 Miles. So it is a maintenance issue.
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:56:37 -0600, Cal Vanize
> wrote:

>
>
>Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Cal Vanize" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>I've had a thrown rod in a VW,
>>
>>
>> What can you say about that one. VW (if it was a beetle) engines were over
>> stressed, even in a car, IMHO, and I would not trust one further than I
>> could throw it. I owned one, too.
>
>In our family history, we blew out jugs, head gaskets, two thrown rods.
> Not a great record.

My '49(998cc?) engine never gave any problems other than carb ice and
vapour lock (could have both the same day at 4500 ft , 90F and 90%
humidity)

1600 Combi and Variant lost the jugs and heads (head studs pulled out
of the block) on several occaisions
>
>
>>
>> > a broken distributor in a Corvair
>>
>> I don't know what to say about that one. Would more complete inspection (as
>> a airplane engine would get) have caught it? I can't comment further,
>> without knowing more about the type of failure.
>
>Actually a broken distributor shaft. Car had a few miles on it, but
>hardly high mileage.
>
>>
>>
>>>jumped timing chain in a Ford.
>>
>>
>> How many K miles? Timing chains are a maintainance item. They (and
>> sprockets) wear out, and need to be replaced. Almost always, they fail at
>> well over 100 K miles.
>>
>
>Fairly low miles. Around 15k, IIRC. Just outside of warranty in its day.
>
>
>>
>>>In all cases the result was getting towed.
>>
>>
>> I wonder how many hours that comes up to, in driving hours, and more
>> importantly, how many hours toral, the failed units had on them. My guuess
>> is that the total would make your 900 flying hours look like a tiny
>> fraction.
>
>At avg. of 50 mph (easy highway miles) that would be 45,000 miles in
>cars. At that mileage, the Ford had its timing chain jump and both of
>hte VW engines that threw rods failed within that mileage.
>
>Corvair had more miles, in the 70k range, but it had other problems that
>would have disqualified is as reliable transportation.
>
>

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Roger]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:47:21 -0600, Cal Vanize
> wrote:

>
>
>Peter Dohm wrote:
> > True ... but ...
>> Engines in cars rarely break. Possibly as rarely as _real_ airplane
>> engines. However, I have seen a broker crank in a 40 HP Volkswagen, which
>> my brother and I bought. We rebuilt another engine and installed it with no
>> further problems. I also used to know a truck mechanic who saw the
>> occasional broken crank; usually, or perhaps always, after seeing a failed
>> torsional harmonic dampened--and trying without success to convince the
>> owner to replace it.
>>
>> I leave it to the reader to make the connection; as I have beaten that dead
>> horse far too much, and not only on this NG.
>
>And the failed cranks in these cases resulted in the car being pulled
>off to the side of the road.
>
>I've had a thrown rod in a VW, a broken distributor in a Corvair and a
>jumped timing chain in a Ford. In all cases the result was getting towed.

Failed distributor of what replaces it in a 93 Transam after roughly
20,000 miles. (Over $800) and it had to be towed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Maybe aircraft engines are better built. In my 900+ hours I haven't had
>any problems in the air, but I have flown planes that have had failures
>in their history. Makes my wonder how long it'll be before my hand is
>dealt.

[mark]

>>Maybe aircraft engines are better built. In my 900+ hours I haven't had
>>any problems in the air, but I have flown planes that have had failures
>>in their history. Makes my wonder how long it'll be before my hand is
>>dealt.

Well you may fly another 35 years and thousands of hours and never have a
problem. The last number I heard is that the average is somewhere are
35,000 hours for every engine failure. (and Im not talking about the running
out of gas, fuel on an empty tank type. Im talking something seriously
broken internally now) Most careers are not close to that. You also might
have one your next flight grin. My career has more less come to an end with
about 2000 hours total time. Only one instrument on the panel never failed
me. I used to be called the jink. If it would break, it would with me in
the airplane. Yet the only serious engine problem I ever had was like most
of them. It wasn't a total but a partial power loss, and trust me a 150 on
2 cylinders doesn't run very well. It did keep me in the air though and got
me to an airport. The trick is to be ready for it anyway.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Cal Vanize" wrote in message
> Maybe aircraft engines are better built. In my 900+ hours I haven't had
> any problems in the air, but I have flown planes that have had failures
> in their history. Makes my wonder how long it'll be before my hand is
> dealt.

If it's any consolation, I've had 10 failures of certified aircraft engines.
There have been numerous partial failures and pre-cautionary shutdowns also.

D.