Corky's engine choice

[Corky Scott]

Someone expressed surprise that I was now working on a Ford 3.8L V-6
for my engine. Last they'd heard, I was trying to find a certified
type.

I thought I'd bring everyone up to date. It's true that I had
basically given up on using an auto conversion as I was having trouble
justifying the cost of the PSRU. I'd started with a Buick/Olds 215
cid aluminum block V-8 and then switched to the Mazda 13B. I disliked
all the problems associated with the 13B so I sold that too.

I then actively searched for an aircooled aircraft engine. I mean I
really looked hard. But every single engine I looked at was really
tough to examine. I'd basically have to be an expert engine examiner
(which I wasn't) and be ready to travel all over the country to look
at it. Some had logs, most didn't. I eventually ended up with a
brand new piclkled 0-470-15. This turned out to be a military version
of the 0-470 and there was a LOT missing. I forget now what I paid
for it but it was too much and it would have cost me more than twice
that to get the thing running with all the parts missing. And
besides, it was REALLY heavy.

So I resold it.

I kept looking for a good low priced aircraft engine and just could
not find one close enough to get or I was unwilling to risk paying $7K
to $8K for someone to ship me an engine that had not been inspected.

I am an ex auto mechanic and have built several engines, but I am
totally unfamiliar with aircraft engines other than to understand from
a mechanical point of few. It's just that there is SO MUCH that can
be wrong with them and you don't know it until you've completely
dismantled them and zygloed them or x-rayed them or whatever to fully
inspect them. Then if anything is actually wrong, your bargain engine
is suddenly a financial black hole.

So I finally decided that I had to turn back to the auto coversion
again. At this point, things began to go right. Bruce Frank pointed
out why the Ford V-6 makes sense: millions of them out there, hundreds
of PSRU's and a lot of running time with a good record and it's a
light weight engine.

I found an engine salvager who was willing to ship any number of Ford
V-6's to me for $150 each. At that price, I took two, thinking that
if I found a problem part, I could just yank it from the other engine.

I also found a local machine shop who's owner had been building Fords
and just about everything else for half his life. He was willing to
take the block, crank, heads etc and clean them up and bring them to
specification. I needed all six intake valves, it turned out,
couldn't save them, they were pitted from water damage. I would have
used them in a street car but not my aircraft engine. They cost about
$16 each. The exhaust valves were fine.

At this point I found other parts suppliers. I found Morana racing in
Canada. They cater to the Ford V-6 and had all kinds of parts I
needed like new valve springs, keepers and caps. They also had roller
rockers. I bought a set of them too.

I found ARP which stands for Automobile Racing Parts. They make high
strength studs for engine assembly. They are used in a majority of
the racing world's engines. A set of studs for the cylinder heads and
main bearings cost me $145. I also bought new lifters, a new oil pump
kit and machined the intake manifold to accept the two barrel Holley
carb. Then I bought the carb and the McNeilly leaning block so the
mixture can be leaned.

All this was made possible because Bruce contacted me telling me that
he'd heard about a PSRU that was for sale at a good price. It was
less than half price.

I will be reporting the total bill for the engine and peripherals and
how things are working when I get there.

But for now, the process will be to assemble the engine and PSRU and
hang it off the firewall so I can get the rest of the airplane
finished. I already fabricated the engine mount, I used the second
block to mock that up. I also welded the Piper Tripacer landing gear
to the engine mount. That went well.

Corky Scott

[BRUCE FRANK]

Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!

Bruce A. Frank


"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Someone expressed surprise that I was now working on a Ford 3.8L V-6
> for my engine. Last they'd heard, I was trying to find a certified
> type.
>
> I thought I'd bring everyone up to date. It's true that I had
> basically given up on using an auto conversion as I was having trouble
> justifying the cost of the PSRU. I'd started with a Buick/Olds 215
> cid aluminum block V-8 and then switched to the Mazda 13B. I disliked
> all the problems associated with the 13B so I sold that too.
>
> I then actively searched for an aircooled aircraft engine. I mean I
> really looked hard. But every single engine I looked at was really
> tough to examine. I'd basically have to be an expert engine examiner
> (which I wasn't) and be ready to travel all over the country to look
> at it. Some had logs, most didn't. I eventually ended up with a
> brand new piclkled 0-470-15. This turned out to be a military version
> of the 0-470 and there was a LOT missing. I forget now what I paid
> for it but it was too much and it would have cost me more than twice
> that to get the thing running with all the parts missing. And
> besides, it was REALLY heavy.
>
> So I resold it.
>
> I kept looking for a good low priced aircraft engine and just could
> not find one close enough to get or I was unwilling to risk paying $7K
> to $8K for someone to ship me an engine that had not been inspected.
>
> I am an ex auto mechanic and have built several engines, but I am
> totally unfamiliar with aircraft engines other than to understand from
> a mechanical point of few. It's just that there is SO MUCH that can
> be wrong with them and you don't know it until you've completely
> dismantled them and zygloed them or x-rayed them or whatever to fully
> inspect them. Then if anything is actually wrong, your bargain engine
> is suddenly a financial black hole.
>
> So I finally decided that I had to turn back to the auto coversion
> again. At this point, things began to go right. Bruce Frank pointed
> out why the Ford V-6 makes sense: millions of them out there, hundreds
> of PSRU's and a lot of running time with a good record and it's a
> light weight engine.
>
> I found an engine salvager who was willing to ship any number of Ford
> V-6's to me for $150 each. At that price, I took two, thinking that
> if I found a problem part, I could just yank it from the other engine.
>
> I also found a local machine shop who's owner had been building Fords
> and just about everything else for half his life. He was willing to
> take the block, crank, heads etc and clean them up and bring them to
> specification. I needed all six intake valves, it turned out,
> couldn't save them, they were pitted from water damage. I would have
> used them in a street car but not my aircraft engine. They cost about
> $16 each. The exhaust valves were fine.
>
> At this point I found other parts suppliers. I found Morana racing in
> Canada. They cater to the Ford V-6 and had all kinds of parts I
> needed like new valve springs, keepers and caps. They also had roller
> rockers. I bought a set of them too.
>
> I found ARP which stands for Automobile Racing Parts. They make high
> strength studs for engine assembly. They are used in a majority of
> the racing world's engines. A set of studs for the cylinder heads and
> main bearings cost me $145. I also bought new lifters, a new oil pump
> kit and machined the intake manifold to accept the two barrel Holley
> carb. Then I bought the carb and the McNeilly leaning block so the
> mixture can be leaned.
>
> All this was made possible because Bruce contacted me telling me that
> he'd heard about a PSRU that was for sale at a good price. It was
> less than half price.
>
> I will be reporting the total bill for the engine and peripherals and
> how things are working when I get there.
>
> But for now, the process will be to assemble the engine and PSRU and
> hang it off the firewall so I can get the rest of the airplane
> finished. I already fabricated the engine mount, I used the second
> block to mock that up. I also welded the Piper Tripacer landing gear
> to the engine mount. That went well.
>
> Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!
>
>Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nah.
I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.

FWIW --
When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.

Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think :o)

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!
>>
>>Bruce A. Frank
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Nah.
>I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.
>
>FWIW --
>When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
>with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
>as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.
>
>Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think :o)

P.S.
At $150 per copy, the Ford V-6 is waaaay overpriced.

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:43:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>>Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!
>>>
>>>Bruce A. Frank
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Nah.
>>I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.
>>
>>FWIW --
>>When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
>>with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
>>as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.
>>
>>Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think :o)
>
>P.S.
>At $150 per copy, the Ford V-6 is waaaay overpriced.
>
Apparently it IS possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -
and the 3.8 as supplied by Ford IS a sow's ear. The current crop, from
198? on is leak prone and fragile. The commonly supplied antifreeze,
when it gets into today's oil, makes short work of the factory
supplied bearings.
There are gaskets and build procedures that can make a relatively
leak-proof 3.8. Is there a combination of oil, antifreeze, and bearing
that will not result in instant death when they are combined????
For this reason I have reservations about the 3.8.

[Ben Haas]

Hey Corky, can ya email me the dimension from the pad of your Holley
where it mounts on the intake manifold to the top of the carb. If ya
want send it straight to my email address and I will send you some
pics of the all aluminum beast..
Ben Haas N801BH..
(Corky Scott) wrote in message >...
> Someone expressed surprise that I was now working on a Ford 3.8L V-6
> for my engine. Last they'd heard, I was trying to find a certified
> type.
>
> I thought I'd bring everyone up to date. It's true that I had
> basically given up on using an auto conversion as I was having trouble
> justifying the cost of the PSRU. I'd started with a Buick/Olds 215
> cid aluminum block V-8 and then switched to the Mazda 13B. I disliked
> all the problems associated with the 13B so I sold that too.
>
> I then actively searched for an aircooled aircraft engine. I mean I
> really looked hard. But every single engine I looked at was really
> tough to examine. I'd basically have to be an expert engine examiner
> (which I wasn't) and be ready to travel all over the country to look
> at it. Some had logs, most didn't. I eventually ended up with a
> brand new piclkled 0-470-15. This turned out to be a military version
> of the 0-470 and there was a LOT missing. I forget now what I paid
> for it but it was too much and it would have cost me more than twice
> that to get the thing running with all the parts missing. And
> besides, it was REALLY heavy.
>
> So I resold it.
>
> I kept looking for a good low priced aircraft engine and just could
> not find one close enough to get or I was unwilling to risk paying $7K
> to $8K for someone to ship me an engine that had not been inspected.
>
> I am an ex auto mechanic and have built several engines, but I am
> totally unfamiliar with aircraft engines other than to understand from
> a mechanical point of few. It's just that there is SO MUCH that can
> be wrong with them and you don't know it until you've completely
> dismantled them and zygloed them or x-rayed them or whatever to fully
> inspect them. Then if anything is actually wrong, your bargain engine
> is suddenly a financial black hole.
>
> So I finally decided that I had to turn back to the auto coversion
> again. At this point, things began to go right. Bruce Frank pointed
> out why the Ford V-6 makes sense: millions of them out there, hundreds
> of PSRU's and a lot of running time with a good record and it's a
> light weight engine.
>
> I found an engine salvager who was willing to ship any number of Ford
> V-6's to me for $150 each. At that price, I took two, thinking that
> if I found a problem part, I could just yank it from the other engine.
>
> I also found a local machine shop who's owner had been building Fords
> and just about everything else for half his life. He was willing to
> take the block, crank, heads etc and clean them up and bring them to
> specification. I needed all six intake valves, it turned out,
> couldn't save them, they were pitted from water damage. I would have
> used them in a street car but not my aircraft engine. They cost about
> $16 each. The exhaust valves were fine.
>
> At this point I found other parts suppliers. I found Morana racing in
> Canada. They cater to the Ford V-6 and had all kinds of parts I
> needed like new valve springs, keepers and caps. They also had roller
> rockers. I bought a set of them too.
>
> I found ARP which stands for Automobile Racing Parts. They make high
> strength studs for engine assembly. They are used in a majority of
> the racing world's engines. A set of studs for the cylinder heads and
> main bearings cost me $145. I also bought new lifters, a new oil pump
> kit and machined the intake manifold to accept the two barrel Holley
> carb. Then I bought the carb and the McNeilly leaning block so the
> mixture can be leaned.
>
> All this was made possible because Bruce contacted me telling me that
> he'd heard about a PSRU that was for sale at a good price. It was
> less than half price.
>
> I will be reporting the total bill for the engine and peripherals and
> how things are working when I get there.
>
> But for now, the process will be to assemble the engine and PSRU and
> hang it off the firewall so I can get the rest of the airplane
> finished. I already fabricated the engine mount, I used the second
> block to mock that up. I also welded the Piper Tripacer landing gear
> to the engine mount. That went well.
>
> Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:33:33 GMT, clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:

>Apparently it IS possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -
>and the 3.8 as supplied by Ford IS a sow's ear. The current crop, from
>198? on is leak prone and fragile. The commonly supplied antifreeze,
>when it gets into today's oil, makes short work of the factory
>supplied bearings.
>There are gaskets and build procedures that can make a relatively
>leak-proof 3.8. Is there a combination of oil, antifreeze, and bearing
>that will not result in instant death when they are combined????
> For this reason I have reservations about the 3.8.

I'm well aware of the problems Ford has had with leaking cylinderhead
gaskets with this engine. That's why I bought the ARP cylinderhead
studs instead of replacement cylinderhead bolts from Ford.

Studs allow a more accurate torque setting because the only thing
turning is the nut against the washer, not the entire bolt. ARP
recommends that you use either their lubricant between the nut and
washer or oil. If you use their lubricant, the torque value is a LOT
less than if you use oil. In addition, you get to use all the threads
available to hold the stud in: you thread it down till it bottoms.
The nice thing about having a cast steel block is you don't have to
worry about stripping the threads out of the block.

ARP also recommends that you install "throw away" head gaskets for the
first torque of the cylinderhead, then fire up the engine, bring it to
temperature and then shut it down and let it cool to room temperature.

Once it's completely cooled, remove the heads, replace the head
gaskets with new, reinstall the heads, retorque and you're good to go
for the rest of the life of the engine.

What this does, they said, is get the studs initially stretched, after
which they will hold constant pressure.

They were suggesting I use the old head gaskets for the initial
startup as it really didn't matter what you used. Cardboard would
work (they said) since you are just running it to temperature then
shutting it down again. Of course, I did not save the original
gaskets when I dismantled the two engines so I'll have to buy an extra
two.

Just another one of those tricks to remember when building engines.
I'm sure Lycoming and Continental engine rebuilders have their own
tricks.

By the way, the block was decked to true the surface, and the
cylinderheads were planed. I know that at least initially, I'll have
two flat surfaces to mate together.

The great majority of the Ford auto conversions have run reliably IF
(the big IF) the builder followed the conversion manual and
information that has accumulated.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:58:15 -0500, John Thompson
> wrote:

>Corky,
>I think one of the biggest roadblocks in autoconversions is the lack of
>"cookbooks". Instructions that cover things like that "stud stretching"
>tip, why you might want to use this camshaft, or replace this part or
>other, lifter bearing replacement, etc. and where to get them.
>
>I'm mechanically competent, but I've never done serious work on a auto
>engine beyong the shade tree stuff or replacing plugs, oil, hoses, etc.
>I can tear down and rebuild a small gas engine no problem, but there are
>a lot of little things that make big differences between a Briggs and
>Stratton, and a ford V-6.
>
>John
>
You are actually echoing something I've been saying in this newsgroup
for a long time: Building up your own auto conversion isn't for
everyone and one of the biggest problems is the lack of compiled
information.

There actually are some published manuals for the Ford. One of them
is written by Richard Finch. There was also a group of newsletters
written by David Blanton while the engine was in the early use stage.
These were important because there was a period of discovery going on
after the actual plans for the engine and PSRU were maketed. Things
were still happening to the engine that had not been anticipated and
everyone sort of dealt with them in different ways.

However, David Blanton was his own worst enemy. He was combative in
the extreme, very defensive, obdurate and sometimes ***wrong***. He
for instance misscalculated how much horsepower the engine would
develop, and refused to listen to anyone about the situation. This,
even when properly calculated dyno runs produced very respectible
power readings. But he became the butt of many jokes when he insisted
that his engines routinely put out over 240 horsepower and much more
at only 4,800 rpm. They weren't. A well built 3.8L engine will
usually make at least 180 hp, with many getting another 10 with minor
modifications. One guy got 235 hp but he was willing to rev it to
5300 rpm to do that. He'd put racing connecting rods and pistons in
it to withstand that rpm, which isn't high compared to racing
standards.

But I digress, there is also much useful information to be gleaned
from Bruce Frank's Ford 3.8L STOL newsletter, but the specific engine
information is spread out over a number of years and issues.

Part of the problem is that there remain a LOT of solutions for
various issues. For instance ignition: dual or single? How do you
trigger it? Many are going with dual ignition with the second
ignition running off an isolated battery. Some rig their ignitions to
run dual all the time, others want to switch from one to the other.
Still others trust one single source. You can trigger the ignition
either using a distributer with dual pickups, a distributer with a
single pickup and another pickup off the flywheel or crankshaft
damper, or have both pickups sensed remotely off the crank somewhere.

Then there's the engine itself. It's been modified by Ford over the
years since it's intruduction. It's grown to 4.2 liters now and
doesn't have a manifold that works for carburation anymore: it's
strickly an air manifold, not fuel/air. Also the lifters have gone
from simple standard type lifters to roller lifters. The latest
castings do not have a provision for a distributer.

Some of the engines have the dual balance shafts, some don't.

Then there's Jerry Schweitzer who used to build these engines for the
homebuilt community, for all I know, he still may. He put out a video
of what he thought was important and a lot of the information is
really good stuff.

For instance, he talked about drilling and tapping a hole through the
intake manifold into the block where a coolant passage is. This is
done on both sides. Then a pipe fitting is threaded in and the tubing
routed back to another pipe fitting on the suction side of the water
pump housing. What this does, he says, is draw off the "bubble" of
air that always seems to form in the block/cylinderhead and tends to
stay there causing the cylinderhead to improperly flow coolant.

There are other things like an air/antifreeze seperator that needs to
sit above the engine on the firewall that is pretty much standard on
all auto conversions.

Then there's the issue of a heater for the cockpit. One of the
blessings of using a liquid cooled engine is that it can give you LOTS
of heat with absolutely no danger of carbon monoxide poisoning. But
the manner in which it is installed is different in just about every
conversion.

Some guys use it in such a manner that it helps the engine cool by
routing coolant through it and dumping the airflow outside the
cockpit. If heat is desired, they shut off the flow to the outside
and the air blows into the cockpit. An awful lot of this depends on
how you've built your airplane and how much room you have.

For a look at how to build an auto conversion REALLY cheaply, you
should get the Reverend Ron Van der Hart videos. The guy's kick and
FAR more entertaining than Schweitzer and he's very talented to boot.


Corky Scott

[baltobernie]

<clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:43:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>>Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!
> >>>
> >>>Bruce A. Frank
> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >>Nah.
> >>I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.
> >>
> >>FWIW --
> >>When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
> >>with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
> >>as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.
> >>
> >>Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think :o)
> >
> >P.S.
> >At $150 per copy, the Ford V-6 is waaaay overpriced.
> >
> Apparently it IS possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -
> and the 3.8 as supplied by Ford IS a sow's ear. The current crop, from
> 198? on is leak prone and fragile. The commonly supplied antifreeze,
> when it gets into today's oil, makes short work of the factory
> supplied bearings.
> There are gaskets and build procedures that can make a relatively
> leak-proof 3.8. Is there a combination of oil, antifreeze, and bearing
> that will not result in instant death when they are combined????
> For this reason I have reservations about the 3.8.

1988 Sable
1993 Thunderbird
nearly half a million miles between them using petroleum engine oil changed
@ 5k
zero reliability and maintenance issues
just one man's experience; YMMV

baltobernie

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:51:27 -0400, "baltobernie"
> wrote:


>
>1988 Sable
>1993 Thunderbird
>nearly half a million miles between them using petroleum engine oil changed
>@ 5k
>zero reliability and maintenance issues
>just one man's experience; YMMV
>
>baltobernie
>
At my brother's shop, (he is an ex Ford Dealership mechanic) he
replaces more 3.8 ford engines than any other 2 combined. Head gaskets
are the major culprit, but timing cover gaskets take down their share
as well.
Don't know if it is the silicates in the anti-freeze or what, but a
very MINOR coolant leak into the oil makes a noisy engine in a hurry.
Replacing rod and main bearings does NOT solve it, so he has stopped
even trying to patch them. Antifreeze in the oil? Pull the engine and
replace. Not out of the ordinary for them to let go under 85000km
Windstars and Taurus/sable from 1995 up appear to be worst.
We had some bad luck with an older T-Bird 3.8 (brother -in-law's car)
as well. It went through 3 cranks before it got traded back to the
selling Ford dealer. One under Ford warranty, one a year later, and
another required by the time it got to the dealer's lot less than a
year later. Interestingly, the brother-in-law works in the Windsor
engine plant - and he says it's no wonder Ford engine quality is so
variable, as there are test and calibration fixtures that have not
been functional for several years - and Ford won't spend the money to
repair/replace them

[Jay]

Hey Corky,

What was your beef with the 13B? I have to replace a car coming off
lease in the next few months and I'm seriously looking at older RX-7s
just to get a flavor for the power plant.

I like the idea of a no-seize failure mode and the idea of it being 2
co-axial engines in one. The higher fuel burn I can deal with,
especially since its mogas.

Regards

(Corky Scott) wrote in message >...
> I thought I'd bring everyone up to date. It's true that I had
> basically given up on using an auto conversion as I was having trouble
> justifying the cost of the PSRU. I'd started with a Buick/Olds 215
> cid aluminum block V-8 and then switched to the Mazda 13B. I disliked
> all the problems associated with the 13B so I sold that too.

[pragmatist]

John Thompson > wrote in message >...
> Corky,
> I think one of the biggest roadblocks in autoconversions is the lack of
> "cookbooks". Instructions that cover things like that "stud stretching"
> tip, why you might want to use this camshaft, or replace this part or
> other, lifter bearing replacement, etc. and where to get them.
>
><SNIP>
>
> John

Amen to that, but what scares me about auto conversions is the that
the design parameters for the auto engine are based on 25-30% constant
power at hiway cruise.
The reliability of the engine in automotive use is therefore not a
meaningful indication of fitness for flight.
Even with the engine blueprinted and a beefed up cooling system and
oil cooler added, when you run that engine at constant 75-80% power in
an aircraft you are likely to have 'hot spots` in there somewhere
which can play hell with reliability.
Do a lot of base testing Corky, and good luck to ya.

[BRUCE FRANK]

We have been flying the Ford V-6 for almost 20 years now with several
installations making 2000 hours TBO. All of the idiosyncrasies have pretty
well been figured out. Same is true for the Chevy V-6s. "Not designed to put
out 60, 80, 100% power," was the cry 20 years ago. "They'll be falling out
of the sky and will destroy the homebuilt movement," was the second most
bandied phrase. You should do a search and read Corky's past posts (he has
said it all very succinctly) to read what an auto engine goes through before
the manufacturer installs it in an automobile model. Automotive durability
tests exceed, by about 400%, anything required to certify an aviation type
engine. (both in hours and precentage of power output)
--
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.


"pragmatist" > wrote in message
om...
> John Thompson > wrote in message
>...
> > Corky,
> > I think one of the biggest roadblocks in autoconversions is the lack of
> > "cookbooks". Instructions that cover things like that "stud stretching"
> > tip, why you might want to use this camshaft, or replace this part or
> > other, lifter bearing replacement, etc. and where to get them.
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> > John
>
> Amen to that, but what scares me about auto conversions is the that
> the design parameters for the auto engine are based on 25-30% constant
> power at hiway cruise.
> The reliability of the engine in automotive use is therefore not a
> meaningful indication of fitness for flight.
> Even with the engine blueprinted and a beefed up cooling system and
> oil cooler added, when you run that engine at constant 75-80% power in
> an aircraft you are likely to have 'hot spots` in there somewhere
> which can play hell with reliability.
> Do a lot of base testing Corky, and good luck to ya.

[BRUCE FRANK]

There is nothing wrong with the Mazda engine. All of the earlier problems
have been dealt with effectively and you are likely to see more and more
installations as the word gets out that the Mazda DOESN'T use excessive fuel
or burn up properly designed exhaust systems. But it is loud and most
builders seem to eventually opt for a muffler of some kind. Pound for pound
here is no higher horse power output in a normally aspirated auto conversion
than that of the Mazda Wankel.

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.




"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> Hey Corky,
>
> What was your beef with the 13B? I have to replace a car coming off
> lease in the next few months and I'm seriously looking at older RX-7s
> just to get a flavor for the power plant.
>
> I like the idea of a no-seize failure mode and the idea of it being 2
> co-axial engines in one. The higher fuel burn I can deal with,
> especially since its mogas.
>
> Regards
>
> (Corky Scott) wrote in message
>...
> > I thought I'd bring everyone up to date. It's true that I had
> > basically given up on using an auto conversion as I was having trouble
> > justifying the cost of the PSRU. I'd started with a Buick/Olds 215
> > cid aluminum block V-8 and then switched to the Mazda 13B. I disliked
> > all the problems associated with the 13B so I sold that too.

[Kevin Horton]

In article
>, BRUCE
FRANK > wrote:

> Automotive durability
> tests exceed, by about 400%, anything required to certify an aviation type
> engine. (both in hours and precentage of power output)
> --
> Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
>
I am happy to concede that some automotive engines may have undergone
durability testing that is more severe than that required for aviation
engines. However, it is overstating the case significantly to say that
these automotive engine tests exceed by 400% the power output required
for the aviation engine tests.

The aviation engine tests have many sections at 100% power. If you
exceed that by 400% you have to run at 500% power.

It doesn't help your credibility to state "facts" that are obviously
wrong. Type a bit slower next time.

--
Kevin Horton - RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

[John Thompson]

I just had the head gaskets in my Windstars 3.8 replaced last year.
about 115K miles at that time, I think.

John

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:05:21 GMT, Kevin Horton >
wrote:

>In article
>, BRUCE
>FRANK > wrote:
>
>> Automotive durability
>> tests exceed, by about 400%, anything required to certify an aviation type
>> engine. (both in hours and precentage of power output)
>> --
>> Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
>>
>I am happy to concede that some automotive engines may have undergone
>durability testing that is more severe than that required for aviation
>engines. However, it is overstating the case significantly to say that
>these automotive engine tests exceed by 400% the power output required
>for the aviation engine tests.
>
>The aviation engine tests have many sections at 100% power. If you
>exceed that by 400% you have to run at 500% power.
>
>It doesn't help your credibility to state "facts" that are obviously
>wrong. Type a bit slower next time.
>
>--
>Kevin Horton - RV-8
>Ottawa, Canada

Kevin, you have to read what Bruce said carefully. He said that the
**DURABILITY TESTS** "exceed, by about 400", anything required to
certify an aviation type engine." He did not say anything about
exceeding the 100% power tests for aircraft certification.

Looks like it's time for me to re-post that article from an automotive
engineer about the typical engine development durability tests. I'll
post it in a seperate article so as not to muck up this thread.

Corky Scott
>http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

[Barnyard BOb --]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:20:09 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>Kevin, you have to read what Bruce said carefully. He said that the
>**DURABILITY TESTS** "exceed, by about 400", anything required to
>certify an aviation type engine." He did not say anything about
>exceeding the 100% power tests for aircraft certification.
>
>Looks like it's time for me to re-post that article from an automotive
>engineer about the typical engine development durability tests. I'll
>post it in a seperate article so as not to muck up this thread.
>
>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post away. Repeat again and again, but...
a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link --
certified or Rube Goldberged. Not to mention,
form follows function where max safety is concerned.
So, blithely and happily, convert away. One soul claims
2000 hours.Why not you, too? You only live once.
So, go for it. What have you got to lose?

I know that you are comfortable with your endeavor,
but you'll not ever get me to fly outside gliding distance
of the airport unless I incur an unbridled passion to not
be pigeon holed in an nursing home for seniors.
And... that could happen. ;o(


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:12:08 -0400, "Larry Smith"
> wrote:

>
>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:33:33 GMT, clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:
>> [...]they will hold constant pressure.
>>
>> They were suggesting I use the old head gaskets for the initial
>> startup as it really didn't matter what you used. Cardboard would
>> work (they said) since you are just running it to temperature then
>> shutting it down again. Of course, I did not save the original
>> gaskets when I dismantled the two engines so I'll have to buy an extra
>> two.
>>
>> Just another one of those tricks to remember when building engines.
>> I'm sure Lycoming and Continental engine rebuilders have their own
>> tricks.
>
>For heads? Most aircraft engine heads screw onto the cylinders with an
>interference fit. The process is always done at the factory or repair
>station. And plenty of heat is required.

I didn't mean for heads specifically, just building the engine in
general. There are always some things you learn after building a few
that work well for that engine. When I was a mechanic, I ended up
sort of specializing in Subaru's and found out early on that Subaru
engines had this hidden bolt that held a part of the two block halve's
together. It wasn't a big bolt and one wonders why it was necessary
at all, but there it was. It was always hidden by encrusted oil and
dirt and you literally had to dig it out so you could get a socket on
it. Couldn't split the block halves without first removing that bolt.

>Personally, I'm fascinated with your use of the Ford V-6 and commend you on
>it. I wouldn't want to fly one here in the mountains, but where there are
>plenty of fields to put down in, I'd make a go of it. Good slow stall
>speed, halon fire extinguisher, and shoulder belts would be a must too.

Would you be interested to know that there are hundreds of this engine
flying and that many have accumulated significant hours of operation.

At least one ran to beyond 2000 hour before the owner/builder did a
preemptive teardown for inspection. He found little wear in the
engine and the belt drive showed no discernable wear either. He did
replace the drive belt anyway though.

Corky Scott

[Kevin Horton]

In article >, Corky Scott
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:05:21 GMT, Kevin Horton >
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> >, BRUCE
> >FRANK > wrote:
> >
> >> Automotive durability
> >> tests exceed, by about 400%, anything required to certify an aviation type
> >> engine. (both in hours and precentage of power output)
> >> --
> >> Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
> >>
> >I am happy to concede that some automotive engines may have undergone
> >durability testing that is more severe than that required for aviation
> >engines. However, it is overstating the case significantly to say that
> >these automotive engine tests exceed by 400% the power output required
> >for the aviation engine tests.
> >
> >The aviation engine tests have many sections at 100% power. If you
> >exceed that by 400% you have to run at 500% power.
> >
> >It doesn't help your credibility to state "facts" that are obviously
> >wrong. Type a bit slower next time.
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Horton - RV-8
> >Ottawa, Canada
>
> Kevin, you have to read what Bruce said carefully. He said that the
> **DURABILITY TESTS** "exceed, by about 400", anything required to
> certify an aviation type engine." He did not say anything about
> exceeding the 100% power tests for aircraft certification.
>
> Looks like it's time for me to re-post that article from an automotive
> engineer about the typical engine development durability tests. I'll
> post it in a seperate article so as not to muck up this thread.
>
> Corky Scott
> >http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>

You've got me really confused now. I thought that when he said "both
in hours and precentage of power output" he meant that the 400% claim
applied to percent power as well as to hours. If he didn't mean that,
what was the "... and precentage of power output" statement referring
to?

I assume that Bruce simply didn't proof read closely enough. If he in
fact meant what he said, I can't understand how it is supposed to be
interpreted differently than I have discussed here.

FAR 33.49 Endurance Tests requires specified times at specified power
levels, including quite a few periods at 100% power. The automotive
durability tests have long periods at 100% power. Thus the power
levels are the same. There is a big difference in the amount of time
at 100% power though, I am not arguing with you on that issue.

--
Kevin Horton - RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:56:07 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:20:09 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:
>
>>Kevin, you have to read what Bruce said carefully. He said that the
>>**DURABILITY TESTS** "exceed, by about 400", anything required to
>>certify an aviation type engine." He did not say anything about
>>exceeding the 100% power tests for aircraft certification.
>>
>>Looks like it's time for me to re-post that article from an automotive
>>engineer about the typical engine development durability tests. I'll
>>post it in a seperate article so as not to muck up this thread.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Post away. Repeat again and again,

Why thank you BOb, so kind of you to grant me this rare privelege. ;-)

but...
>a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link --
>certified or Rube Goldberged. Not to mention,
>form follows function where max safety is concerned.
>So, blithely and happily, convert away. One soul claims
>2000 hours.Why not you, too? You only live once.
>So, go for it. What have you got to lose?
>
>I know that you are comfortable with your endeavor,
>but you'll not ever get me to fly outside gliding distance
>of the airport unless I incur an unbridled passion to not
>be pigeon holed in an nursing home for seniors.
>And... that could happen. ;o(
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight
>
My wife is determined to overcome her tendency towards motion sickness
to fly with me in the airplane. She wants to do this, she says, so
that when I fly into the side of a mountain, we'll both go together.
Then we won't be vegitating in a nursing home till we don't recognise
each other.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On 24 Jul 2003 18:56:58 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

>Hey Corky,
>
>What was your beef with the 13B? I have to replace a car coming off
>lease in the next few months and I'm seriously looking at older RX-7s
>just to get a flavor for the power plant.
>
>I like the idea of a no-seize failure mode and the idea of it being 2
>co-axial engines in one. The higher fuel burn I can deal with,
>especially since its mogas.
>
I initially liked the engine for all the reasons you and many others
liked it. But as I tore it apart and rebuilt it, I started to have
doubts. I didn't have doubts about the engine durability, the doubts
I had were about living with it when it was done.

I had the engine some 10 years ago and at that time, the only real
choice for a PSRU was Ross Aero. Lou Ross was a raconteur and loved
to go on about how people over engineer things and that keeping stuff
simple was the best way. During this time, there was another company
trying to use the Mazda engine and they were running into huge
problems with torsional vibration. They spent years engineering and
machining until they finally got something that would last longer than
a few minutes without braking the prop right off.

This was unnerving, although Lou said nothing of the sort was
happening with his gearbox.

So I sat down and wrote down all the pluses I could think of and all
the minuses. There were a lot more minuses than pluses.

On the debit side were the following:

1. I have to fabricate a new intake manifold.
2. The exhaust system runs some 400 to 500 degrees hotter than a four
stroke cycle engine.
3. Fuel milage appeared to be somewhat worse than a four stroke cycle
engine of similar power.
4. The recommendation was to remove the oil injector pump (this is the
pump that drips oil into the intake manifold to lubricate the rotor
tip seals) This meant that you had to carry oil you would be adding
to the fuel tanks. This also meant that you had to calculate how much
oil you had to add to the tanks every time you refueled.
5. The engine is unbelievably loud sounding like a cross between a two
stroke motorcycle dragster and chainsaw held next to your head. There
would definately be a need for a muffler.

On the plus side, it was an engine that was close to being
indestructable. Even if it blew a seal it would have run till you
landed. Would not have started again, but it would get you down.

I pictured myself having to refuel more frequently and having to add
oil to the tanks and decided that I really didn't want to do that.

In the end, I felt it was better to deal with the devil you knew than
the devil you didn't know.

Corky Scott

[Peter Dohm]

pragmatist wrote:
>
> John Thompson > wrote in message >...
> > Corky,
> > I think one of the biggest roadblocks in autoconversions is the lack of
> > "cookbooks". Instructions that cover things like that "stud stretching"
> > tip, why you might want to use this camshaft, or replace this part or
> > other, lifter bearing replacement, etc. and where to get them.
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> > John
>
> Amen to that, but what scares me about auto conversions is the that
> the design parameters for the auto engine are based on 25-30% constant
> power at hiway cruise.
> The reliability of the engine in automotive use is therefore not a
> meaningful indication of fitness for flight.
> Even with the engine blueprinted and a beefed up cooling system and
> oil cooler added, when you run that engine at constant 75-80% power in
> an aircraft you are likely to have 'hot spots` in there somewhere
> which can play hell with reliability.
> Do a lot of base testing Corky, and good luck to ya.

A lot of this seems to me to depend upon the question of: 75% of WHAT?

75% of the rated power of the 'truck' version of the engine will probably
be around 0.5 horsepower per cubic inch of piston displacement. That is
well within reason for a liquid cooled engine, and could give excellent
service life. However, a friend who is a mechanic (automotive) has
cautioned me that RPM is important! It seems that something near the
RPM at which maximum power is produced, again on the 'truck' version, is
probably acceptable; and in no case should the engine operate at high
sustained power levels below the RPM at which peak torque occurs.

I suspect, but don't know, that engines commonly used in stationary and
truck service probably have recommendations available regarding the
acceptable relationship of rotational speed and sustained power output;
and that where such manufacturer's recommendations are available, they
should be treated as gospel.

Although I can't give you any useful experience as of yet, a realistic
power expectation and operation in the correct speed range should give
you a "poor man's Merlin." :-)

Peter

[Jerry]

Have not seen the paper but I run a ZZ3 in my 1967 Camaro, what a fantastic
engine it is. I have it built to develop 410hp.

Jerry

John M Frew wrote:
> Has anyone seen the Sunset Engine Development automotive (ZZ3 V8) to aero
> motive discussion paper written for the FEW P51 replica ?
>
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>Corky Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the debit side were the following:
>>>
>>>1. I have to fabricate a new intake manifold.
>>>2. The exhaust system runs some 400 to 500 degrees hotter than a four
>>>stroke cycle engine.
>>>3. Fuel milage appeared to be somewhat worse than a four stroke cycle
>>>engine of similar power.
>>>4. The recommendation was to remove the oil injector pump (this is the
>>>pump that drips oil into the intake manifold to lubricate the rotor
>>>tip seals) This meant that you had to carry oil you would be adding
>>>to the fuel tanks. This also meant that you had to calculate how much
>>>oil you had to add to the tanks every time you refueled.
>>>5. The engine is unbelievably loud sounding like a cross between a two
>>>stroke motorcycle dragster and chainsaw held next to your head. There
>>>would definately be a need for a muffler.
>>
>>This is not to contradict Corky, just to explain how these problems have
>>been dealt with.
>>
>>1) Yep. Ya' gotta' do it.
>>2) Stainless or iconel.
>>3) This has not really been a factor. The rotary leans better than a
>>piston. Theory is that the fuel vapors, being heavier than the air, get
>>whipped around the outside of the housing and into the spark area. Not
>>an issure for me anyway, as I'll be carrying 42gal, and autogas is a LOT
>>cheaper.
>>4) Another solution has been to route the oil metering pump into a
>>second reservoir containing two-cycle oil. This is a concern, but the
>>mix ratio is 125 to 1. I'll just have an extra compartment to hold 1
>>gallon of 2cycle. That's 8lbs, 6 for oil and a couple for the container
>>and measuring cup.
>>5) The centrifugal mufflers have worked quite well in dampening the
>>noise. They can easily be made as quiete as a Lycoming at a cost of 10
>>to 20lbs. Total installation weight will still be right in line with an
>>IO-360.
>>
>>My recommendation to anyone considering an auto-conversion is to
>>subscribe to different mailing list and see what is currently going on.
>> Yesterday's problems may have simple solutions, and yesterday's simple
>>solution may have problems. In the end, you only have your cards to
>>play with.
>>
>>--
>>----Because I can----
>>http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
>>------------------------
>>
>
>
>

[Barry S.]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:34:41 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>So I finally decided that I had to turn back to the auto coversion
>again. At this point, things began to go right. Bruce Frank pointed
>out why the Ford V-6 makes sense: millions of them out there, hundreds
>of PSRU's and a lot of running time with a good record and it's a
>light weight engine.
>
>I found an engine salvager who was willing to ship any number of Ford
>V-6's to me for $150 each. At that price, I took two, thinking that
>if I found a problem part, I could just yank it from the other engine.

Corky,

It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...

Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
parts/PSRUs.

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

[John M Frew]

Has anyone seen the Sunset Engine Development automotive (ZZ3 V8) to aero
motive discussion paper written for the FEW P51 replica ?

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
. com...
> Corky Scott wrote:
>
> > On the debit side were the following:
> >
> > 1. I have to fabricate a new intake manifold.
> > 2. The exhaust system runs some 400 to 500 degrees hotter than a four
> > stroke cycle engine.
> > 3. Fuel milage appeared to be somewhat worse than a four stroke cycle
> > engine of similar power.
> > 4. The recommendation was to remove the oil injector pump (this is the
> > pump that drips oil into the intake manifold to lubricate the rotor
> > tip seals) This meant that you had to carry oil you would be adding
> > to the fuel tanks. This also meant that you had to calculate how much
> > oil you had to add to the tanks every time you refueled.
> > 5. The engine is unbelievably loud sounding like a cross between a two
> > stroke motorcycle dragster and chainsaw held next to your head. There
> > would definately be a need for a muffler.
>
> This is not to contradict Corky, just to explain how these problems have
> been dealt with.
>
> 1) Yep. Ya' gotta' do it.
> 2) Stainless or iconel.
> 3) This has not really been a factor. The rotary leans better than a
> piston. Theory is that the fuel vapors, being heavier than the air, get
> whipped around the outside of the housing and into the spark area. Not
> an issure for me anyway, as I'll be carrying 42gal, and autogas is a LOT
> cheaper.
> 4) Another solution has been to route the oil metering pump into a
> second reservoir containing two-cycle oil. This is a concern, but the
> mix ratio is 125 to 1. I'll just have an extra compartment to hold 1
> gallon of 2cycle. That's 8lbs, 6 for oil and a couple for the container
> and measuring cup.
> 5) The centrifugal mufflers have worked quite well in dampening the
> noise. They can easily be made as quiete as a Lycoming at a cost of 10
> to 20lbs. Total installation weight will still be right in line with an
> IO-360.
>
> My recommendation to anyone considering an auto-conversion is to
> subscribe to different mailing list and see what is currently going on.
> Yesterday's problems may have simple solutions, and yesterday's simple
> solution may have problems. In the end, you only have your cards to
> play with.
>
> --
> ----Because I can----
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
> ------------------------
>

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:59:51 -0700, Barry S. >
wrote:

>It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
>4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
>used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...
>
>Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
>doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
>3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
>very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
>sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
>anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
>be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
>parts/PSRUs.
>
>__________________
>Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
>N38.6 W121.4

Actually, there are quite a few who have converted the engine and have
put impressive amounts of hours on them.

There were several reasons for using the 3.8L Ford rather than a Chevy
V-6.

1. Weight, the Ford 3.8L V-6 was one of the lightest engines of it's
type at the time.

2. Availability, there are millions of them, although you could say
the same for the Chevy.

3. Blanton designed his PSRU for the Ford and had made plans available
for it and there was a lot of information on it.

4. There was a newsletter on the Ford and pretty much everything that
could go wrong with it has been discovered and discussed.

5. It was really inexpensive.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:48:49 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote:

>Corky Scott wrote:
>
>> My wife is determined to overcome her tendency towards motion sickness
>> to fly with me in the airplane. She wants to do this, she says, so
>> that when I fly into the side of a mountain, we'll both go together.
>
>Touching faith in your navigational abilities, that.
>
>Cheers,
>Sydney
>
It's her gallows humour. On the other hand, she selflessly gave of
herself when my two parents, who lived next door to us became infirm
and died. For two years she and I became nurses because my mother did
not want to be placed in a nursing home. It was a lot of work. It
was the death of my mother that allowed me to realise my dream of
finishing my flight lessons begun when I was 15.

Now her parents are in their middle 80's and her mother has advanced
Parkinson's. Her father has to deal with her every weekend so we go
down once a month to visit and give him a break. It's a lot like the
type of work it took to nurse my mother only my wife's mother is
heavier than my mother was because she doesn't have cancer.

My wife is not impressed with the aging process or the amount of
support available to the aged in the US. We would both rather not
have things get to the point where we were living vegetables.

So she's only half joking.

Corky Scott

[Barry S.]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:15:40 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:59:51 -0700, Barry S. >
>wrote:
>
>>It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
>>4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
>>used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...
>>
>>Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
>>doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
>>3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
>>very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
>>sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
>>anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
>>be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
>>parts/PSRUs.
>>
>>__________________
>>Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
>>N38.6 W121.4
>
>Actually, there are quite a few who have converted the engine and have
>put impressive amounts of hours on them.

I've never had the opportunity to see a Ford conversion. Anyone out
towards Sacramento have one? (N38.6 W121.4)

>3. Blanton designed his PSRU for the Ford and had made plans available
>for it and there was a lot of information on it.

This forces you to build the PSRU or buy used. I think I'd prefer to
buy a PSRU new off the shelf which I believe makes the Ford less
desirable. Mr. Blanton is no longer with us and I'm not aware of a
"custodian" for the redrive design. So other than builders and the
newsletter, there is no manufacturer or designer formally supporting
the conversion. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but you
can never have too much support.

>4. There was a newsletter on the Ford and pretty much everything that
>could go wrong with it has been discovered and discussed.

I do get Bruce's newsletter.. (Haven't seen one in a while and I know
my subscription isn't up -- hint hint nudge nudge) but their just
seems to be more interest in other engine conversions. I still have
my EAA 52 badge, although not a member anymore, and I remember
chatting with several people about engines in the projects. One
Glastar builder investigated the Subaru and went with a Lycoming
instead. Another builder was looking at the Subaru, but wasn't sure
he wanted to make his build any more complicated. I can't recall
anyone wanting to use the Ford V6.

I look forward to seeing pictures of the finished product.

Best Wishes,
Barry

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

[BRUCE FRANK]

OK, guys, everyone has shamed me into it. I have been pretty busy with a new
job, BUT, I will endeavor to try to get the next issue out before the end of
August.

On additional subjects in this thread, right now there is no one of whom I
am aware that is manufacturing PSRUs for the Ford. Johnny at Northwest Aero
discontinued his, though he still makes them for other engines, because of
low demand. Johnny also used to build the engines, but again there was low
demand (probably because the Ford engine is the only conversion out there
that has info available allowing anyone to build his own). If one is
interested Johnny may be talked into building a PSRU on a one-off basis. If
you desire to build your own I can provide some helpful information.

One of the limiting things about the Ford has been the lack of performance
parts...not that we needed to build a racing engine, but we needed a source
for such things as roller rockers for those who wanted to get those last few
horses. The first place I have found that actually has stuff in stock and
ships it when you send money is Morana Racing
<http://www.moranav6racing.com/>

Besides the fancy electronic throttle body injection runner intakes they
have they are now working on the carb intake manifold and I hope to see
something useful in a few months.(Corky sent them one of his old intake
manifolds to study)

Bruce A. Frank


"Barry S." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:15:40 GMT,
> (Corky Scott) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:59:51 -0700, Barry S. >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
> >>4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
> >>used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...
> >>
> >>Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
> >>doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
> >>3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
> >>very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
> >>sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
> >>anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
> >>be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
> >>parts/PSRUs.
> >>
> >>__________________
> >>Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with
'mail'.
> >>N38.6 W121.4
> >
> >Actually, there are quite a few who have converted the engine and have
> >put impressive amounts of hours on them.
>
> I've never had the opportunity to see a Ford conversion. Anyone out
> towards Sacramento have one? (N38.6 W121.4)
>
> >3. Blanton designed his PSRU for the Ford and had made plans available
> >for it and there was a lot of information on it.
>
> This forces you to build the PSRU or buy used. I think I'd prefer to
> buy a PSRU new off the shelf which I believe makes the Ford less
> desirable. Mr. Blanton is no longer with us and I'm not aware of a
> "custodian" for the redrive design. So other than builders and the
> newsletter, there is no manufacturer or designer formally supporting
> the conversion. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but you
> can never have too much support.
>
> >4. There was a newsletter on the Ford and pretty much everything that
> >could go wrong with it has been discovered and discussed.
>
> I do get Bruce's newsletter.. (Haven't seen one in a while and I know
> my subscription isn't up -- hint hint nudge nudge) but their just
> seems to be more interest in other engine conversions. I still have
> my EAA 52 badge, although not a member anymore, and I remember
> chatting with several people about engines in the projects. One
> Glastar builder investigated the Subaru and went with a Lycoming
> instead. Another builder was looking at the Subaru, but wasn't sure
> he wanted to make his build any more complicated. I can't recall
> anyone wanting to use the Ford V6.
>
> I look forward to seeing pictures of the finished product.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Barry
>
> __________________
> Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with
'mail'.
> N38.6 W121.4

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:48:14 -0700, Barry S. >
wrote:


>>On additional subjects in this thread, right now there is no one of
>>whom I am aware that is manufacturing PSRUs for the Ford. Johnny
>>at Northwest Aero discontinued his, though he still makes them for
>>other engines, because of low demand. Johnny also used to build the
>
>This was essentially my original point. The Ford, for all its weight
>and cost advantages, just didn't generate enough interest/dollars to
>sustain the production of a single off the shelf PSRU.
>
>Why?

I can only speculate Barry, but I'd guess that because Chevy had so
many high performance parts, and virtually no on supported the Ford
V-6 in that manner, it just kinda started out slow and then petered
out.

You can buy just about anything in performance from Chevy or a vast
number of racing specialists for the Vortec V-6. It will cost you a
lot more than the Ford in the end, but you can buy things like
Edelbrock intake manifolds, in several varieties, aluminum heads and
even aluminum blocks. It's just that you're paying dearly for each of
those items whereas on the Ford, the intake manifold, timing chain
cover and heads came from the factory as stock aluminum items. That's
why Blanton turned to the Ford in the first place, he was obsessed
with developing a really inexpensive alternative engine that
approached the weight of the typical Lycoming.

There are some problems with using the Chevy parts: The aluminum heads
are really strictly for high performance or racing and are developed
for high airflow and big valves. This works fine if you are always
running around 8,000 rpm, but doesn't work well for idling or
intermediate power. Early aluminum heads used smaller valves and were
better for conversion but they are getting scarce now. Who knows, by
now someone may have developed a head that works for our purposes
again.

Corky Scott

[Barry S.]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:44:30 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:48:14 -0700, Barry S. >
>wrote:
>
>
>>>On additional subjects in this thread, right now there is no one of
>>>whom I am aware that is manufacturing PSRUs for the Ford. Johnny
>>>at Northwest Aero discontinued his, though he still makes them for
>>>other engines, because of low demand. Johnny also used to build the
>>
>>This was essentially my original point. The Ford, for all its weight
>>and cost advantages, just didn't generate enough interest/dollars to
>>sustain the production of a single off the shelf PSRU.
>>
>>Why?
>
>I can only speculate Barry, but I'd guess that because Chevy had so
>many high performance parts, and virtually no on supported the Ford
>V-6 in that manner, it just kinda started out slow and then petered
>out.

I suspect you're probably not far off. The cars the 3.8 went in
generally weren't the "sportiest"..

With the half price redrive and inexpensive supply of engines, what do
you think your installed cost will be?

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:47:09 -0700, Barry S. >
wrote:

>I suspect you're probably not far off. The cars the 3.8 went in
>generally weren't the "sportiest"..
>
>With the half price redrive and inexpensive supply of engines, what do
>you think your installed cost will be?
>
>__________________
>Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
>N38.6 W121.4

I've kept all the receipts for the parts so far and will post an exact
cost summery when the engine is assembled.

As Bruce mentioned, I'm doing things a bit differently (the story of
my project in general I think). I'm using roller rockers, which you
don't have to use and I'm using studs for the cylinderheads and main
bearing caps.

In addition, I bought Northwest Aero's lightweight alternator and
their two pickup distributor, as well as their lightweight and
undersized drive pulley's to keep the alternator rotational speeds
within reason.

You don't have get these things to have a viable engine, most haven't.
I'm trying to keep the weight of the engine down.

I should mention that the roller rockers are the 1.8 ratio rather than
the stock 1.7 ratio. This gives better breathing and, according to
Morana Racing, an additional 20 horsepower. I wasn't sure about using
them as I did not want to be experimenting, but they are a literal
bolt on substitute and don't otherwise affect the engine or
clearances. So I got them because more power, within the rpm
limitations, is a good thing.

Corky Scott

[Barnyard BOb --]

>I should mention that the roller rockers are the 1.8 ratio rather than
>the stock 1.7 ratio. This gives better breathing and, according to
>Morana Racing, an additional 20 horsepower.
>
>Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Uhhhh...
I played rocker ratio games four decades ago. Unless things
have changed dramatically, don't bet the ranch on getting
20 more horses in your app per Morana Racing propaganda.


Barnyard BOb - drag racers wuz us

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:29:18 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>I should mention that the roller rockers are the 1.8 ratio rather than
>>the stock 1.7 ratio. This gives better breathing and, according to
>>Morana Racing, an additional 20 horsepower.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Uhhhh...
>I played rocker ratio games four decades ago. Unless things
>have changed dramatically, don't bet the ranch on getting
>20 more horses in your app per Morana Racing propaganda.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - drag racers wuz us
>
It's going to be pretty much impossible to tell. I won't be running
the engine on the dyno with the original rocker arms, and then
switching to the new ones to verify performance differences.

I'll only be getting the power output as is, and that will be with the
1.8 ratio rocker arms.

I'm not even sure I will be able to have the engine connected to the
dyno. The engine needs some sort of bell housing or plate machined to
take the starter and without it, there is no starter.

If I install the PSRU, which is machined to take the starter, I doubt
the engine will bolt to the dyno. I've never run an engine on a dyno
so I don't know if the dyno itself can motor the engine to get it
started or if the engine must have it's own starter.

One of those details I'll have to find out about when the time comes.

Corky Scott

[Bruce A. Frank]

That is for sure. Corky's rocker arms change will be interesting and I
cannot see anything detrimental to the engine by making this change, but
I too long ago learned to take auto parts mfg. claims of bolt on HP as
sales pitch. Roller rockers have benefits but a 20 horse bump is
significant.

Bruce A. Frank

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
> >I should mention that the roller rockers are the 1.8 ratio rather than
> >the stock 1.7 ratio. This gives better breathing and, according to
> >Morana Racing, an additional 20 horsepower.
> >
> >Corky Scott
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Uhhhh...
> I played rocker ratio games four decades ago. Unless things
> have changed dramatically, don't bet the ranch on getting
> 20 more horses in your app per Morana Racing propaganda.
>
> Barnyard BOb - drag racers wuz us

[Big John]

BOb

I agere with you. Been down that rabbait trail many years ago also.

Big John


On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:29:18 -0500, Barnyard BOb -- >
wrote:

>
>>I should mention that the roller rockers are the 1.8 ratio rather than
>>the stock 1.7 ratio. This gives better breathing and, according to
>>Morana Racing, an additional 20 horsepower.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Uhhhh...
>I played rocker ratio games four decades ago. Unless things
>have changed dramatically, don't bet the ranch on getting
>20 more horses in your app per Morana Racing propaganda.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - drag racers wuz us

[andy asberry]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:38:19 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> wrote:

>That is for sure. Corky's rocker arms change will be interesting and I
>cannot see anything detrimental to the engine by making this change, but
>I too long ago learned to take auto parts mfg. claims of bolt on HP as
>sales pitch. Roller rockers have benefits but a 20 horse bump is
>significant.
>
>Bruce A. Frank

There is one consideration. That is valve mass acceleration and
deceleration. If you lift the valve a greater distance in the same
amount of time, good valve springs and good seats become critical. The
higher ratio rocker is a better solution than a taller lump on the cam
since the lifter, push rod and rocker acceleration are not increased.

[Ed Wischmeyer]

There was a fascinating talk at AirVenture (at least some of it was
fascinating :-) by a guy from NASA. His point was that if you're willing
to give up some efficiency, you can save a whole lot of cost. For
example, if you're willing to put up with some extra engine weight, or
some extra fuel burn, or whatever, you can get in the air lots cheaper.
The real costs come in getting the last bit of efficiency was his point.

Let's take some hypotheticals:
* An "aircraft style" two seater, 1600 pounds gross, 1100 empty, 160
knots, 9 GPH, 60 thousand bucks
* An "unoptimized" two seater, 2000 pounds gross, 1400 empty, 140 knots,
11 GPH, 30 thousand bucks

I know which we'd all like to have, but which we'd all like to pay for.
I think that one factor is that most of the auto engine planes look much
less than cool, with gunky cowls and radiators and such. If somebody did
a "cheapmobile" and it looked cool...

Ed Wischmeyer

[Ernest Christley]

Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
> There was a fascinating talk at AirVenture (at least some of it was
> fascinating :-) by a guy from NASA. His point was that if you're willing
> to give up some efficiency, you can save a whole lot of cost. For
> example, if you're willing to put up with some extra engine weight, or
> some extra fuel burn, or whatever, you can get in the air lots cheaper.
> The real costs come in getting the last bit of efficiency was his point.
>
> Let's take some hypotheticals:
> * An "aircraft style" two seater, 1600 pounds gross, 1100 empty, 160
> knots, 9 GPH, 60 thousand bucks
> * An "unoptimized" two seater, 2000 pounds gross, 1400 empty, 140 knots,
> 11 GPH, 30 thousand bucks
>
> I know which we'd all like to have, but which we'd all like to pay for.
> I think that one factor is that most of the auto engine planes look much
> less than cool, with gunky cowls and radiators and such. If somebody did
> a "cheapmobile" and it looked cool...
>
> Ed Wischmeyer

What was that rumor about Toyota again?

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------