Re:Engine configuration

[Ron Webb]

Yea -- my point was that this is ALMOST a good idea. But not quite.

Lotsa those!

Much better to just use a normal V6 or V8 and a PSRU. Many such that have
gone 2000+ hours.

As for weight and CG, I'd use the V6 STOL as an example. This is a set of
plans done in the '60's by a guy named Blanton. It has you buy a trashed
Piper tri-pacer and use the parts to build a new aircraft. More HP, longer
wings, and a lengthened fuselage made for a really good aircraft. There were
about 500 built, and there is only 1 on the NTSB crash database. He actually
had FAA approval at one time.

For the engine, he used a 3.8 Liter Ford V6. They are still selling
derivatives today.

After he hot-rodded it, he got 260 HP out of the engine, but derated it to
230 HP. According to the Blanton plans, it weighed 14 pounds more than a
comparably equipped IO360 Lyc (180 HP). Point is that the V6 engine with
belt PSRU meant he could use an engine big enough to do the job in style.
And since it is water cooled, you can run it at the stoicheometric (sp?)
point of 14.7:1 air fuel mixture, instead of the 10:1 or so necessary in an
air cooled engine to keep the valves from burning. That leaner mixture
translates to considerably better gas mileage (up to 30% better).

What that improvement translates to is that you need carry less fuel. So
even though the engine is 14 pounds heavier, 30% less fuel means overall you
are carrying less weight. And 50 more HP.




"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Webb wrote:
>>>>> "Certain types of V engine have been built as inverted engines,
>>>>> most commonly for aircraft. Advantages include better visibility
>>>>> in a single-engined airplane, and lower centre of gravity."
>>
>>
>> An aluminum V8 was adapted in the 1960s to power ---I want to say the
>> Whittman Tailwind, but I could be wrong --- it was run direct drive and
>> inverted. Ran fine for many years. One problem was that the oiling system
>> had to be redesigned. It was originally designed to pump oil up into the
>> valve covers, then let it drain back down. Obviously that won't work if
>> the whole engine is upside down. Also the carb had to be replaced (float
>> bowls don't work upside down either.) Neither change is trivial, both are
>> do-able.
>
>
> As I recall, Wittman said big problem was that the engine ate plugs in
> the inverted position. Barely get 20 hours on a set...
>
>
>
>> You can see why it would result in a lower center of gravity - the crank
>> (directly connected to the prop) becomes the highest point on the engine
>> instead of the lowest. Same for visibility - the whole engine is lower
>> and out of the way.
>>
>> But that all assumes you are going to use it direct drive - which almost
>> nobody does. If you use a gearbox, belt PSRU, or HiVo chain PSRU, they
>> will all give you an offset of several inches, making for the same center
>> of gravity without the other changes, and allowing for much greater
>> power, because engine RPM's can be run much higher for the same prop RPM.
>
> And what does all that do to 1) weight and 2) CG ???

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Ron Webb wrote:

> Yea -- my point was that this is ALMOST a good idea. But not quite.
>
> Lotsa those!
>
> Much better to just use a normal V6 or V8 and a PSRU. Many such that have
> gone 2000+ hours.
>
> As for weight and CG, I'd use the V6 STOL as an example. This is a set of
> plans done in the '60's by a guy named Blanton. It has you buy a trashed
> Piper tri-pacer and use the parts to build a new aircraft. More HP, longer
> wings, and a lengthened fuselage made for a really good aircraft. There were
> about 500 built, and there is only 1 on the NTSB crash database. He actually
> had FAA approval at one time.
>
> For the engine, he used a 3.8 Liter Ford V6. They are still selling
> derivatives today.
>
> After he hot-rodded it, he got 260 HP out of the engine, but derated it to
> 230 HP. According to the Blanton plans, it weighed 14 pounds more than a
> comparably equipped IO360 Lyc (180 HP). Point is that the V6 engine with
> belt PSRU meant he could use an engine big enough to do the job in style.
> And since it is water cooled, you can run it at the stoicheometric (sp?)
> point of 14.7:1 air fuel mixture, instead of the 10:1 or so necessary in an
> air cooled engine to keep the valves from burning. That leaner mixture
> translates to considerably better gas mileage (up to 30% better).
>
> What that improvement translates to is that you need carry less fuel. So
> even though the engine is 14 pounds heavier, 30% less fuel means overall you
> are carrying less weight. And 50 more HP.
>
>
>

Ron, how about share with us where you got you information?

[Ron Webb]

> Ron, how about share with us where you got you information?

I got the information from the set of very old V6 STOL plans I bought a few
years ago off of EBay.

Paid $75. That's WAYYY out of character for me! It was worth it though.
Among other things, there is a blueprint that shows how to convert a PA-22
to a taildragger without the mods to the undercarriage. Just mod the gear to
sweep forward. My PA-20 was converted like that, so having the drawing is a
good thing.

There are perhaps 75 pages of drawings, and 75 pages of text. Covers
fuselage mods, wing mods, and converting the engine.

I'd share the info if I could get permission from his heirs...

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Ron Webb wrote:
>>Ron, how about share with us where you got you information?
>
>
> I got the information from the set of very old V6 STOL plans I bought a few
> years ago off of EBay.
>
> Paid $75. That's WAYYY out of character for me! It was worth it though.
> Among other things, there is a blueprint that shows how to convert a PA-22
> to a taildragger without the mods to the undercarriage. Just mod the gear to
> sweep forward. My PA-20 was converted like that, so having the drawing is a
> good thing.
>
> There are perhaps 75 pages of drawings, and 75 pages of text. Covers
> fuselage mods, wing mods, and converting the engine.
>
> I'd share the info if I could get permission from his heirs...
>
>


That's about what I expected.


Here, update thyself...

http://www.contactmagazine.com/

[Ron Webb]

Thanks for the link. It had been a while since I had looked at the Contact!
web site.

The Belted Air Power belt drive is very similar to the Blanton drive. I'm
sure I'd rather buy it than build it. I'd heard they weren't selling the BAP
unit anymore. Anybody know?

I like the info in the old plans because it is one of the few cases I've
seen where a certificated engine was removed from a certificated aircraft,
then a properly converted auto engine was installed in it's place - with
everything on both sides weighed, and pictures of the scale. I've not seen
much with better first hand knowledge of weights. And nothing much has
changed.

I have made a collection of similar info, from every source I can find,
including a few of my own weights and measures. I still have the file
somewhere...I think.

As for the fuel burn info - that is not even in doubt! You can't run an air
cooled engine at the Stoicheometric point. Anybody with a pilot's license
will tell you that you run rich of peak, or get used to paying for valve
jobs among other things. Not so with a water cooled engine. Keeping the
mixture EXACTLY at stoich is the whole purpose of an Electronic Fuel
Injection system. I DO know something about that.

An engine running at Stoich 14.7:1 fuel air mixture WILL get better mileage
than one getting the same power at 10:1 mixture. How could it be otherwise?






"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Webb wrote:
>>>Ron, how about share with us where you got you information?
>>
>>
>> I got the information from the set of very old V6 STOL plans I bought a
>> few years ago off of EBay.
>>
>> Paid $75. That's WAYYY out of character for me! It was worth it though.
>> Among other things, there is a blueprint that shows how to convert a
>> PA-22 to a taildragger without the mods to the undercarriage. Just mod
>> the gear to sweep forward. My PA-20 was converted like that, so having
>> the drawing is a good thing.
>>
>> There are perhaps 75 pages of drawings, and 75 pages of text. Covers
>> fuselage mods, wing mods, and converting the engine.
>>
>> I'd share the info if I could get permission from his heirs...
>
>
> That's about what I expected.
>
>
> Here, update thyself...
>
> http://www.contactmagazine.com/

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:30:03 -0900, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>Thanks for the link. It had been a while since I had looked at the Contact!
>web site.
>
>The Belted Air Power belt drive is very similar to the Blanton drive. I'm
>sure I'd rather buy it than build it. I'd heard they weren't selling the BAP
>unit anymore. Anybody know?
>
>I like the info in the old plans because it is one of the few cases I've
>seen where a certificated engine was removed from a certificated aircraft,
>then a properly converted auto engine was installed in it's place - with
>everything on both sides weighed, and pictures of the scale. I've not seen
>much with better first hand knowledge of weights. And nothing much has
>changed.
>
>I have made a collection of similar info, from every source I can find,
>including a few of my own weights and measures. I still have the file
>somewhere...I think.
>
>As for the fuel burn info - that is not even in doubt! You can't run an air
>cooled engine at the Stoicheometric point. Anybody with a pilot's license
>will tell you that you run rich of peak, or get used to paying for valve
>jobs among other things. Not so with a water cooled engine. Keeping the
>mixture EXACTLY at stoich is the whole purpose of an Electronic Fuel
>Injection system. I DO know something about that.
>
>An engine running at Stoich 14.7:1 fuel air mixture WILL get better mileage
>than one getting the same power at 10:1 mixture. How could it be otherwise?
>
>
Never heard of "agressive leaning" of air cooled aircraft engines?
Below peak power it is very viable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:21:23 -0900, "Ron Webb" > wrote:

> As for weight and CG, I'd use the V6 STOL as an example....There were
> about 500 built, and there is only 1 on the NTSB crash database. He actually
> had FAA approval at one time.

500 built? I'm skeptical. I did a search of the FAA database using "V-6,"
"STOL,", "Defunky", "Javelin" and "Blanton" as terms (with the typical
variations of "V-6". When you eliminate all the Zenairs and "R V-6"es, I maybe
35 hits. Five hundred flying aircraft is about the same as Fly Babies, and I
don't think the Blantons are as common.

Blanton was a controversial figure, back then, and there were those who were
skeptical of his veracity, and, at times, his sanity. Scroll about halfway down
here...

http://www.seqair.com/Other/Sawdust/Sawdust1992.html

Look for the section starting, "With a tongue like this, who needs a propeller?"

Or try...
http://bd-4.org/newsletter17.html

....and scroll down to the "Horsepower" section.

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 9:19 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> 500 built? I'm skeptical. I did a search of the FAA database using "V-6,"
> "STOL,", "Defunky", "Javelin" and "Blanton" as terms (with the typical
> variations of "V-6". When you eliminate all the Zenairs and "R V-6"es, I maybe
> 35 hits. Five hundred flying aircraft is about the same as Fly Babies, and I
> don't think the Blantons are as common.


Like most homebuilt projects, there are likely a lot of
Blanton conversions sitting in garages and basements all over the
world, waiting for the owner to get motivated enough to finish the
project.

Dan

[Ron Webb]

Yea, I've heard of it. You won't catch me, or anyone I know trying it for
very long. Experimenting on a $15K IO360
is not something I am comfortable with.


> Never heard of "agressive leaning" of air cooled aircraft engines?
> Below peak power it is very viable
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Ron Webb]

> 500 built? I'm skeptical. I did a search of the FAA database using
> "V-6,"
> "STOL,", "Defunky", "Javelin" and "Blanton" as terms (with the typical
> variations of "V-6". When you eliminate all the Zenairs and "R V-6"es, I
> maybe
> 35 hits. Five hundred flying aircraft is about the same as Fly Babies,
> and I
> don't think the Blantons are as common.
>

I'll admit that I don't have any source but Blantons writings for that one.
Could be wrong. This far in the future, and 35 IDENTIFIABLE still flying
isn't doing that bad. I know of several here in Alaska that have never been
registered.


> Blanton was a controversial figure, back then, and there were those who
> were
> skeptical of his veracity, and, at times, his sanity. Scroll about
> halfway down
> here...

Yea, his name here on RAH was nearly as bad as Zooom's after one fellow (who
was that?) got done with him.

Blanton's claim that you could get 230 reliable HP out of it was vigorously
debated.

With open intake, open exhaust, ported heads, big cam and carb, and forged
rods and pistons for reliability my desktop Dynamometer program shows over
330 HP at 6500 RPM, and 278 HP at a more sedate 5000 RPM possible, without
forced induction. Dyno2000 is usually very close to right. Blanton claimed
260 HP, derated to 230 HP.

The commercial version of the Ford 3.8 L with the Northwest Aero belt PSRU
attached that shipped with the Adventurer amphib put out around 200, but it
was not modified as described above. The ported heads alone would be worth
the extra 30 HP.

[Dale Scroggins[_2_]]

Have you ever read Lycoming's recommendations for leaning their engines?
The engine runs as cool at 25 degrees lean of peak as it will 25 degrees
rich of peak. It isn't as smooth, and it has that lean "bark", but it
doesn't hurt the engine if the power setting is below 75 percent. The
engine runs cleaner.

We had a customer once who was scared to lean his engine correctly. He
leaned just enough to keep the engine smooth at altitude. One day he took
off from a mountaintop airport and had two intake valves seize. Luckily,
there was another airport in the valley below, so the airframe survived
fine. But his fear of leaning sure made a mess of that Lycoming.


"Ron Webb" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Yea, I've heard of it. You won't catch me, or anyone I know trying it for
> very long. Experimenting on a $15K IO360
> is not something I am comfortable with.
>
>
>> Never heard of "agressive leaning" of air cooled aircraft engines?
>> Below peak power it is very viable
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:19:51 -0900, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>
>
>Yea, I've heard of it. You won't catch me, or anyone I know trying it for
>very long. Experimenting on a $15K IO360
>is not something I am comfortable with.
>
>
>> Never heard of "agressive leaning" of air cooled aircraft engines?
>> Below peak power it is very viable
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
Well beyond the experimentation phase. Very well documented.
Actually RECOMMENDED on engines designed for 87 octane when running
100LL. Keeps the valves from hanging from "lead poisoning"
Also greatly extends cruise range.

This was investigated and proven by of all people, Charles Lindburg,
WAYYYYY back then.

Also see:
http://www.megginson.com/blogs/lahso/2004/12/23/leaning/



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[GeorgeB]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:45:28 -0900, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>Blanton's claim that you could get 230 reliable HP out of it was vigorously
>debated.
>
>With open intake, open exhaust, ported heads, big cam and carb, and forged
>rods and pistons for reliability my desktop Dynamometer program shows over
>330 HP at 6500 RPM, and 278 HP at a more sedate 5000 RPM possible, without
>forced induction. Dyno2000 is usually very close to right. Blanton claimed
>260 HP, derated to 230 HP.

I doubt that anyone will argue with that statement. The problem isn't
in getting that power out, it is with getting the heat out, even with
water cooled engines. An engine, to give 2000 hours MTBF (well, with
a 2000 hour TBO, you would want the MTBF significnatly longer) needs
more than great tuning.

You did say reliable; remember that an airplane engine typically will
be expected to operate at 75% to 85% power for hours at a time; an
automobile engine in a 2500 lb car (think Cessna 182 or Cirrus)
running at 60 MPH probably averages 20 HP. I cannot prove my
automobile numbers, and they may be all wet.

Look at highly tuned auto engiens ... NASCAR probably gets 800 HP from
350 cu-in ... and they last 4 or 5 hours. Drag racers likely get over
double that, but their engines last minutes.

Contrary to what many think, most accept that the "obsolete"
Lyconental engines are pretty good products, making below 0.4 lb/hp-hr
SFC ... better than many cars. That's EFFICIENT!

I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd see
them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax. They
get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
$15,000 range.

Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
.... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.

But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"GeorgeB" > wrote

> I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd see
> them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
> certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax. They
> get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
> not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
> $15,000 range.
>
> Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
> will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
> I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
> ... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.
>
> But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.

It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
hours, with no rebuilding necessary.

Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is not
much different than GM V-8's.

It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's engines,
before a design goes into
production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else does.

Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty cycles and
punishment make a certification test run look like child's play.

The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are good
products out there for those, too. One has to only put them together.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Webb]

Here's one current example of a very well done Ford 5.0L V8. There are MANY
more.
http://www.haaspowerair.com/index.html

The FAA, and the legal system conspire to make selling these things an
unprofitable enterprise...but it can be done - even by an individual in his
garage...as proven thousands of times.



> It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
> hours, with no rebuilding necessary.
>
> Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is not
> much different than GM V-8's.
>
> It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's
> engines, before a design goes into
> production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else does.
>
> Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty cycles
> and punishment make a certification test run look like child's play.
>
> The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
> usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are good
> products out there for those, too. One has to only put them together.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GeorgeB" > wrote
>
>> I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd see
>> them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
>> certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax. They
>> get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
>> not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
>> $15,000 range.
>>
>> Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
>> will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
>> I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
>> ... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.
>>
>> But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.
>
> It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
> hours, with no rebuilding necessary.
>
> Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is not
> much different than GM V-8's.
>
> It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's
> engines, before a design goes into
> production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else does.
>
> Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty cycles
> and punishment make a certification test run look like child's play.
>
> The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
> usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are good
> products out there for those, too. One has to only put them together.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

FWIW, My Chrysler 318 Cu In V8 just turned 8600 hours without any service
other than oil changes and spark plugs. Of course, that's in a Jeep Grand
Cherokee. As I understand it, the 318 is neither better or worse than other
V8's.

In the Jeep, it gets 20mpg at 60mph which is 3gph.
That's 45hp @ 2100 RPM.
It weighs about 545 pounds.

If you insist on 200HP @ 4500rpm output at cruise, which you would want to
do to justify all that weight, it might not last as long.

Bill Daniels

[Matt Whiting]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "GeorgeB" > wrote
>>
>>> I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd see
>>> them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
>>> certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax. They
>>> get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
>>> not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
>>> $15,000 range.
>>>
>>> Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
>>> will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
>>> I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
>>> ... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.
>>>
>>> But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.
>> It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
>> hours, with no rebuilding necessary.
>>
>> Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is not
>> much different than GM V-8's.
>>
>> It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's
>> engines, before a design goes into
>> production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else does.
>>
>> Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty cycles
>> and punishment make a certification test run look like child's play.
>>
>> The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
>> usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are good
>> products out there for those, too. One has to only put them together.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
> FWIW, My Chrysler 318 Cu In V8 just turned 8600 hours without any service
> other than oil changes and spark plugs. Of course, that's in a Jeep Grand
> Cherokee. As I understand it, the 318 is neither better or worse than other
> V8's.

Wow, you have an hour meter in your Jeep. I never saw that on the
options list!

Matt

[Bill Daniels]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "GeorgeB" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd see
>>>> them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
>>>> certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax. They
>>>> get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
>>>> not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
>>>> $15,000 range.
>>>>
>>>> Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
>>>> will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
>>>> I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
>>>> ... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.
>>>>
>>>> But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.
>>> It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
>>> hours, with no rebuilding necessary.
>>>
>>> Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is
>>> not much different than GM V-8's.
>>>
>>> It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's
>>> engines, before a design goes into
>>> production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else does.
>>>
>>> Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty cycles
>>> and punishment make a certification test run look like child's play.
>>>
>>> The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
>>> usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are good
>>> products out there for those, too. One has to only put them together.
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, My Chrysler 318 Cu In V8 just turned 8600 hours without any service
>> other than oil changes and spark plugs. Of course, that's in a Jeep
>> Grand Cherokee. As I understand it, the 318 is neither better or worse
>> than other V8's.
>
> Wow, you have an hour meter in your Jeep. I never saw that on the options
> list!
>
> Matt

It's in the vehicle computer but you have to have a scanner to see it.
You'd be amazed at the information those black boxes keep on you.

Bill D

[GTH]

Ron Webb a écrit :
> Here's one current example of a very well done Ford 5.0L V8. There are MANY
> more.


I do not doubt there are MANY successful V8 engines in MANY airplanes
flying MANY happy hours.


...as proven thousands of times.

The problem is, MANY is not proving anything.
What we would need is, HOW MANY such engines made it to TBO, and in HOW
MANY clearly identified airplanes.
Only a few hundreds would suffice...;-)

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[Ron Webb]

>
> The problem is, MANY is not proving anything.
> What we would need is, HOW MANY such engines made it to TBO, and in HOW
> MANY clearly identified airplanes.
> Only a few hundreds would suffice...;-)
>
And that's what the situation will not allow (for it's own reasons). When
you can't field a standardized package, with known engineering behind it,
you are stuck evaluating "backyard" prototypes, done by mostly amateurs,
against the pro's with 30 year proven packages.

It's just amazing that our stats are still competitive, even so. The NTSB
database
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp)
has fields for homebuilt vs certificated aircraft. (though not engines).

I've played with it quite a lot, and as best I can tell, the homebuilt
industry has about 2x as many accidents per flight hour. Almost all of these
are stupid stuff. When you do find a crash because of an engine failure,
it's usually a poorly designed fuel feed, a PSRU belt broken, or a poorly
designed cooling system causing an in flight overheat. Amateur engineering
can be fatal.

[Matt Whiting]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "GeorgeB" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd see
>>>>> them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
>>>>> certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax. They
>>>>> get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
>>>>> not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
>>>>> $15,000 range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
>>>>> will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
>>>>> I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
>>>>> ... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.
>>>>>
>>>>> But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.
>>>> It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
>>>> hours, with no rebuilding necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is
>>>> not much different than GM V-8's.
>>>>
>>>> It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's
>>>> engines, before a design goes into
>>>> production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else does.
>>>>
>>>> Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty cycles
>>>> and punishment make a certification test run look like child's play.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
>>>> usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are good
>>>> products out there for those, too. One has to only put them together.
>>>> --
>>>> Jim in NC
>>>>
>>> FWIW, My Chrysler 318 Cu In V8 just turned 8600 hours without any service
>>> other than oil changes and spark plugs. Of course, that's in a Jeep
>>> Grand Cherokee. As I understand it, the 318 is neither better or worse
>>> than other V8's.
>> Wow, you have an hour meter in your Jeep. I never saw that on the options
>> list!
>>
>> Matt
>
> It's in the vehicle computer but you have to have a scanner to see it.
> You'd be amazed at the information those black boxes keep on you.

Yes, I've heard they track quite a range of variables. Are those hours
that the engine was actually running or hours that the computer was
operating?

Matt

[Bill Daniels]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "GeorgeB" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd bet that if an auto engine would out perform Lycontental, we'd
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> them certified and in use; the only water cooled engine I know of in
>>>>>> certified applications is the water cooled HEAD engine by Rotax.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>> get 80 HP @ 5500 rpm from 74 cu-in ... and a 1500 hr TBO. They are
>>>>>> not cheap to build, either; even the uncertified ones are in the
>>>>>> $15,000 range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Business wants to make money; if you can build a 230 HP engine that
>>>>>> will reliably give 2000 hours in an airplane and sell it for $10,000,
>>>>>> I'd bet that getting it certified and insured will be a piece of cake
>>>>>> ... certified, it is probalby over a $30,000 sale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But my own opinion ... if it were that easy, it would have been done.
>>>>> It has been, by many people. Many V-8's and V-6's are well past 2,000
>>>>> hours, with no rebuilding necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Orenda did it, and certified it, but designed their own V-8, but it is
>>>>> not much different than GM V-8's.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be time to trot out the blog on how GM torture tests it's
>>>>> engines, before a design goes into
>>>>> production. I don't have the file handy, but perhaps someone else
>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without the file handy, it is an easy jump to say that their duty
>>>>> cycles and punishment make a certification test run look like child's
>>>>> play.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with auto engine conversions is seldom the engine. It is
>>>>> usually in the accessories, or the prop speed reducers. There are
>>>>> good products out there for those, too. One has to only put them
>>>>> together.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim in NC
>>>>>
>>>> FWIW, My Chrysler 318 Cu In V8 just turned 8600 hours without any
>>>> service other than oil changes and spark plugs. Of course, that's in a
>>>> Jeep Grand Cherokee. As I understand it, the 318 is neither better or
>>>> worse than other V8's.
>>> Wow, you have an hour meter in your Jeep. I never saw that on the
>>> options list!
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> It's in the vehicle computer but you have to have a scanner to see it.
>> You'd be amazed at the information those black boxes keep on you.
>
> Yes, I've heard they track quite a range of variables. Are those hours
> that the engine was actually running or hours that the computer was
> operating?
>
> Matt

It says "engine hours" so I presume it uses oil pressure. Either way, I
can't recall any time that elapsed with the ignition on without the engine
running.

Back to the airplane application. It seems to me that it might be a stretch
to power a "personal cruise misile" with an auto V8. Maybe a better
application is replica's of early airplanes that used large, slow turning
propellers powered by OX-5's. The engine weight is more appropriate and you
could operate the engine at low output.

Bill D

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote

> If you insist on 200HP @ 4500rpm output at cruise, which you would want to
> do to justify all that weight, it might not last as long.

Might not. Big words, indeed.

OK, let's say it only lasts a quarter as long, in an airplane. 2,000 hours
is a feat that has been duplicated, time and again, by those who have taken
the time to engineer an installation. They keep running after that,
according to those who have installed them. Some in very punishing, high
power demand planes. Glider towing is one area that has had some examples
performing in probably as punishing of an environment that you could find.

2,000 hours are what many air cooled airplane engines would love to see.
Most do not make it that long, without having valve or jug problems, or
other problems. So my examples are doing as well as yours, with less
problems.

A structural beam can take a great loading, and not care how many times it
is loaded, as long as it does not exceed design limits. The same idea can
be applied to engines, as it relates to major failures. (yes wear will take
place in an engine, but not at exceedingly faster rates) As long as the
engine is not loaded past design limits, they will keep on running. And
they have proven that they can.

Marine engine applications are much the same, in terms of power demands, and
the length of time that they are called on to put out the high power levels.
Nobody batts an eyelash at a V-6 or V-8 running for thousands of hours in a
boat. Why so with an airplane? Because not that many have tried, and the
commercial manufacturers don't find financial incentive to try. That leaves
it to experimentals.

Boats run at 4500 RPM for hours on end. They don't blow up. Just because a
car does not demand as high power output does not mean that they could not
do so. They can and will. Those who have well engineered airplane
installations have proven that fact. It is only not considered as fact by
those who do not WANT to accept it as fact.
--
Jim in NC

[stol]

On Dec 23, 8:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote
>
> > If you insist on 200HP @ 4500rpm output at cruise, which you would want to
> > do to justify all that weight, it might not last as long.
>
> Might not. *Big words, indeed.
>
> OK, let's say it only lasts a quarter as long, in an airplane. *2,000 hours
> is a feat that has been duplicated, time and again, by those who have taken
> the time to engineer an installation. *They keep running after that,
> according to those who have installed them. *Some in very punishing, high
> power demand planes. *Glider towing is one area that has had some examples
> performing in probably as punishing of an environment that you could find.
>
> 2,000 hours are what many air cooled airplane engines would love to see.
> Most do not make it that long, without having valve or jug problems, or
> other problems. *So my examples are doing as well as yours, with less
> problems.
>
> A structural beam can take a great loading, and not care how many times it
> is loaded, as long as it does not exceed design limits. *The same idea can
> be applied to engines, as it relates to major failures. *(yes wear will take
> place in an engine, but not at exceedingly faster rates) As long as the
> engine is not loaded past design limits, they will keep on running. *And
> they have proven that they can.
>
> Marine engine applications are much the same, in terms of power demands, and
> the length of time that they are called on to put out the high power levels.
> Nobody batts an eyelash at a V-6 or V-8 running for thousands of hours in a
> boat. *Why so with an airplane? *Because not that many have tried, and the
> commercial manufacturers don't find financial incentive to try. *That leaves
> it to experimentals.
>
> Boats run at 4500 RPM for hours on end. *They don't blow up. *Just because a
> car does not demand as high power output does not mean that they could not
> do so. *They can and will. *Those who have well engineered airplane
> installations have proven that fact. *It is only not considered as fact by
> those who do not WANT to accept it as fact.
> --
> Jim in NC

Once again Jim has hit the nail right on the head. I can tell you from
experience that installing a auto engine in an experimental plane is
ALOT of work. It is also very gratifying to show it to the general
public. At a recent car show that happened to be located at the
nearby Alpine airport the promoter asked for some local experimental
builders to fly in and display their toys. There was over 100 real
nice street rods present and to see the expression on the car guys and
gals faces when they wandered over onto the ramp and saw my plane had
a auto engine was worth every hour I had into engineering it. Most
people don't realize that a properly designed and outfitted engine
doesn't know where it is at. It could be in a boat, sitting under a
shed pumping water or under the cowl of a plane, All it knows is to
make reliable power if properly built.

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
Jackson Hole Wy

[stol]

On Dec 25, 7:26*pm, Ernest Christley > wrote:
> stol wrote:
> > Once again Jim has hit the nail right on the head. I can tell you from
> > experience that installing a auto engine in an experimental plane is
> > ALOT of work.
>
> Ben, since I'm building a plans built airplane, the engine installation
> hasn't been any harder than a Lyc would be. *Still have to weld up an
> engine mount and all the associate and sundry other little pieces. *It
> did take more thinking, but that give me something to do during the
> commute. *The engineering isn't that difficult, either. *It is a matter
> of wittling away some time reading forums where many have already done
> what you're planning to do, and are more than happy to tell you how to
> do it properly.
>
> I've been reading the Flyrotary email list for six years. *There have
> been many problems during that time. *Some accidents. *At least one was
> fatal. *Most of the builders worked through the problems and shared what
> they learned. *The first builders needed dozens of hours to get the
> engine to a flyable state. *Current builders who have been monitoring
> the list are having first flights without glitches.
>
> The problem with auto engines isn't unsuitability. *It is lack of any
> engine knowledge at all. *Bolting a Lyc to the front of an experimental
> and saying, "Everything will be alright", is just an example of trusting
> your keester to some pencil pusher with a Lycoming logo on his
> nameplate. *That guy may decide that the company can save some money on
> machining cost by leaving a little of the vanadium out of the crank
> castings. *What ya' gonna do then?

Pay a premium price for a "FAA approved" engine and hope not to be the
15th death from Lycoming's certified crankshafts.....:<(