Engine configuration

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

"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

"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

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

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.....:(