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

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
ink.net...
RapidRonnie wrote:

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


Gently disagree, Ron.

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

Apples and oranges again...

Richard

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

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

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

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

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


Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

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

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

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...5?OpenDocument

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

Dan

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

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


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

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

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

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

Ron wrote;

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


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


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


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

Send it to stol83001 at yahoo dot com.

Ben

"stol" wrote:

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

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

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

Mark Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote:

"stol" wrote:


My same package is at 434 lbs and can be configured to put out

from 120 hp all the way to 600+. The 600 number is for takeoff and

five minutes, then you have to throttle it back to the the low 5's to
get it to live.


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

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

Mark Hickey

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

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

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

Richard said:

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

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

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

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

Ben
N801BH

"stol" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Hickey

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

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



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


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

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


Mark Hickey


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


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

Ben