If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
On Aug 27, 3:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. That's true, and the biggest annoyance (of which I am aware) is that they have increased the recommended "idle" speed to increase the service life of the PSRU--which is of the spur gear type. I don't know whether any of the belt or chain type PSRU installations have a similar requirement. As to cooling: there were a lot of liquid cooled aircraft engines in WWII, but the the aircraft they in which they were installed looked a lot different from their air cooled counterparts. Peter Even belted PSRUs have vibration nodes. The Glastar in which we put a PSRU'd Soob didn't like 1400 engine RPM; it semed to be an argument between the flywheel's inertia and the prop's. Running it at that RPM for long would have torn the teeth off the belt. I didn't notice if there were further nodes at 2800 and 5600. Adjusting belt tension didn't change anything. I've read about (and encountered) cases of cooling problems in auto conversions. Many builders underestimate the amount of heat that needs discarding, and also make mistakes in radiator installation and baffling. I've seen rads mounted out in the breeze where they not only slow the airplane but suffer from airflow problems created by the vortices generated around the rad. I've seen a couple of small rads mounted behine the front cowl openings, where they're supposed to get ram air, but without proper baffling to separate the incoming air from the air behind the rads the pressure differential is minimal, causing low flow, and air eddying around the rad further interferes with flow. In the Glastar I mounted the big, full-size rad (from the same car as the engine) behind the engine, at an angle so that the top edge was at the firewall and the bottom was forward about 8". Baffling around the rad made sure that ALL air leaving the cowl (except for a bit leaving around the hot exhaust pipes) had to go through the rad, so I had maximum flow. A lip on the cowl outlet to accelerate air away from the opening lowered the pressure further so that max differential was maintained between the front and rear of the rad. And even with all this the engine's coolant temp reached max in an extended full- power climb on a summer day. The P-51 had an underbelly scoop and a variable-geometry outlet behind it. The rad was in this housing. Inlet and outlet shape and size were critical, and I've heard that the designers were so clever that they even got a little thrust as the cooling air expanded and was accelerated a little when it left the outlet. OWT, maybe, but there's lots to learn from their design anyway. It's worth noting that the inlet was much smaller than the rad's area; Mr. Bernoulli tells us that pressure increases as airflow slows and decreases as it accelerates, so the divergent duct between the inlet and rad face slowed the air and increased its pressure. Same principle used in numerous places in a jet engine. Dan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
wrote in message ... On Aug 27, 3:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote: "Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. That's true, and the biggest annoyance (of which I am aware) is that they have increased the recommended "idle" speed to increase the service life of the PSRU--which is of the spur gear type. I don't know whether any of the belt or chain type PSRU installations have a similar requirement. As to cooling: there were a lot of liquid cooled aircraft engines in WWII, but the the aircraft they in which they were installed looked a lot different from their air cooled counterparts. Peter Even belted PSRUs have vibration nodes. The Glastar in which we put a PSRU'd Soob didn't like 1400 engine RPM; it semed to be an argument between the flywheel's inertia and the prop's. Running it at that RPM for long would have torn the teeth off the belt. I didn't notice if there were further nodes at 2800 and 5600. Adjusting belt tension didn't change anything. I've read about (and encountered) cases of cooling problems in auto conversions. Many builders underestimate the amount of heat that needs discarding, and also make mistakes in radiator installation and baffling. I've seen rads mounted out in the breeze where they not only slow the airplane but suffer from airflow problems created by the vortices generated around the rad. I've seen a couple of small rads mounted behine the front cowl openings, where they're supposed to get ram air, but without proper baffling to separate the incoming air from the air behind the rads the pressure differential is minimal, causing low flow, and air eddying around the rad further interferes with flow. In the Glastar I mounted the big, full-size rad (from the same car as the engine) behind the engine, at an angle so that the top edge was at the firewall and the bottom was forward about 8". Baffling around the rad made sure that ALL air leaving the cowl (except for a bit leaving around the hot exhaust pipes) had to go through the rad, so I had maximum flow. A lip on the cowl outlet to accelerate air away from the opening lowered the pressure further so that max differential was maintained between the front and rear of the rad. And even with all this the engine's coolant temp reached max in an extended full- power climb on a summer day. The P-51 had an underbelly scoop and a variable-geometry outlet behind it. The rad was in this housing. Inlet and outlet shape and size were critical, and I've heard that the designers were so clever that they even got a little thrust as the cooling air expanded and was accelerated a little when it left the outlet. OWT, maybe, but there's lots to learn from their design anyway. It's worth noting that the inlet was much smaller than the rad's area; Mr. Bernoulli tells us that pressure increases as airflow slows and decreases as it accelerates, so the divergent duct between the inlet and rad face slowed the air and increased its pressure. Same principle used in numerous places in a jet engine. Dan Interesting post, Dan. I've seen cylindrical "barrel" type heat exchangers intended for installation in a round duct. I wonder if these might be an alternative choice to the flat automotive-type radiators. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
On Aug 26, 11:14*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. Ron Wanttaja i heard the e racer had an inflight engine fire and eventually the designer through in the towl on auto engines. anyone remember why? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:11:51 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. Certainly, and my data shows that the Rotax 912, in homebuilts at least, has a safety record pretty much equal to that of traditional certified engines. My posting was an attempt to answer the OP's question on why some people believe auto engine conversions are dangerous. The three items I mentioned are in the top four causes of auto-engine failures. Looking at my 1998-2006 homebuilt accident database and comparing fixed-wing applications, the rate of occurrence of ignition system problems is four times higher for auto conversions than traditional engines. And the traditional engines had no cases of PSRU or cooling failure. I believe it's possible to convert an auto engine and achieve reliabilities equal to that of a traditional certified engine. It's just that the accident reports show that many people can't achieve that goal. It's basically the same people installing the Continentals as the Subarus, or the Rotax 912s and the Fords. But the average builder seems to have less problems getting the Lyconts and Rotaxen to be reliable. Ron Wanttaja |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
On Aug 27, 7:01*pm, "
wrote: On Aug 26, 11:14*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. Ron Wanttaja i heard the e racer had an inflight engine fire and eventually the designer through in the towl on auto engines. *anyone remember why? Sure do. "From: Dorothy Dickey Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 8:46 PM To: Young, Ryan Subject: Engines for E-racers There is nothing wrong with the Buick engine it's just that I no longer favor auto engines for aircraft applications. This is because it is not possible to achieve equivalent reliability and performance of an aircraft engine for the same or less money... So why do it? Shirl" Remember, this is a guy who designed an airplane around an auto conversion, and devoted serious time, money, and twice, almost his life to making this idea work. If you think you can do better, step right up. This whole thread smacks of TROLL, but you can read what more of what I think, along with the E-Racer guy (Shirl Dickey), and a little from the Belted Air Power reduction guy (Jess Myers) he http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung/Sonerai/BOP.htm You can also search this newsgroup for anything by Corky Scott, and watch his chronicle. He never flew his auto engine conversion, after working on it for years. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
wrote in message ... On Aug 27, 3:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote: "Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. That's true, and the biggest annoyance (of which I am aware) is that they have increased the recommended "idle" speed to increase the service life of the PSRU--which is of the spur gear type. I don't know whether any of the belt or chain type PSRU installations have a similar requirement. As to cooling: there were a lot of liquid cooled aircraft engines in WWII, but the the aircraft they in which they were installed looked a lot different from their air cooled counterparts. Peter Even belted PSRUs have vibration nodes. The Glastar in which we put a PSRU'd Soob didn't like 1400 engine RPM; it semed to be an argument between the flywheel's inertia and the prop's. Running it at that RPM for long would have torn the teeth off the belt. I didn't notice if there were further nodes at 2800 and 5600. Adjusting belt tension didn't change anything. I've read about (and encountered) cases of cooling problems in auto conversions. Many builders underestimate the amount of heat that needs discarding, and also make mistakes in radiator installation and baffling. I've seen rads mounted out in the breeze where they not only slow the airplane but suffer from airflow problems created by the vortices generated around the rad. I've seen a couple of small rads mounted behine the front cowl openings, where they're supposed to get ram air, but without proper baffling to separate the incoming air from the air behind the rads the pressure differential is minimal, causing low flow, and air eddying around the rad further interferes with flow. In the Glastar I mounted the big, full-size rad (from the same car as the engine) behind the engine, at an angle so that the top edge was at the firewall and the bottom was forward about 8". Baffling around the rad made sure that ALL air leaving the cowl (except for a bit leaving around the hot exhaust pipes) had to go through the rad, so I had maximum flow. A lip on the cowl outlet to accelerate air away from the opening lowered the pressure further so that max differential was maintained between the front and rear of the rad. And even with all this the engine's coolant temp reached max in an extended full- power climb on a summer day. The P-51 had an underbelly scoop and a variable-geometry outlet behind it. The rad was in this housing. Inlet and outlet shape and size were critical, and I've heard that the designers were so clever that they even got a little thrust as the cooling air expanded and was accelerated a little when it left the outlet. OWT, maybe, but there's lots to learn from their design anyway. It's worth noting that the inlet was much smaller than the rad's area; Mr. Bernoulli tells us that pressure increases as airflow slows and decreases as it accelerates, so the divergent duct between the inlet and rad face slowed the air and increased its pressure. Same principle used in numerous places in a jet engine. Dan I was only thinking of the exact ratios that place the same teeth in use on each successive rotation of the belt. Torsional resonance can be extremely difficult to monitor andI am glad that you were able to identify it before it became a dissaster. For the moment, my own project and the decision to build around a PSRU or use a direct drive aircraft engine has been pushed further into the future. But I have wondered whether the elimination of critical speeds might be the true purpose of those little springs in the driven plate of a manual clutch. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
"flybynightkarmarepair" wrote in message
... FBNKR: This whole thread smacks of TROLL, but you can read what more of what I think, along with the E-Racer guy (Shirl Dickey), and a little from the Belted Air Power reduction guy (Jess Myers) he Peter: I agree about the Troll, but sometimes one just can't resist... FBNKR: http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung/Sonerai/BOP.htm FBNKR: You can also search this newsgroup for anything by Corky Scott, and watch his chronicle. He never flew his auto engine conversion, after working on it for years. Peter: I had wondered about what Corky finally did, but did recall that he was giving up on the auto conversion idea--although IIRC his aircraft was a four seater. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
The problematic word in the subject of this thread is "simple".
An aluminum V8 auto-derived engine is not an aircraft engine - yet. It needs a lot of engineering work to become one. If the engineering is well done, the resulting aircraft engine will be successful. If it isn't..... Many auto conversions weren't. It isn't easy. Auto engines are high revving compared to direct drive aircraft engines so to get a reasonable power to weight ratio, a PSRU is needed. But, isn't a PSRU heavy? Yes, but so is the crankshaft of a direct drive engine - it has to be to handle the torque. Auto engines have light cranks which are just as strong on a HP to HP comparison since they rev higher. HP is just torque (Ft Lbs) times RPM divided by 5252. Compare the weight of a direct drive crank vs. the crank + PSRU weight of an auto conversion - not so much difference as thought. To minimize the re-engineering, keep the engine core working as nearly the same as in a road vehicle but make sure it uses the best forged racing parts like rods and pistons for durability. Use the lightest flywheel that allows an even idle. The PSRU is just a special PTO (Power Take Off) with gears. It mounts to the flywheel housing and connects to the flywheel with a flex plate. Millions of PTO's are in use as irrigation pumps so somebody knows how to do it. It takes all the gyroscopic and thrust loads away from the crank which 'sees' no loads except torque. Make it from billet aluminum and use the best bearing money can buy. I'd use a very close tolerance planetary gearset for durability. It will withstand high contineous power if you keep it cool. Design the radiator for worst case cooling conditions and then control the airflow with variable baffles. I'd feed a pair 12" diameter "barrel" radiators with jet like wing root air intakes and rear fusalage exhaust . I'd augment the radiator outflow with engine exhaust which keeps the radiator intakes from ingesting hot engine exhaust while increasing airflow through the radiator. I'd use 100PSI racing type fuel injection with in-tank pumps to prevent vapor lock. I'd use closed loop mixture control with an O2 sensor. No fussy carburator - no carb ice. Would I put this thing in an airplane and fly it over the mountains at night? Not at first - not by a long shot. I'd build it on a trailer so I could run it in non-noise sensitive areas. I'd take it to air shows to entertain but mainly I'd just run it on the trailer trying to break it. If after a few years I still couldn't break it, then maybe in an airplane. Ground testing is the expensive part. 2000 hours at 10GPH = 20,000 gallons at $4 each = $80,000. Nobody said it was cheap. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote I've seen cylindrical "barrel" type heat exchangers intended for installation in a round duct. I wonder if these might be an alternative choice to the flat automotive-type radiators. Doubtful that you could get enough surface area in a round radiator. If you just made it longer, efficiency would suffer, since the half that is downstream would only be getting hot air. Dan is absolutely correct, about the ducting and baffles being important. In the P-51 (probably the best cooling design ever) the duct intake was small, then the important part was the shape as the duct got bigger, to slow the speed the air went through the radiator, and also like he said, gain a little pressure. -- Jim in NC |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A Simple Auto Engine Conversion
"Peter Dohm" wrote Torsional resonance can be extremely difficult to monitor andI am glad that you were able to identify it before it became a dissaster. For the moment, my own project and the decision to build around a PSRU or use a direct drive aircraft engine has been pushed further into the future. But I have wondered whether the elimination of critical speeds might be the true purpose of those little springs in the driven plate of a manual clutch. I have read about the issue of whether to have ratios to get a constantly different belt to tooth interface, and I wish I could remember more of what it said. I recall that while it is important to vary ratios in a toothed gear redrive away from exact ratios like 2:1, so different teeth mate with both gears (prevents wearing a certain pattern in each other) that is not a necessary condition for toothed belt redrives. I recall that in fact, it is not desirable to do that, but again, my recall is incomplete. The information is out there, though. I would love to design my own belt redrive, but when the time comes, I know I would be more comfortable going with a company that has a well proven track record with many of their drives in active, high time service. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Auto Engine Conversion Video | stol | Home Built | 24 | May 4th 08 05:13 AM |
Auto-conversion adapter plate | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 3 | June 29th 05 06:19 AM |
Auto-Engine Conversion Oil Cooler | D.W. Taylor | Home Built | 0 | April 29th 05 05:30 AM |
Auto conversion cost post | Richard Riley | Home Built | 13 | December 28th 03 12:52 PM |
C172 Penn Yan 180 HP Engine Conversion | John Roncallo | Owning | 4 | October 20th 03 06:42 PM |