Hyabusa flat 8

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
wrote:

In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans wrote:

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of
these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so
tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has
had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

That is where PSRU design takes up the mission. A good PSRU will have
the thrust bearings, etc. required for the mission.
I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is direct
drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh several
times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems. I believe
a cooling hose once. I also don't believe he did it for cost savings. @
10cents per hour for labor he probably has tens of thousands of dollars in
it. However he can get Vne at less than full throttle and doesn't worry
much about 100LL. He is also a good engineer with a darn good oily thumb.
Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
every thing but acquisition costs.

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote

I don't think that there is a very large "anti-auto engine crowd." That
said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who view the auto
conversion field as a potential minefield.

I have known personally several people who used (or attempted to use)
auto conversions in airplanes.

Snip some examples

There have been several other V-8 based direct drive instalaltions that,
frankly, were very rough-looking and ended up as catastrophic failures.

I have a friend who has a very nice Stuart 51, with a big-block Chevy
and PSRU. He is taking small steps to make sure that it all works as
desired.

That said, if you think you can negotiate the minefield of enging
development, have at it, but please, acquire all the technical hepl and
talent you can get.

No doubt, that it can be, and usually has been a good way to go broke, if
you try to produce setups.

Anyone who thinks they will save gobs of money is fooling someone.

That said, there are ways to get the bugs out, and study of failures and
successes are a part of it.

Note that I said I would feel good about getting into a plane that had the
bugs worked out of the conversion, or something along that line. I guess
that line should have been emphasized, because that is the key.

Precisely! Unfortunately, I have seen too many that had catastrophic
results. Too many were attempting to fly before the bugs had even been
identified.

I have come to the conclusion that aircraft engine design is as much art
as it is science. After all, the engines we normally fly (and take for
granted) are those from which all (or at least, most) of the bugs have
been eliminated. Some bugs still emerge, such as the infamous O-320H,
dual mags, cracking crankcases on big-bore Continentals, etc.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

In article ,
wrote:

In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans wrote:

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

That is where PSRU design takes up the mission. A good PSRU will have
the thrust bearings, etc. required for the mission.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Stuart Fields wrote:

Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
every thing but acquisition costs.

As one who's just bought the car that houses it, it will be interesting
to see whether the Subary flat-four diesel finds any aircraft
applications.

Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50 Triumph Street Triple
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

The Older Gentleman schreef:

Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

Not sure if you are aware but you are posting to
news://rec.aviation.homebuilt ; where this subject has been discussed
several times. Though of course the story is not ended, not by a long
way. I am considering an aero-conversion of the Subaru flat-4 diesel but
will need engineering help as I'm not schooled in mechanics.

If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
www.dair.co.uk - that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

KA

I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is
direct
drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh several
times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems.

Wow, I would like to see that set-up. Did he have to move the fire wall
forward, for ballance?

I would not use any auto engine, without at least an additional bearing for
thrust added to the crank. I had a 350 chevy crank in a van that was 25
thousands over spec, in end slop. That was without any thrust on the
engine.


--
Jim in NC

jan olieslagers wrote:

The Older Gentleman schreef:

Are there any diesel aer-engines, or diesel car engines frequently used
in aircraft? I had the impression that diesel aero-engines died with
airships and the Junkers 86, but I'm always willing to learn....

Not sure if you are aware but you are posting to
news://rec.aviation.homebuilt ; where this subject has been discussed
several times.

I can see the x-post, yes. But I'm not a regular subscriber to the ng
(well, never looked at it, to be honest), so I didn't know.

Though of course the story is not ended, not by a long
way. I am considering an aero-conversion of the Subaru flat-4 diesel but
will need engineering help as I'm not schooled in mechanics.

If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
www.dair.co.uk - that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

Thanks for that. I'm a hot air balloon fiend, so aerostats are always of
interest.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50 Triumph Street Triple
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:55:16 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


wrote

Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).

Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
well.

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

And everyone else, no, I will not go into the reason for this attitude,
again.
With the possible exception of the 912S.
Those 912s stand up VERY well but the price!!!!!!!

On 08 Mar 2009 02:52:33 GMT, wrote:

In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans wrote:

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
Which is a TOTAL nonissue on most auto conversions, as MOST use a
PSRU.
Direct drive auto conversions, other than the Corvair,(and VW) are
extremely rare.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:54:53 -0700, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
wrote:

In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans wrote:

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of
these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so
tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has
had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

That is where PSRU design takes up the mission. A good PSRU will have
the thrust bearings, etc. required for the mission.
I have a friend who has adapted a V8 engine into his Long Eze. It is direct
drive with no PSRU. He has flown cross country from CA to Oshkosh several
times. As far as I can tell he has not had any engine problems. I believe
a cooling hose once. I also don't believe he did it for cost savings. @
10cents per hour for labor he probably has tens of thousands of dollars in
it. However he can get Vne at less than full throttle and doesn't worry
much about 100LL. He is also a good engineer with a darn good oily thumb.
Of course there are a bunch of Subaru powered aircraft out there with and
without PSRUs. All that said, it is still hard to beat the Lycoming in
every thing but acquisition costs.

Forget the aquisition cost - it's the maintenance/rebuild that kills
you. Certified parts are pricey. An average auto conversion can be
zero timed for the cost of doing one jug on a "real" aircraft engine.