>>> 20may03 #11298-18250 +++ #11397 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: Forming the Firewall I made two firewalls. The first one came out beautiful. I then proceeded to screw it up by trying to roll some stiffening beads in it like Bob has. With the flange already formed, I wasn't able to run the bead all the way to the edge. The firewall took on a pretzel shape and I wasn't able to find a way to relieve the stresses keeping it from going back to flat. My second firewall also came out beautiful, and I left the beads off. I may rivet a stiffener angle to it, and I may not, haven't yet decided. I cut crimping notches in the sides of my form block so I was able to bend the flange and crimp it all in one operation. When I removed it from the form block it was perfectly flat. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom, CA +++ #11408 From: fmuder@a... Subject: Re: Forming the Firewall We made, from sratch, a crossover exhaust system for an 0-360 Lycoming. It is not a thing of beauty but works well. What we were most pleased about is the sound of it. There is not a "raspy", unpleasant, objectionable sound to it even without a muffler. Apparently, the sound waves tend to cancel each other while providing some efficiency in tuning. We used 321 stainless, .049 wall thickness 1.75" into 2.125" at the tail. We got the stainless from a California supplier who caters to the auto "motorheads". Prices seemed good at the time (1997). If you would like more info, I'd be glad to pass on. I know you're a north of the border brother and understand the cost differences. Fred&Shelly, Hatz, Christavia&Mt.Goat, Bearhawk#311. +++ #11464 From: "fourthwedge" Subject: Neat Link Found this link and learned a little more. The 1st link on the page is a real motor-head article (Mr. Barretts' name appears again and the engine pics will make you drool); but the portion about starters, near the end, should be especially interesting to anybody running a Lycoming. The photo tour of the Pitts factory is mighty interesting. Some of the fixtures might be worth copying. Looks to me like Budds' operation in Mexico is right up there with the big boys if not a shade or two ahead. http://musclebiplane.org/htmlfile/builders.shtml Let's see you grow one of these 300 HP 540's PB!! I'll take half-a- dozen of those magic beans. Dave +++ #11472 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 908 > It won't help--all of the techniques Deakin espouses require a fuel > injected engine fitted with GAMIjectors. That pretty much limits it > to big fuel injected Continentals. Carbureted engines have a much > poorer mixture distribution and therefore it won't work. Read the > articles to understand why. Erbman is likely correct. The only help Deakin could offer for those with carburated engines is to climb to around 7500 to 8000 feet, where you could push the throttle to wide open and get about 65% power from the engine, where he recommends the following: Push the throttle to wide open and then bring it back slightly. This cocks the throttle plate slightly which imparts a bit of a swirl to the incoming fuel/air mixture. He said this is the best you can hope for. The problem is that fuel distribution with carburated engines is so bad that you cannot normally lean past peak without getting terrible roughness in the engine. If the fuel distribution were relatively equal, you should be able to lean the engine without roughness right to the point where the engine simply quits because the mixture is too lean to ignite at that point. The other problem is that it's difficult to lean properly without one of those multi cylinder EGT guages that tells you what's happening in each individual combustion chamber. It makes for very very interesting reading, and also makes you want the GAMI fuel injectors. When you say that you are leaning rich of peak, what you are describing, according to Deakin, is running the engine very close to peak temperature - continuously. That may not be a good thing. Corky Scott +++ #11563 From: "zipppydoggg" Subject: Radial Engine operations Did you guys read the information on the web about the care and operation of the russian radial engines? Engines are neet and all but the part that caught my attention was the possibility of undetected engine damage as well as the care required to keep oil out of the intake. All that work to go fly compared the operation of a flat engine, not worth the work. I guess I'm spoiled. I just want to do the pre-flight as quickly as reasonably possible, turn the key, and go fly. Wouldn't want to get my flying gloves oily. By the way, in the engine weigh comparisons, is the weight of the oil tank (and oil) needed on the radial factored in? +++ #11565 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Radial Engine operations Once you've flown one of these things for 20 hours, you'll never want to go back to a square motor. Also, you just can't get the kind of thrust with a flat motor. Still a 540 is a better bet for nearly everyone. As for the oil/intake thing: the article didn't take into account enough of the work done by the Kimballs's when putting the kits together for the Model 12 Pitts. With the scavenge pumps and oil shut offs, the possibility of hydraulicing a cylinder is much less than it is even with an R-985. The starting system is the same way. Lots of new, super simple fixes. As for starting: you could ignore the pneumatic system if you wanted (although it works great) because it's the easiest propping engine ever invented. It's geared just enough that you can "walk" a blade through and start it. As for oil/oil tank, you carry 8 quarts more and the tank is ten pounds and that weight isn't included any more than than oil is figured in Lycoming weights. Bob and I have been talking, now that I have accurate FWF weights for everything, and the total weight increase is about 100-135 pounds depending on which 540 you compare it to. 60 pounds of that can be located in the baggage compartment for Cg control. The flat nose, 220 hp engines don't appear to be worth the effort because they are only 37 pounds lighter than the normal 360 hp M-14P. bd +++ #11640 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: engines. re: Deal on engines, etc. There ain't no such thing as "deal" when it comes to engines. We've had the OEM prices from them for some time and they are too embarrassing to want to forward. A new 540 is well over $30K OUR cost and we'll be asking $31,995. We're getting the same deal as Van's or anyone else, so everyone is stuck in the same price range. 180's are around $24K, as I remember. I've forgotten the prices on props, but they aren't quite as out rageous. Mazdas and Fords are looking mighty good. So are M-14Ps I wonder how much Pirelli it takes to get a BH in the air? bd +++ #11644 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. > I think I will look into a chevy 350 v8. 300 hp @ 4200 rpm. Belt > Drive electric variable prop, should weight just under 500lb. Try contacting Johnny, the owner, at Noethwest Aero Johnny He was putting out an LT-1 300+ hp and included the PSRU for $14,000. I don't know what the status is right now. For some reason I cannot pull up the home page of the web site tonight, but can reach some of the related pages. Maybe it will work later. Here is the site address http://www.northwest-aero.com Bruce A. Frank +++ #11649 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Auto engines Not having all that info in one place on the conversion is a problem with the Chevy, but I have seen conversion information manuals advertised in the classifieds in "Kitplanes" and "Sport Aviation". A rule of thumb is that you want to run these engines in the parameters of their manufactured capabilities. You can push the 4.3L Chevy V-6 to 300 hp, but who knows how long it will last. The engine is fully capable of running at 230-240 hp forever. Typical mods are going to be a cam change, not too radical, but one that allows the engine to breath well; a piston change if you're not getting near a 9:1 compression ratio or there have been shown to be problems with the stock pistons; a manifold change or porting job if there has been show in racing use that the stock manifold does not breath adequately; and one last thing is the carb or fuel injection system...most, not all, auto conversions are kept simple. Carbs are dirt simple. Electronically controlled injection systems add about 10% to the power, but complicate the installation because of the need for a back up control system. Again I am going to point people to Northwest Aero's web site. Johnny Lindgren has gone to the trouble to create pages outlining the conversion process for several engines. http://www.northwest-aero.com Now if you want to go with the Ford, that is a different story. All the mods, idiosyncrasies, fixes and parts lists are covered pretty well the Blanton original builders manual and my newsletter. Oh, one last thing about the Ford power, certainly the 3.8L V-6 can be pushed and the 4.2L V-6 offers potential for normal operating power right up there with the Chevy 4.3L, but we have several builders with 1500 to 2000 hours at the Ford recommended power maximum output of around 200-210 hp with only a piston change, cam grind and a carb installed. The object with longevity in an auto-conversion is to run it near stock as possible while producing the power needed. Jerry Schweitzer is running a stock Ford 4.2L V-6 (Ellison Throttle Body for his carb) producing 210 hp in his RV-6. He gives up a little weight, but he has produced rock solid durability with a very inexpensive installation (well, except for that pricey Ellison). Bruce A. Frank +++ #11650 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Engines. This may be a good selection. I don't know this particular engine but sometimes DOHC engines end up being a bit wide for the cowling. Not an insurmountable problem, but a bit more effort required to make things fit. Any time you have a fuel system controlled by a computer you need to have two on board for redundancy. However well they work in the car, you still need the back up. Salvage yard can save a lot of money on that along with the wiring harness. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11651 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Auto engines I made a mistake last night. I said that Northwest Aero offers the LT-1 Corvette engine as an aero-conversion when it is the LS-1. (Aluminum block 350CID V-8) http://www.northwest-aero.com Bruce A. Frank +++ #11652 From: "jrm_nh" Subject: Re: Auto engines Just look at the bare ls-1. It's a beauty. Where else can you get 320 hp for $6500 bucks. It should run forever @ 4000 rpm at about 260 hp https://www.spoperformanceparts.com/store/catalog/Product.jhtml? PRODID=1108&CATID=1099 +++ #11653 From: Alan Nauman Subject: Re: Auto engines I think Northwest aero was sold and they don't sell the engines any more. I thought the LS-1 would be pretty cool, but it is a little on the heavy side. I like the idea of an auto conversion that is kept simple. The weak point I see in the sube conversions is that people typically use the FI and computer. There are just too many items that are tricked in the automotive computer. I just don't like shorting pins and such on the computer to to get the thing to run. I want to stick to something I can put a carb on and still get enough power. Has anyone thought about using Holly Pro-jection? That uses a stand alone computer and you are supposed to be able to manually adjust the mixture from inside. I have thought that it could provide FI (throttle body) while keeping the computer part relatively simple. Thoughts? Alan Nauman +++ #11662 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 > While I haven't started on my bearhawk yet (well, I'm making the gas > caps as shown in the newsletter!), I've given a lot of thought about > engines. Its more than likely that I'll go with an auto engine > conversion, although I'm not sure which one. The Chevy 4.3l (v6) > that was in "Custom Planes" last year looks good, and a larger V8 > would be an option too. The big problem, as I see it, is the fact > that there doesn't seem to be a collected source of "what to do and > what to get". You will want to replace a lot of stock parts to > withstand the higher RPM's of peak horsepower, and the torque of the > prop. So where does one find all this stuff? I've seen some 4.3l > engines go on Ebay pretty cheap, around $1K or less. Historically John finding the collected source has been the problem. Other than Bruce's ongoing Newsletter focused on the Ford 3.8 and now the 4.2, there really isn't any other such collection of information. The Chevy 4.3 is not a bad choice but has it's negative factors. It's heavy. Everything is cast iron on it including the heads and intake manifold and timing cover. This makes it nicely stiff and resistant to overheating damage but pretty heavy. Typically builders using this engine have bought aftermarket aluminum heads from racing sources. But this too is a compromise in that the latest, most available heads have monster valves which are great for racing but are overkill for our use. It actually flows too well for the rpm range in which it is used. The earlier aluminum racing heads had smaller valves and they worked better for our purposes. You can get decent intake manifolds for it though, from Edelbrock. You can't do that with the Ford, there just isn't anything out there, the engine isn't raced. But the neat thing about the Chevy is that you can buy a Marine version of it for under $3,000 and that is pretty much everything but the induction unit and starter. The Marine version is heavy duty and already has the cam you want. Several people have gone this way. When I say buy, I mean brand new. I went the opposite direction, I found out about an engine seller who had any number of Fords I could want, just wanted to know where to send them. He wanted $150 each. I bought two. The modifications needed for this engine are many, and I'm doing them all and including a few that aren't part of the usual package. For instance I bought aftermarket studs to attach the cylinderheads and bearing caps. These things are what the big shot racing teams use and since the Ford has a history of cylinderhead gasket leakage, I thought it was prudent to get the best clamping devices money could buy. On the other hand, there is confusing advice about the valve springs. For sure I don't want to re-use the originals, who knows how many miles of operation they've seen. But on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much need for special high strength racing springs either since the rpms never exceed 4,800. Valve springs have one job only: They are supposed to keep the valve pushed against the lifter via the pushrod and seated when not being lifted (ok two jobs). As rpms rise, valves with weak springs can loose contact with the lifter and "float" to the point where the cam lobe has passed by and the valve is supposed to be seated but it isn't, it's still floating and coming back down. This allows backfiring through the intake manifold. So the valvespring only needs to be strong enough to keep it pressed against the camshaft lobe at all ranges of rpm. Anything more is overkill. I've discussed this with the owner of the machine shop where the block is getting it's boring and honing done and the guy is in agreement that stock spring would be fine, given the limited rpm range. But they must be NEW, not used. So I'll be contacting the local Ford dealership shortly. Building an engine is paying attention to lots and lots of details. The more details you mind, the smoother and more powerful the engine runs, up to a point. So things like valve guide clearance, I'm leaving up the guy who does this sort of thing all the time. Another thing I learned when making a living as an auto mechanic is that if you replace the valve guides, the valves very likely will not sit on the seats exactly like they did before, so you either have to spend a long time lapping them in or the seats have to be reground. Sorry, looks like I lapped on a bit too long myself. Corky Scott +++ #11663 From: John Mireley Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 > But the neat thing about the Chevy is that you can buy a Marine > version of it for under $3,000 and that is pretty much everything > but the induction unit and starter. The Marine version is heavy > duty and already has the cam you want. Several people have gone > this way. When I say buy, I mean brand new. Are these "Marine version" engines availabel as crate engines from GM or are they custom built by the boat builders? John Mireley +++ #11664 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 > Are these "Marine version" engines availabel as crate engines from > GM or are they custom built by the boat builders? They are available from GM ready to run in boats. As Corky says, except for the weight penalty, which isn't that bad, they are virtually ready to run...add one PSRU. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11665 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 What's the ready to run weight of the Chevy, including water/radiator/PSRU and which PSRU for that engine has the most time on it? I like the idea of a stock Chevy marine engine if the weight isn't too much. I don't like the idea of modifying engines. In the history of automotive conversions the problems always seem to be with the engine, not the reduction unit, so the optimum system would be one that uses an engine from the factory that benefits from all of their testing and know-how coupled with a decent reduction unit. If you want to start a verbal free-for-all, ask any of the following questions: -what's the best fabric covering system? -what needs to be done to an auto engine to make it flyable? -how do you feel about gun control/abortion/religion? Everyone has their own ideas. In the case of the auto engines, however, the factory has invested millions and millions of dollars to produce a well tested product and if they have one that is close to what we need for our use, that's what we should be using rather than hot-rodding them because we don't have the ability to adequately test them before putting them in the air. bd +++ #11666 From: Chris Hoppe Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 How about industrial versions of Chevy engines? My boat has a Chevy industrial engine (that's what it indicates in the NAPA parts catalogs) coupled with an OMC exhaust/cooling system. As I understand it, the primary difference is the heavier crank, bearings, and cam. Supposedly the marine and industrial engines are optimized for continuous high RPM and load. Is this true? Chris Hoppe +++ #11667 From: John Mireley Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 > Are these "Marine version" engines available as crate engines... These engines are referenced as "Marine Base" engines if any are searching the web for suppliers. I've not seen any with aluminum heads or blocks. Is there a reason for this? You would think that racing boats would be considering the weight. John Mireley +++ #11670 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number 921) The Chevy engines are most widely use with Belted Air Power's cog belt PSRU and Northwest Aero's cog belt PSRU. I do not know the weight of the Chevy setup, but I do know that replacing the cast iron heads and intake manifold with after market aluminum units saves approximately 45 lbs. As for "Hot Rodding" the automotive conversion, our goal is longevity. At least in the case of the Ford conversion, we are not extracting more power than the factory has in certain applications(Over the years I have been able to submit questions to one of the engineers who helped develop the 3.8L V-6 to find out if we were expecting too much from this engine). The 3.8L as produced by the factory for the Windstar develops 210 hp. As modified by the Blanton manual the aero conversion of the 3.8 is a 195 to 210 hp engine. The hp rating is still at the factory specified 4800 rpm; though we switch to Wiseco pistons the compression ration stays the same; and the recommended cam change is not radical providing normal idle down to 600 rpm. Most automotive engines these days are set up to reach peak torque at the rpm used to drive the car around town...about 2200 to 2800 rpm. The cam change moves the peak torque from that low range into the range at which most builders will cruise the engine. In the case of the Ford that is around 4000 to 4100 rpm. We have several engines which have now exceeded 1500 hours and Ken Mitchell, Bountiful, Utah, decided to do an overhaul at 2000 because he needed to refurbish the BD-4 fuselage. The engine at 2000 hours still showed compression within 6 psi of that when the engine was first broken in. Most of us think that a pretty good track record and an indication that the recommended mods have not impacted durability. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11671 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 921 > Supposedly the marine and industrial engines are optimized for > continuous high RPM and load. Is this true? Yes, that is true. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11675 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number 921) The track record of most of the "Blanton" conversions speaks for itself. Now we need something of the same type in the 250 hp, bigger displacement range to swing a bigger prop. What is anyone doing for constant speed/variable pitch props on the reduction units? bd +++ #11676 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number 921) Northwest Aero's PSRU is set up so that it could be adapted to a standard CS prop. I do not know if anyone has done it yet. Right now, if you have a LOT of money the MT electric is all I know about for the higher HP. Ivo Prop's cockpit adjustable can be had with an electric controller that makes it CS. Warp Drive keeps leading me on with promises of a CAP or as CS in the future. NSI uses the Warp blades in an electric CAP but is limited to 160 HP. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11678 From: "jrm_nh" Subject: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number 921) > Do you have a URL for Northwest Aero? I'd like to see if they have > an accurate weight figured out. Check the 350 V8 Chev in the Engine Recipes Section I think I read 500lb complete http://northwest-aero.com/ +++ #11681 From: "Dave Roberts" Subject: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number 921) Check out Team-38's web site. Their marathon 350 weighs 460lbs. I would guess this would be close to the weight of any V8 small block Chevy with the aluminum heads and intake. Jess Myers[Belted Airpower] said his PSRU weighs 38lbs and is 12" front to back. I think a small block V-8 is approximately 24" front to back depending on the water pump. I may need to be corrected on that. It is about 24" from the pan to the top of the air filter. Again this is approximate. I measured Bob's BH at Oshkosh. As near as I can tell it is approximately 36" firewall to prop hub. The V-8 will stick out a little further when you leave a little room between the engine and firewall. The biggest problem that I see is depth and weight. Maybe somebody that is more of an engineer than I am can figure the engine installation out. The extent of my engineering ability is the TLAR method and a lot of head scratching. Dave Roberts Bob told me that Proto II firewall forward weighs in at approx 450lbs. +++ #11684 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number 921) You may also find that the CG of the V-8 and PSRU will be closer to the firewall than that of an 0-540. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11685 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number921) CG of a 540 FWF is about 22 " from the firewall. +++ #11686 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: Digest Number921) I don't know where the CG of, say, the LS-1 with PSRU falls. Maybe Johnny at NWA can tell you. The Ford V-6 with PSRU has a CG that is 5 inches closer to the firewall than the 0-360 Lycoming. This made the difference in not having to place any tail ballast in the V-6 STOL. The battery is moved to aft of the luggage ba, but that is all that is necessary. First thoughts were that the V-6 STOL would need 20 lbs of lead in the tail. You know, it is possible that Johnny could/would supply package auto conversion deals for the kitted Bearhawk! Bruce A. Frank +++ #11687 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 922 This would be achieved using the Geschweiger conversion. The engine is a big block Ford with a HyVo chain PSRU developed by the now deceased Ron Geschweiger. I spoke with him a year or so before he died and talked with him about the conversion. I was thinking of using it for my Christavia but he explained that it's really designed for bigger engines and would be overkill for the 3.8L V-6. Also, Northwest Aero was making firewall forward packages based on the Corvette engine. Tough business to be in (building auto conversions) as the market is small and the scepticism big. Corky Scott +++ #11688 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 922 > The track record of most of the "Blanton" conversions speaks for > itself. Now we need something of the same type in the 250 hp, bigger > displacement range to swing a bigger prop. An additional datapoint: I contacted one of the vendors for the Warpdrive prop and discussed the rpm range and power my engine will be making. Being conservative I'm estimating 180 hp but I know the engine will be spinning at 4800 rpm when that's happening. With a 2 to 1 reduction ratio, the prop would be turning at 2400 rpm. The recommended prop under these circumstances turned out to be the 74" prop with FOUR blades. I'm assuming that's because the 2,000 rpm at cruise is lower than the typical standard type prop so it needs more blades to absorb the thrust. Or they could be just trying to make money since this is the most expensiver version of the prop... Corky Scott +++ #11689 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Chevy 350 weight It clearly says 575 pounds, doesn't say anything about whether that includes coolant or radiator, which I'd be surprised if it does. Does not include prop. Estimate 650 pounds engine/prop, plus mount, oil radiator, cowl, etc. other miscellaneous so total FWF is probably around 700 pounds. The airplane won't safely carry that amount of FWF load without some tubing increases plus it'll take some weight in the tail. I've e-mailed them asking for total weights but no answer yet. bd +++ #11693 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: Auto-Engine Conversions (was: DigestNumber921) FWF with the radiator (aluminum) in the engine compartment and the McCauley 8467 (metal), the only one I have seen on scales ran 467 lbs including water and oil with the Blanton PSRU (30 lbs heavier than the NWA unit). Bruce A. Frank +++ #11694 From: John Thompson Subject: Chevy Engines I need to find that article in Custom Planes about that guy who used a 4.3l chevy in his amphib. As memory serves, he spent about $15,000 for a 250hp rated engine. He replaced the cams, crank, pistons, heads (I think), con rods, and several other pieces. He had all his work done by a shop. Like folks have mentioned, its hard to get collected information. But its my understanding that in general, crankshaft and camshafts need to be replaced because of the higher loads imposed by the longer high RPM runs, possibly the heads for wieght. Other stuff like pistons can be replaced for either performance or wieght reasons. This is especially true if you go for higher HP figures. we definitely need more collected information on chevy auto engine conversions John +++ #11696 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Chevy Engines At prices like these, it certainly makes the "build-your-own" IO-360 very appealing.... Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11696 From: mprather@s... Subject: Re: Chevy Engines That seems like an outrageous amount of money for a car engine. Part of the motivation for using converted engines is being able to run down to NAPA and by a rocker arm, pushrod, timing gear or whatever. If you are running exotic stuff that only comes from Summit or someone more esoteric, it is indeed hard to see the advantages. I'll bet he is running Al block and heads. The 4.3 is not cheap to make light. Al 350 parts are often cheaper. On the flip side, I'll bet his "250hp" engine can probably be run 2500 hours between rebuilds. Additionally, its probably nice to be able to run along flat out at cruise alt, decide you want to land at the field 5000' below, and just chop the power and point the nose down to get there. No shock cooling, and good, safe cabin heat. I recently saw something on aero-news that said that one of the scaled mustang outfits was happy about a new engine they had put together. It replaces the Chevy 502 that their customers apparently had problems with. It seems that there have been top-end oiling difficulties on the 502 when installed in airplanes. I wonder if the small blocks and similar 4.3's are subject to the same isssues. Matt Prather +++ #11698 From: "zipppydoggg" Subject: Re: Radial Engine operations I checked out the MP14 as installed in the Pitts per your hint, very interesting. I feel myself being swept into the MP14 camp. It looks like the price could be competitive, depending on prop selected. Just curiosity, what comprises the 60 pounds that can be located in the baggage compartment? Would you expect that more than the standard gas tankage (with or without aux tanks) would be desired with the MP14 (building my wings now)? Would one have to shave after each flight, the testostrone would be dripping out of the tail pipe on shutdown, after all? :-> Rob "cold war enemy, now a (potential)customer of the Ruskeys" Gaddy +++ #11698 From: John Mireley Subject: Re: Chevy Engines A ZZ4 crate engine (350 HP) new from the factory is $4000 http://www.high-performance-engines.com/ce03.html A LS1 aluminum block engine (320 HP) is $6200. http://www.high-performance-engines.com/ce10.html. A Marine Base engine (290 HP rebuilt) is $1900 http://www.high-performance-engines.com/vm08.html +++ #11701 From: mprather@s... Subject: Re: Chevy Engines There is a dealer in OR that has a little better deal on the LS1. See Sallee: http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/sales.html and follow the link on the right. They offer the LS1 for $5400. Matt- +++ #11702 From: John Mireley Subject: Re: Chevy Engines I looked into Sallee's LS1 awhile back myself. They say the crate engine weighs in at 390 lbs. Would this allow enough to get FWF weight into range for the Bearhawk? If it is, it would sure be a tempting solution. BTW, the LS1 is rated 345 HP at the rear axle on the Corvette. The fellow at Sallee thought it would come in around 400 HP at the drive shaft @ 5800 RPM. Just to weigh the apples with the apples. Thanks to whomever posted the suggestion about the Olds 3.5L aluminum V6. I've been wanting to get more info about that engine ever since test-driving a 2000 Intrigue. (Sure "flew" better than my 4-banger Ford Contour!) Shawn Harrison +++ #11705 From: "Daniel Fox" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines > I recently saw something on aero-news that said that one of the > scaled mustang outfits was happy about a new engine they had put > together. It replaces the Chevy 502 that their customers apparently > had problems with. It seems that there have been top-end oiling > difficulties on the 502 when installed in airplanes. I wonder if > the small blocks and similar 4.3's are subject to the same isssues. I'd have to wonder whether the customers at "one of the scaled mustang outfits" were in the habit of getting upside down and/or boring twisty holes in the sky, also. Stock auto engines don't take that into account. --dan fox +++ #11705 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines > I'd have to wonder whether the customers at "one of the scaled > mustang outfits" were in the habit of getting upside down and/or > boring twisty holes in the sky Several Ford V-6s have been used in aerobatic planes. The same modifications have to be made to aerobatic automotive engines as have to be made to aerobatic aviation engines; oil systems and fuel systems. Other than that they handle it just fine. Engines with design problems are engines with design problems whether in cars or airplanes. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11708 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines > What's the current info on the Rover (ex-Buick) aluminum V-8? At 300 > c.i. it has promise. The Ford 3.8L V-6 is lighter and produces more horse power. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11709 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Chevy Engines How much HP are we talking about and how much torque on how much prop? bd +++ #11710 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Chevy Engines Actually, I meant to ask for the thrust, not the torque. bd +++ #11711 From: "Tony Chisum" Subject: Engine With all this engine I have not seen anything about the Jabiru 6000. It is 8cyl. 200hp. 231lbs. and comes with all accessories for $15,600.00 Here is the web site. http://www.usjabiru.com/jabiru_6000.htm Would this not be a good engine for the Bearhawk? Tony +++ #11712 From: "Tony Snow" Subject: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. Bruce, I don't really qualify according to your question, but... I will build an aircraft someday, maybe a BH, maybe something else. But I will build. And I will power it with a Mazda 13B conversion. I will also use the redrive system and engine computer manufactured by Tracy Cook (Real World Solutions, Inc.)at: http://www.rotaryaviation.com I will probably swing a Warp Drive ground adjustable two bladed prop. The reasons are simple, really simple. Only three moving parts in the engine. Simple right? Major considerations for this conversion are cooling (both oil and water) and exhaust temperatures. Many of these engines are in the flying or advanced development stage nearly ready to fly. One of the greatest proponents of this engine conversion from an engineering perspective is Paul Lamar. He runs the AirCraft Rotary Engine (ACRE) Newsletter. His site (with major archives) is located at: http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html Both of these guys, Paul and Tracy, are great people. I've met them both and had the chance to talk at length. They are the two most qualified leaders of the Mazda 13B conversion group. As a side note they call themselves "Rotorheads" and even had Felix Wankel t-shirts printed up for Oshkosh. There are several consideration in rebuilding the 13B as an aircraft powerplant, but with a manufacturer quality rebuild: using a different O ring set, vibration isolation, oil flow mods, but they are minor. All up cost (my estimate not theirs): $6,000 plus prop. This gets you a rebuilt 1989 13B, turbocharged producing about 220 - 230 hp, electronic EFI computer programmed for aircraft application, redrive, and cooling parts. I am convinced about the engine. I've got a 1988 convertible RX-7. Sorry to be long winded. Tony (still waiting) Snow +++ #11713 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engine Yes, it might be a good engine but at $15K you're better off buying a proven, overhauled aircraft engine. bd +++ #11714 From: mprather@s... Subject: Re: Engine Does anyone have a comment on using a fixed pitch prop in the Bearhawk? Many of the auto conversions, along with the Jabiru appear to only support fixed pitch. Seems like kind of a bummer to give up all of that extra performance that a constant speed prop makes possible. Is the 180hp prototype constant speed? Matt- +++ #11716 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engine Yes, the 180 Prototype is constant speed but that's not a necessity. Bob Marek has a fixed pitch on his 160 powered BH. Yes the fixed pitch has to be a compromise but it's one just about anyone could live with. bd +++ #11717 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. > I will build an aircraft someday, maybe a BH, maybe something else. > But I will build. And I will power it with a Mazda 13B conversion. What is the upper horsepower limits of existing, normally aspirated rotaries? bd +++ #11718 From: John Dougherty Subject: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. My 20B 3 rotor is supposed to be about 275 normally asperated and 375+ when turboed......Jack +++ #11720 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines > How much HP are we talking about and how much torque on how much > prop? 200 hp at 4800rpm about 220 ft-lbs. At about 4000 rpm (Typical cruise with a 2:1 PSRU) it makes about 175 hp at 227 ft-lbs. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11721 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines I should have read the next post before I answered the first. Thrust strictly depends on the prop choice. The original recommended McCauley 8467 pulled the plane along at about 125-130 mph at 4100 rpm. Most builders who stuck with the McCauley two blade had it repitched to 72 or 76 inches for a bit faster cruise. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11722 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: AviPro Engine/Prop Prices Enough of you have asked that we'll go ahead and post the prices for new Lycomings and Hartzell props. We aren't offering Continentals yet. New Engines/Props available O-540 A4D5, 250 HP at 2575 RPM. $31.995 This model comes with two sixth order counterweights for use with the Hartzell "compact" series prop. Comes with: Skytech lightweight starter, alternator, two new mags, new carb, & engine driven fuel pump (which Bob says it doesn't need). O-360 A1A, 180 hp, similarly equipped. $22,400. Now for props: Prop For 0-540 Hartzell CS 84" 2 blade model(compact series) for O-540 #C2R00070 HC-C2YR-1RF/F8477/SM19 . $5,400. Spinner assembly for this prop is $695. Hartzell governor $2,025 Prop for O-360 (includes a dampener, $1,015 alone). A C3R00053 HC-C2YR-1BF/F8477-4/SM16 . $6195. Spinner and governors fit both O-540's and O-360's. Three blade props are available, but weigh 20 lbs. more than 2-blades. Terms are 35% down at time of order, 65% due one week before ship date (usually about 90 days after order is placed). Transportation and insurance are provided by buyer. +++ #11726 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Re: AviPro Engine/Prop Prices Well at least thats a pretty decent price for a new Hartzell for the 0-540. I hesitate to ask, but how much for the 3-blade? If I had $32000 to spend for an engine I would be buying one of Monty Barrett's set up for about 290hp and a much better chance of being a reliable engine than a new Lycoming. I think $14000 for a 360hp M14P sounds like a much better deal. I could have that plus a 3-blade MT prop for it for $25000 and $12000 left over versus a Lycoming/Hartzell combination. Desert Hawk - YES! Hey, I live in the desert now. Rod Smith #246 +++ #11728 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. > What is the upper horsepower limits of existing, normally aspirated > rotaries? I hear 180 thrown around a lot for the 13B. Planter Bob +++ #11729 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. Has anyone checked out Power Sport Aviations rotary. Looks like they have done a lot of engineering and testing on their 215hp 2 rotor normally aspirated engine. Too bad they are using Lycomings price sheet. I might think about having someone build me a 3 rotor engine and using Power Sports reduction unit which they claim is good for 300 some horsepower. Sounds like it has been well tested. At the present time though you would be limited to a fixed pitch or MT electric CS prop. What have any of you heard about the electric CS props? I've heard they are pretty slow to respond compared to a hydraulic prop. Rod Smith #246 +++ #11730 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: One more auto conversion post Who started this anyways? If I thought I could be happy with a 165hp Bearhawk I would strongly consider Jan Eggenfellners Subaru firewall forward conversion(www.subaruaircraft.com) He is making considerable inroads into the RV and Glastar engine market. Everything I have read on them seems to be positive. I believe he is having some success because he is using an essentially stock engine and not asking for outrageous amounts of HP from it. I talked with him several months ago and he is considering a 6 cyl subaru conversion that would be in a HP range that I am interested in. Right now he seems to have his hands full getting engines built. He also has a supercharger in the testing phase for his engine. It is setup to maintain HP at altitude, not increase HP at sea level. Rod Smith #246 +++ #11731 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 924 > All up cost (my estimate not theirs): $6,000 plus prop. This gets > you a rebuilt 1989 13B, turbocharged producing about 220 - 230 hp, > electronic EFI computer programmed for aircraft application, > redrive, and cooling parts. > > I am convinced about the engine. I've got a 1988 convertible RX-7. I had a 13B in my shop for a while and ended up selling it when I added up the positives against the negatives. One of the things glossed over by proponents of the Mazda rotory is that it requires oil to be injected down the throat of the fuel induction device in order to lubricate the tip seals of the rotor. Most performance builders of the engine remove the oil injection unit and chuck it as being unreliable for the sustained high rpm operations necessary for flight or racing. This means you must mix oil with the gas every time you fill up. I pictured myself refueling the wing tanks, standing on the ladder and then attempting to calculate how much of this special oil that I would have to carry around with me to pour into the tank in order to get the proper ratio. That was that straw that broke the camels back. I put the engine up for sale the following day. These engines may have few moving parts but that doesn't mean they are easy to rebuild. In fact one company that sold them along with their PSRU literally begged me not to attempt to do it myself claiming I would never be able to get it back together again correctly. Being an auto mechanic at the time, I didn't listen and took it apart anyway because something in the combustion chamber was causing the engine to seize. That turned out to be a huge piece of carbon. I did manage to get the engine back together again with new seals, except for the tip seals which I retained (because they seemed ok and also because they were incredibly expensive), but everything about assembling it was fiendishly complicated and I appreciated what those guys were talking about. Corky Scott +++ #11732 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 925 > 200 hp at 4800rpm about 220 ft-lbs. At about 4000 rpm (Typical > cruise with a 2:1 PSRU) it makes about 175 hp at 227 ft-lbs. Not to forget, reduction units are torque multipliers. Any time you gear down an engine, the torque is multiplied by the ratio of the gearing. In this case it's a 2 to 1 reduction ratio, it multiplies the torque by a factor of 2 so the prop sees 440 lbs of torque, not 220. Corky Scott +++ #11733 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 925 > Now, about those Ford V-6s.... ;-> Cost would depend entirely on the resources of the builder and his talent for building engines. There is really a lot to successfully putting together an auto engine and making it something capable of flight adds to the check list. All this information is out there in one form or another but it IS a lot to digest. You can buy the blocks for as little as $150. These are complete engines. Like I said previously, at that price I bought two, just in case I found problems with parts. Neither crank was in bad shape, but one miked up slightly less worn than the other so I'm using that one. Things to pay extreme attention to: Connecting rods - these should be inspected, magnafluxed and probably shot peened. Connecting rod bolts - junk the used ones, they've served their life and deserve to be retired. They stretch when installed first and you can't re-use them, especially if they've been in the engine for 10 years. Pistons - use the ones that have been establised as successfully running in this engine in it's aero form. They bump the compression ratio up to 9 - 1. Camshaft - This is one of the several areas where Blanton had the proper development done. The specs for this camshaft have been reviewed at least several times by camshaft professionals and no one has found any reason to change the specs. It does what it's supposed to do; move the torque up into the 3800 to 4300 rpm range where we need it to be. There are many modifications necessary for the intake manifold as it was one of five tried by Ford during development and the one selected flows well at low rpms but strangles above 3500 or so. Plus, the engines sat in the pickup bodies slanted down to the rear, so the mating surface for the TBI was tipped up to level keep it level in the car. Since we turn the engine around and it's level, the float chamber is close to being out of spec when you nose down for descent. So the mating surface gets planed down (I really got a kick out of doing that but it does require access to a machine shop). There are several ways to modify the chamber below the carburator to improve flow, but basically you machine down the wall that seperates the two chambers to form a mini plenum chamber. Then you can also space the carburator up away from the intake manifold to allow the mixture more time to vaporize before it routes to the various combustion chambers. Being a single plane manifold, it never will flow very well, but it will flow adaquately enough for anyone who uses the proper pistons and camshaft to see between 180 and 200 horsepower. One builder went with higher compression pistons, spent a lot of money with a manifold expert (who applied various black magic fixes) and spun the engine bravely to 5300 rpm and saw 235 horsepower. He's the only person I'm aware of who is attempting to routinely get that kind of power. On the other hand, several who made minimal modifications to the intake manifold got 180 horsepower at 4800 rpm. Some guys are trying to adapt the Ford multipoint fuel injection system using the latest 4.2. I wish them luck. I prefer the simplicity of the carburator; it doesn't require electricity or computer chips to run. As to the ignition, I bought a distributer from Northwest Aero that they had machined for the engine. I has two magnetic pickups in it, their output will be routed to an MSD (I think that's the name, I haven't bought it yet) switcher. This is the type of setup you see on Nascar racers. There are two coils and the switcher automatically switches from one coil to the other in case of failure. The object is for this to happen automatically so that you don't have to troubleshoot if the engine suddenly fails on takeoff. My recollection is that the distributer cost $85. I also bought a tiny alternator from NW Aero and the bracket for it. The alternator puts out 35 amps. If all goes well, the engine will be assembled this winter in my shop that now has an overly large propane furnace instead of my dinky little propane heater. It will take about 5 minutes to come to heat instead of about two hours. An important consideration during the long New England winters. There's lots more to the engine, it would almost take a boring book to go over everything. One thing I haven't mentioned is my desire to use the exhaust to augment to cooling flow through the radiator, and to incorporate an effective muffler. We'll see if that is possible. I sort of have to hang the engine and begin putting things on it in order to see how everything will go. Corky Scott +++ #11734 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 925 Corky is correct. I was looking at the Dyno charts where the engine is hooked directly to the dynamometer. In application, with a 2:1 PSRU, half the rpm and double the torque (he says as he slaps his forehead with the palm of his hand) Bruce A. Frank +++ #11735 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: Auto engines Some years ago Paulk Lamar was a strong detractor of auto conversions. After a long discussion on R.A.H. he posted (from NTSB sources) a distillation of engine problems across experimental aircraft and the actuall breakout of problems was counter to his arguments. He argued that auto engines were not adequately engineered for aviation duty cycles and that the number of engine releated failures in experimental aircraft proved it. Unfortunately, for his argument, the actual number of catastrophic engine failures was rather low. There was, however, a disportionately high number of fuel, installation,and some cooling failures. This is probably more due to lack of standardized FWF configurations than anything. Richard Finch recommends that for an auto conversion that you copy something that works and not get too creative on the installation. Regards Tony Dean PS. Paul seems to advocate the Mazda rotary these days. +++ #11736 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Re: AviPro Engine/Prop Prices How about the new IO-390 (bored out IO-360, 210 hp, 4-banger)? Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11737 From: "teyeomans" Subject: Tom Yeomans ford update. I have been doing a lot of things to the engine and have had it grounded for about 2 months. I have it in the air now and the systems are working nicely. ( about 4 hrs) I was originally having major cooling problems. At this time I have a very dirty front end but cooling is solid at 196 degrees. The radiator is outside the cowling at this time. The one thing that seemed to make a difference is I dropped the front of the radiator 1 inch. I just set up some temp gages to measure the temp drop across the rad. I hope to find some smaller ones I can put in the front of the cowl as the subie guys are doing. But for now I will just fly slower. At this time I am running a warp drive prop set to 11 degrees pitch. That will give me 5400 rpm max. I am indicating 90 mph at 5000 rpms. I am running an aftermarket fuel and ignition computer that is indicating a perfect fuel burn. Haven't really done a lot with the fuel calculations yet. The computer calculates about 8 gph but I haven't seen that much in the air .. Looks like around 5ghp. I know I am not getting the HP I had hoped for but I will work on that after the cowl/radiator gets some work. I need to remember I am taking of at 6600 ft. Tom Yeomans +++ #11738 From: "Daniel Fox" Subject: Re: One more auto conversion post Rod, do you know what 6-cyl engine Eggenfellner is planning to base the conversion on? I followed the online Soob groups for a long time, and eventually gave up on the idea for a Bearhawk. That was because the 4's were too close to the bottom end of the desired HP range. Also, the one 6-cyl block that was being aeromodded in any significant numbers was the EG33. They're scarce as hen's teeth, according to conventional wisdom. The new 6-cyl block currently being sold by Subaru was pooh-poohed as having terminally insufficient main bearing support for aero use. Is there new news? -dan fox +++ #11740 From: John Thompson Subject: Engines Think about this...how much HP do you REALLY need? Sticking a 400hp engine on the bearhawk isn't gonna make it go 200mph. I'm thinking that 200hp would be plenty for a 4 seater with a good amount of baggage, good cruise, and good fuel consumption. Think about it...how many of you are REALLY gonna be hauling hunters and a moose off a 1500' lake, since you can't hire your homebuilt out? Thats one reason why I was thinking the 4.3l V6 chevy engine. Theres another advantage of auto engines...if you need more HP, you can usually have it rebuilt for more hp. John +++ #11741 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: AviPro Engine/Prop Prices > How about the new IO-390 (bored out IO-360, 210 hp, 4-banger)? We didn't price it and, frankly, until it's proven, I don't think I'd want to mess with it, considering the success rate all engine manufacturers have had with new engines of late. bd +++ #11742 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engine size No, the final Rover version was 300 CI and is available through most Rover dealers as it was in production in England as recently as a year or two ago, and may still be in production, for all I know. However, Bruce pointed out that the Ford V-6 is lighter and puts out more power. bd PS: Regards to "teensy 215" don't forget that's about 3.4L. Since we've changed designation systems, we tend to forget how small new engines are. Even the mighty 5.0 Mustang is only about 315 inches (probably 302 actually). That means my old Goat was 6.2L. Yikes! That makes it sound gigantic. Even the old flathead in my roadster (bored .060, stroked 1/4") is right at 4.2L and NO ONE considers a flathead a big engine (assuming they even know what a flathead Ford is). +++ #11743 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engines Horsepower isn't for speed. It's only for climb and short takeoff rolls. Speed is irrelevant for this kind of airplane. As long as you're cruising 130 mph or better, you'll get there within a few minutes of a Bonanza. If you live somewhere that density altitude isn't a problem (read that as eastern half of US), then the 180 hp BH is a terrific airplane. Terrific! As those of us in the west half of the US know, there simply is no such a thing as too much power For at least three months of the year we consider 182's to be two place airplanes or we're on the ground by 10 in the morning. Wait until the first time you're running down a 5,000 foot runway at some place like Flagstaff in August (DA 12-13000 feet) and you'll see what we mean. Even a runway that long can become scary. Cubic inches and horsepower, in that order. bd +++ #11744 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Digest Number 925 Corky, THat system is great if a coil fails, but what if the electronic switch fails.... I've always thought it was strange that an aiplane uses dual ignition, but not dual carbs. Since the most common en-route emergencies, incidents and accidents are caused by poor fuel management, Wouldn't it make sence to build a fuel system with two or more carbs each fueled by a different source? Sure, there would be more fuel management, but less dramatic results. At least partial power would be able to give more time to realize that half the system is drawing from an empty tank ;-). It would also give more options when the problen is mechanical in nature. My take on teh situation? you can sue an airplane manufacturer for using just one faulty ignition system, but not for forgetting to switch fuel tanks. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11745 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 925 I have told this story before, but it may be worth repeating here. When I used to live in Utah we knocked around a couple of weekends a month in the west central desert of the state (Deep Creek Mountains, House Range mountains, Skull Canyon, etc.) in my '56 International Travelall. On several trips, during the late Sunday night return to Salt Lake City the engine would start to run rough and sometimes nearly quit. But, I never failed to make it home due to one little devise on the carb, an item missing from airplane engines even if they have a carb, the choke. If your filter, needle valve, or jet clogs grab a handful of choke and you can milk enough fuel past the clog to continue to fly (roll!). It MAY not work every time but I can truthfully say that in a vehicle with a manual choke I have never been stopped even with water contaminated fuel. (that's contaminated with water, not replaced with water). With the filtering of fuel that we apply to our aircraft fuel system installation, fuel delivery failure when we forget to switch tanks not withstanding, carbs have several "built in" ways around failure. Then again, if this single point failure becomes an obsession, one could set a dual float bowl four barrel to have the second pair of throats on stand-by (only on an auto-conversion with a Holley downdraft) 8^> (that's a smart alec grin....but only slightly in jest) The magnetic reluctor system used in many of todays distributors, no points with rubbing blocks opening and closing sticking and pitting, are pretty fool proof. I like the dual trigger mechanism in the distributor, it does not complicate and is straight forward to do so I think "why not?". Bruce A. Frank +++ #11746 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Engines > Think about it...how many of you are REALLY gonna be hauling hunters > and a moose off a 1500' lake, since you can't hire your homebuilt > out? Me please! Been there, done that , got the twigs in the floats to prove it ;-) OK, I wasn't really THAT close ;-). However, I have hauled out half a moose, and two passenger with the C-180 and it wasn't all that big a lake. Keep in mind that you are probably looking at 400+ lbs for a dressed moose, and I have typically gone with 2 other buddies and, of course, the camping gear. I'll be looking for the lightest, most powerful, most reliable engine I can get especially since I'll probably be using amphib floats. There is tonnes of good float destinations in Northern AB, BC and SK, but nowhere to base a floatplane in Calgary (dry, semi-arid praries). So amphibs it has to be. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11747 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Engines > As those of us in the west half of the US know, there simply is no > such a thing as too much power the Western half of Canada is not that much better (although generally a few degrees cooler than Western AZ ;-) No replacement for displacement!! Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11748 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engines At least 50% of the state of Arizona is 5,000 feet or better (I'm guessing) with a third of it around 6500 feet. All of these see temps in the 100s for three months. Do the math. 8-10K DA is super common. 172's w/two people get 125-150 fpm, 182's 300 fpm and that's all assuming no down moving air. Do that a few times and you start eyeing Aztecs on the back line that don't seem to be flying much and that pair of 540's that would sure look good on the front of a couple of BHs. bd +++ #11749 From: "Greco, Bob" Subject: RE: Engines Amen to Budd's comment regarding HP vs Speed vs density altitude. My 150 hp Pacer is a single place airplane when taking off from Arizona's higher elevation airports in the summer. It's cruise is 142 MPH (in the yellow arc)so more power would not make it a better xcountry airplane but sure would help take-off and climb. Remember; speed is an inverse cube function of delta horsepower. If you want to go faster clean up the drag and you get a much better payback (Mooney 201) +++ #11750 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Digest Number 925 In answer to the "why not", basically, I look at it as another component to fail between the coils and the plugs. I'm not talking about a case where the unit doesn't switch, but more about a unit that fails and sends no output at all, even when the coils are fine. As you stated, teh coils are pretty reliable in themselves, are you sure that the swich is more reliable? You may end up wit a sytem that is heavier AND more prone to failure. KISS has always worked pretty well with me. I guess I'm a little closer to the whole RAS/fault tolerance/high availability issue as I deal with it daily here at work for our high end computing. Now, before anyone goes off and says that it's not the same because a computer going down won't kill you, keep in mind that some of these systems are controlling SCADA systems for gas and oil production. Worse-case failure can be quite catastrophic. We spend a lot of time trading off the virtues of simple, very reliable systems with complex, highly available (the type that only go down less than a couple of hours a year, and then, only when scheduled). There is a fine line where availability through redundant systems is offset by failures due to complexity. Sure, with enough dedicated people managing a complex system, we can maintain the high availibility needed. However, there is only one pilot in the cockpit of most planes and there is only so much he or she can do. Take, for example, the idea of multiple fuel tanks. Two tanks are more reliable than one in the event that a leak develops, only one tank drains. Following hte same logic, 4 tanks are better again since we can now have multiple fuel valves to provide redundant fuel flow. However, now the pilot has to remember to change the fuel tanks and watch the amounts in all the tanks. This increases the chance of failure due to operator error. The single tank requires only the most basic of fuel management...is the needle above the "E". Even then, it's amazing how easy it is for a human to forget to do this simple task. Look at teh number of people you passon teh hiway walking with red jerry cans ;-). In this example, both the one-tank and four-tank system have the same overall reliability. Factor in teh extra weight and cost of teh 4-tank system and the non-redundant system may actually be the better system. Besides, at some point, there is a single point of entry for fuel into the carb, that can fail. However, since fuel valve failure is much lower than tank leaking (theoritical assumption for the case of argument, we don't need another thread on this topic ;-) then the 2-tank system is the better of the 3 in this example. BTW, my Christavia has 1 tank ;-) Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11751 From: "Dan Montee" Subject: IO 360 Continentals Question for all you familiar with aviation engines. I hear a lot of talk about Lycomings and I understand that they are the preferred aircraft engine. There seem to be plenty of IO 360 Continentals around at reasonable prices. 210 HP, injected, 327lbs, seems like a very reasonable engine for the Bearhawk. What is the down side of these engines that makes them undesirable? Thanks, Dan Montee #415 +++ #11752 From: "Greco, Bob" Subject: RE: IO 360 Continentals Great engines if you get the ones with the heavy crankcase and triple remelt Crankshaft. Less expensive parts than the corresponding Lycomings. Lots of hours flying, but have a good service history, as were used in O2-As in Nam and in T-41 trainers, both types of flying which are hard on engines. Also used in Mooneys, Pipers as well as the Cessnas. Extensive research done by Mooney on service history, ADs etc prior to selecting them for the 231 and results of study gave them a better bill of health with fewer AD and service bulletins than even the ultra reliable Lyc O-320s. Smooth as glass and are easy to lean to lean of peak. Down side is there was a problem with crankshaft breakage which was never completely explained on all of the 6 cyl Continental engines. The triple remelt crankshaft which is called out on the AD seems to cure the problem. They also had some crankcase cracking problems but the majority of the cracking problems were on the 470s and 520s. The geared starters & geared alternators are more expensive when they have problems than are the automotive type used on Lycs. +++ #11753 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: IO 360 Continentals You've asked a loaded question, sort of a pro/anti-gun type of thing because some people swear by Continentals, some swear at them. Same thing for Lycoming. the IO-360 would be a good BH engine and you can undoubtedly do it cheaper than a 180 Lycoming. Any downsides are traditional Continental problems (boy, is this going to start a heated thread!) chief among them being a weak top end. Few, if any, Continentals make it to TBO without cracking some cylinders and needing a top OH. Lycomings can have similar problems, but not to the point that it's a problem. I, for instance, am on my 4th IO-360 Lycoming, which I consider to be the worse engine they've ever built, but every one has run to TBO and I haven't had to do a single cylinder. I've never pulled one off an engine except to do the wrist pin AD inspection. Also, the 210 Continental doesn't seem to be much more powerful than a 180 Lycoming, but that could be a perceived thing. If you can get a good engine, of almost any kind, for a good price, go for it, you'll be going through it anyway. bd +++ #11754 From: "Tony Snow" Subject: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. >What is the upper horsepower limits of existing, normally aspirated >rotaries? About 160 hp at 6,000 rpm. That is an optimum efficiency of the engine in fuel consumption. No reason not to allow it to turn more like 6,500 or 7,000 rpm for takeoff. The engine is red lined at 7,500 and makes about 190 hp at that speed. Most people run a 2.85 : 1 redrive to keep prop speed down, but there are other people who use different prop strategies. +++ #11755 From: Matt Prather Subject: Re: Tables & Sheesh! And engines. I might add that some people are arguing that putting a turbo on a rotary is nearly as easy as putting an effective muffler on one. Running without a muffler is not an option without a turbo, however the exhaust note isn't bad with the turbo. The difficulty with making an effective muffler is that the exhaust gasses are hot and moving very fast every time the port opens. Heavy stainless is almost required. The nice things about the turbo are that they don't weigh much more than the muffler they replace, and increase the effective compression ratio which is a bit low on rotaries. This also should lower their specific fuel consumption. The turbo also can be used to turbo-normalize, which helps when hot and high. You don't necessarily have to crank the boost up to make the 250hp that they are capable of. The turbo also obviates the need for any kind of carb heat provision. The 'special' oil they mix with the fuel is plain, vanilla 2 stroke oil. I agree that this is probably the biggest bummer about the whole engine. I know 2 strokes can be finnicky about stale premix. I have to wonder if these things are also. If you could plumb a reliable oil injector, I could be pretty happy about that. Matt Prather +++ #11757 From: "ken wardstrom" Subject: rover/bearhawk #357 Wednsday afternoon we were ready to start the bearhawk engine. We went through our check list 3 times and agreed there was nothing but fear holding us back. Ignition on, fuel pumps on, fuel pressure up, push starter button, 2 revalutions and we're running. Oil pressure at40 @600 rpm and motor running a little rough, advance ignition to 10*, fatten up the fuel to 12.5:1 on the air/ fuel ratio meter and the rover v8 is running as smooth as silk. We do not have the prop installed so we hooked up an aux. fan to cool the motor during intal set up. We let the system warm up and stabalize at 190* then took it up to 3000 rpm. We've got acouple of old junk yard muffler to keep it quiet. This motor is SOOooo smooth and quiet its amazing.Today we ran the motor for about 2 hrs. and found we had the redive belt a little to tight when the system was fully warmed up,so we had to make a small adustment on the adjusting cam to bring it back to spec. when hot.--ken +++ #11760 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: IO 360 Continentals Erbman's theory on why Lycoming seems to be the preferred engine: Continental has not made the IO-360 for many years (as far as I know). I'm not sure they're still making O-200s. That means the smallest engine they're making is the O-470. A fine engine for a Bearhawk, but too big for an RV. Think about the popular aircraft of the last decade: the RV series, Glasair II, Lancair 360, GlaStar--all of which typically use a Lycoming O-360. Why don't they use Continentals? Because Continental doesn't make an engine in that horsepower range anymore. Therefore, the engines you hear about most commonly are Lycomings. Hence, eventually you start to think that Lycoming must be better than Continental because you never hear about Continental. The O-470-U in my buddy's C-180 just went over 2000 hours on the way home from Oshkosh this year. It's still running as good or better than it did when he got it 1000 hours ago. I'm told it had a top overhaul for some reason at the 300 hour mark, but has run fine since then. No cracks or anything. Then again, he takes good care of it. I don't doubt that budd is right, though, since most people are shocked to hear this engine has that many hours on it. One other advantage an O-470-U seems to have over an IO-540 -- seems you can pick one up for something like $10K less. Russ Erb +++ #11761 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: (unknown) Don't give up hope on teh diesels yet. Deltahawk is supplying diesels at a more "reasonable" price: www.deltahawkengines.com Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11762 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: RE: Continentals As a data point, we have also run an O-470-S for around 21 seasons and over 1000 hours. It had a full top O/H done around 3-4 years ago at a cost of $3400 due to low compressions. In addition, 2 other jugs were changed (actually, the same #5 jug twice) prior to the top O/H The engine is running very strong It has survived one prop strike under near full power after running up on a beach. The prop ate the nose of both floats. The crank survived without a problem. At the time (fall, 1975) the airplane had about 9 months and just under 800 hours TTSN. We bought the plane from the insurance after that and the engine was finally overhauled in late 1980 and first run in spring 1981. This certainly upholds Budd's generalization about Cont. jugs. However, the crank has proven to be quite reliable. In fact, the only other problems with the engine over the years have all been accessory related (mags, starter, altenator, carb and prop governor have all bee O/H'd since the original O/H). Considering the moist Atlantic climate environment the plane lives in and its proximity to the ocean (5 miles from the coast), the plane is in almost the harshest conditions you'll find in North America for corrosion. Add to that the fact that the plane sits idle over the winter months in an unheated hangar, and its quite suprising that it hasn't needed a full O/H yet ;-) Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11766 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Power to weight ratios I've been off line collecting engine weights and powers and found some interesting stuff. All of this is approximate but probably within 5-7%. The variables are which Lycoming you're talking about. -0-540 FWF weight approximately 540 pounds, 250 hp, power -to weight =2.15 lb/hp, approx $18K rebuilt -Chevy V-8, FWF weight approx. 690 pounds, iron block, 350 hp, PTW ratio = 1.97 lb/hp, cost unknown -M-14P, FWF weight approx 630 lb plus oil/air @ 60 lb, PTW ratio = 1.91 lb/hp, $16-$18K new -Ford V-6, FWF weight 500 w/mnt, cowl, etc, 200 hp = 2.5 lb/hp, cost unknown -Mazda 13B, FWF weight 435 lb, 190 hp - 2.23 lb/hp, cost approx $5K The Mazda weight is an estimate, the rest are fairly accurate and include allowances for mounts, oil radiators, props, cowlings, etc. Chevy numbers came direct from Northwest Aero. I'm waiting for costs and the weight savings of an aluminum block from them. Obviously, the bigger the engine, the more power it's going to put and the better the power to weight. Hanging over 600 pounds on the front of a BH is iffy. The Chevy for sure would need structural mods and it would be smart to do some for the M-14P. Just thought ya'll would like to see these. I'm still collecting accurate engine weights and costs, so if any one has some real world (hanging on a scale w/all the stuff on it) weights, for other engines, I'd like to hear them. bd +++ #11768 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines >I need to find that article in Custom Planes about that guy who used >a 4.3l chevy in his amphib. As memory serves, he spent about $15,000 >for a 250hp rated engine. If you have to spend that kind of money to produce an alternative engine for your project then you just have to really want to use that engine. A mid-time Lycoming in that hp range could be had for less. At the chance of fueling the Chevy versus Ford versus Subaru versus whatever debate, in selecting particular engines one needs to look at what will have to be replace and what can be retained. First, cast cranks have been shown to perform perfectly in aviation applications in automotive conversions. Part of that is because we are not, or at least should not be, trying to extract the Nth degree of horse power production. 250 hp out of the Chevy 4.3L V-6 is at the ragged edge. That engine required expensive after market heads and intake manifold to save weight. The builder felt the stock rods and pistons were not up top the task so he spent more money. The Ford engine was originally selected because it was a first generation of light weight, easily mass produced engines that contained OEM parts able to handle the horse power requirements for the type of plane a large number of people wanted to build. The Fords come with aluminum heads and manifold, Eaton valves and lifters, rods rated to handle the horse power and pistons that were also up to the job. We switched to Wiseco pistons primarily because we found that the 3.8L came with several lower compression ratios and it was difficult to find which ration you had. Ratios went as low as 8:1 which gave up a lot of horse power. The one we wanted had stock 8.8:1 compression ratio. Wiseco produced the 9:1 so we went with it. Higher ratios were tried, notably a 10:1 piston, but the stock wrist pins couldn't handle the higher load. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11769 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: twin-pack engines? I'd planned to stay out of the engine discussions, but had a thought I just couldn't resist tossing out -- Soloy (something like that), I think up in the Seattle area, put together pairs of engines driving a single prop shaft. Turbines, maybe. Has anyone ever considered stacking a pair of Subaru's of the 80-100 HP variety to drive a single prop flange? Would a redrive that supported two engines be less than twice as heavy as a single unit? Would the hp/lb be less favorable because you'd just have two engines with weak hp/lb? Could one make the system more reliable by designing failure modes that would allow one engine to shut down while leaving the other running (one engine on a sprag clutch)? (Could one run it that way in normal ops, akin to shutting down one on the in-line twin Cessnas?) How much would running a single alternator, radiator, etc, help to make up the difference? (Can you figure a way to run a single starter?) Is the radiator elevation vs. engine elevation critical? What could one do to reduce the height of the engines? How about a single dry-sump vs. two oil pans? Could you put carbs on the sides vs. intake runners on the top (but wouldn't it be nice to retain the stock injection?) With two engines, maybe you could rationalize running stock ignition rather than getting into all the dual/redundant ignition, switch-overs, batteries, etc. (Why yes, I do have dual ignition -- one for each engine!) Are two engines beating on the redrive just going to tear it apart? Would it take a ton 'o dampening? Benton +++ #11770 From: "zipppydoggg" Subject: Re: Power to weight ratios >-M-14P, FWF weight approx 630 lb plus oil/air @ 60 lb, PTW ratio = >1.91 lb/hp, $16-$18K new It looks to me like the MP14 is the winner, an affortable aircraft engine with more than enough horsepower. By the way, you previously mentioned 60 pounds of the MP14 installation could be placed in the aft area, what equipment is included in the 60 lbs? I checked out the MP14 as used in the Pitts Model 12, as you suggested. These mods seem to make the engine reasonable to use. The MP14 also is a clear winner in the "size of boys toys" contest. bd, now you have gone and done it, I want one!!! ;-) Rob "comrad" Gaddy +++ #11771 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Power to weight ratios The stuff that can be moved aft include the airstart tank and the oil tank (4.5 gallons). They could be moved behind the baggage compartment rear wall. bd +++ #11775 From: "nauman_alan" Subject: Re: Chevy Engines OK... I want to chime in on this topic. I really would prefer to go the auto engine route for my Bearhawk so I have looked at loads of options. My first choice would be a 350 Chevy. That was my first engine rebuild and it has been the easiest engine that I have worked on yet. The problem is the weight. I don't like the LS1 option because it is not a standard small block. It gets too far away from keeping things simple and it is rather expensive. If you get aluminum heads and a block, then a basic engine gets pretty expensive. I think the block is about $2K and the heads are probably another grand. That puts the engine back up around $5-6000 and I am still not sure about the weight. I kind of like the Mazda 20b rotary. I read about leaving the stock oil injection and using avaition grade oil which is supposed to burn cleaner than the cheaper auto oil. That is supposed to both keep the seals lubricated with the factory method and reduce the buildup that is supposed to be the reason that people yank the oil injection. The drawbacks I see to the 20b is that it is still fairly hard to find and expensive when you do find one. They are also all computerized so you have the whole computer conversion issue. I think the 13b is a little on the lower end for the power so I would prefer larger engine. The Sube's that I have seen are either on the small side as for power or get expensive and hard to find for the more powerful ones. Here is an interesting option that a friend pointed out to me. Anybody here up to VW power :-) How about a twin engine option? Check out http://www.altimizer.com/ where they have a twin VW package that will run two engines that are from 60 up to 180 HP each. The twin engine package with 360 HP is supposed to weigh 400 lbs! They don't have a price, but it sounds pretty cool. I will probably end up with a 4.3 Chevy V6 or maybe the Ford V6. I lean toward the GM side of the debate, but I would run a Yugo engine if it had the best properties, price, and dependability. I think I have a while before I really need to decide though. Hopefully I will be taking my flight test in about a month. I was supposed to take it in mid October, but we had bad weather last week and then the 172 was down this week for it's 100Hr so I have been bumped out a couple of weeks. I need to get my landings down a little better in the 172 before I test. The 180 HP 172 is a whole different animal than the 152. Alan +++ #11778 From: "Russ Kaye" Subject: RE: Re: Power to weight ratios You might want to check out these links. www.russianaeros.com/vedenyevproduct.htm www.gesoco.com www.culpsspecialties.com (A biplane site, but Steve's got the experience with the M-14 and is usually pretty good about answering questions) Better expect to extend that main gear a long way's or expect to plow fields with that long prop. Russ +++ #11779 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Power to weight ratios Thanks, Both George (Gesoco) and Steve are friends and they both know what they are doing. In fact, my brand new, Americanized m-14P came from George. As for the gear: 4" w/8.50 tires. bd +++ #11781 From: "Dan Montee" Subject: Re: IO 360 Continentals The only problem I see with the 470 is the weight. At the Oshkosh forum I heard "The Bob" say 3 times that 400lbs was the max engine wt he recommends for the Bearhawk. When Budd tried to get him to stretch a little he just repeated "no, 400lbs max". Dan Montee # 415 +++ #11782 From: "Shawn Harrison" Subject: Engines (Was Re: IO 360 Continentals) Sallee Chevrolet lists the LS1 crate engine weight as 390 lbs. If 400 lbs is the maximum engine weight for the Bearhawk, wouldn't that mean the LS1 could be used without modifying the Bearhawk structure? Shawn Harrison +++ #11783 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: IO 360 Continentals Just for the record: it's damn hard to stay under 400 pounds with about half of the 540's available. bd +++ #11784 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engines (Was Re: IO 360 Continentals) If the LS1 weighed 390 with the reduction unit, you may be right. But it doesn't. And don't forget about the radiator and coolant which has to be included with the engine weight because the Lyc doesn't have it. It's the FWF weight that counts, not just the engine weight. Northwest Aero says their aluminum head, iron block engine, ready to go with PSRU, etc., is 575 pounds and an aluminum block isn't going to knock off 175 pounds. I'm guessing closer to 60 pounds, if that. So....it's still too heavy without some restructuring. bd +++ #11785 From: Alan Nauman Subject: Re: Engines (Was Re: IO 360 Continentals) The LS1 is in the ballpark, but that is a dry weight and it does not include any accessories (alternator starter). You also have to add the PSRU weight. Alan +++ #11786 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Engine Weights & Stress on the Firewall For all of his mistakes Dave Blanton made in horsepower calculations, he did make some good points about the loading of the fuselage structure from the mounting of heavier engines. The really important information is moment arm, not just the weight of the engine. When I made the point earlier about the CG of the Ford being closer to the firewall than that of the original engine used on the TriPacer I was alluding to this information. If the CG of the alternative engine is located such that the moment arm is equal to or less than that of the engine installed in Proto II then there may be no need to change any structure in the Bearhawk design to support the increased weight of the relatively compact shape of a V-8. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11788 From: "Dave Roberts" Subject: Engine Weights, CG, and props All of this talk of 350 chev weights has my curiosity up. NW aero says theirs weighs 575 with psru. Team-38 says theirs weighs 460 without psru. If Team-38 is correct and you add Belted Air's 38lb psru and Ivo's magnum prop at 26lbs that comes in at 524lbs. Add 50 more pounds for cowling coolant,mount,and radiator and you are at 574. Add another 25 for the things I forgot and we are at 600lbs. Now, I've heard that a constant speed Hartzell weighs around 50 to 60lbs[correct me if I'm wrong]. And that is way out on the front. When you start figuring center of gravity as Bruce says the 350 may be more suited for the BH than we think. Wil Graf told me he thought his 0-470 firewall forward was about 500lbs maybe a little less. I'm hoping to find an midtime 0-540. But after my BH has been flying for four or five years I may have a 350 hanging on it. For the record, an aluminum block 350 is 90 lbs lighter than cast iron. +++ #11789 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Engine Weights, CG, and props Did any of you see, a few years ago, an article in one of the mags about the installation of a Chevy 350 in a Cessna 172. (I think it was a 172)? More power, few complaints, weight was not a detrimental factor. Bruce A. frank +++ #11791 From: "ken wardstrom" Subject: fwf weights and balances We did an actual weight and balance on our 4.6 rover just prior to start up and the weight is 454 lbs, and the cg. is 21.5" ahead of the firewall.This is a complete ready to run weight including the ivo 80" 3 blade constant speed prop, full of antifreeze ,oil, wiring, oil cooler, hoses motormount , i mean complete.The motor is bone stock and comes from the factory @ 230 hp. @4800 rpm. in full pollution mode. With all the pollution junk removed, the tuned headers and the ignition timeing and fuel set correctly these engines are makeing an honest 250+ hp. @4800 rpm. We put an almost identical package together on a friends 24' hovercraft complete with a super quite muffler and mounted ivo's 84" paddle blades on our own full reversing hub. ( 96" dia. ) Both engines are almost vibration free and super quiet. ken wardstrom #357 +++ #11792 From: Del Rawlins Subject: Stop the Insanity! I don't think that I am necessarily the best person to be making this point, since I am one of the guys in Alaska who may need a fair amount of power, but somebody has to say this and I don't see anybody else about to do it. There has been an awful lot of talk about monstrously heavy engines here lately and I think that it needs to be remembered that no matter how well you keep the CG where it needs to be, a heavier airplane isn't going to fly as well as it should. While you can in all likelihood hang a huge engine off the Bearhawk, you will never make it into a Beaver or Murphy Moose. I respectfully submit that if you want to play with heavy engines, that there may be more suitable airframes available. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a radial installation light enough to be used in the Bearhawk airframe, unmodified, but unless Zoche gets off their rears I don't see it happening. Or a liquid cooled auto conversion of 200+ hp that is closer to 400# than 500. Personally I'm really hung up on the idea of having a liquid cooled engine, but I keep coming back to the fact that The Bob designed the Bearhawk around the lycomings, and the lighter variants at that. There has to be a better solution than hanging a huge chunk of iron on the front, and one that will provide the desired power at a more affordable price than the equivalent lycont museum piece. -- Del Rawlins +++ #11793 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Digest Number 925 True, except... What you say is true if the efficiency of the PSRU is 100%. However, the only 100% efficient systems are kept in the physics labs with the massless rods and frictionless pulleys. Knowing there will be some losses through the PSRU, what is the typical efficiency of today's PSRUs? Alternatively, how much power is absorbed by the PSRU (and thus rejected as heat)? Russ Erb +++ #11795 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: RE: Digest Number 925 Certainly not loss free, but the loss is very low. The belts are made of Kevlar and rubber, too much energy dissipation and the belts start to melt. I believe losses run in the area of <3%. Years ago I had to select an electric motor power transfer setup which was virtually identical to that used in the cog belt PSRU design. With tension adjusted properly advertised power loss was below 1.5%. This is why the cog belt design is such a breakthrough. The cog belt design is right there with gear and Hy-Vo chain designs without the need for lubrication sumps, sprays and pumps. Weight is about equal or less with possibly the bulk of the units being a slight disadvantage. Bruce A. Frank. +++ #11796 From: "ken wardstrom" Subject: reversing prop The prop hub is for our own playing on our hovercrafts only. However i stopped by terry wilshires ( 80% spitfire with 350 chev ) and he told me he picked up a timed out prop from a twin otter? , The prop shop cut it down to a 96" 3blade, serviced the hub and eliminated the beta capability. I beleive he said he paid 3000 for the prop complete with the service and mods. may be a good source for reversing props? +++ #11797 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: PSRU efficiency > I believe losses run in the area of <3%. One hp is about 750 Watts. 1.5% of a 200 horse engine would be about 2250 Watts. Somehow it's easier for me to get a feel for the heating of the belts by converting the power absorbed into Watts. Benton +++ #11800 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: fwf weights and balances Ken, That's good info and at 454 for the entire FWF will within weight limits (Bob says 400 pounds for the engine only, so 475 or so is good FWF) and your CG is almost identical to the Lycoming distance Bob gave me. Where did you get your engine and what did it cost? What kind of PSRU? bd +++ #11801 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Stop the Insanity! First, a 540 powered airplane is more airplane than just about anyone needs. Period. End of conversation. It's all around performance and efficiency is hard to beat. The only reason to go automotive is cost. They will never duplicate the power to weight of the 540 coupled with the reliability, low complexity and the peace of mind of working with a known factor. The Lycoming is a helluva long way from perfect, but it at least is a known factor. The M-14P will add approximately 135 pounds to the airplane and decrease the power to weight ratio from 10 lb/hp to 6.9 lb/hp. To put those in perspective, an S-2B Pitts is 6.3 lb/hp but in this case the engine is delivering over twice the thrust while the wing loading stays at 13.9, even less than a C-172. So picture a 360 hp 172 with five times the thrust. It will accelerate to flying speed in no distance at all and the big prop will be "blowing" a significant portion of the wing even before moving, so takeoffs would be incredibly short. All these numbers are at 2500 pounds, so you'd be working the airplane in BH weights, speeds and distances but giving up 135 lb useful. I'd restructure enough to operate at 2600 pounds at the same G loadings, these numbers would come down slightly but useful would stay the same. Still, the Lycoming is a better idea for 99% of people. In STOL mode, power to weight, wing and span loading tell the entire story and one really good one (power to weight) can overcome a slight difficulty (increase in span loading) in another. All that having been said, there is no substitute for keeping weight out of an airplane unless the increased weight improves some performance ratio significantly enough to effect the performance positively. An M-14P does. A Chevy does not. bd +++ #11803 From: "ken wardstrom" Subject: fwf weights and balances Budd we picked the motor up from a local auto wrecker for $4500 cdn. It came out of a 97 landrover with only 2000 miles on it. It was still in the vehicle and we started it up prior to buying it. The psru is our own design and is a cog belt system.We basically looked at all the drives we could, made notes of what we liked and didn't like ( jeess i hope we didn't throw the WRONG notes away ).The complete firewall forward package minus the prop is at $17,850 cdn. ( it's a good thing mom has no interest in the paperwork ).This is hard cash outlay for materials only. We do all our own maching and fabricating, there is about 3000 hrs. labour into the fwf package.It should also be noted that dad and bob are in a close race to see who can get the most out of a dollar.While we have enjoyed this part of the project it has taken a year and a half and cost the same or more as a standard a/c package.Personally i think it all boils down to -Do you want to build or do you want to fly. - ken +++ #11804 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: fwf weights and balances Does anyone know if this engine is still in production, if they are available and what the going price is. Ken, if you spent $4500 for the engine, what did the other $13K go for, if you don't mind me asking? Since you did your own machining, I'm just wondering. And, if the engine only had 2000 miles on it and put out 230 horses stock, what did you do to it? bd +++ #11805 From: "ken wardstrom" Subject: rover 4.6 I don't know if the engine is still in production since bmw took over landrover but i suspect it is because it's used in a lot of different applications.It is basically the old buick 215 with some major evolutionary changes, crossbolted mains, modified heads and upgraded oil pump system.The changes we made to the motor were -remove the mass airflow sensor and restrictive air inlet ducting - remove the stock exhaust manifolds and replace them with our own long tube headers ( ceramic coated inside and out ).- replace the stock ecu with an sds programable unit from raceteck in calgary. The stock ecu is set up to produce the least amount of emmisions possible,lean burn and retarded ignition.The costs come from things like dual ecu systems dual high pressure pumps, dual primary pumps,dual msd 6a's, ceramic coating the headers, dual custom built aluminum rads etc. etc. It dosen't take long, the 4 bearings for the redrive were almost $1000 and when we added up the reciepts thats the number that was stairing us in the face.You have to remember the canadian dollar is only worth $.60 us., that puts the project at around $10,500 usd.-ken +++ #11809 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: engines If you do the work yourself. But you are preaching to the choir, I believe there are many workable automotive substitutes for Lycs and Conts. Piston or rotary, I believe there are enough proven conversions to fit in most homebuilts. Then again, I am not anti-Lycoming or anti-Continental. When I finish my V-6 installation, short of a prop, I will have only $2100 invested. If someone gave me a good serviceable ready to fly 0-540, 0-470 or even an 0-360, I'd use it (until it needed an overhaul, THEN I'd install the Ford). Paul Lamar said to me at Sun 'N Fun this year that if I weren't so heavily invested in the Fords I'd install a Mazda. I was talking to several people at the time and didn't have a chance to make a rebuttal. Corky has pointed both his and my disenchantment with that engine; the necessity of oil in the fuel and a complicated assembly that a shade tree mechanic may not be able to handle. My stable of V-6s ( I have 3 of them) are dirt simple to work on, inexpensive to overhaul and will last longer than I have years to fly. And while I don't *dislike* Chevys (if given one ready to fly I'd still install the Ford)..... I like Fords. +++ #11844 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Re: Stop the Insanity! The one thing I would be very concerned about with the M-14P is the availability of parts. I've been waiting for some time for the new rubber mounts for my Franklin engine. PZL has their hands full right now with a mandatory AD on fuel pumps and it's been quite difficult to get a set of mount out of them. Had I gone with a Lyc. or Cont, then this would be a non issue. There is nothing worse than being on hold for 4-6 months over some rubber mounts! Be sure that whatever you buy can be easily sourced for parts. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11845 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: twin-pack engines? > I'd planned to stay out of the engine discussions, but had a thought > I just couldn't resist tossing out -- Soloy (something like that), I > think up in the Seattle area, put together pairs of engines driving > a single prop shaft. Turbines, maybe. > > Has anyone ever considered stacking a pair of Subaru's of the > 80-100 HP variety to drive a single prop flange? Check the back issues of Sport Aviation/Kitplanes for just such a conversion. If I remember correctly, it was a ?-EZ with a pair of Subaru engines stacked together driving a common propellor shaft. The builders were either South or Central American as they crossed the Gulf on their way to OSH. They have had some problems with the installation mostly due to harmonics and vibration. However, it seemed to be an interesting way to get the reliability and performance out of an automotive engine. I suspect that the weight would be a little heavier than a single of teh same power, but I think it would be close. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11849 From: "Andrew Rekow" Subject: Re: twin-pack engines? It was on a Cozy Mark IV http://www.infortel.com/cozy/ Featured in the May 98 issue of Sport aviation. There's a link to the artical in the above web site +++ #11851 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Re: twin-pack engines? Subaru, Suzuki, at least I was cloase with a 3-sylable, Japanese engine starting with "SU" ;-) Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #11852 From: "Daniel Fox" Subject: Re: twin-pack engines? I crawled over that plane for 20 minutes, and I can't remember any more than what you've stated. IIRC they're Venezuelan, and the engines were non-US Geo Metro 1300cc types. But, I'm not sure. :-( I do remember that they were mounted tandem, fore-and-aft as opposed to side-by-side (both in the rear engine compartment). And, I remember thinking that the way they brought the power from the 2 engines together to a combiner was way complex. Might have been a Velocity; it was certainly a Vari-Eze or one of its derivatives. Also, I'm certain you will find a writeup in SA. If someone has a callout on that, I'll look in my back stacks for it for them. Has anyone on this list bit on the $150-for-all-you-can-eat back issues on CD offer yet? --dan fox +++ #11857 From: "John" Subject: Re: Orenda V6 engine development > From Orenda's website: NBAA Convention, Las Vegas, Oct 18, 1998........ Buoyed by the market interest in its newly-certificated 600 hp liquid-cooled OE-600A V-8 aero-engine, Magellan Aerospace subsidiary, Orenda Recip Inc., of Toronto, Ontario, is actively studying a six-cylinder variant which would deliver power in the 350 - 500 hp range. Both turbocharged and normally-aspirated engines are contemplated. http://www.orenda-recip.com/index1.htm I do't think they have done anything on it as of yet... John Kozak, #511 +++ #11868 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: engines >> When I finish my V-6 installation, short of a prop, I will have >> only $2100 invested. >What are you using for a PSRU? I came upon three several years ago, two original Blanton drives on engines I bought and a Northwest Aero (older design) unit I bought from Brantly Harrison (Engines by Brantly) shortly before he fell apart. After selling the two Blanton drives my cost of the Northwest Aero drive was "0". If you are interested in a PSRU I can send you several leads on Blanton low time or unused units. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11875 From: "John" Subject: more auto engines With all of the talk about auto engines, I was wondering about the Lexus engine that Toyota based their aircraft engine on. I ran across the specs for one of the Lexus aluminum block V8 engines. Their 4.3 liter V-8 produces 300-horsepower with 325 lb.-ft. of torque in the car. Of course they are double overhead cam engines so are rather complex, but I wonder what they weigh. Anyone experementing with these? John Kozak, #511 +++ #11887 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 935 > I'm not anti-auto engine. When I decided to build an airplane the > only thing I "thought" I knew for sure was that I would use current > racing technology to build my durable, powerful engine. Heck, I had > built scores of winning race engines and these throw back certified > aircraft engines were out of the stone age. Yes, they are antiques > but I haven't figured out how to get a better combination of weight, > power, and dependablility out of anything else. And that's part of the whole LyContinental versus auto engine debate: You should not be holding up all the modifications being used on auto engines as proof that the flat aircraft engines are from the stone age because the use of the engine is entirely different from what autos see. Direct drive engines simply don't run fast enough to utilize double overhead camshafts with four valves per cylinder, nor do they need super trick ignition, although certainly having a spark retarder coupled to a knock sensor would be a great step forward. In a similar vein, you don't need to turn an auto engine into a full race engine in order for it to be useful as an aircraft engine. Some things just don't cross over well. Things like 10 to 1 compression pistons would force the use of special fuel. Double overhead cams with four valves per cylinder would just add weight since the engine isn't ever revved to the point where such settups are useful. No need for after market connecting rods either, if the originals have been proven in flight. No need for a forged solid billet crankshaft for the same reason. Certainly it would be useful for the combustion chambers to be of similar volume but I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference from an ordinary, un-modified head. Having bearings derived from racing is beneficial, being able to use an aluminum oil pan would be handy. The induction device is where there would be the big difference: race engine usually have devices bolted to them that flow MUCH more fuel/air than is remotely needed for our use. Basically we prize reliability above almost all else, and accept a number of compromises so that reliability may be enhanced. That is precisely why people buy Ford V-6's and remove the fuel injection and the computer that controls it and throws it away so that a carburator can be bolted in place. This works best though, when a manifold that was designed to flow fuel and air is used. Using an air only manifold works, sort of, but can have MAJOR running problems at various rpm ranges where the fuel gets slung to the sides of sharp bends in the manifold and doesn't make it to the combustion chamber causing lean backfiring and lots of rough running. Corky Scott +++ #11908 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Auto engines > Its starting to sound more like a closer to stock engine would work > for a conversion, with weight being the deciding factor (this is a > generalization). > > But what about the timing? wouldn't you still have to replace the > camshaft anyway, since we need longer runs at higher end RPM's for > takeoffs and climbs? Some engines do very well at 60-100% power with the stock cam, but any engine will improve its HP output if its breathing is optimized for the rpm at which it will run when attached to a PSRU. Going back to the engine I know best, Ford made changes to the intake on the 3.8L for the Windstar boosting its HP output to 210. I have been unable to find out if they made any changes to the cam to accomplish that HP increase. The 3.8L that I first got from a salvage yard came from a T-Bird. In stock configuration, throttle body injection and a cast iron exhaust manifold, it was rated at only 140 HP. From what I have read on some of the Mustang groups, changing to a tuned exhaust and a reprogrammed throttle body can take this "stock" engine to 180 HP. With the addition of a different cam HP can climb to 210. Then there are those who slap on the nitrous for climbing out of high altitude lakes (Mike Hirshfield in Canada). Bruce A. Frank +++ #11911 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: Auto engines I seem to recall that Richard Finche in his book on auto conversions (which I cannot find at the moment) seemed to recommend that you leave the engine stock for the most part. Things on the outside were upgradeable but I got the distinct impression that he thought that the innards should be left alone. I can think of two reasons for this: 1) A skilled race engine builder can rebuild an engine but what about the average person? Maybe, maybe not. YMMV :-) 2) My former boss (auto shop) said that Ford has an application note out about the Duron V6 engine that recommends not to rebuild it. Seems that it is real easy to warp the aluminum block. He told me that the best thing to do is not go inside that engine at all. Don't know what the Aerostar 3.8L V6 construction is but the Aerostar 4.0L looks more like a cast iron block. Haven't pulled one out yet. Now OTOH, aftermarket intake and exhaust would probably be OK. Regards Tony Dean +++ #11912 From: mprather@s... Subject: Re: Auto engines An issue with many aluminum block engines - esp those that are foreign derivative - is that they can't effectively be bored or honed. On some engines this is so because the rings slide directly in the block material with only a silicon hardened coating to provide a wear bearier. Other engines (Nissan V6, for one) have very thin steel or cast iron liners w/o enough wall thickness to allow any real rebore. It wouldn't surprise me if one of these is true with the Al Ford engine. +++ #11913 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: Auto engines The way it was described to me was that the engine uses long studs to bolt it together and extreme case is required to get the engine bolted back together if the heads come off. Actual lateral stress can be placed on the crank due to block warpage is what my old boss tells me. Regards Tony Dean +++ #11922 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 937 > Its starting to sound more like a closer to stock engine would work > for a conversion, with weight being the deciding factor (this is a > generalization). > > But what about the timing? wouldn't you still have to replace the > camshaft anyway, since we need longer runs at higher end RPM's for > takeoffs and climbs? Most of the engine can remain stock John, but some things need adjustment. For instance, because the engine will be producing most of it's power at between 60 to 75% instead of just 10-15% for street engines, much more heat is produced. We adjust for that by modifying the waterpump in some cases, and making sure of air flow to a radiator that must be properly sized and designed for that amount of power. We also may use a smaller diameter crank pulley so that the water pump doesn't overspeed and cavitate. More heat to the pistons means they will grow more. This could cause piston scuffing if the bore is not adjusted to account for the larger (from more heat) diameter piston. When I bought the Wiseco pistons for the Ford, they came in three oversizes: .010, .020 and .030. I needed the .030" over piston because it took that much to clean up the cylinder when the initial boring occured. The machine shop operator stopped at that point because the pistons had not arrived yet, and waited until they did so he could mike them. I had ordered the .030" version, but a good machine shop waits until the pistons are in hand to measure them just to be sure. When they came, the instructions stated that they MUST have .050" clearance. These pistons were chosen specifically for the Blanton modified V-6, he worked closely with Wiseco to get the right ones, so the clearance requested is not an option, it's a requirement. Fifty thousands is a lot of clearance for pistons, I gather .015" is more common for street engines. But I repeat, in order to survive the higher heat of aircraft (or racing) operation without scuffing, that's what's necessary. Air cooled aircraft engines have even more clearance because air cooling doesn't do as good a job as liquid cooling, I'm told, plus there is a "choke" milled into the cylinder: it's more narrow at the combustion chamber than it is at the base. This is because all the heating takes place at the combustion chamber. Since it's hotter than anything else in the cylinder, that area expands the most. Incidentally, this is also why you must thoroughly heat up an air cooled aircraft engine before applying full throttle. If the engine is too cool, the cylinder will not have expanded yet. When full power is applied those aluminum pistons will pick up heat MUCH faster than the surrounding cylinder and will expand and make contact. Not good. Timing needs to be adjusted so that it maxes at about 21 degrees before top dead center. The distributer I bought allows the timing to retard for starting, and then advances to full advance with increasing throttle. For a great discussion on combustion theory and why timing needs to be advanced, see Deakin's column on "Mixture Magic" in the AVWebsite. Corky Scott +++ #11924 From: mprather@s... Subject: Re: Digest Number 937 Do you know whether the Blanton specified pistons are forged or hypereutectic? Forged pistons offer better strength but more thermal expansion coefficient than the hypereutectic alloy process. You can therefore run tighter pistons with hypereutectic pistons. You get more startup oil consumption, and piston slap with forged pistons. I guess aircraft engines are the place where you pay the smallest penalty for using forged pistons because short flights are less likely than short drives. Does your distributor allow for timing adjustment based on manifold pressure? 21 degrees of advance seems like a very small amount when combined with low manifold pressure - which may be present in cruise conditions on normally aspirated engines. Oh wait.... Are you running a turbo/supercharger? At low manifold pressures - 20", 36deg advance will make more horsepower/gas mileage. Interesting info - thanks for sharing. Matt Prather +++ #11925 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 937 Corky may have had a typo, the typical advance is 28? BTDC. With 100LL I am aware of some pushing it to 34?. Someone, I am not sure who now (seems I attributed the info to the wrong source in the newsletter), communicated to me that they ran a dual ignition triggering system; one was a crank fire setup and the other used the distributor. One trigger was set at 28? BTDC for use with auto fuel and the other was set at 34? for when using 100LL. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11926 From: "Dan Montee" Subject: Re: Digest Number 937 I'm learning a lot about the Ford motor here. I've never worked on the ford 6 but I am amazed to see some of the dimensions used in building one. Like .030 overbore plus .050 clearance. The ford has a lot of excess material in the block to allow a .080 overbore. That's unusual. .080 over is big jump in compression. Did Wiesco compensate with a different deck ht? Did your machinist clean up the block deck and the heads? If so, what did he do to the pistons to compensate? .050 piston to wall clearance. I've never installed a piston that was far from the .0015"/inch of bore rule of thumb. Even the big Lycs and Continentals fall into that range. I'm not sure what Wiseco is up to here but it's new. What rings are they using? There must be some really deep lands to allow for the piston to rock around in a .050 clearance hole. Normal rings and lands wouldn't last long with that clearance. I've found that to much piston clearance, something around .002" to .0025"/ inch of bore actually allowed the piston to grow more and scuff more do to the lack of cooling. In a high performance environment the piston needs fairly precise contact via the oil film with the cylinder wall to dissipate heat. To wide a clearance leaves the piston fending for itself in the cooling department. Service limit cylinder taper on Lyc 360/540 is .004". What air cooled's use a tapered bore? Dan Montee # 415 +++ #11927 From: mprather@s... Subject: Re: Digest Number 937 I'll stick to my original 36deg, and maybe make it even more extreme by suggesting that on certain engines, 40deg of advance will make the most horsepower on the least fuel, and not produce detonation. The typical max advance value of 24-26deg on a Lyco/Conti magneto timing assumes certain operating conditions (and fuel octane). The assumptions assure maximum horsepower at sea level mp and max hot temperatures, but no detonation. At the lower manifold pressure found at high altitude, or cruise power settings, more timing advance makes the engine more fuel efficient and produce more power. This is so because at lower mp, the effective compression ratio is lowered, cylinder filling is reduced, and flame front travel is slower. You have to start the spark earlier in order to get the most energy from the mix in the chamber. Even on a Lycoming at sea level mp, you can get away with more than the spec'ed 26deg advance. The problem is that now you are making more hp, and that is making more heat. As the CHT goes up, resistance to knocking goes down, and you can start detonation very easily. Water cooled engines have a leg up over air cooled engines because they can reject heat better. Here's a link to an interesting page that gives an idea about combustion chamber design, and how much advance is optimum for horsepower. This totally neglects ability to reject heat, and so if your cooling system isn't up to the amount of hp your making, detonation is probable. http://members.aol.com/dvandrews/timing.htm That's an interesting idea for in-cockpit re-timing. Maybe Corky was going for 21deg as initial advance, and the mechanism pushes out further based on reduced mp and increased rpm? Sorry if this is all stuff you know.... Matt Prather. +++ #11929 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 937 There could be some research on advancement. One of the reasons for the original setup of the Ford engine with 28? was the limitation of the total advance and retard. The timing had to be retarded back to 7 to 10? to start the engine. From that point with centrifugal advance only (vacuum advance is removed from the distributor) total advance will be about 28?(the mechanical limit of the distributor). Something like the MSD manually advanced ignition control might be a way to go. Only reservation I would have is that I'd like to have a knock sensor to run such tests. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11936 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: MP14 fuel requirements > Does the MP14 need leaded fuel? What may be the impart to operating > this engine if "low lead" aviation fuel is phased out to NO Lead > fuel? Unless I'm mistaken the M-14 is fine on mo-gas. The octane requirements start at 78, but I'm not sure about the low lead question. bd +++ #11949 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 938 > http://members.aol.com/dvandrews/timing.htm > > That's an interesting idea for in-cockpit re-timing. > > Maybe Corky was going for 21deg as initial advance, and the > mechanism pushes out further based on reduced mp and increased rpm? > > Sorry if this is all stuff you know.... 36 deg. is a LOT of advance. I'll defer to Bruce for his knowledge since he prints the Ford Newletter, but I'd be a bit uncomfortable using that much advance. There is no device that further advances the timing that I'm aware of or that I intend to use. I haven't read through the newsletter on what most folks are using but 21 to 24 deg. seemed fairly concervative and safe. Bruce, what are people using? Corky Scott +++ #11955 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 938 > I haven't read through the newsletter on what most folks are using > but 21 to 24 deg. seemed fairly concervative and safe. > > Bruce, what are people using? Most use 28? full advance. Bruce A. Frank +++ #11980 From: Bob Romanko Subject: 175 HP FWF for $5,600 There you go campers: A flying, certified GO-300 with gearbox and prop: $5,600. Not bad for a bolt on 175 HP powerplant. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1864359131 No...Mrs. Planter wouldn't let me bid! Something about my spending $32,000 on airplane stuff in the last four months has her a bit gun shy. Women. Planter Bob +++ #12134 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Oil Spills > Does anybody know if there is an alternative to PZL for get a new > Fuelpump for the Franklin. Our Aircraft is grounded by the AD and we > will need a quick solve of the problem. Company PZL said 2 Month for > getting a new pump. Crazy! Last year we needed a camshaft and it > took 4 month to repair the engine. Please contact me by mail if > there is an alternative supplier or possibility to get the plane in > the air again. > > Regards to all from Germany. The Franklin engines are neat engines with a lot of innovative features. In fact, I was so impressed by the price and features, I bought a PZL 4-cylinder for my own Christavia. Now I regret the decision. There is nothg wrong with the engine itself, it's the parts supply that can be a real problem. I've been waiting several months for some mounting bushings and still haven't received them. Here's a quote from today on the Franklin Engines list: There also seems to be a lot of squabbling between the US reps. I bought an engine from one rep and called a second to see if they could supply some parts. Basically, I was told that since I bought the engine from the other dealer, he would not sell me anything. Personally, I'm quite fed up with the whole thing. Hope this helps. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #12273 From: Del Rawlins Subject: Re: lom engines >>Why not a lom? Prices are low. Turbo charging available. Inline 250 >>hp or 315 radial. Radial is 480 lbs. Check out the attach for >>radial. Because the inlines are long and will make the Bearhawk look ugly. Also might screw up the CG. One of their inline fours might be better but I think the biggest one is only 160hp. I don't see what advantage their radial has over the Russian unit, which offers more power for the same weight. Take a look at the LOM powered CH801 to see what I mean; they actually succeeded in making an ugly airplane even uglier, a feat which I had previously regarded as impossible. -- Del Rawlins +++ #12274 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: lom engines The LOM's are really attractive, but you have to look at their hp ratings closely because they play little games with them. Each of their engines has a supercharged and normally-aspirated version and each of these versions has two hp ratings, but the difference is the rpm they are letting them turn, 2750 vs 3000, on takeoff the cruising hp is usually the same for all versions. You're right about the pricing, etc. And they are reasonably light because their main case is magnesium (no smoking within .001 millimeter) but their CG is a lot further forward. Their biggest engine is 235 hp, 364 c.i. and weighs 339. They can also use the self-contained AVIA constant speed prop. A note: their super charger control is a separate lever. Here's a paragraph out of a thing I just finished on a LOM powered GlasStar that has some info in it. The factory still makes their entire range of engines. They vary from the delightful little 75 hp Mikron III (149 cubic inches, 151 pounds!) to the 240 cubic inch four-bangers that range from 120 hp to 160 hp (231 pounds to 250 pounds) and their bigger, 364 cubic inch, six-cylinder engines that deliver 180 hp to 235 hp. All of their engines share the same compression ratio, 6.3:1, and are good to go on any fuel in the 78-100LL range, which means they are all happy running on mo-gas. The obvious question is why the difference in the horsepower given the same compression ratio and displacement? The answer is in different takeoff rpm and supercharging. That?s right, part of the series of engines uses gear-driven superchargers while others depend on rpm for increased horsepower for five minutes on takeoff but drop back for continuous cruise. For example, their 180 hp M137A gives 180 hp at 2750 rpm and 160 at 2680rpm (max continuous). The M137B at 195 horsepower and has the same specs but it has a takeoff rpm of 3,000 rpm. It is not known whether there are any internal differences in the engines. The M337A is 210 hp at 2750 rpm on takeoff but is supercharged, hence the increase over the same engine (M137A) putting out 180 hp at the same rpm. Got it? Good! Their radial appears to be another M-14 derivative: same disaplacement, stroke etc. Their webside has all the pertinent poop, www.moraviation.com/ bd +++ #12277 From: Del Rawlins Subject: LOM engine length I found the length of an O-540A to be 38.42" according to an old issue of beartracks. The 235hp LOM six is 54.9" long, or about 16.5" longer than the Lycoming. Since the 540 is already pushing the CG limits as-is (as evidenced by the requirement to mount the battery in the tail), mounting a LOM 6 might be asking a little too much, since not only is the engine arm longer, the prop will be that much farther out as well. -- Del Rawlins +++ #12279 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: LOM engine length It doesn't have to go in the tail. Behind the baggage compartment is fine. In the kits we put tabs back there so you can mount a track and mover the battery for and aft about 18 inches. bd +++ #12281 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: LOM engine You're late. Go back about three messages and you'll get some good opinions concerning CG and looks. The biggest problem is making a cowling that doesn't make your airplane look as if you slammed the hangar door shut on it's nose. I've flown the 160 hp version (When it was called the Walter) in the Zlin 526 a couple hundred hours. It's smooth and has a great, raspy exhaust tone. I like the Avia self contained prop (no governor on the engine, it's all inthe spinner dome). I did blow the top off of a cylinder head, but we did nothing but hard akro in the airplane, so it's excused. As they come from the factory they have the baffling attached so installing them is easy. They run around $13K, give or take a K. The best bet is still a 235 hp, 0-540, mid time for the same money. You can't beat cubic inches. (LOM is only 360). bd +++ #12370 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: Another ford engine conversion At Copperstate I went to all the Auto Engine conversion workshops I could. At these workshops I heard from people who have already done things like this and have had various levels of success. A guy there had built up a ford V-8 but the costs did eventually rose higher than a mid time engine and probably would continue to be higher. The Team 38 people were also there and they explained that all the mods that they do for aviation purposes are not designed to gain even one more horsepower. These mods are strictly for longevity and they are not cheap. Some of the big issues? Burned valves, ruined valve guides, cooling issues, and accessory failures. The Team 38 people run the water presure higher to prevent steam bubbles from forming at high loading/rpm. This means the entire cooling system has to be rated for 32 lbs rather than the usual 16. At the end of the week I was almost in dispair about auto conversions. If you do an auto conversion that has not been done before just assume that you are now an engineer and will be doing the engineering for this. Also assume that you will incurr engineering costs much like a manufacturer. Why engineering? Because you will be working with an engine in an environment and modes of operation that are untested and the engine was not designed to address. This does not make conversions impossible but difficult. Of course Richard Finch, (who was not a spealer) in his book, recommends that you go with a proven conversion. If its already flying, you do not have to pay for the up fromt engineering costs as did the person who did the engineering. Just send them a check when you figure out how much money they saved you, then do it again when you realize that your earlier estimates were way too low. :-) If I do an auto conversion, I think I will better know what I am up against and will give it a lot more thought. For example the guys in Boulder with Raven Redrive had a good presentation. His most important point, for me, is that the Suzuki engines are designed to run at higher rpm and loading than most auto engines. In normal highway operation these engines run in the 3-4k rpm range rather than the 2-3k of most auto engines. This is a point worthy of note. Of course the four bangers are too small for a B'hawk but the V-6 from the Grand Vitara is not. However I have no idea if that V-6 is designed for the higher rpm that the four bangers are. So if you do an auto conversion. Do it for the reduced maintenance costs. The initial costs may not be that much better but, if you pick a conversion that someone has already done with reasonable success, your long term maintenance costs will be much less. At teh end of the week, I told the guy from Team 38 that the weeks worth of auto conversion talks had almost scared me off from an auto conversion. He voiced the long term costs argument and the follow the known path argument and I felt much better. Oh, the other reason you may want to enineer an auto conversion? Because you want to. Nobody doing this is making money off just the conversions. Voluse of sales is too low. But if you want to, well, why not. After all why build your own airplane when tripacers are so cheap? Do it for the personal satisfaction. Regards Tony Dean +++ #12379 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: OT: C-180 Starter We are in need of a new starter on the C-180. the preference is for one of these new high-speed, light weight starters. Anyone know who manufacturers them? has anyone had any experience with these, good or bad? I guess it's ot that far OT as Budd is selling O-470 mounts for the BH ;-) Thanks, Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #12380 From: "teyeomans" Subject: Last post for the" Ford" Bearhawk in New Mexico. After some more engine tuning work and waiting for some good weather I decided to go fly last Monday. During the preflight I noticed some movement in the propeller redrive bearings that bothered me. Soooo No Flight. After dissasembly and inspection I could find no problem with anything in the drive system..All the bearings felt perfect. I have about 20 hrs on the engine doing tests and engine tuning things with 10 hrs logged in the air. After listening to several people at Copper State I only got more confused. Got excited when Bruce was on the list of speakers (Sorry you weren't able to be there Bruce). I am also very confused about the HP I am getting, The prop people say around 150-160 but I can't make the fuel burn look right. The performance of the plane corrosponds with the fuel burn numbers, of less than 100 HP. At any rate I made the decision to have Bob build me one of his BH 360 engines and hang a constant speed prop on it. I still think that the auto engines are a good thing but It takes much more time getting everything working as planned, than I now want to spend. I don't want to discurage anyone from going with the auto.... I have my system out and will be down until at least April.. I will be selling the stuff I have including the engine, belts, sprockets, Electrompotive ignition system, racing radiator, and Warp drive prop. Thanks to everyone that helped me get the cooling system working. If I wanted to take more time to work on the machine I'm sure it would be fine, engine sounds great. But the neighbor has a 160 lyc. in his RV-6 with 200 hrs the first yr. GRRRRRR. Let you know how I feel after the winter hybernation. Tom (back to the shop)Yeomans 075 +++ #12381 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: OT: C-180 Starter I'm flying with a couple of IO-470s in the C310. They both have the old style heavy starters - Teledyne part no. 646275RX (Delco-Remy). I was anticipating the day when I may need to replace or repair them, and checked out the Sky Tech and Lamar units, which are both permanent magnet units (starters are Nippon Denso?). I think that ElectroDelta (Kelly Aerospace) also advertized that they were coming out with a similar unit. If you could just drop them in place of the old Delco-Remy units and save about 8 lbs. then it may be an attractive alternative. I checked out some newsgroups (www.google.com. rec aviation groups). The opinions that were expressed were that the starter adapter may also have to be replaced when the starter is replaced. The consensus that I gathered was that the lighter starters spin faster, which is the reason for changing the starter adapter. Some reported that bolting the starter on the existing adapter would soon result in a failed adapter. At the end of the day, it seemed that the lightweight starters had a lot of fans for Lycoming applications, but results weren't universal for the big Continental sixes. When it comes time for a new starter, I decided to stick with overhauled Delco-Remy units. They've done fine on my bird for 36 years, and I am not in dire need of an additional 8 lbs. payload. I had very good luck this year in getting both generators overhauled at Aero Tech of Louisville, and also purchased solid state voltage regulators from them. The charging system on the plane works great, and I invested less than $1000 to get the