Mecedes V6
Philippe Vessaire
Is someone expected an homebuilt conversion off the Mecedes V6 engine.
Description of this engine:
3.2 l (195 CI)
222 Cv @ 5000 rpm 224 Cv @ 5500 rpm
150 Kg (330 lb)
---------------------------->12 spark plugs
18 valves
2 в 1 OHC (chain drive)
This engine is made with aluminium alloys and some magnesium parts.
Mercedes mout this engine on M class (4x4) and E class cars. It is
possible this engine is made in a US plant.
Philippe Vessaire
Vrai adresse: phi...@easynet.fr
True address: phi...@easynet.fr
Charles K. Scott
Sp...@to.You (Philippe Vessaire) writes:
> Hello,
>
> Is someone expected an homebuilt conversion off the Mecedes V6 engine.
>
> Description of this engine:
> 3.2 l (195 CI)
> 222 Cv @ 5000 rpm 224 Cv @ 5500 rpm
> 150 Kg (330 lb)
> ---------------------------->12 spark plugs
> 18 valves
> 2 в 1 OHC (chain drive)
>
> This engine is made with aluminium alloys and some magnesium parts.
> Mercedes mout this engine on M class (4x4) and E class cars. It is
> possible this engine is made in a US plant.
>
>
>
> Philippe Vessaire
You'd be the first Philippe, let us know how things turn out. ;-) No
reason it cannot work, it's just that for homebuilders, the reason most
folks chose to fly behind an auto conversion is because they can't
afford a certified engine. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able
to find a serviceable engine of this type for the $500 or so most
Detroit V-6's bought for. Plus, parts are cheap and available.
If none of this is a concern for you then the only thing stopping you
is to get the engine and begin. Of course, you'll be on your own with
the PSRU, no one makes anything for that engine that I'm aware of.
Corky Scott
Juan Jimenez
take the heavy, 50's technology "certified" engines. And thank goodness
for that.
Juan
highflyer
I keep hearing those same stupid arguments. They are not true.
either of them.
Many kitplanes are designed for snowmobile engines. They are all
suitable for toys, but not for serious flying.
Many people are converting automobile engines for aircraft. So far
I have not seen a single automotive conversion that was less expensive
than ANY of the aircraft engines I am flying.
The "1950"s technology "certified" engines are a lot lighter than
the automobile conversions.
There is nothing wrong with automotive conversions. However,
anyone who makes a statement like the ones above CLEARLY doesn't
have ANY idea what he is talking about and is a clear and present
danger to himself and others.
HF
Charles K. Scott
highflyer <high...@alt.net> writes:
> Many people are converting automobile engines for aircraft. So far
> I have not seen a single automotive conversion that was less expensive
> than ANY of the aircraft engines I am flying.
Wow, your aircraft engines cost only $5,700? That's the cost of
finding a Ford V-6 to rebuild, buying the PSRU and going flying. (I'm
grinning here HF, don't go ballistic on me) Bruce can give you a more
complete breakdown on pricing and probably can tell you about people
who do it cheaper than the above price because they made their own
PSRU.
Corky (still smilin) Scott
Reinerh
>I have not seen a single automotive conversion that was less expensive
>than ANY of the aircraft engines I am flying.
>
sorry, i think you are not in reality.
our 100hp motor sells for $6495.00
and 180hp $12695.00 which is a direct replacement for the lycoming 320/360.
a new 360 is well over 20k and a new o200 well over 10k.
since these are considerable more affordable smoother, more fuel efficient, we
just cannot make them fast enough. current delivery times are around 6 months.
highflyer
> > I have not seen a single automotive conversion that was less expensive
> > than ANY of the aircraft engines I am flying.
>
> finding a Ford V-6 to rebuild, buying the PSRU and going flying. (I'm
> grinning here HF, don't go ballistic on me) Bruce can give you a more
> complete breakdown on pricing and probably can tell you about people
> who do it cheaper than the above price because they made their own
> PSRU.
>
> Corky (still smilin) Scott
Corky,
I purchased a mid time Lycoming flat four to install in my Cavalier
last year. I bought it from a friend who upgraded his Lycoming
powered aircraft to a larger engine. ( He upgraded to 180 hp. )
I bought his old mid-time ( 1100 hours SMOH ) for $1500.
Bought a very nice, fresh O320-H2 from a C-172 for $4000. No, it
didn't require a reduction gearbox. It does require proper lube
and inspection of the cam followers. What can I say.
I bought five ( countem, five ) 300 HP Lycomings for $1,000.
I have bought and sold many really nice 65 HP Continentals and
Lycomings for $3000 to $5000.
Recently paid $2500 for an O-300 145HP Continental.
Sold two 165 HP Franklins for $3500 each. Both low time and
running when removed.
There are many excellent aircraft engines out there in the
marketplace. I often here people say "Oh, don't use that engine!
Parts are getting hard to find!" Then I do a quick reality check
and find that I can buy factory brand new cylinders for $600. each.
HF
highflyer
>
> >Many people are converting automobile engines for aircraft. So far
> >I have not seen a single automotive conversion that was less expensive
> >than ANY of the aircraft engines I am flying.
> >
>
>
> our 100hp motor sells for $6495.00
> and 180hp $12695.00 which is a direct replacement for the lycoming 320/360.
> a new 360 is well over 20k and a new o200 well over 10k.
> since these are considerable more affordable smoother, more fuel efficient, we
> just cannot make them fast enough. current delivery times are around 6 months.
>
> reiner
> http://members.aol.com/stratusinc/stratus.html
And like I said, Reiner, perhaps I am not in "reality" but I am
not and have not paid $6495 for ANY aircraft engine, EVER. Sorry.
That does not denigrate what you are doing. It is just not the
super panacea that misguided bigots think it is.
By the way, how many homebuilts do you know of, where the owner
and builder has flown the airplane for 2000 hours and had to think
about overhauling the engine?
Like I said, the Lycoming engine I purchased last year for my
homebuilt cost me $1500 and I expect to be able to fly it for
1000 hours before I have to rebuild it. But then, perhaps I
don't understand "reality." All I know is what it cost me.
HF
Reinerh
>and builder has flown the airplane for 2000 hours and had to think
>about overhauling the engine?
considering the average flying time is 60hrs a year it takes a while to get up
there.
>
>Like I said, the Lycoming engine I purchased last year for my
>homebuilt cost me $1500 and I expect to be able to fly it for
>1000 hours before I have to rebuild it. But then, perhaps I
>don't understand "reality." All I know is what it cost me.
but most aircooled dinos dont make it that far. its very typicall to change
jugs at 500hrs or so etc and many other things.
there are a few good lycs which actually make it to 2000hr tbo. one is the 235
lyc in the maule.
reiner
Charles K. Scott
highflyer <high...@alt.net> writes:
> I purchased a mid time Lycoming flat four to install in my Cavalier
> last year. I bought it from a friend who upgraded his Lycoming
> powered aircraft to a larger engine. ( He upgraded to 180 hp. )
> I bought his old mid-time ( 1100 hours SMOH ) for $1500.
>
> Bought a very nice, fresh O320-H2 from a C-172 for $4000. No, it
> didn't require a reduction gearbox. It does require proper lube
> and inspection of the cam followers. What can I say.
>
> I bought five ( countem, five ) 300 HP Lycomings for $1,000.
>
> I have bought and sold many really nice 65 HP Continentals and
> Lycomings for $3000 to $5000.
>
> Recently paid $2500 for an O-300 145HP Continental.
HF, these are just **SUPER** prices. I think I can speak for a bunch
of people when I say that if everyone could find engines for those
prices, there would not be the burgeoning market for auto engine
conversions we now have.
I've said before that the only reason I've been planning to use an auto
conversion is because I can't afford the $10,000 to $20,000 I keep
seeing for certified aircraft engines in the 180 hp range. That and
the reduction of vibration and the ability to produce safe heat in the
winter that is. ;-)
Being an AP appears to have it's benefits in that your "neighborhood
information" keeps you in touch with these types of deals.
Speaking for myself, I don't have those kinds of contacts.
Corky Scott
highflyer
>
> >By the way, how many homebuilts do you know of, where the owner
> >and builder has flown the airplane for 2000 hours and had to think
> >about overhauling the engine?
>
> considering the average flying time is 60hrs a year it takes a while to get up
> there.
Exactly. As a result the engine is due for overhaul because of AGE
long before it gets anywhere near the TBO HOURS.
>
>
> >
> >Like I said, the Lycoming engine I purchased last year for my
> >homebuilt cost me $1500 and I expect to be able to fly it for
> >1000 hours before I have to rebuild it. But then, perhaps I
> >don't understand "reality." All I know is what it cost me.
>
> but most aircooled dinos dont make it that far. its very typicall to change
> jugs at 500hrs or so etc and many other things.
> there are a few good lycs which actually make it to 2000hr tbo. one is the 235
> lyc in the maule.
>
> reiner
I wouldn't say that reiner. It is NOT typical to change jugs at 500
hours or so in an aircraft engine. In my old volkswagen, yes, you
changed the jugs every forty thousand miles. In my airplane engines,
no. While many of the older Continentals do require new cylinders
at around 1000 hours or so, factory new cylinders are only $600, so
it isn't the end of the world. They are quite easy to change out.
I have certainly had more maintenance on my cars than on my aircraft.
The car has the advantage of running more often, as well, so it builds
hours more quickly. Both cars required the heads machines at about
1000 hours. The cylinders on my airplane are doing just fine, thank
you, at the same time.
Any engine depends a lot on how it gets treated. They should be
used but not abused. Never skimp on oil changes. Keep them filled up
to the mark with clean oil and run them at the correct temperatures
and they are amazing machines.
HF
Reinerh
>hours or so in an aircraft engine.
at our airport i see that constantly. 500 hours or less.
one rv6 with factory new motor which cost him around 20k his cylinders went to
335hrs.
In my old volkswagen, yes, you
>changed the jugs every forty thousand miles. In my airplane engines,
>no. While many of the older Continentals do require new cylinders
>at around 1000 hours or so, factory new cylinders are only $600, so
>it isn't the end of the world. They are quite easy to change out.
>
>I have certainly had more maintenance on my cars than on my aircraft.
>The car has the advantage of running more often, as well, so it builds
>hours more quickly. Both cars required the heads machines at about
>1000 hours. The cylinders on my airplane are doing just fine, thank
>you, at the same time.
>
>Any engine depends a lot on how it gets treated. They should be
>used but not abused. Never skimp on oil changes. Keep them filled up
>to the mark with clean oil and run them at the correct temperatures
>and they are amazing machines.
good treatment is a good idea regardless what motor one runs.
but $600 new jugs i dont think so. most lycs contis its more like $1000 or so
when i look through trade a plane.
another thing which is just sickening to me is the constant screwup on these
certified beasts. wrist pin plugs ad on all lycs since 95 with new motors
crapping out at less then 100hrs leading up to this ad.
then there was this oil pump debacle where most planes needed to change the
pumps and its always at the owners expense.
anyway if you are a dino believer i do not want to change you.
but technology has come a long way since early 1900.
reiner
Shanley Mark Stephen
>
> You'd be the first Philippe, let us know how things turn out. ;-) No
> reason it cannot work, it's just that for homebuilders, the reason most
> folks chose to fly behind an auto conversion is because they can't
> afford a certified engine. I'm willing to bet that you won't be able
> to find a serviceable engine of this type for the $500 or so most
> Detroit V-6's bought for. Plus, parts are cheap and available.
The small Mercedes 4 banger piston set w/rings has a list price
of $1464, the cam list for $535. A long block four overhaul runs $3,000,
the six runs $4,000, the eight runs $6,000 and the six diesel will set you
back $7,000 + $2,000 core charge. I also hear the crankshafts are made of
unobtainium.
highflyer
The O-360 Lycoming Flat fours are indeed in the $10,000 to $20,000
range because they are very popular with people who are building
RV's. These engines are way overpriced. The salvage cost of a
Cherokee has gone from $2000 to $10000 because of the "engine
madness" for These particular Lycoming models.
There are many excellent aircraft engines out there in the 55 to
140 HP range that no one is looking at where the prices are still
reasonable. Even a few such as the Franklin 165, that are a bit
larger. Then there are also a flock of older 235 horsepower
Continentals in the O-470 class, many of which are quite reasonable.
I would use an O-470 with a constant speed prop, for example, in a
family four placer such as a Bearcat.
My contacts for these engines came from such esoteric places as
my local EAA chapter, Trade-A-Plane, and rec.aviation. They were
certainly available to anyone here who reads with a clear eye.
HF
highflyer
reiner,
I don't want to argue with you. HOwever, your information is faulty
at BEST. By the way, the $600 price for new cylinders is not from
Trade-A-Plane, it is the factory price from Continental.
You, like many people, confuse prices and selectively pick out the
most expensive parts you can find and then use those for representative
prices.
If the cylinders on a NEW engine failed in three hundred hours, I
would suspect improper breakin. It is very difficult to break in
a new engine reasonably at the same time that you are flight testing
a new airplane. It is very foolish to put a NEW engine in a homebuilt.
Expecially at first. Wear our a used engine FIRST and THEN put in
a new one. You will likely never wear out the OLD one.
I don't want to tell you about the debacles I have seen with Subaru's
in our part of the country. Much of it, is admittedly, due to a
local dealer with really strange ideas about warranty obligations.
Nothing is perfect Reiner. I am sure your engines are wonderful.
But I have been flying for many years and my old Lycosaurus engines
have performed superbly for me. I have NEVER seen an auto engine
anywhere, any time, approach them for reliability. I fly every day
behind an engine that has been out of production since 1943.
I don't object to you folks playing games with auto engines for
aircraft. I have personally worked with auto conversions for
homebuilts for forty years and more. However, when you tout your
engines, try to use facts and truth. It works a LOT better.
HF
Reinerh
>at BEST. By the way, the $600 price for new cylinders is not from
>Trade-A-Plane, it is the factory price from Continental.
>
i checked again and to my total surprise you are right. i had complete
cylinders in mind. $600 gets you bare cylinders a complete jug is around $1200.
>If the cylinders on a NEW engine failed in three hundred hours, I
>would suspect improper breakin. It is very difficult to break in
>a new engine reasonably at the same time that you are flight testing
>a new airplane. It is very foolish to put a NEW engine in a homebuilt.
>Expecially at first. Wear our a used engine FIRST and THEN put in
>a new one. You will likely never wear out the OLD one.
yes i have seen that too just recently. his cylinders were only good for 6
hours. he did not break it in properly leading to oil consumption of over 1
quart per hour. glazed over the cylinders.
but thats nots what it is about.
most dinos cannot reject the heat adequately due to being air cooled. there is
a limit how much heat you can reject over those finns.
in addition the cylinders are not round during operation due to being colder on
one half where cold air hits them vs very hot the other half.
>
>Nothing is perfect Reiner. I am sure your engines are wonderful.
>But I have been flying for many years and my old Lycosaurus engines
>have performed superbly for me. I have NEVER seen an auto engine
>anywhere, any time, approach them for reliability. I fly every day
>behind an engine that has been out of production since 1943.
>
>I don't object to you folks playing games with auto engines for
>aircraft. I have personally worked with auto conversions for
>homebuilts for forty years and more. However, when you tout your
>engines, try to use facts and truth. It works a LOT better.
trust me i am not hung up on our engines, we cannot make them fast enough
anyway.
fact is that most all modern liquid cooled motors properly cooled with the
recommended oil and coolant changes just dont wear anymore, or lets say very
little.
take a look at an toyota mercedes subaru block which has run 300k miles. you
will see that the bore still has the hone marks visible.
now look at your 500hr dino cylinder.
reiner
Gregory Travis
Reinerh <rei...@aol.com> wrote:
>but thats nots what it is about.
>most dinos cannot reject the heat adequately due to being air cooled. there is
>a limit how much heat you can reject over those finns.
>
>in addition the cylinders are not round during operation due to being
>colder on one half where cold air hits them vs very hot the other half.
>fact is that most all modern liquid cooled motors properly cooled with the
>recommended oil and coolant changes just dont wear anymore, or lets say very
>little.
Reiner,
"Liquid-cooled" Continental {TS}IO-520s, 550s, and 200s have been available
for over a decade now. Teledyne holds an STC for putting a liquid 550
into Bonanzas, RAM has an STC for putting them into Cessna twins, and a
little guy over in europe is selling liquid-cooled O-200s.
None of them are selling particularly well, in fact they're not selling
at all. Any thoughts as to why?
>take a look at an toyota mercedes subaru block which has run 300k miles. you
>will see that the bore still has the hone marks visible.
>now look at your 500hr dino cylinder.
Funny you should say that. I just changed the oil and plugs on my O-360
last week. The engine now has over 620 hours on it (in almost five years,
I gotta start flying again! :-().
When I looked through the sparkplug holes (as I always do when I have the
plugs out) I could clearly see the hone marks.
Anyone who wants to is welcome to come over to my hangar and see them
as well.
My 1988 Toyota 3EFI engine, with 90,000 miles since the shortblock was
replaced (130,000 total. Oil gallery plug came out at 40,000 miles and
the engine siezed), is just now starting to burn oil.
greg
--
gregory travis | [MS Vice President] Brian Valentine characterized Linux as
gr...@littlebear.com| "momentum without a lot of design wins" - www.idg.net
Wolfgang Weichert
no worse than 70/80.
My 11 year old Mazda 929 has 5000 hrs, again never been opened for any reason.
Wolfgang
>
Reinerh
>for over a decade now. Teledyne holds an STC for putting a liquid 550
>into Bonanzas, RAM has an STC for putting them into Cessna twins, and a
>little guy over in europe is selling liquid-cooled O-200s.
>
>None of them are selling particularly well, in fact they're not selling
>at all. Any thoughts as to why?
not a clue.
for me if it were tbo time and it falls cost wise within the overhaul cost sure
would go for it.
but thats most likely the handicapp that there must be huge additional costs
involved.
they convert i think moneys into liquid cooled contis in spokane. thats just
the ultimate if i had the funds.
>
>>take a look at an toyota mercedes subaru block which has run 300k miles. you
>>will see that the bore still has the hone marks visible.
>>now look at your 500hr dino cylinder.
>
>Funny you should say that. I just changed the oil and plugs on my O-360
>last week. The engine now has over 620 hours on it (in almost five years,
>I gotta start flying again! :-().
>
>When I looked through the sparkplug holes (as I always do when I have the
>plugs out) I could clearly see the hone marks
that tells me your motor certainly cools well, which is often the reason for
the early demise if thats not the case.
if one of our engines is not cooled properly it will also not last as well.
.
>
>Anyone who wants to is welcome to come over to my hangar and see them
>as well.
>
>My 1988 Toyota 3EFI engine, with 90,000 miles since the shortblock was
>replaced (130,000 total. Oil gallery plug came out at 40,000 miles and
>the engine siezed), is just now starting to burn oil.
very unusual,
i held toyotas to higher standards but have no personell experience with them.
i know of a ej22 motor with 500k miles on it in a car which we know is not
quite the same enviroment then a plane but its still runs strong and never had
any major engine work done to it. thats quite a few hours.
our first ea81 core with well over 200k miles on it looked like new inside.
absolutely minimal wear.
then i know of a small 4 cyl ford which after 400k miles the bores were like
new and only the main bearings were replaced and it was back in service.
but i also have heard of dinos reaching well over 3000hrs without any major
work besides the usual like mags.
but still i am a firm believer in liquid cooling. porsche reached the limits on
heat rejection where they could not get rid of the heat anymore and have now
finally switched to liquid cooling as well.
a friend of mine working in the development there is jumping up and down in joy
since they now can go for much higher outputs.
reiner
Reinerh
>reason.
and i am sure it had a hard live by now.
it sure is amazing the totall operating times some modern motors can achieve.
reiner
Gregory Travis
Reinerh <rei...@aol.com> wrote:
>>When I looked through the sparkplug holes (as I always do when I have the
>>plugs out) I could clearly see the hone marks
>
>that tells me your motor certainly cools well, which is often the reason for
>the early demise if thats not the case.
>if one of our engines is not cooled properly it will also not last as well.
I think it's more of an issue of installation, not the particular engine.
My installation is in a Cessna 172 which has perhaps one of the most
over-engineered engine cooling systems in an aircraft. Actually, it's not
so much over-engineered as it is just oversized. Cessna did this because
they could afford to sacrifice some speed (who ever heard of a fast 172?)
and they expected the plane to be abused somewhat in a training
environment. As a result, engines in 172s that are owner-flown, like
mine, tend to do very well.
There are a lot of installations where cooling is marginal. This is
often because the aircraft's manufacturer isn't as worried about
engine longevity as they are about posting exciting pamphlet speeds. It
can also come about from simple mistake. Jim Griswold, a great designer,
openly admitted that he screwed up the cooling in the Piper Malibu. He
made a miscalculation in terms of the cooling opening sizes. Piper
wrestled with overheating IO-520s for years as a result - I think they
finally issued some kind of belly plate with louvres in it.
The point is that these problems are not, necessarily, a condemnation
of air cooling in favor of liquid cooling. Irrespective of the transfer
medium involved, you still have to reject the same amount of heat for
a given amount of horsepower.
Pratt&Whitney published a fairly long polemic, back in the 1940s, where
they "definitively proved" that air-cooling was the best method for
building aircraft engines. Among other points, they pointed out the
lowered drag possible with air cooling since the radiating elements (i.e.
the cylinder fins) are roughly twice as hot as the radiating elements
(i.e. the radiator) in a liquid-cooled installation.
That was their point. It may no longer be valid. It may have never been
valid. But that's how they SOLD engines.
I've talked to the engineering and marketing departments at both of the
big boys (Continental and Lycoming) about this. Continental went ahead and
built liquid-cooled versions of their opposed engines. Lycoming says that
if the market was there, they'd do the same thing in a heartbeat. But they
won't build what they can't sell. If an airframe maker such as Maule or
Piper were to start selling serious numbers of liquid-cooled Continental
engines, at Cessna's sales expense, then I will guarantee you a liquid-cooled
172 next year.
>but still i am a firm believer in liquid cooling. porsche reached the limits
>on heat rejection where they could not get rid of the heat anymore and have
>now finally switched to liquid cooling as well.
>a friend of mine working in the development there is jumping up and down in
>joy
>since they now can go for much higher outputs.
But it's not clear that you can extrapolate the experiences with the
auto application to an aero application. In the latter you already have
beaucoup amounts of cold air available - at all times. In the
former, you have to mount an engine-driven blower.
Gregory Travis
There's nothing really amazing about it. Sulzer's two-stroke marine
engines had a cylinder liner TBO of around 20,000 operating hours sixty
years ago. I think it might be up to 25,000 or 30,000 now. Most of that
increase has been due to improvements in lubrication plus external advances
like in-cylinder ring wear sensors that alert the engineers to potential
wear problems such as bad fuel.
Reinerh
>Reinerh <rei...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>My installation is in a Cessna 172 which has perhaps one of the most
>over-engineered engine cooling systems in an aircraft. Actually, it's not
>so much over-engineered as it is just oversized. Cessna did this because
>they could afford to sacrifice some speed (who ever heard of a fast 172?)
>and they expected the plane to be abused somewhat in a training
>environment. As a result, engines in 172s that are owner-flown, like
>mine, tend to do very well.
>
>There are a lot of installations where cooling is marginal. This is
>often because the aircraft's manufacturer isn't as worried about
>engine longevity as they are about posting exciting pamphlet speeds. It
>can also come about from simple mistake. Jim Griswold, a great designer,
>openly admitted that he screwed up the cooling in the Piper Malibu. He
>made a miscalculation in terms of the cooling opening sizes. Piper
>wrestled with overheating IO-520s for years as a result - I think they
>finally issued some kind of belly plate with louvres in it
thats absolutely correct. proper cooling is the key.
>Pratt&Whitney published a fairly long polemic, back in the 1940s, where
>they "definitively proved" that air-cooling was the best method for
>building aircraft engines. Among other points, they pointed out the
>lowered drag possible with air cooling since the radiating elements (i.e.
>the cylinder fins) are roughly twice as hot as the radiating elements
>(i.e. the radiator) in a liquid-cooled installation.
>
>That was their point. It may no longer be valid. It may have never been
>valid. But that's how they SOLD engines.
aircooled also has its advantages. no radiators to shoot out in war etc, no
hoses to go.
but i still think liquid is the only way in terms of longevity.
>
>I've talked to the engineering and marketing departments at both of the
>big boys (Continental and Lycoming) about this. Continental went ahead and
>built liquid-cooled versions of their opposed engines. Lycoming says that
>if the market was there, they'd do the same thing in a heartbeat. But they
>won't build what they can't sell. If an airframe maker such as Maule or
>Piper were to start selling serious numbers of liquid-cooled Continental
>engines, at Cessna's sales expense, then I will guarantee you a liquid-cooled
>172 next year.
i just wish there were. there must be some reason which i just cannot
understand
>But it's not clear that you can extrapolate the experiences with the
>auto application to an aero application. In the latter you already have
>beaucoup amounts of cold air available - at all times. In the
>former, you have to mount an engine-driven blower.
>
but you know the blower is a good thing. it robs a lot of power but is highly
effective in cooling. most lycs in r22 are in excellent shape once tbo has been
reached.
reiner
Reinerh
>engines had a cylinder liner TBO of around 20,000 operating hours sixty
>years ago. I think it might be up to 25,000 or 30,000 now.
holly smokes thats something i have never heard of.
whats a sulzer??
johnsons as well as mercury outbords i know are bulletproof but never heard of
that mfr.
reiner
Gregory Travis
Sulzer, now "New Sulzer Diesel," designs very large two-stroke diesel
engines for marine and stationary use. They, along with MAN B&W, are
the dominant players in the marketplace today.
They've been making what are essentially the same engines for just under
a century now. The largest engine is a twelve cylinder diesel, with
pistons approximately three feet in diameter, that produces approx 90,000
horsepower (at 100 RPM) and weighs 2000 tons. Fuel consumption of around
0.26 lbs of bunker fuel/horsepower/hour.
Pictures are at:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
Look for Sulzer.
MAN B&W has announced, and may be building, a larger engine than Sulzer's
newest RTA96. The MAN engine will exceed 100,000 HP from twelve cylinders -
or over 8,000HP per cylinder. That means each cylinder of the MAN engine
will produce almost twice the power of the entire 36-cylinder XR-7755
aircraft engine. That engine, at 5,000HP total, is the largest piston
aircraft engine ever made.
The really interesting thing about these engines is just how little they've
changed in 100 years.
Alex Yeilding
>holly smokes thats something i have never heard of.
>whats a sulzer??
>johnsons as well as mercury outbords i know are bulletproof but never heard of
>that mfr.
>
> reiner
Probably not a straight swap out! See Greg's site, in particular
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Images/rt96c.jpg
as well as a few others indexed on the images page.
--
Alex
Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Reinerh
>engines for marine and stationary use. They, along with MAN B&W, are
>the dominant players in the marketplace today.
>
>They've been making what are essentially the same engines for just under
>a century now. The largest engine is a twelve cylinder diesel, with
>pistons approximately three feet in diameter, that produces approx 90,000
>horsepower (at 100 RPM) and weighs 2000 tons. Fuel consumption of around
>0.26 lbs of bunker fuel/horsepower/hour.
>
>Pictures are at:
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
>
>Look for Sulzer.
aha, we are taking ships.
have to check that out.
at our university back home there were cranks pistons etc on display from i
believe man ship engines. those things are humungus.
i think those last as well in big part due to the bunker oil being a lubricant
and also maybe a very cool burn.
reiner
Gregory Travis
Actually, the lowest-grade (i.e. the cheapest) bunker fuel has a very
high sulfur content and developing proper cylinder lubricants, in order
to deal with the sulfur, was a major impediment to its use. Prior to the
development of lubricants that could neutralize the sulfur the cheapest
bunker fuel couldn't be used as it resulted in rapid cylinder wear.
As for cool burn, nope. In fact, the pistons are riddled with internal oil
passages and numerous oil jet squirts to dissipate the heat of combusion
(no way to get rid of the heat of a piston that large just through the
rings, no where near enough surface area).
A couple of factors in the engine's favor however include the crosshead
design which eliminates piston thrust sideload forces and the use of two
totally separate lubrication systems. Oil present in the cylinders, for
the purpose of piston lubrication and combustion sealing, is segregated from
the oil used for the bearings, etc. That way combustion byproducts (and
sulfur from the fuel) never get into the bearings.
Reinerh
>A couple of factors in the engine's favor however include the crosshead
>design which eliminates piston thrust sideload forces and the use of two
>totally separate lubrication systems. Oil present in the cylinders, for
>the purpose of piston lubrication and combustion sealing, is segregated from
>the oil used for the bearings, etc. That way combustion byproducts (and
>sulfur from the fuel) never get into the bearings.
>
those are pretty neat features.
if they only could take out the corrosive stuff from 100ll whatever it is.
reiner
highflyer
>
> >Sulzer, now "New Sulzer Diesel," designs very large two-stroke diesel
> >engines for marine and stationary use. They, along with MAN B&W, are
> >the dominant players in the marketplace today.
> >
> >They've been making what are essentially the same engines for just under
> >a century now. The largest engine is a twelve cylinder diesel, with
> >pistons approximately three feet in diameter, that produces approx 90,000
> >horsepower (at 100 RPM) and weighs 2000 tons. Fuel consumption of around
> >0.26 lbs of bunker fuel/horsepower/hour.
> >
> >Pictures are at:
> > http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html
> >
> >Look for Sulzer.
>
> aha, we are taking ships.
> have to check that out.
> at our university back home there were cranks pistons etc on display from i
> believe man ship engines. those things are humungus.
> i think those last as well in big part due to the bunker oil being a lubricant
> and also maybe a very cool burn.
>
they are very efficient DIESEL engines. "Cool burn?" The reason a
diesel is so much more efficient than a gasoline engine is that fact
that the fuel cannot preignite, so you can up the compression ratio
to give MUCH higher internal peak temperatures than a gasoline
engine. It is these higher peak temperatures that allow you to
extract more of the energy from the fuel. Also, diesels are normally
burning in an EXCESS of oxygen inside the cylinder. This "lean burn"
characteristic allows complete burning of all the injected fuel, so
its "lubricant" properties are moot. It all gets burned before the
piston moves very far at all.
HF
highflyer
>
> >There's nothing really amazing about it. Sulzer's two-stroke marine
> >engines had a cylinder liner TBO of around 20,000 operating hours sixty
> >years ago. I think it might be up to 25,000 or 30,000 now.
>
> whats a sulzer??
> johnsons as well as mercury outbords i know are bulletproof but never heard of
> that mfr.
>
> reiner
Sulzer makes marine diesel engines. Some of these engines have
been running 24 hours a day when they run, for years and years.
My father build diesel powered Liberty ships fifty five years
ago. Some of those ships are still running with those big old
slow turning diesel engines. Some of them have worn out several
cylinder liners!
I see wide belt shop engines that were designed to turn the overhead
shafting in a machine shop or factory that will run almost forever,
with proper lubrication and care. Some of these engines are almost
a hundred years old.
HF
Mark Mallory
: if they only could take out the corrosive stuff from 100ll whatever it is.
What "corrosive stuff" are you talking about? The biggest problem
with 100LL are the *lead compounds* formed during combustion, which can
form deposits that foul plugs and cause valve sticking, ect. Use of a
lead scavenger such as TCP can reduce these considerably.
Charles K. Scott
highflyer <high...@alt.net> writes:
> they are very efficient DIESEL engines. "Cool burn?" The reason a
> diesel is so much more efficient than a gasoline engine is that fact
> that the fuel cannot preignite, so you can up the compression ratio
> to give MUCH higher internal peak temperatures than a gasoline
> engine. It is these higher peak temperatures that allow you to
> extract more of the energy from the fuel. Also, diesels are normally
> burning in an EXCESS of oxygen inside the cylinder. This "lean burn"
> characteristic allows complete burning of all the injected fuel, so
> its "lubricant" properties are moot. It all gets burned before the
> piston moves very far at all.
I can sure see that. With pistons moving so slowly, it's easy to see
how the fuel has a chance to burn, all of it.
Corky Scott
Gregory Travis
The pistons don't move slowly. They move about as fast as the pistons
in your average truck diesel move. I've got the exact numbers at
home and will post them if you're interested. Crankshaft RPM is low
because the crank webs are pretty large.
There's a pretty narrow piston velocity range for any internal combustion
engine, irrespective of cylinder bore or crankshaft RPM.
Mark Mallory
: The pistons don't move slowly. They move about as fast as the pistons
: in your average truck diesel move. I've got the exact numbers at
: home and will post them if you're interested. Crankshaft RPM is low
: because the crank webs are pretty large.
: There's a pretty narrow piston velocity range for any internal combustion
: engine, irrespective of cylinder bore or crankshaft RPM.
I once saw a photo of two piston engines: a giant marine diesel (perhaps
a Sulzer), and sitting on it's railing was a .049 CID model airplane
engine. The caption pointed out that although the marine engine turned
at 90 rpm and the model airplane engine turned 25,000 rpm, the piston
speed was nearly identical for both: approx. 8 meters per second!
There must be something inherently optimal about that particular piston
speed range... exactly *why* does that speed seem to serve well across
such a wide range of engine sizes? Is it related to the speed of flame
propagation, or perhaps some other factor(s)?
Gregory Travis
Mark Mallory <mmal...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Gregory Travis (gr...@sherrill.kiva.net) wrote:
>: The pistons don't move slowly. They move about as fast as the pistons
>: in your average truck diesel move. I've got the exact numbers at
>: home and will post them if you're interested. Crankshaft RPM is low
>: because the crank webs are pretty large.
>
>: There's a pretty narrow piston velocity range for any internal combustion
>: engine, irrespective of cylinder bore or crankshaft RPM.
>
>I once saw a photo of two piston engines: a giant marine diesel (perhaps
>a Sulzer), and sitting on it's railing was a .049 CID model airplane
>engine. The caption pointed out that although the marine engine turned
>at 90 rpm and the model airplane engine turned 25,000 rpm, the piston
>speed was nearly identical for both: approx. 8 meters per second!
The photo is in CF Taylor's _Internal Combustion Engines_ and it's a
model aircraft engine and a Nordberg two-stroke marine diesel.
>There must be something inherently optimal about that particular piston
>speed range... exactly *why* does that speed seem to serve well across
>such a wide range of engine sizes? Is it related to the speed of flame
>propagation, or perhaps some other factor(s)?
Cylinder pressure rise mostly. It's basically the same across engines.
Some data:
Sulzer RTA96C stroke: Eight feet, two inches
Maximum RPM: 100
Mean piston velocity at maximum RPM: 327 inches per second, 8.3 meters/s
Lycoming O-320 stroke: Three point eight seven five inches
Maximum RPM: 2700
Mean piston valocity at maximum RPM: 349 inches per second, 8.85 meters/s
Some auto engines are pushing up around 10-11 meters/s but I think the
general rule of thumb of ~9 m/s for any engine, regardless of displacement
or crankshaft RPM is a pretty good one.
JStricker
with that is the fact that once ignited, the flame front moves at a fixed
speed, roughly the speed of sound.
You get around that by advancing the timing so that the mix is completely
burned, but that has limitations. A diesel also advances it's timing, but
not by as much because it's point of ignition is different. The fuel is
virtually all instantly ignited as soon as it leaves the injector, which,
not coincidentally, is also at roughly the speed of sound.
At certain piston speeds, the pressure rise combined with proper timing
maximizes the force exerted on the piston to make power. Not that power
can't be made at other piston speeds and timings, but efficiency won't be
what it could be.
The art of cylinder head and piston dome design to get complete and correct
ignition is something that, when it occurs properly, makes the difference
between a "ho-hum" performer and a "strong" runner.
John Stricker
--
"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"
Gregory Travis <gr...@sherrill.kiva.net> wrote in message
news:7em9ki$bq1$1...@sherrill.kiva.net...
Clare Snyder
wrote:
Snip
>
>Funny you should say that. I just changed the oil and plugs on my O-360
>last week. The engine now has over 620 hours on it (in almost five years,
>I gotta start flying again! :-().
>
>When I looked through the sparkplug holes (as I always do when I have the
>plugs out) I could clearly see the hone marks.
>
>Anyone who wants to is welcome to come over to my hangar and see them
>as well.
>
>My 1988 Toyota 3EFI engine, with 90,000 miles since the shortblock was
>replaced (130,000 total. Oil gallery plug came out at 40,000 miles and
>the engine siezed), is just now starting to burn oil.
At 130,000 miles you have somewhere between 2500 and 4000 hours of
operation on that engine. 130,000 miles is about average for a Toy
before the valve seals get hard. Replace them and go another 130,000.
On the 3SE, replace the rings (narrow low tension units) and get
another 100,000. The block is likely still useable.
Same for a Soob. Just use good oil, change it often, and keep bolts
and plugs tight
Clare Snyder
>
>>A couple of factors in the engine's favor however include the crosshead
>>design which eliminates piston thrust sideload forces and the use of two
>>totally separate lubrication systems. Oil present in the cylinders, for
>>the purpose of piston lubrication and combustion sealing, is segregated from
>>the oil used for the bearings, etc. That way combustion byproducts (and
>>sulfur from the fuel) never get into the bearings.
>>
>
>
>those are pretty neat features.
>if they only could take out the corrosive stuff from 100ll whatever it is.
>
> reiner
Not to mention the extremely low engine speeds. Even with a stroke as
long as the MAN, the piston speeds can't be too high.
timF
wrote:
>
>I see wide belt shop engines that were designed to turn the overhead
>shafting in a machine shop or factory that will run almost forever,
>with proper lubrication and care. Some of these engines are almost
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aye, theres the rub. In my (much less than HF's) experience with
things mechanical, you can make things either "maintenance free" or
"long lasting" . . . seldom both.
tim(moving parts are bad)F
John Roncallo
Philippe Vessaire wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is someone expected an homebuilt conversion off the Mecedes V6 engine.
>
> Description of this engine:
> 3.2 l (195 CI)
> 222 Cv @ 5000 rpm 224 Cv @ 5500 rpm
> 150 Kg (330 lb)
> ---------------------------->12 spark plugs
> 18 valves
> 2 в 1 OHC (chain drive)
>
> This engine is made with aluminium alloys and some magnesium parts.
> Mercedes mout this engine on M class (4x4) and E class cars. It is
> possible this engine is made in a US plant.
>
> Philippe Vessaire
> Vrai adresse: phi...@easynet.fr
> True address: phi...@easynet.fr
This would not be my engine of choice because a Mercedes engine converted
for AC would probably cost as much as an aircraft engine. And the power to
weight ratio is still lower. The two plugs/cyl are nice but you can get
custom 2 plug heads for almost any american V8's and im sure some V6's.
Also does the timing chain use 1 or two rows. About 12 years ago Mercedes
went to a single row when they came out with the 380 V8's. They quickly
recalled and retrofitted all engines with a double row chain. It was an
expensive mistake but just maybe they felt a V6 would be fine with a
single row.
I used to be a Mercedes Technician about 12 years ago Im not familiar with
this engine. Is this a stratified engine or is it 2 standard intake and
one exhaust valve.
Other than for airplanes I think nobody builds an engine like Mercedes.
--
/---------------------------------------/
/ John Roncallo /
/ ron...@ibm.net /
/---------------------------------------/