Best reduction drive for Subaru EA-81
Steve Meassick
was wondering which reduction drive on the market was the best. I know of a
couple of reduction drive manufacturers- RFI in Albuquerque, NM, Reductions in
Dugald, Manitoba, and possibly Formula Power in Concord, CA
Seaturbine
Will you post the results of your effort,,,,Please???
I built a Velocity, and install an IO 360. I loved the plane, but hated
getting in and out.
I would be most grateful if you would let us know who you are doing.
Thanks,
Douglas
Bill Cox
: I will be installing a subaru EA-81 engine in the KR-2 that I am building and
: couple of reduction drive manufacturers- RFI in Albuquerque, NM, Reductions in
: Dugald, Manitoba, and possibly Formula Power in Concord, CA
I've bought a 186-HP converted Subaru EA-81 engine kit for my
Velocity from Formula Power. Bruce (the proprietor) offered two
reduction-gear options. There was a 4-inch-wide belt drive, with
the input shaft about 14 inches below the output shaft. Since my
velocity is a pusher, and has a rather flat cowling, this was a
bad match. I chose the Ross reduction gear - same price and
(Bruce says) same weight, to fit best into the cowling.
I actually prefer the belt drive. Both are simple, but the 'works'
of the belt drive is out in the open where I can inspect in as part
of every pre-flight. The spares cost is also about the same: an
extra belt or an extra torsion coupler - both about $60. But the
belt drive wouldn't fit. Actually, we're still searching for a starter
that will fit without a 'bubble' in the left top of the cowl... Belt
drive was a _much_ worse fit.
We designed the motor mount to put the business end of the Ross drive
exactly at the aft end of the cowling, which leaves 10.5 inches of
clearance between the front end of the Subaru and the firewall.
The radiator will be installed a little above the engine's centerline
about 5-8 inches forward of it. The muffler will install as a cross-
wise oval tube in front of the oil pan.
I got the engine, drive, ignition system, fuel system, muffler, etc.
as a kit for a special develop-the-velocity-version price, so I can't
say how much the Ross drive cost.
Further details when we work them out. For Velocity builders, the
process of developing the kit is still incomplete. The exhaust will
(hopefully) be fitted this coming weekend, and there are a few other
details to be ironed out.
J. Michael Stearns
>
>I will be installing a subaru EA-81 engine in the KR-2...
>
Check out the May, '95 issue of Kitplanes. NSI is doing a firewall-forward package
for the KR2 based on the Subaru EA-81 engine.
Johnny
>was wondering which reduction drive on the market was the best. I know of a
>couple of reduction drive manufacturers- RFI in Albuquerque, NM, Reductions in
>Dugald, Manitoba, and possibly Formula Power in Concord, CA
Check out the one from Stratus. A real quality piece.
E-mail
Rei...@aol.com
Reiner Hoffman
He can set you up with a complete engine or just the reduction and whatever
other components you need.
-j-
Johnny
>
>Steve Meassick (meas...@edison.nmhu.edu) wrote:
>: I will be installing a subaru EA-81 engine in the KR-2 that I am building and
>: couple of reduction drive manufacturers- RFI in Albuquerque, NM, Reductions in
>: Dugald, Manitoba, and possibly Formula Power in Concord, CA
>
>
[lots deleted]
Not the EA-81... The EA-81 is a 100 HP engine. What you have is a
Legacy engine, I would suspect. Your Velocity would have a hard time
getting off the ground with the EA-81... at least at gross weight.
BTW, the EA-81 is an excellent choice for the KR-2. I was considering
building one myself, but since I already have a 2 place, I guess I will
have to build a 4. And that will hopefully be a Velocity. Now, If I could
only hit the lottery.
-j-
rob...@rain.org
86 HP ? Don't kill yourself in that Velocity powered by an 86 HP engine.
That would give homebuilding a black eye.
Paul Lamar
W. R. Mercier
>which reduction drive on the market was the best.
Dont't forget the master who started this Subaru engine
reveloution,
Don Bouchard
303 Poplar St., College Station, Tx.
77840
409-6960073
I looked at a new reduction drive he is coming out with that
utilizes the tried and proven Rotax reduction drives. Looked
great and he knows his stuff.
Hope this helps.
rob...@rain.org
NSI is claiming 260 HP for a turbo charged 2 liter Subaru EJ20 based
engine. There ought to be a law against these kinds of wild claims. If
that engine generates that kind of power for more than ten hours I would
be very much suprised. I guess they think by the time the guy actually
tries to fly the airplane with this engine in it they will have skipped
town.
They use a sprag clutch as a torsional vibration dampener. That is like
hitting a steel roller 2500 times a minute with a sledge hammer for 2000
hours. Good luck on that.
Craig Wall
those urban legends of 200mpg carburetors just get people thinking
that someone's holding out on them, and when they can't discriminate
between the physical laws and wishful thinking, it goes largely
unchallenged when someone comes out with a powerplant suddenly twice
as powerful as everything else. And then, of course, everyone wonders
"whatever happened to the (insert name of wondermotor)?" "Aww, I guess
Lycoming bought them out to eliminate the competition..."
.
Bill Cox
: In article <3n10uc$j...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) says:
: >
: >I've bought a 186-HP converted Subaru EA-81 engine kit for my
: >Velocity from Formula Power...
: Not the EA-81... The EA-81 is a 100 HP engine. What you have is a
: Legacy engine, I would suspect. Your Velocity would have a hard time
: getting off the ground with the EA-81... at least at gross weight.
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Perhaps you refer to the street version of the EA-81.
I have a 2.2 liter flat four-cylinder EA-81 that's been worked over by
Formula-one racing engine mechanics. I have *personally seen* 186 HP
out of my engine on the dynomometer at Rebello Racing in Concord, CA.
This is the engine shown in the Formula Power catalog at 185 HP.
And, they can get 210 HP out of the same block for a mere $4000 more!
I couldn't afford the 210HP version.
Imagine what they can get out of the 6-cyl Legacy engine!
Bill Cox
: No way will a Subaru EA-81 put out anywhere near 186 HP. Don't you mean
: That would give homebuilding a black eye.
:
: Paul Lamar
I missed your smiley there, Paul. You don't really think I'd spend
$12,000 on an 86-HP engine?
As I've said elsewhere, I have personally seen 186 HP out of my engine
on a dynamometer, and Formula Power will sell you a **210-HP** engine
built from exactly the same block (4-cyl EA-81) as my engine (for $4000
more). Same block - new crank, manifolds, pistons, rods, valves, etc.
When race fanatics rework an engine, wonderful results can happen...
And it almost fits in the Velocity cowling. Anybody out there expert
on Japanese starter motors? The starter we have now is gonna require
a 2- or 3-inch 'bubble' in the top-left cowling. Not so pretty.
Bill Cox
: They (NSI) use a sprag clutch as a torsional vibration dampener. That is like
: hitting a steel roller 2500 times a minute with a sledge hammer for 2000
: hours. Good luck on that.
I agree about the sprag clutch. Yechh!
When I interviewed NSI at Oshkosh '94, the phrase "We're in development
on that" came up all too often.
When I talked to Bruce Arrigoni of Formula Power, he was straight with me.
He said, "We have the engine. We'd love the chance to build the motor mount
& exhaust system for the FX-185 for the Velocity. I'm sure we can sell lots
of them." And he gave me a discount for being the prototype customer. I
like straight talk.
Just a satisfied customer. Wish my Velocity were flying, so I could
give you a performance report...
Marc Zeitlin
|> [lots deleted]
|>
|> Not the EA-81... The EA-81 is a 100 HP engine. What you have is a
|> Legacy engine, I would suspect. Your Velocity would have a hard time
|> getting off the ground with the EA-81... at least at gross weight.
Speaking of the Formula Power Subaru Legacy 186 HP conversion - has anyone
actually got one of these puppies flying in a real airplane? I'm really
interested in it for my COZY MK-IV, but I'm not sure I want to be the
first (although I won't finish for another three years, so there's not a
lot of danger of that :-) ).
|> ............................... I guess I will
|> have to build a 4. And that will hopefully be a Velocity. Now, If I could
|> only hit the lottery.
How about a COZY MK-IV? 1/2 the price of the Velocity, about the same
performance (but a lot more work).
--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: ma...@an.hp.com \
| Mail Stop - MS-460 |
| Patient Monitoring Division (PMD) HP Telnet: 1-659-3421 |
| Hewlett Packard Voice: 1-508-659-3421 |
| 3000 Minuteman Road Fax: 1-508-685-5371 |
| Andover, Ma. 01810-1099 |
| WWW: http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/ |
| (non-HP Access) |
| |
|_____________________ http://www-msy-me.an.hp.com/~marcz/ |
| (c) copyright 1995 \ (HP Internal ONLY) |
\______________________\________________________________________________/
rob...@rain.org
: Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Perhaps you refer to the street version of the EA-81.
: I have a 2.2 liter flat four-cylinder EA-81 that's been worked over by
: Formula-one racing engine mechanics. I have *personally seen* 186 HP
: out of my engine on the dynomometer at Rebello Racing in Concord, CA.
: This is the engine shown in the Formula Power catalog at 185 HP.
: And, they can get 210 HP out of the same block for a mere $4000 more!
: I couldn't afford the 210HP version.
: Imagine what they can get out of the 6-cyl Legacy engine!
Sure you can get 186 HP out of a 172 cubic inch (2.2 liters) push rod
engine like the EA-81 for up to 5 minutes :)
You may even get 210 HP for up to 10 seconds :)
I can rig a dyno to show you any amount of horsepower you want if you pay
me enough money for the engine :)
I will believe it when I see it in a grossed out Velocity doing 200 MPH.
Paul Lamar
Johnny
What are you going to do about the BIG cg difference between the lyc 360
the velocity was designed for and the ea 81?
Johnny
>And it almost fits in the Velocity cowling. Anybody out there expert
>on Japanese starter motors? The starter we have now is gonna require
>a 2- or 3-inch 'bubble' in the top-left cowling. Not so pretty.
>
I think Reiner at Stratus uses a Toyota starter mounted in tight. That
is with his reduction though.
What is it about the EA-81 that doesn't fit in the cowling made for a 360?
It's a way smaller engine.
-j-
Bill Cox
: the velocity was designed for and the ea 81?
We are installing the Subaru as far aft as possible, with the business
end of the Ross drive flush with the edge of the cowling. In that posi-
tion, with the battery moved from the nose to the gear bulkhead, calcs
show that the CG moves 1/10 inch aft, from the Lycoming position. We
included in the calcs the weight of the radiator, hoses, fluids - every-
thing we could think of. Of course, we could weigh and find the CG of
all of the engine parts that have been delivered, so those are 'real'
numbers.
The EA-81 is very nearly a drop-in replacement for the Lycoming.
I forgot to say that it's at least 80 pounds lighter than the Lycoming,
including the radiator, etc.
I plan to run a 3-blade wooden prop, since the budget won't stand a
$3K in-flight-adjustable propellor. I'll probably get another Warnke
like the two-blade that I sold with the Lycoming.
Bill Cox
: I think Reiner at Stratus uses a Toyota starter mounted in tight. That
: is with his reduction though.
: What is it about the EA-81 that doesn't fit in the cowling made for a 360?
: It's a way smaller engine.
The motor mounts extend a bit too far aft and run into the lower
cowling. That'll require a couple of little 1.5 inch deep 'scoops'
pointing aft. The starter will make a bigger bubble about 3 inches
deep. Darn EA-81 fits *worse* than the Lycoming did...
You should see the lower cowling - hacked up for three different
exhaust alternatives. Sure hope that paint will cover it.
Bill Cox
: Speaking of the Formula Power Subaru Legacy 186 HP conversion - has anyone
: actually got one of these puppies flying in a real airplane? I'm really
: interested in it for my COZY MK-IV, but I'm not sure I want to be the
: first (although I won't finish for another three years, so there's not a
: lot of danger of that :-) ).
I'll ask Bruce Arrigone (of Formula Power) for some references. I know
that some are flying, but not how many.
Gwen Glaefke
we offer the following information:
EJ20
The specifications for the EJ20 as reported by Subaru in a spec
sheet for the GT station wagon (sold only in Japan) are as follows:
2.0 liter
4 cylinder
16 valve
Dual overhead cam
Twin sequential turbo charge with intercoolers
8.5:1 compression ratio
250 hp at 6500 rpm (net horsepower at the wheel with all
accessories on)
Notes on above specifications:
1. These measurements were made with the extremely stringent
Japanese emission control devices installed.
2. A copy of this document is available via fax if you send
your fax number)
As a historical perspective:
In 1985 Subaru released the EA82, the first overhead cam
engine ever built by Subaru. It was produced from 1985-89,
but unfortunately had a very unfavorable service record...it
was heavy, did not produce the hp, broke timing belts and
cracked cylinder heads. To improve the image and reputation
for repair Subaru introduced the EJ series engine in an
automobile called the Legacy. To demonstrate the significant
improvements in engine reliability, in 1991 Subaru conducted
a 38 day endurance test in the Mojave desert using three
Legacy automobiles. The average 131 mph for 38 days required
a horsepower beyond that available in the 130 hp American
Legacy. Thus, the endurance vehicles used the Japanese
version Legacy with the EJ20, DOHC, 4 valve, single turbo at
210 hp. The rest is history, they
successfully completed the endurance test setting three
world endurance records.
NSI Transmission
This is a patented, BIDIRECTIONAL linear cam device (LCD) capable
of engaging and disengaging up to 75 hz. In contrast to the
accurate description of the sprag clutch by rob...@rain.org, there is no
opportunity for it to "hammer" since the LCD engages
progressively (as opposed to the sprag which engages
instantaneously) until approximately 2500 rpm when it locks solid
and is no longer operational. Since the engine operates
approximately 99% of its life above 2500 rpm, there is minimal
wear and tear on the LCD.
The LCD is also different from the sprag clutch which is
UNIDIRECTIONAL. With the sprag clutch, the propeller is in a
free-wheeling state when the engine is throttled back, but with
the LCD, the propeller actually drives the engine as rpm
decreases.
This LCD has been successfully used since 1983 in multiple
applications including over 1400 aircraft. Most notable of these
applications were the NASA Perseus program and the Martin-
Marietta twin rotor Wankle type engine for the USAF/Teledyne RPV
program.
The Perseus drives an 8.5' diameter propeller with a 2.5' cord
through a 12' drive shaft. For many years the engineers could
not overcome the torsional problems associated with this drive
line. NSI was contracted for consultation, then design, and
subsequently manufacture of a multi-purpose transmission that
would not only drive the propeller, but all associated support
systems i.e., alternator, fuel pump, hydraulic pump. Since
delivery of the first NSI transmission in December 1993 the
Perseus has flown without any mechanical problems related to the
transmission. In fact, NSI recently received a commendation for
the high quality of the design, manufacture and performance of
the transmission and drive line from the engineering group at
Aurora Flight Sciences. Most notable in this letter was the fact
that the NSI transmission/drive line was the ONLY system in the
entire aircraft that had not required any attention to date.
FYI: The Perseus flies at up to 92,000' on mission durations of
up to 4 days. This $10 million craft is dependent on the
reliability of NSI's LCD technology.
NSI's performance claims can be substantiated by the following
companies:
Tom Hamilton, Founder, Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft Company
(206) 435 0334
Ben Ellison, Ellison Fluid Systems, (206) 271 3320
Phil Reed, Skystar Aircraft Company (208) 466 1711
In addition, the following individuals have significant
experience with the NSI propulsion systems.
Kirby Cramer, Kitfox Model IV, 230+ hours (206) 794 3733
Gary Weideman, Kitfox Vixen, 100+ hours (609) 724 0164
Steve Makish KR2 100+ hours (407) 482 5385
Gwen Glaefke, Editor, NSI News
for
J. Lance Wheeler, President, NSI
------ "When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." JRM ----
Reinerh
the ea 81 is a 1800 cc pushrod motor capable of about 115hp at prop + 7%
at crank. this is based on the japenese version of the ea81 which has
better flowing heads.
formula measure hp at crank and it is entirely possible to get 186 hp at
crank out of the 2,2 legacy. the 2,2 is a state of art engine with 4
valves per cylinder etc. on a multivalve engine it is entirely possible to
get 100 hp per liter displacement.
we are also working on the legacy but are shooting to get a conservative
160 to 180 hp at prop.
reiner stratus inc.
rob...@rain.org
: In article <3ni1hj$e...@news.rain.org>, rob...@rain.org () says:
: >I will believe it when I see it in a grossed out Velocity doing 200 MPH.
: >
: >Paul Lamar
: Paul, why don't you just change your signature to:
: or:
: Ididn'tthinkofitfirstsoit'sno...@downer.net
Johnny, do you really think that you and all those guys developing
automobile engine conversions for airplanes in their garage are smarter
than all those professional engineers that spent billions of dollars
developed aircraft engines since 1903?
Most I have talked to don't know the difference between horsepower and
torque.... present company excepted.
Paul Lamar
BTW here is a little quiz for all you people developing auto engines
conversions. Send me email with your answers.
How much thrust will a 100 HP engine develop at 60 miles per hour
assuming 60% overall (prop, gearbox, etc.,etc,) efficiency?
What is the total drag of a 2500 gross weight airplane airbourne at 60 MPH
with a frontal area of 16 square feet, a drag coef of .2 (other than that
due to lift), a wing area of 150 square feet, a lift coef. of 1.2 and a
span of 30 feet.
Johnny
>I will believe it when I see it in a grossed out Velocity doing 200 MPH.
>
>Paul Lamar
Paul, why don't you just change your signature to:
or:
Ididn'tthinkofitfirstsoit'sno...@downer.net
Oh and Bill, excuse me for thinking you had a Legacy engine, which BTW is
not a 6 cyl, but a 4 cyl only slightly bigger than the EA-81. The major
difference being that it is overhead cam, and port and combustion chamber
is mucho more flow. I can believe 186 HP out of 2.2 l. I don't know how it
will last but I can tell you this. I build a couple Mini-Sprint engines
each year, which are Suzuki GSXR-1100's. They make over 100 HP stock. We
get about 120 HP out of them. Most of time, they run and run and run, with
little or no maintenance other than the usual oil changes, plugs, etc.
They run full on most of the time, racking up 4-5 hours a week in a 30
week season. Many of them go more than a few seasons before they really
need a complete rebuild. In stock trim, they are designed to run 10,000-
11,000 all day long for road racing. Very grueling. Hard exceleration and
lots of high RPM compression braking.
The point being that it is not hard to get the power out of the small
engines. It will be interesting to see how many hours you can get out of
it. Does Formula Power make any claims for longivety?
-j-
Craig Wall
>Bill Cox is going to kill himself and give homebuilding another black eye
>if he tries to fly his Velocity with an EA81. If he gets it off the ground
>with that screaming EA81 hand grenade and the engine fails
>catastrophically (which it will sooner rather than later) the 4 place
>Velocity is going to come down like a ton of bricks, as high stall speed
>canards are wont to do.
>
>Paul Lamar
Sigh.
It is amazing, isn't it? Hand grenade is about right. Haven't
these people ever heard of a *wear index*? And how the curve
gets steeper at high rpm? If they're lucky it'll let go during
the taxi tests, but more likely it'll be just off the end of the
runway, climbing out and no place to go.
How come we can't goad the Japanese into building IO-320s?
Craig Wall
rob...@rain.org
: i think i have to clarify a few things.
These HP numbers I can believe.... nobody knows for how long however.
Charlie Kuehmann
> BTW here is a little quiz for all you people developing auto engines
> conversions. Send me email with your answers.
>
> How much thrust will a 100 HP engine develop at 60 miles per hour
> assuming 60% overall (prop, gearbox, etc.,etc,) efficiency?
Paul,
This ones not to hard.
>
> What is the total drag of a 2500 gross weight airplane airbourne at 60 MPH
> with a frontal area of 16 square feet, a drag coef of .2 (other than that
> due to lift), a wing area of 150 square feet, a lift coef. of 1.2 and a
> span of 30 feet.
But this one I don't get. Don't you need the altitude for this one.
Well, I suppose you could back that out from the given lift coefficient
but I would assume for the induced drag you'd also need the Ostwald
efficiency factor. Oh well I guess its a good thing I'm not developing
auto engine conversions. :^)
--
If you want the views of my employer ask them. These are mine.
BIRL Industry Research Laboratory
kueh...@nwu.edu
Charles K. Scott
rob...@rain.org () writes:
> Paul Lamar
>
> BTW here is a little quiz for all you people developing auto engines
> conversions. Send me email with your answers.
In article <3nlqeu$b...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu>
cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) writes:
> It is amazing, isn't it? Hand grenade is about right. Haven't
> these people ever heard of a *wear index*?
Craig Wall
You guys get my "dismal duo" award for the month. As far as the prop,
drag, frontal area and wing lift go, the airplane doesn't care what 150
horsepower engine is turning the fan. 150 hp is 150 hp whether it
occurs at 2750 rpm in a big cylindered aircraft engine or 4500 in a
smaller auto engine as long as the prop is spinning at the rpm it's
designed for. I haven't heard of one single catastrophic engine
failure of a Subaru but I've heard of plenty from the certified world.
I know, give'em time and there will be some but after 5 years of
watching I think that's still pretty significant.
Why don't you back off a step and let people test them out? You can
always say "I told you so" but don't forget, the originators of the
current batch of horizontally opposed aircraft engines (back
in.....what was it, the 30's?) didn't get it right first time either.
They've been modifying them ever since.
The whole idea of EAA and homebuilding is experimentation, so why not,
instead of being so monotonously negative, help out?
Corky Scott
Craig Wall
>You guys get my "dismal duo" award for the month.
>Why don't you back off a step and let people test them out?
>The whole idea of EAA and homebuilding is experimentation, so why not,
>instead of being so monotonously negative, help out?
>
>Corky Scott
Corky, I'd absolutely *love* it if you came up with
a decent engine that didn't cost what an O-320 did.
But aside from Blanton's conversions, and maybe the
Geshwander Ag engines, I haven't seen very many auto
engines live up to their billing as aircraft motors.
We're jaded, it's true. But 30 years of watching the
parade of high hopes and wild claims will do that to
you. You learn to spot the blatantly unreasonable, and
you get to the point of not wanting homebuilding to
suffer yet another round of bad compromises based on
the performance of engines derived from race cars.
Now I'm *not* saying it can't be done. I *am* saying
that there are understandable reasons that others have
failed, and I don't see anything different *this* time.
The EA-81 is apparently a good engine. I don't doubt
that. But pumping one up as far as you can is just
not the way to make aviation a better place to live.
I even think there is a legitmate niche for conversions-
but when you combine an overstressed engine and an
experimental airframe you're just asking for it.
I hope we, the nay sayers are wrong.
I really, really, do. The last thing I want to say is "I
told you so" after an accident. I've had too many
opportunities to do so already.
Craig Wall
Reinerh
l engine. the ea81 can do a little over 100hp but not 185hp.
reiner stratus inc
Carl Stevens (e00680)
{Snip...}
: I hope we, the nay sayers are wrong.
: I really, really, do. The last thing I want to say is "I
: told you so" after an accident. I've had too many
: opportunities to do so already.
: Craig Wall
This may not be appropriate here, but I thought I might share a bit of an
editorial that appeared in a major New York newspaper.
"We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a
scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money
involved, in further airship experiments."
This statement was made the week before the Wright brothers first flight.
As long as there are people willing to dare challenge the accepted, there will
be people willing to say "I told you so."
--
Carl Stevens _
cste...@ladc.lockheed.com _\_/^\_/_
(use this as the one on From: is wrong) _____/_/_/|\_\_\_____
My opinions are my own.
rob...@rain.org
Some of these auto engine converters are claiming 379 HP out of a 3.3
liter (200 cubic inch) 6 cylinder Subura engine. This engine was designed
to develop 30 continuous horsepower or so for use in a car.
They say they change the rods, crank and piston material for unobtaineum
and run the engine parts at a stress level of 750,000 psi. According to
them this material has no known fatigue limit.
If the shrapnel does not kill you when the engine explodes the subsequent
crash surely will.
By the time the s*** hits the fan these guys will have your money and be
long gone.
It looks like homebuilding and auto engine conversions has become the
happy hunting ground of the scam artist.
Another quiz question.
How much horsepower does it take to push a car through the air at 60 MPH
if the car has a frontal area of 20 square feet and a drag factor of 0.4?
Answer by email.
Paul Lamar
Johnny
>The motor mounts extend a bit too far aft and run into the lower
>cowling. That'll require a couple of little 1.5 inch deep 'scoops'
>pointing aft. The starter will make a bigger bubble about 3 inches
>deep. Darn EA-81 fits *worse* than the Lycoming did...
>
>You should see the lower cowling - hacked up for three different
>exhaust alternatives. Sure hope that paint will cover it.
>
Thats a dry sump isn't it? No pan sump hanging down? Which length Ross
unit do you have?
-j-
Charles K. Scott
c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) writes:
> The block of my engine has a "2.2L" cast into it. I
> don't know about the Legacy name, but I've been lead
> to believe that it's a 6 cylinder model. In any case,
> I've seen the dyno when the little screamer was putting
> out 186 HP.
>
> Tell us a little about your engines.. What is the basic
> block? 4 or 6 cylinders? How many are flying? In what
> planes? Do you dyno test them before shipping them? What
> HP do the put out? Any suggestions for someone who plans
> to fly lots of hours in front of an EA81?
Bill what you have is a 2.2 L (the L probably means Liter) Legacy
engine, you don't have an EA81. . . . which is good, the EA81 isn't big
enough to power your Velocity, I think you said it was a Velocity. The
EA81 is a good engine but is maxed out at about 118 hp.
Corky Scott
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>Why don't you back off a step and let people test them out? You can
>always say "I told you so" but don't forget, the originators of the
>current batch of horizontally opposed aircraft engines (back
>in.....what was it, the 30's?) didn't get it right first time either.
Just a nit but the only current production engine of Lycoming's that
can trace itself back to the 1930s is the 235 circa 1939.
The 320s followed in the mid-late 1950s. 360s, 540s, and 720s are
all 1960s designs. 541s are early 1970s, 320-H and 360-E are mid 1970s
engines. Lycoming's new 580 will be a 1996 engine.
Continental came out with an entirely new engine line in the early/mid 1970s
(the Tiara line). Unfortunately the marketplace rejected the line. In
the 1980s Continental came out with the 550 as well as the liquid-cooled
"Voyager" line. In the 1990s they've blessed us with at least two new
engines.
>They've been modifying them ever since.
Yes, to all of our benefit. These guys know how to build engines.
greg
Bill Cox
: if he tries to fly his Velocity with an EA81. If he gets it off the ground
: with that screaming EA81 hand grenade and the engine fails
: catastrophically (which it will sooner rather than later) the 4 place
: Velocity is going to come down like a ton of bricks, as high stall speed
: canards are wont to do.
I betting time, guys! Who can we select to hold the stakes?
This could get interesting... and could help pay for my
parachute, for example.
I can see several wagers here:
1) "Sooner rather than later"
How many operational hours do I have to fly without
crashing to win this one? How much are you willing to bet?
2) "Come down like a ton of bricks"
This one's easier to test, and easier to win. All
I need to do is climb to a specified altitude directly
over my favorite airport, idle/shut-down the engine, and
dead-stick land it. Gliders do it on *every* flight.
What're you willing to wager that I don't even bend the
nose gear?
3) "Fails catastrophically"
How many successful operating hours without failure
will it take to win this one, Paul? Pick a dollar
amount and an hour count.
4) "Kills himself"
See #3.
5) "If he gets it off the ground"
This one is also easy. What're you willing to bet
that I *don't* get it off the ground?
Bill Cox
: In article <3nm198$q...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) says:
: The EA-81 is apparently a good engine. I don't doubt
: that. But pumping one up as far as you can is just
: not the way to make aviation a better place to live.
: Craig Wall
You may have missed one of my earlier postings. Pumping
the EA-81 up as far as it will go yields about 210 HP.
The 186 HP is conservative, in my judgement...
But it is, as Paul Lamar calls it, a screamer. That muffler
is *necessary*.
Bill Cox
: the ea 81 is a 1800cc pushrod engine. you are talking about the legacy 2,2
: l engine. the ea81 can do a little over 100hp but not 185hp.
: reiner stratus inc
The block of my engine has a "2.2L" cast into it. I
Bill Cox
: The point being that it is not hard to get the power out of the small
: engines. It will be interesting to see how many hours you can get out of
: it. Does Formula Power make any claims for longivety?
Haven't seen any.
Craig Wall
> 3) "Fails catastrophically"
>
> How many successful operating hours without failure
> will it take to win this one, Paul? Pick a dollar
> amount and an hour count.
$100, 100 hours. *Flight* time. Any failure that
results in a total loss of thrust, including in
the reduction drive.
Who wants to hold the money? I hope I lose.
Craig Wall
Bill Cox
: In article <3nk0lk$j...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) says:
: Thats a dry sump isn't it? No pan sump hanging down? Which length Ross
: unit do you have?
Nope. Wet sump about four inches deep.
Ross drive is about 24 inches long.
Bill Cox
: In article <3nmqv1$7...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) says:
: > 3) "Fails catastrophically"
: >
: > How many successful operating hours without failure
: > will it take to win this one, Paul? Pick a dollar
: > amount and an hour count.
: $100, 100 hours. *Flight* time. Any failure that
: results in a total loss of thrust, including in
: the reduction drive.
: Who wants to hold the money? I hope I lose.
Thanks for that sentiment! How about Bob Campbell to hold
the money? Are you there Bob? (b...@ofa.com)
: Craig Wall
Curt Reimer
>Bill Cox (c...@lmsc.lockheed.com) wrote:
>: And, they can get 210 HP out of the same block for a mere $4000 more!
>: I couldn't afford the 210HP version.
>Sure you can get 186 HP out of a 172 cubic inch (2.2 liters) push rod
>engine like the EA-81 for up to 5 minutes :)
>
>You may even get 210 HP for up to 10 seconds :)
>
>I can rig a dyno to show you any amount of horsepower you want if you pay
>me enough money for the engine :)
>
>I will believe it when I see it in a grossed out Velocity doing 200 MPH.
>
>Paul Lamar
And after it has 1500 in-flight hours on it, with nothing but routine
maintenance, I'll be first in line to buy one.
Curt Reimer
rob...@rain.org
There are a few thngs you can do before or during the test flight if you
already have an auto engine that someone sold you for use in your
airplane.
Take the engine to an auto shop that has a dyno other than the company
that sold you the auto engine. Connect the dyno to the prop flange and not
the crankshaft. Measure the horsepower and fuel flow. If it does not meet
the claims of the company that sold it to you get your money back or
threaten to sue.
Measure the static thrust of the engine prop combination. Tie the tail
down with a fish scale with a capacity of several hundred pounds. If the
static thrust is much less than other airplanes with the same horsepower
and prop find out why.
If the engine runs right up to it's redline while tied down chances are
the prop pitch is too low. Find out from the kit plane designer what the
prop pitch and diameter should be. When you get that prop on the plane see
if the engine will pull about 60% or 75% of max RPM redline while tied
down. That is one indication the engine has enough power.
Find the distance the airplane requires for take off from the designer.
Find a real long runway to test the airplane and mark it with the takeoff
distance. If the airplane takes much more distance to takeoff than the
marker abort the takeoff and find out why.
If the airplane takes off in a reasonable distance but fails to climb out
of ground effect abort the takeoff on the runway if possible. If not
possible try not to turn, fly stright ahead and crash land in the first
suitble place. Marginally powered airplanes will stall spin in the blink
of an eye in a turn. We just had such a fatal accident here in Santa Paula
with a marginally powered airplane.
Johnny
>: Paul, why don't you just change your signature to:
>Johnny, do you really think that you and all those guys developing
>automobile engine conversions for airplanes in their garage are smarter
>than all those professional engineers that spent billions of dollars
>developed aircraft engines since 1903?
In 1903 anybody that was into aviation WAS in there garage. Are you so
removed from the reality of flight that you can't remember that it all
started as a homebuilt? And that the major advancements in light aircraft
have always come from garages? Corporate america has brought general aviation
major advancements in marketing and mass production, which has very
little to do with building an airplane that flys faster and farther on
less fuel for less cost.
But more importantly, I want to build one that I
prefer to own and operate. And given a choice between the V-8 and the
TSIO-540, I would much rather own and operate the V-8. I think that given
a choice, a lot of others would too. So thats what I am in the process of
doing Paul, offering a choice. You choose what you like and others will make
their choices. I have already made mine. It doesn't take a genious to figure
that one out, does it?
When I get into a situation where I need some engineering, I hire an engineer.
Thats what they are there for. And thats what I use them for. You seem to
be a little confused on the difference between someone with an idea, and
someone with an engineering degree. I don't bother with how big a prop shaft
needs to be. Thats the engineers chore. I come up with the idea on where it
needs to go and how it's going to fit in a cowling that some other engineer
figured out was aerodynamically clean.
Cowlings are a real good example of the difference between whats right, and
whats easy to mass produce. Look at the PMA'd cowling upgrades that are out
there, and the huge improvements that the "garages" that had the idea for
them have made over the "billion dollar" firms that designed, built and
marketed the originals. I guess if the originals had been done right, it
would have cost more and then the "billions" wouldn't have been there to
spend on designing the next bad cowling.
So I guess just for the benefit of you and others like you, I will be sure to
change my letter head to include a picture of a big industial complex so
that everyone will think that I am smart enough to build an engine.
>BTW here is a little quiz for all you people developing auto engines
>conversions. Send me email with your answers.
>
>How much thrust will a 100 HP engine develop at 60 miles per hour
>assuming 60% overall (prop, gearbox, etc.,etc,) efficiency?
>
>What is the total drag of a 2500 gross weight airplane airbourne at 60 MPH
>with a frontal area of 16 square feet, a drag coef of .2 (other than that
>due to lift), a wing area of 150 square feet, a lift coef. of 1.2 and a
>span of 30 feet.
I will let you know just as soon as have my engineer run it through his
computer.
sheesh, can you say, waste of time?
-j-
Curt Reimer
> How come we can't goad the Japanese into building IO-320s?
Yikes! Seen the value of the yen lately?
What we REALLY need to do is to convince the military that some kind of
threat to national security exists which can best be countered by
spending their entire budget for the next 10 years on new Cessna 172s.
Then, when they dump all those 172s on the market, we'll have O-320s
coming out of our ears! Just like the post-WWII "golden age" of surplus,
except we'll know better than to melt everything down for scrap this time :)
Curt Reimer
John Miltner
in cooperation with its major industries to target certain markets and
develop technological superiority and a dominant market share. They have
a very long term view point. The specifically targeted the automobile
industry about 20 years ago, and worked to dominate the market. I think
a few years ago I read that they consider that goal attained and had
targeted the aircraft industry for the same treatment. I am sure they could
make excellent aircraft engines. Just look at the innovation in the Mazda
Miller cycle engine, and the Honda Variable Valve Timing and lean burn tech-
nology which gives them spectacular fuel economy (In the case of Honda)
John Miltner
rob...@rain.org
: I betting time, guys! Who can we select to hold the stakes?
: parachute, for example.
: I can see several wagers here:
I would not bet on your life Bill.
A parachute is not going to do you any good if you don't rise out of
ground effect.
Are you sure you have an EA81? Like someone says you can pump up any
engine to 186 horwpower but it will bite sooner rather than later.
Paul Lamar
Les Niles
>This may not be appropriate here, but I thought I might share a bit of an
>editorial that appeared in a major New York newspaper.
> "We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a
> scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money
> involved, in further airship experiments."
>This statement was made the week before the Wright brothers first flight.
>
>As long as there are people willing to dare challenge the accepted, there
>will be people willing to say "I told you so."
Perhaps this is the same major New York newspaper that, nearly 20 years
later, said
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against
which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily
in high schools."
-les ni...@parc.xerox.com
Mooney N9752M
Charles K. Scott
rei...@access.mbnet.mb.ca (Curt Reimer) writes:
> For someone designing an engine from scratch
> today, all of the HUGE amount of R & D documentation that is available
> points to one fact: For a given weight, power output, fuel consumption
> and price, the air-cooled horizontally opposed, direct drive Lyc/Cont IS
> the state-of-the-art. I'm sorry, but the wheel has already been invented.
I'm not sure what you mean here Curt. Reiner Hoffman put a Subaru
EA-81 engine in his Cessna 150 and got better gas milage and more power
than his friend who had an identical Cessna with it's stock engine.
His friend, who accompanied him to Sun 'N Fun 94 from the Pacific
Northwest and back had to keep asking Reiner to back off so he could
keep up. The wheel may already have been invented, as you say, but it
looks to me like it could use a little refinement. :-)
Corky Scott
Curt Reimer
>This may not be appropriate here, but I thought I might share a bit of an
>editorial that appeared in a major New York newspaper.
> "We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a
> scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money
> involved, in further airship experiments."
>This statement was made the week before the Wright brothers first flight.
>As long as there are people willing to dare challenge the accepted, there will
>be people willing to say "I told you so."
Carl, your point is a good one. BUT let's not compare the state of the
art in aeronautical engineering in 1903 with the state of the art in
engine technology in 1995. In 1903, there were few books on aeronautics
available, and most of those were wrong. The Wrights had to work
essentialy from scratch, concieving and testing all of the fundamental
theories of aeronautics on their own, as did Langley. Incidentally,
Langley was so far behind the Wrights in everything but engine technology
that it is doubtful that he would ever have obatined controlled flight on
his own, so in a way the writer of the above editorial is quite right!
Now, todays engine designers have a HUGE body of well proven and
established engineering theory to draw upon. After 92 years of research,
funded by large corporations and much of the available resources of
government (at least during the world wars), not to mention the energy
and creativity of thousands of really smart people who devoted their
entire careers to the task at hand, the best that these folks could do
for powering light aircraft are the present line of Lycomings &
Continentals and the like. For someone designing an engine from scratch
today, all of the HUGE amount of R & D documentation that is available
points to one fact: For a given weight, power output, fuel consumption
and price, the air-cooled horizontally opposed, direct drive Lyc/Cont IS
the state-of-the-art. I'm sorry, but the wheel has already been invented.
Now, can one individual, or small group of individuals do a better job
than all of the aero engine engineers of the past century? Perhaps. I
truly wish they would. I have to purchase an engine in the 160 hp class
sometime in the next year or two and I really don't want to give $16,000
to Textron/Lycoming or anyone else.
I do enjoy reading this thread and I do encourage innovation and
experimentation. I don't claim to have the knowledge and experience of
those at the forefront of this debate (on either side). But, after you
read enough posts, you can start to separate Those_Who_Know from
Those_Who_Hope. Some things ARE rocket science, folks. Sometimes all
those nerdy engineers and old professors surrounded by dusty books and
calculators DO know what they are talking about.
It's just not much fun to admit it...
Curt Reimer
Craig Wall
>
>Craig Wall <cw...@swri.edu> writes:
>
>> How come we can't goad the Japanese into building IO-320s?
>
>Watch out, you may get what you ask for.
I was just thinking about Lyc's on license, actually. I don't much
like recips, but jets are a little impractical for light aircraft
(at least until we get tiny ceramic shaft turbines) and there really
isn't anything more suitable that I can see beyond a direct drive,
high displacement, low compression ratio, air cooled motor like the
4-cylinder opposed Lycomings.
I just though that with their casting and forging industrial base,
they ought to be able to knock some engines out at a reasonable price.
Hell, *I've* got it: Let's demand that they produce CARS with IO-320s.
I'd buy one!
Craig Wall
rob...@rain.org
: I wish we would hear from Reiner more often... He told me that on that
: trip to Florida his friend burned 5 GPH, and he burned 4 GPH. I have
: seen his 150. The EA-81, was a nice installation. Now he is putting
: a Legacy in it. I can't wait to go for a ride. As he put it;
: "I can't wait to feel some serious ponies". How bout it Hoffman? Can we
: get a comment?
: -j-
I flat don't belive it!!! Somebody is lying!!! NO WAY is anybody going to
get 0.322 BSFC out of a conventional recip. The Lyc or the Cont in the
Cessna gets 0.43.
You better go talk to your "engineer" Johnny before you start repeating
this BS!!!!
Shhheeeessss!!
God this is the kind of s**** I can't stand!
Paul Lamar
Curt Reimer
>In article <3npf65$l...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
>rei...@access.mbnet.mb.ca (Curt Reimer) writes:
>> For someone designing an engine from scratch
>> today, all of the HUGE amount of R & D documentation that is available
>> points to one fact: For a given weight, power output, fuel consumption
>> and price, the air-cooled horizontally opposed, direct drive Lyc/Cont IS
>> the state-of-the-art. I'm sorry, but the wheel has already been invented.
>I'm not sure what you mean here Curt. Reiner Hoffman put a Subaru
>EA-81 engine in his Cessna 150 and got better gas milage and more power
>than his friend who had an identical Cessna with it's stock engine.
>His friend, who accompanied him to Sun 'N Fun 94 from the Pacific
>Northwest and back had to keep asking Reiner to back off so he could
>keep up. The wheel may already have been invented, as you say, but it
>looks to me like it could use a little refinement. :-)
I am not against refinement. But refining the basic light
aircraft engine, in my book, means starting with the
performance specifications of the existing state of the art and improving on
one or more of them while keeping all other things equal. Two of he most
important specifications for any aero engine are reliability, expressed as
mean time to failure, and longevity, measured by average number of
operating hours, per the operating manual, before service wear limits
are reached.
In the case of
the stock engined Cessna, for example, I can just under-pitch the prop if
I want more power. The engine will turn faster than its rated RPM and hp
will go up. Formula 1 racers do this as a matter of course.
But, I can no longer expect to reach TBO if I operate that way
continuously. In that case, all things are not equal. I have compromised
longevity and reliability for more power. Has anyone run an EA-81 to 2000
hours in an airplane?
Some day, Zoche, or Johnny or someone (maybe even Lycoming) will produce
an engine that outperforms the current generation of production light
plane engines in horsepower (at the prop), fuel economy, weight,
reliability, longevity, and price. But none of the engines I can buy today
have proven to me that they can do that.
Curt Reimer
(the optimisic skeptic)
Johnny
>
>In article <3nmrdf$7...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>
>c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) writes:
>
>> don't know about the Legacy name, but I've been lead
>> to believe that it's a 6 cylinder model. In any case,
>> I've seen the dyno when the little screamer was putting
>> out 186 HP.
>>
>> Tell us a little about your engines.. What is the basic
>> block? 4 or 6 cylinders? How many are flying? In what
>> planes? Do you dyno test them before shipping them? What
>> HP do the put out? Any suggestions for someone who plans
>> to fly lots of hours in front of an EA81?
>
>engine, you don't have an EA81. . . . which is good, the EA81 isn't big
>enough to power your Velocity, I think you said it was a Velocity. The
>EA81 is a good engine but is maxed out at about 118 hp.
>
>Corky Scott
Ok, so I was right in the first place. Here is the EASY way to tell.
The "Legacy" engine (we will call it that for now just to keep it simple)
is an overhead cam design. Wide valve covers that say 16 valve on them.
The EA-81, is a pushrod engine. Narrow valve covers that don't say a thing.
I personally got 200 HP out of one in a very radical configuration that I
wouldn't feel comfortable flying behind, except maybe racing or some other
closed course type thing. The big thing about that engine is the flow
potential that the heads have. The EA-81 on the other hand, doesn't offer
much room for improvement as it has a "shared port" design. Both, however,
are VERY reliable. I really abused the 2.2 that I experimented with, and
it just didn't care. 186 HP is not unreasonable at all for that engine.
Let us know how your project progresses. And if anyone wants to wager (see
the other posts) I want a piece of the action.
Oh BTW, the 6 cylinder you are thinking of is probably the SVX. Another
great engine. But much more costly than the others.
-j-
Johnny
>
>In article <3npf65$l...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
>rei...@access.mbnet.mb.ca (Curt Reimer) writes:
>
>> For someone designing an engine from scratch
>> today, all of the HUGE amount of R & D documentation that is available
>> points to one fact: For a given weight, power output, fuel consumption
>> and price, the air-cooled horizontally opposed, direct drive Lyc/Cont IS
>> the state-of-the-art. I'm sorry, but the wheel has already been invented.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here Curt. Reiner Hoffman put a Subaru
>EA-81 engine in his Cessna 150 and got better gas milage and more power
>than his friend who had an identical Cessna with it's stock engine.
>His friend, who accompanied him to Sun 'N Fun 94 from the Pacific
>Northwest and back had to keep asking Reiner to back off so he could
>keep up. The wheel may already have been invented, as you say, but it
>looks to me like it could use a little refinement. :-)
>
van...@delphi.com
>I flat don't belive it!!! Somebody is lying!!! NO WAY is anybody going to
>get 0.322 BSFC out of a conventional recip. The Lyc or the Cont in the
>Cessna gets 0.43.
that are both faster and more efficient in the hangar than in the air
a couple of things should be considered.
These C-150's were flying formation hence they were putting out the same
amount of thrust. Note I didn't say power. The Subaru powered C-150
had a three blad ground adjustable prop that possibly may have been much more
efficient than the Continental powered C-150's prop. I don't know that, but
it is probable.
There is dissembling, not being carefull, and willfull attempts to decieve
by those who want to part you from your money. Of those, simply not being
carefull and often a misunderstanding of physics are the most common in
aviation.
Brent H. Van Arsdell
Reinerh
together. finding time these days is the problem.
on the trip to florida jerry averaged 5,9 and i did it at 4,3 per hour.
reiner
rob...@rain.org
Johnny wrote:
>Cowlings are a real good example of the difference between whats right, and
>whats easy to mass produce. Look at the PMA'd cowling upgrades that are out
>there, and the huge improvements that the "garages" that had the idea for
>them have made over the "billion dollar" firms that designed, built and
>marketed the originals. I guess if the originals had been done right, it
>would have cost more and then the "billions" wouldn't have been there to
>spend on designing the next bad cowling.
You would not be talking about the cowlings with the round holes in them
would you Johnny? The ones used on the SX300, Lancair, Lopresti Commanche,
etc., etc.?
If so... I got some bad news for you Johnny. That cowling design was
developed at the University of Mississippi with NASA funding.
Some more BSFC numbers;
Rotax, with all the resources of Bombardea (spelling?) and the best
Austrian engineering money could buy, got 0.42 BSFC out of the very modern
Rotax 912. That is all the more remarkable in light of the geared design.
If they doubled the displacement and did away with the gear box they might
get to be as efficient as an old direct drive Cont O-200 :)
BTW the Cont. O-200 powered Pushy Cat was as fast, at Sun & Fun, as the
big block Chevy powered S51. They had a side by side race.
Paul Lamar
Jer/ Eberhard
> In article <3nmqv1$7...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) says:
> > 3) "Fails catastrophically"
> >
> > How many successful operating hours without failure
> > will it take to win this one, Paul? Pick a dollar
> > amount and an hour count.
> $100, 100 hours. *Flight* time. Any failure that
> results in a total loss of thrust, including in
> the reduction drive.
> Who wants to hold the money? I hope I lose.
> Craig Wall
If you two have come to "put up or shut up", I believe I have
been around rec.aviation long enough to hold the bet.
How about if each of you write a check to the other, and send them
both to me at the address below. When BOTH of you agree about
who the winner is, I'll send both checks to that person.
Discussion will happen right here on the net...
See you at Oshkosh '95!
Jer/
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, j...@fc.hp.com, 970 229-2861 OFFICE, 970 229-3598 FAX
Hewlett-Packard, 3404 East Harmony Rd MS-E8, Ft Collins, CO 80525-9599
C-182 N182H, CFII Airplane & Glider, FAA Denver FSDO Aviation Safety Counselor,
CO-CAP Group 2 Cmdr, MSN CheckPilot, PP218 HAM N0FZD, 26 Young Eagles Flown!
Craig Wall
>
>Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
>> In article <3nmqv1$7...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) says:
>
>> > 3) "Fails catastrophically"
>> >
>> > How many successful operating hours without failure
>> > will it take to win this one, Paul? Pick a dollar
>> > amount and an hour count.
>
>
>> $100, 100 hours. *Flight* time. Any failure that
>> results in a total loss of thrust, including in
>> the reduction drive.
>
>> Who wants to hold the money? I hope I lose.
>
>> Craig Wall
>
>If you two have come to "put up or shut up", I believe I have
>been around rec.aviation long enough to hold the bet.
>
>How about if each of you write a check to the other, and send them
>both to me at the address below. When BOTH of you agree about
>who the winner is, I'll send both checks to that person.
>Discussion will happen right here on the net...
That works for me- Bill? Are you agreeable?
Craig Wall (Thanks, Jer- we may get to fly
sailplanes in wave together yet!)
Johnny
So, who wants a little side bet action?
-j-
rob...@rain.org
: Oh my. Did I type that wrong? Lets try it again.
: Original C-150 ----> 5.4 GPH
: EA-81 C-150 -------> 4.5 GPH
: I guess that is the same, in comparison, to saying one got 5 and the
: other got 4. I just left off the tenths part.
: Hmmm, does that jive? Lets see.
: At 70 HP cruise that would work out to .39 BSFC for the EA-81
: And for the original C-150... (getting out the POH)
: Cruise Performance with lean mixture...
: 5000 ft. 2600 RPM, 71 HP. 5.3 GPH
: That works out to .455 BSFC
: It also says that these figures are for an engine that is in good
: condition. Not a high time beater, but a low time "good" engine.
: haven't seen one of these on any of the C-150's I have flown.
: So I guess 5.4 GPH is pretty believable for the Original C-150.
: What's this mean? Well, first of all, If anyone is lying here, it
: is YOU Paul in saying that the C-150 gets .43 BSFC. A new one doesn't
: even come close to this. Let alone one you might actually be flying.
: But more importantly, I think that he said the trip took 26 hours
: flying time, each way. So he burned 47 gallons less fuel than his
: friend on this one trip. Also, the EA-81 likes unleaded at $1.30-$1.40
: per gal. The O-200 was designed for AvGas.
: One of the really great things about Reiners C-150 is how smooth it is.
: I guess that is to be expected as it uses a belt reduction. The other
: thing that is a little puzzling is; if the EA-81 is making 100 HP on
: climb out, and so is the O-200, turning the whole 2750 RPM that it does,
: why does the EA-81 C-150 climb so much better, AND have better top end
: and cruise speed.
: It might be interesting to point out that the EA-81 has a 3 bladed
: WarpDrive Prop on it. I sure this doesn't hurt. And it is not a high
: time engine either. I don't know how many hours the stock Conny of his
: friends has on it.
: -j-
: p.s. I didn't have to get my engineer to do this one.
My my, now we are getting over the BS stage and down to the some real
numbers. Leaving off the tenths can make a big difference. Suppose it was
4.9 and 5.1? Where does it say in my message that I assumed they cruised
at 70% power? How do you know they cruised at 70% power? As I recall I
said 62.5% power.
Are you saying the book is wrong on the C-150? You mean to tell me that
thousands of pilots are taking their life in their hands when Cessna says
the fuel burn on a C-150 at 65% power is 4.3 gallons an hour best economy
and all those pilots are flight planning at 4.3 :) We had better call the
FAA and get them to recall the Cessna pilots handbook. :)
A friend of mine tried a three blade adjustable warp drive prop and it was
worse than the wood prop he had on there in the first place.
You don't get car gas just anywhere between Oregon and FL.
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
: Someone asked what the estimated working life of the Legacy
: engine is. Bruce Arrigoni says they have an engine in Arizona
: (on a LongEze, he thinks) which has run 600 hours. The average
: for all of the 15 to 20 engines that he *knows* are in the air
: is about 60-80 hours of flight time.
: Their test engines have run over 200 hours (maybe 300) on the
: shop dynamometer.
: I don't represent Formula Power; I'm just a satisfied
: customer (whose plane isn't flying yet).
: I'll get my muffler fitted next weekend!
: Once again - Legacy 2.2L *not* EA81. Sorry for the mistake.
Could you get a list of names and phone nuumbers for those 15 or 20
Subaru engine owners?
Paul Lamar
Charles K. Scott
rob...@rain.org () writes:
> I flat don't belive it!!! Somebody is lying!!! NO WAY is anybody going to
> get 0.322 BSFC out of a conventional recip. The Lyc or the Cont in the
> Cessna gets 0.43.
>
> You better go talk to your "engineer" Johnny before you start repeating
> this BS!!!!
>
> Shhheeeessss!!
>
> God this is the kind of s**** I can't stand!
Really? You don't believe Reiner got better milage than his partner?
Maybe he misfigured his fuel burn calculations....all the way from
Washington St. to Florida and back again. And his partner flying the
conventionally engined 150 miscalculated his fuel burn too. Didn't you
want some figures?
Corky Scott
rob...@rain.org
: <rob...@rain.org> writes:
:
: >I flat don't belive it!!! Somebody is lying!!! NO WAY is anybody going to
: >get 0.322 BSFC out of a conventional recip. The Lyc or the Cont in the
: >Cessna gets 0.43.
: Allowing for the fact that there are plenty of people and their airplanes
: that are both faster and more efficient in the hangar than in the air
: a couple of things should be considered.
:
: These C-150's were flying formation hence they were putting out the same
: amount of thrust. Note I didn't say power. The Subaru powered C-150
: had a three blad ground adjustable prop that possibly may have been much more
: efficient than the Continental powered C-150's prop. I don't know that, but
: it is probable.
:
: There is dissembling, not being carefull, and willfull attempts to decieve
: by those who want to part you from your money. Of those, simply not being
: carefull and often a misunderstanding of physics are the most common in
: aviation.
:
: Brent H. Van Arsdell
efficient in cruise than two blades. Since the Cessna 150 metal prop is
claimed to be 80% efficient that would make the three blade prop on the
rice burner 105% efficient:) There is no free lunch in propellors either.
Klaus Savier, my neighbor has lots of experience building carbon fibre
props. He has come up with no breakthroughs that would allow an apparent
spectactular BSFC of 0.32. What he mainly does is run the engine faster
for more horsepower, clean up the airplane and optimises the diameter and
pitch for the top speed and RPM of the engine.
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
: soon its going to happen. everything is done just needs to be bolted
: together. finding time these days is the problem.
: on the trip to florida jerry averaged 5,9 and i did it at 4,3 per hour.
: reiner
fetched at 0.31 BSFC. Perhaps your buddy was running way too rich. What
did his plugs look like when he got to Sun & Fun? :)
Paul Lamar
BTW at a BSFC of 0.42 your engine was developing only 62.5 horsepower. Now
that... I can believe out of your Subaru rice burner :) What airspeed and
altitude were you cruising at.
I will look up the Cessna 150 fuel burn at 62.5% power.
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
: soon its going to happen. everything is done just needs to be bolted
: together. finding time these days is the problem.
: on the trip to florida jerry averaged 5,9 and i did it at 4,3 per hour.
: reiner
According to the book the Cessna 150 at 62.5% power should have been
burning 4.2 gallons an hour. Are you sure Jerry's engine did not have a
burnt valve or was running too rich?
Paul Lamar
van...@delphi.com
>I still don't believe it Brent. Three blades if anything are usually less
>efficient in cruise than two blades. Since the Cessna 150 metal prop is
>claimed to be 80% efficient that would make the three blade prop on the
>rice burner 105% efficient:) There is no free lunch in propellors either.
>
>Klaus Savier, my neighbor has lots of experience building carbon fibre
>props. He has come up with no breakthroughs that would allow an apparent
>spectactular BSFC of 0.32. What he mainly does is run the engine faster
(world) that McCauley or whoever built the C-150 prop knows that it is 80%
efficient as installed. It's is my recollection that the Warp drive prop
sits a few inches further from the cowl than the prop does on a regular
C-150.
Accurate numbers come to those who are very carefull. Klaus Savier is very
carefull, but he will be the first to tell you that you can see some pretty
dramatic changes between a correctly cowled and proped EZ with the right
prop extension and one that doesn't.
When about ten of these things are flying in customers airplanes, then we will
know!
Brent H. Van Arsdell
Craig Wall
>
>Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: >Craig Wall (cw...@swri.edu) wrote:
>: >> In article <3nmqv1$7...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, c...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Bill Cox) says:
>: >
>: >> > 3) "Fails catastrophically"
>: >> >
>: >> > How many successful operating hours without failure
>: >> > will it take to win this one, Paul? Pick a dollar
>: >> > amount and an hour count.
>: >
>: >
>: >> $100, 100 hours. *Flight* time. Any failure that
>: >> results in a total loss of thrust, including in
>: >> the reduction drive.
>: >
>: >> Who wants to hold the money? I hope I lose.
>: >
>: >> Craig Wall
>: >
>: >If you two have come to "put up or shut up", I believe I have
>: >been around rec.aviation long enough to hold the bet.
>: >
>: >How about if each of you write a check to the other, and send them
>: >both to me at the address below. When BOTH of you agree about
>: >who the winner is, I'll send both checks to that person.
>: >Discussion will happen right here on the net...
>
>:
>
>: That works for me- Bill? Are you agreeable?
>
>: Craig Wall (Thanks, Jer- we may get to fly
>: sailplanes in wave together yet!)
>
>engine and not an EA81, as I mistakenly believed before. Still
>want to bet?
Yup. If nothing else you might baby that engine with
money riding on it. Like I said, Bill- I hope I lose.
Craig Wall
Craig Wall
>
>> Hell, *I've* got it: Let's demand that they produce CARS with IO-320s.
>>
>> I'd buy one!
>
>> Craig Wall
>
>he built. He also forced Franklin to cancel aircraft contracts to be better
>able to suit him. When Tucker went under, Franklin put the first (very
>early... it did last 20 more years) nail in it's coffin (not that Franklin
>would have lasted any longer, but we will never know).
Then I rest my case- let's demand the Japanese do it. Detroit
shouldn't object.....
Craig Wall
rob...@rain.org
:
: The key word here is a claimed 80% efficiency. There is no way in the worlk
: (world) that McCauley or whoever built the C-150 prop knows that it is 80%
: efficient as installed. It's is my recollection that the Warp drive prop
: sits a few inches further from the cowl than the prop does on a regular
: C-150.
:
: Accurate numbers come to those who are very carefull. Klaus Savier is very
: carefull, but he will be the first to tell you that you can see some pretty
: dramatic changes between a correctly cowled and proped EZ with the right
: prop extension and one that doesn't.
:
: When about ten of these things are flying in customers airplanes, then we will
: know!
:
: Brent H. Van Arsdell
I agree with that. Klaus runs about a 10 inch extension with one of those
funny looking spinners:) BTW the Cessna 150 has a 4 inch extension. Many
of the EZes that show up around here to visit Klaus have ten inch
extensions as well.
BTW some people on here think that geared water cooled aircraft engines
are something new. I have this book called the "Aviation Handbook"
published in 1931 and authored by Warner and Johnson. Out of the aprox 50
engines listed fully 25% were water cooled and or geared. Some you could
get in a direct drive version or a geared version.
A noteable example was a Curtis Conqueror 60 degree V12 geared or direct
drive and water cooled. 1600 cubes, 600 HP, 6:1 compression ratio, .53
BSFC and only 840 pounds.
There were 11 American manufactures and three British.
By the end of WW II most big engines were, radial, geared and aircooled.
It is not for nothing that aircraft engines are direct drive and
aircooled. The best got a BSFC of 0.38 with blow down turbines and 115
octane fuel.
Paul Lamar
Reinerh
just ask any 150 owner what they typically burn. the answer most likely
will be between 5,5 to almost 7 on a tired 0 200. those are the real
numbers and not what the book says.
come by if you like i will take you for a ride paul and show you on my
fuel flow gage that at 100 its uses 4 gph.
reiner
Bill Cox
: Bill Cox (c...@lmsc.lockheed.com) wrote:
: Could you get a list of names and phone nuumbers for those 15 or 20
: Subaru engine owners?
: Paul Lamar
I've passed your request on to Bruce Arrigoni.
rob...@rain.org
: we were flying typical cruising speed for the 150 about 100 to 110 mph.
Forget the fuel gage Reiner. Measure the fuel going into the tank very
carfully. If you want to be really accurate measure and record the fuel
temperture as well.
Paul Lamar
Craig Wall
>
>
>By the end of WW II most big engines were, radial, geared and aircooled.
>It is not for nothing that aircraft engines are direct drive and
>aircooled. The best got a BSFC of 0.38 with blow down turbines and 115
>octane fuel.
>
Now, there's a question- how come no one is looking at turbo-compounds?
Or better yet, leave the accessory case off and use an exhaust turbine
to run the alternator. That way you get non-critical power recovery. You
could use a manually controlled exhaust wastegate- closed on the ground,
open during climb, and closed again during descent to keep the engine from
shock cooling and to provide power for the period of high radio use.
You could use a simpler and lower speed turbine, and remote it. You're
just eliminating some weight and mechanical complexity at the crankcase,
and substituting a gas driven alternator for a belt or gear-driven one.
I dunno. I just always thought the turbocompound recips on the Connies
were cool, especially since they were operated on the lean side of peak
EGT- a typical Kelly Johnson bit of elegance. I thought there must be a
nugget of strategy for experimental design there somewhere.
Craig Wall
Randy Stockberger
claims. This doesn't mean that all the performance comes from the engine.
1. Klause may be running a more effecient prop. If the Warp drive prop
is just 5% more efficient Klaus can pull the power back by .1 or .2
gallons per hour and still cruise with his friend.
2. Klaus has a fresh engine. If the stock 150 has an average engine he
probably has to push the throttle in and feed it an extra .1 or .2
gallons each hour to cruise with Klaus.
3. Klaus has installed a custom cowl. If this cowl is well designed it
can have a significant impact in cruise efficiency. Klaus may have
to pull the throttle back quite a bit to cruise with his friend,
perhaps another .2 or .4 gph.
4. Klaus may have a more efficient engine. If instead of 0.45 BSFC he
may be getting 0.42 BSFC. Good for more than .3 gph at 65 cruise.
The bottom line is that more than one variable has changed. It is
difficult for an outside observer to know which factors dominate.
It may even be that his engine is *less* efficient, but the other factors
dominate, making the plane more efficient.
Personally, I think Klaus is mostly right because he has done a lot of test
stand work with the engine.
--
Randy Stockberger
ran...@cv.hp.com
Corvallis, OR
503-715-3589
--
Craig Wall
>
>
>1. Klause may be running a more effecient prop.
>
>3. Klaus has installed a custom cowl.
>
>
>The bottom line is that more than one variable has changed.
Well, don't stop there, Randy- you're on the right track, of course.
4. The fuel was measured in gallons- this is bogus, since it's very
sensitive to temperature. It should be measured in pounds, like they
do in the C.A.F.E. events.
5. The airplanes are not identical- other things beyond the cowling are
dissimilar, including rigging, fairings, trim and *most especially*
Center of Gravity. Ballasting to get the elevator trim tab streamlined
is a good place to start- but going to aft CG in flight is even better,
especially if you use spring trim rather than aerodynamic trim. If you
really want to compare engines, you run them on the same airframe.
6. Weight. Right? Heavier is slower. Carry less fuel; burn less fuel.
7. Last but certainly not least, who was flying lead? It's well known in
soaring that the wingman has, all other things being equal, a lower
L/D. Why? Because the guy in front is just flying, and has to move
his controls only to please himself, i.e. very little, whereas the guy
formed up on him has to correct all the time. Maneuvering drag goes up.
For that matter, pilot skill is a factor.
I personally don't doubt you can make a damn fine aircraft engine out
of a liquid cooled motor out of a car. But not one with high output
*and* a long TBO. And these sorts of comparisons are qualitative at
best; the quantitation would not stand up in a refereed journal as
described so far.
Craig Wall
Bruce Frank
: According to the book the Cessna 150 at 62.5% power should have been
: burnt valve or was running too rich?
: Paul Lamar
You do know, don't you, that all engines are liquid cooled- either by
water or fuel. An automotive engine with a water jacket is going to use
about 40% less fuel than an air cooled engine at the same horse power output.
An aircraft air cooled engine requires all that extra fuel just for
cooling. The BSFC differences between water cooled and air cooled engines
is well discussed in many Mech.Eng. and even some Physics texts.
Bruce A. Frank
rob...@rain.org
: we were flying typical cruising speed for the 150 about 100 to 110 mph.
: just ask any 150 owner what they typically burn. the answer most likely
: will be between 5,5 to almost 7 on a tired 0 200. those are the real
: numbers and not what the book says.
: come by if you like i will take you for a ride paul and show you on my
: fuel flow gage that at 100 its uses 4 gph.
: reiner
Reiner is it 4.1 gph or 4.9 gph? :)
Klause flys a Cont. O-200 Vareze and gets 4.0 gph at 200 MPH at 10,000
feet. He does not know the power but he thinks it is around 55%. At 8,000
feet and 200 MPH it is about 4.3 gph. Klause test almost everyday as I am
just across the taxi way every day. He is also very precise in his
measurements.
Lets see... a 70 amp alternator running at 12 volts and 80% efficient
consumes in theory only about 1.4 horsepower at 746 watts per horsepower.
Naw..... hook that blow down turbine to the crank and put some real power
back in there :)
Paul Lamar
Johnny
>
>we were flying typical cruising speed for the 150 about 100 to 110 mph.
>just ask any 150 owner what they typically burn. the answer most likely
>will be between 5,5 to almost 7 on a tired 0 200. those are the real
>numbers and not what the book says.
>come by if you like i will take you for a ride paul and show you on my
>fuel flow gage that at 100 its uses 4 gph.
> reiner
Oh why bother... He will just tell you how anybody can rig a gauge to
say whatever they want it to.
Your trip to Florida is a glaring example
showing the REAL advantages of a modern auto conversion as opposed to a
typical dinosaur. It beat the Dino in every realm. Power, Speed, Climb,
Smoothness, Fuel Burn, Operating Cost, Initial Outlay, Reduced Emissions,
etc. You give the results of the 5000+ mi. trip and you get what...
"I still don't believe it", "the lycoming must have been running way rich",
"someone's lying".
Reiner, I can see now why you have gotten a little fed
up with the closed mindedness that some of the members of this newsgroup
are displaying on a regular basis. I for one am going to refrain from further
discussions having to do with trying to prove that the auto conversion has
many more advantages than disadvantages, as it is a waste of time trying to
communicate with a brick. And instead, concentrate on gathering and relaying
information to those that are seeking a better way to power there aircraft.
BTW, I will be stopping by your hanger in the next few days to check out
how the 2.2 installation is going. I should have the AA-1 back in the air
by then. We can go for a ride and I will show you what I did to it.
-j-
erc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
(40%) part of the 'aircooled engine' to the oil, not the fuel.
Bill in Pittsburgh
n93...@pitt.edu
Bill Cox
: : According to the book the Cessna 150 at 62.5% power should have been
: : Paul Lamar
I got a similar discussion from Bruce Arrigoni, except that his
estimate was that about 15% of an air-cooled engine's fuel is used
to cool it. He's predicting the our Legacy 2.2L will run on about
15% less fuel for the same generated horsepower. It'd be nice to
have the Velocity in the air, and try this!
Reinerh
i have to say it again that it averaged 4,3 on the subaru and 5,9 on the
o200.
reiner
Archie Cobbs
>Could you get a list of names and phone nuumbers for those 15 or 20
>Subaru engine owners?
>Paul Lamar
Bruce Arrigoni's email is form...@aol.com (pretty sure)...
-Archie
Ronald James Wanttaja
> >>been around rec.aviation long enough to hold the bet.
>
Fourteen Quatloos on the newcomer!
(Whoops, sorry, I thought this was rec.arts.startrek.DIY_Warp_Core... :-)
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
rob...@rain.org
: You do know, don't you, that all engines are liquid cooled- either by
: water or fuel. An automotive engine with a water jacket is going to use
: about 40% less fuel than an air cooled engine at the same horse power output.
: An aircraft air cooled engine requires all that extra fuel just for
: cooling. The BSFC differences between water cooled and air cooled engines
: is well discussed in many Mech.Eng. and even some Physics texts.
: Bruce A. Frank
Total bullshit! No way could it be 40%. At that rate the engine would be
producing fuel (just kidding) :)
Some AC turbo engine are run rich to enhance cooling. The all time world's
record for BSFC for an otto cycle recip is held by an aircooled aircraft
engine.
Read the whole thread!
Paul Lamar
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>: According to the book the Cessna 150 at 62.5% power should have been
>: burning 4.2 gallons an hour. Are you sure Jerry's engine did not have a
>: burnt valve or was running too rich?
>: Paul Lamar
>You do know, don't you, that all engines are liquid cooled- either by
>water or fuel. An automotive engine with a water jacket is going to use
>about 40% less fuel than an air cooled engine at the same horse power output.
>An aircraft air cooled engine requires all that extra fuel just for
>cooling. The BSFC differences between water cooled and air cooled engines
>is well discussed in many Mech.Eng. and even some Physics texts.
What happens then when I operate my O-360 at peak EGT in cruise?
By definition no unburnt fuel is going out the exhaust pipe. What's
doing the cooling?
I've been operating this way for over six years yet I've never trashed
any of my Lycomings from heat or detonation.
It seems to me that a 40% increase in range would have looked pretty
attractive to a lot of airlines running air-cooled engines on
DC-6/7 and Constellation's (to name just a few) way back when.
greg
Craig Wall
>Naw..... hook that blow down turbine to the crank and put some real power
>back in there :)
Weeeelll.... The big guys did it with fluid drives, because if you
don't optimise the speed match it doesn't work too well- you risk
even driving the turbine instead of the other way around. I thought
of electric coupling (turbine-gen-controller with battery option-electric
motor-crankshaft) types of parallel hybrid electric options...
But it's all too lossy and obviously not worth it. Either take a little
off and drop something else, or go whole hog and go for a solid mechanical
coupling- but damn it, it's just a one speed motor without variable ratios.
And don't forget- blowdown turbines *cut* the horsepower by restricting the
gas flow (due to increased backpressure) before they can contribute. It's
marginal at best until you can get to the lean side of peak- you either
burn things up (so you have to have a wastegate) or you don't get a good
power dissipation (bad impedence match). You must be able to *tune* the coupling
to make it worthwhile.
Hell, I don't think jet-nozzle exhaust stacks have been given a fair look
either, and they're certainly easier. And augmenter tube exhausts...the
list goes on....
If you really want to know what I've been thinking, ask me about ram induction
air at the prop tips and prop tip exhaust nozzles.... IOWs, ram air super-
charging where the velocity is available, and blade thrust at the tips
with centrifugal force lowering the backpressure in the exhaust....
I'm so strange- how come I ain't Surgeon General?
Craig Wall
Unknown
>water or fuel.
Sorry to pick nits, but shouldn't that be "fluid cooled"?
_____________________________________________
Stephen Kearney : nef...@garnet.berkeley.edu
***** Vari-Eze under construction *****
Unknown
>just ask any 150 owner what they typically burn. the answer most likely
>will be between 5,5 to almost 7 on a tired 0 200.
That sounds a little high. I know I used to get an average of 6gph in a 152
(Lyc. O-235). That includes climb. An O-200 ought to do a bit better.
This is of course not a refute to the auto engine argument :->
Corey Cole
: Johnny (sy...@lovenet.com) wrote:
: : I wish we would hear from Reiner more often... He told me that on that
: : trip to Florida his friend burned 5 GPH, and he burned 4 GPH. I have
: : seen his 150. The EA-81, was a nice installation. Now he is putting
: : a Legacy in it. I can't wait to go for a ride. As he put it;
: : "I can't wait to feel some serious ponies". How bout it Hoffman? Can we
: : get a comment?
: : -j-
: I flat don't belive it!!! Somebody is lying!!! NO WAY is anybody going to
: get 0.322 BSFC out of a conventional recip. The Lyc or the Cont in the
: Cessna gets 0.43.
I've looked at the factory manual for the Lycoming O-360 and the
BSFC that it gives for that engine is...0.53. This was a fairly recent issue
of the manual. I don't know where the 0.43 comes from. 0.45-0.55 is the
"standard" BSFC for just about any normally aspirated reciprocating SI
engine. However, once you start fooling around with things like the
Miller cycle, ceramics, composites, etc., it is possible to get down low...
like 0.375 (Check out the V-8 powered BD-5) At cruise (and therefore
subject to pumping loses Paul) he achieves a 0.375 lbs/hr/hp fuel
consumption. I thought we had already had the discussion about the current
state of engine technology. When it comes to maximum lean best power and
lean best torque, nothing will be a closed loop fuel injection system with
a mass air metering system on the inlet. They use 16 and 32 bit
computers that crank through that stuff and adjust on the microsecond level.
Joe pilot reading the EGT (which may or may not be located in the best
possible position) can't keep up. I'll bet my dollar (and my butt) on
the EFI anyday.
Corey Cole
co...@pr.erau.edu
Gregory R. TRAVIS
> I've looked at the factory manual for the Lycoming O-360 and the
>BSFC that it gives for that engine is...0.53. This was a fairly recent issue
>of the manual. I don't know where the 0.43 comes from.
I don't know which Lycoming "factory" manual to which you're referring
but in my edition of 60297-12 (_Operator's Manual_ for the O-360,
HO-360, IO-360, AIO-360, HIO-360, & TIO-360 series), revised March
1990 lists the following:
For the O-360-C2B and -C2D engines (p 3-20):
FULL RICH BSFC, O-360-C2B & -C2D engines:
SPEED: 2400 RPM 2600 RPM 2700 RPM 2900 RPM
75% Power: 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.525
65% Power: 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.51
Again, those are FULL RICH numbers.
Let's look at the numbers of the 180 HP O-360-A series, such as I have:
Assuming gasoline is 6LBS/gallon, p. 3-50 (fig 3-34) gives a MINIMUM
allowable fuel flow of 9.6 gallons per hour at 75% and 8.2GPH at
65%. I will state that this correlates directly with my experience
after 200 hours behind this engine.
LEAN BSFC, O-360-A engine
75% Power: 0.426
65% Power: 0.420
Don't like carburetors you say? Fine, let's look at the ever-popular
IO-360-B series. These are injected 180 HP engines.
LEAN BSFC:
Speed 2400 2600 2700
75% Power: 0.414 0.429 0.437
65% Power: 0.435 0.452 0.461
Ok, how about the 200 HP IO-360s like the IO-360-A and -C used in
many Pipers and Mooneys:
LEAN BSFC:
Speed 2400 2600 2700
75% Power: N/A 0.413 0.420
65% Power 0.415 0.430 0.438
As much as I try, I can find only one example of an O-360
doing over 0.50 BSFC and that's at FULL-RICH and running a screaming
2900 RPM.
The lowest BSFC is the 200 HP IO-360 at 75% power and 2600 RPM with
0.413 which is even lower than the poriginal poster's 0.43. 0.43
seems to be child's play for any 360 CI Lycoming with numbers
below that attained even by the lowly carbureted versions.
Care to back up your 0.53 BSFC claim? You are building an engine,
aren't you?
greg
Chuck Caldarale
>You may have missed one of my earlier postings. Pumping
>the EA-81 up as far as it will go yields about 210 HP.
>The 186 HP is conservative, in my judgement...
>But it is, as Paul Lamar calls it, a screamer. That muffler
>is *necessary*.
Except it's not an EA81. According to the Formula Power literature, it's an
EJ22, which should have a lot easier time of living at 185 hp.
(Sorry for the late post. Something in our news feed is really bogged down.)
Chuck Caldarale | PP-ASEL,IA | _ |
Unisys Roseville | Building Velocity N828CL |------( )------|
(612) 635-6070 | (Who's got the sandpaper?) O o O
Curt Reimer
>>You do know, don't you, that all engines are liquid cooled- either by
>>water or fuel. An automotive engine with a water jacket is going to use
>>about 40% less fuel than an air cooled engine at the same horse power output.
>>An aircraft air cooled engine requires all that extra fuel just for
>>cooling. The BSFC differences between water cooled and air cooled engines
>>is well discussed in many Mech.Eng. and even some Physics texts.
>What happens then when I operate my O-360 at peak EGT in cruise?
>By definition no unburnt fuel is going out the exhaust pipe. What's
>doing the cooling?
On take off and initial climb (at least near sea level) it is recommended
operating practice for most air cooled engines to run with the mixture
set to full rich. The extra fuel does help cool the engine. It is a very
effective means of cooling since the exhaust valve head is cooled
directly. Once cruising altitude is reached, the engine mixture is leaned
for peak efficiency. No additional fuel is used for cooling.
IMHO, "fuel cooling" is a rather elegant way of providing extra cooling
at the appropriate time (full power takeoff & climb) and place (down low
where the ambient air temperature is highest) and airspeed (slow). One
alternative would be larger cooling fins, and a bulkier cowling to contain
them. This would increase cruise drag and weight. Another alternative is to
use a liquid cooling system which can act as a heat sink during limited
periods of full power, low speed operation. Again, more weight.
With fuel cooling, you burn a couple of extra gallons on climb, say 12
lbs worth, and then cruise with no additional weight or drag penalty.
With liquid cooling, you carry the extra weight and complexity around all
the time.
More weight carried means more fuel burned per mile. Is the fuel
burn penalty of carrying the extra weight of a liquid cooling system all
the time less than the fuel burn penalty of "liquid cooling" an
air-cooled engine on takeoff? I don't know, but as other have mentioned,
nearly every piston engined transport aircraft built since the 1920s has
been air-cooled. I believe the big Wright turbo-compound air cooled
radials hold the record for BSFC, do they not?
Perhaps liquid-cooled engines use a full rich mixture for take off and
climb as well. I don't know, never flown one. But if they do, then they
are "liquid-liquid cooled" at full power anyway, and the whole argument
is moot.
Curt Reimer
rob...@rain.org
: You do know, don't you, that all engines are liquid cooled- either by
: water or fuel. An automotive engine with a water jacket is going to use
: about 40% less fuel than an air cooled engine at the same horse power output.
: An aircraft air cooled engine requires all that extra fuel just for
: cooling. The BSFC differences between water cooled and air cooled engines
: is well discussed in many Mech.Eng. and even some Physics texts.
: Bruce A. Frank
40% Wow! I could get one of these Subaru rice burners and put it in my
garage and let it run. I could then fuel my Cadilac Sedan Deville with the
fuel it generated :) No need to buy fuel from big oil anymore. We have
break even and then some. Somebody call the Atomic Energy Commission we
have discovered warm fusion :)
In all seriouness if people did not make such wild claims they would be
taken more seriously.
I could believe 10% improvement in BSFC for a water cooled engine. But
why did water cooled engines disappear in the aircraft industry? The
British built some water cooled bombers during the war but they did not
use them in post war airliners. Why? Why is nobody buying water cooled
Continental Voyager engines? I have a twenty year old airplane. What
kind of shape is the twenty year old cooling system in your twenty year
old car?
The guy getting 5.9 gallons per hour in the C-150 O-200 is not leaning it
properely. All the people around Santa Paula airport with O-200s get
between 4.0 and 4.9 depending on power.
There is an article in this months Sport Aviation about a Varieze flown to
Oskosh from Brazil and back with a Lyc O-235 of 115 HP engine. His overall
average for the 100 hour trip was 4.7 gallons an hour. That is
consistent with the BSFC of an O-200 of 100 HP.
You can get up to 10% more power if you don't mind a little ice in your
intake by taking the intake manifold out of the warm oil pan in a Lycoming.
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
: Assuming gasoline is 6LBS/gallon, p. 3-50 (fig 3-34) gives a MINIMUM
: allowable fuel flow of 9.6 gallons per hour at 75% and 8.2GPH at
: 65%. I will state that this correlates directly with my experience
: after 200 hours behind this engine.
I have about 800 hours behind my O-470 and it averages 4.2 BFSC.
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
: I thought we had already had the discussion about the current
: state of engine technology. When it comes to maximum lean best power and
: lean best torque, nothing will be a closed loop fuel injection system with
: a mass air metering system on the inlet. They use 16 and 32 bit
: computers that crank through that stuff and adjust on the microsecond level.
: Joe pilot reading the EGT (which may or may not be located in the best
: possible position) can't keep up. I'll bet my dollar (and my butt) on
: the EFI anyday.
Electronic fuel injection was developed for use in cars to meet smog and
driveability concerns. It is not that much better if any than a pure
mechanical systems as found in aircraft engines running at constant load
and constant RPM and power level.
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
rear axle ratios, lower aero and rolling drag and lighter weight rather
than any real significant improvement in BSFC. If anything BSFC has
suffered from a reduction in compression ratios as a result of lower
octane unleaded fuel.
Since the modern car only requires 20 or 30 horsepoer to cruise at 60 to
70 mph, lowering the overall gear ration to lower the engine speed to
2000 to 3000 RPM has made a large improvement in MPG. The throttle is open
wider and the pumping losses are lower. An aircraft engine at altitude
also has a wide open throttle but of course is generating 65 to 70% of
peak power unlike the car engine.
Greg, These guys minds are made up that there IS a $5000, 100 MPG, auto
engine that will work in an airplane... or there damn well better be
one... or they won't be able to fly :) Keep the faith guys :)
Paul Lamar
rob...@rain.org
The real problem is product liability. A few greedy lawyers have run the
the cost of product liability out of sight for aircraft engine
manufacturers. This has cut into our life style big time. Write a letter
to your congress person and urge them to vote for product liability reform
now pending.
Send email as well. Here are a few email addresses.
Newt GEOR...@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Bill C pres...@whitehouse.gov
Vice vice-pr...@whitehouse.gov
If anybody has anymore addresses please post them here so I can write
some more myself.
Paul Lamar