building a v6 engine for aircraft
Alic Beasley
I'm looking for information regarding converting a v6 to aircraft
use. Any info and or links would be greatly appreciated!
Al Beasley
brian whatcott
Several years ago, a new kid on the block wrote up the efforts of a
group to aeromatize a new aluminum block V-6. It was thrilling
technical reportage. The difficulties with carbs etc., etc.
But that was then, and this is now.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
<in...@intellisys.net>
Eureka!
Bruce A. Frank
RAH right now? I must be slipping!
On to the question. The Ford 3.8L V-6 was the first successful
conversion. The Chevy 4.3L V-6 has also been done and complete engines
are available from Belted Power and Northwest Aero. Johnny at NWA says
he is no longer building Ford engines. If you want him to, maybe if you
ask real nicely he will.
Blanton covered the initial work reasonably well and all that info is
still available from his son David, through ads in Kitplanes and Sport
Aviation. My newsletter covers most of the development since '92.
The 3.8L Ford is still the lightest for its displacement. It is well
known. It has evolved to a larger version at 4.2L. Both sizes are
available. The Ford is lighter because it comes stock with aluminum
heads and intake. There are virtually no aftermarket performance parts
for the Ford. The 3.8L as modified for aviation use is a 200 HP engine.
The Chevy 4.3L as modified puts out about 230 HP. THere are plenty of
aftermarket speed options available for this engine.
The one other reasonable piston engine is the Subaru 3.3L (SVX) flat
six. In stock dress this engine, even when converted to a carb, is about
a 230 HP engine. Its HP peak is a bit higher rpm than the Ford and
Chevy, but it is a good option.
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> At some point in the past, ( Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:01:18 GMT, as it
> happens) someone using the name Alic Beasley
> <sanda...@sk.sympatico.ca> made the following views known to all
> those in rec.aviation.homebuilt
> The local RAH expert on V6's is Bruce Frank, check Deja.com for his
> posts.
> --
>
> Richard Riley
>
> Vote Cthulhu for President!
> Don't settle for a lesser evil!
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAF...@worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft, TIG
welding
0 0
Nagalman
"Alic Beasley" <sanda...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B198A70...@sk.sympatico.ca...
I certainly am not an expert, but have you considered Subaru's line of Boxer
6 engines (I believe it's a 3.2L H-6)
Dub-ya
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The 3.8L Ford is still the lightest for its displacement. It is well
>known. It has evolved to a larger version at 4.2L. Both sizes are
>available. The Ford is lighter because it comes stock with aluminum
>heads and intake. There are virtually no aftermarket performance parts
>for the Ford. The 3.8L as modified for aviation use is a 200 HP engine.
I once had a 3.8 powered Taurus LX and I remember it being kind of
heavy and put out about 140 uninspired HP.. What did you do to get
200 out of it?
Jim VanDervort
assa9
Bruce A. Frank <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B19CE28...@worldnet.att.net...
Bruce A. Frank
3.8L that moved the torque peak from the 2200 rpm range to about 4100
rpm. The addition of the Holley carbs (either the 350 or 500 cfm units)
also improved the breathing. We also went to 9:1 compression pistons
because some of the engines came with lower compression ratios that lost
them as much as 30 hp. (Ford made some of these same type of changes on
later production in the Windstar to yield 210 hp).
Don't confuse the later 4.2 V-6 with Fords 4.2L V-8. The 6 puts out more
hp. Also though the 4.2L 6 has been in some cars since '89 the best
developed engines began showing when Ford started putting them in the
F-150 pickup line, around '96-'97 or so.
The 3.8 was the first of the "light weight" engines that was not make of
aluminum. The 3.8L is a thin-wall casting of a high strength nickel
iron. Though still heavier than most aviation air-cooled engines for the
hp, you are giving up only about 50 to 100 pounds in most applications
(wish I could give up 100 lbs).
--
BOb U
wrote:
>>I once had a 3.8 powered Taurus LX and I remember it being kind of
>>heavy and put out about 140 uninspired HP.. What did you do to get
>>200 out of it?
>
>I had a 4.2 L Tarus Waggon for a 100k miles and while I wouldn't have
>ever guessed it was putting out more than 200 hp, it drank gas as if
>it did.
>
>The most interesting thing about that engine was that on 3 occasions,
>for various reasons, I ended up running it without coolant. It
>survived. Didn't warp the heads, sieze a bearing or anything else I
>expected. I was impressed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ditto on uninspired.
I **HAD** been a Ford lover and buyer ever since 1960.
However, the 1997 Ford pick up truck I purchased new with the V-6....
was such a dog and gas hog, that I sold it before the 1998's came out.
I was so disgusted with the lack of performance of the vehicle and
from Ford customer service, it will be a long, long time before I buy
another new Ford product.
BOb U
Clifford Bradford
Badwater Bill
<sanda...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I'd answer you since I've been involved with both building and test
flying a Chevy Vortec powered RV-6. But I'd have to endure a bunch of
shit from the uneducated, unexperienced, unrated assholes of the group
like Dave Munday, Dave Hyde, Richard Riley and the self proclaimed
geniuses of mechanics like HF...so, just go do about 10 years work on
your own and report back here. If you live, you'll figure it out.
The words, thoughts and experiences of a Professional pilot are not
welcome here by the net nanny assholes and self proclaimed guru's who
are in reality just weekend pilots. This is a forum for the weak and
galactically stupid...not those who have really ever built and done
anything.
If I told you of the pitfalls, engine problems, cooling, etc. I'd
have to listen to Dave Munday tell me how I blew it on a test flight
four years ago. How I didn't watch a guage that he would have watched
even though I was on fire. Or how I flew the airplane over areas
where I couldn't make a safe power off landing.
Ha Ha. How many times in each flight that we all make each time we go
up are we in a position that we may not be capable of making a safe
power off landing? Everyone here who is a real pilot knows that you
hang your ass out on every flight for a few moments when you really
couldn't make it if that engine quit. EVERY FLIGHT.
But Munday doesn't know that because he doesn't know how to fly. So,
he can sit behind his computer screen, pick his nose and take shots of
those of us who have spent more than 100 hours in Chevy powered
aircraft, more than 4000 hours in helicopters and more than 4000 hours
in airplanes including test flying 14 new homebuilts.
Yep, ask Dave Munday...or Mr. Shorty Hyde to answer your questions.
They have all the answers from their little PPL SEL tickets and their
vast experiences...
Ask Sydney. Her vast knowledge of Vortec engines and homebuilts will
astound you. Ask her a question about composites or tuning the intake
manifold using an Edlbrock...or changing the valve seats to stainless
since the stock ones burn up.
Yep, there are lots of secrets. Hundreds of them. You go ask the
Hydes, Mundays and the Sydneys of this group to answer them for you.
Don't ask me. I'm out doing it routinely...instead of dreaming about
it like them.
I'd tell you about the new rotorblades I just test flew and what I
found, but it would be beyond the scope of the intellect of this
fucking group to even understand it. In the old days. I'd write it up
for fun and post it. Nowadays I know that the little old women like
Dave Munday would bounce me for it three years from now if I wrote
anything that anyone could actually learn anything from. I'd post my
mistakes....the mistakes of a test pilot, an ATP with many CFI ratings
and 35 years experience. But, I'm not going to open my mistakes up to
you people so you can learn. Not anymore.
You can all go fuck yourselves.
BWB
Bruce A. Frank
the Vortec 4.3L V-6
--
Quill
Tough time of the month, is it? Bloating, water retention and all that...
C.D.Damron
Badwater Bill wrote in message <3b1df7a2...@news.earthlink.net>...
Horace Guitteriez
In article <3b1df7a2...@news.earthlink.net>, Badwater Bill says...
Richard R Ilfeld
A version of the below shows up, usually sooner than later, in
all auto conversion questions.
Reliability, availability, and expense are all defineable
and measureable variables, but definition and statistics
seldom enter the argument. There is lots of anecdotal evidence
re all three points on both sides of the argument.
As many contributors to progress improve our understanding
of, and probablt the reliability of, auto engines.....and as aircraft
engine costs grow faster than inflation, I'd expect the crossover
point favoring an auto engine over an aircraft engine in certain
applications to be approaching. Perhaps, for some horspower
ranges and applications it has been reached.
But an engine is just a mechanical device, chosen by each of us to
meet a particular cost/risk/reward equation of our aircraft projects;
it's not a religious talisman. It is perfectly possible for a
certified engine to fail, while an auto engine runs well for many
hours. There's lots to talk about without reverting to religious
wars.
Hell, it's quite possible, tho impossible to prove, that the engine
carrying the most light aircraft into the sky today is a Rotax, and
that the 200 HP powerplant of choice of the future for homebuilders
might be a very light twin with two strokes (ala Air Cam).
BTW, I sure couldn't find any $8000 engines I'd want to hang on my
Airplane, & I looked,
rri
>In article <3B198A70...@sk.sympatico.ca>,
>Here's a good link, from some folks that know something about homebuilt
>aircraft and engines:
>
>http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/powerpla.htm
>---
>Part of what it says:
>
>> We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We'd like to
>> pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane business:
>> "the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a good used
>> Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it reflects the basic
>> truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be as reliable, available,
>> and inexpensive (everything considered) as a traditional aircraft engine.
>---
>Hope that helps.
>
>--
>J'
Tony Pucillo
Geez, Bill, since when do you care what the 'old ladies' say??
Post your comments anyway, they'd be less aggravating to you and the others
than diatribing at length. (Is diatribe a verb? 'Rant' can be both, why
not??)
Tony
Bill wrote:
> >I'd answer you since I've been involved with both building and test
> >flying a Chevy Vortec powered RV-6. But I'd have to endure a bunch of
> >shit from the uneducated, unexperienced, unrated assholes of the group
[]In the old days. I'd write it up
> >for fun and post it. Nowadays I know that the little old women like
> >Dave Munday would bounce me for it three years from now if I wrote
> >anything that anyone could actually learn anything from.
[]
AINut
important to you. Please share your knowledge so that we won't have to
endure the same wasted expense, time, and most of all, RISK!
Thanks,
AI Nut
Ben Sego
> Geez, Bill, since when do you care what the 'old ladies' say??
>
> Post your comments anyway, they'd be less aggravating to you and the others
> than diatribing at length. (Is diatribe a verb? 'Rant' can be both, why
> not??)
>
> Tony
Calvin: "I like to verb words."
Hobbes: "What?"
Calvin: "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when `access' was
a thing? Now it's something you do . It got verbed."
Calvin: "Verbing weirds language."
Hobbes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
- Calvin & Hobbes, by Bill Watterson
B.S.
Ray Leonard
wrote:
>BWB, illegitimi non carborundum. Ignore them. They aren't that
>important to you. Please share your knowledge so that we won't have to
>endure the same wasted expense, time, and most of all, RISK!
>
>Thanks,
>AI Nut
>
>
>Badwater Bill wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:01:18 GMT, Alic Beasley
>> <sanda...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi!
>> > I'm looking for information regarding converting a v6 to aircraft
>> >use. Any info and or links would be greatly appreciated!
>> >
>> >Al Beasley
>>
>> I'd answer you since I've been involved with both building and test
>> flying a Chevy Vortec powered RV-6. But I'd have to endure a bunch of
>> shit from the uneducated, unexperienced, unrated assholes of the group
>> like Dave Munday, Dave Hyde, Richard Riley and the self proclaimed
>> geniuses of mechanics like HF...so, just go do about 10 years work on
>> your own and report back here. If you live, you'll figure it out.
>>
Stupid rant snipped
Bill is holding out until we all proclaim him king. Dumbest
campaign I ever saw.
Ray
Jim VanDervort
It is still working fine.
Is that an acecdote?
assa9
Richard R Ilfeld <ril...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b1e7f7a....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
David Munday
> I'd answer you since I've been involved with both building and test
> flying a Chevy Vortec powered RV-6. But I'd have to endure a bunch of
> shit from the uneducated, unexperienced, unrated assholes of the group
> like Dave Munday, Dave Hyde, Richard Riley and the self proclaimed
> geniuses of mechanics like HF...so, just go do about 10 years work on
> your own and report back here. If you live, you'll figure it out.
I saw the following on a T-shirt recently:
"Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter-acusations."
At least I've been put in good company.
Brian, the $5.00 is on the way.
The guy to ask about Ford and Chevy conversions around here is Bruce
Frank, but he's been asked, and has answered already.
I did see a chevy mounted to the front of a GP-4 a couple of years ago but
I don't think it's flown yet. The gestation period on those birds is
pretty long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Munday E-mail: mun...@engr.uky.edu
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Web: http://www.engr.uky.edu/~munday
521 CRMS Building Voice: +1 (859) 257-3263
University of Kentucky FAX: +1 (859) 257-3304
Lexington, KY 40506-0108 Office: 202 D. V. Terrell Bldg.
Richard R Ilfeld
wrote:
YES - and a Data Point. And, if a typical homebuilt flies 100
hours per year, you've had four years, which is certainly
reasonable reliability.
If I've got my history right, Corvairs, VW's, Porsches, and Soobs
all are branches of the same engineering tree, and all have shown
ability to perform in aircraft.
The Ford V6 seems to have a substantial record as well.
I'm sure there are others. Given the huge head start due to
massive automative development and in-service proofing, and
the substantial racing community, I'd guess these engines are
much farther along in their development than Lycomings were with
the same number of units in service??
A willingness to accept a bit less than the maximum performance
seems to help auto engine reliability a lot (judging from anecdotes).
How hard do you run your Corvair?
rri
Jim VanDervort
i run the ignition timing at 22 BTD.
direct drive, Hegy prop, 66-30
2400 RPM.
it is on a Pietenpol, and i can out run a J3 cub quite a bit.
i suppose 75 HP, true.
assa9
Richard R Ilfeld <ril...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b1ee23d....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
BOb U
wrote:
>A willingness to accept a bit less than the maximum performance
>seems to help auto engine reliability a lot (judging from anecdotes).
>How hard do you run your Corvair?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Time to drop an auto engine in a Mooney?
Bruce A. Frank
Bill,
You need to get in touch with Gar to see if he has a reformulating of
the "rat poison mix" medication. There is no smiley face inadvertently
omitted here.
Dan Horton
Dan Horton
Badwater Bill
>The guy to ask about Ford and Chevy conversions around here is Bruce
>Frank, but he's been asked, and has answered already.
I guess he's the only one on Earth in your mind who has done anything
on the project eh? Typical of you.
>
>I did see a chevy mounted to the front of a GP-4 a couple of years ago but
>I don't think it's flown yet. The gestation period on those birds is
>pretty long.
More wasted words. Why don't you just say that you don't know
ANYTHING on the subject and just keep your mouth shut?
Typical low time pilot remarks, thoughts and inexperienced blather.
Go build something Mooonday then come back after 10 years of
experience and make a comment that has some value.
Until then why don't you just lurk?
Oh, by the way, I flew an airplane yesterday in a position where I was
not in range of a suitable landing if my engine quit. I just thought
I'd tell you this since I know you've never done it. I had 12 minutes
over the Sierra Nevada range where I'd have been dead meat if she'd
have quit me. Then everybody here could listen to you tell them from
your deep resources and wisdom how dumn I was to have done that.
Sorry Dave. I made it.
BWB
Badwater Bill
>
>That is so much bullshit. Bill was just an observer on the OMABP project.
>He rarely picked up a tool. He did do the test flying for the first 100
>hours, but that was his only participation. He don't know much about
>engines and he wanted to be involved with it for that reason more than any.
You know, it's rare that anyone ever gets it right here but you got
it right. I rarely picked up a tool. That's exactly correct. I
watched the more experienced guys do all the work. But I was there.
I was present and I learned.
>
>As far as his technical contributions in aviation. He has none! All
>of his publications were in Physics.
Here's where you are dead wrong. I have many publications in national
magazines about the physics of balloon flight and some on sailplanes.
I've just never mentioned them. You are guessing. I published for
years in Ballon Life Magazine and Soaring.
What have you published on aviation?
>
>He had no time to do anything in aviation other than just fly. He basically
>was a sight-seer on Jess and Tom's project when it came to the mechanics.
>Although he did collect flight data, which was really all he could do. He was
>there to learn and flying it was the only skill he had that could be
>used to contribute to the project.
Yes, that's absolutely correct. So what's your point?
I worked with these guys for about two years. I flew the thing when
it didn't even run real well. There were lots of problems with the
intake manifold and fuel distribution to each cylinder. I didn't have
to spin the wrenches to watch the experts and see what was going on.
There were many other problems too but you can go fuck yourself.
Since I only helped diagnose the problems and didn't spin the wrenches
to fix them I guess I don't know enough to post on the real problems
eh?
You see, an asshole like you is the exact reason for not posting. You
don't know shit about anything. I'd like to see your ass go out and
fly it for 100 hours. After all, it is an airplane you dork. The
whole purpose of the experiment was to build a "Flying" airplane with
a Chevy engine in it. Those guys did that but they needed a
PROFESSIONAL pilot to test each concept. They weren't professional
pilots. Just like any other project, each team member brought
something different to the table. I brought piloting skill and
diagnostic savey. They brought wrenches and rivet guns.
One hundred hours in an experimental test bed is a long time. It's
about 300 flights in all. That's a lot of exposure to this kind of
problem. There are many pilots who post here who don't have 100 hours
in their log books.
So, Mr. Shit for brains. Stick it up your ass.
BWB
Badwater Bill
Spoken like a true intellect. Rich, you are just wasting your breath.
I can't wait to see some asshole come in here like the one above and
ask you what you've published in aviation...or make a blanket
statement that what you have to say is not valid because you don't
have any aviation publications. Jesus, what a fool that asshole is.
I've put many hours in the sky under my belt in a ROTAXes. I was
flying ROTAXes before most people even knew what they were. I've
flown Helicopters with the 582 engine in them. My gyroscope has a 582
in it...and I hate the God damn engine. Yes, it puts out power, but
it costs about $6000 with the electric start and it's trash in about
100 hours.
That's the problem Kevin and I are facing. Rotax engines seem to be
real good up to about 50 hours, then "little shit" starts happening.
At 70 hours they are nothing but a time-bomb. At 100 hours, you
better pray on each flight you make it back. I've seen crankshafts
simply wrenched in two at 100 hours. Shitty alloys or something.
I worry everytime I take off in that damn thing. I fly (as much as
possible) over somewhere I can land without killing myself. Then you
have the uncertified props that go with them. One almost killed me a
month ago. It was an IVOPROP. A ground adjustable prop. I had too
much pitch in it. I took some out and flew it. Nothing changed.
Same RPM's for the same power settings...nothing changed...so I
flattened the son of a bitch out as much as possiblet on the ground ,
spooled it up, had plenty of thrust, took off and 50 feet into the air
the thing adjusted on me to flat pitch. Some sort of hysteresis I
guess. Then out of a clear blue...I went to zero thrust...and I
fucking mean ZERO too. I pinned the engine, dove for airspeed hoping
to zoom out the bottom before I smucked into the desert or at least
have enough kinetic energy to flare without trashing my ass and at the
bottom. But I just had nothing. I mean I had no margin. Only one
shot at it or I'd be dead meat.
I had about 20 knots. In a gyro, that's enough to live. I flared in
the desert at full throttle and felt that drag-bucket grab me and stop
me (like flaring a hang glider and stopping dead so you can land on
your feet). It's like the feeling of decelleration you get when you
throw out a drag anchor. I went into a ditch, broke landing gear
off, whacked the main rotorblades and came to a stop in about 5 feet
unharmed. I just sat there in the desert for about 10 minutes that
seemed like an eternity, sitting on a FULL- fuel tank and listening to
my BENT blades wind down.
Good old experimental shit. Rotax, IVOPROP, 2-cycle, it's all just an
accident looking for a place to happen.
I'd rather fly behind a Chevy engine Jess and Blake Brooksby built
anyday...other than a chickenshit ROTAX of any sort.
I rebuilt everything on the gyroscope in a couple days. Then waited
for a new set of blades and prop. It's sitting outside right now. I
have only to bleed the brakes today and we test fly it tomorrow. More
test flying behind a ROTAX, a brand new set of rotorblades with zero
time on them....could actually throw one of them too on the first
flight. New IVOPROP that adjusts quickly on the ground without moving
shims. Lots of new variables for one flight. I hate it when it's
like that. I'd like one change at a time. But sometimes you have no
choice.
On this flight tomorrow, there's just too much new stuff. All
swinging around with lots of g's on it, all interacting, interplaying,
sympathetic resonances will be at different rpms, flight speeds etc.
I've got to go get the fucking data though and there's only one way to
do it. I gotta take her up.
Oh, but, don't listen to any of this. I have nothing of value to say,
I didn't spin the wrenches on Jess's and Tom's project so I don't know
anything. Well, I spun the wrenches on building this gyro and guess
what? It made no difference. I didn't learn any more by doing the
wrench spinning. I still crashed.
Sorry to ramble on <g>. I don't have 500 publications in aviation.
Just a few dozen technical articles on ballooning and sailplanes so I
have nothing to offer. I'll kick back and listen to ole McAffee above
tell me how to do it. That's the ticket.
In fact, "Hey, Riley...(oh, I mean McAffee)...you want to test fly it
tomorrow? I'll pay your airline ticket over her and we'll strap your
ass into it for the test flight. Since 100 hours of test flying an
RV-6 behind a Chevy is nothing to bring to a project, we'll put you in
it the next time we change something radical and ask you to take it
up, push the envelope, get the data and hang your ass in the wind."
Then if you go talk about it, we'll pooh-pooh your words as those of a
crazed loon who brought nothing to the project but monkey skills.
BBWWWAHHAHHAAAAA
It's only 7 a.m. and I need a Chardonnay already. I only have about
12 hours to wait. I may not make it. <g>
Bad Billy
Badwater Bill
You got that right. I'd bet that one of Jess's and Blakes' rebuilds
with all the stresses relieved in the case, the crank, the CAM etc.
would be a nice experiment in a Mooney. I gotta tell you guys, that
RV-6a went like hell. It has a lot better performance than my RV-6
with the O-320- LYC.
They are still working on that thing everyday. I had the wrong prop
on it when I was flying it. The cord was too narrow. It cavitated on
me on take off. I could hear it. Everybody on the field could hear
it. They've got a better prop that looks more like a big paddle on it
now and that son of a bitch flat ass hauls. I know Jess it getting
200 mph out of it in level flight at about 4400 rpm on 10 gal/hr.
The only thing I never liked about it was that it was so heavy. That
big heavy crate engine on the front of a tiny little airplane...but, I
flew like a scalded dog. It even flies better now.
I was talking to Bill Harold two days ago about putting some VG's on
it. Does anyone out there know the spacing and where on the skin you
glue them on? I bought some carpet tape yesterday and I'm going to
make some, move em around on my RV-6 and see what happens.
Who of you out there know where to go look for the data on optimal
spacing, size of the VG's etc? Any of you Gallactically stupid
bastards know anything here that might help me? Or do I have to treat
this group like it normally is, a bunch of armchair lurkers and bull
shitters like McAffe up there with lots to say about those of us out
here who are doing real experiments?
How thick is that boundary layer on the RV wing? How high to I have
to cut the VG's. Where in the cord do I glue them. Anybody know, or
should I just expect more information to come to me by asking the wall
in front of me.
Bad Billy
BWB
Ray Leonard
(Badwater Bill) wrote:
>Who of you out there know where to go look for the data on optimal
>spacing, size of the VG's etc? Any of you Gallactically stupid
>bastards know anything here that might help me? Or do I have to treat
>this group like it normally is, a bunch of armchair lurkers and bull
>shitters like McAffe up there with lots to say about those of us out
>here who are doing real experiments?
>
I do. I also know who is selling them so cheap it's not worth
making your own. But you know what ? I am so tired of being
assaulted and insulted by you that I am going to be too
"Gallactically stupid" to post it. Fuck yourself Phillips.
Be the fucking "professional" you claim to be and research it
yourself.
Ray
Jerry Springer
>
>
>
> Who of you out there know where to go look for the data on optimal
> spacing, size of the VG's etc? Any of you Gallactically stupid
> bastards know anything here that might help me? Or do I have to treat
> this group like it normally is, a bunch of armchair lurkers and bull
> shitters like McAffe up there with lots to say about those of us out
> here who are doing real experiments?
>
> How thick is that boundary layer on the RV wing? How high to I have
> to cut the VG's. Where in the cord do I glue them. Anybody know, or
> should I just expect more information to come to me by asking the wall
> in front of me.
>
> Bad Billy
>
> BWB
Hi Bill
Here is one sorce for them.
(The Company who makes VGs is called Micro-Aerodynamics. Their phone number is 360
293 8082.)
Also Larry Vetterman that makes exhaust for RV's and other homebuilts also makes and
sells
kits for them. Sorry I don't have a phone number for him here but you can go to
the Matronics RV-List archive and do a search for VG and Vortex Generators and
probably find
a bunch of information.
http://www.matronics.com/archives/
Scroll down and use the search engine for the topic you want.
Hope this helps.
Jerry Springer
Dave Hyde
> Also Larry Vetterman that makes exhaust for RV's and other homebuilts also makes and
> sells> kits for them. Sorry I don't have a phone number for him...
Don't know about his VG's, but his exhausts are beautiful.
Dave 'satisfied customer' Hyde
na...@brick.net
sydney
> > Also Larry Vetterman that makes exhaust for RV's and other
> > homebuilts also makes and sells kits for them. Sorry I don't
> > have a phone number for him...
> vetx...@gwtc.net
> Don't know about his VG's, but his exhausts are beautiful.
You can read all about his VG's here:
http://www.ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm
(very thoroughly documented testing)
http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/vetterman/vg.htm
(a bit hyped -- for example claims there's no loss in
cruise speed at all, which the above contradicts)
Price steeper than $0.75 apiece, but for those who believe
placement and shape are critical I'm sure it's the
the "knowing where to put 'em" you're paying for.
Interestingly, they claim the kits for -4 and -6 are not
interchangeable, despite the same airfoil. Anyone care
to explain this?
Sydney
Badwater Bill
>That's absolutly right, Bill.
>The asshole that wrote what I posted is the reason for not posting.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+OMABP+group:rec.aviation.*+author:badwater&start=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=13&ic=1&selm=33dcccba.58055557%40nntp.ix.netcom.com
>*SMOOCH*
>ROTFLMAO!!!
Nice job. I said I had no technical publications in aviation. I
meant "Peer Reviewed Publications." But, I doubt that many here know
the difference. You see, even my standards have diminished over the
years. I still have no journal articles on aviation anywhere and even
at that late date my 'many' magazine articles didn't count in my own
mind as technical publications although they were all VERY
technical...just not in the snob journals. Those magazine articles
were good. They really were. You ought to read them...you might
learn something.
Jesus, some of you anonymous sons a bitches have been absorbing this
stuff for years. That was four or five years ago.
Nice job. Brought back some GOOD memories of working with Tom
especially. Actually Tom and I scratch built my Minimax too but I
doubt I ever said that before. Tom would show up at my house at 6
a.m. everyday. He had a garage door opener and my wife would wake up
to that door opening...saying, "Oh God, there's Tom...how much longer
do I have to put up with this?"
BWB: Honey, not much longer, we have the fuselage built and mounted
on the landing gear now. Tonight I'll take your picture sitting in it
if all works out well today.
Boom Boom: Oh, I can hardly wait!....Don't you guys dirty up the
house today, or I'll beat you.
Ha ha Ha.
You don't know it but Boom Boom...RIGHT NOW is in the other room
sewing envelopes out of canvas for my new and beautiful
rotorblades...made of polished aluminum. The damn things look like a
piece of jewelry instead of rotor blades. Its 20:00 and I'm going to
bed to get up at 04:00 and go test fly them. I'll have them in their
nice new canvas envelopes as I drive them to the California border at
5 a.m. tomorrow morning, put the gyroscope together and hope I don't
screw the pooch!
One more thought. I think I've only met one other woman in my life
that reminds me of my wife and that's Jerry Springer's wife Linda.
They are both so supportive of the efforts that Jerry and I have made
to fly experimental aircraft that I can't find another
similar...wait....wait. There is Sue, John Ant Eater's wife. Another
pilar of a human being. Linda, Boom Boom, and Sue together are a
critical mass of support for any pilot in the universe. Only an
astronaut deserves the energy, the dedication and the endurance of
these women.
A funny story. At Arlington about three years ago I met Jerry and
Linda and I told her of my respect for her being an airshow BRAT. I
saw in her eyes that she didn't understand what I was saying and I had
to back peddled instantly. What I really meat to say is that any self
respecting homebuilder would love to have a woman who would go with
them year after year to airshows...a woman who watched them build
their experimental airplane...a woman who with no reservations loved
them...a women who liked airshows. This is what my wife is, what
Linda is...what Sue is. AND...I think Jarvis had found one more in
Kaz.
Now you ask me who in the hell in their mid 40's would go and buy an
RV-6 and learn to fly in it? Jarvis' woman did this. That, my
buddies, is one hell of a woman.
I'm afraid to even meet a woman like Kaz... this is a woman who could
make a man even change GODS. Poor old Dennis Fetters met a woman like
this. The poor bastard even changed his name to something I can't
remember but it was like Alli Babba, Von Fetters...or something
close... and became an Arab!!
I swear, any woman who can make a man change Gods is some powerful
pussy.
BWB
Badwater Bill
>http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/vetterman/vg.htm
>
>Both Larry's and the micro VG's are very nice, and they're about $10
>each. I'll take the cheap ones and save 92%, but that's just me.
Thanks guys. I'll go do it...run some experiments and post the
results here so the gallactically stupid like Ray Leon Lard can
ruminate over it.
All joking aside...you are right. I'll go buy them, tape them first,
then glue them if I like them and post the data for all of you who
helped me.
Thanks.
Bill
Quill
Way to go BWB! That was a damn fine post.
Jerry Springer
You are right Dave they are nice. I have had his exhaust on my RV-6 now for about 800
hours without a problem. The brand x I had on before would break and
crack about every 20-50 hours.
Jerry Springer
Jerry Springer
Sydney I could not tell you why the difference other than the -6
has less wing area because of the wider fuselage.
To be honest I am not a believer myself, so if Bill does test them
I would really be interested in his evaluation. I believe that Bill will
give us a honest evaluation where some of the other guys that have them
tend to hype them some (or a lot). :)
Jerry Springer
BOb U
>> Interestingly, they claim the kits for -4 and -6 are not
>> interchangeable, despite the same airfoil. Anyone care
>> to explain this?
>>
>> Sydney
>
>Sydney I could not tell you why the difference other than the -6
>has less wing area because of the wider fuselage.
>To be honest I am not a believer myself, so if Bill does test them
>I would really be interested in his evaluation. I believe that Bill will
>give us a honest evaluation where some of the other guys that have them
>tend to hype them some (or a lot). :)
>
>Jerry Springer
For my pocketbook...
Lowering the stall and possibly cruise speed a questionable 5 MPH
on my RV-3 for a gazillion bucks is not feasible.
Although a DIY approach is certainly cheaper, I'll just take these dollars and
buy something I really need.....
MORE BEER, MO GAS and some new bass fishing lures. <g>.
SOB
sydney
> > You can read all about his VG's here:
> > http://www.ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm
> > (very thoroughly documented testing)
> Sydney I could not tell you why the difference other than the -6
> has less wing area because of the wider fuselage.
So what difference would that make, in aerodynamic modeling?
> To be honest I am not a believer myself, so if Bill does test them
> I would really be interested in his evaluation. I believe that Bill
> will give us a honest evaluation where some of the other guys that
> have them tend to hype them some (or a lot). :)
I believe that Terry Jantzi, at the link above, did a very
careful
and honest job of testing his VGs to the point of installing a
special
ASI for more accurate measurements. If you read his article I
don't
think it is hyped at all.
If I may paraphrase his results boiled down to, 3-5 kt decrease
in stall speed (greatest decrease with 0 flaps) at the expense
of 3 kt loss in cruise speed. I think that's very realistic with
what others (not hyped) have found. It jibes with my memory of
what the fellow who tried them on the Grumman AA5x series got
(another careful honest tester of another plane
with a pretty well behaved wing to start with). Interestingly
with the VGs there was no change in stall speed with flap
deployment.
He says he was "dismayed" that he didn't get the results
Vetterman
got with his RV-4, I tend to think a lot of the discrepancy may
lie in the fact that Jantzi really tested them carefully and
reported what he got. Maybe Vetterman did too and just didn't
put the results on his web page. But if you're just looking at
the stock ASI, I think a 2-3 kt hit in cruise speed could easily
look like
"no change" and depending upon the accuracy of the ASI
installation
there could be a big difference between CAS and TAS near stall
so it could look like "wow, 10 kt lowering of stall speed" when
a really good ASI and pitot system says "some decrease but not
that
much".
Of course, they apparently had aerodynamic modelling done, if
one joins the camp which says shape and exact placement is
critical
then perhaps one might say "well perhaps their model was a little
off for the RV-6 and their placement/shape really should have
been
different", the Grumman fellow who tried them heard that too. If
one joins the camp which says "you get 90% of the benefit if you
just put them in about the right place", one says "well, the RV-6
has a pretty well designed turbulant flow wing with a
well-behaved
stall break, and VGs just don't help it that much"
Cheers,
Sydney
BOb U
>If I may paraphrase his results boiled down to, 3-5 kt decrease
>in stall speed (greatest decrease with 0 flaps) at the expense
>of 3 kt loss in cruise speed. I think that's very realistic with
>what others (not hyped) have found. It jibes with my memory of
>what the fellow who tried them on the Grumman AA5x series got
>(another careful honest tester of another plane
>with a pretty well behaved wing to start with). Interestingly
>with the VGs there was no change in stall speed with flap
>deployment.
<stuff snipped for brevity>
>Of course, they apparently had aerodynamic modelling done, if
>one joins the camp which says shape and exact placement is
>critical
>then perhaps one might say "well perhaps their model was a little
>off for the RV-6 and their placement/shape really should have
>been
>different", the Grumman fellow who tried them heard that too. If
>one joins the camp which says "you get 90% of the benefit if you
>just put them in about the right place", one says "well, the RV-6
>has a pretty well designed turbulant flow wing with a
>well-behaved
>stall break, and VGs just don't help it that much"
>
>Cheers,
>Sydney
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's more paraphrasing.
If a wing is designed well in the first place,
VG's ain't worth much in the second place.
Also....
If Van wanted VG's on his designs, he would include them in the kit.
Hell, everything but completion is already in the box !!!!!
P.S.
Next thing ya know...
Some marketing guru will be peddling hi-performance VG's for propellers.
RV-3 BOb
Jim VanDervort
> If Van wanted VG's on his designs, he would include them in the kit.
> Hell, everything but completion is already in the box !!!!!
>
> P.S.
> Next thing ya know...
> Some marketing guru will be peddling hi-performance VG's for propellers.
>
>
> RV-3 BOb
>
They already got them, BOb,
those "pimple" tapes.
1 born every minute
assa9
>
J&D Kahn
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:52:47 -0700, J' <*@*.*> wrote:
>
That's because the $8,000 figure comes from Van's RV-4 brochure of 1981.
Jerry Springer
>
>
> One more thought. I think I've only met one other woman in my life
> that reminds me of my wife and that's Jerry Springer's wife Linda.
> They are both so supportive of the efforts that Jerry and I have made
> to fly experimental aircraft that I can't find another
> similar...wait....wait. There is Sue, John Ant Eater's wife. Another
> pilar of a human being. Linda, Boom Boom, and Sue together are a
> critical mass of support for any pilot in the universe. Only an
> astronaut deserves the energy, the dedication and the endurance of
> these women.
>
> A funny story. At Arlington about three years ago I met Jerry and
> Linda and I told her of my respect for her being an airshow BRAT.
> I saw in her eyes that she didn't understand what I was saying and I had
> to back peddled instantly.
Ah Bill the first, or is it the second thing to go, is memory after you
turn 50. I believe the correct term was "Airport Broad" :-) but you are
very correct about that look that she can get in her eyes. That look
can make a person put things back that they didn't even steal. You are also
correct about the support for our airplane and aviation in general that she
gives me. If Linda had her way we would be building another airplane right
now.
> What I really meant to say is that any self
> respecting homebuilder would love to have a woman who would go with
> them year after year to airshows...a woman who watched them build
> their experimental airplane...a woman who with no reservations loved
> them...a women who liked airshows. This is what my wife is, what
> Linda is...what Sue is. AND...I think Jarvis had found one more in
> Kaz.
>
>
> BWB
We have a lot of fun at the airshows and flyins and meet a lot of
different people and even get to put faces on a few of the people
that hang out here.
Jerry S
Badwater Bill
>Ah Bill the first, or is it the second thing to go, is memory after you
>turn 50. I believe the correct term was "Airport Broad" :-) but you are
>very correct about that look that she can get in her eyes.
Yeah. I think you are right. I couldn't remember the exact term but
I felt icy cold once I uttered it. Whatever terms I used... it was a
blunder on my part. I meant it to sound positive but it came out
wrong. The effect was just backward of what I wanted. It's one of
those times in life when you want to go crawl in a hole....because you
know the person is nice and positive but you just used a word that had
ambiguous meanings. I remember it as if it were yesterday.
>That look
>can make a person put things back that they didn't even steal.
I have a photo somewhere of "THE LOOK." I"ll have to find it and post
it.
> You are also
>correct about the support for our airplane and aviation in general that she
>gives me. If Linda had her way we would be building another airplane right
>now.
>
I know....and that's my point. Where the hell did you find her?
Jesus, I hope she has more sisters and brothers who can propogate
those genes! She's one in a million.
I was going to Arlington in July and Boom Boom said, "I don't want to
go. All you do is hang around with your friends and tell jokes that
are inappropriate in front of women....then laugh like hell. When you
aren't drinking and partying you are all looking at a bunch of
strange-looking experimental airplanes and ooooing and ahhhing. I
have better things to do with my time off this summer."
>We have a lot of fun at the airshows and flyins and meet a lot of
>different people and even get to put faces on a few of the people
>that hang out here.
>
>Jerry S
Jerry...she even likes to camp out too doesn't she?
God, what a lucky man!
BWB
Badwater Bill
>For my pocketbook...
>Lowering the stall and possibly cruise speed a questionable 5 MPH
>on my RV-3 for a gazillion bucks is not feasible.
>Although a DIY approach is certainly cheaper, I'll just take these dollars and
>buy something I really need.....
>MORE BEER, MO GAS and some new bass fishing lures. <g>.
>
>
>SOB
I think you are right. On the RV series airplanes I think it's
probably a waste. I'm going to do it anyway and experiment with it
just to see what happens out of curiosity. I will probably take them
off after the experiment (but maybe not).
My preconcived notion about it is that the RV-6 just doesn't need it.
It already has a dynamic speed range of about 130 mph. Mine stalls at
55 indicated and cruises at 185 mph (true). Lowering the stall speed
to 50 indicated, buys me nothing. And, because they are out there at
high speed, I'll bet the lower my top end by at least 5 mph....maybe
10. You can't put drag out there without a price.
Where they really make sense is on an airplane like O'ring has. You
take a C-310 with a VMC at about 85 mph and a stall a few mph below
that, put VG's on the vertical stab and the wings and you get a C-310
with a VMC at 65 mph and a stall above that...somewhere around 75 mph.
What you did here is virtually eliminate VMC. So, you no longer have
a "Critical" engine on an engine-out scenario. That's worth a lot to
me. You also have a high speed wing that has a nasty bite when it
quits you and you turn it into something that flies and stalls like a
Cessna-206 (a big 182). Turning a sharp breaking airfoil that will
bite your ass into something docile is well worth it.
What I really might do after I experiment with them on the RV-6 is go
glue them on one of my Comanche's and see what happens. That might be
worth writing about too.
BWB
Badwater Bill
wrote:
>Also....
Do any of you people know of the real data on the Q-tipped props? We
had them on the Vopar-Beech-18's in the government and I always
wondered what the real benefits might have been. Here you stick a 90
degree bend at the end of a prop where it's experiencing about 6000
g's. Seems like they might even be hard to balance.
BWB
John Ammeter
Bill) wrote:
>
>>Ah Bill the first, or is it the second thing to go, is memory after you
>>turn 50. I believe the correct term was "Airport Broad" :-) but you are
>>very correct about that look that she can get in her eyes.
>
>Yeah. I think you are right. I couldn't remember the exact term but
>I felt icy cold once I uttered it. Whatever terms I used... it was a
>blunder on my part. I meant it to sound positive but it came out
>wrong. The effect was just backward of what I wanted. It's one of
>those times in life when you want to go crawl in a hole....because you
>know the person is nice and positive but you just used a word that had
>ambiguous meanings. I remember it as if it were yesterday.
>
>
That's because you've forgotten everything else in between.....
>>That look
>>can make a person put things back that they didn't even steal.
>
>I have a photo somewhere of "THE LOOK." I"ll have to find it and post
>it.
>
Do you remember the LOOK you got from Boom Boom when you filled the
house with sanding dust??
>> You are also
>>correct about the support for our airplane and aviation in general that she
>>gives me. If Linda had her way we would be building another airplane right
>>now.
>>
>
>I know....and that's my point. Where the hell did you find her?
>Jesus, I hope she has more sisters and brothers who can propogate
>those genes! She's one in a million.
>
she does have grand kids, ya know.
>I was going to Arlington in July and Boom Boom said, "I don't want to
>go. All you do is hang around with your friends and tell jokes that
>are inappropriate in front of women....then laugh like hell. When you
>aren't drinking and partying you are all looking at a bunch of
>strange-looking experimental airplanes and ooooing and ahhhing. I
>have better things to do with my time off this summer."
>
So what's wrong with telling jokes and looking at airplanes?? Just
give her the keys to the rental car and your credit cards. She'll
find something to do with her spare time.
>>We have a lot of fun at the airshows and flyins and meet a lot of
>>different people and even get to put faces on a few of the people
>>that hang out here.
>>
>>Jerry S
>
>Jerry...she even likes to camp out too doesn't she?
>God, what a lucky man!
>
I remember the pic you posted of you sitting on the camp stool and
carving off a hunk of meat with your Bowie Knife while Boom Boom
watches. I bet you didn't even give her any, either.
>BWB
>
>
Jon Ampmeter
Jim VanDervort
because he thought the prop hit the runway??
assa9
Badwater Bill <bill...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b26c702....@news.earthlink.net...
Taildragger
Badwater Bill Sez:
[SNIP]
> Lowering the stall speed to 50 indicated, buys me nothing. And, because they are
> out there at
> high speed, I'll bet the lower my top end by at least 5 mph....maybe 10. You
> can't put drag out there without a price.
[SNIP]
> Turning a sharp breaking airfoil that will bite your ass into something docile is
> well worth it.
You got it Bill. If you are always operating so close to the wire that a
couple knots lower stall makes that big a difference you maybe wanna rethink that
habit. While in some applications, VG's will give you a lower stall speed, I think
that the greatest benefit comes if they give better control at low airspeeds. My
8GCBC has VG's on the wings and the bottom side of the horizontal stab, and while
it did reduce the stall speed a bit, the benefit as I see it is that I get much
better aileron authority near the stall, and the stall has less of a sharp break
than before. the VG's on the tail give a lot more low airspeed elevator authority,
allowing me to get the tailwheel off the surface sooner if I am on a rough strip.
I don't have to worry too much about loss of top end airspeed since the Scout comes
with a calendar instead of an airspeed indicator!!! The other thing about flying
with VG's is that even if they do drop your stall speed a bit, you are going to
have to fly a higher angle of attack to take advantage of it and there are always
some trade offs there. I guess them danged ole laws o'phizzicks jest won't give a
guy a free lunch! BTW you bring up an interesting subject, to me anyhoo, when you
mention dynamic speed range. Since nice smooth paved town airports got popular, it
seems as though birds that will get out of their own way at the top end, handle
short strips at the bottom end, not damage their finicky delicate gear on a bump,
and do all this while carrying more than a toothbrush and a map are sorta hard to
find.
Greg
flaco
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I don't post here enough to have my address on the screen somewhere in
>RAH right now? I must be slipping!
>
>On to the question. The Ford 3.8L V-6 was the first successful
>conversion. The Chevy 4.3L V-6 has also been done and complete engines
>are available from Belted Power and Northwest Aero. Johnny at NWA says
>he is no longer building Ford engines. If you want him to, maybe if you
>ask real nicely he will.
>
>Blanton covered the initial work reasonably well and all that info is
>still available from his son David, through ads in Kitplanes and Sport
>Aviation. My newsletter covers most of the development since '92.
>
>The 3.8L Ford is still the lightest for its displacement. It is well
>known. It has evolved to a larger version at 4.2L. Both sizes are
>available. The Ford is lighter because it comes stock with aluminum
>heads and intake. There are virtually no aftermarket performance parts
>for the Ford. The 3.8L as modified for aviation use is a 200 HP engine.
>
SNIP!
As a car guy... What about the Duratec V-6 ?3.0 lites , 200 HP (in
Taurus tune) All- aluminum ,twin cam , 4 valve head and a head gasket
that stays corked.Just curious
peace
flacoman
Bruce A. Frank
has latched on to it that I know of. One of the reasons that it was not
selected by Blanton in the beginning was because the Ford people did not
consider it a long lived engine at such high power output. It was called
a "throw away" engine because when it wore out it was less expensive to
install a new one rather than rebuild the old. The overhead cams
actually make it a larger engine than the 3.8L. Other than that there is
just no experience with it. Try it! Then let me know how it performs.
BTW at what rpm does it develop 200 hp?
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAF...@worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft, TIG
welding
0 0
flaco
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The 3.0L Duratec has been around for longer than the 3.8L, but no one
>has latched on to it that I know of. One of the reasons that it was not
>selected by Blanton in the beginning was because the Ford people did not
>consider it a long lived engine at such high power output. It was called
>a "throw away" engine because when it wore out it was less expensive to
>install a new one rather than rebuild the old. The overhead cams
>actually make it a larger engine than the 3.8L. Other than that there is
>just no experience with it. Try it! Then let me know how it performs.
>BTW at what rpm does it develop 200 hp?
>
Yeah , its wider , but MUCH lighter. The 3.8 is basically a 302 with
two cylinders chopped off. The power peak is about 5000-5500 RPM.
As far as trying it ,I'm not an avaiator just watched one too many
episodes of weekday Wings. Visit contour.org for poop on the duratec
series of engines.
peace
flacoman
Bruce A. Frank
wing why wouldn't there be some noticeable improvement with the same
treatment of a prop?
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:30:55 GMT, bill...@earthlink.net (Badwater
> Bill) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Do any of you people know of the real data on the Q-tipped props? We
> >had them on the Vopar-Beech-18's in the government and I always
> >wondered what the real benefits might have been. Here you stick a 90
> >degree bend at the end of a prop where it's experiencing about 6000
> >g's. Seems like they might even be hard to balance.
> >
> >BWB
> >
>
> No harder to ballance than any other prop. All I have is anacdotal
> evidence, Changes in performance are minor, if they exist, and as
> many negatives as positives. Well within the range of placebo effect,
> I think. Almost all agree that they are a little quieter..
BOb U
Richard Riley wrote:
>>If a squared off end(air dam) improves the behavior of the vortex off a
>>wing why wouldn't there be some noticeable improvement with the same
>>treatment of a prop?
>>
>
>Don't know. Some of the things I've read about winglets say you'd
>get the same effect without the intersection drag if you just laid
>them out and increased the span by that much. The q tips seem to be
>an inch or so, so a prop 2" longer would have the same improvement.
>The nice thing about winglets on the canards is that they do double
>duty as vertical stabs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd not assume or take anything for granted in this complex area.
Randomly adding the effect of 2 inches to a prop might just reduce performance.
Canard winglets doing 'double duty'?
If you're assuming an increase in airspeed....
Unlikely.
Expect a minor slow down below 20,000 feet from the effect of added span....
If the winglet is properly designed and executed in the first place.
OTOH, shortening wingspan on some aircraft definitely makes them go faster.
Proper initial designing has proven to be the intelligent path to going faster
and slower, rather than adding 'cool looking' devices such as VG's or winglets
to offset costly mistakes after the fact.
BOb - no free lunch - U
Russell Kent
> If a squared off end(air dam) improves the behavior of the vortex off a
> wing why wouldn't there be some noticeable improvement with the same
> treatment of a prop?
Richard Riley replied:
> Don't know. Some of the things I've read about winglets say you'd get
> the same effect without the intersection drag if you just laid them out
> and increased the span by that much. The q tips seem to be an inch or
> so, so a prop 2" longer would have the same improvement. The nice thing
> about winglets on the canards is that they do double duty as vertical
> stabs.
Yes, I've heard that NASA research on winglet angle determined that the best
angle was 0 (i.e. flat). With props, however, adding 2 inches to the length
might put the tip over the sound barrier. Adding 2 inches of "proplet" (?)
doesn't increase the radius, and so doesn't affect RPM limit of the
propeller.
Russell Kent
al...@mindhelicalwire.com
>Anyone know how close to the sonic barrier most tips are running? I
>used to have the formula on a spreadsheet (it's not just the rotation
>speed, and it's not the rotation speed plus the forward speed, it's
>the helix speed and there's a trig function) but I lost it a couple of
>years ago when my hard disk crashed.
Wouldn't it just be sqrt(rotational speed^2 + forward speed^2)?
((pi*d(inches)/12*rpm)^2 + (KCAS*100)^2 )^.5 to get tip speed in fpm?
("?" means "I'm guessing") <g>
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
Ray Jarvis
You're spot on the money here mate!
Am I allowed to paste a jpeg of Kazzie's RV 6 here? (heads down)
What a Gal! I am still a little "What the F*** happened" over her new toy! Hell I only took to pick up the new seats for my -8 and now see what she has done!
She's even more excited about my own rocket ship than I and I dream about it constantly (Ps, and kaz too!)
You gonna love this gal, she has more spirit in her than a bottle of hooch! I know you've met her and all on the phone and she is looking forwarding to meeting all my
crazy buds at Arlington.
Badwater, you owe her a ride in the -6, she'll tell you why! Seems like an excuse to go -6 flying if you ask me!
Speaking of Arlington, I have the time off and we are just waiting for Kazzie's roster to come out to confirm dates etc! Yeah Ha! I am actually rostered to drive the
"Bomber" to YVR on the 7th and then get to jump ship and don't need to be back in Shitsville till 15th, done deal!
PS:- For those interested, Kaz does have a sister, however she is in her early 50's and doesn't care much for aeroplanes. Kaz is the only deal here!
PS:- yes she fits in well with Suzie Ant-Eater, Linda & Boom x2.
See you all at Arlington!
Ray J.
Bomber Command!
Badwater Bill wrote:
> .I think Jarvis had found one more in Kaz.
>
> Now you ask me who in the hell in their mid 40's would go and buy an
> RV-6 and learn to fly in it? Jarvis' woman did this. That, my
> buddies, is one hell of a woman.
>
> I'm afraid to even meet a woman like Kaz... this is a woman who could
> make a man even change GODS.
>
Ray Jarvis
go and sent me some test flight
results. I'll see if I can find them.
Ray J.
AINut
with that equation.
To start fresh:
pi * diameter (67" prop in my case) gives circumference =
pi * 33.5 = 105.24 inches per revolution
at 2700 rpm (max) * 105.24 inches/rev = 284,157.06 inches/min.
284,157.06 in/min / 12 in/ft = 23,679.75 ft/min
23,679.75 ft/min / 5280 ft/mile = 4.4848 miles/minute
4.4848 miles/min * 60 min/hr = 259.088 mph prop tip speed
which is only, what 0.4 mach?
This can't be right. Where did I goof up?
AI Nut
Marc J. Zeitlin
> I must be missing something here. I get an extremely small mph number
> with that equation.
>
> To start fresh:
> pi * diameter (67" prop in my case) gives circumference =
> pi * 33.5 = 105.24 inches per
Why'd you drop back to the radius? There's a factor of 2.
> This can't be right. Where did I goof up?
See above - now you've got a 520 mph prop speed, and you haven't taken into
account the helical velocity due to forward motion - just the rotational
speed. So, you're at Mach 0.8 at least - maybe closer to 0.9 including
everything.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin marc_z...@alum.mit.edu |
http://cozy.canard.com
Non Impediti Ratione Cogitantonis (C&C)
Ray Leonard
wrote:
>I must be missing something here. I get an extremely small mph number
>with that equation.
>
>To start fresh:
>pi * diameter (67" prop in my case) gives circumference =
> pi * 33.5 = 105.24 inches per revolution
>at 2700 rpm (max) * 105.24 inches/rev = 284,157.06 inches/min.
>284,157.06 in/min / 12 in/ft = 23,679.75 ft/min
>23,679.75 ft/min / 5280 ft/mile = 4.4848 miles/minute
>4.4848 miles/min * 60 min/hr = 259.088 mph prop tip speed
>which is only, what 0.4 mach?
>This can't be right. Where did I goof up?
>
>AI Nut
>
My handy dandy spreadsheet says 467.3 mph .707 mach
not moving. Need pitch for inflight speed.
Ray
AINut
Because the forward motion is the easy one.
Thanks,
AI Nut
brian whatcott
wrote:
er...need only inflight speed (TAS) with tangential speed
for Pythagoras.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
<in...@intellisys.net>
Eureka!
highflyer
>
> I must be missing something here. I get an extremely small mph number
> with that equation.
>
> To start fresh:
> pi * diameter (67" prop in my case) gives circumference =
> pi * 33.5 = 105.24 inches per revolution
>
pi * diameter ( 67" prop in my case) gives circumference =
pi * 33.5 oops. 33.5 is the RADIUS. Should be pi * 67 = 210.5
inches per revolution.
Actual tip speed is about .8 mach, which is where you want to run.
Remember the airflow is sped up a bit on the forward face ( the top
of the airfoil ) causing it to reach sonic sooner there. Most props
are designed to run around .8 mach to avoid sonic buffet and loss of
thrust.
However, some, like the Cessna 182, that turns an 81 inch prop at
2600 RPM on takeoff, will go sonic. You can hear the sudden increase
in noise when you start to build a sonic boom shock wave at the tips.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Orval Fairbairn
> I must be missing something here. I get an extremely small mph number
> with that equation.
>
> To start fresh:
> pi * diameter (67" prop in my case) gives circumference =
> pi * 33.5 = 105.24 inches per revolution
> at 2700 rpm (max) * 105.24 inches/rev = 284,157.06 inches/min.
> 284,157.06 in/min / 12 in/ft = 23,679.75 ft/min
> 23,679.75 ft/min / 5280 ft/mile = 4.4848 miles/minute
> 4.4848 miles/min * 60 min/hr = 259.088 mph prop tip speed
> which is only, what 0.4 mach?
> This can't be right. Where did I goof up?
>
> AI Nut
(Pi*Dia(in)/12)*(RPM/60) = rotational speed = Vr (ft/sec)
Aircraft speed = Va
Total speed = Vt = Sqrt( Vr*Vr + Va*Va )
Mach no. = Vt/1090 (Mach 1 ~ 1090 ft/sec)