GM 3.1l V6 conversion
Ron Webb
story). Anyway, I am considering removing and selling the modified IO-360
Lycosaur and replacing it with an auto conversion.
I have been slowly working on a new GM 3.1L V6 with a Hy-Vo chain reduction
drive. I am close to the point where I dig out the chainsaw and start
removing expensive stuff from the airframe.
Has anyone ever seen a flying example of a GM 60 degree V6 (2.8l, 3.2l or
3.4l)? I know all about the 90 degree 4.3L conversions, but the 60 degree
seems to be uncharted territory.
Bruce A. Frank
enough room, but with some applications the 60 degree engines ar too
tall. Let us know how it goes. Particularly, drop a line to me as I'd
like to put information about the conversion in the newsletter.
Ron Webb wrote:
--
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
Hans Conser
wrote on 5/4/02 5:28 PM:
Wow, you really want to put a GM engine in an airplane? That is brave!
Leaving my GM = CRAP bias aside, the fundamental reason for not using an
automotive piston engine in a plane is that they are designed for low
average HP output, even a 200 HP auto engine probably only averages 40
continous HP, totally unlike a plane. Even if you get the oil and coolant
to cool the high continous HP, you will likely be burning exhaust valves
very quickly.
The only auto based engine that I would consider is the wankel, no valves,
no camshafts, no recipricating motion, very simple and reliable, of course
the devil is in the installation details, and you will need a reduction
drive. Tracey Crook makes a very nice lightweight one, and with a name like
that its got to be good!
Check out these websites:
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/
Phodo Graf
>in article ud8rkat...@corp.supernews.com, Ron Webb at rw...@gci.net
>wrote on 5/4/02 5:28 PM:
>
>> I have a piper pacer that is licensed in the experimental category (long
>> story). Anyway, I am considering removing and selling the modified IO-360
>> Lycosaur and replacing it with an auto conversion.
>>
>> I have been slowly working on a new GM 3.1L V6 with a Hy-Vo chain reduction
>> drive. I am close to the point where I dig out the chainsaw and start
>> removing expensive stuff from the airframe.
>>
>> Has anyone ever seen a flying example of a GM 60 degree V6 (2.8l, 3.2l or
>> 3.4l)? I know all about the 90 degree 4.3L conversions, but the 60 degree
>> seems to be uncharted territory.
>>
>>
>
>Wow, you really want to put a GM engine in an airplane? That is brave!
>
>Leaving my GM = CRAP bias aside, the fundamental reason for not using an
>automotive piston engine in a plane is that they are designed for low
>average HP output, even a 200 HP auto engine probably only averages 40
>continous HP, totally unlike a plane. Even if you get the oil and coolant
>to cool the high continous HP, you will likely be burning exhaust valves
>very quickly.
Hmmm.. So I guess all those folks with Chevy V6s/V8s and Ford V6s
must have a lot of trouble getting into the air with only 20% of their
power? Oh c'mon.. People fly 'em all the time.. Some of them even
post here.. Get your facts straight.
Aaron Smith
a conversion for that yet?
-Aaron
BOb U
Hans Conser wrote:
>Wow, you really want to put a GM engine in an airplane? That is brave!
>
>Leaving my GM = CRAP bias aside, the fundamental reason for not using an
>automotive piston engine in a plane is that they are designed for low
>average HP output, even a 200 HP auto engine probably only averages 40
>continous HP, totally unlike a plane. Even if you get the oil and coolant
>to cool the high continous HP, you will likely be burning exhaust valves
>very quickly.
>
>The only auto based engine that I would consider is the wankel, no valves,
>no camshafts, no recipricating motion, very simple and reliable, of course
>the devil is in the installation details, and you will need a reduction
>drive. Tracey Crook makes a very nice lightweight one, and with a name like
>that its got to be good!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great post !
Go for the jugular, Hans.
Tell 'em like it is. <g>
Barbyard BOb - spreading hate and discontent
Hans Conser
> Hmmm.. So I guess all those folks with Chevy V6s/V8s and Ford V6s
> must have a lot of trouble getting into the air with only 20% of their
> power? Oh c'mon.. People fly 'em all the time.. Some of them even
> post here.. Get your facts straight.
I stand by what I said... Time will tell who has his facts straight.
Let me ask you this: When you have the choice of a wankel, why on earth
would you want to use a piston engine that has larger torque pulses, weighs
more, is less compact, has less power, vibrates more, is more complex, has
more moving parts, AND a grenading failure mode?
Okay, I just won the argument.
Hans Conser
P.S. Notice the real name?
in article nbh9du0ualotd394c...@4ax.com, Phodo Graf at
de**spammed***@winfirst.com wrote on 5/4/02 11:41 PM:
Tom Frey
"Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CD47B1...@worldnet.att.net...
> Yes it is uncharted territory. With that Piper firewall there should be
> enough room, but with some applications the 60 degree engines ar too
> tall. Let us know how it goes. Particularly, drop a line to me as I'd
> like to put information about the conversion in the newsletter.
>
>
What all do you cover in your newsletter? I assumed it was dedicated to the
V-6 Ford.
Cheers,
Tom
Bruce A. Frank
You appear to be new to this discussion. You are covering ground
thoroughly hashed and bashed by Paul Lamar and most recently Bob Urban
(though Bob's a bit less venomous).
Just to tweak the conversation, here is a post of mine from several
months ago. Don't mean to disappoint, but at least Ford 3.8L V-6 powered
aircraft are not falling out of the sky.
=================
Posted on RAH in 2001:
If you have followed the automotive conversion movement here on RAH you
are aware that one of the most heard cries was for proof that these
engines would go the 2000 hour TBO. Even though the cost of "0" timing
an automotive conversion could be done for less than the price of one
Lycoming jug, the 2000 hr. tick mark was supposed to be the deciding
factor.
If you read any of Dave Blanton's early newsletters you may have seen a
BD-4 with a toothy shark's grin painted on the cowling. The owner, Ken
Mitchell, was noted for his moonlight flights over Utah's Uinta
mountains, a declaration of trust in the Ford 3.8L V-6.
Night before last Ken Mitchell call me to ask about some details on
removing the Blanton PSRU from the engine. It seems that he has hit the
12 year 2000 hour mark and his plane needs paint. While it's down he
thought he'd overhaul the engine. Obviously I asked if there was a
problem. No! His last compression check showed two cylinders 6 pounds
lower than what they were after engine break-in 12 years ago. The other
4 cylinders show no change. The shop that built the engine for him the
first time is going to replace the rings, rod and main bearing inserts,
and overhaul the carb (a 500 cfm Holley 4412). No other work appears
necessary (considering that none of what they *are* doing is likely
necessary either).
During these twelve years Ken has replaced an alternator, because he
connected the first one incorrectly, and the OEM starter finally died.
He has not replaced the HTD cogbelt in the PSRU and is disassembling
that only because the lower sprocket bearing has lost its dust shield!!
Ken says he flies as much as he can, usually 1 to 3 hours five days a
week. Another incentive to spiff up the engine and paint is that Ken is
planing to take some longer cross-country trips.
Yes, I know that this is just another "one" auto conversion that just
happened to make it to 2000 hours (likely the first). And in the
non-believers handbook this is just another apocryphal story probably
verging on the "Urban Legend" category. Well, it is sufficient to say
that Ken Mitchell has never had to repair the engine and he has never
had a stoppage in those 2000 hours of flying time. Ken promises an
in-depth article when he gets it flying again.
--
====================
Hans Conser wrote:
Bruce A. Frank
Wow, suddenly it has hit me that we have been wasting our time having
these in-depth discussions, posting *facts* and rebuttal. Just declare
victory! Hans, you have really simplified my life....thank you.
--
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.|
Bruce A. Frank
Tom Frey wrote:
The 3.8L/4.2L V-6 and some about the Chevy 4.3L V-6, 90 degree engines.
BOb U
"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>Declaration of victory! Bob'll like that! Doesn't even require a fight!
>Wow, suddenly it has hit me that we have been wasting our time having
>these in-depth discussions, posting *facts* and rebuttal. Just declare
>victory! Hans, you have really simplified my life....thank you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I could have sworn you did as much, 146 2/3 posts ago.
It's almost impossible to believe, but I IGNORED your tactic
figuring you would forget - and sho' nuff... you did. <g>
I offer the post I never wrote as proof.
Here 'tis.....
"
"
BOb U
Bruce A. Frank
Bruce A. Frank
BOb U
wrote:
>I didn't think it was that far back!
>
>Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Heck..
That's less than a month.
BOb U
BOb U
wrote:
>Hans,
>
>You appear to be new to this discussion. You are covering ground
>thoroughly hashed and bashed by Paul Lamar and most recently Bob Urban
>(though Bob's a bit less venomous).
So what?
You know somebody that's perfect? <g>
>If you read any of Dave Blanton's early newsletters you may have seen a
>BD-4 with a toothy shark's grin painted on the cowling. The owner, Ken
>Mitchell, was noted for his moonlight flights over Utah's Uinta
>mountains, a declaration of trust in the Ford 3.8L V-6.
Some doods even manage to crop dust without getting killed.
What does that prove other than some idiots can't even
do a proper job of killing themselves... no matter what.
How many questionable apples can one put
in a barrel before you get a Ken Mitchell?
DAMN IF I KNOW..... or you do, either.
Guess we will just have to wait for the 'fruit' to MATURE.
These apples should be ripe in say, fifty more years... if Ford
doesn't ceases production of this particular engine first. <g>
Unka' BOb
Bruce A. Frank
different model lines and the 4.2L is the same engine in many respects
(longer stroke, same heads) there may be many available for years to
come. Certainly a trove exceeding that of the Corvair, maybe equaling
that of the Buick 215....but way behind that of the VW. Well beyond the
total combined production of Lycomings and Continentals.
You didn't dust those crops expecting the engine to suddenly quit did
you? Your trust in the design kept you flying behind it. Ken's trust in
the design kept him flying it and that trust seems to have been well
placed. It still is true that there is no inherent defect in the Ford
3.8L V-6 design that causes failures. When prepared as specified, built
by mechanically inclined individuals, at costs well below that of even
some of the most minor work on the Lycs of Conts they last as well (at
least) as those certified types. I may not be receiving mailboxes full
of letters telling me that they have hit the 2000 hour mark, but neither
am I receiving dump truck loads of mail telling me of failures. And it
is a fact that only when things have gone wrong does anyone bother to
write to me about the Ford. I beat the bushes trying to find failures
about which to warn other builders. I try to follow up even the slimmest
rumors. I need articles about Fords ...good or bad. I keep looking for
the decisive finding that tells me my choice of engine is the wrong one.
BOb U wrote:
Phodo Graf
> Phodo Graf wrote:
>
>> Hmmm.. So I guess all those folks with Chevy V6s/V8s and Ford V6s
>> must have a lot of trouble getting into the air with only 20% of their
>> power? Oh c'mon.. People fly 'em all the time.. Some of them even
>> post here.. Get your facts straight.
>
>
>I stand by what I said... Time will tell who has his facts straight.
>
>Let me ask you this: When you have the choice of a wankel, why on earth
>would you want to use a piston engine that has larger torque pulses, weighs
>more, is less compact, has less power, vibrates more, is more complex, has
>more moving parts, AND a grenading failure mode?
Wankels aren't bad engines.. But what I find objectionable is your
statement that anything made by GM/Ford with pistons is unsuitable for
airplane use. It's simply not true.. (Ok, maybe the cars themselves
are POS..) But my experience has been that the engines are nearly
bullet-proof.
As for your rant about vibrating engines utilizing large torque
pulses... The Lycosaurus comes to mind.. Guess they must be ticking
time bombs too. They've only been with us 50 years..
>Okay, I just won the argument.
Uh huh, I'm sure you did...
>Hans Conser
>
>
>P.S. Notice the real name?
Why, so I can be tracked down to be annoyed by the likes of you?
Nahh.. I'll stay anonymous.
BOb U
"Bruce A. Frank" wrote:
>Since there are a couple of million produced installed in five or six
>different model lines and the 4.2L is the same engine in many respects
>(longer stroke, same heads) there may be many available for years to
>come. Certainly a trove exceeding that of the Corvair, maybe equaling
>that of the Buick 215....but way behind that of the VW. Well beyond the
>total combined production of Lycomings and Continentals.
Shear numbers do not a case make.
When your Ford engine ceases production.....
It will literally join the ranks of other engines 'frozen in time'
and should rightly and truly be label 'dinosaur'. Still useful? Sure,
but that is not my point for this particular argument. To continue....
Does the above sound familiar? It should. This is what you cheapskates
in the auto world keep harping on about Lycoming and Continental.....
which is absolutely untrue since they are continually being upgraded
by FACTORY efforts all the time through AD's and other engineering
developments as they prove themselves out and can be implemented
without incurring financial suicide. No, this rate of change will never please
the renegades and revolutionists, but none the less, change does occur
at rates that are appropriate to the certified world, not the knuckle
draggers that are accidents needing to go somewhere to happen today.
>You didn't dust those crops expecting the engine to suddenly quit did
>you? Your trust in the design kept you flying behind it. Ken's trust in
>the design kept him flying it and that trust seems to have been well
>placed. It still is true that there is no inherent defect in the Ford
My trust stems from a long established track record with a engineered
design meant for the application and proven out though thousands of
hours of REALITY. The 235 hp Lycoming has few peers by the most
rigid standards one would care to measure by. The fact that you doods
keep finding no inherent killer qualities in the Ford is a long way from
being hailed as a replacement by authorities within the aircraft industry.
IF Ken's had trust in his one of a kind setup it was UNEARNED...
until AFTER the fact. I think what he had was FAITH, not trust. <g>
If he got killed flying the mountains, we surely would not be holding this
proud papa/chest thumping conversation would we? He took a gamble
and won. Good for him and the singular data point you now crow about.
If the engine in my cropduster came from a wacky backyard builder
being guided by what you and other home grown wrench artists loosely
agree is good practice through your ongoing trials and tribulations....
I would probably have still taken a stab at crop dusting anyway.
Not because I would have an ounce of trust, but because of invincibility
and stoopidy that is part and parcel of being young and foolish.
[At your age, you should know better.] <g>
What none of you guys gets is... superior aviation judgment will beat
backyard engineering and possibly rusty piloting skills over time.
I believe, Ken's trust was absolutely misguided and misplaced....
but, no way in hell would you guys listen when Ken had zero hours
on his pride and joy, so I might just as well be talking to the wall
now that he has the 'magic' 2000 hours.
P.S.
I had fantastic beginners luck in the stock market.
The law of averages finally caught up with me.
However, I was not betting my life. So...
Get out the champagne, pass out the cigars and enjoy the early
success before the 'fit hits the shan' for someone in your circle.
The laws of averages are against you, too. It's just a matter of time.
With this, I will close my dialog and wish you well.
Barnyard BOb - fate is the hunter
Corky Scott
>When your Ford engine ceases production.....
>It will literally join the ranks of other engines 'frozen in time'
>and should rightly and truly be label 'dinosaur'. Still useful? Sure,
>but that is not my point for this particular argument. To continue....
>
>Does the above sound familiar? It should. This is what you cheapskates
>in the auto world keep harping on about Lycoming and Continental.....
>which is absolutely untrue since they are continually being upgraded
>by FACTORY efforts all the time through AD's and other engineering
>developments as they prove themselves out and can be implemented
>without incurring financial suicide. No, this rate of change will never please
>the renegades and revolutionists, but none the less, change does occur
>at rates that are appropriate to the certified world, not the knuckle
>draggers that are accidents needing to go somewhere to happen today.
>Barnyard BOb - fate is the hunter
BOb, do you read what you write?
Corky (the world wonders) Scott
BOb U
>>Barnyard BOb - fate is the hunter
>
>BOb, do you read what you write?
>
>Corky (the world wonders) Scott
When did you get promoted to being in charge of the world?
Seems I missed that event.
Congrats anyway.
Barbyard BOb
BOb U
>
>BOb, do you read what you write?
>
>Corky (the world wonders) Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wrong question, dood.
Can_YOU_READ what I write?
It can be seen that your difficulties with foreign concepts are ongoing
and require you to be deprogrammed before further communication
can be effective. Good luck in finding an effective deprogrammer.
Until one is located, it is advised that you avoid those that have
place you in this mode... starting with Bruce Frank. <g>
Barbyard BOb - saving a world that wonders
Capt. Doug
>aviation judgment will beat backyard engineering and possibly rusty
piloting >skills over time. I believe,
You sound like a Republican conservative. You must be boring at hangar bull
sessions. "Hey, get this man a cot before we all pass out from boredom!"
D. (Hope I die before I get old)
Jerry Springer
A Republican conservative? BwhahahhHaahh, now thats funny.
Ron Webb
Help me out on this point - How, exactly, did you manage to take an engine
that has more cumulative operating time than every Lyc, and Continental ever
produced, and call it "untested"??? How did you justify calling an engine
that was designed in a facility that cost about $1.4 Billion (the industry
average) and call it the result of "backyard engineering"??
Compared to the engineering expertise and experience available to Ford Motor
company, your Lyc was designed YESTERDAY by BillyBob the shade tree
mechanic - and from what I've seen, he didn't do a very good job!
You are right that it was designed for a somewhat different job, and of
course the installations vary widely in quality- that's why people get
killed in this business. But, looking at the NTSB reports, an auto engine
conversion is not the most hazardous part of a homebuilt aircraft.
If you are willing to bet your life on your skill as an aircraft builder,
why are you howling so loud at those of us willing to bet our lives on our
skill at an engine conversion?
"BOb U" <barn...@nospin.edu> wrote in message
news:ptqcduoo22e80klm1...@4ax.com...
BOb U
"Ron Webb" wrote:
>BOb
>
>Help me out on this point - How, exactly, did you manage to take an engine
>that has more cumulative operating time than every Lyc, and Continental ever
>produced, and call it "untested"??? How did you justify calling an engine
>that was designed in a facility that cost about $1.4 Billion (the industry
>average) and call it the result of "backyard engineering"??
>
>Compared to the engineering expertise and experience available to Ford Motor
>company, your Lyc was designed YESTERDAY by BillyBob the shade tree
>mechanic - and from what I've seen, he didn't do a very good job!
>
>You are right that it was designed for a somewhat different job, and of
>course the installations vary widely in quality- that's why people get
>killed in this business. But, looking at the NTSB reports, an auto engine
>conversion is not the most hazardous part of a homebuilt aircraft.
>
>If you are willing to bet your life on your skill as an aircraft builder,
>why are you howling so loud at those of us willing to bet our lives on our
>skill at an engine conversion?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your questions have been addressed
and answered many, many times before.
Some of them quite recently.
Look them up in the archives IF
your interest is sufficiently genuine.
Or perhaps, someone else cares to
take up a no win argument?
BOb U - Republican Conservative?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAA
I'll bet that has more than a few dood's
eyeballs rolling up into the back of their heads.
Ron Webb
I think I just came to understand the different views we hold
Your view (in a nutshell):
Certificated aircraft engines have been powering aircraft a long time, do a
pretty good job, and are the rock on which general aviation is founded.
Doing things differently is dangerous and "stoopid"
...Did I get pretty close?
My view:
Aircraft engines and the tight regulation that surrounds them has KILLED
general aviation. Killed it DEAD!
To understand why I think it's dead, think back to 1940, and remember where
we thought we'd be by now - personal lightflyers for everybody, roads
obsolete, deserted, and decaying. Hotels on the moon. Honeymoons in the
rings of Saturn!
We could have done that!! There is absolutely nothing technical to stop us.
Instead, a few of us die hards are flying 1956 Piper Pacers, and counting
ourselves lucky.
All because you damned "routineers" took over and froze the technology in
the stone age!
So, as you can clearly see, we heroes here in RAH are the only hope for
humanity;^}
"BOb U" <barn...@nospin.edu> wrote in message
news:kooedugjjo2qjkijn...@4ax.com...
BOb U
>>BOb U wrote
> What none of you guys gets is... superior
>>aviation judgment will beat backyard engineering and possibly rusty
>piloting skills over time. I believe,
>
>You sound like a Republican conservative. You must be boring at hangar bull
>sessions. "Hey, get this man a cot before we all pass out from boredom!"
Hmmm...
Better DEAD than boring, eh?
Before you flush yourself...
Please get me that cot.
>D. (Hope I die before I get old)
You sound like... an extremely juvenile teeny bopper.
P.S.
Fly behind the appropriate auto conversion
long enough and your wish may be fulfilled.
Unka' BOb - boring holes in the sky rather than dirt
BOb U
Ron Webb in his delirium wrote:
>So, as you can clearly see, we heroes here in RAH are the only hope for
>humanity;^}
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I clearly see you are a blooming idiot.
Barbyard BOb
BOb U
>>You sound like a Republican conservative. You must be boring at hangar bull
>>sessions. "Hey, get this man a cot before we all pass out from boredom!"
>
>Hmmm...
>Better DEAD than boring, eh?
>
>Before you flush yourself...
>Please get me that cot.
>
>>D. (Hope I die before I get old)
>
>You sound like... an extremely juvenile teeny bopper.
>
>P.S.
>Fly behind the appropriate auto conversion
>long enough and your wish may be fulfilled.
Hey.... Maybe Yawn will loan you his BD-5.
Jerry Springer
Ron Webb wrote:
>
> BOb
>
> I think I just came to understand the different views we hold
>
> Your view (in a nutshell):
>
> Certificated aircraft engines have been powering aircraft a long time, do a
> pretty good job, and are the rock on which general aviation is founded.
> Doing things differently is dangerous and "stoopid"
>
> ...Did I get pretty close?
>
> My view:
>
> Aircraft engines and the tight regulation that surrounds them has KILLED
> general aviation. Killed it DEAD!
>
> To understand why I think it's dead, think back to 1940, and remember where
> we thought we'd be by now - personal lightflyers for everybody, roads
> obsolete, deserted, and decaying. Hotels on the moon. Honeymoons in the
> rings of Saturn!
>
> We could have done that!! There is absolutely nothing technical to stop us.
> Instead, a few of us die hards are flying 1956 Piper Pacers, and counting
> ourselves lucky.
>
> All because you damned "routineers" took over and froze the technology in
> the stone age!
>
> So, as you can clearly see, we heroes here in RAH are the only hope for
> humanity;^}
>
Bob
Didn't you know that Brian Gunn had a brother named Ron Webb? :)
I have never understood the mentality that think there could be
some type of flying vehicle in every driveway. Can you imagine
the type of "kaos" that would insue? Think roadrage is bad now
wait tell every person that now drives a vehicle on the highway
becomes airborne. No thanks...
Jerry
Corky Scott
Ron, as you can see, BOb is the self declared group curmudgeon.
Further, it appears he likes the role.
In a way I think he believes he is actually doing some good by
"explaining" how some things in experimental aviation aren't fully
proven yet. Like Paul Lamar, however, his method of explanation is
often a bit abusive.
Also like Paul, he is ignoring those who are successfully flying in
auto powered conversions and points only to the failures.
He survived flying in one of the more dangerous professions behind a
certified engine for a number of years and therefore no one should try
to use anything else. Further, it's folly to even think about it.
He doesn't understand why anyone would try to use alternative
powerplants because the certified variety are out of sight
financially, he feels if you can't afford the real thing, don't fly.
I guess in his mind, Bernie Pietenpol, who is in the EAA Hall of Fame
for flying behind and producing plans for a Ford Model T and A powered
airplane, is just a kook.
If you want information in this group, BOb is often the one to provide
it, he really does know a lot. He just doesn't like this particular
subject (auto conversions) very much. That last sentence is a good
candidate for understatement of the year.
Corky Scott
BOb U
>>Ron Webb in his delirium wrote:
>>
>>>So, as you can clearly see, we heroes here in RAH are the only hope for
>>>humanity;^}
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>I clearly see you are a blooming idiot.
>>
>>
>>Barbyard BOb
>
>Ron, as you can see, BOb is the self declared group curmudgeon.
There is no need for me to self declare anything...
with an asshole like you to do a hatchet job.
>Further, it appears he likes the role.
So fucking what?!?!?!?!
You appear to like your role.
I've never, ever attempted to diminish you for it
You want to talk engines or just do some semi-innocent,
bawdy name calling, I can readily understand that.
Otherwise, kiss my All American blue collar ass.
>In a way I think he believes he is actually doing some good by
>"explaining" how some things in experimental aviation aren't fully
>proven yet. Like Paul Lamar, however, his method of explanation is
>often a bit abusive.
If you call the last post abusive...
You haven't seen shit, you educated, arrogant,
financially strapped and mean spirited prick.
>Also like Paul, he is ignoring those who are successfully flying in
>auto powered conversions and points only to the failures.
>
>He survived flying in one of the more dangerous professions behind a
>certified engine for a number of years and therefore no one should try
>to use anything else. Further, it's folly to even think about it.
I don't need you putting words in my mouth or interpreting them.
Speak for yourself and I will take care of my end of things.
>He doesn't understand why anyone would try to use alternative
>powerplants because the certified variety are out of sight
>financially, he feels if you can't afford the real thing, don't fly.
>I guess in his mind, Bernie Pietenpol, who is in the EAA Hall of Fame
>for flying behind and producing plans for a Ford Model T and A powered
>airplane, is just a kook.
You DON'T KNOW what I understand or feel.
How much contemptuous horseshit can
one individual heap upon another?
Guess we're finding out.
>If you want information in this group, BOb is often the one to provide
>it, he really does know a lot. He just doesn't like this particular
>subject (auto conversions) very much. That last sentence is a good
>candidate for understatement of the year.
>
>Corky Scott
Screw you and your backhanded compliment, Cork.....
and don't bother to ask me again, if I read what I write.
I'm sick of your style of denigration passing as civil discourse.
To me, you can be quite a rotten muther fucker when you
invoke such deceptions.
BTW...
I like the topic auto conversions, just fine.
However, your rebuttal sooner or later
degenerates into what you are doing here...
and I find it quite offensive when compared
to harmless name calling - like 'blooming idiot'...
which was not even directed at you.
HINT:
If you must speak, speak for yourself and
the virtues of auto conversions. Impugning
my character instead of focusing on the
issues will gain you nothing.
Barnyard BOb - ask me how I really feel
If I'm wrong....
never mind.
BOb U
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shhhhh, Jerry.
Best hold your tongue or Corky will slay you with his hatchet...
exposing to the world how you really feel, what you really understand,
who you really think you are in the group and endless other interpretations
that his superior Dartmouth intellect can conjure and glean from your
very breathing into this rarefied cyber ether known as RAH.
Barnyard BOb - still dizzy from the 'Corky Spin'
Corky Scott
All snipped, no need to repeat, if you're reading this, you've read
that...
Sorry, looks like this conversation should end now what with things
degenerated to "assholes, "hatchet job[s]" and "fucking" things.
That's not how I deal with situations. I've been on this group since
before it was this group and I can't recall ever using any of the
above words or phrases.
>Barnyard BOb - ask me how I really feel
>If I'm wrong....
>never mind.
Corky Scott
BOb U
>Sorry, looks like this conversation should end now what with things
>degenerated to "assholes, "hatchet job[s]" and "fucking" things.
>That's not how I deal with situations. I've been on this group since
>before it was this group and I can't recall ever using any of the
>above words or phrases.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"LOOKS" like it should end?
Great Googa Mooga.....
The conversation crashed with an earth shattering
"GO SCREW YOUR SAINTLY SELF, CORKY"....
and you didn't get it??????
Put it this way,,,,
It's gonna be longer than forever, before I care to enjoy
any more of your unique brand of PUNGENT CIVILITY.
Maybe I deserved it, but enough is enough.
I've had my share, earned or not.
You're a bigger ASSHOLE than I can ever be.
Maybe this is why you have an aversion to this word?
Anywhooo.... I gave it my best shot, but you won.
Congratulations.
Adios,
Phodo Graf
>>If you call the last post abusive...
>You haven't seen shit, you educated, arrogant,
>financially strapped and mean spirited prick.
Before Bob U has a heart attack.. Let's all close our eyes, join
hands, sing we are the world.. And just remember -- it's only
USENET.
And most importantly -- Relax!
BOb U
>
>>>If you call the last post abusive...
>>You haven't seen shit, you educated, arrogant,
>>financially strapped and mean spirited prick.
>
>Before Bob U has a heart attack.. Let's all close our eyes, join
>hands, sing we are the world.. And just remember -- it's only
>USENET.
>
>And most importantly -- Relax!
Thank yew, Photograph. <g>
Barnyard BOb--
Clifford Bradford
as the Li#$(ity St$#%th guy.
Hans Conser
I see a conspicuous lack of answers to my question though.
Here it is again for those of you that missed it:
Let me ask you this: When you have the choice of a wankel, why on earth
would you want to use a piston engine that has larger torque pulses, weighs
more, is less compact, has less power, vibrates more, is more complex, has
more moving parts, AND a grenading failure mode?
Just to be clear, I do think you can have safe V6/V8 installs, especially at
lower power levels, but again, why? (See question above)
Hans "No more argueing, I already won" Conser
Chris Brown
wrote:
>Why are you guys still argueing? I told you I won this arguement already.
All you've won is my (and possibly many more of your peers)
contempt for your asinine debate style.
Chris
Anon E. Mouse
wrote:
>>Just to be clear, I do think you can have safe V6/V8 installs, especially at
>>lower power levels, but again, why? (See question above)
Well, gee . Why not at higher power levels? Anyone ever run their
car at 4000 RPMs for any long period of time? I've done 10-15 minute
runs up hills and my biggest concern? The transmission.. The engine
sounds like it could go forever.
Back in the day I owned a Ford V6. I bet that if fed enough fuel
and air it could probably function just fine at 4000 RPM or so. The
fact that my old Explorer (early 90s vintage) was anemic at 4000 RPM
probably had very little to do with what the engine was capable of,
rather how it was configured for the application. I can't recall a
single engine problem in the entire time I owned it. Door locks,
paint, power steering, and on and on.. Well thats another story..
Back to your question as to why put auto engines in planes? Because
they are cheap, plentiful and allow people who may not have 20-30k for
a certified equivalent engine to get into the air. Also, by using
mass produced engines, you benefit from the R&D and economies of scale
that result. When you can buy a brand new 200 HP airplane engine for
$6k, we won't need to look at alternatives. Until them -- lets
explore.
>>Hans "No more argueing, I already won" Conser
>>
>All you've won is my (and possibly many more of your peers)
>contempt for your asinine debate style.
An argument requires that you actually argue something and back it up
with support.
"Piston engines suck" isn't much of an argument. If you'd like to
argue the merits of the rotary, go ahead. Please spare me the
attitude.
Mark Hickey
>On Tue, 07 May 2002 23:59:04 GMT, cbrown...@yahoo.com (Chris Brown)
>wrote:
>
>>>Just to be clear, I do think you can have safe V6/V8 installs, especially at
>>>lower power levels, but again, why? (See question above)
>
>Well, gee . Why not at higher power levels? Anyone ever run their
>car at 4000 RPMs for any long period of time? I've done 10-15 minute
>runs up hills and my biggest concern? The transmission.. The engine
>sounds like it could go forever.
This is the time someone is supposed to post the information about the
cars that have been extensively track-tested with WOT for weeks on
end, putting 100's of 1,000's of miles on the car in short order (the
Detroit version of accelerated life testing). Some of the records
they set are quite impressive, especially given the relatively low
amount of maintenance the cars get.
Who's got that handy? The reports I recall show that auto engines are
quite happy running at WOT for many, many hours.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Ron Webb
"Hans Conser" <con...@mcn.net> wrote in message
news:B8FDC0C4.4CF0%con...@mcn.net...
.
> Let me ask you this: When you have the choice of a wankel, why on earth
> would you want to use a piston engine that has larger torque pulses,
weighs
> more, is less compact, has less power, vibrates more, is more complex, has
> more moving parts, AND a grenading failure mode?
>
About Wankels:
I bought my first Mazda RX-2 in 1974 while in the USAF. It was a cool car -
fast as hell. I remember things like going home to California and sitting at
a stop light next to a GTO or something, he goosed the gas just to let me
know that I stood no chance. I sat there - totally silent - with the RPM at
7000. Light changes, and I burn half the rubber off my tires. He never did
catch me.
Than there was my RX-3 7 years later - I was driving up highway 97 following
the Klamath river, in the middle of nowhere. I was having fun on this
winding road, doing about 80, with nice little 4 wheel drifts through the
corners.
Came around a corner, and there is a Calif Hiway Patrol car sitting there
eating his lunch. I saw the red lights come on, and started to pull over -
then I thought "Wait a minute! He can't catch me on this road" - he never
did, either.
The preceding is just to show that I know and love wankels, I wore out 3 of
'em. When I started to think about aircraft engines, the first thing I did
was buy a 13B engine from a friend, and rebuild it. Learned a lot - mostly I
learned that I don't trust them much. Too much stuff in there that looked
unreliable (can you say "corner seals"?)
If you want proof, go to ebay and look at all the RX-7's for sale. I'd Kill
for a generation 3 RX-7 with the R1 race package - but you will notice that
more than one will be advertising a "recent engine" - looks like the damn
things grenade at about 40,000 miles! Things haven't changed much, my first
RX-2 went 50K before it needed a new motor.
Not in MY airplane!!!
Capt. Doug
>choice of a wankel, why on earth
> would you want to use a piston engine that has larger torque pulses,
weighs
> more, is less compact, has less power, vibrates more, is more complex, has
> more moving parts, AND a grenading failure mode?
When a traditional piston engine reaches the wear limits, I bore it out to
the next size. Can you do that with your Mazda? On your own machines?
How about low end torque? After take-off, I want to throttle way back for
lower noise and to enjoy the scenery (or loiter at max endurance). What
happens to torque at low RPMs with the Mazda? It disappears! With the
traditional piston engine, I can change the camshaft timing for optimum
torque.
As for grenading failure modes, a failure is a failure (but you're still the
winner
:-)). Mazdas fail. They do grenade on occassion. You lose. Go to a racetrack
for proof.
Strange how you left out exhaust systems for modified Mazdas? They have to
be made of expensive metals. I can weld up an exhaust system for the Ford in
my shop. I can use a smaller muffler too because the Ford is quieter.
Now then, none of this will change your mind. So when you want to know why,
my reply will be because "I want to". Now then, I have won!
D.
Capt. Doug
I'm crazy, not stupid.
D.
Mark Hickey
>...why on earth
>would you want to use a piston engine that<snip> weighs
>more
Wanna factor in 1,000 miles worth of gas and see which weighs more?
Or is this like weighing a bicycle without pedals and tires?
Mark Hickey
Bruce A. Frank
about the hundreds of dyno hours run at WOT while developing full rated
horse power....a much more severe test than required for certification.
No amount of factual information will ever be judged by the nay sayers
as anything but apocryphal. Thousands of homebuilders are flying
auto-conversions, not just Fords. Mildly modified V-6 and V-8 Fords and
Chevys are pushing the 2000 hour mark. Just because auto engines fly
apparently is no reason to believe than can.
Bruce A. Frank
BOb U
> Hey.... Maybe Yawn will loan you his BD-5.
>
>I'm crazy, not stupid.
>
>D.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BWAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHHAAA.
4 AM and my computer toob/kbd got splattered with hot sugary liquid.
Unka' BOb -- keeping this in mind for all conversion nutz
Joe Della Barba N3HGB
wrote:
SOME auto engines will run at 100% output for weeks on end and some
others wouldn't last 15 minutes on a good day.
Subaru ran one of their cars at full throttle on a test track for
something like a week or two with no trouble.
Maybe this is one reason Subarus are good aircraft engines?
Joe
Warren & Nancy
BOb U wrote in message ...
>BOb U - Republican Conservative?
>HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAA
>I'll bet that has more than a few dood's
>eyeballs rolling up into the back of their heads.
I know I had to clean off the monitor and get out a new keyboard.
Warren
Ron Webb
question or point out something obvious, and before you know it you are hip
deep in personal attacks flying in both directions...
By the way, didn't this "BOb" character used to call himself "Garfield"??
"Corky Scott" <charles...@deathtospammers.dartmouth.edu> wrote in
message news:3cd7bc26....@news.dartmouth.edu...
BOb U
"Ron Webb" <rw...@gci.net> wrote:
>Now I remember why I unsubscribed to this group last time - you ask a simple
>question or point out something obvious, and before you know it you are hip
>deep in personal attacks flying in both directions...
>
>By the way, didn't this "BOb" character used to call himself "Garfield"??
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Barnyard Shit List.
1. Corky
2. Ron Webb
Now featuring... Soobmeister BOb?
alias,
Democrap BOb
Republican Conservative BOb
Lycoming BOb
Unka' BOb
Barnyard BOb
BOb U
Barbyard BOb --
highflyer
>
> SOME auto engines will run at 100% output for weeks on end and some
> others wouldn't last 15 minutes on a good day.
> Subaru ran one of their cars at full throttle on a test track for
> something like a week or two with no trouble.
> Maybe this is one reason Subarus are good aircraft engines?
>
I have never seen a car that would produce anywhere near 100% power at
wide open th rottle in high gear. My old corvette would come close,
because I have a 5.12 read end in the darn thing. It wasn't real fast
at WOT but I could turn up close to full rated power RPM with those
gears. Yes, the engine was more reliable than the transmission.
The problem with using that engine in an airplane is that you have to
design your own transmission. Transmissions have always been the
problem! :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Chris Brown
wrote:
>Did you notice all the sincere remorse for the GP-4 crash, but no
>ideas on how to correct the problems, let along a recognition of a
>serious problem? How many GP-4's are flying and how many have
>crashed? Performance? How about performance after the engine quits
>up until a full stop? A glider starts with the engine off and does
>not dive in for a kill.
>
>Brian Gunn
Did you notice that, technically, it was not a GP-4 ? It had an
engine 50% larger and heavier than design and modified wings.
Chris
Bruce A. Frank
performance in particular chassis with various combinations of
transmissions, differentials and tires, but such stories are, at best, a
vague indicator of usefulness in aircraft service. What is helpful is
the testing process through which the manufacturer puts his engine. Let
me add too that the automotive people run a higher financial risk upon
introduction of a defective design. Let me soften the point about
on-road performance, twenty years of service records on engines used in
several different vehicle applications can help to point out some
strengths and weaknesses.
The process of testing automotive engines is an arduous one. Engines, at
least in tests run by Ford, are connected to dynamometers and subjected
to throttle settings under load going from peak torque to peak horse
power and back again...over and over and over. At 400 hours the test is
shut down and the engine is disassembled. In reports I have read all
production 3.8L engines have come through with no indication of wear
that was out side factory new specs. During the production life of the
engine there are random engines pulled off the end of the production
line and subjected to the same dyno testing procedure. There are also
some engines pulled and subjected to much longer tests some running at
rated hp for as long as 1000 hours. If there were inherent weaknesses in
the design wouldn't it have shown up under such extreme service?
Engines can be mis-assembled by builders when they overhaul an engine
salvaged from the junk yard, leading to failure. Some unauthorized
changes have been made by machine shops which have lead to failure. Some
early information on conversion modification was wrong, leading to
failure. Some builders want to extract much more horse power than for
what the structure of the engine was designed, leading to failure.
I have related one story here of a builder who reached 2000 with his
properly assembled Ford engine. There are hundreds of other
installations out there now approaching 1000 trouble free hours. Is this
bad service from an engine that cost less than $5000 FWF? Ken Mitchell's
2000 hour overhaul will be done by a local machine shop, the same people
who built the engine for him in the first place, essentially "0" timing
it, for $1700 (which includes a new set of pistons).
Byrd and Sharples have subjected properly built 3.8L Fords to probably
the most severe application, glider towing, for years with no failures.
If there were inherent weaknesses in the design wouldn't it have shown
up under such extreme service?
The Chevy V-6s have been raced for decades showing that durable versions
can be built. The Fords have been raced less, but have been used in
aircraft for more years also showing durability. The fact that a new
Lycoming or Continental costs 5 times as much does not make them
superior. If a sixty year track record is interpreted to mean that they
are a superior design then does a 20 year track record for the Ford
indicate it's only 1/3 as good?
The dyno testing was done, the flight testing has been done and we still
hear some in the peanut gallery claiming auto-conversion will never get
off the ground. Nearly 20 years now of flying Fords. If there were
inherent weaknesses in the design wouldn't it have shown up under such
extreme service?
highflyer wrote:
--
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.|
Corky Scott
N3HGB) wrote:
>SOME auto engines will run at 100% output for weeks on end and some
>others wouldn't last 15 minutes on a good day.
>Subaru ran one of their cars at full throttle on a test track for
>something like a week or two with no trouble.
>Maybe this is one reason Subarus are good aircraft engines?
>
>Joe
ALL auto engines are put through development regimes that exceed the
schedule required for aircraft engine certification by several times.
Plus, aircraft engines may be repaired and the test re started as
necessary.
Auto engine manufacturers simply cannot afford to be slapped with the
label of "unreliable", so they run the development engines until they
break using tests that would horrify those testing aircraft engines.
For instance:"The engine in production form for 1999 develops 215 HP
at 5600 RPM and 230 foot pounds of torque at 4400 rpm. As a routine
part of an engine development program we tested the engine at full
power, maximum RPM. We ran it at 6000 RPM, pulling 215 HP at wide
open throttle, for 265 hours. That's a continuous 265 hours of wide
open throttle, far worse than autobahn driving, because even on the
German Autobahn, you wouldn't be at 6000 RPM. THAT IS A STANDARD
DURABILITY TEST. (emphasis mine) We run many engines through this test
as a matter of course."
And: "A number of other engine tests are utilized. We use a variety
of specific tests to accelerate engine wear and to look at fatigue
failures. The cyclic endurance test is now called PTED (power train
endurance). It closely approximates cyclic durability. The engine is
cycled from its torque peak to its horsepower peak, at wide open
throttle, then down to idle, then accelerates up to shift points, then
back down to the torque peak and then horsepower peak. This test is
run for 400 hours. Once again, it's a wide open throttle test for 400
hours. The RPM for this engine, ranged between 4400 and 6000 RPM,
back and forth in about a 5 minute cycle. The dyno computer will
occasionally bring the engine down to idle, up to 6500 RPM shift
points, and then back to the 4400 - 6000 RPM 5 minute cycle."
Also: "Thermal cycle tests are run to define engine capability under
cold weather condition. We run the engine at full throttle at 4000
RPM, bring it down to idle, stop it, switch the coolant valves to
drain the hot coolant, pump the chilled coolant from the chiller until
the metal temperature stabilizes at 0 degrees F. Frost forms on the
outside of the block, as the cold coolant rushes into the engine.
When it stabilizes at 0 F, we motor the engine, start it, come to full
throttle at 4400 RPM, the valves switch and the coolant temperature
starts to climb. It climbs back up to 260 degrees F. It takes 10 -11
minutes to complete one cycle. The engine must pass 600 cycles
without any sign of failure. We typically run 1200 cycles and a probe
test will run 1600 cycles. That's a (sic) excellent gasket killer
test. Head gaskets are the first to fail because of the rapid
expansion and contraction."
The above was written by a Chrysler engine development specialist.
The other auto manufacturers do the same kind of torture tests but
call them their own.
So in other words, these engines, just as they are from the showroom
floor, can and do stand up to full throttle operation for days on end.
This is more than is asked of engines being certified for aviation.
But here's the kicker, anyone who knows his stuff doesn't settle for
merely stock internal parts for an auto conversion, even though as I
just demonstrated above, they would hold up just fine. Most users of
auto engines at a minimum change the pistons to something forged for
heavier duty operation than stock. Plus, they open up the piston to
cylinder wall clearance to allow for greater piston expansion due to
the greater heat load it is normally subjected to.
But you guys all knew this, right? ;-)
Corky Scott
Chris Brown
wrote:
>Now I remember why I unsubscribed to this group last time - you ask a simple
>question or point out something obvious, and before you know it you are hip
>deep in personal attacks flying in both directions...
>
>By the way, didn't this "BOb" character used to call himself "Garfield"??
>
Nah - Garfield is human and is an auto conversion enthusiast.
Chris
BOb U
>>By the way, didn't this "BOb" character used to call himself "Garfield"??
>>
>Nah - Garfield is human and is an auto conversion enthusiast.
>
>Chris
You got the last half right.
BOb U
Bruce A. Frank
hazardous. Bayard DuPont's Defiant lands fast, but it does have two
Ford's installed. Twin engines designs are good test beds for
Auto-conversions. My project is a single engine 4 place Super Cub
type....low speed take off, low speed landing....not quite a glider with
the engine out, but reasonable risks.
Bruce A. Frank
Brian Gunn wrote:
> "Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3CD8C542...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Corky and I have both posted some of this info, particularly the info
>>about the hundreds of dyno hours run at WOT while developing full rated
>>horse power....a much more severe test than required for certification.
>>No amount of factual information will ever be judged by the nay sayers
>>as anything but apocryphal. Thousands of homebuilders are flying
>>auto-conversions, not just Fords. Mildly modified V-6 and V-8 Fords and
>>Chevys are pushing the 2000 hour mark. Just because auto engines fly
>>apparently is no reason to believe than can.
>>
>>Bruce A. Frank
>>
>>
> Bruce,
>
> I would suggest that the key to success of auto conversions is an
> airplane that can land safely should something happen to the engine.
> A glider has NO engine and they are fairly safe. They seem to be able
> to function ok with an engine out, so to speak. They use high aspect
> ratio and low drag, plus spoilers and a mono tire to do it.
>
> If the airplane does not kill them, then the engine will not be a life
> or death issue. So, make the AIRPLANE safe, fast, and fun, and you
> will sell lots of engine conversions. If the airplane is not safe,
> put two engines on it.
>
> I would put an auto conversion in my design, but the majority
> mentality out there requires a Lycoming/Conti. engine to be a "proven"
> design. Since the key is in the airplane and not the engine, I opt for
> the "proven" 1964 0-360 Lyc. engine that Barnyard and the gang will
> not complain about. Then they will focus on the airplane and not
> worry about the engine. Once they realize the airplane is safe, fun,
> and useful, then they will consider the auto conversion options
> available. That is how I see it. And you?
>
> Brian Gunn
>
Anon E. Mouse
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have related one story here of a builder who reached 2000 with his
>properly assembled Ford engine. There are hundreds of other
>installations out there now approaching 1000 trouble free hours. Is this
>bad service from an engine that cost less than $5000 FWF? Ken Mitchell's
>2000 hour overhaul will be done by a local machine shop, the same people
>who built the engine for him in the first place, essentially "0" timing
>it, for $1700 (which includes a new set of pistons).
What is the breakdown on a $5k FWF? (E.g. 2k for engine? 2k for
redrive? 1k for aux parts?)
Tom Frey
"Ron Webb" <rw...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:udh2l7m...@corp.supernews.com...
Hi Ron,
Could you be a little more specific about the failures on your rotary
engines. I'm working on a 13b and very interested in any possible problems.
Cheers,
Tom
Bruce A. Frank
FWF was inaccurate because it doesn't include the prop.
Anon E. Mouse wrote:
--
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
Jim VanDervort
button transmission control came out.
They built a tester that pushed those buttons zillions of times, and pushed
2 buttons at the same time, and when they had it to their satisfaction, one
of the engineers drove it home.
His 6 year old daughter disabled the car so bad they had to bring it back on
a hook.
She PULLED one of the buttons.
One of the valve body pistons fell into the pan.
"engineer story"?
assa9
"Corky Scott" <charles...@deathtospammers.dartmouth.edu> wrote in
message news:3cd95b97....@news.dartmouth.edu...
Cy Galley
by cable. The cable was pushed or pulled by a squash plate that the buttons
pushed. I had them apart several times and cannot understand how pulling a
button would have any effect on the valve body. It might have jammed the
shift plate but not the transmission valve. I think it is an urban legend.
"Jim VanDervort" <dpi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:udj3lf9...@corp.supernews.com...
Anon E. Mouse
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Engine&radiator..$2000-$2500, PSRU..$3000
>
>
>FWF was inaccurate because it doesn't include the prop.
Eh, doesn't sound too bad... $5500 for 180-200 HP in an airplane...
Sounds pretty reasonable.. Whose PSRU? Any mods to the engine?
(cam?)
Bruce A. Frank
Cy Galley wrote:
> I had a couple of push button Chryslers. Those Torque Flight were shifted
> by cable. The cable was pushed or pulled by a squash plate that the buttons
> pushed. I had them apart several times and cannot understand how pulling a
> button would have any effect on the valve body. It might have jammed the
> shift plate but not the transmission valve. I think it is an urban legend.
>
Obviously by the time you got it they had fix the problem shown to them
by the 6 year old.
Bruce A. Frank
Jim VanDervort
chrysler engineer.
Like maybe 40 years ago??
My memory never was very good and over the years has not gotten any better.
Now that you describe the swash plate, I think that is where it was.
Needless to say, they did some redesign work there.
assa9
"Cy Galley" <cga...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:BxhC8.1135$RR3.344@sccrnsc02...
Hans Conser
cars, the durability is highly variable... Some go a long ways and others
not.
I don't believe this is the case in good racing or aviation installations,
and I will try to explain why below. I'll follow up with a couple of
thoughts on 3rd gen RX-7 durability, corner seals, and wankel "grenading".
I think there are three main reasons why wankels fail early in stock
automotive installs:
1) Lubrication. Stock RX-7's inject motor oil in the combustion chamber.
It doesn't burn well and gums up the the works. Many bad wankels out there
simply have the apex seals gummed up and stuck: Presto, low compression!
Over the years Mazda has reduced the amount of oil injected, likely due to
emmissions reasons, leaving the apex seal lubrication marginal. Standard
practice in racing and aviation applications is to disconnect the oil
injection pump and to add two stroke oil to the fuel instead. This is a
proven superior method of lubrication, and the clean burning two stroke oil
makes for a nice clean engine. Eliminating the EGR is another factor in
keeping the engine cleaner. Typical later model 13Bs have an unbelievable
amount carbon and gook inside them. Modified engines without EGR and
running two stroke oil in the fuel are spotless on the inside.
2) Duty cycle. The typical automotive duty cycle doesn't just isn't hard
enough to burn off all the carbon crap mentioned above.
3) Abuse and neglect. There is one inherent weakness to the wankel:
Susceptablity to oil contamination. The pure non-reciprocating motion of
the rotor doesn't wipe contaminants clear like a piston does. Many 13B's I
have disassembled have *greater* wear "streaks" aligned with the oil
injection, the opposite of what you would expect, which to me means little
metal pieces in the oil. This means waay too long between oil filter
changes. Also in this category would be just plain mechanical mistakes.
Example: Use a non mazda thermostat, and your car overheats. Overheating
fries the oring seals and you have water in the combustion chamber.
The 3rd generation RX-7 is a special case, most of its problems at their
core relate to emissions related decisions. The first catalyst essentially
bakes the inside of engine compartment including what seems like 100 feet of
unbelievably complex vacuum lines, although this isn't the reason for the
engines fires. these vaccum line pop off and then they don't run right.
Another problem is marginal cooling inlets and radiator/ oil cooler sizing
for the power potential of the engine. The R1 model you mention they got
the oil cooling right with two oil coolers.
Corner seals are a pretty durable, in fact unless there is something
seriously wrong like timing or fuel, they rarely break. Last set I had out
of a 120K engine I reused, well within spec.
The beauty of the rotary is that it doesn't grenade. Even with broken parts
on the inside they just keep running. Thsi is a major advantage. They
don't grenade like a piston engine.
All my wankel experience is '84 and up by the way.
Again, thanks for your post.
Hans Conser
Ron Webb wrote:
There is one inherent weakness to the wankel, suscepti
AINut
etc. from stock?
AI Nut
Bruce A. Frank
Anon E. Mouse wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2002 20:29:22 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Engine&radiator..$2000-$2500, PSRU..$3000
>>
>>
>>FWF was inaccurate because it doesn't include the prop.
>>
>
> Eh, doesn't sound too bad... $5500 for 180-200 HP in an airplane...
> Sounds pretty reasonable.. Whose PSRU? Any mods to the engine?
> (cam?)
>
I have covered this extensively in the past on this newsgroup. A Deja
search using my name, V-6 STOL, or Ford will likely get you enough
reading material to keep you busy for a year. The basic information
packet is available from Dave L. Blanton (David D's son) for $15.
David L. Blanton
14 Hawthorne Rd.
Valley Center, KS 67147
From there you order from Dave the builders manual. Then use my
newsletters for the supplemental information.
Basically:
Engine (3.8L V-6) is a thin wall cast high nickel iron block with
aluminum heads and intake manifold. It is recammed to move the peak
torque from the typical 2400 rpm point to about 4100 rpm. Usually a
Holly 350 cfm carb is installed and the stock pistons are replaced with
Wiseco brand. Some machining of the intake is required. New head bolts
and rod bolts are required. Head gaskets require some attention during
installation to prevent leaks. And a cogbelt PSRU from Northwest Aero.
Output runs about 195 to 210 hp at 4800 RPM. Most applications cruise at
3800 to 4200 engine rpm with a 2:1 or 1.7:1 PSRU.
Hans Conser
Doug at capt...@theworldnet.att.net wrote on 5/7/02 8:37 PM:
>
> When a traditional piston engine reaches the wear limits, I bore it out to
> the next size. Can you do that with your Mazda? On your own machines?
You replace the rotor housings (if they need it) ($650), and replace the
apex seals ($150), and lap the side housings (if they need it).
>
> How about low end torque? After take-off, I want to throttle way back for
> lower noise and to enjoy the scenery (or loiter at max endurance). What
> happens to torque at low RPMs with the Mazda? It disappears!
With the
> traditional piston engine, I can change the camshaft timing for optimum
> torque.
I don't agree that this is a problem
>
> As for grenading failure modes, a failure is a failure (but you're still the
> winner
> :-)). Mazdas fail. They do grenade on occassion. You lose. Go to a racetrack
> for proof.
>
To me, grenading means inside parts becoming outside parts and oil going
everywhere. DOES NOT HAPPEN WITH ROTARIES.
> Strange how you left out exhaust systems for modified Mazdas? They have to
> be made of expensive metals.
No they don't. Cast iron or iconel might be nice for a turbo manifold. For
naturally aspirated engines the key is to use the later nonturbo housings
with the little splitter in the exhaust port. Thin wall exhausts been shown
to last 500 hours in aviation applications using these housings.
I can weld up an exhaust system for the Ford in
> my shop. I can use a smaller muffler too because the Ford is quieter.
True I'm sure. But what a rotary loses in muffler weight is more than made
up in power to weight ratio over a Ford.
>
> Now then, none of this will change your mind. So when you want to know why,
> my reply will be because "I want to".
It's the only reason that makes sense.
>Now then, I have won!
If installing an inferior engine is winning, then you have won!
Congratulations!
Hans Conser
> Wanna factor in 1,000 miles worth of gas and see which weighs more?
> Or is this like weighing a bicycle without pedals and tires?
>
> Mark Hickey
You bring up a good point Mark, but I don't think we really have the real
world data yet to make that comparison. I think Tracey Crook claims .47
BSFC, but I think BSFC is hard to quantify. When we get more wankels flying
we should know more, I think the best test is identical planes with two
different engines flying side by side, then topping off the tanks after
landing.
Don't forget you can lean a wankel far more than a piston engine, no exhaust
valves to burn up.
Hans Conser
Anon E. Mouse
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have covered this extensively in the past on this newsgroup. A Deja
>search using my name, V-6 STOL, or Ford will likely get you enough
>reading material to keep you busy for a year. The basic information
Oh -- you're right.. A google search provided enough results to keep
going for quite a while....
>packet is available from Dave L. Blanton (David D's son) for $15.
Shipping and handling included?
I realize my questions turned out to be repetitive, but thanks again
for sharing.
Anthony
"Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CDA0288...@worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
> And a cogbelt PSRU from Northwest Aero.
Does NW Aero have a web site?
Denny
some biases, obviously... I am also a realist...
Auto engines can, and do, function well in aircraft service... Crop
dusters are just one example... You point out others... Falconer V12
engines are a spinoff from the classic watercooled, auto racing
engine... Adapting an auto engine is not as cheap and easy as it may
seem, though...
Auto style engines also do well in marine racing service... There are
any number - tens of thousands - of Ford, Chrysler, and Chevy big
block engines churning props all over the lakes and oceans of this
world... This is the service that comes closest to aircraft use, full
throttle operation under a maximum load... If a person wants a
reliable engine for an airplane, the race boat builders would be an
excellent place to start... Other than the lowest power applications,
most auto engines will need some modifications to be reliable in an
airframe...
The newer design engines are more reliable than what we built 30, 40,
50 years ago... The materials are stronger, lighter, and tougher...
The understanding of stress and fatigue is orders of magnitude
improved... Never the less, the turn-key auto engine providers, such
as the company selling the CAM series auto/aircraft engines, and
others, do modifications to the engine to improve it's suitability as
an aircraft power source... Both to improve performance and
reliability...
The comments made about auto engine durability testing are well
founded... The engine maker(s) does do rigorous, endurance testing of
each engine design, altering and improving the design as he goes...
However, some auto installations do not go well, for various
reasons...
The first trouble area I see is getting a used engine from a salvage
yard and simply sticking it into an airframe... Not the best thing to
do unless you are reasonably expert with engines... I will not go into
lengthy detail about this...
Another <major> trouble area is inadequate cooling for the engine
block and oil pan... In a car, no matter how crowded it looks from the
top, the engine is hanging over a cavernous, windy hole... There are
literally tons of air swishing over the engine per minute at highway
speeds... Put it in a tightly cowled airframe, and no matter how well
the radiators are cooled, the block will likely overheat... Airflow
over the block, oil pan, rocker covers, exhaust headers, fuel pump,
and distributor/CDI/CPU needs to be considered and addressed...
I often see failures in the design of the coolant plumbing, with
resultant air locks, and engine overheating, even in the presence of
adequate airflow...
Inside the engine, attention to valve spring cooling, and wrist pin
lubrication is/may-be needed.... Improved main bearing and rod bearing
lubrication will generally help, usually in the form of an enlarged
oil pocket in the bearing shell to increase oil flow through the
bearing gap, radiused oil holes in the crank with a tear drop relief,
etc... Oil spray bars for the bottom of the pistons for increased
piston cooling may be needed for HO operations... Different valve
guides may improve valve life, especially the exhaust valve... The
thrust faces of the main bearing shells may need an oil supply hole
drilled into the oil galley, as the engine is typically installed
backwards to a car installation and with a reverse tip angle to what
the engine was designed for, necessitating oil pan modifications...
And, so on...
Many of these issues are standard racing practice and an engine shop
with racing engine experience, especially endurance engines, should
have a good handle on most of this, with the exception of a few items,
such as reverse tilt, altitude changes, etc......
Cheers ... Denny
"Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3CD8C542...@worldnet.att.net>...
> Corky and I have both posted some of this info, particularly the info
> about the hundreds of dyno hours run at WOT while developing full rated
> horse power....a much more severe test than required for certification.
> No amount of factual information will ever be judged by the nay sayers
> as anything but apocryphal. Thousands of homebuilders are flying
> auto-conversions, not just Fords. Mildly modified V-6 and V-8 Fords and
> Chevys are pushing the 2000 hour mark. Just because auto engines fly
> apparently is no reason to believe than can.
>
> Bruce A. Frank
>
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> > Anon E. Mouse <wund...@winfirst.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 07 May 2002 23:59:04 GMT, cbrown...@yahoo.com (Chris Brown)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Just to be clear, I do think you can have safe V6/V8 installs, especially at
> >>>>lower power levels, but again, why? (See question above)
> >>>>
> >>Well, gee . Why not at higher power levels? Anyone ever run their
> >>car at 4000 RPMs for any long period of time? I've done 10-15 minute
> >>runs up hills and my biggest concern? The transmission.. The engine
> >>sounds like it could go forever.
> >>
> >
> > This is the time someone is supposed to post the information about the
> > cars that have been extensively track-tested with WOT for weeks on
> > end, putting 100's of 1,000's of miles on the car in short order (the
> > Detroit version of accelerated life testing). Some of the records
> > they set are quite impressive, especially given the relatively low
> > amount of maintenance the cars get.
> >
> > Who's got that handy? The reports I recall show that auto engines are
> > quite happy running at WOT for many, many hours.
> >
> > Mark Hickey
> > Habanero Cycles
> > http://www.habcycles.com
> > Home of the $695 ti frame
> >
Bruce A. Frank
morning.
Anthony wrote:
Bruce A. Frank
The Ford 3.8L V-6 has been in service in aero application now for almost
20 years. Those areas have been addressed.
A point that I would like to discuss is the idea that turning the engine
around backwards has so detrimental impact on it function. Automobile
engines are put in cars that are subjected to some rather severe
attitudes in ordinary use. You can climb a city street in San Francisco
that is steeper than the angle of climb achievable by most all but
aerobatic aircraft and the oil stays around the pickup. Cars going
around corners at high speed remain relatively level causing the oil in
the pan to stack up against one side...pulling away from the oil pickup.
Turning bank in an airplane keeps nearly all the forces normal through
the centerline of the engine so the oil stays around the pickup.
It has been some years ago that I read specs on the Ford, but the gist
was that the automobile engine had to operate in the car at attitudes of
30 degrees up or down and 30 degrees tilted side to side. The oil stays
in the pan around the pump pick up.
In the beginning it was thought that since we are using a Holley carb
that we needed to compensate for the change in inclination of the intake
manifold deck due to the backwards position of the engine. Even though
carbs conformed to the same angles of operation as was spec'ed for
engines some of the builders trying to make a commercial go of it began
installing angle plates under the carb. It now has been found that these
plates created an off square angle between the bottom of the intake
manifold plenum and the flow through the carb. During dyno tests it was
found that cylinders to the uphill end of this "tilt" ran leaner than
those on the "downhill" side. Inequity of fuel mixture distribution
caused a 15 horse power loss. Such a mod was not necessary and actually
detrimental.
Another point is that we, at least with the Fords, do not pull the
engine from the salvage yard, slap it in and go fly. Even if we made no
internal modification to the engine it must be pulled apart to inspect
to assure that the incident that put this engine in the salvage yard did
not over-speed it, run it upside down with no oil, or physically break
some part (sudden stops will sometimes break a crank).
We also know that air has to flow over the outside of the block for
cooling and that in our high power demands an oil cooler is requisite.
The Ford has been used this way long enough now so that most of the
installation requirements are known and at least 99.99% of the engine's
idiosyncrasies are known and dealt with. We have a good handle on
radiator size and coolant system layout to provide dependability.
Certainly there are applications not adaptable to auto-engine
substitution. Also there are design limitations of the structure of the
engine blocks so you can't take an engine that can dependably produce
200 hp and expect it to live very long if you are extracting 300 hp from
it.(this may appear obvious, but many don't seem to understand.
And a last thing, in my opinion no auto engine is designed to handle the
loads of direct drive of the prop. If not a PSRU, at least a structure
to transfer the gyroscopic loading to the engine block rather than to
the main bearings and crank.
Denny wrote:
cl...@snyder.on
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Denny,
>
>The Ford 3.8L V-6 has been in service in aero application now for almost
>20 years. Those areas have been addressed.
>
The factory gaskets on the current crop of 3.8 Fords should be
replaced brfore flying - even on a "crate" engine. The factory head
gaskets and timing cover gaskets are a bad compromise - resulting in
MANY 3.8 engine failures due to glycol contamination of the oil. This
is in normal automotive use. The bearings are not very forgiving of
even a low percentage of glycol in the oil.
These gaskets very often do not last through factory warranty.
A good set of FelPros or equivalent, carefully installed, can make a
good engine.
Bruce A. Frank
which will include removing the heads. We use a different method of
installing head gaskets than call for by either the Ford Shop Manual or
FelPro's information pamphlet. FelPro installed per FelPro's
instructions will fail just a quickly as Ford gaskets installed per the
Ford manual.
Also let me say that there is no advantage to buying a crate engine
unless it is one that fell off the truck right into your lap. Converting
the 3.8L for aero use includes replacing the cam and probably the
supporting hardware (push rods and valve springs) and installing Wiseco
9:1 pistons. Which also leads to replacing the head bolts and rod bolts.
I'll amend my previous statement, you don't pull an engine out of a
salvage yard *or straight from the crate* and fly it.
cl...@snyder.on wrote:
Anthony
the possibility of getting a PSRU for a late model 4 cylinder Subaru engine.
"Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CDAAC7A...@worldnet.att.net...
Bruce A. Frank
what you want. He'll tell you if he'll do it or tell you to whom to go
to get it. Have you looked at the Reductions site. I know of another
that specializes in Soobs. I'll get that info to you as soon as the
dealer gets back to me.
Bruce A. Frank
Anon E. Mouse
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'll amend my previous statement, you don't pull an engine out of a
>salvage yard *or straight from the crate* and fly it.
For what it's worth, I was down in Southern California (Sun Valley)
not that long ago and stopped in at a .. pick u'r part junk-yard..
Mostly for the hell of it.. Had never been to one before.
Things I noticed: There wasn't a single VW air cooled engine to be
found.. I believe I saw a single partially dismantled Ford 3.8L
engine. The offerings had been somewhat picked over.. But I'm just
not sure you could actually walk into a junkyard and buy a used Ford
3.8L engine. I couldn't.
Interestingly enough, saw several EA-81s, EA-82s.
The above is merely my observation at one location, at a given time,
and should not be construed as anything else.
Bruce A. Frank
know if there is a web site.
Bruce A. Frank wrote:
Bruce A. Frank
http://www.homebuilt.org/vendors/powerplants/auto.html
cl...@snyder.on
<baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I wouldn't expect anyone to fly a crate engine without doing some rework
>which will include removing the heads. We use a different method of
>installing head gaskets than call for by either the Ford Shop Manual or
>FelPro's information pamphlet. FelPro installed per FelPro's
>instructions will fail just a quickly as Ford gaskets installed per the
>Ford manual.
Bruce, what is the "good" way of installing the 3.8 head gasket? I'd
really like to know how to make the beggars consistantly go over 2
years in normal use.
Ron Webb
I have looked at it. The Ford "Modular" line of 4.6l 90 degree V8 engines is
fairly diverse.
There are aluminum blocks with DOHC, cast iron blocks with SOHC (both are
chain driven, no timing belts to break). I can not find an aluminum block
version with a SOHC. This would be good because I will be limiting it to
4400 RPM as a conservative max RPM) a DOHC is unnecessary weight.
Of those with aluminum blocks, the "Romeo" engine in the Cobra has forged
internals, while the engine in the Lincoln MkVIII does not have forged
internals (but is otherwise nearly identical). I can not find a good number
for the weight, but it appears that it is somewhat heavier than the Cadillac
Northstar 4.6l DOHC V8.
If you know any more, I'd be interested.
Ron Webb
"Aaron Smith" <tt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3CD4DDD5...@gte.net...
> I have been wondering about the 4.6L V8 as used in the Mustang. Has
anyone tried
> a conversion for that yet?
>
> -Aaron
>
> Phodo Graf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 05 May 2002 04:02:00 GMT, Hans Conser <con...@mcn.net> wrote:
> >
> > >in article ud8rkat...@corp.supernews.com, Ron Webb at rw...@gci.net
> > >wrote on 5/4/02 5:28 PM:
> > >
> > >> I have a piper pacer that is licensed in the experimental category
(long
> > >> story). Anyway, I am considering removing and selling the modified
IO-360
> > >> Lycosaur and replacing it with an auto conversion.
> > >>
> > >> I have been slowly working on a new GM 3.1L V6 with a Hy-Vo chain
reduction
> > >> drive. I am close to the point where I dig out the chainsaw and start
> > >> removing expensive stuff from the airframe.
> > >>
> > >> Has anyone ever seen a flying example of a GM 60 degree V6 (2.8l,
3.2l or
> > >> 3.4l)? I know all about the 90 degree 4.3L conversions, but the 60
degree
> > >> seems to be uncharted territory.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Wow, you really want to put a GM engine in an airplane? That is brave!
> > >
> > >Leaving my GM = CRAP bias aside, the fundamental reason for not using
an
> > >automotive piston engine in a plane is that they are designed for low
> > >average HP output, even a 200 HP auto engine probably only averages 40
> > >continous HP, totally unlike a plane. Even if you get the oil and
coolant
> > >to cool the high continous HP, you will likely be burning exhaust
valves
> > >very quickly.
> >
> > Hmmm.. So I guess all those folks with Chevy V6s/V8s and Ford V6s
> > must have a lot of trouble getting into the air with only 20% of their
> > power? Oh c'mon.. People fly 'em all the time.. Some of them even
> > post here.. Get your facts straight.
>
Anthony
"Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CDB26F...@worldnet.att.net...
Anthony
> http://www.subielyc.com/ and another source of info
At first glance their prices are quite a shock but if they're stuff is as
good as they say it is, $12 for a complete 2.2L package is really a good
value.
Bruce A. Frank
cl...@snyder.on wrote:
> Bruce, what is the "good" way of installing the 3.8 head gasket? I'd
> really like to know how to make the beggars consistantly go over 2
> years in normal use.
>
I thought I had gone over this several times here on RAH, but I'll run
through it again.
The differential of expansion between the aluminum heads and the iron
block is fairly significant. Ford claims to have provided the correct
graphite lubricant/sealer on their head gaskets and the installer should
absolutely not add anything, no other sealer to the head gasket. FelPro
makes an almost verbatim statement in their installation instructions
and there is a several paragraph statement on their web site explaining
the same thing.
Ford has had an ongoing problem in the cars with leaking head gasket
problems...usually cylinder pressure leakage into the water jacket, but
that loss of seal can lead to coolant contaminated oil also.
The secret solution is one racers have used for years...Copper
Coat. Again both Ford and FelPro say not to use such additional sealers
on their head gaskets. The process is to clean the head mating surface
and the block with acetone removing all traces of oil, antifreeze and
just as importantly finger prints. Take the spray can of Copper Coat, (I
like Permatex, but there are other brands that probably work as well)
and spray a coat on the deck of the block, both sides of the head
gasket, and the head. Let it dry till it is not tacky then coat it
again. You will use 1.5 to 2 cans on one engine. Let it dry completely,
not sticky to an acetone cleaned and dry finger.
Install the heads with the gaskets oriented in the proper direction and
torque new head bolts down to the new Ford spec. These are torque to
yield bolts that are torqued then backed off then tightened again to a
specified degree of rotation...not a torque reading on the wrench.
Ford came up with the new head bolts and torque spec to solve the engine
problems in the cars. It helped but didn't eliminate the problem
because, in my estimation, the mechanic was not allowed to use Copper
Coat. A friend's Taurus blew the gaskets at 45,000 miles. I told him of
our solution, but since the engine was under warranty his mechanic would
not repair it that way. Fifteen thousand miles later the gaskets blew
again. this time the owner insisted that the Copper Coat method be used
and the car was still doing fine at 95,000.
As the engine heats up the aluminum head and iron block have to slide
against each other and maintain a seal at the same time. Copper Coat
(Kopper Koat) has been doing this job for almost 70 years.
I have known builders to go as far as 800 hours with the OEM method of
head gasket installation, but such success requires careful handling of
the engine on each start up. The engine has to be started and allowed to
idle until the oil temp comes up into the near normal range. This is an
indication that the whole block is heat soaked and everything has
expanded to its proper point and is generating all the hold down
pressure needed to maintain the seal of the head gaskets. Then and only
then can the full throttle run-ups and take off power be asked for with
no problem.
The leak manifest itself as a pressure increase in the coolant system
that stabilizes once altitude is reached and cruise power is selected.
The leak only seems to leak when full power is called for. The Copper
Coat does not give you the freedom to start the engine and immediately
take off (why tempt fate) but it does allow for a normal style of start
up and warm up. If the leak is ignored it will get worse and lead to
contaminated oil problems.
Corky Scott and I are trying a slightly different method. We are
changing from Ford head bolts to ARP high strength studs. I will still
sue the Copper Coat during my assembly, but I expect the higher torque
studs to give more leeway if warm up procedures are neglected.
Bruce A. Frank
Jim VanDervort
assa9
"Bruce A. Frank" <baf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CDB85A8...@worldnet.att.net...
Denny
conversion of auto engines for aircraft use... That is not the
case... I was discussing the necessary (in my experience) changes
needed to bring the auto derived engine installation up to the
reliability we expect of a standard aircraft engine... I will point
out that the very next message in this thread is a builder bemoaning
the fact that he can't get more than 2 years out of a set of head
gaskets... I rest my case...
I am, in fact, actively persuing a different thought line on the
method of prop speed reduction for the auto engine, as well as a novel
configuration for the engine... If my thought line works out ( I am
slow though, because I have a hundred projects always going) I may
have something interesting to display at OSH, et. al., in a year or
three...
Denny
Capt. Doug
Hans Conser <> wrote in message > You replace the rotor housings (if they
need it) ($650), and replace the
> apex seals ($150), and lap the side housings (if they need it).
That's reasonable.
> I don't agree that this is a problem
We agree to disagree. How many rotaries do you see with variable valve
timing? Why are more manufacturers incorporating VVT in their engines? Is it
to accomodate more varying mission profiles? Be honest to yourself.
> To me, grenading means inside parts becoming outside parts and oil going
> everywhere. DOES NOT HAPPEN WITH ROTARIES.
A failure is a failure. If the ring gear locks up, it's a failure. If the
cases get too hot and seize the centroid, it's a failure. If the centroid or
crank fractures, it's a failure, and in this failure mode, they do grenade.
> No they don't. Cast iron or iconel might be nice for a turbo manifold.
For
> naturally aspirated engines the key is to use the later nonturbo housings
> with the little splitter in the exhaust port. Thin wall exhausts been
shown
> to last 500 hours in aviation applications using these housings.
I fly a 1000 hours per year, I'd have to weld up a new exhaust every 6
months flying behind a Mazda. No thanks.
> True I'm sure. But what a rotary loses in muffler weight is more than
made
> up in power to weight ratio over a Ford.
Actually, I want reliability more than light weight. My preferences may vary
from yours. I'll accept more weight with less performance in order to
utilize an engine with high reliability. Your Mazda may indeed be reliable,
but can it outlast my Mercedes Turbo-diesel? I win!
> If installing an inferior engine is winning, then you have won!
> Congratulations!
Thank you.
D.
highflyer
>
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> > Wanna factor in 1,000 miles worth of gas and see which weighs more?
> > Or is this like weighing a bicycle without pedals and tires?
> >
> > Mark Hickey
>
> You bring up a good point Mark, but I don't think we really have the real
> world data yet to make that comparison. I think Tracey Crook claims .47
> BSFC, but I think BSFC is hard to quantify. When we get more wankels flying
> we should know more, I think the best test is identical planes with two
> different engines flying side by side, then topping off the tanks after
> landing.
>
BSFC is EASY to measure. You put the engine on a dyno and meter the
fuel used. We used to do it all the time in the engines lab. Realize
that fuel consumption per horsepower is NOT a constant. It varies with
the horsepower produced. It usually reachs a minimum somewhere near the
maximum torque point. Consumption per horsepower goes up either side of
that.
I have heard claims of over a hundred horsepower at less than three
gallons per hour of fuel burn. That kind of claim is in the same
category exactly as someone claiming they can run eighty miles an hour
for miles. You may believe it if you wish, but I will personally
question either the integrity or the intelligence of anyone who makes
such claims. :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Mark Hickey
> I will still
>sue the Copper Coat during my assembly<snip>
Aren't you supposed to wait until you crash for that? <g>
highflyer
For aircraft use, I would even take a 'crate' engine apart and blueprint
it. That is a good time to replace the factory gaskets with good ones,
since you will be replaceing all of them anyway. Even though the
factory engine is likely balanced better than the factory aircraft
engine, I would also balance it, check the individual cylinder
displacement and do what is needed to make the things that should be
parallel actually parallel and the things that should be square actually
square! :-) Basically the same prep work that is done to any decent
racing engine. Just don't get carried away with the fancy "extra power"
mods that may be contraindicated for aircraft use. A good clean engine,
well set up and aligned, that is run conservatively should give you many
years of good reliable service.
Most of the problems with auto conversions come from experimental
cooling systems and fuel systems. Stay conservative and pay attention
to the mistakes others have made and you should have a good
installation. It can be done and done well. It is not a "bolt it in
and go" operation though. :-)
Bruce A. Frank
Denny wrote: