Engines-Archive.digest.vol-aa
September 12, 1999 - August 10, 2000
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Welcome to the New Engines-List Email List at Matronics! |
Welcome to the New Engines-List Email List at Matronics!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Two MORE Email Lists at Matronics... |
Dear Listers,
At the request of a couple of members, I have added two more Email Lists to
the Servers here at Matronics. These include:
avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Aircraft Avionics related topics such as Radios, GPSs, VSIs, DMEs, etc.
engines-list(at)matronics.com
Aircraft Engine related topics such as Lycomings, Auto conversions, etc.
As usual, the new lists have full archive searching and browsing capabilities.
You may subscribe to the new lists by using the Web-Based subscription form
at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
Subject: Engines-List: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
>
> Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ?
I recall a number of years ago, a person built a ducted
fan aircraft and flew it at least once that I am aware of,
but have not seen it since. It was not an ultralight.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
>
>
> Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ?
I've definitely seen pictures of such an installation, but I can't remember
where. Keep looking!
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
> Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ?
Yes of course, Paul
My Zenair CH 701 is being dragged through space by a BMW K100 motorcycle
engine since 20/8/99, 8 hours so far.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert Day" <robday(at)GTE.NET> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
What is the power output of a K100 engine? (HP)
Rob Day
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net> |
> From: "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
>
>
> > Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ?
>
> Yes of course, Paul
> My Zenair CH 701 is being dragged through space by a BMW K100 motorcycle
> engine since 20/8/99, 8 hours so far.
Hi Joe.
Great to hear you have proved that the engine works in a CH701 because
this is the same aircraft for which I already have the plans although
haven't yet stated construction. I also have the conversion drawings for
using a BMW aircooled boxer engine but hadn't thought about the K series
engines. I have spent a lot of time recently working on a friends
K1100LT (ex police bike) and love the quality compared to even the best
of Jap engines. What was needed to convert for use in an aircraft ?. The
boxer conversion is very easy and uses a Rotax 'C' type gearbox. Did you
build the CH701 with the intention of installing the K engine or has it
flown previously with any other engine ?
Paul Humphries,
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffordshire,
UK.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
>
> What is the power output of a K100 engine? (HP)
>
>
> Rob Day
90 hp fuel injected
mine is running on a carby for simplicity at about 80 hp.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Subject: | Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines |
What is the all-up wet weight, eg, with everything that it takes to run?
Joe Bucher wrote:
>
> >
> > What is the power output of a K100 engine? (HP)
> >
> >
> > Rob Day
>
> 90 hp fuel injected
> mine is running on a carby for simplicity at about 80 hp.
>
> Joe
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Bucher <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 1999 7:56
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: BMW engines
>
> > Hi Joe.
> >
> > Great to hear you have proved that the engine works in a CH701 because
> > this is the same aircraft for which I already have the plans although
> > haven't yet stated construction. I also have the conversion drawings for
> > using a BMW aircooled boxer engine but hadn't thought about the K series
> > engines. I have spent a lot of time recently working on a friends
> > K1100LT (ex police bike) and love the quality compared to even the best
> > of Jap engines. What was needed to convert for use in an aircraft ?. The
> > boxer conversion is very easy and uses a Rotax 'C' type gearbox. Did you
> > build the CH701 with the intention of installing the K engine or has it
> > flown previously with any other engine ?
> >
> > Paul Humphries,
>
> Hi Paul
> My CH 701 was powered by a Kavasaki 1000 with varies problems before I
> bought it ( fire wall back ). Yes I love the engineering specially the K
> engine, runs extremely smooth, quiet unlike the R series. I run a 2.67
belt
> redrive and I certainly can match it with the Rotax 912, ( 81,5kts GPS at
> 6600rpm 21deg 3000ft )
> Joe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
Folks,
Anyone really looked the 200HP Dynacam engine? (http://www.dynacam.com)
I have not yet been able to make the trek to Oshkosh or Sun-n-Fun, so I
have not seen their booth or demonstrations... I know that they are now
in production... did they have any sort of demonstrator plane built?
I was thinking that this engine was particularly well suited to the Zenith
STOL CH-801, or any other STOL requiring about 200 HP... I imagine that
the low end torque would work well at swing a pretty powerful prop for
even better takeoff performance than a Lycoming... does this make sense?
Thanks for any information you might have...
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant
TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated
steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com> |
>
>Folks,
>
>Anyone really looked the 200HP Dynacam engine? (http://www.dynacam.com)
>....
>Thanks for any information you might have...
>
Steve,
The Dynacam caught my eye last year and I've checked on it from time to
time. Interesting engine, but the expected price (~$25K US) is a bit high
(for me), and they have had problems keeping the price down at that level
due to some sub-contracting issues. I understand that they have gone
in-house on alot of the manu. to insure quality and price controls. The
engine does hold great potential in the 200hp range. FWIW
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve, I go to OSH every year where I conduct
engine related seminars. I have only seen the
Dynacam engine once, about 8-10 yrs ago,
in the back of a pickup truck, on a makeshift
engine stand. It was not running. That's it.
Archie
> Anyone really looked the 200HP Dynacam engine? (http://www.dynacam.com)
> I have not yet been able to make the trek to Oshkosh or Sun-n-Fun, so I
> have not seen their booth or demonstrations... I know that they are now
> in production... did they have any sort of demonstrator plane built?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dennis Douglas <ddouglas(at)coastside.net> |
Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Info |
Hey Builders!
I have some information about the Facet fuel pumps used to transfer fuel
in our airplanes. To support the Pillar Point Avionics "Smart Switch"
Fuel Pump Controller, we have tested threee different models of Facet
pump: the 40171, the 40105, and the 40106. The differences fall into
two distinct categories that relate to pump-off forward and reverse
leakage flows.
Physically, the 40105 and 40
The Facet 40171 pump is the type sold by Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft ,
Inc. (360-495-8533) to serve as a transfer pump for transferring fuel
from the auxiliary tanks to the main tanks. The 40171 costs about $54
each. The Facet 40105 and 40106 are sold by numerous suppliers,
including Aircraft Spruce and Specialties (800-824-1930 (west);
800-831-2949 (east)), Chief Aircraft (800-447-3408), Wicks
(800-221-9425) and others and typically used in the Zenith and other
aircraft for transferring fuel from an aux tank to a header tank. The
40105/6 pumps cost about $28 to $32 each.
Physically, the 40105 and 40106 are identical. Both Chief Aircraft and
Aircraft Spruce picture these pumps in their catalogs. The 40171 looks
slightly different than the 40105 / 40106 models in that the inlet and
outlet ends of the pump are about 1/4 inch longer than the 40105 / 40106
to accommodate the check and foot valves. (I haven't found any pictures
of the 40171.) Functionally, there is a world of difference between the
40171 and the 40105 / 40106.
All three model pumps have a "lift" capability and can draw fuel from
at least 3-feet. All three move the fuel at about 0.5 gal/min, or about
30 gal/h when they are operating.
In the "OFF" state, however, the differences between the pumps become
more obvious. At a 30-inch head pressure, the 40105 and 40106 pumps
have a forward "leak" rate or drain rate of about 15 gal/h. These pumps
thus flow freely in the forward direction at about one-hald the pumping
rate.... In the reverse direction, the 40105 and 40106 drain backwards
at between 0.05 ga/h to about 0.25 gal/hr, with a mean value over a
dozen tests with four different pumps of about 0.1 gal/h. (As a point
of reference, 0.1 gal/h is about one drop per second). Compare these
numbers to the 40171 pump, which showed no detectable leakage in the
"OFF" state in either the forward or reverse directions over several
hours.
The utilization implications are pretty clear: If your "from" tank is
higher that the "to" tank, you need the 40171 pump to prevent your
"from" fuel from draining into your "to" tank. If your "from" and "to"
tanks are at about the same level, you should still use the 40171 pump
to prevent an exchange of fuel. If your "from" tank is lower than your
"to" tank, you can use any of the pumps described, but if you use the
40105 or 40106, you should use a check valve on the outlet side of the
pump to present your "to" tank from draining back into your "from"
tank. Wicks lists a check valve at about $24, so cost-wise the 40171
may represent a better bargin because it has the checks built into
them....
Pillar Point Avionics offers fuel pump controllers for all of these
pumps. For the 40171 pump, PPAv provides the XFR-12-2-5F model
controller; for the 40105 and 40106 pumps, PPAv provides the
XFR-12-2-5G model controller. We developed the "G" model when we found
that the operating characteristics of the 40105 and 40106 were just
different enough from the 40171 to make control of those pumps with the
"F"-model Smart Switch less reliable than we wanted.
If you have a PPAv controller and are building a GlaStar or another
airplane that uses the 40171 pump(s), the original production "F" model
will be just fine. If you have the 40105 or 40106 pumps, you will need
the "G" model controller. If you need the "G" model controller and have
NOT been contacted by PPAv, then please contact me by email at
mailto:ddouglas(at)ppavionics.com or by fax (650-726-9567) or by telephone
(650-740-1516).
You can identify the model by looking at the mounting tab on the pump.
One side of the mounting slot will be stamped "40" and the other side
will be stamped "105", 106" or "171". If you have a different model
pump and want to use the PPAv Smart Switch Fuel Pump Controller to
reduce your aux fuel management workload, please contact us. You can
read about the PPAv Controller at
http://www.ppavionics.com
Dennis Douglas
Pillar Point Avionics, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BB Diversified <bbds(at)means.net> |
Is there anybody out there converting (or that has converted) the 2.5
Suburu??
I have a 1996 version with very few miles on it and am getting it ready to
run in the "stock" configuration with a Ross gearbox and (most likely) a
Warp Drive prop. Don't have the prop yet. Plan to run it stock first so I
have a starting point, then begin removing stuff not needed in the harness,
etc. and see if it still runs every once in a while... seems logical but
maybe a waste of time??
Any hints on where to attach engine mounts? Building the mount is my next
step.. I have a pretty good idea how I think I'll do it, but welcome
suggestions.
Comments on stock ignition and/or fuel injection vs. aftermarket will be
welcome.
At Oshkosh this year I talked to the guys from Canada that convert
Suburus--they badmouthed the 2.5L ("Have you ever looked inside THAT
THING???"... yes, I have and it looks pretty stout to me..). The guy was
not much interested in being specific. Anybody know a reason for this
attitude besides that they would like to sell something rather than see
someone "roll their own"?
It will go in a Champ that has been modified enuf that it will be
Experimental. I also have an RV-3A and would love to have something
besides a Lyc there if this works out.
Any input would be appreciated. If there is someone within RV-3 distance
that is willing to show off their conversion, I'd be much obliged.
Johnny Johnson
Northern Minnesota
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
BTW, it is spelled: SUBARU
Try Jan Eggenfellner at eaainc(at)aol.com . He does these for a living.
Tell him the great Archie sent you.
>
> Is there anybody out there converting (or that has converted) the 2.5
> Suburu??
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <Vaso_Bovan(at)compuserve.com> |
Subject: | Proposed IO-320 or IO-360 Engine |
I'm building a Glastar. I have to make a decision soon about
buying/preparing an engine. I'm looking for comments from builders who are
familiar with the issues. Fee free to comment on anything in this posting.
Disposing of alternatives engines:
Diesels: Promising but large-scale production at least two years out.
LOM M332B: Interesting but underpowered, not true 160hp. Slow/unresponsive
factory/rep. Best suited to tandem.
DynaCAM: Interesting, but a year before full scale production. Unproven
Subaru: Interesting, but need to see a few flying installations
Franklin: Interesting but mounting is problematic in Glastar. Lower
power/weight ratio
Wankel: Interesting, but unproven. Systems problematic and would require
much development/tinkering.
Continental IO-360: Interesting, but mounting is seriously problematic.
That leaves the ubiquitous Lycomings: I'm looking to get 180hp-210hp. In
non-fuel-injected engines, Stoddard-Hamilton sells the O-360-A1A/AIF6/A4F,
and the O-320-D1F. I think I want fuel injection and electronic ignition.
Lycon tells me it is easy and safe to get 195hp from the O-360 or 235hp
from the O-360 via porting & polishing, 10:1 pistons, mass balancing and
flow balancing. I'm told cold air induction (Skydynamics Maxi-Sump) and
tuned (eg Flow Power Systems) exhaust add up to another effective
10hp-20hp. Horsepower gains via fuel injection and electronic ignition are
minor, but installation is defensible. Apart from horsepower increases,
weight reductions via lightweight alternator and starter, Maxi-Sump, etc
reduce nose weight and improve power/weight ratio. Comments ?
Some decisions:
1) (I)O-360 or (I)-320 ? Is it better to go with an IO-320 modded to
~190hp, or to an IO-360- modded to ~210hp ? A -320 solution appears to be
11-25lb lighter so the power/weight ratio of these options is reasonably
comparable, but apparently a 360 is more robust to start with and can take
horsepower mods more reliably and still meet 2000hrs TBO. Comments ?.
2) Buy new fuel-injected version of engines or buy carburetted version and
convert to FI ? This may be a no-brainer - Lycoming appears to overcharge
for FI versions of similar engines. Comments ?
3) Buy new engine, mid-time, or core ? Apparently buying a remanufactured
engine from Lycoming actually costs more than buying a new engine at OEM
prices because a core has to be submitted to Lycoming.
4) What about the long-anticipated XP-360 ? Apparently the deal between XP
Industries and Superior fell apart, so the XP-360 will be marketed through
Matittuck "in a few months." Comments ?
4) Bendix or Airflow Performance fuel injection ? I'm told the Airflow
Performance (API) unit is better designed and build and perhaps gives
slightly better horsepower and is slightly easier to hot start. However,
I'm told the Airflow units is less familiar to A&Ps so might be difficult
to repair in her field. Also, I'm told API unit leaks pressurized fuel into
the cylinders after shutdown. Comments ?
5) Electronic Ignition ? Lightspeed Laser ? Rose ? Comments on these
options ?
6) 10:1 pistons ? Lycon suggests 10:1 pistons as substituted for stock
Lycoming 8.5:1. Lycon suggests this compression ratio is safe and
effective, but will install ground-down 9:1 pistons if requested. Comment ?
Any starting or vibration or reliability problems on 100 fuel with these
pistons ? Is 93 mogas totally out of the question with these high
compression pistons ?
7) Porting & Polishing ? Both Lycon and Aero Power say P&P is effective,
but I don't understand - if this is a "free" power boost - why Lycoming
doesn't already do it.
8) Mass balancing ? There is an article that says mass balancing is
futile, and if material is removed, mass balancing is decreases
reliability. On the other hand, shops like Lycon swear my very
tight-tolerance mass balancing. Comments ?
9) Flow balancing and Gamijectors ? Most shops recommend air/fuel flow
balancing, but say Gamijectors are not significantly effective in
Lycomings. Comments ?
10) Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems claimed an eyebrow-raising 10-15%
increase in effective power output from a Lycoming O-360. Lycon says they
verified this power increase on their test cell. The PFS exhaust is
expensive $2K+. Does anyone else make tuned exhausts with similar verified
(?) claims ? Comments ?
11) Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells a low-weight (magnesium) sump and cold
air induction system clat claims to reduce weight by 10lb+, and increase
horsepower on an IO-360. Cost is $2K+. Is this a realistic add-on ?
12) Pre-Oiler ? Is it worthwhile to add a pre-oiler system, to avoid
engine start friction ?
13) Oil Cooler ? Is one brand/configuration significantly better/cheaper
than another ?
14) Remote Oil filter ? Is Airwolf, or B&C, or another other brand
significantly better/cheaper/more convenient ?
15) The Stallion newsletter strongly recommends a high-efficiency fuel
filter for fuel-injected engines. Is any particular brand better ?
16) Starter: Any comments/cautions about B&C, SkyTek, or others ?
17) Alternator ? B&C best ?
-Vaso Bovan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | commentary- Vaso Bovan message- |
I build piston racing engines,Nascar,Short track, Drags, Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: commentary- Vaso Bovan message- |
----- Original Message -----
From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: Engines-List: commentary- Vaso Bovan message-
>
> I build piston racing engines,Nascar,Short track, Drags, Aircraft
OOPS, looks like my commentary got lost-------
Will re-send momentarily
archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | commentary- Vaso Bovan message- |
----- Original Message -----
From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: commentary- Vaso Bovan message-
> I build piston racing engines,Nascar,Short track, Drags, Aircraft
> .
> Would like to comment on engines posting by Vaso Bovan.
> Wankel: How many engines of 80 cu.in. displacement
> produce an easy 160-210 hp?
> Highest time engine is owned by Tracy Crook's
> RV-4.(800+) which was removed from a used
> car and run. Recently disassembled out of
> curiosity, showed very little wear.
> 71175.606(at)compuserve.com
> XP360: Outrageous price for an engine that still
> incorporates 60yr. old technology.
> Ignition: Dual electronics without a doubt. Just check the
> recommended spark plug gap on a mag system.
> Mags cannot fire a large gap. Check your auto
> ignition. We did away with mags in racing over
> 30 years ago. Do you know the REAL reason
> for an impulse coupling?
> Porting & Polishing: I have written papers on this. No room
> here to elaborate. Suffice it to say, if done properly,
> is of definite value. Many people out there that merely
> "shine them up" indiscriminately. This cannot be done
> properly without mathematical computation and a flow
> bench. (Many hours of work.)
> Mass balancing: Again, have written papers on this, and is
> too involved to comment here. Most factory balancing
> may be "close enough" but a precision balance is of
> definite value. I will not build an engine without performing
> this operation.
> Flow balancing: This term means that the cylinder ports are
> equalized in flow,(not necessarily ported/welded to
> improve flow for a given displacement engine. The
> highest flow ports are used as a standard, and the rest
> are enlarged to match. This has some value, but can
> also reduce power if not performed with all component
> parts from the intake to the complete exhaust system.
> Tuned exhaust: Perhaps one of the most misunderstood areas of
> engine building. Also, one of the most effective gains in
> "bolt on" performance if the design is chosen correctly
> for the application.
> I can comment on much more, but would end up consuming this
> site's capacity.
> Archie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
Subject: | Engine info needed |
I am looking for an engine for my homebuilt. I need something in the 200 to
260 hp range. Does anybody have engine specs for Franklin, Lycoming and
Continental handy. I would like to find a book or similar that contained
engines weights, dimensions, etc to help guide my engine selection.
Thanks in advance.
Vince Frazier
3965 Caborn Road
Mount Vernon, IN 47620
812-985-7309
University of Southern Indiana
812-464-1839
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
Subject: | Torque Converters |
I've been thinking about doing a conversion similar to Steve Wittman's Olds
conversion, in which the engine is inverted and drives the prop directly--no
redrive. Steve uses a manual transmission bellhousing to support a
propshaft and bearing, so that the crankshaft is isolated from non-torsional
prop loads.
What if I use a torque converter to also isolate the crank from prop
torsional loads?
The main purpose of the torque converter would be to reduce the chance that
torsional harmonics would lead to failure of either the prop or the crank.
A secondary benefit would be that the alignment between the crankshaft
bearings and the propshaft bearing would not be as critical as in Wittman's
design. It would also probably allow me to use the stock transmission input
shaft. The drawback, of course, would be cost and weight.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
RV-6 project
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
Subject: | Engine info needed |
Vince:
I can't answer the exact question you asked, but I will recommend a good
book on aero engines. It's "Skyranch Engineering Manual," by John Schwaner.
It's available from several sources, including Skyranch themselves.
http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/skyranch/index.html
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Torque Converters |
> What if I use a torque converter to also isolate the crank from prop
> torsional loads?
Be careful with the converter, They are heavy, and unless you have
a high torque engine, the fluid creates a slight imbalance at low
rpm. Alignment (internal/external must be near perfect, else the
torus may rub and make metal. There are commercial torque
shock absorption units that may work better.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <Vaso_Bovan(at)compuserve.com> |
Subject: | Zehrbach Engine Products ? |
Zehrbach-LPE announced an electronic fuel injection system on one of the
recent kit aviation magazines. When I inquired, they sent me a package of
literature describing Zehrbach engines and components, including:
IO-360-Z Improved Engine based on Lycoming
Electronic Fuel Injection System
LPE Battery (Lightweight gas recombination)
Ceramic & Solid Lubricant Engine Performance Packages
Ceramic "Black Magic" Engine Exhaust Coatings
Liquid (Oil) Cylinder Head Cooling System
My phone contact told me that Zehrbach has a long history of developing
engine technology for military and NASA applications, but has had a low
profile in commercial aviation engines. This is the first I've heard of
this broad range of products.
So, what's the story on Zehrbach ? Are these improvements well know and
proven and cost effective ?
-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
Subject: | Re: Zehrbach Engine Products ? |
I'd be interested in hearing about oil cooled cylinder heads. I've always
wondered why an air cooled engine couldn't have some type of liquid cooled
heads.
----------
> From: Vaso Bovan <Vaso_Bovan(at)compuserve.com>
> To: Engines List
> Subject: Engines-List: Zehrbach Engine Products ?
> Date: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 4:33 PM
>
>
> Zehrbach-LPE announced an electronic fuel injection system on one of the
> recent kit aviation magazines. When I inquired, they sent me a package of
> literature describing Zehrbach engines and components, including:
>
> IO-360-Z Improved Engine based on Lycoming
> Electronic Fuel Injection System
> LPE Battery (Lightweight gas recombination)
> Ceramic & Solid Lubricant Engine Performance Packages
> Ceramic "Black Magic" Engine Exhaust Coatings
> Liquid (Oil) Cylinder Head Cooling System
>
> My phone contact told me that Zehrbach has a long history of developing
> engine technology for military and NASA applications, but has had a low
> profile in commercial aviation engines. This is the first I've heard of
> this broad range of products.
>
> So, what's the story on Zehrbach ? Are these improvements well know and
> proven and cost effective ?
>
> -Vaso
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | JPI vs. Matronics Settlement Reached... |
Dear Listers,
After seven months of negotiations, JP Instruments, Inc. and Matronics
have reached a mutually agreeable settlement. As most of you are aware,
in February of this year, JP Instruments, Inc. alleged that Matronics'
use of the trademark "FuelScan" with its aircraft fuel management system
infringed upon JP Instruments, Inc's trademark "Scanner" for engine
temperature indicators. JP Instruments, Inc. requested that Matronics
discontinue the use of the "FuelScan" mark. After considerable
negotiations, we have come to an agreement whereby JP Instruments, Inc.
will purchase the FuelScan trademark and, if necessary, assist in paying
the cost of Matronics' adoption of a new trademark. Matronics will
continue to sell and market its aircraft fuel management system under
the FuelScan trademark until a phase-out period of up to one year is
completed. This will allow Matronics time to sell out its current stock
of units marked with the FuelScan trademark and to develop a new
trademark.
While negotiations have been a bit trying at times, I would like to say
that I am satisfied with the outcome, and feel that JP Instruments, Inc.
has treated Matronics and me fairly in this matter. Furthermore, I
would encourage you to consider JP Instruments for your aircraft
avionics in the future as they manufacture an excellent product line.
Finally, I would like to thank everyone from around the world for their
support and consideration in this matter. I was quite moved by the
support - both financial and in the form of letters and comments - that
builders and pilots provided me and my company during this time. I
never felt alone during this period, and so very much appreciated the
encouragement from thousands of my friends! Thank you so very much!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
President, Matronics
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | For Sale - Lycoming O360-A4A - Excellent Cond. |
For Sale:
Lycoming O360-A4A
-----------------
* 180 hp
* 950 SMOH
* Complete Logs
* Solid Crank
* Removed from wind-damaged Cherokee 180
* Starter ring
* Cleaned and repainted
All brand-new accessories include:
* Slick mags (new, not rebuilt)
* Fuel Pump (new, not rebuilt)
* B&C Lightweight Starter (new)
* Van's alternator kit, 60amp (new)
* 8 plugs (new)
* Ignition harness (new)
* Ellison TBFI (new)
* Valve covers and silicone gaskets (new)
* Oil Filter (new)
This is a really nice engine. It came from a wind-damaged Cherokee 180.
When I received it (at 950 SMOH), I removed all of the old existing
accessories, and replaced them with brand new as described above. I
also completely cleaned the outside, stripped the old paint and
repainted in the red as shown in the pictures.
The price also includes the original carburetor, in good condition.
Shown in the pictures, but not included in the price is the X-over
exhaust and Woofter prop extension. The prop extension is available at
extra cost ($275). I plan to keep the exhaust system. I might be
willing to unbundle the Ellison TBFI if you're not interested in it.
I have decided to sell this engine because I am planning to put a
constant speed prop on my RV-4 and this engine has a solid crankshaft.
Its a beautiful engine, though, and I really hate to give it up since
I've put a lot of work into cleaning it up and upgrading the
accessories.
Please note that while it looks new, it actually has 950 hours since a
first major overhaul. I have the complete engine logs including all of
the maintenance history.
I am in Livermore California which is on the West Coast near San
Francisco. If you're local and can pick it up, that's great. If not, I
would be willing to crate it up nicely and have it shipped by truck to
you. I will pay for the crating, but you will be responsible for all
shipping charges.
Below are a number of photos I just took of the engine from various
angles. The pictures do it justice.
I can accept Visa or Mastercard for full or partial payment, although
this will cost an additional 3% to cover my expense.
Here are some current photos of the engine:
http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine1.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine2.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine3.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine4.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine5.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine6.jpg
Price: Asking $13,750
Please email with questions, or interest.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
RV-4 #1763
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | [Please Read] List Fund Raiser Continues; LOC #1 December |
1st!
Greetings Listers!
Don't forget the 1999 List Fund Raiser is still in progress and there is
still plenty of time to make a Contribution and assure yourself a place
on on the first List Of Contributors (LOC)! I will post the first LOC
on December 1st and it will detail everyone that has generously made a
Contribution so far this year!!
It costs a great deal to maintain the Email and Web server systems and
high-speed Internet connection that provide the Email List services
found here. I won't even mention the many, many hours I spend each week
running the Lists, doing backups, handling subscription requests, and
creating new email and web features and services such as the Archive
Search Engine, and Archive Browser... Whoops; I think I just did! :-)
This year's Fund Raiser started out pretty slow and I was starting to
think that no one appreciated me anymore... ;-) But, in the last week
or so things have really started to pick up! So if you haven't made a
Contribution yet this year, why not join your email List friends and
make a contribution today to support the continued operation of these
Lists!
There are two easy methods for making your Contribution:
* Make a SSL Secure Web Contribution using your Visa or MasterCard,
surf over to:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution.html
* Make a Contribution by check, send US Mail to:
Matronics
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has already made a
Contribution so far this year! I greatly appreciate your generosity and
support and want you to know that these Lists have been made possible
directly by *YOU*!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Your Email List Administrator
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.stjosephs.london.on.ca> |
Subject: | Rotax 582UL parts for sale |
Parting out Rotax 582:
- rear cylinder ate a bottom-end rod bearing, most other parts fine.
carbs, cylinders, head, stator, e-boxes, etc.
Make an offer in the 50% retail range, will ship.
Regards, J.
| J. Davis | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
| SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
| Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
| London, Ontario | lriweb.stjosephs.london.on.ca/~jd |
I play the harmonica. The only way I can play is if I get my car going really
fast, and stick it out the window.
--- Steven Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russ Jones" <russj1(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Your opinions wanted |
Hello all,
I am currently building an EA-81 for installation in a Zodiac 601
What is the best solution for a fuel system on an EA-81? Carburetor or fuel
injection?
I am looking at dual Bings, which models are recommended?
What other considerations should I look at?
Any advice is greatly appreciated on or off list.
Russ Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | StOrMiN3(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Engines needed |
hello all,
I am a vary new person to this list. I am just wondering if anyone
has any 35hp and up engine for an ultralight for sale ?
erik baxter
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | 1999 List of Contributors #1 and a Special Thank You Message!! |
Dear Listers,
I would like to personally thank each and everyone that has contributed
this year to 1999 List Fund Raiser! As you can see from the list of
names below, there were many, many generous people from the Lists this
time around and I want everyone to know just how much your support has
meant to me. The list of members below includes those that have
contributed during this year's List Fund Raiser as well as those that
have contributed throughout the year and also those that made a donation
to my Legal Defense Fund earlier in the year that was sponsored my our
own Bob Nuckolls of Aero Electric.
I want everyone to know just how much it means to me to receive the type
of financial support for these Lists that I have this year. As the Lists
have grown so much over the last few years, so have the equipment costs
as well as the monthly costs such as the Internet connectivity. Your
generosity during the Fund Raiser and throughout the year, truly makes
the continued operation, and more importantly, the continued upgrade and
improvement of these aviation-related services directly possible. That
is the bottom line. Please accept my most sincere appreciation of the
amazing and, at times, overwhelming generosity of so many of you
wonderful people! Thank you!!
For those of you that didn't quite get your contribution in on time for
this first List of Contributors - be it by check or by credit card - I
will be posting a followup List of Contributors #2 for 1999 in a few
weeks to make sure that I properly acknowledge each and everyone of the
generous List members. One last time, the addresses to make a contribution
are:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or
Matt Dralle
c/o Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
Finally, thank you all so much for your support this year both in terms
of the financial contribution but also in the form of the letters and
moral support during what can only be categorized as a very stressful and
unsettling time. And I think you know what I'm referring to... Your
support and encouragement meant more to me than you'll ever know. I felt
as if I had 2500 friends all behind me, and that's a *powerful* force!
Well done one and all! Thank you!
Best regards for the upcoming year.
Your Email List Administrator,
Matt Dralle
RV-4 Builder #1763
=================== 1999 List of Contributors #1 ====================
Abell, John
Acker, Rob
Adams, Bob
Adamson, Larry
Ahamer, Karl
Albachten, Rudy III
Alcazar, Jesus
Allen, Brent
Allison, Steven
Ammeter, John
Amundsen, Blair
Anderson, Edward
Armstrong, Robert
Arnold, James
Aronson, David
Ashford, James
Ashton, Kent
Atkinson, Harold
Baggett, Robert
Baker, Gary
Baker, Ray
Baldwin, James
Barlow, Melvin
Barnes, Thomas
Barnes, Tom
Barnhart, Dave
Barrenechea, Godo
Battles, Brenton
BB Diversified Services, LTD
Bechtel, Amos
Bell, Bruce
Belted Air Power LTD.
Benhan, Dallas
Bennett, Peter
Besing, Paul
Bieber, Mike
Bilodeau, Paul
Bird, Carroll
Blanton, Stan
Bleier, Roger
Blomgren, Jack
Blum, Ronald
Boadright, Kyle
Boardman, Don III
Boatright, Kyle
Boatright, Robert
Bodie, Pete
Bonesteel, Wayne
Booze, Gregory
Borne, Charles
Bourgeois, Rion
Bourne, Larry
Bovan Pe, Vaso
Bowen, Larry
Bowen, Miles
Bower, Bob
Bowhay, Eustace
Bowman, Brian R
Boyd, Rodney
Branscomb, Warren
Bray, Garrett
Brian Lloyd
Brick, John
Bridgham, David
Brogley, Mike
Brooks, Chris
Brooks, John
Brott, Marvin
Brown, Kent
Brown, Scott
Buckwalter, David - Avionics Systems
Burlingame, Ralph
Burnham, Dave
Calhoun, Ronald
Calvert, Jerry
Cantrell, Ken
Capen, Ralph
Cardinal, Gregory
Carey, Christopher
Carr, David
Carter, Jerry
Carter, Ron
Casey, Jeremy
Chapple, Glen
Chesnut, Bruce
Chesnut, William
Christensen, Peter
Christie, William
Churchill, Frank
Ciolino, John
Clabots, Gerald
Clark, Howard
Clark, James
Clary, Buck
Clay, Dennis
Cloughley, Bill
Cole, Ed
Colontonio, Moe
Colucci, Anthoney
Conaway, James
Cook, David Sr.
Cooley, John
Copeland, Forrest
Corder, Michael
Corriveau, Grant
Cotter, Timothy
Cox, Carson
Croby, Harry
Crosley, Richard
Cullen, Chuck
Czinkota, Garnet
Dall, Richard
Daudt, Larry
Davidson, Jeff
Davis, Christopher
Davis, Jared
Davis, Steve - The Panel Pilot
Davis, William
Day, Robert
Deffner, David
Del Peso, Jose
Derrik, Chuck
Desmond, Richard
Devine, Steven
Devlin, John
Dewees, Ron
Dial, J.R.
Dominey, Clifford
Dorsey, Bob
Downing, Jeff
Dubroc, Tommy
Dudley, Richard
Duffy, Russell
Duncan, John
Dunlap, E.T.
Dziewiontkoski, Bob
Eagleston, Ron
Eagleston, Ronald
Eastburn, James
Elder, William
Elhai, Irv
Emrath, Marty
Ensing, Dale
Ervin, Thomas
Erwin, Chip - Czech Aircraft Works
Evans, Monte
Exstrom, Daniel
Faile, David
Farrar, Jeffrey
Farris, Paul
Fetzer, George
Fiedler, Mike
Filucci, Michael - Red Dragon Aviaion
Finch, K
Flaherty, Edward
Floyd, Joseph
Ford, David
Forrest, Gerald
Forsting, Robert
Fortner, Earl
Four Star Products
Frank, Dan
Franz, Carl
Frazier, Vince
Frederick, Mark
French, Edwin
Friedman, Frank
Froehlich, Carl
Fromm, John
Fry, John
Funk, Edwin Jr.
Funnell, Augustus
George, William
Gilbert, Mark
Giusti, Roberto
Glaser, Arthur
Glass, Roy
Glover, Ken
Gold, Andy - Builder's Book Store
Goldberg, Mark
Good, Chris
Gooding, Lawrence
Goolsby, Jim
Gott, Shelby
Goudreault, Jacques
Graham, James Jr.
Grant, Jordan
Griffin, Bill
Griffin, Randy
Groom, Larry
Guillosso, Alain
Hale, Michael
Hales, Sherman
Hall, Bob
Hall, Thomas
Hamer, Steven
Hamilton, Thom
Hamilton, William
Hand, Chris
Hansen, Ronald
Hargis, Merle
Harmon, John
Harper, Malcom
Harrill, Roy
Harris, John
Hart, Daniel
Harvey, Doug
Hassall, J.C.
Hastedt, Margaret
Hatch, Fletcher III
Hatcher, Clive
Hatfield, Cecil
Hays, Wes
Henderson, George
Henderson, Randall
Heritch, Ian
Herndon, Richard
Herren, Bill
Hevern, Jerry
Hiatt, Mark
Hiers, Craig
Hinch, Christopher
Hine, Joe
Hinkley, Curtis
Hinrichsen, James
Hodge, Jack
Hodgson, Bob
Hodson, Frank
Hoffman, Carl
Holcombe, Richard
Horton, Kevin
Hoshowski, Ken
Hrycauk, Dave
Hughes, Robert
Hulen, Fred
Hundley, Richard
Hurd, James
Hurlbut, Steve
Hutcheson, Ken
Ihlenburg, Fred
Ingram, Jim
Irace, Bill
Irwin, Eric
Isler, Jerry
Ivers, James
James, Larry
Janes, Bob
Janicki, Steven
Japundza, Bob
Jeens, Ken
Johannsson, Johann
Johnson, Jackie
Johnson, Stephen
Jones, Bryan
Jones, Rob
Jones, Russ
Jonker, Bill
Jordan, Thomas
Jory, Rick
Kampthorne, Hal
Kayner, Dennis
Keithley, Rick
King, Da Ve
Kirby, Dennis
Kirby, Graham
Kirtland, Charles
Kitz, John
Knezacek, Dan
Knievel, Gerald
Knoll, Bruce
Kosta, Michael
Kowalski, Ed
Krueger, Dan
Krueger, Scott
Kuss, Charlie
Laczko, Frank Sr.
Lamb, Richard
Lane, Kevin
Lassen, Finn
Laurence, Peter
Laverty, Mike
Lawson, John
Leaf, Dave
Lee, John
Lee, Ric
LeGare, Garry
Leggette, Len
Leonard, William
Lerohl, Gaylen
Lervold, Randy
Lewis, Terry
Lewis, Tim
Ligon, Howard
Lind, Laird
Linebaugh, Jeffrey
Loeber, Wayne
Ludeman, Bruce
Lutes, Rick
Mac Donald, Lawrence
MacKay, Alex
Malczynski, Francis
Mandell, Tom
Marino, Anthony
Marion, Chris
Markert, Michael
Marshall, Robert
Martin, Tom
Maxson, Phil
Mazatuad, Mme Hyun Sook
McElhoe, Bruce
McFarlane, Lloyd
McGee, Michael
McHarry, Joe
McHenry, Tedd
McKibben, Gerald
McNamara, Don
Melder, Frank
Melia, Tom
Metzger, Stephen
Meyers, John
Miller, Jim & Dondi - Aircraft Technical Support
Mitchell, Duane
Moen, Craig
Mojzisik, Allan
Molzen, Jason
Mondy, Malia
Moore, Thomas
Moore, Warren
Morelli, Bill
Morelli, William
Morris, Daniel III
Morrison, Mark
Morrow, Dan
Moulin, Roger
Munn, Mike
Murphy, Ray Jr.
Neal, Danny
Nellis, Michael
Nelson, James
Nelson, Jim
Newell, Alan
Nguyen, Thomas
Nice, James
Nicely, Vincent
Norris, Rob
Nowakowski, Donald
Noyer, Robert
Nuckolls, Robert
Olendorf, Scott
Olson, Larry
Olson, Tom
Orear, Jeffrey
Owens, Laird
Palinkas, Gary
Pardue, Larry
Paulson, Craig
Peck, Bill & Kathy
Peer, Michael - Jem Aviation
Peryk, Dennis
Peternel, Stanley
Petersen, Eric
Petersen, Paul
Peterson, Alex
Pflanzer, Randy
Phillips, Mark
Pickrell, Jim
Pike, Richard
Pinneo, George
Pittenger, Dick
Plathey, Claude
Point, Jeff
Polstra, Philip
Porter, Richard
Porter, Robert
Potter, Mark
Pretzsch, Robert
Ragsdale, Bill
Randolph, George
Ransom, Ben
Rathbun, Richard
Reeck, Jay
Reed, Derek
Reed, Frank
Reisdorfer, Mark
Reynolds, Richard
Richardson, Ray - Powersport Aviation Inc.
Riedlinger, Paul
Riley, Stuart
Roach, Brian
Rodgers, Brian
Rosales, Paul
Rowbotham, Charles
Rowles, Les
Rozendaal, Doug
Rutherford, Ted
Sa, Carlos
Sager, Jim
Sailer, Martin
SanClemente, Andrew
Sapp, Doug
Sargent, Tom
Sax, Samuel
Schemmel, Grant
Schippers, John
Schmitt, Clayton
Schneeflock, Robert
Schrimmer, Mark
Schwarz, Guillermo
Selby, Jim - JKL Aviation Sales
Seward, Douglas
Shackleford, Howard
Shafer, Jim
Shank, Bill
Sheets, Douglas
Shenk, Doug
Shepherd, Dallas
Shettel, Maurice
Shipley, Walter
Sigmon, Harvey
Silverstein, Chuck
Sipp, Dick
Slaughter, Mike
Small, Thomas
Smith, Clayton
Smith, Edmund
Smith, Philip
Smith, Shelby
Smithey, Lloyd
Snyder, David
Solecki, John
Sparks, Timothy
Stafford, David
Staub, Skip
Steer, Bill
Stobbe, Bruce
Stoffers, Larry
Stone, James
Strandjord, Eric
Swaney, Mark
Tauch, Eric
Tauchen, Bryan
Taylor, Tod
Team Rocket
Thayer, George
Therrien, Michel
Thistelthwaite, Geoffrey
Thoman, Daniel
Thomas, Lee
Thomas, Tim
Thompson, Michael
Todd, John
Tompkins, Jeff
Tower, John
True, George
Tucker, Harold
Tuton, Beauford
Tyrrel, Charles
Upshur, Bill
Uribe, Guillermo
Uribe, Gullermo
Utterback, Thomas
Van Der Sanden, Gert
Vandervort, Ronald
VanGrunsven, Stanley
Varnes, William
Volum, Peter
Von Ruden, Dennis
VonLindern, Paul
Vosberg, Roy
Waligroski, Gregg
Walker, Tommy
Walrath, Howard
Ward, Ed
Warren, John
Washburn, Oliver
Watson, Dennis
Watson, Terrence
Watson, William
Webb, Randol
Weber, Ed
Weber, Edward
Weller, Michael
Wendel, Jim
Wentzell, David
Werner, Russ
Werner, Russell
Westridge, David
Whelan, Thomas
Whiler, Douglas
Whitehead, Arthur
Wiesel, Dan
Wigney, John
Williams, Jimmy
Williams, Keith
Williams, Lawrence
Willig, Louis
Wills, Mike
Wilson, Billy
Wittman, James
Wood, Denton
Wood, John
Wood, Mark
Worstell, Glen
Worthington, Victor
Wotring, Dale
Wymer, Gerald
Young, Charles
Young, Rollin
Youngblood, Barry
Zeidman, Richard
Zigaitis, Kestutis
Zinkham, Ralph
Zwart, Frank
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
An aftermarket product, the Ney nozzle, provides extra oil lubrication of
Lycoming engine cam shafts. I'd like to know whether Ney nozzles are worth
specifying when overhauling an engine. One opinion is that Ney nozzles do
significantly increase lubrication (and cooling). The other point of view
(expressed by an experienced engine overhauler) is that the extra oil squirt
of the Ney nozzle takes oil pressure away from other oil galleries,
especially during the crucial first minute, so that the net effect of Ney
nozzles is negative. He mentioned that some Lycoming engines can be fitted
with bigger oil pumps, which compensate for the pressure drop caused by Ney
nozzles.
Which opinion is most correct ?
-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
Subject: | Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
On my O-320 the oil pressure is highest during the first minute, some 10-15
lbs while the oil temp is at OAT. I considered this same question when
overhauling and decided that with my flying one or two times a week the
factory lubrication was probably adequate. So many aspects of aircraft
engines seem to defy seat of the pants logic. Some say that roller cam
followers can increase horsepower and lower oil temps, after all, many race
cars use them. Another study indicated that rollers gave no improvement or
actually caused increased cam lobe wear in aircraft engines. Look up an
article on Ney nozzles in a back issue of Light Plane Maintenance, very
thorough stuff. kevin rv-6a 450+hrs
----------
> From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Engines-List: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
> Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:33 PM
>
>
> An aftermarket product, the Ney nozzle, provides extra oil lubrication of
> Lycoming engine cam shafts. I'd like to know whether Ney nozzles are
worth
> specifying when overhauling an engine. One opinion is that Ney nozzles do
> significantly increase lubrication (and cooling). The other point of view
> (expressed by an experienced engine overhauler) is that the extra oil
squirt
> of the Ney nozzle takes oil pressure away from other oil galleries,
> especially during the crucial first minute, so that the net effect of Ney
> nozzles is negative. He mentioned that some Lycoming engines can be
fitted
> with bigger oil pumps, which compensate for the pressure drop caused by
Ney
> nozzles.
>
> Which opinion is most correct ?
>
>
> -Vaso
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
"Dry starts" cause more wear than many hours
of running. Cold engines accellerate this.
Other than a pre-luber, and heating, careful
start procedure is important.
I have used the Ney nozzles on some engines,
and although the point of lower pressure at
start up is valid, the aircraft engine oil pump
is more than capable of handling it.
IMHO the nozzles are a plus.
Is it worth the money?
Ask your wallet.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Johnny Johnson <bbds(at)means.net> |
Does someone have a $$ figure on these Ney Nozzles? I assume the the case
needs to be split to install them?
Lubing what IMHO is a very weak spot on the Lycomings--the cam lobes--can
only be a positive, I would think. They sit up on top, out there in the
thin air, relying on some oil getting slopped/oozing there somehow as the
engine runs. If the engine has been sitting a long time or your oil film
isn't of the tenacious type ... ouch during startup.
Ask an engine guy what failure causes most early overhauls on the little
Lycs and I'll bet he says cam lobes, particularly the "double pusher"
lobes. I just went thru a very early overhaul caused by cam lobes, so this
is a tender subject about now. If you are in the process of an overhaul,
it seems like serious consideration should be given to installing a
preoiler with the Ney Nozzles (I didn't--was ignorant of their existance).
I wonder why Lycoming designed the engines this way? They tell you any
idle time over a week (or is it 10 days--a ridiculously short time at any
rate) is "long term storage"--probably largely because of these cam lobes
getting dry and then galling during start or corroding (mine had
corroded--lifters had pits in them!).
Johnny Johnson
49MM -3A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Manual Pre-oiler ? |
The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is
mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com).
Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for
$165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on
the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall.
Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler
pump ?
Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ?
-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Scot Stambaugh <stambaug(at)qualcomm.com> |
Subject: | Re: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
I am very interested in pre-oilers for lycomings(mostly the IO-540's). The
web site below didn't work. Does anybody have more information on
pre-oiler systems for experimental aircraft?
scot
>
>The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is
>mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com).
>Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for
>$165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on
>the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall.
>
>Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler
>pump ?
>
>Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ?
>
>-Vaso
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Manual Pre-oiler ? |
My error - the site is www.oilamatic.com.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scot
> Stambaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:25 AM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com; engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Manual Pre-oiler ?
>
>
> I am very interested in pre-oilers for lycomings(mostly the
> IO-540's). The web site below didn't work. Does anybody have more
> information on pre-oiler systems for experimental aircraft?
>
> scot
>
>
>>
>>The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is
>>mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com).
>>Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N
>>08-06770) for $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can
>>be mounted on the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall.
>>
>>Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler
>>pump ?
>>
>>Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a
>>pro-oiler pump ?
>>-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
> I wonder why Lycoming designed the engines this way?
I do a number of seminars on this sort of thing.
keep in mind that these engines were designed 60-70
years ago, and have not changed.
Many reasons for this, but outstanding is the lack of R & D
money, & the lack of the manufacturer's incentive to
improve these engines. As long as people are willing to
pay these prices, why should they change?
I have called Lycoming and Continental with questions their
engineering departments could not answer, or had no
documentation on. (Of course, in those days, our great-
grandparents did the research, there was no
science to it, and If it worked ok, it was produced).
I coined a statement that is used in all my talks:
"If automotive engines progressed at the same rate as
aircraft piston engines, we would all be driving model T Fords."
The last time someone requested the nozzles, I believe
Chuck Ney charged me $370. for the STC installation.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Garry Legare <versadek(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
The problem with using all pre oilers on Lycoming engines is not the cost (were
rich right, how else could we afford to build an airplane) or weight (eat a
couple less deserts over the holidays and you'll be even). The BIG problem with
Lycs is the cam lobes dry off during periods of inactivity. This can lead to
rusting of the bare metal surfaces. On first start the lobes and cam followers
(lifters) are dry and possibly corroded. When they rub on each other it causes
excessive wear, and expensive repair bills. The pre oilers only pressurizes the
oil galleries. On MOST Lycs there is no oil directed at the followers and cam
lobes from the oil galleries (Lycoming uses oil mist and splashed oil to lube
them) therefore the pre oilers are not really very effective in reducing
startup wear.
Garry LeGare, TC 4212-RV6 180/0360,Sensenich-Finishing
Vaso Bovan wrote:
>
> The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is
> mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com).
> Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for
> $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on
> the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler
> pump ?
>
> Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ?
>
> -Vaso
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
>
> The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is
> mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com).
> Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for
> $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on
> the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler
> pump ?
> In racing, we have used these for pre start-up, but are a
bit cumbersome
and awkward. Many of my race engines incorporate an
accumulator
with a shutoff valve. It is light, does the job,
recharges, and relatively
inexpensive.
> Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump
?
Have not done that, but feel that the oil's viscosity
may be a negative
factor which may over tax the pump.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Scot Stambaugh <stambaug(at)qualcomm.com> |
Subject: | Re: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
Archie,
Do you have any more info on the accumulator type pre-oilers?
scot
>
>
>>
>> The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is
>> mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com).
>> Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for
>> $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on
>> the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall.
>>
>> Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler
>> pump ?
>> In racing, we have used these for pre start-up, but are a
>bit cumbersome
> and awkward. Many of my race engines incorporate an
>accumulator
> with a shutoff valve. It is light, does the job,
>recharges, and relatively
> inexpensive.
>> Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump
>?
> Have not done that, but feel that the oil's viscosity
>may be a negative
> factor which may over tax the pump.
>Archie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
>
--snip--
> So many aspects
> of aircraft
> engines seem to defy seat of the pants logic. Some say that
> roller cam
> followers can increase horsepower and lower oil temps, after
> all, many race
> cars use them. Another study indicated that rollers gave no
> improvement or
> actually caused increased cam lobe wear in aircraft engines.
I think this is more a case of "seat of the pants logic" being wrong, as
opposed to anything unusual about aircraft engines. Roller cam followers
are not used in race cars because they give longer life. They are used in
race cars because they allow steeper lift gradients, and because they will
last longer a t t h e h i g h R P M s used in car racing engines.
Since Lycomings have modest cams, and run at very low RPMs, there's little
reason to think that roller cam followers would make much improvement, if
any.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
>
> Archie,
>
> Do you have any more info on the accumulator type pre-oilers?
>
> scot
I have several suppliers, but my preference is:
Canton
Commerce Drive
N.Branford, CT
06471
203-484-4900
(no website)
Tell them Archie's Racing Service told you,
and it will break the ice.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
> I think this is more a case of "seat of the pants logic" being wrong, as
> opposed to anything unusual about aircraft engines. Roller cam followers
> are not used in race cars because they give longer life. They are used in
> race cars because they allow steeper lift gradients, and because they will
> last longer a t t h e h i g h R P M s used in car racing engines.
> Since Lycomings have modest cams, and run at very low RPMs, there's little
> reason to think that roller cam followers would make much improvement, if
> any.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
Commentary:
Most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity, and
reduced internal friction, not because the factories
wanted to spend more on manufacturing.
As an addition to this, we run race engines with seat
pressure of 170lbs, and open pressure of 900.
Try that with a flat tappet!
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan DSL <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | RE: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
What is an "accumulator type pre-oiler" ? How does it work ?
-Vaso
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 5:27 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Manual Pre-oiler ?
>
>
>
> >
> > Archie,
> > Do you have any more info on the accumulator type pre-oilers?
> > scot
>
> I have several suppliers, but my preference is:
> Canton
> Commerce Drive
> N.Branford, CT
> 06471
> 203-484-4900
> (no website)
> Tell them Archie's Racing Service told you,
> and it will break the ice.
>
> Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Manual Pre-oiler ? |
>
> What is an "accumulator type pre-oiler" ? How does it work ?
>
> -Vaso
It is a small tube, 3"x 12" (comes in various sizes),
with a floating piston inside. One side holds oil,
the other, either a spring, or air pressure.
The oil pressure side has a shutoff valve mounted
with an oil line attached to the engine oiling system.
With the valve open and the engine running the
accumulator is charged with engine oil pressure.
Should the pressure drop(even instantly), the
pressurized accumulator oil will rush in to fill the
void. If/when oil pressure returns, the accumulator
will re-charge.
Upon engine shut down, close the valve, and the
charge remains in the accumulator.
Upon the next start up, open the valve to fill
the engine oil passages to avoid a "dry start",
otherwise the engine pump must fill these voids
before oil throw off reaches the cam.
The camshaft has a slightly better chance by
receiving oil a bit sooner.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
>
> Commentary:
> Most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity, and
> reduced internal friction, not because the factories
> wanted to spend more on manufacturing.
> As an addition to this, we run race engines with seat
> pressure of 170lbs, and open pressure of 900.
> Try that with a flat tappet!
> Archie
You're right, I forgot internal friction. But don't your race engines have
high seat pressure primarily as a result of the stiff valve springs required
when you have high RPMs and steep lift gradients? That seems to be another
way of saying the same thing I said.
When you say "most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity," do you mean
most of the cars that incorporate roller lifters do so for longevity, or
literally that most new cars use roller lifters? I didn't think that roller
lifters were now the norm, even with all the emphasis on internal friction.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? |
> >
> > Commentary:
> > Most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity, and
> > reduced internal friction, not because the factories
> > wanted to spend more on manufacturing.
> > As an addition to this, we run race engines with seat
> > pressure of 170lbs, and open pressure of 900.
> > Try that with a flat tappet!
> > Archie
>
> You're right, I forgot internal friction. But don't your race engines
have
> high seat pressure primarily as a result of the stiff valve springs
required
> when you have high RPMs and steep lift gradients? That seems to be
another
> way of saying the same thing I said.
That is correct, Tedd
> When you say "most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity," do you
mean
> most of the cars that incorporate roller lifters do so for longevity, or
> literally that most new cars use roller lifters? I didn't think that
roller
> lifters were now the norm, even with all the emphasis on internal
friction.
Tedd, I did not contaradict you, merely adding to your
commentary.
And yes, many auto manufacturers incorporate rollers
for the same reasons: Reduced internal friction +less
wear
= better warranty = projected better sales.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Johnny Johnson <bbds(at)means.net> |
Subject: | "Contact!" magazine |
If any of you that are interested in alternate power for airplanes are not
getting "Contact!" magazine, I'd sure encourage you to sign up. I have no
connection whatsoever with the publication or publisher, but have gotten it
"since day one" and find lots of tidbits in there. Here's how you find out
about it:
http://www.nonprofitnet.com/contact/
It deals primarily with info on converting auto engines for use in
airplanes. There is an occasional article on other conversions, like
motorcycle-->airplane, but mostly it is larger engines such as the Legacy,
SVX, Mazda rotary, GM & Ford V6 & V8, etc. Recently there was an
interesting writeup on Bruce Bohannan's "Pushy Galore". Also, you'll find
highly informative articles on new engines coming out of Detroit like the
Northstar. Mick Myall, the publisher, is a retired auto industry heavy and
has lots of contacts in the design depts there.
Johnny Johnson
Working on 2.5L Suburu --> Champ
Flying a Lycoming RV-3A and a Lycoming Funk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: "Contact!" magazine |
>
> If any of you that are interested in alternate power for airplanes are not
> getting "Contact!" magazine, I'd sure encourage you to sign up. I have no
> connection whatsoever with the publication or publisher, but have gotten
it
> "since day one" and find lots of tidbits in there. Here's how you find
out
> about it:
>
> http://www.nonprofitnet.com/contact/
I agree, it is a good mag for the homebuilder,
and there is no advertising. I have written for
Mick Myal, who attends all major air events.
(don't mention my name, I still owe him a
few articles).
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Brittain Crowell <britt(at)fortcollins.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
Is there anyone besides me on this list?
--
Britt
--
"Smiling is not just a facial expression, its a way of life."
Michael Brittain Crowell 9-1-98
--
"The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground is hard."
Michael Collins (1987)
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russ Jones" <russj1(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
I am currently building a EA-81 and plan to build a Zenith 601XL starting
1st quarter 2000. I am monitoring this list and I will also reply to your
other request.
Russ Jones
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael
Brittain Crowell
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 10:55 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
Is there anyone besides me on this list?
--
Britt
--
"Smiling is not just a facial expression, its a way of life."
Michael Brittain Crowell 9-1-98
--
"The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground is hard."
Michael Collins (1987)
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
>
>Is there anyone besides me on this list?
>--
>Britt
>--
Uh-huh...
Michael McGee PE, N6358G N996RV jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Mark Twain
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Sten Svensson" <sten(at)stonab.se> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
Me here too!
Sten Svensson
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Brittain Crowell <britt(at)fortcollins.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 5:54 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
>
> Is there anyone besides me on this list?
> --
> Britt
> --
> "Smiling is not just a facial expression, its a way of life."
> Michael Brittain Crowell 9-1-98
> --
> "The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground is hard."
> Michael Collins (1987)
>
>
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
>
> Is there anyone besides me on this list?
> --
> Britt
This list is relatively new, and may take a while to grow.
I personally have answered several questions here.
Archie
Archie's Racing Service
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John O. Myers" <jmyers(at)powernet.org> |
Subject: | Re: Homebuilt-List |
>--> Cessna-List message posted by: Michael Brittain Crowell
>
>Is there anyone besides me on this list?
>--
>Britt
We am signed up on several lists but haven't noticed any traffic on some of
them. We have a couple of Cessnas and hope to start on an RV8 sometime in
the near future. I am in trouble already for building a runway and
workshop before building my wife a house, so had to start on the house. A
new hanger is next and then hopefully a build project.
Hope you all have a great holiday season and we wish you the best for the
next year.
John O. and Joyce L. Myers
N3282T N8158T
Flying M Ranch
Cedar Bluff Alabama
N34 19.4' W085 38.5'
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
>Is there anyone besides me on this list?
Yes... just not very active ;-)
Steve
Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated
steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rob Luce" <robluce1(at)yahoo.com> |
Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I
could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind
getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm
seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and
spending the next couple years getting used to working on it.
Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any
suggestions as to where to find one?
Rob Luce
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)flash.net> |
Subject: | Re: Rotary engines |
I have always thought that would be a perfect engine for a homebuilt. It has
such a small frontal area, high output to weight ratio, and bulletproof
reputation.
Try either Lone Star Japanese engines or East River International in Dallas,
Texas. They import engines from used/ wrecked vehicles in Japan.
Good luck.
I have a '53 D35 Bonanza. Anyone familiar with the Continental E series
engines?
Jon Alston
Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Luce <robluce1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 8:59 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Rotary engines
>
>
>Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I
>could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind
>getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm
>seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and
>spending the next couple years getting used to working on it.
>
>Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any
>suggestions as to where to find one?
>
> Rob Luce
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Rotary engines |
>
>
> Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I
> could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind
> getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm
> seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and
> spending the next couple years getting used to working on it.
>
> Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any
> suggestions as to where to find one?
>
> Rob Luce
Rob, They are plentiful in the Northeast, however, the best way to
acquire one is to buy a whole car that is slated for the boneyard.
Salvage yards, (a friend has two)pay little or nothing for a car,
and charge lots for parts.
I have 5 engines (not for sale), and never paid more than $200.
for a complete car. Some were driveable. In one case, I sold two
bodies to a Mazda racer for $100. ea., after removing engines, trans,
electronics, radiators, etc.
Keep your eyes open, and look in the news papers.
200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique
aircraft engine.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RobertR237(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/19/99 8:54:04 AM Central Standard Time,
steve(at)tzogon.com writes:
>
> >I am in trouble already for building a runway and workshop before
> >building my wife a house, so had to start on the house. A new
> >hanger is next and then hopefully a build project.
>
> I'm jealous!
>
>
Sounds like your wife needs a priority adjustment. ;-)
Now I have one to really make you see green with envy. My wife and I live in
a home that I had custom built a little over 23 years ago. About 7 years
back we remodeled (rebuilt is more like it) and added 1700 sq.ft. on to the
original house. The addition included a new master bedroom and bath to die
for as well as enlarged family room, very large office and another half bath.
The finished home is now almost 3800 sq ft with 4 bedrooms, formal living
and dining, etc, etc, etc.
You would think that would make my wife happy....right? Well, she
is....but....now she informs me that shortly after my 21 year old daughter
leaves the nest that she would like for us to sell the house and move. Now
here is where it gets interesting. She doesn't want to move to another house
but instead wants me to buy a piece of property at the airport and build a
hangar with the living quarters in the hangar. She has seen similar layouts
at the local airport and thinks it would be great to not have to worry about
a yard to take care of. She also wants to be able to leave on trips without
having to be so concerned about the house.
Now I ask you, Did I find a WINNER or what? Now if I could just find the
right engine for my KIS Cruiser project I would have it made.
Bob Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RobertR237(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Rotary engines |
In a message dated 12/19/99 8:59:11 AM Central Standard Time,
robluce1(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I
> could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind
> getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm
> seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and
> spending the next couple years getting used to working on it.
>
> Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any
> suggestions as to where to find one?
>
> Rob Luce
>
>
Rob,
Check out Paul Lamar's web site for some excellent links to sources for
Rotary Engines and equipment. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/
Paul also has a large amount of information on the rotary and maintains a
mailing list for the rotary engine. Check it out. He is also planning on
installing a rotary in his KIS Cruiser project.
I also believe that I could find some locally available rotary engines if you
can't find them locally. Houston has one Mazda only bone yard with several
in stock.
Bob Reed
KIS Cruiser in progress....... http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Homebuilt-List |
John,
Wives are funny that way.
I also monitor the engine list. I'm working on a Tailwind with an O320.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John O. Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org>
engines-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Cessna-List: Cessna List: Engines-List: Homebuilt-List
>
>>--> Cessna-List message posted by: Michael Brittain Crowell
>
>>
>>Is there anyone besides me on this list?
>>--
>>Britt
>
>We am signed up on several lists but haven't noticed any traffic on some of
>them. We have a couple of Cessnas and hope to start on an RV8 sometime in
>the near future. I am in trouble already for building a runway and
>workshop before building my wife a house, so had to start on the house. A
>new hanger is next and then hopefully a build project.
>
>Hope you all have a great holiday season and we wish you the best for the
>next year.
>
>John O. and Joyce L. Myers
>N3282T N8158T
>Flying M Ranch
>Cedar Bluff Alabama
>N34 19.4' W085 38.5'
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jaugilas <jaugilas(at)allways.net> |
Subject: | Re: Rotary engines |
I'm not presently working on a project that would take such a large engine. I
know that thinking that a Mazda is large is funny, but I working on a plane
that will use a 1/2 VW.
That doesn't keep me from planning for the future.
Is there someone who has done the ground work on the conversion for the rotary
Mazda?
Are there conversion plans?
What would be the the finished conversion's weight?
Archie wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I
> > could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind
> > getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm
> > seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and
> > spending the next couple years getting used to working on it.
> >
> > Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any
> > suggestions as to where to find one?
> >
> > Rob Luce
> Rob, They are plentiful in the Northeast, however, the best way to
> acquire one is to buy a whole car that is slated for the boneyard.
> Salvage yards, (a friend has two)pay little or nothing for a car,
> and charge lots for parts.
> I have 5 engines (not for sale), and never paid more than $200.
> for a complete car. Some were driveable. In one case, I sold two
> bodies to a Mazda racer for $100. ea., after removing engines, trans,
> electronics, radiators, etc.
> Keep your eyes open, and look in the news papers.
> 200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique
> aircraft engine.
> Archie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Rotary engines |
Archie,
-----Original Message-----
From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Rotary engines
>.....200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique
>aircraft engine......
Them thar are fightin words! :-)
The output of a conventional aircraft engine is a direct result of not
wanting to use gear reduction and wanting to achieve large TBOs. And not
because its an antique engine. You make it sound like the engineers of
yesteryear were a bunch of dummies. They were and are not.
I've seen a specialty built diesel engine put out over 7 HP/cubic inch @
7000 rpm and a boost of something like 5 atmospheres or more. Of course it
needed to last only 25 hrs. Automotive race engines can put out even more.
It a simple matter of how much air you can cram through the engine and how
long you can make it last.
Im not saying you can't improve on it, but its performance is a direct
result of design decisions made and not because it was initially designed in
the 30ies. If you want to improve on it in any meaningful way you have to
make different design decisions and solve some pretty basic problems. In
particular you would have to:
1) Run it faster and use gear reduction.
2) Turbocharge it to high boost levels.
3) use a diesel cycle so that you can boost it to high levels.
4) pick compact light weight layout (like a rotary, a flat 6, radial, etc).
5) solve the ring wear problems associated with high pressure,temps and rpm.
(this is the real tough one!)
All of these problems were well known by the end of the 40ies. Materials
have improved since then as well as analysis techniques with the aid of
computers.
The biggest problem aviation has is it is such a small market that you can't
put in enough R&D $. The automotive market is large but it doesn't build
engines that are optimized for aircraft use. That is left to dedicated
amatures with limited funds but lots of zeal. The large out -board marine
market is very interesting because there useage and weight concerns are
similar to aircraft.
John
ps: I feel better already. This is turning out to be a pretty good day.
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
>>.....200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique
>>aircraft engine......
>Them thar are fightin words! :-)
>
>The output of a conventional aircraft engine is a direct result of not
>wanting to use gear reduction and wanting to achieve large TBOs. And not
>because its an antique engine. You make it sound like the engineers of
>yesteryear were a bunch of dummies. They were and are not.
>...
>The biggest problem aviation has is it is such a small market
>that you can't put in enough R&D $...
It would have been interesting to see how aviation's gasoline engines might
have progressed if the bottom didn't fall out of the market in the late
1970s. The fuel intake and combustion processes of these engines are
astonishingly simple/primitive and non-optimized. What could close control
of spark timing, optimized intake, combustion chamber, and exhaust geometry
bring to aviation gasoline engines ? Maybe not much more horsepower out of
the same cubes, but a lot better fuel efficiency, cleaner and cheaper
running, and - incidentally - less pollution. I sometimes wonder why
isolated, underfunded and often "amateur" individuals and groups spend
decades plugging away at trying to convert automobile engines into aviation
engines, with marginal success, while significant gains could be made in
optimizing current aviation engines with equivalent - and less futile -
effort. (Getting the improvements certified is another matter, of course).
Show me an optimized 2000hr IO-360 that gets - say - 10% more power on 20%
less gasoline, tolerant of unleaded mogas, and I would quickly lose interest
in all the rotary/Subaru/Ford conversion efforts (at least until the Diesels
get underway).
Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankvdh(at)ihug.co.nz> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
Vaso Bovan wrote:
> I sometimes wonder why
> isolated, underfunded and often "amateur" individuals and groups spend
> decades plugging away at trying to convert automobile engines into aviation
> engines, with marginal success, while significant gains could be made in
> optimizing current aviation engines with equivalent - and less futile -
> effort.
I think because screwing round with an aircraft engine is big money. You
need an aircraft engine to start with. Then, as soon as you screw with
it it becomes uncertified (and uncertifiable, I think) and hence loses a
lot of value. An uncertified engine is worth less than a certified
engine, even if the uncertified one is more fuel-efficient, cheaper and
cleaner running, and less polluting. So, after all your improvement
work, you have lost money.
The whole expensive certification process has largely killed the
innovation in the aircraft engine industry.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 |
From: | wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca> |
I too watch the Engines list today 22 messages...neat. My Mini-Imp
will need about 100HP in a year or so, so I am looking
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Sten Svensson" <sten(at)stonab.se> |
Subject: | Engine Monitor Systems |
Wow, lots of lurkers on the Engines List!
The previous owner of my 450 Stearman told me not to move the mixture lever from
it's "Tested To Be The Best Position". Now I'd like to monitor at least EGT
when starting to play with the mixture.
Anyone have any experience installing and/or using engine monitor systems (graphic/digital
or analogue) on P&W Wasp J:r? Is it worth the money? Will an EGT and
a CHT do a good enough job?
Thanks.
Sten Svensson
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
> Now I ask you, Did I find a WINNER or what? Now if I could just find the
> right engine for my KIS Cruiser project I would have it made.
>
> Bob Reed
You have done well, Bob.
Try rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net
Paul, the moderator, is planning a rotary
implant in his KIS. What other engine will
give you 2hp/cu.in. with no mods?
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Rotary engines |
> Them thar are fightin words! :-)
>
> The output of a conventional aircraft engine is a direct result of not
> wanting to use gear reduction and wanting to achieve large TBOs. And not
> because its an antique engine. You make it sound like the engineers of
> yesteryear were a bunch of dummies. They were and are not.
>
> I've seen a specialty built diesel engine put out over 7 HP/cubic inch
@
> 7000 rpm and a boost of something like 5 atmospheres or more. Of course
it
> needed to last only 25 hrs. Automotive race engines can put out even
more.
> It a simple matter of how much air you can cram through the engine and how
> long you can make it last.
>
> Im not saying you can't improve on it, but its performance is a direct
> result of design decisions made and not because it was initially designed
in
> the 30ies. If you want to improve on it in any meaningful way you have to
> make different design decisions and solve some pretty basic problems. In
> particular you would have to:
>
> 1) Run it faster and use gear reduction.
> 2) Turbocharge it to high boost levels.
> 3) use a diesel cycle so that you can boost it to high levels.
> 4) pick compact light weight layout (like a rotary, a flat 6, radial,
etc).
> 5) solve the ring wear problems associated with high pressure,temps and
rpm.
> (this is the real tough one!)
>
> All of these problems were well known by the end of the 40ies. Materials
> have improved since then as well as analysis techniques with the aid of
> computers.
>
> The biggest problem aviation has is it is such a small market that you
can't
> put in enough R&D $. The automotive market is large but it doesn't build
> engines that are optimized for aircraft use. That is left to dedicated
> amatures with limited funds but lots of zeal. The large out -board marine
> market is very interesting because there useage and weight concerns are
> similar to aircraft.
>
> John
>
> ps: I feel better already. This is turning out to be a pretty good
day.
I concur with most sentiments, John, but the point I am making is that
no progress has been made to these engines in 60 years or so.
There is a lot of missing documentation on them that was never generated.
I have attempted to retrieve some from their engineers, and due to the
fact that technology at that time is what was used, it has hardly changed
in their application. The only improvement I am enthusiastic about, is
the Mattituck/Aerosance Fadec system I have just written an article
about.
Because of many of the reasons you cited, does not mean people
are bound to buy this archaic technology. Would you buy a new car
if it were powered by a model T engine? Thank goodness for
innovators and clear thinkers that can see beyond.
I run seminars at OSH regarding these things, and we all have choices.
Sorry about the feather ruffling, but I can back my statements with
over 30 years of flow and dyno charting.
And if you wish to discuss hp, (not longevity) todays nitro burner
makes 10-11 hp/cu.in., my comment regarding 200hp from 80 cu.in.
is normally aspirated, gear reduced, small, smooth, light, and 3 basic
moving parts.
The ultimate aircraft engine is, perhaps still, in someone's mind.
Archie
Archie's Racing Service
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
Vaso,
I think your message was "right on".
If you have not read my article on the M/A FADEC
system, I can e-mail you a copy.
It is short, but informative. Since Continental
bought them out, they may incorporate it in their
new engines. (who knows?)
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
>
> The whole expensive certification process has largely killed the
> innovation in the aircraft engine industry.
> Frank.
I believe it is a major factor.
One on the hp hindrances in aircraft engines are the
cylinder heads.
On an O-200 for example, the round intake pulse
becomes rectangular as it runs through the transition
tube into the cylinder head, then becomes round again.
This was done for space, not power.
On the same engine, I discovered that the ports were
too large for the RPM/Disp. By strategically reforming
the ports with epoxy, and flowing with smaller intake
and exhaust valves, the flow increased. Dyno showed
a 6.7 hp increase. This is with the factory camshaft
and springs. Now the factory could have easily done
the same, if they did the research, but then...........
re-certification.
Archie
Archie's Racing Service
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RobertR237(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/19/99 8:41:11 PM Central Standard Time,
archie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> > Now I ask you, Did I find a WINNER or what? Now if I could just find the
> > right engine for my KIS Cruiser project I would have it made.
> >
> > Bob Reed
>
> You have done well, Bob.
> Try rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net
> Paul, the moderator, is planning a rotary
> implant in his KIS. What other engine will
> give you 2hp/cu.in. with no mods?
> Archie
>
>
Yes, I am aware of that and have had a few discussions with Paul. You will
find links to my web site on his and likewise a link to his site on mine. I
am still considering the rotary for my installation but would prefer the
three rotor from the Mazda 20B if I am going that route. There still seem to
be far more problems with the rotary than I would like to have to address.
My technical abilities in the engine area are far too limited for me to
attempt the conversion on my own.
I still have some time to make the decision so I hope to see more of the
rotary engines in the air. Hopefully Paul will be able to lead the way. We
will see.
Bob Reed
http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Mattituck FADEC & XP-360 |
Yes, please e-mail me or post a copy of your article.
I may be unfortunate for Mattituck/Superior's XP-360 program that
Continental may want Mattituck to refocus to Continental engines. The
Lycoming-derived XP-360 has been promised for about three years now - first
through XP Industries and then through Mattituck. At first Mattituck
mentioned 12/99 as the date of availability of the XP-360. Now they're
saying ~06/00, and they're saying it will not be available as a kit as first
promised, but will be available only as a complete engine. I'd prefer to buy
the kit and have it assembled/modified by an outfit such as Lycon.
-Vaso
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 7:17 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
>
> Vaso,
> I think your message was "right on". If you have not read my article
> on the M/A FADEC system, I can e-mail you a copy. It is short, but
> informative. Since Continental bought them out, they may incorporate
> it in their new engines. (who knows?)
> Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ? |
What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from
running on unleaded gas ? If I remember correctly, when lead was taken out
of mogas, the fear was that cylinder values on older engines depended on
lead for lubrication. Is that so ? What else in aviation engines depends
on lead in gasoline (assuming octane rating could be maintained in other
ways) ? If exhaust (?) intake (?) valves were improved, could aviation
engines - at least for experimental aircraft use - be run on unleaded mogas
with better long-term reliability ?
-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
Archie:
What else have you done to improve your aviation engine ? No doubt you've
seen Kent' Passer's book - "Speed with Economy" - in which he makes specific
recommendations for engine efficiency improvements. What do you think of his
suggestions ?
-Vaso
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 7:49 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
> ...One on the hp hindrances in aircraft engines are the
> cylinder heads.
> On an O-200 for example, the round intake pulse
> becomes rectangular as it runs through the transition
> tube into the cylinder head, then becomes round again.
> This was done for space, not power.
> On the same engine, I discovered that the ports were
> too large for the RPM/Disp. By strategically reforming
> the ports with epoxy, and flowing with smaller intake
> and exhaust valves, the flow increased. Dyno showed
> a 6.7 hp increase. This is with the factory camshaft
> and springs. Now the factory could have easily done
> the same, if they did the research, but then...........
> re-certification.
> Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ? |
I'm looking for comments on the course of action detailed below. I'm
building a Glastar. I'm looking to install an engine of ~190/200hp fitting
the standard Dynafocal engine mount sold for the Glastar. The easiest way
would be to buy a new IO-360, Apparently, the IO-360 sold by Lycoming today
is a 200hp angle-value engine having an outrageous $30K+ price tag.
Ideally, I would like to end up with an IO-360, with Airflow Performance
fuel injection, single Lightspeed ignition (plus single mag), with optimized
intake and exhaust. The question is how to get there from here. My current
thought is to buy a run-out O-360 and have it rebuilt by one of the better
shops - such as Lycon.
First question: Should I start with a parallel or angled valve O-360 ? I'm
told the angle-valve runs rougher and is more highly stressed (for a given
horsepower output) than a parallel value engine. On the other hand, I'm told
the angle-value engine is easier to optimize - partly due to its value
configuration. Comments ?
This is my current thinking:
*1 Start with first run-out O-360 (actual type depends on decision to go
with QCS "fixed" prop or Whirlwind/MT C/S prop).
*2 Aim for mild hp increase, but significant specific fuel consumption
improvement.
*3 Allow Lycon (or other shop) to procure run-out engine, to avoid
charge-backs
*4 Insist on New Limits except for parts that can safely be recycled at
Service Limits
*5 Insist that shop follows Lycoming's Mandatory Replacement Bulletin(s)
(S.B 240) at minimum.
*6 Have shop do work on "TBO Upgraded" basis where possible.
*7 Install new pistons with ~9.5:1 compression ratio
*8 Install roller tip rockers
*9 Allow PMA - rather than OEM - parts where better or equivalent
*10 Pay for tight dynamic balancing
*11 Pay for flow-balancing
*12 Pay for Porting & Polishing
*13 Install Ney nozzles
*14 Pay for optimized choke on cylinder barrel
*15 Pay for grouping of lifters/tappets by bleed-down rate
*16 Pay for extra attention to main bearing clearances
*17 Request ECI's IFR "Freedom" processing of crankcase
*18 Request black phosphate coating on cams and tappets
*19 Allow regrinding of tappets
*20 Change to adjustable ball-spring oil pressure relief valve
*21 Change to new style vernatherm oil bypass valve
*22 Prefer CermiNil over CermiChrome
*23 Install venturi-style intake valve seat if possible
*24 Pay for back-cut, triple-grinding and hand-lapping of valves
*25 Pay for hone finish on valve guides
*26 Leave cylinders unpainted
*27 Install Gamijectors or pay for injection matching
*28 Install Airflow Performance Fuel Injection
*30 Install Lightspeed ignition
*31 Install Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells this low-weight
(magnesium) sump and cold air induction system that claims to
reduce weight by 10lb+, and increases horsepower on an IO-360.
Cost is $2K+.
*32 Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems (PFS) claims an
eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a
Lycoming O-320. Lycon says they verified this power increase on
their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive - ~$2K+.
*33 Pre-Oiler ?
*34 Remote Oil filter ? Airwolf ? B&C ?
*35 Starter: B&C ?
*36 Alternator: B&C ?
Comments on any of the above points welcomed.
-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ? |
>
> What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from
> running on unleaded gas ? If I remember correctly, when lead was taken
out
> of mogas, the fear was that cylinder values on older engines depended on
> lead for lubrication. Is that so ? What else in aviation engines
depends
> on lead in gasoline (assuming octane rating could be maintained in other
> ways) ? If exhaust (?) intake (?) valves were improved, could aviation
> engines - at least for experimental aircraft use - be run on unleaded
mogas
> with better long-term reliability ?
>
> -Vaso
I have converted an number of automotive engines
for unleaded running, but no aircraft. The valve area is it.
Basically, a good grade stainless valve, and a premium
hard seat, with bronzanium based valve guides does it.
Also, a propane fueled engine should not require mods,
these are already incorporated.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
>
> Archie:
>
> What else have you done to improve your aviation engine ? No doubt you've
> seen Kent' Passer's book - "Speed with Economy" - in which he makes
specific
> recommendations for engine efficiency improvements. What do you think of
his
> suggestions ?
>
> -Vaso
No, Vaso I have not read (completely) Kent's
book. I work with engines primarily.
Have performed surgery on these heads to the
point of cutting into the valve cover, and reworking
it for pipe and port modifications. None of these
are flying, just R&D work. Some people, after
seeing standard aircraft engine configurations,
would, perhaps be frightened of such a sight.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joseph V. Bienkowski" <jbienkowski(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ? |
Well, back in 1986 when I purchased my TriPacer, N2930P, my FIRST
purchase was the Auto Fuel STC from Peterson. Absolutely the best
$75 I ever spent!
Thus far I can account for something in excess of 1500 hrs on
unleaded car gas.
I have seen NO problems due to the auto fuel. When I have gotten
"stuck" in the field and have had to purchase the occasional tank
of 100LL, I am of the definite opinion that the engine did NOT run
as well as on the auto fuel.
I did the major overhaul at 2439 TTSN due to a camshaft that had
lost lift on two lobes.
My experience is easier cold starts, smoother operation and NO lead
to foul the spark plugs!
Note this is on the O-320 which is an 80/87 octane engine, so the
octane of available auto fuel was never a problem.
So the question that Vaso asks is simply a question of octane and
glorious FAA paper work!
The airframe mod to 30P consisted of new stickers to apply at each
fuel filling port.
The engine mod was a numbered band to go around a push rod tube to
identify the STC number!
Yeah, the FAA DOES consider these "modifications"! Ha, 30P only
knew that the engine ran better without the lead!
Joe Bienkowski, N2930P, Muncie, IN
---------
Vaso Bovan wrote:
>
> What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from
> running on unleaded gas ?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
>
> Vaso,
> I think your message was "right on".
--snip--
Archie:
Isn't it true that some of the limitations of Lycomings and Continentals are
a direct result of being air cooled? As soon as emissions and fuel
consumption became a major concern in cars, all the air cooled engines
either disappeared or, at least, got liquid-cooled heads. And anywhere high
performance is important--motocross bikes and snowmobiles, for
example--liquid cooling is now the norm.
I can see that hot spots, leading to pre-ignition, would be less of a
problem with liquid-cooled heads. But are there other factors, too?
> If you have not read my article on the M/A FADEC
> system, I can e-mail you a copy.
I'd like to read it. Would you email me a copy?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com> |
Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an
engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine?
I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category
but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding
occurs on the aircraft?
Happy holidays to all,
Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Buick 3.8 -based conversion |
I posted this to rec.aviation.homebuilt last week and got some interesting
replies.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
---
After looking at a lot of different auto engine conversion concepts,
this is the one that appeals most to me. Because it seems to be quite
different from what most people are doing, I'm interested in getting
other people's ideas on the viability of the concept.
My idea is hardly new. It's a revision of the idea Steve Wittman had
many years ago: a standard auto engine, inverted so that it can be
used direct drive. The engine that appears most suitable is the Buick
90-degree V6. Here's the whole package, as I envision it.
Application: RV-6 (or other homebuilt designed for 150-180 hp
Lycoming).
Configuration: inverted, direct drive (per Steve Wittman conversion).
Parts & Dimensions:
block Buick Stage II On-Center
bore 4.000"
stroke 3.625" (even fire)
displacement 273 ci
heads Buick Stage II (aluminum)
intake Buick NASCAR (for low-RPM torque)
carburetion Ellison throttle-body injector
ignition electronic of some type
oiling dry sump invertable
Performance Estimate:
torque 250-275 ft-lb
power 150-170 hp @ 3250 RPM
Why inverted?
The prop shaft has to be in the position that the airframe design calls
for. That means either offsetting it from the crankshaft with a
(reduction) drive, or using direct drive. The Wittman direct drive uses
the stock bellhousing, with a custom bearing to hold the prop. This has
two big advantages: it's cheaper than a reduction drive, and it
isolates non-torsional prop loads from the crankshaft.
Why direct drive?
A reduction drive would allow the engine to rev higher, producing more
horespower per pound of engine. But it has two drawbacks. First, the
re-drive itself is fairly expensive. But my main concern is engine
life. I'm aiming for operating conditions similar to what the engine
designers might have planned for. As a reference point, the RPM and
power I'm aiming for give cylinder pressures and piston speeds that are
lower than what a Lycoming experiences. (Piston accelerations would be
slightly higher.)
Another idea I'm considering is using a torque converter. While this
adds weight and cost, it has the very significant advantage of isolating
the prop from crankshaft torsional vibrations. It would also probably
make it possible to use the stock automatic transmission input shaft as
a prop shaft.
Is 3250 RPM too high for direct drive?
Well, 3250 RPM is a WAG. The VW conversions spin wood props at those
kinds of RPMs, so it's clearly viable. But I expect it to be a
compromise. That is, I expect prop efficiency will be less than at 2700
RPM. The RPM and airspeed combination is pretty uncommon, so a custom
prop would probaly be required. For cost, that means a wood prop. I'm
planning to use a wood prop anyway, so that's not a compromise. The
prop diameter would have to be limited to 58-60 inches. Perhaps a
three-blade prop would be necessary. Any prop experts have suggestions?
Why the Buick?
The Buick engine is compact and, for a water-cooled, iron-block engine,
relatively light. Many race-proven parts are available at reasonable
prices. (Though, at 3250 RPM, only the bottom end will be highly
stressed.) Stock induction and camshaft combinations produce good
torque in appropriate RPM range. It is designed for a bore and stroke
combination that can give adequate power at RPMs low enough to allow
direct drive.
The Chevy 90-degree V6 is heavier and larger. In a 4x4 (301 ci)
configuration, it would be suitable for applications requiring more
power (~200 hp). But it's probably too much engine for airframes
designed for O-320s or O-360s. I don't see any point using a smaller
displacement version--you'd just be carrying weight you don't need.
Aluminum blocks are available, but expensive.
I don't know much about the Ford 3.8 V6 but, at the stock displacement,
it would not produce adequate power for a direct-drive installation
(130-145 hp @ 3250 RPM). Does anyone know if larger displacements are
available with off-the-shelf components? How does its weight compare to
the Buick?
Everything else I've looked at is either too small, too big, or too
expensive. (The Rover 4.6 V8 is expensive, and heavier than the
Buick). The Mazdo rotary wouldn't allow direct drive. (Although
otherwise I think it's an excellent candidate. Doesn't sound as good as
a V6, though, to my ear.)
Why the Ellison injector?
This is not an area I've put a lot of though into, yet. There are many
ways to get the fuel into the air. For simplicity, I thought I'd stick
with something proven. (Yes, I realize that, from the point of view of
those not enthusiastic about auto-engine conversions, this is a
contradiction. Everyone has to draw the lines. This is one of mine, at
the moment.)
Why a dry sump?
Wittman's conversion didn't use a dry sump, so far as I know. But his
design doesn't seem to have much of an advantage over a dry sump--not
even cost. Wittman used a remote sump, which the rocker-cover sumps
drained into. It looks to me as though it wouldn't take much more
effort to just build a dry sump system. The dry sump would be easier to
make invertable, which is a feature I'd like to have.
Where do the power estimates come from?
Pretty much out of thin air. Almost all naturally-aspirated engines
produce somewhere around 0.9 to 1.1 ft-lbs per cubic inch. I think 1.1
is optimistic, for a two-valve, wedge-head engine. So I've assumed
torque between 0.9 and 1.0 ft-lbs per cubic inch. As a reference point,
O-3x0 Lycomings produce about 0.9 ft-lbs per cubic inch. The power is
simply derived from the torque and RPM.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine swaps |
>
> Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an
> engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto
engine?
> I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category
> but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding
> occurs on the aircraft?
>
> Happy holidays to all,
>
> Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
Dan,
You are not building an aircraft here,
so the 51% rule does not exist.
When installing an engine not on the TCDS,
but certificated, it is considered an airframe
mod, and requires an FAA337 form at the
minimum.
Your auto engine will convert the
aircraft to experimental.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankvdh(at)ihug.co.nz> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ? |
Vaso Bovan wrote:
> What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from
> running on unleaded gas ?
We've recently (a few years ago) gone through this. Until then, here in
New Zealand we had largish amounts of lead in all automobile fuels.
That's almost all gone now. Older engines (and NZ does have a fairly
aged automobile fleet) require lead to lubricate the valves, otherwise
you get something called 'valve seat recession'. Owners of older cars
with soft valve seats (mostly pre-1985) can buy a product called
'Valvemaster' which you squirt into your petrol tank each time you fill
up to prevent this. The stuff sells for about NZ$1 (US$.50) per
'squirt'.
Incidentally, there were *numerous* problems with the new fuel
destroying O-rings and fuel lines. To raise the octane rating, more
'organics' (benzine, toluene, etc) were included in the mix. These
organics, in hogh concentrations, attack rubber. This problem was first
noticed on a homebuilt aircraft running mogas... our CAA banned mogas
for some aircraft use for some time until it was all sorted out.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L, 175hp Conversion |
One engine that I haven't seen discussed as a possible conversion is the
Volkswagen water-cooled narrow-angle VR-6, 2.8L, ~175hp@5,800rpm,
173lb-ft@4,200rpm. This is an unusual engine with both cylinder "banks" at a
15 degree angle under a single head. It was originally designed to fit into
spaces normally occupied by a 4-cylinder engine. An aftermarket supercharger
is now available. Yes, a 2:1 drive would be necessary.
-Vaso
ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for torque on this
list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in incorrect, and
grating.
> I posted this to rec.aviation.homebuilt last week and got some interesting
> replies.
> Tedd McHenry, Surrey, BC
>
> block Buick Stage II On-Center
> bore 4.000"
> stroke 3.625" (even fire)
> displacement 273 ci
> heads Buick Stage II (aluminum)
> intake Buick NASCAR (for low-RPM torque)
> carburetion Ellison throttle-body injector
> ignition electronic of some type
> oiling dry sump invertable
>
> Performance Estimate:
>
> torque 250-275 ft-lb
> power 150-170 hp @ 3250 RPM
>
> The Buick engine is compact and, for a water-cooled, iron-block engine,
> relatively light. Many race-proven parts are available at reasonable
> prices. (Though, at 3250 RPM, only the bottom end will be highly
> stressed.) Stock induction and camshaft combinations produce good
> torque in appropriate RPM range. It is designed for a bore and stroke
> combination that can give adequate power at RPMs low enough to allow
> direct drive.
>
> The Chevy 90-degree V6 is heavier and larger. In a 4x4 (301 ci)
> configuration, it would be suitable for applications requiring more
> power (~200 hp). But it's probably too much engine for airframes
> designed for O-320s or O-360s. I don't see any point using a smaller
> displacement version--you'd just be carrying weight you don't need.
> Aluminum blocks are available, but expensive.
>
> I don't know much about the Ford 3.8 V6 but, at the stock displacement,
> it would not produce adequate power for a direct-drive installation
> (130-145 hp @ 3250 RPM). Does anyone know if larger displacements are
> available with off-the-shelf components? How does its weight compare to
> the Buick?
>
> Everything else I've looked at is either too small, too big, or too
> expensive. (The Rover 4.6 V8 is expensive, and heavier than the
> Buick). The Mazdo rotary wouldn't allow direct drive. (Although
> otherwise I think it's an excellent candidate. Doesn't sound as good as
> a V6, though, to my ear.)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L, 175hp Conversion |
>
> One engine that I haven't seen discussed as a possible
> conversion is the
> Volkswagen water-cooled narrow-angle VR-6, 2.8L
That engine interests me, too. I'd like to see what it weighs.
After owning a Jetta for 300,000+ km, I'm a fan. VW engines are easy to
work on, and seem very stout. The price of parts can be a shock, but
there's lots of aftermarket stuff available. I'm not sure how good the
aftermarket is for the VR-6.
It still seems a little small, though, to me. If I was looking for 125 hp,
it might be good.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert Burns" <hsierra(at)flash.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine swaps |
the aircraft is under experimental, research and development, not
experimental amateur, the 51% rule does not apply. however, the
experimental R&D category has more restrictions on flight.
R. Burns
RV-4 S/n 3524 N82RB
>> Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for
snip snip
>> but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding
>> occurs on the aircraft?
>>
>> Happy holidays to all,
>>
>> Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Arthur Glaser <airplane(at)megsinet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine swaps |
Dan Exstrom wrote:
>
> Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an
> engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine?
> I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category
> but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding
> occurs on the aircraft?
>
> Happy holidays to all,
>
> Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
Dan, I believe you will be placed in a different "experimental category".
Homebuilts are for education and recreation and have a broad set of operating
limitations. You may be limited as to your flight operations. Dave Blanton
used to advocate putting his Ford V6 in a modified Piper TriPacer airframe. I
am not sure as to how much this was modified, nor am I cognizant of the
operating limitations.
Best to check with the Fed.
Good Luck,
Art Glaser
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joseph V. Bienkowski" <jbienkowski(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engine swaps |
Dave Blanton's plans for his TriPacer mod was in fact an
FAA approved homebuilt aircraft by the time you were finished!
You had to lengthen the main wing something like 24" on each side
and then you did a fuselage stretch. After this recover and it
was now a homebuilt aircraft!
Best,
Joe Bienkowski, N2930P, '55 Piper PA22-150
Arthur Glaser wrote:
>
>
> Dan Exstrom wrote:
>
> >
> > Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an
> > engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine?
> > I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category
> > but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding
> > occurs on the aircraft?
> >
> > Happy holidays to all,
> >
> > Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
>
> Dan, I believe you will be placed in a different "experimental category".
> Homebuilts are for education and recreation and have a broad set of operating
> limitations. You may be limited as to your flight operations. Dave Blanton
> used to advocate putting his Ford V6 in a modified Piper TriPacer airframe.
I
> am not sure as to how much this was modified, nor am I cognizant of the
> operating limitations.
> Best to check with the Fed.
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Art Glaser
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
Subject: | Re: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ? |
It was my understanding that the intake thru the oil sump reduced carb
icing. Extra hp won't do too much if the carb is frozen up.
I have had excellent service out of my Samuri alternator. Straight from
the junk yard, no overhaul, $60. With my O-320 I figure it spins at 10,000
rpm at cruise. 450+ hrs later no problems. I did give it a blast tube.
IMHO it does strike me that you are attempting to make a Corvette out of
a
Caprice. If the Glastar is anything like the RV, my guess is you won't be
happy with all that extra work vs the standard set-up.
----------
> From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Engines-List: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ?
> Date: Monday, December 20, 1999 5:09 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Alan Cox <alancox(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines |
I'd like to have a copy also, Archie.
Thanks, Alan Cox
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
> >
> > Vaso,
> > I think your message was "right on".
> --snip--
>
> Archie:
>
> Isn't it true that some of the limitations of Lycomings and Continentals are
> a direct result of being air cooled? As soon as emissions and fuel
> consumption became a major concern in cars, all the air cooled engines
> either disappeared or, at least, got liquid-cooled heads. And anywhere high
> performance is important--motocross bikes and snowmobiles, for
> example--liquid cooling is now the norm.
>
> I can see that hot spots, leading to pre-ignition, would be less of a
> problem with liquid-cooled heads. But are there other factors, too?
>
> > If you have not read my article on the M/A FADEC
> > system, I can e-mail you a copy.
>
> I'd like to read it. Would you email me a copy?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ? |
> It was my understanding that the intake thru the oil sump reduced
carb
> icing. Extra hp won't do too much if the carb is frozen up.
Carb icing takes place in the venturi of the carb, long before the sump.
If carb icing is the issue, go to fuel injection.
Even better, go to a timed, pulsed injection system and join the
20th century.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
Subject: | Re:EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda |
>> Is there anyone besides me on this list?
>> --
>> Britt
>
Ya I'm here too.
And as long as I'm putting a note up let me ask a question. I would like to
build a safe, light, low cost 100Hp to 115Hp engine for my Zenair 601. As
of now my list is made up of EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda. I would
love to have people out there share information and ideas.
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com> |
Subject: | Re:EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda |
Zenair 601. As
>of now my list is made up of EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda. I would
>love to have people out there share information and ideas.
Mark,
I too am building a Zodiac 601 (hopefully the XL) and decided on the
Corvair for the following reasons:
1. Air-cooled (no plumbing, less things to go wrong)
2. 100-110hp at good rpm (the 'Vair lopes along at 3100-3300 rpm doesn't
even begin to get stressed like a VW, etc.)
3. Direct drive, again, simpler & fewer things to go wrong. (Check the
archives for the story of an EA-81 reduction belt breaking on take off)
4. Inexpensive & readily available. 'Vair lovers carpet the country and
have everything you would need to care for the engine. You could rebuild a
110hp 'Vair engine ready to hang on the firewall for ~$2,500, compared to
twice that for a Stratus Subaru. The Jabiru 3300 is almost 5 times that!
5. Lots of good advice out there for the 'Vair, especially William Wynne's
manual.
http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/infopack.htm
6. The 'Vair looks to be a wee bit lighter than the Subarus once installed
and flying.
7. Six cylinders beats 4 for smoothness.
FWIW, that's my impression of the EA81, Honda & Corvair options.
Dan Exstrom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair |
Dan
Thanks for the feedback. The Covair is also #1 on my list. I do however
have some questions. I have sent for William Wynnes book but do not have it
yet, so the answers may be in the book.
However do you know
What size prop you can turn at 3100 RPM?
What kind of static thrust can you produce?
What kind of numbers does the Corvair put out in a 601?
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L, 175hp Conversion |
>
> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for
> torque on this
> list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in
> incorrect, and
> grating.
Vaso:
On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," though both
list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, "ft-lb" has
the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is "foot-pounds," as
supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore, "ft-lb"
is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly in casual writing
(such as email).
Tedd
(mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair |
>However do you know
>What size prop you can turn at 3100 RPM?
>What kind of static thrust can you produce?
>What kind of numbers does the Corvair put out in a 601?
Mark,
I am not aware of any 601 flying with the Corvair engine, I haven't checked
with Wynne about prop sizes, I plan to build the tail dragger model so I
don't expect prop clearance to be a problem. I hope to get some of these
type questions answered at the Laughlin, NV show in February. Wynne is
planning to fly his Pietenpol out and hold some engine discussions for
those interested.
Have a great holiday season,
Dan
Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair |
Mark
There is a fellow near me that had a corvair in an aircraft very simular to a
601. I dont think he was very satisfied with it due to cooling problems.
He now has a turbo ea81 is his plane. His name is Jim Mantyla"
and he is on the airsoob email list.
You could email him and he could tell you about it.Good and bad.
Jim Pollard
ch601
ea81
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Doug" <ve6zh(at)oanet.com> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair |
Engines-List message posted by: Mark Wood
What kind of static thrust can you produce?
Mark,i don't know what others are seeing for thrust,but here is what i
measured on mine;
2500'elevation
140hp engine
direct drive
2-stock carbs on heads,other 2 ports blocked
60" 3 blade warpdrive prop,think it is set at 7deg.
points ignition
tail tied to a hydraulic cylinder(3")with a test gauge
full throttle 3000rpm static,indicated 360# not including what it takes to
overcome the movement of the airplane
and man dose it sound SWEET!
Doug Hunt C-GCGJ
(HOPE to be flying this spring)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gene Tomblin" <tombling(at)mercyships.org> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Monitor Systems |
I know more than I'd like to about Ford 3.8 L V6's The 4.2 L V6 used in the newer
F150's is the same as the old 3.8 except for the stroke and a slighly different
bore. The 4.2 's are all ready being
converted . They would seem like the best Ford V6 for an aero conversion because
they produce better low end torque than the 3.8 does because they have a longer
stroke. 3.8's have viberation problems.
Ford needed a quick and cheep
ie no engineering time V6 for the Mustang II. The 3.8 is a 302 minus the back two
cylinders and it runs just like a V8 minus two cylinders. In 1987 Ford fitted
the 3.8 with a counterbalencer shaft
which is driven of the cam and sets in the valley above the cam and lifters. The
head design on the 3.8/4.2 Fords was barrowed from the 351 clevland V8. This
means it has better flow than the 302/
5.0L V8's , it also means there isn't a lot you can do to the top end to increase
HP. I ported and polished the 3.8 in my Thunderbird and installed an aftermarket
hydrolic cam . The engine performs
better than stock but the HP increase is all up on the top end so I did not get
the beter drivabilit I was really looking for. The best 3.8's I believe are the
ones in Windstar vans they have a multi
port variable tuned intake system . It helps out both on the top end and down
where the engine can really use some help. The manifold, with it's dual intake
runners for each cylinder, is so tall
that the only thing it will fit into is the Windstar van . The 3.8 is still the
base engine in the Mustang and the block was stiffened up a year or two ago
to help with the inharent vibration problms
of the design . The strongest 3.8's by far are the suprcharged ones used in the
Thunderbird Super Coups and Cougar XR7's between 89
and about 93. These engines really run and the bottom end is very strong. I have
seen time slips from Tbirds and Cougars with 1/4 mile ET's in the low 14's with
supercharged 3.8's with only a few
mods, shorty headers and 10% overdrive pullies on the supercharger. The bad side
of the 3.8/4.2 Ford V6's is that there is very littly that you can do to them
without spending huge ammounts of money
. The normal bolt on stuff just isn't available for them You can barrow a few things
fron the 5.0 V8 the rocker arms are the same and buying a set of roler rockers
for a 5.0 and using only 12 of the
16 will get you a set of better rockers . The oil pump is also the same but because
it's cast into the front cover on the V6's you can't use the high volume
pums for the V8's on theV6's The other
thing is the weight these engines have an iron block and aluminum heads and intake
manafold and weigh about 600 pounds dry. They also have a bad habit of blowing
head gaskets. These engines have a
reputation of running a long long time in cars probibly because of their V8 heritage.
The one in by TBird had over 150,000 on it when I rebuilt it and it wasn't
too bad although I dont think the rear
main and the rod bearings on 3 and 6 had much time left in them. I'd like to see
how a aero conversion of the 3.8 runs with regard to vibration . There a definite
RPM's where these engines vibrate
because of their V8 minus 2 configuration. If I were doing one I'd find a 87
or later block with the balencer shaft.
I want to do a Corvair conversion direct drive for a Pietnpol project any words
of wisdom. I'd like to do away with the fan and shroud and use a presure
cowling for the cylinders and oil cooler
and use J3 style bat ear cowls for the heads which will stick out beyond the fuselage.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)GSC.GTE.Com> |
<5DD592B8031BD111A0D200805FC11D020317B401(at)chnt10.winnt.chnt.gsc.gte.com>
I am installing a 912 in a Zenith 601. The carb. overflow lines will drain
right on top of the exhaust. It has been
suggested to use a "drip pan". Any hints/ideas here are appreciated.
Also, I have seen one 912 with an "intake silencer" attached to the carbs.
What is this for?
Thanks.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave <doitdave(at)netscape.net> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair] |
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I do believe that the size of the
prop is determined by the area it will be running in and the tip speed. The
tip speed should be no more than .8 mach, which at 3100 rpm the diameter
should be 64 inches maximum. The pitch of the prop is determined by the power
available which I'm sure you already know. I'm not much help with the Corvair
engine. sorry.
Happy flying in the New Year
Dave
Dan Exstrom wrote:
>However do you know
>What size prop you can turn at 3100 RPM?
>What kind of static thrust can you produce?
>What kind of numbers does the Corvair put out in a 601?
Mark,
I am not aware of any 601 flying with the Corvair engine, I haven't checked
with Wynne about prop sizes, I plan to build the tail dragger model so I
don't expect prop clearance to be a problem. I hope to get some of these
type questions answered at the Laughlin, NV show in February. Wynne is
planning to fly his Pietenpol out and hold some engine discussions for
those interested.
Have a great holiday season,
Dan
Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gene Tomblin" <tombling(at)mercyships.org> |
Subject: | Re:Laughlin fly-in ? |
Hello everyone,
A day or two ago I saw mention of a gathering in Laughlin Nevada mentioned either
on the Pietenpol or engines list I made a mental note of this because William
Wynne was supposed to be their with his Piet and I would like to talk to him .
Does anyone know about a Fly-in in Laughlin Nevada. I have checked the EAA site
and a few other air show web sites with no luck.
Gene Tomblin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MSnook(at)micro.honeywell.com (Snook, Michael) |
Subject: | ft-lb vs. lb-ft (was Volkswagen VR-6, 2 |
Because work (force times a distance) and torque (force times a moment-arm) can
both
share the same units (ft-lb), the term "lb-ft" is sometimes used to distinguish
torque from
work when referring to that measure.
FWIW, I looked-up the word "foot-pound" in an American Heritage dictionary.
"Foot-pound" was defined as work, bla, bla, bla... but no mention of torque.
"Pound-foot" was not included in the dictionary (along with many other technical
terms)
and the definition for "torque" did not include any units.
I also looked at the conversion tables in my pocket reference. According to
it,
"foot-pounds" converts directly into units of work - Ergs, Joules, Kw-hours,
etc.,
but "pound-feet" converts only to "Cm-dynes", "Cm-grams", and "Meter-Kilograms".
What's all this mean? Probably not a hill-o-beans as long as confusion over
what
is being discussed -torque or work- is avoided during casual conversation.
Personally, I like "ft-lb" for work and "lb-ft" for torque but tend to use "ft-lb
of torque"
like everyone else. ;-)
Mike Snook
Allen, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: engines-list [SMTP:engines-list(at)matronics.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L
>
> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for
> torque on this
> list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in
> incorrect, and
> grating.
Vaso:
On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," though both
list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, "ft-lb" has
the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is "foot-pounds," as
supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore, "ft-lb"
is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly in casual writing
(such as email).
Tedd
(mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair] |
> I do believe that the size of the
>prop is determined by the area it will be running in and the tip speed. The
>tip speed should be no more than .8 mach, which at 3100 rpm the diameter
>should be 64 inches maximum.
>
>Happy flying in the New Year
>
>Dave
>
>Dan Exstrom wrote:
This is some info I needed, Thanks.
When doing the math for the tip speed do you use only the rotational speed
or do you also need to figure in the forward speed of the plane?
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair] |
>
> This is some info I needed, Thanks.
> When doing the math for the tip speed do you use only the
> rotational speed
> or do you also need to figure in the forward speed of the plane?
> Mark
Mark:
I don't know what the standard procedure is, but factoring in the forward
speed does make a difference. You have to use the vector sum of the
rotational speed and the forward speed.
Here's an example.
RPM 3100
ktas 150
OAT -20C
Vcrit 1047 ft/s
max dia 62 inches (RPM only)
max dia 59 inches (RPM and forward speed)
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave <doitdave(at)netscape.net> |
Subject: | Re: EA 81 Vs Covair]] |
Mark,
The rotational speed of the prop is the main concern here for determining the
tip speed. Another point to consider is the shape of the airfoil which factors
into the maximum tip speed (critical mach). The pitch of the prop is
determined by the speed of the aircraft (climb or cruise?) and the available
power. The difference between a two bladed and a three bladed prop, on small
airplanes, is largly determined by the marketing department. I hope this will
help you.
Dave
Mark Wood wrote:
> I do believe that the size of the
>prop is determined by the area it will be running in and the tip speed. The
>tip speed should be no more than .8 mach, which at 3100 rpm the diameter
>should be 64 inches maximum.
>
>Happy flying in the New Year
>
>Dave
>
>Dan Exstrom wrote:
This is some info I needed, Thanks.
When doing the math for the tip speed do you use only the rotational speed
or do you also need to figure in the forward speed of the plane?
Mark
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/06/00 |
Is there anyone in the Spartanburg, SC area that has a Subaru
installation on their airplane that I can take a look at? Specifically
the EJ22?
Thanks
Rich Bauer
Zenith CH-801
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James F. Cooper" <blugoos1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | terminate subscription |
Please end my subscription to Engines-List-Digest. Thank you, Jim Cooper
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carl Bertrand" <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com> |
Subject: | Fw: Rotax 912 oil press problems |
----------
> From: Carl Bertrand <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com>
> To: engines-liste(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Fw: Rotax 912 oil press problems
> Date: January 13, 2000 6:22 PM
>
>
>
> ----------
> > From: Carl Bertrand <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com>
> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Rotax 912 oil press problems
> > Date: January 13, 2000 6:16 PM
> >
> > I have operated a 912 for the last 4 years without serious problems.
When
> > new, the oil press fluctuated 2-3lbs at high power setting but remained
> in
> > the 58-60lbs. I was informed by a Rotax rep that fluctuations are
normal
> > for my series engine.
> > Starting 5 months ago the oil press at cruise decreased from the usual
> > 60lbs to 40lbs over a periode of 12 hrs. I have done the obvious thing
> like
> > check all the lines, changed oil, filter, oil gauge and sender, rotor
and
> > piston in the pump, the relief valve spring and ball, checked for
> > restriction in the intake line, metal in the filter and the magnetic
plug
> ;
> > all without positive results.
> > Has anyone experienced similar problem?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | 1999 List of Contributors #2! |
Dear Listers,
Below is the final List of Contributors for 1999 as promised. Again, I
would like to thank everyone that made a generous contribution in 1999
to support the continued operation of these email Lists. Your support
directly makes the quality and quantity of this service possible.
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
EMail List Administrator
RV-4 Builder, #1763 - N442RV
=================== 1999 List of Contributors #2 ====================
Adamson, Arden
Allender, Patrick
Anonymous from MN
Asher, M.E.
Baxter, Rob
Bell, Doug
Bendure, Ryan
Bergh, David
Berrie, Robert
Blake, J.I.
Boucher, Michel
Bragg, Medford
Briegleb, Ross
Brietigam, Charles
Broomell, Glenn
Brusilow, Michael
Chatham, Robert
Clary, Buck
Coats, Lonnie
Cook, Craig - Golf Instruments Co.
Cooper, James
Cribb, William Jr.
Crosby, Harry
Dane, Bill Von
Dziewiontkoski, Bob
Ellenberger, Mike
Embree, Roger
Faatz, Mitch
Fasching, John
Gibbons, Robert
Glauser, David
Gold, Andy -Builder's Bookstore 10%
Gregory, Steve
Grenier, Raymond
Guarino, Michael
H., Harold - E.P.M.AV Corp
Hale, Brian
Hunt, Wallace
Johnston, Leroy
Jordon, Don
Killion, Clay
Klingmuller, Dr. L.M.
Magaw, David
Mains, Ralph
Maltby, Michael
Martin, Cliff - Martin Metal Fab
Mazataud, Hyun Sook
McBride, Duncan
McDonald, James
Mendenhall, Elbie - E.M Aviation
Mitchell, Duane
Morley, Harold
Peck, Phil
Pessel, Garnett
Rodebush, James
Ross, Jonathan
Schmidt, John
Scully, William
Smith, Steven
Spence, Stephen
Triff, Wes
Wagoner, Richard
Weaver, Brian
Wiegenstein, John
Wiley, Robert
Wilson, Donald
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Confusion Over "List of Contributors"... |
Hi Listers,
I'm really sorry for the confusion over the most recent posting of the
List of Contributors #2. List #2 contained only the contributor names
*since* the List #1 was posted. So, if you weren't on List #2, you were
likely on List #1. Below are URLs to each of the LOC #x postings.
Again, sorry for the confusion. I should have made it more clear in
the verbiage.
Thanks to everyone,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
============================= LOC #1 and #2 ================================
List of Contributors #1 - 1999
------------------------------
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
List of Contributors #2 - 1999
------------------------------
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
============================================================================
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Subject: | Re: (Whoops) Confusion Over "List of Contributors"... |
>
>Okay, here are the *real* URLs. Sorry...
>
>
>Matt Dralle
>Email List Admin.
>
>
>============================= LOC #1 and #2 ================================
>
>
> List of Contributors #1 - 1999
> ------------------------------
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_
>of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
>
>
> List of Contributors #2 - 1999
> ------------------------------
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=53146?KEYS=list_
>of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
>
>
>============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Re: (No, Really - Here are the URLs) Confusion Over "List |
of Contributors"...
Geeze, I can't seem to type today. Here are the *real*, *REAL* URLs.
Sorry for so many posts... Ack
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
============================= LOC #1 and #2 ================================
List of Contributors #1 - 1999
------------------------------
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
List of Contributors #2 - 1999
------------------------------
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=53146?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
============================================================================
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
> -----Original Message-----
>> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for
>> torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in
>> incorrect, and grating. -Vaso
> Vaso:
> On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet,"
> though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative,
> "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is
> "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic.
> Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly
> in casual writing (such as email).
> Tedd
> (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist)
>
Tedd:
I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but maybe not. ;-)
Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet on unit and
metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical engineers...).
Webster's and Oxford are the wrong dictionaries to consult for technical
units, but for the record, the Concise Oxford lists only one definition of
foot-pound: "the amount of energy required to raise 1 lb a distance of 1
foot." There is no mention of foot-pound being a unit of torque. I didn't
consult colonial dictionaries such as Webster's.
More to the point are definitions in the technical literature. For instance,
Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in
pound-inches, pound-foot...", and University Physics-Sears & Zemansky, 4th
Edition: "If forces are expressed in pounds, and lengths in feet, torques
are expressed in pound-feet."
Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong.
-Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
Vaso:
> I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but
> maybe not. ;-)
> Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet
> on unit and
> metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical
> engineers...).
I'm not in the United States.
> More to the point are definitions in the technical
> literature. For instance,
> Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in
> pound-inches, pound-foot...",
The full quote (21st edition) is "Moment or torque is commonly expressed in
pound-feet, pound-inches, kilogram-meters, etc." I think it's clear from
the "kilogram-meters" that they're not talking about correct usage! I think
it's also clear that the "etc." leaves room for other expressions, such as
foot-pounds.
> Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong.
If I were writing for a technical publication, I would use the convention
adopted by the audience of that publication, or recommended in its style
guide. (Even so, I used the term "foot-pound" exclusively in my thesis, to
describe torque, and no one raised an eyebrow.) However, an informal email
listserver is not a technical publication, so such narrow conventions aren't
appropriate. I think your attempt to promote a kind of style guide for the
list is unnecessary.
What is appropriate in email is the common, day-to-day usage of the writer.
I can assure you that, where I live, the use of foot-pounds to express
either torque or energy is common, even among engineers (of any persuasion).
A quick survey around my office, which has engineers (mostly electrical)
from most of the English-speaking countries, indicates that foot-pound is a
very common expression for torque.
Because this listserver is global, my day-to-day usage will differ from that
of other list members. That's one reason why RFC 1855 ("Netiquette
Guidelines") recommends this rule of thumb for email: "Be conservative in
what you send and liberal in what you receive." In this context, I think we
can take that to mean "this is informal debate; don't get too pedantic about
terminology." Condemning someone's terminology as "just plain wrong," when
it is clearly common usage, falls short on both counts.
Perhaps you feel that using common, day-to-day language isn't being
sufficiently "conservative in what you send." That is your right. I
disagree.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in how to produce
it. Any real engineer really doesn't care.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Date: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:01 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for
>>> torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb"
in
>>> incorrect, and grating. -Vaso
>
>
>> Vaso:
>> On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet,"
>> though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is
commutative,
>> "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is
>> "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the
Atlantic.
>> Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly
>> in casual writing (such as email).
>> Tedd
>> (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist)
>>
>
>Tedd:
>
>I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but maybe not. ;-)
>Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet on unit and
>metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical engineers...).
>
>Webster's and Oxford are the wrong dictionaries to consult for technical
>units, but for the record, the Concise Oxford lists only one definition of
>foot-pound: "the amount of energy required to raise 1 lb a distance of 1
>foot." There is no mention of foot-pound being a unit of torque. I didn't
>consult colonial dictionaries such as Webster's.
>
>More to the point are definitions in the technical literature. For
instance,
>Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in
>pound-inches, pound-foot...", and University Physics-Sears & Zemansky, 4th
>Edition: "If forces are expressed in pounds, and lengths in feet, torques
>are expressed in pound-feet."
>
>Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong.
>
>-Vaso
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
>> More to the point are definitions in the technical
>> literature. For instance, Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition:
>> "Torque is commonly expressed in pound-inches, pound-foot...",
> The full quote (21st edition) is "Moment or torque is commonly
> expressed in pound-feet, pound-inches, kilogram-meters, etc."
> I think it's clear from the "kilogram-meters" that they're not
> talking about correct usage! I think it's also clear that the
> "etc." leaves room for other expressions, such as foot-pounds.
?? Each of the units listed by Machinery's Handbook in this passage is
correct. "kilogram-meters" is (was) the designated unit for torque in the
old MKS system - since superceded by the newton-metre. The Machinery's
Handbook passage does not include any units that are wrong - most pointedly
"foot-pound" or anything with that construction is not included. I find it a
stretch to claim that "etc" leaves room for incorrect units. In fact, I
can't find ANY reference anywhere that allows "foot-pounds" for torque.
>> Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong.
> ...an informal email listserver is not a technical publication, so
> such narrow conventions aren't appropriate. I think your attempt to
> promote a kind of style guide for the list is unnecessary...What is
> appropriate in email is the common, day-to-day usage of the writer...
You may call them "foot-pounds" if you insist, or even "boogerberts" if you
wish, but it is still an incorrect usage, with any writer, anywhere,
addressed to any audience. Many people do confuse energy with torque, so I
believe it is useful for a considerate writer to distinguish between the two
by appropriate unit of measure.
> ...RFC 1855 ("Netiquette Guidelines") recommends this rule of thumb for
> email: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you
receive."...
:-) I couldn't find any reference supporting the use of "foot-pound" for
torque either...
> Perhaps you feel that using common, day-to-day language isn't being
> sufficiently "conservative in what you send." That is your right.
> I disagree. Tedd
OK. I tried.
-Vaso
ps I also cringe at the common, popular pronunciation of "nuclear" as
"nukiler". I guess I'm being pedantic.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
Gentlemen,
My Sam's Handbook Of Electronic Tables And Formulas, 6th Edition list torque
values as foot-pounds & offers conversion ratios to gram-centemeters,
horsepower-hours, kuilograms-meters, kilowatt-hours, and ounce-inches. It does
address newtons but not newton-meters. I noted in the margin that 35
newton-meters = 3.57 meter-kilograms, but I don't remember where I got that
from.
For what its worth, ...Richard Swiderski
Vaso Bovan wrote:
>
> >> More to the point are definitions in the technical
> >> literature. For instance, Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition:
> >> "Torque is commonly expressed in pound-inches, pound-foot...",
>
> > The full quote (21st edition) is "Moment or torque is commonly
> > expressed in pound-feet, pound-inches, kilogram-meters, etc."
> > I think it's clear from the "kilogram-meters" that they're not
> > talking about correct usage! I think it's also clear that the
> > "etc." leaves room for other expressions, such as foot-pounds.
>
> ?? Each of the units listed by Machinery's Handbook in this passage is
> correct. "kilogram-meters" is (was) the designated unit for torque in the
> old MKS system - since superceded by the newton-metre. The Machinery's
> Handbook passage does not include any units that are wrong - most pointedly
> "foot-pound" or anything with that construction is not included. I find it a
> stretch to claim that "etc" leaves room for incorrect units. In fact, I
> can't find ANY reference anywhere that allows "foot-pounds" for torque.
>
> >> Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong.
>
> > ...an informal email listserver is not a technical publication, so
> > such narrow conventions aren't appropriate. I think your attempt to
> > promote a kind of style guide for the list is unnecessary...What is
> > appropriate in email is the common, day-to-day usage of the writer...
>
> You may call them "foot-pounds" if you insist, or even "boogerberts" if you
> wish, but it is still an incorrect usage, with any writer, anywhere,
> addressed to any audience. Many people do confuse energy with torque, so I
> believe it is useful for a considerate writer to distinguish between the two
> by appropriate unit of measure.
>
> > ...RFC 1855 ("Netiquette Guidelines") recommends this rule of thumb for
> > email: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you
> receive."...
>
> :-) I couldn't find any reference supporting the use of "foot-pound" for
> torque either...
>
> > Perhaps you feel that using common, day-to-day language isn't being
> > sufficiently "conservative in what you send." That is your right.
> > I disagree. Tedd
>
> OK. I tried.
>
> -Vaso
>
> ps I also cringe at the common, popular pronunciation of "nuclear" as
> "nukiler". I guess I'm being pedantic.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
>
>
> Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in
> how to produce
> it. Any real engineer really doesn't care.
Exactly.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Neville Bohm" <nevbohm(at)bigtree.co.za> |
Subject: | Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
Hi Tedd and Vaso,
I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot" as a
measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are from. I
confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of Machinery's
Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds" in my
copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a British
background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I was
taught to use for torque. We hardly ever come across these old imperial
measures nowadays, since converting to the Metric System during the 1960s. I
use the Newton-metre for torque.
But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is meant
and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.
Regards,
Neville Bhm.
South Africa.
----- Original Message -----
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Sent: 17 January 2000 07:49
Subject: Engines-List: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for
> >> torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb"
in
> >> incorrect, and grating. -Vaso
>
>
> > Vaso:
> > On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet,"
> > though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is
commutative,
> > "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is
> > "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the
Atlantic.
> > Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable,
particularly
> > in casual writing (such as email).
> > Tedd
> > (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist)
> >
>
> Tedd:
>
> I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but maybe not.
;-)
> Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet on unit and
> metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical engineers...).
>
> Webster's and Oxford are the wrong dictionaries to consult for technical
> units, but for the record, the Concise Oxford lists only one definition of
> foot-pound: "the amount of energy required to raise 1 lb a distance of 1
> foot." There is no mention of foot-pound being a unit of torque. I didn't
> consult colonial dictionaries such as Webster's.
>
> More to the point are definitions in the technical literature. For
instance,
> Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in
> pound-inches, pound-foot...", and University Physics-Sears & Zemansky, 4th
> Edition: "If forces are expressed in pounds, and lengths in feet, torques
> are expressed in pound-feet."
>
> Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong.
>
> -Vaso
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
>...We hardly ever come across these old imperial
>measures nowadays, since converting to the Metric System during the
1960s...
Gee, I guess we're the only old imperials left. :-)
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
>Hi Tedd and Vaso,
I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot" as a
measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are from. I
confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of Machinery's
Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds" in my
copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a British
background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I was
taught to use for torque. -Neville<
That's interesting: the worst knuckle-rapper on the issue of units for
torque in my (Canadian) engineering school was an old Scottish mechanical
engineer (and designer of steam engines) who preferred N-m, but would accept
lb-ft. He absolutely would not accept ft-lb. (Canada was in transition in
the mid-70s from Imperial to Metric). The only British reference I have
easily at hand, Butterworth's "Mazda's Electronics Engineer's Reference
Text, 6th Ed.", uses lb-ft.
>We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays, since
converting to the Metric System during the 1960s.<
The sooner Muyamar, Liberia, and the USA change to metric the better, to end
this confusion of slugs, poundals and pounds(f)/pound(m). I'm not aware of
anyone using "metre-newton," even casually.
>But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is meant
and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.<
It's de minimus, perhaps, but I notice even automobile hobbyist magazines
(the kind featuring women with large headlights on the cover), more often
than not, have been shamed into insisting on lb-ft for torque from their
writers.
-Vaso (California)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | FW: Whirlwind Model 150 Propeller ? |
Vaso;
Yes, you can post my response to your questions. We hope to be ready for
deliveries to start this summer.
By the way, I saw the QCS prop at Oshkosh. Are they about to deliver any
propellers?
Regards,
Jim Rust
Vaso Bovan wrote:
> Jim:
>
> May I quote your answers on the Glastar and Engine lists ?
>
> I'm holding off ordering a prop as long as possible. The three
> candidates are: Whirlwind Model 150, the Global QCS, and one of
> the MT hydraulic or electric models. Your Model 150 looks very
> promising, but it appears I will have to make a buy decision in
> late spring, for delivery perhaps November.
> -Vaso
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Whirl Wind Propellers Corporation
>> [mailto:wwpc(at)whirlwindpropellers.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 11:05 AM
>> To: vaso(at)bovan.com
>> Subject: Re: Whirlwind Model 150 Propeller ?
>>
>> Vaso;
>> The 150 Series is our current development priority. We plan to
>> have this propeller ready by early summer. We have made some
>> design changes specifically deal with O320 O360 Lycomings. The
>> 150 Series prototype weight, 18 lbs; the production model will
>> weigh approx. 25 lbs.
>> Regards,
>> Jim Rust
>>
>> Vaso Bovan wrote:
>>> Are we still talking late spring for production of Model 150
>>> C/S propellers ?...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities |
[List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a
Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently,
Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the
response. -Vaso]
-----Original Message-----
From: christopher huey [mailto:clhuey(at)sprynet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:19 PM
Subject: 200 Hp motor
Well I ended up with Cerminil cyl and wanted to know more about them and
your thread came up in a search. Anyway I can only comment on some of your
points. I am near completion of a aerobatic monoplane used for competition
and basically used a motor very similar to what you described. I went with
the angle valve because I have had good luck in the past with them and you
have an extra 20 hp to start off with. I am also running a MT 2 blade prop.
Lycon does good work and I know they are fond of the parallel valve
engine..but to get the HP of the angle valved engine you need to change the
cam, cyl 10-1 etc..etc...thats extra money and I think you sacrifice
reliability. My friend has 10-1 pistons in his angle valve motor and his oil
temps are always high (220' plus/ 80'f day). I left in the 8.7-1 pistons,
like I had in my old airplane....temps were under control... 215'fmax here
in AZ.
I used the Sky Dynamics sump/induction/4-1 exhaust....all worth the money, I
do believe this system slightly increases HP as well as makes the engine
7-10 lbs. lighter. I would stay with the Sky Dynamics exhaust as it fits the
sump and is $1024. It is a nice package...sorta expensive though.
If you go with the Sky Dynamics sump, use a SkyTec (7.8lbs) starter and save
yourself some time over the B&C unit. I had trouble with the fit of their
starter.
The B&C oil filter unit is real nice....thats what I used. Also used their
Alt
Port/ Polish...did not do it....I do not want any material taken off ...plus
after 5 hrs your "Polish" has carbon all over it anyway.
A friends Christen Eagle has a pre-oiler...works nice. If you do not fly
much it might be worth it. Did not use one though too much weight and I fly
at least twice a week.
Not sure if the Airflow Performance will work with a Sky Dynamics sump, they
put out a nice injector unit and I use one of their high pressure pumps.
I would stick with two magnetos...friend had the LightSpeed on a 180hp
TaylorCraft. He messed with it a lot....claimed it was worth it though.
I basically stuck with things that have worked for me in the past. I think a
lot of this "More Horse Power" stuff makes little difference. I fly with
guys that put in the high compression pistons, port polish, yada, yada, yada
and our airplanes perform the same (speed, climb,). Definitely go with new
limits, reliability would be my main concern.
Take care,
C.H.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities |
> Port/ Polish...did not do it....I do not want any material taken off
...plus
> after 5 hrs your "Polish" has carbon all over it anyway.
I would like to comment on this "black magic" area.
First, The ports and valves were designed by our great-
grandparents before the advent of real flow, and dynamics testing.
Anyone that has knowledge in this area will tell you that
these are not even close as far as port design and valve sizes.
Ex. on an O-200, I use smaller valves, and a radical reshape
& welding of the intake port. Flow volume goes up.
No room to really elaborate here.
Second, As far as port finish is concerned, Intake port should
have enough roughness to gauge with your fingernail, and the
Exhaust ports should be smooth, but not mirror like. Where
they transition into the pipes, they should be just slightly smaller
in diameter than the actual pipe, in order to prevent reversion.
The same applies to the intake transitions.
Now, if you want to talk about sizes.....................
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities |
From: | "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com> |
Could you re-post or e-mail those, I was not able to find them in the
archive.
--
Shelby Smith
shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com
RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP
N95EB - reserved
----------
>From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
>To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
>Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2000, 12:11 AM
>
> [List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a
> Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently,
> Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the
> response. -Vaso]
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/18/00 |
In a message dated 01/19/2000 1:54:50 AM Central Standard Time,
engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<<
>
>
> Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in
> how to produce
> it. Any real engineer really doesn't care.
Exactly.
>>
Can you imagine what worlds these guys could conquer if they expended all
this ENERGY on making the engine run better?
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
From: | b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com> |
As an engineer, I would say that either way is correct given the fact
that it doesn't matter which gets multiplied first. I believe that is
the communicative law.
I am also a lawyer and this is the very type of things that lawyers would
argue about for days. I have always used ft-lbs, but if someone said
lbs-ft, I am reasonably sure I would know what they were talking about.
Unless there is some "unit police force" out there, I don't think
anybody can say one is wrong.
In sum, real engineers would stop wasting time thinking about such a
concept, but I may bring it up to some lawyers I know and I'm sure it
will get debated for hours.
Bruce Green
>
>>Hi Tedd and Vaso,
>I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot"
>as a
>measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are
>from. I
>confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of
>Machinery's
>Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds"
>in my
>copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a
>British
>background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I
>was
>taught to use for torque. -Neville<
>
>That's interesting: the worst knuckle-rapper on the issue of units
>for
>torque in my (Canadian) engineering school was an old Scottish
>mechanical
>engineer (and designer of steam engines) who preferred N-m, but would
>accept
>lb-ft. He absolutely would not accept ft-lb. (Canada was in transition
>in
>the mid-70s from Imperial to Metric). The only British reference I
>have
>easily at hand, Butterworth's "Mazda's Electronics Engineer's
>Reference
>Text, 6th Ed.", uses lb-ft.
>
>
>>We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays,
>since
>converting to the Metric System during the 1960s.<
>
>The sooner Muyamar, Liberia, and the USA change to metric the better,
>to end
>this confusion of slugs, poundals and pounds(f)/pound(m). I'm not
>aware of
>anyone using "metre-newton," even casually.
>
>
>>But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is
>meant
>and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.<
>
>It's de minimus, perhaps, but I notice even automobile hobbyist
>magazines
>(the kind featuring women with large headlights on the cover), more
>often
>than not, have been shamed into insisting on lb-ft for torque from
>their
>writers.
>
>-Vaso (California)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tim T99" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb-List: Get a server with a hard drive |
> Never mind,
>
> www.onelist.com
>
>
> None of the hassles.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matronics Technical Support 925-606-1001 <support(at)matronics.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 2:50 AM
> Subject: Complete Digest Text Found in Your Post...
>
>
> > You have included all or most of the Engines-List's Digest Post text in
> your
> > reply to the List. This is not recommended and your message has not
> > been forwarded to the List. In the future, please edit your reply
> > text to include only the portion you are directly responding to.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Matt Dralle
> > Engines-List Administrator
> >
> > [This is an automated response.]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James F. Cooper" <blugoos1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 |
Engines-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> *
> Engines-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Wed 01/19/00: 4
>
> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
>
>
> > Port/ Polish...did not do it....I do not want any material taken off
> ...plus
> > after 5 hrs your "Polish" has carbon all over it anyway.
>
> I would like to comment on this "black magic" area.
> First, The ports and valves were designed by our great-
> grandparents before the advent of real flow, and dynamics testing.
> Anyone that has knowledge in this area will tell you that
> these are not even close as far as port design and valve sizes.
> Ex. on an O-200, I use smaller valves, and a radical reshape
> & welding of the intake port. Flow volume goes up.
> No room to really elaborate here.
> Second, As far as port finish is concerned, Intake port should
> have enough roughness to gauge with your fingernail, and the
> Exhaust ports should be smooth, but not mirror like. Where
> they transition into the pipes, they should be just slightly smaller
> in diameter than the actual pipe, in order to prevent reversion.
> The same applies to the intake transitions.
> Now, if you want to talk about sizes.....................
> Archie
>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
> From: "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com>
>
>
> Could you re-post or e-mail those, I was not able to find them in the
> archive.
>
> --
> Shelby Smith
> shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com
> RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP
> N95EB - reserved
>
> ----------
> >From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
> >To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
> >Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2000, 12:11 AM
> >
>
> > [List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a
> > Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently,
> > Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the
> > response. -Vaso]
>
> From: Ed0248(at)aol.com
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/18/00
>
>
> In a message dated 01/19/2000 1:54:50 AM Central Standard Time,
> engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> <<
> >
> >
> > Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in
> > how to produce
> > it. Any real engineer really doesn't care.
>
> Exactly.
> >>
> Can you imagine what worlds these guys could conquer if they expended all
> this ENERGY on making the engine run better?
>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
> From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com>
>
>
> As an engineer, I would say that either way is correct given the fact
> that it doesn't matter which gets multiplied first. I believe that is
> the communicative law.
>
> I am also a lawyer and this is the very type of things that lawyers would
> argue about for days. I have always used ft-lbs, but if someone said
> lbs-ft, I am reasonably sure I would know what they were talking about.
> Unless there is some "unit police force" out there, I don't think
> anybody can say one is wrong.
>
> In sum, real engineers would stop wasting time thinking about such a
> concept, but I may bring it up to some lawyers I know and I'm sure it
> will get debated for hours.
>
> Bruce Green
>
> >
> >>Hi Tedd and Vaso,
> >I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot"
> >as a
> >measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are
> >from. I
> >confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of
> >Machinery's
> >Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds"
> >in my
> >copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a
> >British
> >background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I
> >was
> >taught to use for torque. -Neville<
> >
> >That's interesting: the worst knuckle-rapper on the issue of units
> >for
> >torque in my (Canadian) engineering school was an old Scottish
> >mechanical
> >engineer (and designer of steam engines) who preferred N-m, but would
> >accept
> >lb-ft. He absolutely would not accept ft-lb. (Canada was in transition
> >in
> >the mid-70s from Imperial to Metric). The only British reference I
> >have
> >easily at hand, Butterworth's "Mazda's Electronics Engineer's
> >Reference
> >Text, 6th Ed.", uses lb-ft.
> >
> >
> >>We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays,
> >since
> >converting to the Metric System during the 1960s.<
> >
> >The sooner Muyamar, Liberia, and the USA change to metric the better,
> >to end
> >this confusion of slugs, poundals and pounds(f)/pound(m). I'm not
> >aware of
> >anyone using "metre-newton," even casually.
> >
> >
> >>But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is
> >meant
> >and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.<
> >
> >It's de minimus, perhaps, but I notice even automobile hobbyist
> >magazines
> >(the kind featuring women with large headlights on the cover), more
> >often
> >than not, have been shamed into insisting on lb-ft for torque from
> >their
> >writers.
> >
> >-Vaso (California)
> >
I am looking for a Continental A-65 a/c engine to install in a
Pietenpol. Does anyone know where I can find one? I live near
Lafayette, Louisiana.
Thank you, Jim Cooper
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
From: | wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca> |
I've been on the verge of unsubscribing several times while this flurry
of BS has gone on.
The reason I'm still on is that we all need a reminder that it doesn't
take much of an error in communication to produce things like the Gimli
Glider. Knowing therefore that even revered members of our hobby
community like ENGINEERS can miscommunicate makes me again more cautious
about the risks to this neck.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
> I've been on the verge of unsubscribing several times while
> this flurry
> of BS has gone on.
I've taken a lot of flack for this futile thread, and it is fully justified.
At the very least, I should have taken it off-list much sooner. I apologize
to everyone on the list.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque |
>
> > I've been on the verge of unsubscribing several times while
> > this flurry
> > of BS has gone on.
>
> I've taken a lot of flack for this futile thread, and it is fully
justified.
> At the very least, I should have taken it off-list much sooner. I
apologize
> to everyone on the list.
>
> Tedd
Tedd, You may be taking this much to seriously.
As one prior message indicated, no matter how
it is described, it is results that are important.
This has turned out to be more a case of semantics
than any thing else. I am also an engineer.(industrial)
Gertrude Stein said,"A rose, is a rose, is a rose"
and "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
Call it what you may, it is the final result that is of
any importance.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com> |
Has anyone seen that new Aeroshell Plus oil. It is the normal AD oil
with the Lycoming oil additive in it. I was told that it would be on the
market last June, but havn't seen it anywhere yet. I have been mixing my
own, but the additive is very expensive and I am hoping that it will be
cheaper when added at the factory.
Bruce Green
Skybolt
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
I have been using it for 100+hrs now. Guess it works, everything else
seems to be. Costs about $28/case vs $22 for 100W here in Portland, OR
kevin -6A
----------
> From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com>
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Engines-List: Oil
> Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 1:15 PM
>
>
> Has anyone seen that new Aeroshell Plus oil. It is the normal AD oil
> with the Lycoming oil additive in it. I was told that it would be on the
> market last June, but havn't seen it anywhere yet. I have been mixing my
> own, but the additive is very expensive and I am hoping that it will be
> cheaper when added at the factory.
>
>
> Bruce Green
> Skybolt
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 |
Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine?
I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft
& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction
system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan...
all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800
hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours.
Thanks
Rich
rich(at)carol.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 |
From: | wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca> |
Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember
right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming
equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the
other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 |
Rich,
I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out
of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP
figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for most
prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to
3200 rpm for helicopter installations.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 6:56 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>
>Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine?
>I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft
>& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction
>system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan...
>all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800
>hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours.
>
>Thanks
>Rich
>rich(at)carol.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 |
From: | "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com> |
It was an RV-8 - the original prototype and I think they are still
evaluating it. You are correct in that it hasn't swayed Van from thinking
the best money you can spend on an engine is still on a Lycoming regardless
of the variety.
--
Shelby Smith
shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com
RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP
N95EB - reserved
----------
>From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 7:46 PM
>
> Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember
> right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming
> equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the
> other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 |
You are correct. They were designed for helicopters at 3200 rpm. This is
what the guy at Franklin Engines told me.
But I'm not sure if the front bearing's strong enough to take the prop
load. I heard that helicopter engines are hooked up to some kind of
gearbox or clutch which actually take the loads.
Rich
> From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out
> of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP
> figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for most
> prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to
> 3200 rpm for helicopter installations.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>
> >
> >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine?
> >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft
> >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction
> >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan...
> >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800
> >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Rich
> >rich(at)carol.net
> >
> >
> ----------
> >From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
> >Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 7:46 PM
> >
>
> > Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember
> > right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming
> > equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the
> > other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)flash.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 |
But it isn't a matter of bearing load. It is a matter of tip speed on the
prop blades. An average diameter prop (74-78 inches) spinning 3200 revs
would have the tips moving about thier arc of rotation at near or just over
the speed of sound.
Helicopter rotors spin in the 600-800 rpm range and have usually a clutch
and a gearbox. The added benefit is that the transmission takes the dynamic
loads from the blades.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Date: Sunday, January 23, 2000 10:49 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
>
>You are correct. They were designed for helicopters at 3200 rpm. This is
>what the guy at Franklin Engines told me.
>But I'm not sure if the front bearing's strong enough to take the prop
> load. I heard that helicopter engines are hooked up to some kind of
>gearbox or clutch which actually take the loads.
>
>Rich
>
>
>> From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>>
>>
>> Rich,
>>
>> I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP
out
>> of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP
>> figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for
most
>> prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to
>> 3200 rpm for helicopter installations.
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
>> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>>
>> >
>> >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine?
>> >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft
>> >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new
induction
>> >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan...
>> >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800
>> >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >Rich
>> >rich(at)carol.net
>> >
>> >
>> ----------
>> >From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca>
>> >To:
>> >Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>> >Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 7:46 PM
>> >
>>
>> > Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember
>> > right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming
>> > equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the
>> > other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
Subject: | Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? |
Listers
Vaso requested that I forward this to the list. This has been a hassle
as I had originally written to him using HTML rather than plain text.
The list doesn't support HTML embedding. This required me to convert
everything to plain text.
Charlie Kuss
name="vaso.txt"
filename="vaso.txt"
Vaso
Thanks for sending me a copy of your original post. I will make
comments on
those points on which I am knowledgeable. The angle valve IO-360
(IO-360-A1A) is
37 pounds heavier than the parallel version. That is quite a weight
penalty for
20 extra horses. It is also physically larger, particularly in width.
Most hop up mods which increase HP will also increase heat and stress.
This
will reduce engine life and require a larger oil cooler. Note that the
HIO-360
(helicopter) engines, which have 10:1 compression ratios, also have
1,000-1,200
hour TBO. I have no knowledge of the 4 into 1 exhaust you mention. I
would like
you to pass on to me, any additional info you receive on it. HP gained
via
improved exhaust scavenging will not shorten the life expectancy of your
engine.
It is the one truly free lunch, so to speak.
If the engine you obtain has an oil pump with serviceable aluminium
gears,
don't waste your money getting compliance with the steel oil pump gear
AD. The
aluminium gears are good for 6,000 hours. The new gears are a scam from
Lycoming
to sell more parts. I have this on the authority of Phil, from Mattituck
Engine
Rebuilders. Since we are experimental, we don't have to comply with that
AD.
Superior's new Millennium cylinders are slightly cheaper and of much
better
quality than Lycoming's. Stay away from rebuilt cylinders if you can
afford it.
The aluminium in the heads becomes fatigued with hours. Welding the
cracks just
means that the new cracks will form on either side of the welds. Old
metal is
old metal. Check out
http://www.superair.com/lycom2.htm
Save the $$$ for the B&C alternator. Go to your local Honda dealer and
buy an 86
Civic alternator instead. It's the same thing but for half the price.
Eliminate
it's internal voltage regulator, per Bob Nuckells suggestions. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bleadov.pdf
for a wiring schematic. You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this
web page.
Go to http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/ and click on the ALTERNATOR
MODIFICATION LINK for excellent info on this mod.
You can use an automotive remote oil filter for a lot less than the
AirWolf
setup. Just be sure to use aircraft oil filters. They are designed for
the
higher oil pressures found in aircraft engines using heavy single weight
oils.
Below is an old RV List thread on the subject.
Charlie
Gamijectors are not really necessary on Lycomings. Continentals need
them due to
their poor manifold design.
> Subject: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ?
>
> I'm looking for comments on the course of action detailed below. I'm
> building a Glastar. I'm looking to install an engine of ~190/200hp fitting
> the standard Dynafocal engine mount sold for the Glastar. The easiest way
> would be to buy a new IO-360, Apparently, the IO-360 sold by Lycoming today
> is a 200hp angle-value engine having an outrageous $30K+ price tag.
>
> Ideally, I would like to end up with an IO-360, with Airflow Performance
> fuel injection, single Lightspeed ignition (plus single mag), with optimized
> intake and exhaust. The question is how to get there from here. My current
> thought is to buy a run-out O-360 and have it rebuilt by one of the better
> shops - such as Lycon.
>
> First question: Should I start with a parallel or angled valve O-360 ? I'm
> told the angle-valve runs rougher and is more highly stressed (for a given
> horsepower output) than a parallel value engine. On the other hand, I'm told
> the angle-value engine is easier to optimize - partly due to its value
> configuration. Comments ?
>
> This is my current thinking:
>
> *1 Start with first run-out O-360 (actual type depends on decision to go
> with QCS "fixed" prop or Whirlwind/MT C/S prop).
> *2 Aim for mild hp increase, but significant specific fuel consumption
> improvement.
> *3 Allow Lycon (or other shop) to procure run-out engine, to avoid
> charge-backs
> *4 Insist on New Limits except for parts that can safely be recycled at
> Service Limits
> *5 Insist that shop follows Lycoming's Mandatory Replacement Bulletin(s)
> (S.B 240) at minimum.
> *6 Have shop do work on "TBO Upgraded" basis where possible.
> *7 Install new pistons with ~9.5:1 compression ratio
> *8 Install roller tip rockers
> *9 Allow PMA - rather than OEM - parts where better or equivalent
> *10 Pay for tight dynamic balancing
> *11 Pay for flow-balancing
> *12 Pay for Porting & Polishing
> *13 Install Ney nozzles
> *14 Pay for optimized choke on cylinder barrel
> *15 Pay for grouping of lifters/tappets by bleed-down rate
> *16 Pay for extra attention to main bearing clearances
> *17 Request ECI's IFR "Freedom" processing of crankcase
> *18 Request black phosphate coating on cams and tappets
> *19 Allow regrinding of tappets
> *20 Change to adjustable ball-spring oil pressure relief valve
> *21 Change to new style vernatherm oil bypass valve
> *22 Prefer CermiNil over CermiChrome
> *23 Install venturi-style intake valve seat if possible
> *24 Pay for back-cut, triple-grinding and hand-lapping of valves
> *25 Pay for hone finish on valve guides
> *26 Leave cylinders unpainted
> *27 Install Gamijectors or pay for injection matching
> *28 Install Airflow Performance Fuel Injection
> *30 Install Lightspeed ignition
> *31 Install Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells this low-weight
> (magnesium) sump and cold air induction system that claims to
> reduce weight by 10lb+, and increases horsepower on an IO-360.
> Cost is $2K+.
> *32 Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems (PFS) claims an
> eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a
> Lycoming O-320. Lycon says they verified this power increase on
> their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive - ~$2K+.
> *33 Pre-Oiler ?
> *34 Remote Oil filter ? Airwolf ? B&C ?
> *35 Starter: B&C ?
> *36 Alternator: B&C ?
>
> Comments on any of the above points welcomed.
>
> -Vaso
name="filters.txt"
filename="filters.txt"
Remote Oil Filter Installation Info
I'm not a Lycoming expert, but as I understand it, the vernatherm allows cold
oil to bypass the oil cooler. As the oil temp
increases, the vernatherm starts to close off the bypass and start to force some
of the oil through the cooler. If the oil gets hot
enough, the vernatherm totally closes off the bypass and forces all of the oil
through the cooler. So if your filter is in series with
the cooler, wouldn't your oil only be filtered when it gets hot? And if your flying
in really cold temps, maybe only part of the oil
supply is getting filtered? This probably isn't a problem, but just a thought.
Mark LaBoyteaux MLaboyteau(at)aol.com RV-6a N106RV
Do what I and a lot of other builders have done. Get a remote spin on filter
bracket from the performance automotive store
and plumb it in series with the oil cooler using hoses. If you look at the oil
circuit diagram in the Lyc. overhaul man. in
conjunction with looking at an accessory case and normally supplied spin on adapter
you will see that the path that the oil takes
is the same as if you plumb them in series with each other. You still use your
screen housing, so that you still have the function of
the vernatherm but you remove the screen from it.
I believe everything you have said is true, but it is also the case if you use
a standard spin on adapter as supplied with the
engine. If you have an adapter, and an accessory case off of an engine and can
follow the oil passages you find that the oil
circuit goes through the filter housing and then out through the cooler (or the
other way around; can't remember now). The way
it is set up the vernatherm provides a bypass for the cooler and the filter.
Cold thick oil doesn't flow through a paper media filter very well. So if you
have a screen housing you can remove the screen,
but continue using the housing to retain the function of the vernatherm. All of
the builders that I know of doing this installation
have run from the oil cooler outlet port, to the filter adapter, then to the oil
cooler, and then finally back to the cooler return
port. This allows you to inexpensively mount the filter vertically, but beware;
you can still have oil mess when removing the filter
because you now drain the cooler and the related lines (but you can decide where
the mess will be dealt with (it also might get
more of the normally undrainable oil out of the system depending on how you did
your installation). I think when I bought my
adapter (6 or so years ago) it was about $20. Add to that one more hose, a couple
of fittings and reducers and your done. As I
mentioned in a previous post
I use a CH48108 filter (Champion part number) because it has a bypass valve built
in (same price as a CH48110). Because
the Lyc spin on adapter has a spring loaded by pass valve built in. Tom at Vans
has talked about using performance automotive
filters that are rated for high pressure to save some money but I have never bothered
(or wanted to take the chance) with it.
BTW the adapter that I have is cast aluminum, and probably weighs about the same
as what the spin on adapter weighs, so
there is some weight gain from retaining the screen housing and adding another
hose but not too much
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
Volkswagen has a great remote filter to attach to firewall. Sits vertical and is
clean and easy to access and change. I know a
fellow with a 6A who has used this setup for 5 years. It looks very professional
and works like a charm.
Corsair aka Austin Tinckler tinckler(at)axionet.com
A year or so ago there was much discussion about automotive oil filters on airplanes.
They were pretty negative as
the automotive filters are of MUCH lighter construction. Just a thought.......
Michael
Michael,
I asked Dan the same question. He then went over to his desk and pulled out a
note book with all the stat sheets on
automotive and aircraft oil filters. The filter he decided to use is a fram (not
sure of the number I will have to ask again)
automotive filter with a burst pressure higher then the aircraft oil filter. Like
I said before the guy did his research.
Ryan Bendure
The Fram filter is a HP-1. It is available at Checker Automotive and is designed
for high performance race cars. I also
called the manufacturer and verified that the pressure it is designed for is way
up there. I seem to remember 300 psi, but may
be very wrong on that.
Warren Gretz, (Gretz Aero) 3664 East Lake Drive Littleton, CO 80121 (303) 770-3811
gretz-aero(at)juno.com
You might want to look at the Fram HP-1 filter. Its a racing filter that fits in
place of the PH8A your using. Disabling the
bypass valve is a popular racers trick and those guys use the HP-1.
Mike Wills RV-4 panel stuff willsm(at)manta.spawar.navy.mil
The Fram PH8A outer can will show distortion if it sees around 150 psi. The HP-1
is rated to operate up to 200 lbs. working
pressure. Something is really wrong if an engine is showing this kind of oil pressure.
Sounds like too thick an oil for the ambient
temperature combined with warm-up revs that were a bit aggresive. If the oil pressure
gauge is mechanical and connected with
capillary tubing it may not be reponding to the high pressure quickly enough because
of the flow restriction. If the gauge is
electrical the sending unit may be topping out. Either way the wear and load on
the pump drive will be very high.
John Solecki Toronto
Thanks to all who posted replys to my problem. I solved it by going to my local
avation supplier and buying a avation
filter that fit my filter mount. Comparing the two filters, it is readily apparent
that the av filter is much more robust. I
think one lister had the answer: no bypass valve on the Lyc. engine to the filter
and there is one on auto engines.
Gary Bray Carmel, Maine RV-6 10 hrs.
If you are using the standard Lycoming spin-on adapter, the adapter it self has
the bypass built in. I believe you were using
another method which means you would not have the adapter (or by-pass). If this
is the case it would still be a good idea for
you to use a filter with a by-pass even though the aviation filter is stronger
and less likely to burst. The Champion CH48108
filter has a by-pass valve built in. The CH48110 does not. The CH48108 is what
I used on the remote oil filter installation
on my RV-6A, and it is used by many other builders also.
Scott McDaniels
Champion filter 48108 is similar to the popular 48110 except it includes a bypass
valve. The 48108 fits perfectly on the
Moroso Ford racing remote mount on my RV6 installation:
http://www.ath.tis.net/~sbuc/rv6/engine2.html
Sam Buchanan (Finally ready to paint)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? |
I can assure you that after many years on the flow bench, that
"flow balancing" shows nothing on the dyno.
This is one of the best misnomers in aviation.
The process is by taking the highest flowing ports out of an
engine, and enlarge all others to match. This helps with some
smoothness,(depends on how much variance pre-existed),
but does nothing for horsepower.
For the uninitiated, it is a "romance" item. It is worth doing,
and gives some bragging rights, but may not be worth the money.
For instance, I have found that for best all around flow, most
aircraft cylinders and the associated flow systems are not
properly matched for optimum performance.
"Most" are too large, have ridiculous appendages, and remember,
designed by our great grandparents before the advent of
precision measuring and calculating tools.
I have increased horsepower in several aircraft engines by
reducing, reshaping ports & pipes, and yes... smaller valves.
One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment:
If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop!
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? |
From: | "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com> |
I am curious, does Superior make the angle valve cylinders.
--
Shelby Smith
shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com
RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP
N95EB - reserved
----------
>From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
>To: Engines List
>Subject: Engines-List: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
>Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2000, 5:17 PM
>
> Superior's new Millennium cylinders are slightly cheaper and of much
> better
> quality than Lycoming's. Stay away from rebuilt cylinders if you can
> afford it.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rob Luce" <rdluce(at)geocities.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 |
That particular engine block design has been around since the late '50's.
It used to be a fairly popular replacement for the 145-160hp Lycommings in
172's. Supposedly there's never been a AD issued for the Franklin 350, but
that's probably more due to a smaller installation base than a perfect
engine design. So far, I haven't found anybody that has worked on them say
anything bad about them. Unfortunately, they usually followed up the
conversation with "Just buy a Lycomming". (What's up with this? Probably
explains why aviation is in the state that it is.)
Main benefit. New Engine = $14,000
Main drawback. Lycomming lemmingitis. (30k for a engine is cheap? 14k for
a engine is cheap? I've got some land for sale, really!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 10:55 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
>
> You are correct. They were designed for helicopters at 3200 rpm. This is
> what the guy at Franklin Engines told me.
> But I'm not sure if the front bearing's strong enough to take the prop
> load. I heard that helicopter engines are hooked up to some kind of
> gearbox or clutch which actually take the loads.
>
> Rich
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
Subject: | Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? |
Shelby
As far as I know, Superior's Millennium cylinders are only produced for the
parallel valve engines. Of course, that may be in the pipeline.
Charlie
>
> I am curious, does Superior make the angle valve cylinders.
>
> --
> Shelby Smith
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
Subject: | mixture differences |
Archie - I have a 160 hp O-320 D2J in my RV-6A. It was rebuilt with new
ECI cyl assmb's and has 500+ hrs on it. I am getting 72 lbs compression
each cyl., any leakage is thru the oil breather. Cylinder #4 EGT always
reads the lowest, usually on the order of 100 degrees. This variance
changes of course based on climb-out, altitude, etc.... I assume #4
cylinder runs richer than the rest. It's plugs are always towards the
black, oily side. CHT's are all within 10 degrees of being equal. Could I
run a hotter plug in #4 to help balance EGT's or is it more complicated
than that? Is this even worth worrying about? Kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 |
Rich,
Their should be nothing wrong with engines ability to handle prop loads.
I looked up a power curve I had for this engine and found it rated at 210
@2800 rpm. At that rpm your prop diam shouldn't be limited too much.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Phillips" <jep(at)pcgbase.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 |
I've been watching this thread with interest. I have purchased a Lycoming
HIO-360 for my CH-801
project. This engine was also made for a helicopter and is rated for a
higher HP/RPM than
other Lycoming 360 engines.
I talked with several knowledgeable people before purchasing this engine.
One person told me they
are favored by people building aerobatics planes. One person on the Zenith
mailing list raised a
concern about the prop load on the bearing of this engine. Is what you are
saying for the Franklin
engine also true for this model of Lycoming?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Livingston
> John W Civ ASC/ENFD
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 8:42 AM
> To: 'engines-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
>
>
> ASC/ENFD
>
> Rich,
>
> Their should be nothing wrong with engines ability to handle
> prop loads.
> I looked up a power curve I had for this engine and found it rated at 210
> @2800 rpm. At that rpm your prop diam shouldn't be limited too much.
>
> John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
Subject: | Re: mixture differences |
n3773 wrote:
>
>
> Archie - I have a 160 hp O-320 D2J in my RV-6A. It was rebuilt with new
> ECI cyl assmb's and has 500+ hrs on it. I am getting 72 lbs compression
> each cyl., any leakage is thru the oil breather. Cylinder #4 EGT always
> reads the lowest, usually on the order of 100 degrees. This variance
> changes of course based on climb-out, altitude, etc.... I assume #4
> cylinder runs richer than the rest. It's plugs are always towards the
> black, oily side. CHT's are all within 10 degrees of being equal. Could I
> run a hotter plug in #4 to help balance EGT's or is it more complicated
> than that? Is this even worth worrying about? Kevin
>
Kevin
Changing to a hotter spark plug on #4 cylinder will not affect it's EGT. It
will cause the surface temperature (porcelain area around the center electrode)
to run hotter. The extra heat will help the plug run cleaner. You may have good
compression rings combined with a leaky oil control ring or a loose intake
valve guide. If you remove the #4 intake runner, you can look in at the intake
valve stem. If the guide is leaking, you will find a much larger build up of
oily sludge on the valve when you compare it to the other intake valves.
The lower EGT could be because the cylinder is running richer OR because of
oil making it's way into that cylinder.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: mixture differences |
> > Archie - I have a 160 hp O-320 D2J in my RV-6A. It was rebuilt with
new
> > ECI cyl assmb's and has 500+ hrs on it. I am getting 72 lbs compression
> > each cyl., any leakage is thru the oil breather. Cylinder #4 EGT
always
> > reads the lowest, usually on the order of 100 degrees. This variance
> > changes of course based on climb-out, altitude, etc.... I assume #4
> > cylinder runs richer than the rest. It's plugs are always towards the
> > black, oily side. CHT's are all within 10 degrees of being equal.
Could I
> > run a hotter plug in #4 to help balance EGT's or is it more complicated
> > than that? Is this even worth worrying about? Kevin
> >
>
> Kevin
> Changing to a hotter spark plug on #4 cylinder will not affect it's EGT.
It
> will cause the surface temperature (porcelain area around the center
electrode)
> to run hotter. The extra heat will help the plug run cleaner. You may have
good
> compression rings combined with a leaky oil control ring or a loose intake
> valve guide. If you remove the #4 intake runner, you can look in at the
intake
> valve stem. If the guide is leaking, you will find a much larger build up
of
> oily sludge on the valve when you compare it to the other intake valves.
> The lower EGT could be because the cylinder is running richer OR because
of
> oil making it's way into that cylinder.
> Charlie Kuss
Mr. Kuss has beat me to it with a response.
I concur with his reply, but also take another compression test
a bit more carefully to help isolation. (another peeve of mine is
the misnomer of "compression test") This is technically a
leak-down test and will indicate where the lack of cylinder sealing
is occurring, not the engine's actual compression, but rather
external pressurization.
I have an 0-360 engine running, with 331 hrs on it and a total
consumption of less that three quarts. Look for an upcoming article
when the engine accumulates 700 hrs.
It is not rocket science, just modern technology application.
Will reveal all, including dyno results.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
Subject: | Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? |
>
> One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment:
> If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop!
> Archie
Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but I
didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a
modern shop have?
Tedd McHenry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BERNDSENCO(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Franklin engines |
In a message dated 1/23/00 7:54:45 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out
> of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP
> figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for
most
> prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to
> 3200 rpm for helicopter installations.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
>
>
> >
> >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine?
> >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft
> >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction
> >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan...
> >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800
> >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Rich
> >rich(at)carol.net
> >
> >
Rich,
I have a Franklin 6A-350-C1 in my 1969 Maule M4 and love it. It is very
smooth running due to 6 cylinders and surprisingly fuel efficient. 70% power
gives me a fuel burn of 10.2 gal/hr and 65% yields 8.4 gal/hr. The engine
does in fact put out 220 hp at 2800 rpm and weight is only 339 lbs with all
accessories. The compression ratio is 10.5:1 and I suspect that is one way
they get 220 hp out of 350 c.i. T.B.O. is around 2000 hrs as I recall. The
engine may be a little longer than a Lycoming 360 but if it is, not by much;
the cylinders are a lot smaller. The engine mount is a bed type, flywheel
and alternator is at the rear so it has a small frontal area. It uses a
larger oil cooler than a 360. Only drawback is that due to the high
compression ratio you can't use auto gas in it. Everyone that I've talked to
that has had a Franklin has had nothing but praise for it. It is definitely
the engine of choice in the older Maules. As a matter of fact the Maule
factory has a new airplane that they are currently test flying with a new
Franklin 350 engine. If all goes well they will add the Franklin back to
their engine options now that the engine is being produced again (in Poland
now by PZL). For parts I get mine from A-1 Services in Jewett TX 903
626-5115. They are a small mom and pop outfit that specializes in Franklins.
I would definitely consider using the Franklin in my next kit project. It
is probably one of the best engines for the money ever made.
Jon Berndsen
berndsenco(at)aol.com
Atlanta
PS At idle the engine has a terrific low loping sound to it. Sounds like it
has a racing cam in it!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? |
> > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment:
> > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop!
> > Archie
>
> Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but
I
> didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a
> modern shop have?
>
> Tedd McHenry
First, Lapping valves is not a requirement by the manufacturers or
by FAA regs,
The only reason, read ONLY), to lap valves is to make up for all the
misalignment accumulations, IE: Valve guides, Valve pilots,
Chattering stones,
Old grinders.
(valve & seat),
technique, etc.
All, or some of these accumulated, are indicated when the valve is
placed on the seat. If "gas station" type of equipment is used, this
will happen. Most aviation shops will not spend $11,000 for a valve
grinder, and around $28,000 for a seat machine, therefore, 1940's
technology which results in the valves and seats to have these
irregularities corrected by lapping.
Would you polish your new car with gravel?
What do you suppose the finish might look like?
In racing engines, this means a loss of power, and would not be
tolerated except in cases of emergency.
Granted, most aircraft owners would not realize the difference,
but it is there.
I cannot speak for other shops, but the only aviation shop that
I know of that emphasizes No Valve Lapping, is Monty Barrett.
Personally, I would not even lap valves in my lawnmower.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
When I tested my O-320 I noticed that the #1 cyl. gave the highest reading
after TDC, 72 lbs, and that approaching TDC from the BTDC side it was as
low as 60. I have been told that the piston can sort of get cocked in the
tapered portion of the cylinder and give low readings. I would think that
the valves in this portion of the cycle are closed and shouldn't be moving.
What are your opinions on this?
This is technically a
> leak-down test and will indicate where the lack of cylinder sealing
> is occurring, not the engine's actual compression, but rather
> external pressurization.
>
>
I have been unsuccessful in determining the cause for premature cylinder
glazing on my O-320. I have been watching EGT's like a hawk and always had
CHT's below 380 degrees, usually seeing 330 degrees, EGT's I run rich of
peak which shows 1330, maybe 1380 near sea level. ECI had no explanation
other than to say that CHT sensors don't measure barrel temps. (like they
even make sensors that do!) What I see is loss of rpm (and top end speed).
The last time I just pulled the jugs, honed them and put everything back
together. The first time(300 hrs SN) I went the whole new rings/break-in
route to the tune of $1000. I've been using Aeroshell 100W+. Kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: leak down tests |
>
> When I tested my O-320 I noticed that the #1 cyl. gave the highest reading
> after TDC, 72 lbs, and that approaching TDC from the BTDC side it was as
> low as 60. I have been told that the piston can sort of get cocked in the
> tapered portion of the cylinder and give low readings. I would think that
> the valves in this portion of the cycle are closed and shouldn't be
moving.
> What are your opinions on this?
>
> This is technically a
> > leak-down test and will indicate where the lack of cylinder sealing
> > is occurring, not the engine's actual compression, but rather
> > external pressurization.
> >
> >
> I have been unsuccessful in determining the cause for premature cylinder
> glazing on my O-320. I have been watching EGT's like a hawk and always
had
> CHT's below 380 degrees, usually seeing 330 degrees, EGT's I run rich of
> peak which shows 1330, maybe 1380 near sea level. ECI had no explanation
> other than to say that CHT sensors don't measure barrel temps. (like they
> even make sensors that do!) What I see is loss of rpm (and top end
speed).
> The last time I just pulled the jugs, honed them and put everything back
> together. The first time(300 hrs SN) I went the whole new rings/break-in
> route to the tune of $1000. I've been using Aeroshell 100W+. Kevin
Have you tested your valve springs?
When overzealous valve/seat grinders remove too much material,
this reduces spring pressure which CAN cause rpm loss.
Are you using an oil additive?
Are these Cermichrome?
Our racing engines do not have honing marks in them, due to the types of
rings we use, and they seat to about 95% within 8-10 minutes. When run-in
on the dyno, they are ready to bolt in and race.
Have had some problems with the Superior supplied rings for aircraft use,
and found better results with Lycoming supplied.
Two problems: Material and Diametrical concentricity. (the latter shows up
when a ring is placed in a perfectly round cylinder and is hit with a
backlight).
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
IO-360? How to get there?
> > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment:
> > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop!
> > Archie
>
> Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but I
> didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a
> modern shop have?
>
> Tedd McHenry
Tedd,
There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure he's aware of it
though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a tendency to get
EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will understand. It is very
difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound makes it's way there.
Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look like after a few
hundred hours of operation with lapping compound pre-installed!!! Even if the oil
washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> |
IO-360? How to get there?
>
>
> Tedd,
> There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure
> he's aware of it
> though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a
> tendency to get
> EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will
> understand. It is very
> difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound
> makes it's way there.
> Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look
> like after a few
> hundred hours of operation with lapping compound
> pre-installed!!! Even if the oil
> washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system.
> Charlie Kuss
> RV-8 wings
Charlie:
Thanks for the tip.
Now here's where the rubber meets the road. I will probably overhaul my own
320 or 360. Other than hand lapping, what are my alternatives? I've always
hand-lapped automotive valve seats, but I accept the arguments from you and
Archie that it's an inferior method. Is my only good alternative to send
them out to Monty Barrett to have the valves seated?
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gary Leopold" <frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send the
crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this
really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine
was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone
have a good source for A65 parts.
Gary
frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Letter Abreviations was Re: Definition, pleez |
Barry & fellow listers,
IIRC means if I recall correctly. Here are some more common email
abbreviations. Save these for future reference.
Charlie Kuss
Acronym Definition
AFAIK As far as I know
AFK Away from keyboard
AKA Also known as
AOL America OnLine
ASAP As soon as possible
ATM At the moment
B4 Before
BAK Back at keyboard
BL Be back later
BCNU Be seeing you
BFN Bye for now
BRB Be right back
BTW By the way
CFV Call for votes
CU See you
CUL See you later
CUL8R See you later
DYJHIW Don't you just hate it when...
*eg* Evil grin
2F Face to face (also meeting in person)
FAQ Frequently asked questions
FWIW For what it's worth
FYA For your amusement
YI For your information
G2P Gone to P... Usually followed by BRB
*g* Grin
GA Go ahead
*gbh* Great big hug
*gbh&k* Great big hug & kiss
*gr&d* Grinning, running, & ducking
*h* Hug
*hb* Hug back
HOJ Ha ha only joking
HHOK Ha ha only kidding
HHOS Ha ha only serious
HIWTH Hate it when that happens
IAE In any event
IDK I don't know
IMHO In my humble opinion
IMnerHO In my not even remotely humble opinion
IMnsHO In my not so humble opinion
IMO In my opinion
IOW In other words
RL In real life
IYKWIM If you know what I mean
JASE Just another system error
JK Just kidding (can also stand for joking)
*k* Kiss
kb* Kiss back
L8R Later
*l* Laugh
*li* Laughing inside
*lis* Laughing in silence
lol* Laugh out loud
NRN No reply necessary
OBTW Oh, by the way
OIC Oh I see
OT Off topic
OTOH On the other hand
TTH On the third hand
PD Public domain
PMJI Pardon me, Jumping in (when you interrupt a conversation)
PMFJI Pardon me for jumping in (same as above)
REHI Hello again
FD Request for discussion
*rofl* Roll on floor laughing
SN Real soon now
RTM Read the manual
*s* Smile
*sb* Smiles back
SITD Still in the dark
OS Same old stuff
SSDD Same stuff different day
SW Shareware
SYL See you later
TANSTAAFL There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
TGIF Thank God it's Friday
IA Thanks in advance
*tic* Tongue in cheek
TNX Thanks
TNX 1.0E6 Thanks a million
TFN Ta-ta for now
TTYL Talk to you later
*veg* Very evil grin
ves* Very evil smile
*vwg* Very wicked grin
*vws* Very wicked smile
*w* Wink
wg* Wicked grin
WRT With regard to (also with respect to)
WTH What the heck
WYSIWYG What you see is what you get
MMV Your mileage may vary
YMMVG Your mileage may vary greatly
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
IO-360? How to get there?
> I will probably overhaul my own
> 320 or 360. Other than hand lapping, what are my alternatives? I've always
> hand-lapped automotive valve seats, but I accept the arguments from you and
> Archie that it's an inferior method. Is my only good alternative to send
> them out to Monty Barrett to have the valves seated?
>
Tedd,
So long as you are aware of what will happen if lapping compound gets in the
valve guide, you can take proper measures. I try to use minimal compound and I
fill the port under the valve with shaving cream. This will help prevent
splattered compound from getting in the guide. If any gets in the guide, you must
make SURE you get it all out.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
IO-360? How to get there?
Hand lapping valves is a perfectly good method to seat the valves. It has
been done for years and years and years. No everyone does not have the high
dollar equipment to do the job perfectly but most engine shops do it by hand
with virtually no problems. Sure you have to clean all the lapping compound
off, but that is pretty much of a no-brainer. I don't know who Monty is, but
he is not the only person building engines that go to TBO and beyond. Don't
forget that thousands of people build their own engines with no problems at
all. Build as perfectly as you can but remember NO engine is perfect.
bed
----- Original Message -----
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 8:05 PM
Subject: RE: Proper valve grinding technique was Re: Engines-List:
Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
>
> >
> >
> > Tedd,
> > There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure
> > he's aware of it
> > though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a
> > tendency to get
> > EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will
> > understand. It is very
> > difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound
> > makes it's way there.
> > Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look
> > like after a few
> > hundred hours of operation with lapping compound
> > pre-installed!!! Even if the oil
> > washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system.
> > Charlie Kuss
> > RV-8 wings
>
> Charlie:
>
> Thanks for the tip.
>
> Now here's where the rubber meets the road. I will probably overhaul my
own
> 320 or 360. Other than hand lapping, what are my alternatives? I've
always
> hand-lapped automotive valve seats, but I accept the arguments from you
and
> Archie that it's an inferior method. Is my only good alternative to send
> them out to Monty Barrett to have the valves seated?
>
> Tedd
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
IO-360? How to get there?
I can't speak for all valve grinding compound but Clover Leaf melts when the
combustion gases hits it so there isn't the problem that you are concerned
about. I bought small can when I did my 39 Indian back in 1950 and still
have a lot left as a little dab will lap in a valve gas tight. If you are
getting it in the guides, then you are using way too much.
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
(Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 6:59 PM
Subject: Proper valve grinding technique was Re: Engines-List: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there?
>
>> > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment:
>> > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop!
>> > Archie
>>
>> Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but
I
>> didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a
>> modern shop have?
>>
>> Tedd McHenry
>
>Tedd,
> There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure he's aware of
it
>though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a tendency to
get
>EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will understand. It is
very
>difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound makes it's way
there.
>Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look like after a
few
>hundred hours of operation with lapping compound pre-installed!!! Even if
the oil
>washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system.
>Charlie Kuss
>RV-8 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: A65 overhaul |
>
> I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send
the
> crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this
> really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine
> was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone
> have a good source for A65 parts.
> Gary
> frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net
Absolutely!
But not only those components, but anything attached to the
crankshaft that rotates with it. Starter gears, drive gears,
prop bolts, etc.
Be sure that all machine work is performed first!
IE: crank grinding, rod bushings, rod resizing, etc.
You should also receive a balance card indicating the
weights of the finished static components.(for possible
future replacement part needs).
When the engine is assembled and running, you should
have the prop balanced in position.
Ever wonder why so many exhaust pipes and alternator
brackets crack?
Vibration, or imbalance, is the greatest contributor.
Also, balance the alternator if desired.
My recommendation is to have it done by a reputable
high performance shop. I have seen poor workmanship
and accuracy come into my shop from some aviation
related businesses. With respect to those that work to high
standards, I must tell it like it is.
Why must you send these items? Is there no one qualified
near you? Shipping adds considerably to the cost.
Stop by one of my forums at Oshkosh, I cannot address
all aspects in one e-mail. "show and tell" works best.
As a yardstick, for a complete 4 cylinder aircraft engine,
provided the parts are clean, I charge $250. additional
charges for cleaning, and magnaflux.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
Subject: | Re: A65 overhaul |
Fresno Airparts has A-65 parts, page 3 TAP, 559-237-4863
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
(Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Leopold <frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:23 PM
Subject: Engines-List: A65 overhaul
>
>I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send the
>crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this
>really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine
>was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone
>have a good source for A65 parts.
>Gary
>frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
IO-360? How to get there?
-----
>
> I can't speak for all valve grinding compound but Clover Leaf melts when
the
> combustion gases hits it so there isn't the problem that you are concerned
> about. I bought small can when I did my 39 Indian back in 1950 and still
> have a lot left as a little dab will lap in a valve gas tight. If you are
> getting it in the guides, then you are using way too much.
>
> Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
> (Click here to visit our Club site at
http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
To re-iterate, with accurate equipment, there is no need
to scrape up perfectly nice seats.
I do not know why people tolerate "dark ages" or
"backyard" work in this day and age. I will get off my
podium and end it, but would fire anyone that takes a
beautiful surface, and keeps grinding until it's contours
match to compensate for inferior equipment or
technique.
Find a good shop and have it done right!
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
Subject: | Re: A65 overhaul |
At a recent RV builders meeting held at ECI (engine components inc) in
Portland we were shown the eqipment they use to balance pistons, rods, and
starter gear. They claimed that Lycoming now onlt uses three bins for
various rod weights when it used to be five, so that imbalance is morely
likely than before. Their balancing equipment looked very expensive, as
did everything there, from valve grinders, guide reamers, crank grinders,
etc.... They charge $300 for a 4 cyl. I believe.
----------
> From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: A65 overhaul
> Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:25 PM
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send
> the
> > crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is
this
> > really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the
engine
> > was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does
anyone
> > have a good source for A65 parts.
> > Gary
> > frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net
>
> Absolutely!
> But not only those components, but anything attached to the
> crankshaft that rotates with it. Starter gears, drive gears,
> prop bolts, etc.
> Be sure that all machine work is performed first!
> IE: crank grinding, rod bushings, rod resizing, etc.
>
> You should also receive a balance card indicating the
> weights of the finished static components.(for possible
> future replacement part needs).
> When the engine is assembled and running, you should
> have the prop balanced in position.
> Ever wonder why so many exhaust pipes and alternator
> brackets crack?
> Vibration, or imbalance, is the greatest contributor.
> Also, balance the alternator if desired.
> My recommendation is to have it done by a reputable
> high performance shop. I have seen poor workmanship
> and accuracy come into my shop from some aviation
> related businesses. With respect to those that work to high
> standards, I must tell it like it is.
> Why must you send these items? Is there no one qualified
> near you? Shipping adds considerably to the cost.
>
> Stop by one of my forums at Oshkosh, I cannot address
> all aspects in one e-mail. "show and tell" works best.
>
> As a yardstick, for a complete 4 cylinder aircraft engine,
> provided the parts are clean, I charge $250. additional
> charges for cleaning, and magnaflux.
> Archie
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com> |
Subject: | O-320 cyl glazing problems |
> >
> > When I tested my O-320 I noticed that the #1 cyl. gave the highest
reading
> > after TDC, 72 lbs, and that approaching TDC from the BTDC side it was
as
> > low as 60. I have been told that the piston can sort of get cocked in
the
> > tapered portion of the cylinder and give low readings. I would think
that
> > the valves in this portion of the cycle are closed and shouldn't be
> moving.
> > What are your opinions on this?
> > I have been unsuccessful in determining the cause for premature
cylinder
> > glazing on my O-320. I have been watching EGT's like a hawk and always
> had
> > CHT's below 380 degrees, usually seeing 330 degrees, EGT's I run rich
of
> > peak which shows 1330, maybe 1380 near sea level. ECI had no
explanation
> > other than to say that CHT sensors don't measure barrel temps. (like
they
> > even make sensors that do!) What I see is loss of rpm (and top end
> speed).
> > The last time I just pulled the jugs, honed them and put everything
back
> > together. The first time(300 hrs SN) I went the whole new
rings/break-in
> > route to the tune of $1000. I've been using Aeroshell 100W+. Kevin
>
> Have you tested your valve springs?
no, they were brand new cyl assemblies when it first occurred
> When overzealous valve/seat grinders remove too much material,
> this reduces spring pressure which CAN cause rpm loss.
I have bled down the lifters and checked the push rod clearances. The
lifters are all new as well as the cam. ECI said that they just "touched
up" the valves and seats and didn't perform a "full grind".
> Are you using an oil additive?
Aeroshell 100W+ now has the H2AD additive included
> Are these Cermichrome?
no, straight steel. ECI's comments were that the pistons looked 2000 hrs
old, not 200. I had to agree they looked pretty dark, down the piston
skirts too, not just the top. I have always thought I spewed a lot of oil
on the belly, but don't know how much can be attributed to aerobatic
maneuvers, although I usually stay positive G's not having an inverted
engine.
>
> Our racing engines do not have honing marks in them, due to the types of
> rings we use, and they seat to about 95% within 8-10 minutes. When run-in
> on the dyno, they are ready to bolt in and race.
>
> Have had some problems with the Superior supplied rings for aircraft use,
> and found better results with Lycoming supplied.
> Two problems: Material and Diametrical concentricity. (the latter shows
up
> when a ring is placed in a perfectly round cylinder and is hit with a
> backlight).
ECI mic'd my cylinders for roundness and taper and they were within limits.
I don't know about the rings, or even what brand they supply with their
assemblies. They told me that the gaps had been checked and that I could
bolt the jugs on just as I had received them, so I did. I followed their
booklet on break-in procedures and ran mineral oil for 50 hrs. Kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Warren Gretz <gretz_aero(at)h2net.net> |
list-aviation ,
list-avionics ,
list-beech ,
list-cessna ,
list-engines ,
list-ez ,
list-glasair ,
list-lancair ,
list-piper ,
list-tailwind ,
list-seaplane ,
list-yak ,
list-zenith
Subject: | wire lacing string |
Greetings to the List,
I have eight spools of the wire lacing string I told many of you about a
few weeks ago. If any of you are interested please call, leave a
detailed message, or send an e-mail (off List), include your VISA or
MASTER CARD number, expiration date of the card, your name, address, and
how many rolls you want. FIRST EIGHT THAT CONTACT ME GET THE SPOOLS OF
STRING. The spools of string are new and $12 ea. including shipping to
a US address. This is a very low price for this product.
What is this string anyway you ask!
It is string or lacing tape used to tie up wires into bundles. It is
the most light weight, and most inexpensive product for doing this job.
I have used this type of material extensively and I really like it.. It
is extremely fast to tie and use.-- Make a clove hitch around the
bundle, and then a square knot to finish. I think you will like it as
much as I do. It is self extinguishing polyester #MIL-T-43435B, Type II,
Finish C, Size 3. In short this is what is used most often for this job.
It is flat braided so it will not cut into or deform as badly as round
string. The finish of this material makes knots stay tied. The spools
are 500 yd. spools. Granted, a spool is enough to do many airplanes, but
your will find many uses for this stuff as I have. Or, sell what you
have left over to another builder when your are done.
Thanks
Warren Gretz
Gretz Aero
303-770-3811
gretz_aero(at)h2net.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/24/00 |
Thanks to all for the Franklin engines responses.
I think I'll go for it!
Rich
CH-801
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James F. Cooper" <blugoos1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Continental A-65 |
I'm looking into building a Pietenpol using a Replicraft Quick Build
Kit, and am hoping to power it with a Continental A-65. Do any of you
know where I might find such an engine? Thank you, Jim Cooper
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities |
Vaso
I apologize for the delay in responding, regarding alternative exhaust
systems. I checked with Mike May at Willis Gliderport (1X4) . The exhaust system
I saw on his new Giles 202 was the Sky Dynamics unit mentioned previously by
Chris (see below). I was very impressed with the quality of this unit.
Charlie Kuss
> [List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a
> Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently,
> Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the
> response. -Vaso]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher huey [mailto:clhuey(at)sprynet.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:19 PM
> To: vaso(at)bovan.com
> Subject: 200 Hp motor
>
>
> I used the Sky Dynamics sump/induction/4-1 exhaust....all worth the money, I
> do believe this system slightly increases HP as well as makes the engine
> 7-10 lbs. lighter. I would stay with the Sky Dynamics exhaust as it fits the
> sump and is $1024. It is a nice package...sorta expensive though.
>
> If you go with the Sky Dynamics sump, use a SkyTec (7.8lbs) starter and save
> yourself some time over the B&C unit. I had trouble with the fit of their
> starter.
> Take care,
> C.H.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; |
Possibilities
Vaso
Thanks for the quick reply. I just did a search for Sky Dynamics. They have a
new web site at:
http://www.skydynamics.com/
I'd like to comment on Power Flow Systems horsepower increase claims. They
claim 15-25%, with the Cessna 172 showing the most impressive gains. Using a 150
HP O-320 Lycoming, the dyno shows that the Cessna exhaust (mostly the muffler)
is so restrictive, that stock horsepower is reduced to 133 HP. This is a
reduction of 17 HP over the Lycoming with a neutral (or whatever exhaust system
Lycoming did THEIR tests with) exhaust system.
The PFS exhaust increased HP to 157 HP. They are using a glass packed straight
through muffler. This has MUCH less internal resistance than the conventional
muffler that Cessna uses. This is how they gain back most of the lost HP. The
TRUE horsepower gain is the additional 7 HP gained over the stock Lycoming.
Seven horsepower gain on a 150 horsepower engine is nothing to sneeze at, mind
you. It is ~5% gain.
An RV with a High Country exhaust system will not lose 17 HP like the Cessna
system does. Your TRUE gain will be a more realistic 7 HP. I noticed in PFS's
literature that they charge almost $2,800 for an exhaust system for those
certified ships. Have you asked them for a price quote for your GlaStar? Sky
Dynamics 4 into 1 systems seem to range from $920-$1250. The Sky Dynamics
exhaust for my RV sells for $1,024.
You have to read the articles carefully to be sure you are comparing apples to
apples.
Charlie Kuss
> Charlie:
>
> I've repeated my original posting below. The company claiming large
> horsepower increases with their exhaust is Power Flow Systems
> http://www.powerflowsystems.com/. See especially the page on dyno testing.
> I understand Sky Dynamics actually makes the exhaust for Power Flow Systems,
> but don't quote me on that...
>
> -Vaso
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> >Vaso
> I've deleted your repost of the questions you had regarding how to rebuild
> your
> engine. Could you please tell me the name of the exhaust system company you
> referred to in that post? Do you have any more info (web site??) on this
> company
> or their products?
> snipped
> *31 Install Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells this low-weight
> (magnesium) sump and cold air induction system that claims to
> reduce weight by 10lb+, and increases horsepower on an IO-360.
> Cost is $2K+.
> *32 Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems (PFS) claims an
> eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a
> Lycoming O-320. Lycon says they verified this power increase on
> their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive - ~$2K+.
> snipped
> Comments on any of the above points welcomed.
> Vaso
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: (I)O-360 |
Overhaul; Possibilities
Charlie:
I look on all these performance enhancement claims with a skeptical eye.
I did exchange correspondence with Power Flow Systems last year and at that
time they were willing to quote a lower price for experimental installations
compared to STC'd installations.
Has any comparison been made between High Country and Sky Dynamics exhaust
system performance ? Does anyone else make tuned or semi-tuned exhaust
systems ? Kent Passer's book "Speed with Economy" has several suggestions
for exhaust system enhancement - jet nozzles, port mismatch, anti-reversion
cones, etc, that I don't see implemented in commercially-available exhaust
systems.
-Vaso
-----Original Message-----
Vaso
Thanks for the quick reply. I just did a search for Sky Dynamics. They have
a
new web site at: http://www.skydynamics.com/
I'd like to comment on Power Flow Systems horsepower increase claims. They
claim 15-25%, with the Cessna 172 showing the most impressive gains. Using a
150
HP O-320 Lycoming, the dyno shows that the Cessna exhaust (mostly the
muffler)
is so restrictive, that stock horsepower is reduced to 133 HP. This is a
reduction of 17 HP over the Lycoming with a neutral (or whatever exhaust
system
Lycoming did THEIR tests with) exhaust system.
The PFS exhaust increased HP to 157 HP. They are using a glass packed
straight
through muffler. This has MUCH less internal resistance than the
conventional
muffler that Cessna uses. This is how they gain back most of the lost HP.
The
TRUE horsepower gain is the additional 7 HP gained over the stock Lycoming.
Seven horsepower gain on a 150 horsepower engine is nothing to sneeze at,
mind
you. It is ~5% gain.
An RV with a High Country exhaust system will not lose 17 HP like the
Cessna
system does. Your TRUE gain will be a more realistic 7 HP. I noticed in
PFS's
literature that they charge almost $2,800 for an exhaust system for those
certified ships. Have you asked them for a price quote for your GlaStar? Sky
Dynamics 4 into 1 systems seem to range from $920-$1250. The Sky Dynamics
exhaust for my RV sells for $1,024.
You have to read the articles carefully to be sure you are comparing apples
to
apples.
Charlie Kuss
> Charlie:
>
> I've repeated my original posting below. The company claiming large
> horsepower increases with their exhaust is Power Flow Systems
> http://www.powerflowsystems.com/. See especially the page on dyno testing.
> I understand Sky Dynamics actually makes the exhaust for Power Flow
Systems,
> but don't quote me on that...
>
> -Vaso
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> >Vaso
> I've deleted your repost of the questions you had regarding how to
rebuild
> your engine. Could you please tell me the name of the exhaust system
company
> you referred to in that post? Do you have any more info (web site??) on
this
> company or their products?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net> |
Subject: | Belt reduction drives. |
Can anyone tell me a URL for belt reduction drive components. I am going
to use a BMW air cooled boxer in a Microlight (Ultralight in the States
?) and don't know of any supplier of parts.
Thanks.
Paul Humphries,
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffs.,
UK.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Warren Gretz <gretz_aero(at)h2net.net> |
list-aviation ,
list-avionics ,
list-beech ,
list-cessna ,
list-engines ,
list-ez ,
list-glasair ,
list-homebuilt ,
list-lancair ,
list-piper ,
list-rocket ,
list-sailplane ,
list-seaplane ,
list-tailwind ,
list-ultralight ,
list-warbird ,
list-yak ,
list-zenith
Subject: | [Fwd: RV-List: Aeroelectric.com] |
I wanted to pass this on to all of you.
Warren Gretz
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 20:24:22 -0700
From: Warren Gretz <gretz_aero(at)h2net.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aeroelectric.com
--> RV-List message posted by: Warren Gretz
I just talked to Bob yesterday and asked him if his internet host/provider
has a problem. They do. He said he has not been able to do anything since
last Thursday. Today, Monday he was going to seek out a new provider that
hopefully will provide continous service. It may be a few more days, but he
will be back.
Warren Gretz
Fran Malczynski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Fran Malczynski"
>
> Has any body else had a problem connecting to "Electric Bob's" website? I
> printed off a document on it last week and haven't been able to connect
> since.
>
> Fran Malczynski
> RV6 (fuse)
> Olcott, NY
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net> |
Well, if you want to make a small fortune in aviation .......... start off
with a large fortune. I didn't have a large fortune to start off with so all
I have now is a lot of bills and some parts to sell. Anyone who has ever had
a small business die a premature death knows how sad it can be, but .......
anyway here a list of the things I have for sale. I will consider almost any
offer. Email me at quick503(at)aisp.net or call me @ (337) 365-3214. The only
thing I won't part with is my MK III !
1. Powerfin 3 blade prop, 65", 'B' blades. Less than 10 hrs use. I had it on
my Quicksilver Sport II with a 503 and 3:1. Great prop! I kept it when I
sold the airplane a few months ago. $395.00
2. Warp Drive 3 blade 66" with nickel leading edge Right turning tractor.
Came off of a Kit Fox with a Rotax 532. Excellent condition. $375.00
3. New Warp Drive blade with nickel leading edge. Never used. 70" right
turning pusher. $75.00
4. 3 1/4" VDO tach for point ignition. Very good condition. 2 5/8" hole. $
40.00
5. Westach single EGT, new, 2 1/4 square. With threaded probe $50.00,
without probe $40.00.
6. Single CHT, 2 1/4 square, used. Good condition. $30.00 with probe, $25.00
without probe.
7. Towable Rotax Engine Test Stand. First Class design. Comes with Powerfin
3 blade prop and extra 2 blade hub. About 90% complete. A steal at $1800.00.
Email me for pictures.
8. Rotax 532 wit exhaust. Came off of a Kit Fox. Appears to be in very good
condition. Owner said it was very low hours. Takes a prov 4 'B' box. $750.00
9. Sky-West David 620 V-Twin 4-stroke. 60 hp @ 6500 rpm. Bent intake valve
but the rest is good. Less than 5 hrs. Uses stock Honda 620 parts. Includes
Honda Manual. $250.00 or BO.
10. Warner Electric Linear Actuator. Used on amphib retract on my MK III.
12DC, 250 lb load. $75.00
11. 12V Stewart Warner fuel pump. $20.00
12. Mercury carb synchronizer sold by Bing. $30.00
13. Muffler assay p.n. 973-191 for 377-503. Very good condition. $125.00.
14.TEGAM Model 819 Digital Microprocessor Thermometer for Type K, J, and T
thermocouples. Never used. Very accurate. Handheld and battery powered. Quit
guessing if your CHT and Egt are accurate! $200.00
15. Shimpo DT-205B Hand held digital Tachometer. Battery operated,
computer-circuitry-controlled, both contact and non-contact. Used 3 times.
Very accurate and sturdy. Why guess if your tach is accurate? $200.00.
16. Rotax 503 single ignition, single carb for parts only. Has electronic
ignition. Crank is bad and the intake flanges are damaged. Make Offer!
Please let me know if any of this interest anyone. Cheers, Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net> |
Subject: | Sky-West engines |
Can anyone tell me more about the Sky-West David 620 engine which I
believe is based on a Honda unit.
A web URL would aslo be appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul Humphries,
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffordshire,
UK
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Internet Explorer and List Subscription Page Problem... |
Listers,
I have just identified a problem between any version of Microsoft's
Internet Explorer and the email List Subscription Form found at
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Please note that this problem
*ONLY* affects users of Internet Explorer! Netscape users are
*not* affected by the issue. Users of Internet Explorer should
use the Netscape browser for now until a work around can be
developed.
IMPORTANT:
If you have tried to subscribe *or* unsubscribe from any of the
following email lists using *Internet Explorer* since the announcement of
the 7 new Email Lists this past weekend, your request was not properly
received and you should resubmit the request using the Netscape
Browser, or wait until a solution for the problem with Internet Explorer
is completed. The Lists affected by the Internet Explorer issue are:
RVCanada-List
RVEurope-List
Skymaster-List
SmithMini-List
Sonerai-List
Tailwind-List
Please note that the Netscape Browser *IS NOT* affected by this problem
and all lists can be subscribed to and unsubscribed from without a
problem.
I will post a message to the Lists when I have come up with a solution
to this problem.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"Internet Explorer and List Subscription Page Problem..." (Feb 15, 10:19am)
Subject: | Re: Web Subscription Page Operation for Internet Explorer |
Restored...
Dear Listers,
I have rewritten the web page and CGI code for processing List
Subscription Requests to now be more compatible with command line
limitations of Microsoft's Internet Explorer and some very
old versions of Netscape. The page seems to be working fine
now on whatever browser I try. Please feel free to resume
your normal List Subscription habits.
The URL is: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
>--------------
>
>
>Listers,
>
>I have just identified a problem between any version of Microsoft's
>Internet Explorer and the email List Subscription Form found at
>http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Please note that this problem
>*ONLY* affects users of Internet Explorer! Netscape users are
>*not* affected by the issue. Users of Internet Explorer should
>use the Netscape browser for now until a work around can be
>developed.
>
>IMPORTANT:
>
>If you have tried to subscribe *or* unsubscribe from any of the
>following email lists using *Internet Explorer* since the announcement of
>the 7 new Email Lists this past weekend, your request was not properly
>received and you should resubmit the request using the Netscape
>Browser, or wait until a solution for the problem with Internet Explorer
>is completed. The Lists affected by the Internet Explorer issue are:
>
> RVCanada-List
> RVEurope-List
> Sailplane-List
> Seaplane-List
> Skymaster-List
> SmithMini-List
> Sonerai-List
> Tailwind-List
> Ultralight-List
> Warbird-List
> Yak-List
> Zenith-List
>
>
>Please note that the Netscape Browser *IS NOT* affected by this problem
>and all lists can be subscribed to and unsubscribed from without a
>problem.
>
>I will post a message to the Lists when I have come up with a solution
>to this problem.
>
>Sorry for the inconvenience,
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics Email List Admin.
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"Re: RV-List: O-360 A4M" (Feb 21, 5:22pm)
Listers,
Here are the only differences between the A1A that Van's sells and the A4M:
* A4M has a stiffer crankshaft
* A4M Uses Slick 4051 and 4050 Mags instead of the Bendix
S4LN-21 and S4LN0-204.
* A4M has special length bushings in prop flange
* A4M has no provision for controllable prop
* A4M dry weight: 261 lbs
The A4M does in fact trace its roots from the A1A. The A4M's were used
on the Cherokee 180 among others.
For lots of good information on the roots of various engines, have a
look at the following PDF file from the FAA web site. I printed out a
copy and tacked it to the wall.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/edc23c1f1925ea3d852567620053a3c5/cf23de5a6b11e1968525670e00515ef6/$FILE/e-286.pdf
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
RV-4 N442RV #1763
Instrument Panel 'n Stuff
>--------------
>>Listers:
>>
>>I am on the road and don't have chapter 11 of the builders manual with me.
>>
>>Does the O360-A4M trace back to the A1A. I need to know if it will fit the
>>8A and Van's said to trace it back. They thought it had rear injection and
>>would not fit without modification???????
>>
>>Thanks !
>>
>>Len
>>RV-8A, fuselage
>>North Carolina (traveling in Denver)
>
>Len,
>
>To the best of my knowledge, my engine is now basically an A4M. It was
>originally an O-360A4J, which does have an aft mounted carb which will NOT
>fit an RV. Central Air Parts mounted a standard updraft carb mount sump on
>it, along with a Marvel MA4-5 carb and it is a perfect fit for an RV8. I
>have no experience with the -8A, so I cannot guarantee it will fit with the
>nose gear up there, but I think you should be OK with this engine. The FAB
>airbox and cowling inlet all mate up just fine on my -8, so there is no
>reason to believe it would not work in the -8A. The Lycoming web sight has
>the full chart of engine configurations somewhere on it which might clarify
>the setup for you.
>
>Best of luck!
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Rotax 912 for sale |
Hi Listers;
I have decided to upgrade to the 100 hp 912S and that leaves me with a
used 912 for sale. Excellent condition. Price $US 5000.00.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com> |
list-aerobatic ,
list-aviation ,
list-avionics ,
list-beech ,
list-cessna ,
list-engines ,
list-ez ,
list-glasair ,
list-homebuilt ,
list-lancair ,
list-piper ,
list-rocket ,
list-rvcanada ,
list-seaplane ,
list-tailwind ,
list-warbird ,
list-yak ,
list-zenith
Subject: | New Gretz Aero website! |
Greetings to all,
I am glad to announce that my new webpage is up and running. If you
would like to see the aircraft products I offer, and the information I
provide on options for equipment installed on aircraft, you may want to
check out my website. Be sure to bookmark this site as it will continue
to grow.
The webpage address is:
http://www.gretzaero.com
I hope you find it interesting.
Warren Gretz
Gretz Aero
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com> |
Subject: | FW: Deisel engines |
I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation
diesels. My experience flying overseas only made me want a diesel even more.
But year after year I've been disappointed by missed deadlines and new
promises that have yet to become reality. As homebuilders we can do
something! If someone out there has a Peitenpol, or other airframe designed
to operate with a heavy, low-power engine, we could put a Golf or Isuzu 4
cyl diesel engine on it. With a cogbelt PSRU and wooden prop, firewall
forward would probably weigh 500 lbs (230 kg) and produce 40 to 80 hp. Not a
screamer, to be sure, but it would certainly make a statement at Oshkosh,
and earn the project mention in the press. No matter how dismal the
real-life performance specs, they would be far better than the "probable"
specs published by Zoche, Continental, Deltahawk, etc, because their engines
have yet to fly.
Jeff Green, stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com
CH-801 just started
Chattanooga, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net> |
Desperation forces sale! I guess I'm going to have to sell off parts of my
MKIII. Here goes:
BRS-5 900 Repacked 4/97. Never out of it's shipping box except to
inspect. Looks absolutely brand new! With mounting hardware for a MKIII. New
is $2495.00 Will sell for$1900 or B.O.
Rotax 582, C box with 3.47:1 gears. Clutch, intake silencer, Rotax electric
start, Exhaust with black Jet Hot Coating, Side mount exhaust kit,
Warp Drive 3 blade prop with extended nickel leading edge, just overhauled
by Warp Drive. Dual radiator system with mounts.
This is the engine I built to put on my personal MKIII ( I'm an Authorized
Rotax Repair Station ). The engine case, cylinders, head and gearbox have
been acid etched, alodined and then painted black. It has a new crankshaft,
rotary valve shaft, pistons, rings, pins and bearings. New seals, carb boots
and new intake silencer. The electric starter is rebuilt and all the o'rings
replaced. The carbs have been acid etched and clear alodined ( no more
corrosion ) worn parts replaced and jetted for the intake silencer. The
gearbox has been inspected and all the seals replaced. The clutch has about
100 hrs. This engine is better than new.
Rotax 582, 'C' box (3.47:1), with Rotax electric start --- $5508.00
Intake Silencer w/mounts ---
167.00
Jet Hot
--- 162.00 (entire exhaust new in May of 97, only used 1
season since )
Side exhaust
--- 150.00
Clutch
--- 470.00
Dual Radiator system w/mounts ---
600.00
Warp Drive prop with nickel LE ---
595.00
--------------
Total $7652.00 ( Adds up quick don't it ? )
Everything is new or in excellent condition except for one of the radiators
which has been repaired.
SAVE over $2000.00 and get all of this for $5500.00!!!!!
Also have a good assortment of Rotax engine tools. Just give me a part # and
if I have one it's yours for 30% off of new !
Call me @ (337) 367-8725 or e-mail at quick503(at)aisp.net
Thanks, Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Artdog1512(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 3/6/00 2:55:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<<
I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation
diesels. My experience flying overseas only made me want a diesel even more.
>>
well brother, let me put my 2.8 cents into this. i be a truck driver
(tractor trailer) which is obviously powered by a diesel. yes, the engines
dang near last forever and compared to gas engines put out gobs of torque
relative to rpm. as far as rpm, you can't spin a propeller fast and you can't
spin a diesel fast. it seems that would be a good match since you most likely
wouldn't need a gear reduction. however, no one has figured out how to make a
diesel light enough for aircraft use. there are a few companies, which you
mentioned, that have made diesels for aircraft use, with mixed results. i
feel that they'll (diesels) have to be as light as gasoline engines to be
practical for aircraft use or you're just wasting your time. ............
tim
how did i arrive at 2.8 cents? my 2 cents worth adjusted for inflation
....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mollard, Norman" <nwm(at)lubrizol.com> |
Not sure where you have looked yet. But have you seen the Deltahawk web
site? Aviation diesel in development. I am signed up for one myself. To
much advantage over a Lyc to be overlooked
-----Original Message-----
From: Artdog1512%aol.com(at)interlockp.lubrizol.com
[SMTP:Artdog1512%aol.com(at)interlockp.lubrizol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 9:02 AM
To: engines-list%matronics.com(at)interlockp.lubrizol.com
Subject: Engines-List: diesels ...
In a message dated 3/6/00 2:55:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about
aviation
diesels. My experience flying overseas only made me want a diesel
even more.
>>
well brother, let me put my 2.8 cents into this. i be a truck
driver
(tractor trailer) which is obviously powered by a diesel. yes, the
engines
dang near last forever and compared to gas engines put out gobs of
torque
relative to rpm. as far as rpm, you can't spin a propeller fast and
you can't
spin a diesel fast. it seems that would be a good match since you
most likely
wouldn't need a gear reduction. however, no one has figured out how
to make a
diesel light enough for aircraft use. there are a few companies,
which you
mentioned, that have made diesels for aircraft use, with mixed
results. i
feel that they'll (diesels) have to be as light as gasoline engines
to be
practical for aircraft use or you're just wasting your time.
............
tim
how did i arrive at 2.8 cents? my 2 cents worth adjusted for
inflation
....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com> |
I looked at my manifold pressure gage the other day and noticed a small
puddle of oil in the bottom. I asked an IA and he said that he has seen
it before, only on the 2 1/4 instruments, but didn't know what caused it.
Anybody have any ideas??
Bruce Green
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Subject: | Re: Deisel engines |
Jeff Green a crit :
> I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation
> diesels.
Hi all.
I'm new to the list.
You can't be more excited than we are in Europe because of the taxes
higher on Avgas than on diesel. There is a prototype flying since some
months with a Isuzu 1.5D (from an Opel Corsa).
This plane won a challenge of the highest miles per gallon on a 164nm
triangular trip:
Payload (lbs) 397
Fuel used (liter) 13
Time 1:52
Average speed (kt) 88
Span : 30.6 ft
Length : 19.7 ft
Empty weight : 784 lbs
Gross weight : 1180 lbs
Max speed : 119 kt
VNE : 130 kt
Vs0 : 43 kt
Vs1 : 41 kt
Tank : 80 liters
Fuselage : wood + composite, wing : wood + dacron
Engine : 1500cc, 67hp @4600rpm, 63hp@3600rpm, weight : 220 lbs
(the 1700cc is identical, same weight, except the bore).
Reductor : 48:80 with carbon-kevlar cogbelt.
Prop : diam 69"
More info (in french) and pictures on request (several Mb).
Claude Plathey
Gnolhac
France
CH701-912 25 hours hobbs
Now rebuilding a 1949 czech Sokol w/Walter Minor.
PS : Would like to know if there is a Pietenpol flying with
a car engine else than the Ford or the Corvair.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Deisel engines |
>There is a prototype flying since some
> months with a Isuzu 1.5D (from an Opel Corsa).
I'm amazed! I thought that my idea was original! If my calculations are
correct, fuel flow for the course was 1.8 gal/ hour. How does that compare
with a Rotax of similar power?
Also, you said that the engine weighs 220 lbs. I would have expected it to
weigh closer to 220 kgs!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: OIl in MP Gage |
Hi Bruce;
Yes, "oil" will collect in the guage if you do not have a "T" trap in the
lowest part of the tube connecting it to the manifold. The trap should be
checked at preflight and drained as required. If there is no trap the"oil"
will fill up the guage but it wont stop it from working for some time. The
problem is to get the oil back out of the guage. Fun stuff.
Regards
Mike
b green wrote:
>
> I looked at my manifold pressure gage the other day and noticed a small
> puddle of oil in the bottom. I asked an IA and he said that he has seen
> it before, only on the 2 1/4 instruments, but didn't know what caused it.
> Anybody have any ideas??
>
> Bruce Green
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Guenther" <guenther(at)loeff.de> |
Subject: | Re: Deisel engines |
for pictures of the Opel diesel conversion see my report from the French
Experimental fly in
http://irlgmbh.com/homebuilt/INDEX.HTM
loef
> >There is a prototype flying since some
> > months with a Isuzu 1.5D (from an Opel Corsa).
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 03/06/00 |
I'm not positive about this 'cause' for the oil in tour MP gauge, but here's
a possibility:
1. Your engine is fairly high time, thus some wear in the valve guides
and/or cylinders.
2. Uses 'just a bit' of oil.
3. When the engine is shut down hot, there is oil vapor in the air that is
trapped in the cylinder, the valve train area, and the
crankcase.
4. That oil saturated air has been distributed everywhere in the system,
including the small line that goes to the manifold pressure gauge.
5. When everything cools down, the oil condenses and what is in the gauge
settles to the bottom.
6. After a while, there is enough to be noticed.
Why only on the small gauges? Actually it could happen on any of them, but
since the smaller gauge has less volume, it shows up sooner.
The suggestion of a trap 'tee' sounds plausable, and would support my theory.
If your engine is a Lycoming, have your mechanic do the service bulletin on
valve guide play. Also do a comparison hot/cold compression check, with a
compression gauge like you used to do on your car. Then do a standard
differential pressure check. After looking at these figures, you should be
able to pretty much determine the health of your engine. Who knows, maybe
your manifold pressure gauge is trying to tell you something.
Ed Woerle
A&P/IA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Artdog1512(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 03/07/00 |
In a message dated 3/11/00 3:54:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<<
for pictures of the Opel diesel conversion see my report from the French
Experimental fly in
http://irlgmbh.com/homebuilt/INDEX.HTM
loef >>
great pictures Guenther. i impressed they made a diesel work. i always
assumed a diesel would be too heavy for use in a small aircraft. ..... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Scheibinger" <joe(at)thesurf.com> |
Subject: | Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:03:26 -0600 |
Please remove me from the Pietenpole list digest
Joe Scheibinger
N. 9126 Lakeshore Drive
Van Dyne, WI 54979
joe(at)thesurf.com / 920-929-9598
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kathryn & Jed Bichsel <jkbichsel(at)juno.com> |
Remove Please.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net> |
Can anyone give me a URL for belt reduction drives.
Suppliers of parts, how to make your own, sellers of complete kits etc -
infact anything about belt drives.
I want to use a BMW motorbike engine in the UK microlight class and the
conversion plans call for a Rotac "C" type box which is difficult and
expensive to buy.
Thanks.
Paul Humphries,
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffs.,
UK.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
Here's one I had in my bookmarks.
http://www.mts.net/~davejohn/index.html
Tim Shankland
Paul Humphries wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me a URL for belt reduction drives.
> Suppliers of parts, how to make your own, sellers of complete kits etc -
> infact anything about belt drives.
> I want to use a BMW motorbike engine in the UK microlight class and the
> conversion plans call for a Rotac "C" type box which is difficult and
> expensive to buy.
> Thanks.
>
> Paul Humphries,
> Stoke-on-Trent,
> Staffs.,
> UK.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Paul,
Try this address:
http://www.raven-rotor.com
Ask for a gentleman named Jeron, he makes a belt drives for 60 - 120 hp Suzuki
4 strokes. nice guy, very helpful. ...Richard Swiderski
Paul Humphries wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me a URL for belt reduction drives.
> Suppliers of parts, how to make your own, sellers of complete kits etc -
> infact anything about belt drives.
> I want to use a BMW motorbike engine in the UK microlight class and the
> conversion plans call for a Rotac "C" type box which is difficult and
> expensive to buy.
> Thanks.
>
> Paul Humphries,
> Stoke-on-Trent,
> Staffs.,
> UK.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | michael lambert <mrl23(at)lamere.net> |
Subject: | the right engine for 701 |
I am interested in talking to anybody that flies a Zenith CH-701 with an auto conversion
power plant and is happy with the performance. The Rotax engines are
too expensive !!
I need an alternative. Thanks.
Ch 701 ; both wings complete, workin' on flaperons.
Michael Lambert
Saco, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JOEL CARROLL <drcarroll_2000(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
mike ,doug pahnke and i are building a zodiac like you
asked about. save his email ldpahnke(at)netwitz.net, and
azlso try the zodiac website. jkc
--- michael lambert wrote:
>
>
>
> I am interested in talking to anybody that flies a
> Zenith CH-701 with an auto conversion power plant
> and is happy with the performance. The Rotax engines
> are too expensive !!
> I need an alternative. Thanks.
>
> Ch 701 ; both wings complete, workin' on flaperons.
>
> Michael Lambert
> Saco, Maine
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | VP4SkyDoc(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
In a message dated 3/21/2000 8:34:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
drcarroll_2000(at)yahoo.com writes:
> mike ,doug pahnke and i are building a zodiac like you
> asked about. save his email ldpahnke(at)netwitz.net, and
> azlso try the zodiac website. jkc
>
Mike, there are at leat 2 zodiacs running on Mazda 13B's Here is a copy of
an e-mail I just sent to the RV-list... It was a little bit of a ramble,
point is, check out the Mazda...
>
> uh...I really hate to ask stupid questions, but since I know next to
nothing
> about Lycosaurs every question I ask will be stupid. What is the
difference
> between an overhauled engine and a zero timed engine? I know brand new
> would be zero time, but the O-320 in question has 2200TT so, I'm assuming
it
> can't be new. :) I'm confused, and I hate that so someone please
> enlighten me. I thought I understood that a rebuild is top end, and a
major
> overhaul includes the bottom end. Now you throw in this zero timed
> description and I'm completely lost again. :) Oh well, long time to go
> before I buy one of these rediculously overpriced, overaged, out of date
> dinosaurs....so I guess I don't really need to know yet.
>
> HS-403, 409 ready for prime.....HS-411 finished and waiting. HS-410 cut to
> shape and deburred.....not bad for my first evening after work? I'm
having
> a blast.
>
> Bill
Bill,
The really short answer is that only the factory can zero-time an engine -
working some special magic that the A&P's on the list can describe. I think
it has to do with the crank shaft being replaced and most major parts being
replaced, and most tolerances set to a higher standard - my impression is
that not much will be left of the original engine.
I notice your disrespect of the Lycosaurs demigod :-) Good for you, but
please dont be too hard on them or they will raise prices again... ahh, go
ahead, prices are going up anyway.
Have you considered an alternative? I spent about 3 months researching the
possibilities and came to the expected conclusions: 1) most reasonable
alternatives can be made to work with enough time and effort (as evidenced by
the fact that many are indeed working). 2) It seems that the extra effort and
weight penalty and questionable (by some) reliability make them not really
worth while.
That is, until I found what I believe to be the exception. The Mazda 13B
Rotary. This engine is running in no less than 5 RV's and many more are
being planned. I am installing this engine and here is the skinny on what I
feel is very reasonable estimate of what I am facing (now, after 6 months of
research). 1) Power will be equal to or greater than an O-360. 2)
Installed weight will be about the same as the 360, 3) It will take me an
extra 2-4mos. to do the instillation 4) Fuel burn will be about the same (or
possibly slightly better than) on O-360 run at similar power setting, 4)
Because of the really experimental nature, the first 40 hrs are probably more
likely to be associated with power plant failure - this is because of fuel,
air, or spark problems in an original setup, NOT because of engine failure.
5) TBO will easily match real world experience with the Lycosaurs, and most
likely far exceed Lyc TBO times. 6) Rebuilds will be measure in hundreds of
dollars, not thousands. 7) instillation of an essentially zero-time engine,
dual redundant electronic ignition and fuel injection and PSRU will cost
under $10k. 8) You could also spend as little as $4k and it will take a
little longer or you could spend $20k and get an engine that was 210hp,
lighter than an O-360 and ready to install. 8) Maintenance costs will then
be a mere fraction of Lycos costs. and here is the kicker 9) IMHO, a tested
Rotary will be far more reliable and trouble free than a Lyc!
"Pishaw!", say many on the list. But I am sure that there is no one who know
a lot about the rotary and says that! Consider these points: The rotary
has no valves to burn, no rods, no cams, no lifters all of which create a lot
of drag. The E-shaft in the rotary (analogous to the crank) is bombproof!!!
It never breaks or twists out. Drag racers tweak the 13B up to 900hp and use
stock e-shafts without problem! While the e-shaft will be going at a brisk
5000-7000 rpm in most aircraft applications, the rotors are only turning 1/3
that speed, and have less acceleration forces than the pistons in the lyc!!
The early(1970/ early 80's) problems that the rotary had with apex seal
problems have been largely fixed thanks to a new material and aircraft oiling
practice. Its true that the specific fuel burn will never be quite as good
in the rotary as in the best pistons - but the 13B can still beat the Lyc in
specific fuel burn.
Anyway, thanks for getting me started. If I have at all peaked your
interest, I urge you to do just a little research on your own. I started
(thanks to the recommendations of someone on this list) with a subscription
and back issues of Contact! magazine. This is a story of the trial and
tribulations of many different auto conversions. If you want to jump right
into researching the rotary, I recommend the conversion book by Tracy Crook,
who put 900 hrs on his RV-4 powered by a junkyard 13B. When he tore the
engine down to inspect - it was still pristine. A training gyrocoptor has
2700 hrs of hard duty on a junkyard 13B that was rebuilt once at 1000 hrs
(for a few hundred bucks).
Tracy has become so enthraled with the 13B (like I have - it is the same
feeling as the feeling I got when I finally realized that it was absolutely
the right decision to build an RV) that he has developed several excellent
products to make the instillation easier. See his website at:
www.rotaryaviation.com
Powersport as making a firewall forward package for the RV's. David Atkins
makes engines and accesories and flys a 13B powered RV-6. There are a couple
of e-mail lists about the rotary similar to this RV list. And I maintain a
roster of 90+ people who are installing a rotary in their aircraft (and there
are many more, especially the already flying ones, who are not on my roster).
My website has links to the other sites I mention.
http://members.aol.com/RotaryRoster/index.html
Now its time for bed...
Dave Leonard
RV-6 QB, N4VY (reserved)
Fuselage
Mazda 13B
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com> |
Subject: | the right engine for 701 |
Anyone considering alternative powerplants should have already perused
Gregory Travis' web site. You haven't? Well, at least take the time to read
his excellent article at
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/article2.html. You may realize
the folly of the following statement made in reference to Lycomings and
Continentals: "...before I buy one of these rediculously overpriced,
overaged, out of date dinosaurs..." Don't worry, Bill. We woun't hold that
tirade against you. We're all part of this list because we want to learn.
Concerning the Mazda 13B rotary engine--at this point, it is the only
alternative engine (automotive conversion) that I would even consider for my
CH-801. I agree that the E-shaft is bombproof, the simplicity of the design
and the good power to weight ratio is intriging. But having read Contact! I
also realize that a whole lot of engineering, testing, and trial and error
goes into developing an installation that is properly cooled, and that gives
the reliable service that one would be crazy not to demand. I don't pretend
to have the knowledge or experience to accomplish that. Besides my own
demands for performance and reliability, the issue of servicability and
resale value also cause me to tend toward the "Lycosaur."
All the best to you as you search for the right engine for your project.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
Jeff;
I build racing engines for a living.
Auto and Aircraft.
The greater limiting factors in hp improvements to
aircraft engines are the fuel system, Induction system
and Ignition, but foremost is the cylinder head designs.
Remember these were designed 60-70 years ago,
and have improved very little in that time.
In some cases, installing smaller diameter valves will
improve hp. We have proven it on the dyno.
I personally believe in the rotary. How about an easy
160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. engine?
Check out rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com> |
Subject: | Rotary vs. LyCon |
Archie, thanks for your reply.
I don't discount anything you say. For sure, the Ly-Cons are old designs,
and there's a lot of room for improvement. But even so, performance is not
too shabby according to Travis
(http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/article2.html). Can you prove
his figures wrong? If so, show us how so we can all be better informed.
How about an easy 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. [rotary] engine? How
long will it last? Is that TBO theoretical or emperical? Based on what I've
seen of other rotary engine installations, your easy 160hp FWF will weigh
close to the same as an O360 FWF, and since I don't have your expertise to
build it myself, you'll charge me about the same as I'd pay for the
overhauled Lycoming.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 9:17 PM
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: the right engine for 701
>
>
> Jeff;
> I build racing engines for a living.
> Auto and Aircraft.
> The greater limiting factors in hp improvements to
> aircraft engines are the fuel system, Induction system
> and Ignition, but foremost is the cylinder head designs.
> Remember these were designed 60-70 years ago,
> and have improved very little in that time.
> In some cases, installing smaller diameter valves will
> improve hp. We have proven it on the dyno.
> I personally believe in the rotary. How about an easy
> 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. engine?
> Check out rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net
> Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | VP4SkyDoc(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Rotary vs. LyCon |
In a message dated 3/22/2000 7:15:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com writes:
> How about an easy 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. [rotary] engine? How
> long will it last? Is that TBO theoretical or emperical? Based on what I've
> seen of other rotary engine installations, your easy 160hp FWF will weigh
> close to the same as an O360 FWF, and since I don't have your expertise to
> build it myself, you'll charge me about the same as I'd pay for the
> overhauled Lycoming.
>
Well, now we are into a matter of semantics. What do we mean by easy and
unmodified? Any engine that was built for one application will have to be
changed to some extent... but that is not necessarily bad. I'll make
comparisons to installing a rebuilt Lyc. To put in a Mazda in an RV, you
could expect to do the following: 1) find and buy a used engine Time -
availability is comparable but Mazda=$400-$800 You fill in $$$ for the Lyc.
2) Have the engine torn down and inspected and rebuilt. Mazda $3000 for
mostly new parts. Lyc = $$$$$ Like with the Lyc, some will feel comfortable
doing this themselves. There is a great video available for the Rotary
showing this process (as I'm sure there is for the Lyc too).
We are the same so far except for cost. Has it been easy? Now here are the
extra things you must do for the Mazda conversion, all detailed in Tracy
Crooks conversion manual...
1) Disable the stock oil injection - a simple process that takes about an
hour as part of the rebuild (either by you or someone else).
2) Older engines will require an easy mod to one of the coolant gaskets.
3) Now, to give yourself 10-20 extra HP, you could have the intake ported
for several hundred $, but we are still way under what you have spent for the
overhauled Lyc and it hasn't been any more difficult at all. How does this
affect reliability? Well, ported cars putting out 350 hp with no oil
injection mod are known to blow apex seals. However, at less than 230 hp in
the aircraft with the oil mod it is a non factor IMHO, but no one can say for
sure.
4) You will have to modify or rebuild your engine mount (yup, this is a big
pain). However, one builder just installed an engine using an adapter that
fit directly on the stock dynafocal. I am hoping that the machinist who made
it will make some more of these sub-mounts.
5) You will have to supply fuel, spark and air. Tracy Crook makes an engine
controller which supplies electronic ignition based on the stock crank angle
sensor. It also provides cockpit adjustable electronic fuel injection.
There are two completely independent computers which can each run the two
injectors and two spark plugs in each combustion chamber. There is also a
third limp home mode. The whole system costs under a $1000. There will soon
also be a monitor showing Fuel flow (solving the EFI fuel flow problem) Total
fuel, MPG, RPM, and MAP. Try finding that for a Lyc!!! Supplying air is a
little tougher. Tracy supplies instructions on making an intake from stock
parts, and a couple of vendors are supplying bolt on manifolds.
6) Exhaust needs to be made custom (so far), a couple of suppliers do this
for RV's as well.
7) Cooling is a hassle. This is where time and weight will be gained or
lost. I haven't heard of anyone who never got it to work. But at least you
wont have to do any baffling. You also get the advantages of liquid cooling
(no shock cooling, less cooling drag possible) and disadvantage (another
system to fail) and still stay at the weight/CG of the designed engine.
So, what's the bottom line? IMHO An easily modified uncareful instillation
will produce about 160 hp. Now be careful with the instillation, tune the
intake and exhaust, add a pressure phlem, and maybe some street porting and
get up to 210 hp. The instillation will weigh a little more or less than the
Lycs (remember, the 320 and 360 are only about 10# apart). There should be
plenty of space in the cowl of an RV6 or 8 to add turbocharging and get
around 250 hp. (the stock turbo in the car is rated at 285hp.)
Yup, it takes a little extra effort and time, but in the end you will spend
less for a considerably better product. Some guys have gone to a lot more
effort than this to install a 200 hp IO-360 in their RV-6(A). Is it worth
it? Is it worth it to build an RV instead of buying that Katanya, or Cirrus,
or Cessna? I think so. Just like building the RV, it doesn't take an
engineering degree or engine expertise (I have never done more than change my
oil), just a little extra love.. :-)
Someone asked about justification for 2000+ TBO. Theoretical? Yes. But not
like someone calculated it out on a CAD machine. One engine in a gyro is at
1700 SMOH and going strong. Tracy Crook ran his first engine for almost 900
hrs and had essentially no measurable wear, let alone reduction in hp,
compression or increase in EGT's. He also burned no measurable oil between
oil changes (every 50 hrs). Ever heard of a Lyc that did that? A few other
engines are in the 500 hr range (and counting) with similar results. The oil
injection mod is critical. If anyone owns an RX-7 that you want to keep
around for 3-4 hundred thousand miles, consider making this mod in your car.
Someone else mentioned resale value. Good point. Personally, I would much
rather have a proven rotary installation over a Lyc any day. But I am the
minority and will be for quite some time. My RV is a life long
project/investment. I don't plan to sell for several reasons (liability,
loss of my baby, never want to be this consumed with a hobby again etc..)
But if you think there is a good possibility you will someday sell, looks
like you are stuck with a Lycosaur.
Now, the ramblings you have just heard are those of a bookworm who is really
just beginning his project (gads). Please don't take my word for any of
this. I have found my engine research and tinkering to be as rewarding as
working on my RV. (talk to me again in a couple years ;-). The research
really isn't that hard. The only reason that I did it was because I was off
in Japan for six months with nothing else to do. But now I have seen the
light and it goes hmmmmmmmmm instead of boing boing boing.
Dave Leonard
Rotary RV-6 N4VY
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com> |
Subject: | Rotary vs. LyCon |
Again lots of great facts, Dave. I've read them all myself, and that's why
as I said earlier, the only conversion I would even consider is the Rotary.
Talk to me again when you've actually started working on the installation,
once you've gained some experience beyond changing oil! Tracy Crook has had
good success with his engine, but he has spent more time just on his web
site then I have in my CH-801 to date! And his engine hasn't gone beyond 900
hours. So best of luck with your project. If you're successful, maybe I can
borrow what you've learned and save myself a few hundred hours of
development time!
Jeff Green
CH-801 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Rotary vs. LyCon |
You hit the nail on the head, Dave
additionally:
More efficient cooling will come with time.
(thanks to homebuilders)
I am really "turned off" by those that are concerned
with resale, this is becoming less of an issue as
more of our "experimental" aircraft hit the skies
and show what REALLY can be done.
And, as you indicated, it is not of concern to
REAL homebuilders.
The clock is ticking for all of us.
Let's just enjoy it while we can, rather than
suffer the "scrooge" syndrome.
Archie
> Well, now we are into a matter of semantics. What do we mean by easy and
> unmodified? Any engine that was built for one application will have to be
> changed to some extent... but that is not necessarily bad. I'll make
> comparisons to installing a rebuilt Lyc. To put in a Mazda in an RV, you
> could expect to do the following: 1) find and buy a used engine Time -
> availability is comparable but Mazda=$400-$800 You fill in $$$ for the
Lyc.
> 2) Have the engine torn down and inspected and rebuilt. Mazda $3000 for
> mostly new parts. Lyc = $$$$$ Like with the Lyc, some will feel
comfortable
> doing this themselves. There is a great video available for the Rotary
> showing this process (as I'm sure there is for the Lyc too).
>
> We are the same so far except for cost. Has it been easy? Now here are
the
> extra things you must do for the Mazda conversion, all detailed in Tracy
> Crooks conversion manual...
> 1) Disable the stock oil injection - a simple process that takes about an
> hour as part of the rebuild (either by you or someone else).
>
> 2) Older engines will require an easy mod to one of the coolant gaskets.
>
> 3) Now, to give yourself 10-20 extra HP, you could have the intake ported
> for several hundred $, but we are still way under what you have spent for
the
> overhauled Lyc and it hasn't been any more difficult at all. How does
this
> affect reliability? Well, ported cars putting out 350 hp with no oil
> injection mod are known to blow apex seals. However, at less than 230 hp
in
> the aircraft with the oil mod it is a non factor IMHO, but no one can say
for
> sure.
>
> 4) You will have to modify or rebuild your engine mount (yup, this is a
big
> pain). However, one builder just installed an engine using an adapter
that
> fit directly on the stock dynafocal. I am hoping that the machinist who
made
> it will make some more of these sub-mounts.
>
> 5) You will have to supply fuel, spark and air. Tracy Crook makes an
engine
> controller which supplies electronic ignition based on the stock crank
angle
> sensor. It also provides cockpit adjustable electronic fuel injection.
> There are two completely independent computers which can each run the two
> injectors and two spark plugs in each combustion chamber. There is also a
> third limp home mode. The whole system costs under a $1000. There will
soon
> also be a monitor showing Fuel flow (solving the EFI fuel flow problem)
Total
> fuel, MPG, RPM, and MAP. Try finding that for a Lyc!!! Supplying air
is a
> little tougher. Tracy supplies instructions on making an intake from
stock
> parts, and a couple of vendors are supplying bolt on manifolds.
>
> 6) Exhaust needs to be made custom (so far), a couple of suppliers do
this
> for RV's as well.
>
> 7) Cooling is a hassle. This is where time and weight will be gained or
> lost. I haven't heard of anyone who never got it to work. But at least
you
> wont have to do any baffling. You also get the advantages of liquid
cooling
> (no shock cooling, less cooling drag possible) and disadvantage (another
> system to fail) and still stay at the weight/CG of the designed engine.
>
> So, what's the bottom line? IMHO An easily modified uncareful
instillation
> will produce about 160 hp. Now be careful with the instillation, tune the
> intake and exhaust, add a pressure phlem, and maybe some street porting
and
> get up to 210 hp. The instillation will weigh a little more or less than
the
> Lycs (remember, the 320 and 360 are only about 10# apart). There should
be
> plenty of space in the cowl of an RV6 or 8 to add turbocharging and get
> around 250 hp. (the stock turbo in the car is rated at 285hp.)
>
> Yup, it takes a little extra effort and time, but in the end you will
spend
> less for a considerably better product. Some guys have gone to a lot more
> effort than this to install a 200 hp IO-360 in their RV-6(A). Is it worth
> it? Is it worth it to build an RV instead of buying that Katanya, or
Cirrus,
> or Cessna? I think so. Just like building the RV, it doesn't take an
> engineering degree or engine expertise (I have never done more than change
my
> oil), just a little extra love.. :-)
>
> Someone asked about justification for 2000+ TBO. Theoretical? Yes. But
not
> like someone calculated it out on a CAD machine. One engine in a gyro is
at
> 1700 SMOH and going strong. Tracy Crook ran his first engine for almost
900
> hrs and had essentially no measurable wear, let alone reduction in hp,
> compression or increase in EGT's. He also burned no measurable oil
between
> oil changes (every 50 hrs). Ever heard of a Lyc that did that? A few
other
> engines are in the 500 hr range (and counting) with similar results. The
oil
> injection mod is critical. If anyone owns an RX-7 that you want to keep
> around for 3-4 hundred thousand miles, consider making this mod in your
car.
>
> Someone else mentioned resale value. Good point. Personally, I would
much
> rather have a proven rotary installation over a Lyc any day. But I am the
> minority and will be for quite some time. My RV is a life long
> project/investment. I don't plan to sell for several reasons (liability,
> loss of my baby, never want to be this consumed with a hobby again etc..)
> But if you think there is a good possibility you will someday sell, looks
> like you are stuck with a Lycosaur.
>
> Now, the ramblings you have just heard are those of a bookworm who is
really
> just beginning his project (gads). Please don't take my word for any of
> this. I have found my engine research and tinkering to be as rewarding as
> working on my RV. (talk to me again in a couple years ;-). The research
> really isn't that hard. The only reason that I did it was because I was
off
> in Japan for six months with nothing else to do. But now I have seen the
> light and it goes hmmmmmmmmm instead of boing boing boing.
>
> Dave Leonard
> Rotary RV-6 N4VY
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Hi.
I'm looking for the technical documentation of the 105hp Walter Minor 4-III
engine.
Is there anything common between Gipsy Minor and Walter Minor?
Thanks
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | NOTICE: Matronics Web Server Back Online... |
Dear Email Listers,
The Matronics Web and FTP server is finally back online! What a
nightmare... But at least its finally done and in all honesty the
system is running much better. Everything should be working now
including the Search Engine, Archive Browser, various List-related
pages, Matronics Product Pages, Online Ordering, Real Video server
and Contribution pages.
Again, I'm sorry it took so long to get things back - way longer than I
ever intended.
Have fun!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | PLEASE READ: Network Problems To Matronics... |
Dear Listers,
My ISP is upgrading their network today 4/30 and tomorrow 5/1. I
noticed that Nameservice (DNS) went down last night around 3am which
causes all sorts of problems. If your message post was rejected between
about 3am 4/30 and 1pm 4/30, please repost as it was rejected do to the
DNS being down. I've redirected my systems to a different DNS server in
the mean time and things seem to be working right now. In any case, be
aware that there may be continuing issues over the next couple of days
both posting email messages and accessing the web server.
My ISP *promises* that things are going to be so much better after the
upgrade! We'll see... ;-)
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/10/00 |
I finally did it! I ran out of room for my 'toys' and projects. To make
room for my rapidly expanding collection of AirBike and Sky Scout parts (to
say nothing of a bit of extra money to spend on them), I have to get rid of
my O200 project engine. It was on my '66 150 until two years ago, when I was
able to buy a low-timer off a wreck. I had plans to rebuild this engine and
sell it, but you know how projects go. Anyway, it is an O200-A, pull start,
with 2200 SCMOH. One cylinder has less than 40 hours on it, and the engine
was running strong when I pulled it. Comes with Slick mags, carb, starter,
generator, and vacuum pump.
This isn't some dusty 'anchor' sitting in the corner of the shop. I've kept
it covered and is clean, as when removed.
Oh, yeah...I'm asking $4200 OBO, and I think I have enough wood laying around
to build a shipping box for it. Of course shipping will be borne by buyer.
E-mail me at Ed0248(at)aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Johnny Johnson" <bbds(at)wiktel.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/10/00 |
Where are you located?
Johnny Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ed0248(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:07 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/10/00
>
> I finally did it! I ran out of room for my 'toys' and projects. To make
> room for my rapidly expanding collection of AirBike and Sky Scout parts
(to
> say nothing of a bit of extra money to spend on them), I have to get rid
of
> my O200 project engine. It was on my '66 150 until two years ago, when I
was
> able to buy a low-timer off a wreck. I had plans to rebuild this engine
and
> sell it, but you know how projects go. Anyway, it is an O200-A, pull
start,
> with 2200 SCMOH. One cylinder has less than 40 hours on it, and the
engine
> was running strong when I pulled it. Comes with Slick mags, carb,
starter,
> generator, and vacuum pump.
>
> This isn't some dusty 'anchor' sitting in the corner of the shop. I've
kept
> it covered and is clean, as when removed.
>
> Oh, yeah...I'm asking $4200 OBO, and I think I have enough wood laying
around
> to build a shipping box for it. Of course shipping will be borne by
buyer.
>
> E-mail me at Ed0248(at)aol.com.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Phillips" <jep(at)pcgbase.com> |
Work has pulled me away from my Zenith 801 project. I've decided to buy a
plane instead of build one.
I have a Lycoming HIO-360-C1A 205HP 279 TTSN engine for sale. It came out
of a helicopter that had a training accident. The engine is at Mattituck
right now getting a complete inspection. Needless to say, it will be like
new when they're done with it.
I haven't decided on the price until I see the final bill from Mattituck,
but if you're interested let me know.
John E. Phillips
jep(at)pcgbase.com
(613)762-8878
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.sjhc.london.on.ca> |
Greetings... I'm flying a Zenair CH701 with a new (~35 hours now) Rotax
582 mod 99, a 'B' gearbox, and a 3 blade 68" Ivoprop currently set to
'neutral', which is 10 degrees of pitch. It pulls 6450 during take-off and
climb out, which is close to the 6500 max h.p. figure that Rotax
recommends. The problem I am having is that between about 5400 and 5900
rpm, it runs lean, and the EGTs will climb quickly over the suggested max
of 1200 F. At 6000, it maintains 1180 or so, which is good, but I have to
be careful not to go into the lean range. The E.I.S. system is great, and
reminds me quickly to either increase to 6000 or more, or reduce down
below 5400 or so.
The first thing I tried was to drop the needle clip (Bing carbs) down from
the 3rd notch to the 4th (second up from bottom to the bottom notch). This
richened the mixture at 3/4 to full throttle, and I no longer had an
over-ranging EGT problem. However, EGT temps were down below 1100, and
fuel 'milage' went from 16-17 liters/hour to 22-23. Essentially running
too rich.
I know that there are different tapers available for the needles. Just
wondered if any other 2-stroke pilots have run into this sort of
situation, and have suggestions as to a fix. Ideally, I would like to see
EGT temps at around 1175 in that range which is now lean, and no temps
at any rpm > 1200.
Thanks...
Regards, J.
| J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
| SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
| Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
| London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd |
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked if I had
any firearms with me. I said, "Well, what do you need?"
--- Steven Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Nick Nafsinger" <nicknaf(at)prodigy.net> |
Disposition-Notification-To: "Nick Nafsinger"
I have a 582, B box, and 62 inch Ivo..... Nearly the same set up on my
Titan Tornado. My suggestion is to spend the 2-3 hundred (for and get the
in-flight adj. Needles. You get the best of both worlds, good fuel econ,
and the ability to produce the most power at ANY altitude. I think you are
going to have a very difficult time matching the different needle tapers...
especially with the constantly changing temperature and weather. JMTC
Nick Nafsinger
nicknaf(at)prodigy.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of J. Davis
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:48 AM
Subject: Engines-List: 582 EGTs
Greetings... I'm flying a Zenair CH701 with a new (~35 hours now) Rotax
582 mod 99, a 'B' gearbox, and a 3 blade 68" Ivoprop currently set to
'neutral', which is 10 degrees of pitch. It pulls 6450 during take-off and
climb out, which is close to the 6500 max h.p. figure that Rotax
recommends. The problem I am having is that between about 5400 and 5900
rpm, it runs lean, and the EGTs will climb quickly over the suggested max
of 1200 F. At 6000, it maintains 1180 or so, which is good, but I have to
be careful not to go into the lean range. The E.I.S. system is great, and
reminds me quickly to either increase to 6000 or more, or reduce down
below 5400 or so.
The first thing I tried was to drop the needle clip (Bing carbs) down from
the 3rd notch to the 4th (second up from bottom to the bottom notch). This
richened the mixture at 3/4 to full throttle, and I no longer had an
over-ranging EGT problem. However, EGT temps were down below 1100, and
fuel 'milage' went from 16-17 liters/hour to 22-23. Essentially running
too rich.
I know that there are different tapers available for the needles. Just
wondered if any other 2-stroke pilots have run into this sort of
situation, and have suggestions as to a fix. Ideally, I would like to see
EGT temps at around 1175 in that range which is now lean, and no temps
at any rpm > 1200.
Thanks...
Regards, J.
| J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
| SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
| Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
| London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd |
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked if I had
any firearms with me. I said, "Well, what do you need?"
--- Steven Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Brian Depew" <brianrdw(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/15/00 |
remove from list please, all lists
thanks,
brian.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: O-290 & O-300 vs. O-320 |
Try rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net you might
be surprised at the power derived from
61 cu.in. from an engine that humms
like an electric motor, and is becoming
very popular.
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Room at OSH available |
Well, my on-again off-again plans for OSH are off again, at least for most
of it, so the room I had reserved will be available. This is a room with a
queen bed in a nice house with central air. The hostess, Sharon Hawkins,
provides continental breakfast. She works the EAA too so it should be
possible to catch a ride with her to and from the show when she goes. The
house is close to a bus line so you can get to/from that way too. Its
available for the whole show.
If interested, contact Sharon Hawkins, 920-232-8554.
Please email me if you get the room so I can get my deposit back.
Randall Henderson
randall(at)edt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Room at OSH taken |
Looks like the room I posted at OSH (Sharon Hawkins') has been taken
(Charlie, be sure to let me and/or the list know if anything changes.)
I will in fact be going but not until Friday or Saturday, and I'll just
camp. Look forward to seeing y'all!
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~100 hrs)
Portland, OR
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
"Matronics Engines-List"
Subject: | UL engines... 2si, Rotax |
I am looking into an Aerolite 103 kit for some fun-flying while other projects
are in progress... my question is related to quality/reliability of ultralight
engines.
The kit by default comes with a 2si F460 35HP engine... there is an option for
a 40HP 2si as well as a Rotax 447. As I understand it, the Rotax seems to have
a better reputation in the field for quality and reliability.
Assuming that all of the maintenance is done per manufacturer's instructions, overhaul
at the recommended time (both have a 500 hr TBO), etc., is there a real
difference in relibility, enough to go for the greater weight and cost of the
Rotax? Is the 2si BAD, or just not quite as good? Any opinions and first hand
experience would be helpful and greatly appreciated!
FWIW, I may be forced into the 2si for this project anyway, as weight will become
an issue (if I still want to fly this bird part 103)... I just want to become
informed on the pros and cons of both engines.
Thanks in advance for any information you folks are able to provide.
Steve
steve(at)tzogon.com
HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.sjhc.london.on.ca> |
info(at)zenithair.com
Subject: | static thrust questions |
701/582/Ivo 3-blade, still trying to resolve a poor rate-of-climb...
Two questions:
1- What should I be getting for static thrust, measured with an
inline scale, in pounds. (an archive search indicates that C. H.
says that 260 is absolute minimum for a 701)
2- What *exactly* should be the "thrust angle", i.e., the angle
between the engine's crankshaft and the plane's horizontal reference
line? This is unclear in the plans. Most, but not all, 701 engines,
especially 582s, seem to point down several degrees from horizontal.
Why is this. And why do some, esp. 912's seem to be horizontal?
Regards, J.
| J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
| SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
| Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
| London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd |
He was a multi-millionaire... Wanna know how he made all of his money?
... He designed the little diagrams that tell which way to put batteries
in...
--- Steven Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Subject: | Re: static thrust questions |
"J. Davis" a crit :
> 701/582/Ivo 3-blade, still trying to resolve a poor rate-of-climb...
> Two questions:
> 1- What should I be getting for static thrust, measured with an
> inline scale, in pounds. (an archive search indicates that C. H.
> says that 260 is absolute minimum for a 701)
Hi J.
I never could take off my 701-912 alone aboard with a Ivo
3-blade
at any pitch angle from 12 to 18 deg (only the nose wheel
took off...).
I tried also a narrow chord Arplast : same result. Then a
large chord
Arplast : at the best pitch (17 deg) it was not better than
a GSC, but
delaminated after few take-offs due to my dirt-strip.
The GSC id perfect for the 701.
Static thrust is not the good way to tune the prop : use the
static RPM
instead. Rule of thumb : static RPM = 90% of the red line.
> 2- What *exactly* should be the "thrust angle", i.e., the angle
> between the engine's crankshaft and the plane's horizontal reference
> line? This is unclear in the plans.
Should be exactly 0 deg.
Reference : the upper fuselage longeron just behind the
cabine.
It is clearly written in the construction manual.
> Most, but not all, 701 engines, especially 582s, seem to point down
> several degrees from horizontal.
> Why is this. And why do some, esp. 912's seem to be horizontal?
Because there is a bug :
On the sketch 7F15, the angle between the firewall and the
floor
is ~80deg (Heintz loves the "~" ). I made a 80.0deg angle.
Guess what: my 912 thrust line was at 4.1deg from the
horizontal ref.
Free advice : clamp the engine mount and check with the ref
before riveting or
bolting anything. A 4.1 deg pitching down prop thrust line
means :
flying level at full load, you don't see the horizon.
I don't know for the 582' but the problem should be the
same, and you
will have to insert washers (or to re-drill new brackets
like I did).
Anyway, if the thrust line has a big effect on the flying
level, it has
almost no effect on the climb rate of a 701, which climbs
decently only
when built VERY light due to the small wing area (all 701
built in France
have 1.20m more span and climb MUCH better).
Regards.
Claude
PS : You will have more info in the archives of
zenith-list(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)telus.net> |
I was looking at a photo of the GAP diesel yesterday when something struck
me that I hadn't noticed before. The intake ports are at the bottom of the
cylinders, and the exhaust ports are at the top. How does this work?
The engine is described as a two-stroke diesel. But a typical two-stroke
has the intake and exhaust ports at the bottom of the cylinder, on opposite
sides. Does the GAP engine have poppet valves only for the exhaust?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
tedd(at)telus.net
________________________________________________________________________________
September 12, 1999 - August 10, 2000
Engines-Archive.digest.vol-aa