Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:37 AM - LS1 alternative (Gary Casey)
2. 06:08 AM - Re: 350-400HP auto engine??? (Dennis O'Connor)
3. 06:08 AM - Re: LS1 alternative (Archie)
4. 09:19 AM - 350-400HP auto engine??? (flyseaplane)
5. 09:23 AM - Re: LS1 alternative (James R. Cunningham)
6. 11:04 AM - Re: LS1 alternative (Nielsenbe@aol.com)
7. 11:37 AM - Re: 350-400HP auto engine??? (Ed Anderson)
8. 01:45 PM - 350-400HP auto engine??? (Archie)
9. 02:25 PM - Re: Knock Sensors, 3rd Try (Leo J. Corbalis)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<I am just looking for options/opinions on 350-400HP auto engines. The best
deal to me so far is the GM LS1. It's all aluminum/composite, fuel injected
and
computer controlled for $7k. Is there any other options I should check
out?>>
Believe it or not, one of the guys from the GM Performance group suggested
that an aftermarket aluminum block engine might be a better choice for my
application. It could be made in a larger displacement (400 c.i.+) and has
a 5-bolt pattern for the heads, giving longer head gasket life. It also has
larger main bearing diameters for a stiffer crank. Weight and cost are
close to equivalent.
Gary Casey
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 350-400HP auto engine??? |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Brad, I am an engine lover... And I love the sound of a chevy big block (or
small) making power... But, having built a bunch of engines over my
lifetime, by the time you build an engine that will run reliably at 75% of
maximum power continuously (we are talking dirt track or marine engines
here) and then add a PSRU that will also hang in there, you have the price
of a Lycosaurus invested... Plus you have the complexity and parts count of
the water cooling and the PSRU...
So, if you believe that an auto engine is the answer to a maidens prayer,
you are not up to speed on the total cost... Go to one of the engine builder
web sites for marine racing engines, say Paul Pfaff, or Eigenfelter, or a
dozen others, and look at what a properly built engine costs... Here's a
lengthy list of url for you amusement...
http://www.performanceboatusa.com/engines_&_outdrives.htm
Gosh folks, it costs as much as a good aircraft engine of the same
horsepower! Isn't that something...
There is no free lunch and the old saw about, how fast can you afford to go,
is still valid..
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <Nielsenbe@aol.com>
Subject: Engines-List: 350-400HP auto engine???
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Nielsenbe@aol.com
>
> I am just looking for options/opinions on 350-400HP auto engines.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LS1 alternative |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> Believe it or not, one of the guys from the GM Performance group suggested
> that an aftermarket aluminum block engine might be a better choice for my
> application. It could be made in a larger displacement (400 c.i.+) and
has
> a 5-bolt pattern for the heads, giving longer head gasket life. It also
has
> larger main bearing diameters for a stiffer crank. Weight and cost are
> close to equivalent.
>
> Gary Casey
Gentlemen;
While the verdict on the "ideal" aircraft engine is still in R & D,
most of our homebuilt aircraft derive a large amount of their
performance by design.
The sheer bulk and weight of a V-8 with a reduction drive does
not lend itself very well to sleekness in a small aircraft.
This may seem contradictory from a person who has been
building racing engines for over 35 years, but for my money,
(for the time being at least), Power vs. Displacement vs. Weight,
the 2 rotor & 3 rotor Wankel would be my choice.
The new 2 rotor produces around 260hp on 80 cu.in.
Saw the new Bombardier display at OSH, and it appears
to be heading in the right direction for a piston engine, but
could not obtain a cost quote. Who knows?
Archie
Archie's Racing Service
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 350-400HP auto engine??? |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "flyseaplane" <flyseaplane@netzero.net>
Denny,
You have some good points here, but I must ask you, Archie and others a few
more questions that have come to MY mind - - -
1) How does fuel burn (gallons per hour per HP) in the Rotary compare to a
piston engine? I have heard it is usually quite a bit higher. Those extra
gallons really add up over time, increasing cost of operation and ownership.
2) The cost and complexity of a V-8 with a gear drive may be the same as a
certified engine initially, but the parts to keep a 350-400 HP certified
engine running costs more over time. I think a good automotive rebuild would
cost less, and you don't HAVE TO use a "Top ten in the US" engine builder.
BESIDES, What options in a certified engine do you have in the 350-400 HP
range? Continental TSIO-550?? Lyc IO-720?? These are LOTS of money to buy,
but even worse money to keep running, and are not always any more reliable.
I delete these e-mails as I read them - - - But to the builder of the Moose,
why not use the 360 HP Vendenyev M14-P?? They are reliable and built really
sturdy. Granted, you won't find parts for them at any airport you land at,
but the parts availability isn't a problem.
Take care, all.
Linc
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LS1 alternative |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
You can get high quality aftermarket aluminum engines based on the
tall-block version of the bb Chevy with up to about 680 cubic inches.
One of these engines with low compression and a normalizing supercharger
or turbo might make a really good high torque, low rpm engine.
Jim
Gary Casey wrote:
> Believe it or not, one of the guys from the GM Performance group suggested
> that an aftermarket aluminum block engine might be a better choice for my
> application. It could be made in a larger displacement (400 c.i.+) and has
> a 5-bolt pattern for the heads, giving longer head gasket life. It also has
> larger main bearing diameters for a stiffer crank. Weight and cost are
> close to equivalent.
>
> Gary Casey
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LS1 alternative |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Nielsenbe@aol.com
I looked at going the aftermarket route. The cost is the largest problem. PAW
has a short block kit for 7100(cost of entire assembled LS1) then you add
heads 1200 and and injection system 2-3000 and psru 4000 and you have 15K
invested in what the LS1 will give you for 7K. I believe you could get the LS1/psru
and all the accessories for under 13K. That will buy you a lyc/cont 180HP
engine but certainly not a IO550 or 720 type engine. The M14-P is certainly the
other route after all it's that wth moose was built around. I know a little
something about auto engines but nothing about radial engines. That is the part
that scares me with the M14. I guess anohter reason for looking at the LS1 is
trying to get some at least 80's technology in a new plane. The inital cost is
still high but buring autogas will save money as well as parts and rebuild cost
will be ALOT lower. The rotary engines would be nice to use but 260 HP is just
not enough. I would end up running at higher sustained % of HP and hurting
the engine. I have also considered lowering the compression on the LS1 and
running a supercharger. I live in denver so the
planes suffer from altitude sickness on the ground, 8500ft density yesterday.
Thanks for everyone input so far.
Brad
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 350-400HP auto engine??? |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "flyseaplane" <flyseaplane@netzero.net>
Subject: Engines-List: 350-400HP auto engine???
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "flyseaplane"
<flyseaplane@netzero.net>
>
> Denny,
>
> You have some good points here, but I must ask you, Archie and others a
few
> more questions that have come to MY mind - - -
> 1) How does fuel burn (gallons per hour per HP) in the Rotary compare to a
> piston engine? I have heard it is usually quite a bit higher. Those extra
> gallons really add up over time, increasing cost of operation and
ownership.
>
While Denny is correct in that a rotary engine will burn slightly more fuel
in some flight regimes that a good automobile piston engine, they will do
better than an equivalent HP Lycoming. No extra mixture needed to keep the
cylinder heads cool and closer mechanical tolerances allowed due to its
water cooled stability. A rebuilt rotary will have 110 -150 psi compression
and gains a bit in combustion efficiency over the air cooled engine as well.
One of the nice things about the rotary is that is has no valves to burn or
lose, therefore there is no limitation on how lean you can run the engine
without damage. This applies to NA engines only.
Having said that, the new Renesis rotary engine announced by Mazda is
specified to have 20% better fuel economy than the older rotary engine and
capable of 250 HP with a short block weight of 190 lbs. Even if you add a
PSRU (90% use the planetary gear) it weighs another 35-43lbs. This new
engine would then match high performance auto engines and considerably
exceed the aircraft engine in power/weight and fuel consumption..
My view is that as far as power, weight and fuel economy - its pretty much a
wash between the older rotary and equivalent Lycoming. For reliability and
cost factors the rotary is the much better deal, in my opinion. With the
new engine, I think the list will broaden to include power and fuel economy.
Best Regards
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 350-400HP auto engine??? |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> You have some good points here, but I must ask you, Archie and others a
few
> more questions that have come to MY mind - - -
> 1) How does fuel burn (gallons per hour per HP) in the Rotary compare to a
> piston engine? I have heard it is usually quite a bit higher. Those extra
> gallons really add up over time, increasing cost of operation and
ownership.
FUEL BURN IS COMPARABLE OR BETTER, BASED ON HP.
> 2) The cost and complexity of a V-8 with a gear drive may be the same as a
> certified engine initially, but the parts to keep a 350-400 HP certified
> engine running costs more over time. I think a good automotive rebuild
would
> cost less, and you don't HAVE TO use a "Top ten in the US" engine builder.
DOING YOUR OWN OH ON A ROTARY IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
BRUCE HAS A VIDEO AVAILABLE. DEPENDING ON CONDITION,
$1 TO $2k IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE.
> BESIDES, What options in a certified engine do you have in the 350-400 HP
> range? Continental TSIO-550?? Lyc IO-720?? These are LOTS of money to
buy,
> but even worse money to keep running, and are not always any more
reliable.
> I delete these e-mails as I read them - - - But to the builder of the
Moose,
> why not use the 360 HP Vendenyev M14-P?? They are reliable and built
really
> sturdy. Granted, you won't find parts for them at any airport you land at,
> but the parts availability isn't a problem.
>
> Take care, all.
> Linc
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors, 3rd Try |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
Try iossue 28 of Contact mag. It has a simple circuit using an LED output. I
used a GM sensor with it. Multiple LEDs are a bad idea as calibration is a
real problem. You could be thinking you're only getting a little knock and
then hear an awful SILENCE ! That is after the engine comes apart. Car
engines can take a lot more abuse than an airplane engine, but they will
burn a hole in a piston in short order!
Leo Corbalis
leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net
contactmagazine.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|