Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:04 AM - Re: (James R. Cunningham)
2. 09:30 AM - Re: (Dennis O'Connor)
3. 09:55 AM - Re: (James R. Cunningham)
4. 12:41 PM - Re: (Tedd McHenry)
5. 02:59 PM - Re: (James R. Cunningham)
6. 06:39 PM - Re: (Edward T. Jeffko)
7. 07:28 PM - Re: (Tracy Crook)
8. 08:51 PM - Re: (Jim and Lucy)
9. 09:57 PM - V-8 Airplane power. (Dean Psiropoulos)
10. 09:58 PM - Re: (Tedd McHenry)
11. 10:06 PM - Re: (Tedd McHenry)
12. 10:13 PM - Re: V-8 Airplane power. (Tedd McHenry)
13. 10:29 PM - Re: V-8 Airplane power. (steve korney)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
Direct drive automotive cranks aren't designed to carry the gyroscopic
loads imposed by the propeller. Risky.
JimC
Gary Casey wrote:
> think that up to 300+ hp the small block can be built in a direct-drive
> turbocharged configuration lighter and cheaper than with a PSRU.
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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
I suspect that is the least problem in aviation... Air boats use thousands
of V8 chevy engines driving the prop directly... These guys beat these boats
into rubble, hole shots, hard turns, bouncing off waves, flying over sand
bars, break props, flip them over, hit things... The one thing that doesn't
seem to break is the 350 chevy crank...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham"
<jrccea@bellsouth.net>
>
> Direct drive automotive cranks aren't designed to carry the gyroscopic
> loads imposed by the propeller. Risky.
> JimC
>
> Gary Casey wrote:
>
> > think that up to 300+ hp the small block can be built in a direct-drive
> > turbocharged configuration lighter and cheaper than with a PSRU.
>
>
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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
It's been known to cause catastropic loss of control in aircraft when
the prop departs the plane. It's usually not quite so serious in
airboats because they don't fall as far before reaching the surface.
JimC
Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
>
> I suspect that is the least problem in aviation... Air boats use thousands
> of V8 chevy engines driving the prop directly... These guys beat these boats
> into rubble, hole shots, hard turns, bouncing off waves, flying over sand
> bars, break props, flip them over, hit things... The one thing that doesn't
> seem to break is the 350 chevy crank...
> Denny
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List:
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham"
> <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
> >
> > Direct drive automotive cranks aren't designed to carry the gyroscopic
> > loads imposed by the propeller. Risky.
> > JimC
> >
> > Gary Casey wrote:
> >
> > > think that up to 300+ hp the small block can be built in a direct-drive
> > > turbocharged configuration lighter and cheaper than with a PSRU.
> >
> >
>
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: | Re: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> It's been known to cause catastropic loss of control in aircraft when
> the prop departs the plane. It's usually not quite so serious in
> airboats because they don't fall as far before reaching the surface.
Which all manages to miss the point, which was that they DON'T "depart" from
airboats.
Then there's the option Steve Wittman used, which was to mount a bearing to
take the prop loads, using a stock bellhousing. And, yes, I know Wittman's
engines had problems unrelated to this, but let's stick to the issue at hand,
if we can.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
> Which all manages to miss the point, which was that they DON'T "depart" from
airboats.
Which misses the point that they do depart from airplanes. I didn't
realize that you were planning to install it on an airboat. :-)
> Then there's the option Steve Wittman used, which was to mount a bearing to take
the prop loads, using a stock bellhousing.
A perfectly satisfactory solution in my opinion. I have a great deal of
respect for Wittman's engineering ability.
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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Edward T. Jeffko" <riovista@bossig.com>
Tedd, I'm curious, what problems did Wittman's engines have?
Ed
> From: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> Reply-To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List:
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>>
>
>
>
> Then there's the option Steve Wittman used, which was to mount a bearing to
> take the prop loads, using a stock bellhousing. And, yes, I know Wittman's
> engines had problems unrelated to this, but let's stick to the issue at hand,
> if we can.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
<doconnor@chartermi.net>
> >
> > I suspect that is the least problem in aviation... Air boats use
thousands
> > of V8 chevy engines driving the prop directly... These guys beat these
boats
> > into rubble, hole shots, hard turns, bouncing off waves, flying over
sand
> > bars, break props, flip them over, hit things... The one thing that
doesn't
> > seem to break is the 350 chevy crank...
> > Denny
Don't have direct experience with the 350 Chev or airboats but the airboat
guys tell me that the most desirable direct drive airboat engine is the 500
CI Cadilac V8 and that they break crankshafts if you don't back off the
throttle real quick when approaching bumps of any type.
Tracy Crook, RWS
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Jim and Lucy <jpollard@mnsi.net>
There is a seabee flying around Canada with a corvette engine
in it. I heard him speak about it at some flyins for the past couple
of years. Last year he had about 600 hours on it and there seemed
to be many improvements over the old original motor.
What i remember him saying was more power, less fuel burn
quieter with the mufflers, he had added air conditioning and
better cab heat and got it all to fit in the original cowling.
He has a website now at
http://www.v8seabee.com/status.shtml
just in case anyone is interested
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: | V-8 Airplane power. |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Dean Psiropoulos" <deanpsir@easystreet.com>
Interesting that this should come up at this point in time. I'm building an
RV-6A and received a solicitation from an outfit that is supposedly going to
be offering firewall forward V-8 kits for RVs (albeit at rather high
prices). Personally I have some reservations as to why I think this isn't
such a great idea and I'm including my response to the solicitor. If you
want a REALLY STRONG PSRU, then I think the Fred Geshwender designed unit
for V-8 automotive engines is THE one. It uses a HiVo silent chain like the
one driving the camshaft in a pushrod V-8 and is very stout. Fred sold the
rights to build this unit to a Wisconsin company I believe, you'll need to
get in contact with EAA, to find out who the new owner is. Speaking of
engines, I'm looking for a good source for one of the new Superior o-360
lycoming work-a-likes. I have talked with Bart Lalond at Aerosport power
and was VERY impressed. That was when I lived in Oregon and I now live in
Florida so I'm wondering if a shop with Aerosport's reputation can be found
in the lower 48. Anyone have suggestions? Thanks.
Now...the V-8 vendor for RVs is as follows:
www.predatoraviation.com
My response to predator aviation is as follows:
Interesting Chris but I've been down this road a long time ago and:
Decided against the alternative engine for many reasons. Most converted
auto engines had some problems which I think were partly due to people
trying to save weight by leaving off important things like the harmonic
balancer, etc. Also airframes are much lighter and have different resonant
frequencies than 2 ton steel cars. That results in vibration in things like
alternator brackets and causes them to break (even 1/8 thick steel
brackets). I commend you on doing a firewall forward package, that makes an
alternate engine setup MUCH more appealing. One of the reasons I chose a
Lycoming was because Van's has a firewall forward kit, cowl and motor mount
available and I didn't want to spend any more time trying to make those
things on my own. Then there was always getting the thing to behave once
you got everything installed. Invariably I would hear of many more hours of
fiddling with the installation to get it to work satisfactorily.
Your setup has two major problems that I see. One is weight and the other
is cost. One of the biggest reasons I wanted to do an auto engine setup was
because auto engines are extremely cheap (I hated the thought of spending 20
grand on 60 year old engine technology that was basically a Volkswagen on
steroids) even with a gearbox. Also auto technology is WAY WAY ahead of 60
year old Lycoming technology and overhauls are simple and cheap. I had
second thoughts about doing the Lycoming a couple years ago when I was at
the Northwest EAA fly-inn and saw the Subaru engine firewall forward
packages being offered by NSI. It looked and sounded great and I talked to
a fellow who'd been flying an RV-6 on one for a couple years and had good
luck with it. Alas, the kit was 25 grand!!! I could get new Lycoming from
Van's for around 20 so why spend more time and effort with something that
was relatively unproven? I think that, for half of the people who by a
Van's kit, they do it because it is the most bang for the buck and they
don't have lots of money to spend. So.asking more money than a Van's
Lycoming for your setup is shooting yourself in the foot. If you want lots
of customers I would say that you'd have to drop the price down to around 15
grand. Why so low? Because an aircraft engine shop in Kamloops BC Canada
(by the name of Aerosport power) will sell you a good overhauled Lycoming
0-320 for around 17 grand (and Bart is unmatched for customer service, I
can't say enough good things about the guy). An RV will scoot along just
fine on 160 hp, most of us who buy new from Van's get the 0-360 because
we're spending a ton of money anyway and it only costs a couple thousand
more to get the bigger motor). And now that Bart (and several others) are
selling assembled Superior XP360s for about a grand less than a new Lycoming
from Van's things are even better. Annnnnnd.. I think the Eggenfellner
Subaru setup also proves this point by having sold so many kits (at a low
price of 14 grand) as opposed to the NSI package (which I have not heard of
that many sold at a relatively high price of 25 grand).
Another problem you'll likely have (with the Van's two place aircraft) is
that your engine installation is likely to weigh 40% more than a 4 Cylinder
Lycoming. I know there are crazies out there who'll do anything and lots of
folks love to put more hp on but I think that installation is going to make
things just too nose heavy and will reduce useful load and increase stall
speed. But...you may be able to sell such a thing to RV-10 builders, maybe
even to me when I finish my RV-6 and start on a -10. I like the idea of the
V-8 engine sound and prestige and ease of maintenance and familiarity, but,
a Lycoming 0-540 flat 6 is also very smooth and also sounds like a V-8 with
a cam when idling on the ground (and will also likely be purchasable for
around the same money as your less expensive kit). Kudos for going to so
much trouble, the 2 place RVs may be the wrong target for mass sales but the
4 place aircraft from ALL kit manufacturers should be good fodder for you.
Go for it.
Regards,
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A #24907 finish kit
Message 10
| 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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> > Which all manages to miss the point, which was that they DON'T "depart" from
airboats.
>
> Which misses the point that they do depart from airplanes. I didn't
> realize that you were planning to install it on an airboat. :-)
Which misses the point that they depart from Lycomings in airplanes, not from
Chevies.
Tedd
Message 11
| 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: ngines-List: |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Edward T. Jeffko" <riovista@bossig.com>
>
> Tedd, I'm curious, what problems did Wittman's engines have?
I've heard a number of different stories over the years, but can't corroborate
any of them. One is that the inverted installation resulted in cooling
problems. Another is that the original stub shaft to the prop failed, but that
problem was supposedly solved with a larger-diameter shaft. There are probably
people on this list with more detailed knowledge of it than I have.
I certainly like the idea of a bearing that takes all the non-torsional prop
loads. But there are many, many examples of auto engines flying with a prop
bolted directly to the stock crankshaft. I suspect that a wood prop could be
successfully mounted that way on a lot of engines, but a heavier prop might
present problems.
If I were going to hang a prop directly on the crankshaft of a Chevy, I would
find out all I could about how it has worked on airboats. Just asking around
won't do it, as this email thread has shown. You need to find the right person
in the airboat community who's been around enough to know, and who hasn't
formed his opinion haphazardly or purely from heresay. I'm sure there are
people like that out there, you just have to find them.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 12
| 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: V-8 Airplane power. |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Dean Psiropoulos" <deanpsir@easystreet.com>
--snip--
> I like the idea of the V-8 engine sound
There's a Bearhawk at my local airport with a Rover V8. The sound is
fantastic--almost enough on its own to make the extra effort of an auto
conversion worthwhile.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 13
| 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: V-8 Airplane power. |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "steve korney" <s_korney@hotmail.com>
Tedd wrote:
There's a Bearhawk at my local airport with a Rover V8. The sound is
fantastic--almost enough on its own to make the extra effort of an auto
conversion worthwhile.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
===============================================================
The Rover V8 is really the old Buick or Oldsmobile 215 aluminum block V8
...200 horse power stock...You can get lots of after market parts for these
engines...Rod and the oil system are the weak links...
Best...Steve...
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
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! --
|